I’ve written about social networks and their uses before, but I wanted to expand on some of my original thoughts.

So, let me start with a quote from my previous article stating my position:

I’m sure this isn’t just because I’m an anti-social bastard, but it seems like the big social networks have absolutely no purpose to an individual user. The signal-to-noise ratio is ridiculous - it’s just marketers (whether they be bands or brands) hitting you incessantly with really bad marketing. It reminds me so much of UseNet in the late 1990s it hurts. It’s like being forced to listen to Barry Scott shouting at you about the benefits of Cillit Bang, on a continuous loop.

You see, social networking shouldn’t be the raison d’être of a site. It’s a feature. Add social networking to a site that already has a purpose and you might add value to that site.

When a new concept or technology appears on the internet everyone wants it on their site. Or worse still, everyone wants their site completed devoted to it. Then after an initial—huge—adoption of these new sites, interest—and therefore usage—starts to decay.

This is not a bad thing. The massive adoption of MySpace, Facebook, Bebo, Orkut, FaceParty et al. introduces people to the essential concepts: adding friends, creating and maintaining your profile, adding applications, deleting 99% of those applications when you discover they’re pointless, etc.

As you’ll probably have guessed, my prediction is that usage of Pure Social Networks—sites whose only purpose is “to be a social network”—will start to tail off, and sites which use social networking models as a means to an end (which I’m classing as Applied Social Networking ) will increase thanks to easy adoption of the new tools because everyone’s learnt the ropes on MySpace and Facebook.

I’ve used this example before, but it’s a good one: deviantArt is a prime example of an an Applied Social Networking site - it uses social networking tools as an integrated part of a multi-artist gallery site. It’s not perfect, but it’s on the right path.

MySpace has caught on and has been moving from Pure to Applied over recent years - it’s evolving into a music-orientated site, connecting bands with fans.  Networks such as Flickr and LinkedIn had a purpose from the start (although LinkedIn probably needs to do some work on making itself more useful).  Facebook, however, doesn’t have a purpose yet, and if I were Facebook I’d be worried about that.

1. Disabling right-clicking

JavaScript that disables right-clicking (to prevent people “stealing” your images) is wrong on so many levels. But it’s such a prevalent mistake that I feel the need to tell you why it’s wrong:

Small screen-sized digital images of your artwork are your most basic form of marketing, and (thanks to the wonders of the internet) can be reproduced and redistributed at no cost. If you think that trying to stop people from distributing your marketing material is a good thing then you need to rethink everything from scratch.

It doesn’t work anyway - anyone can disable JavaScript in a matter of a second. Which means I’ve still got your images, but now you’ve annoyed me as well, so I’m less likely to rave about (i.e. promote) your artwork.

2. Flash websites

Now I know this one tends to get Flash evangelists in a tizz, but I hate Flash websites. Part of the reason is that they often completely fail to work on my PC (I’m running 64-bit Linux, and there’s no official flash plugin for 64-bit Linux, so your “website” is rendered as an inactive 800×600 pixel dead-grey rectangle).

Flash websites are also favoured by linear-minded control freaks to dictate how a visitor views a website - they restrict choice. For example, they restrict the visitor from entering the site on anything but the “front” page (which invariably contains a painfully tedious animation that I’m forced to watch before the “enter” link appears).

They also seem to be used as an over-engineered “solution” to people attempting to help market your artwork (in that they prevent you from right-clicking and saving an image). Again, it doesn’t actually do anything but slow your visitor down for a matter of seconds (print-screen will capture that images easily) whilst pissing off your potential customers.

The worst Flash artists’ websites always seem to say to me “I’m a self-important wanker who demands that you see things my way - you will not deviate from the true way to appreciate my artwork” (in 8pt type that I can neither read nor resize). I know I’m ranting here, but it’s a pet hatred of mine.

I should add that I’m not opposed to small bits of Flash embedded within an (X)HTML website, where rich content or animation needs to be delivered, such as using YouTube’s Flash embedding to drop a video into a webpage. That’s fine - that’s what Flash is for.

3. Tiled wallpaper behind the artwork

Galleries have plain walls so that the viewer’s attention isn’t distracted from the artwork. Your website should too. It’s just visual noise that gets in the way of your artwork.

4. Arty Navigation

While I may be inclined to spend my valuable time analysing and building an understanding & appreciation of your artwork, I’d rather not spend that time analysing and building an understanding of your website’s navigation/menu - I don’t care enough and I’ll just go somewhere else.

I want a menu on every page of the site with the main menu items should be in writing and not icons/symbols/images whose meaning I can only deduce by clicking on them and seeing where I end up. I don’t care how “clever” they are.

5. Splash pages with “enter” links

I used to make this mistake many years ago. I had a splash page with an impressively large image and an “enter” link.

It comes from an over-extension of the analogy that an artist’s website is their personal gallery—with a door through which you enter—but that analogy is wrong.

