« Of Christians and Corn Dogs | Main | Wanted: A Production Audio App »

A quick bit of BS skewering

So in his reply to Frank Tisellano's post "In Blog Wars, Nobody Loses (Except Us)" on frank.is, Marco Arment writes, (Reply is the same name as Frank's post on Marco.org. Which makes things SO EASY. Not):

I don’t care about “eyeballs”. The Deck doesn’t pay for raw pageviews — sites are paid a flat rate per month, and that rate is occasionally recalculated if average traffic changes for a long time. Deck publishers, including Marco.org and Daring Fireball, are therefore incentivized to build up loyal, long-term audiences. If we just get a bunch of one-time clicks over a few days, we don’t make a dime extra. (Bandwidth may even cost us more.)

While I'm not doubting him on how the Deck pays, I've no reason to, let us be clear:

If you're schmoblog with 100 hits a month, you're not getting invited to have the Deck advertise on your site. Let me say that again, you are invited to join the Deck. This isn't speculation mind you, it's fact. From The DECK's site:

Sites and apps are added to the network by invitation only and are considered based on many factors including traffic, design, frequency of updates and overall appropriateness to the general target of the network.

Given that the DECK charges anywhere from $8600/month to $8600/day, traffic and accompianing influence simply cannot be minor factors. In fact, Marco pretty much states that traffic matters to The DECK flat out:

The Deck doesn’t pay for raw pageviews — sites are paid a flat rate per month, and that rate is occasionally recalculated if average traffic changes for a long time.

So let us stop this idiocy, this false modesty, this poor claim to higher standards. Marco, and by Tisellano's implication, Gruber may not be the hit whores that people like Dvorak and REISINGERRRR are, but if they want that ad money, they have to pay some damned attention. Given both their posting frequency averages, they are well aware of what they need to do to get those DECK checks. (Again, I have no inherent problem with this. This is how Gruber makes a living, and he's a good enough writer that I can easily forgive his worse tendencies. I mean, the man really is a raconteur. Even if I think he's full of shit, he's a good writer. I respect that. Marco is a good programmer. As a writer, he's a good programmer, but he's good enough that he gets to make some dosh from it. Good on him for that. I have zero problem with people getting paid, even for writing on the internet. )

But, I wish Marco would spare us the backpedaling whining. Like this tripe:

And the idea that I thrive on controversy couldn’t be further from the truth. I hate that Josh and Nilay took my offhand comment about Engadget and PR relationships so severely and personally. I hate that these two people, who I’ve met and have gotten along with quite well, now think that I’m a complete asshole for implying something far more severe than what I really meant.

Oh bulldookey. Let's look at that paragraph again:

Big “gadget” blogs depend on maintaining very friendly relationships with the companies whose products they cover so they can continue to get exclusives, interviews, press badges to events, and early access to products. Maintaining these relationships while retaining credibility isn’t always an easy choice for many sites, and many choose poorly.

You almost baldly stated that the reason the Verge and Topolsky didn't behave in the way you and Gruber feel they should is because they need to suck up to companies so they can get access, interviews, and press badges. That last line?

Maintaining these relationships while retaining credibility isn’t always an easy choice for many sites, and many choose poorly.

I know English can be a complex language, so let me state this simply: That line baldly accuses The Verge and Topolsky of unethical behavior from a journalistic standpoint so they can get access, interviews and press badges. .
Of course they think you're an asshole for saying that Marco, it's a pretty asshole thing to say, and I am, if nothing else, an expert in being an asshole. The difference between us is that I don't try to deny I say things designed to piss people off, and that come from the worldview of an asshole. When I say shit that pisses people off, I'm never "surprised" by it. I don't whine about the results. Neither mind you, does Gruber.

If you're going to call people out on what you think is poor behavior and say assholeish things like you think they're behaving in an unethical fashion, stop fucking whining when the reaction isn't unicorns and handjobs. Either own what you said, accept both the reaction and the consequences of what you say, or stop saying things that only an asshole would say. To paraphrase Randy Millholland, for someone who doesn't thrive on controversy, you seem to say some shitty things about people a lot.

Either way, for the love of christ, stop crying that people are thinking unkind things about you when you say things about them that are kind of shitty. If being thought of as an asshole bothers you, stop being one.

Really.

Categories: New Media Douchebags

Posted by John C. Welch at 17:32 | Permalink

Comments

Warning for Notes users: The commenting system uses HTML.
I know this will be scary for some of you, especially Notes fans. However, open standards, rah-rah.
If you want to use less-than or greater-than signs, or other similar characters that HTML reserves,
you'll simply have to learn to do it the HTML way. Luckily, HTML is kind of popular, no matter what
your re-educators have told you, and you can easily find help on the intertubes.