A website is a gallery—and much more—where all the artwork is hung on the exterior walls facing out into the world, rather than being contained in a space for which there is only one entrance (this is a mistake frequently made by aficionados of Flash websites).

Building on Chris Anderson’s article Free! Why $0.00 Is the Future of Business I wanted to try to summarise some of the freeconomics models that have been tried out so far (if I’ve missed any, please feel free to add them in the comments).

For the purposes of this summary I’m ignoring products or services that are free because of government grants or funding. I’m also ignoring models which claim to have a free component, but the free item can’t be gained without paying for another product/service (for example, phone companies that give you a free mobile/cell-phone so long as you sign yourself into a minimum-duration contract). Finally I’m excluding “free sample” offers, because it’s a non-sustainable temporary discount rather than a long-term model.

The Freemium Model

Description

In this model, the basic service or product is free. The majority of people will be happy with the free version. Production/service cost-retrieval and revenue come from the minority of people choosing the premium paid-for version(s). The word “freemium” was coined by venture capitalist Fred Wilson.

Examples

• Simple 2-tier: Flickr - the basic service (with a limited monthly upload) is free, but an enhanced version (with no monthly limit) is available at a cost.
• Multi-tier: Nine Inch Nail’s recent Ghosts release. 9 free tracks are available for download for free. The full 36 tracks are available for download for $5. Various limited edition high-(visual/tactile aesthetic)-standard production CD/DVD versions are available for higher prices (full details on Techdirt).

The Cross-sell Free Model

Description

In this model, one service/product is free and one or more different—but related—service/products are available at a cost. A percentage of the people who enjoy the free product will also want to have the related non-free product(s).

Examples

• A band makes all their recorded songs available for free on the web in order to attract people to their (pay-for-entry) gigs. Additional non-free products available might include merchandise.
• An author blogs about a subject over time & in depth (free content), then publishes the same content—edited into book format—as a paid-for hardback/paperback book.
• A piece of software—e.g. a Linux distro—is free, but a technical support contract is available at a cost for those that want it.

The Sponsorship/Ad-Supported Free Model

Description

A product is given away free, and the creators make their money from adverts embedded in or around the product.

Examples

• Mozilla Firefox - the Firefox browser is free, and Mozilla receive about $72 million from Google for making Google’s search facility the default search engine in the search bar at the top of the browser.
• Google - Google’s search engine is free, but is supported by adverts running on Google’s AdSense advertising network.
• The free newspaper I read on the bus on the way to work - the cost of the newspaper is paid for by adverts throughout the paper.
• Commercial terrestrial television channels.

The Patronage-supported Free Model

Description

The product is free, but people are encouraged to financially contribute. Reasons to pay might include goodwill/appreciation, or some more tangible “reward” (e.g. being visibly acknowledged as a financial contributor or having some input into the final product).

Examples

• Radiohead’s “pay what you want” release last year. Although strictly not free (the credit card processing fee was obligatory) fans could choose how much they wanted to contribute. The average contribution was $5.
• Wikipedia—or rather the Wikimedia Foundation—is mainly funded by public donations who are listed at http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Benefactors

Free distribution of digital content (music, books, visual art) is embraced by—and benefits—customers because it gives them access to a much wider range of content. This is because the restrictions on the amount of content they could get—based on how much they can financially afford—is eliminated.

Instead of money, the bottleneck becomes the time required to find content they’re interested in - this is where Google leads the field by providing an ever-improving and expanding search facility for finding the content, whether it’s webpages, books, news, academic articles, images etc.

Free distribution of digital content is slowly being embraced by—and will benefit—creators (artists, musicians, authors etc.) because it allows their work—and reputation—to be distributed to a much wider audience.

Musicians such as The Charlatans and Nine Inch Nails are making headlines with new ways to make money while giving away MP3 files of their music for free (and unsigned bands have been doing it for years).

Authors such as Suze Orman and Dan Solove are giving away free ebook versions of their books, in the knowledge that the wider distribution this gives them helps to sell more paper copies of their books.

So where does this leave publishers? The book publishing companies and music companies seem to have been left out of this equation. You could argue that they’ve left themselves out of the equation by desperately attempting to pretend that the business model of content creation hasn’t changed while vainly suing fans for the crime of being early adopters of a new economy.

Actually, there is a role for clued-up skills-rich publishers. It’s just a slightly different role than they’re used to. The clues can be found when you examine the new business model summarised above and look for the holes. That’s what I’m going to try to do now (but not exhaustively - I’ll leave that to people much smarter than me).

Publishers can provide instant attention

As mentioned above, one of the biggest benefits to both creators and consumers is that content is more widely distributed and available to all. But in a world where a huge amount of digital content is free, finding that content is hard - it’s like finding a few choice needles in a field of haystacks.