So in his reply to Frank Tisellano's post \"In Blog Wars, Nobody Loses (Except Us)\" on frank.is, Marco Arment writes, (Reply is the same name as Frank's post on Marco.org. Which makes things SO EASY. Not):\n

I don’t care about “eyeballs”. The Deck doesn’t pay for raw pageviews — sites are paid a flat rate per month, and that rate is occasionally recalculated if average traffic changes for a long time. Deck publishers, including Marco.org and Daring Fireball, are therefore incentivized to build up loyal, long-term audiences. If we just get a bunch of one-time clicks over a few days, we don’t make a dime extra. (Bandwidth may even cost us more.)

\nWhile I'm not doubting him on how the Deck pays, I've no reason to, let us be clear:\n\nIf you're schmoblog with 100 hits a month, you're not getting invited to have the Deck advertise on your site. Let me say that again, you are invited to join the Deck. This isn't speculation mind you, it's fact. From The DECK's site:\n

Sites and apps are added to the network by invitation only and are considered based on many factors including traffic, design, frequency of updates and overall appropriateness to the general target of the network.

\nGiven that the DECK charges anywhere from \$8600/month to \$8600/day, traffic and accompianing influence simply cannot be minor factors. In fact, Marco pretty much states that traffic matters to The DECK flat out:\n

The Deck doesn’t pay for raw pageviews — sites are paid a flat rate per month, and that rate is occasionally recalculated if average traffic changes for a long time.

\nSo let us stop this idiocy, this false modesty, this poor claim to higher standards. Marco, and by Tisellano's implication, Gruber may not be the hit whores that people like Dvorak and REISINGERRRR are, but if they want that ad money, they have to pay some damned attention. Given both their posting frequency averages, they are well aware of what they need to do to get those DECK checks. (Again, I have no inherent problem with this. This is how Gruber makes a living, and he's a good enough writer that I can easily forgive his worse tendencies. I mean, the man really is a raconteur. Even if I think he's full of shit, he's a good writer. I respect that. Marco is a good programmer. As a writer, he's a good programmer, but he's good enough that he gets to make some dosh from it. Good on him for that. I have zero problem with people getting paid, even for writing on the internet. )\n\nBut, I wish Marco would spare us the backpedaling whining. Like this tripe:\n

And the idea that I thrive on controversy couldn’t be further from the truth. I hate that Josh and Nilay took my offhand comment about Engadget and PR relationships so severely and personally. I hate that these two people, who I’ve met and have gotten along with quite well, now think that I’m a complete asshole for implying something far more severe than what I really meant.

\nOh bulldookey. Let's look at that paragraph again:\n

Big “gadget” blogs depend on maintaining very friendly relationships with the companies whose products they cover so they can continue to get exclusives, interviews, press badges to events, and early access to products. Maintaining these relationships while retaining credibility isn’t always an easy choice for many sites, and many choose poorly.

\nYou almost baldly stated that the reason the Verge and Topolsky didn't behave in the way you and Gruber feel they should is because they need to suck up to companies so they can get access, interviews, and press badges. That last line?\n

Maintaining these relationships while retaining credibility isn’t always an easy choice for many sites, and many choose poorly.

\nI know English can be a complex language, so let me state this simply: That line baldly accuses The Verge and Topolsky of unethical behavior from a journalistic standpoint so they can get access, interviews and press badges. .\nOf course they think you're an asshole for saying that Marco, it's a pretty asshole thing to say, and I am, if nothing else, an expert in being an asshole. The difference between us is that I don't try to deny I say things designed to piss people off, and that come from the worldview of an asshole. When I say shit that pisses people off, I'm never \"surprised\" by it. I don't whine about the results. Neither mind you, does Gruber.\n\nIf you're going to call people out on what you think is poor behavior and say assholeish things like you think they're behaving in an unethical fashion, stop fucking whining when the reaction isn't unicorns and handjobs. Either own what you said, accept both the reaction and the consequences of what you say, or stop saying things that only an asshole would say. To paraphrase Randy Millholland, for someone who doesn't thrive on controversy, you seem to say some shitty things about people a lot.\n\nEither way, for the love of christ, stop crying that people are thinking unkind things about you when you say things about them that are kind of shitty. If being thought of as an asshole bothers you, stop being one. \n\nReally.