Obviously search engines provide front-end interfaces for finding that content, but that’s not enough. Search engines such as Google need to interpret the searcher’s requirements and display the most relevant results first. Google’s algorithm relies on correctly interpreting the relevancy and reputation of each piece of digital content in order to give their users the right results.

Publishers can provide a huge amount of relevancy and reputation because Publishers’ old-business-model reputations have been translated into high rankings for their websites.

A record company specialising in hip-hop music has already built-up a reputation and many incoming links from hip-hop-orientated websites, whether they’re sites belonging to hip-hop musicians, fan-sites, hip-hop forums, etc.

A publishing company specialising in a particular niche—whether it’s an academic subject area, a particular genre such as science fiction, or a particular service such as news & current affairs—will have built up a reputation (and the accompanying relevant incoming links) from other websites in their particular niche. If I was publishing this blog post in the Freakonomics column of the New York Times then the chances are that it would get a lot more attention!

This reputation and the resulting links are incredibly valuable because they’re both numerous and extremely relevant, and can take years to build up. So Publishers are already well-positioned to take on the role of distributing instant reputation and relevancy to creators. After all, that’s one of the things they’ve been doing for centuries.

So publishers need to revalue their business models so that the bestowal of reputation and relevancy (and therefore attention) is seen as a major service that they can offer to creators. In order to better leverage this service, publishers need to work closely with relevant communities. That means actively engaging in conversations with their niche communities on email lists, discussion forums, social networks, and blogs (and in the non-digital world at conferences, gigs, book-signings, etc.).

Publishers can provide quality control and specialist technical expertise

Creators are not perfect, and most are grateful for help.

An author’s work frequently benefits from the skills of their editorial team, which is why you’ll often see the editor thanked in the author’s acknowledgements in the front of their book. The book production team use their amassed knowledge of design and typography to turn a word-processed manuscript into a professionally laid-out book that is a pleasure to read.

Musicians benefit from the editorial and technical skills of the producers & engineers who spend a huge amount of time coaxing the best performances from them, then expertly mix the raw sound into a polished—or artfully unpolished—finished track.

Moving back to the web, authors or musicians are unlikely to be their own web team. I’m not just talking about being able to throw a website together, I’m talking about a full web team consisting of ecommerce programmers, web developers, web designers, SEO experts, and emarketing strategists. Sure anyone can put a small website online (and that’s one of the great things about the web) but as the web has evolved the skills necessary to create and maintain a good website have both multiplied and increased in their complexity.

Any content creator—author, musician, or artist—can’t be expected to have all these expert skills, and hiring them individually (and project-managing the coordination between them) would be expensive and a huge consumption of valuable time and effort that would be far better spent doing what the creator actually excels at: writing, composing, playing, or painting.

That isn’t to say that the author or musician shouldn’t be directly communicating with their fans - they should. But managing the framework that enables and amplifies this communication is a job for a dedicated team.

So, publishing companies should be positioned to provide services that greatly enhance both the book/music and the online presence of the author/musician.

Again, this is already something that publishing companies do, but they need to emphasise this aspect of their service and market it as a suite of valuable services that they can provide to creators.

But publishers need to make money

Obviously publishing companies will want to be paid for providing these professional services - they need to make a profit. At the moment they get this money by charging for content, but as more digital content becomes free then this particular revenue stream will start to dry up.

I think that paper copies of books will continue to sell, as will CDs & DVDs. Returning to Nine Inch Nail’s recent release of Ghosts, even though Trent Reznor made the first 9 tracks available free of charge, he also released various paid versions from a full digital download of 36 tracks for $5 to a $300 ultra-deluxe limited edition package.

The $300 Ultra-deluxe limited edition package has already sold out, despite there being multiple cheaper (and even free) versions available. This utilises the generative of “embodiment” coined by Kevin Kelly which I’ve already talked about in a previous blog post. Hardback bindings of paperback books are another long-standing example of this strategy.

So higher-quality (higher revenue) non-digital formats are one revenue stream that could be added to sales of non-digital content in “standard” formats (paperbacks, CDs etc). This strategy can also be expanded to cover revenue from supplementary material such as subscription elearning software for textbooks or t-shirts and posters of musicians. Again this is something that is already happening (especially within the music industry) so the groundwork has already been done.

But to offset this, expensive traditional marketing (direct mail advertising, broadcast television ads) is going to have to be drastically reduced. I can’t think of any way to recoup the huge amounts of money spent on direct mail and mass-market broadcast ads in this newly emerging marketplace - it’s just not viable. Certainly not when you can better reach a more carefully-selected market (i.e. with a much greater percentage of potential customers) by spending much less money online.

The traditional marketing model of throwing a huge amount of cash—in the form of TV ads, billboards or direct mail campaigns—at an undifferentiated mass of people can only be sustained when you (artificially) control the scarcity of your product. When your product loses that scarcity (i.e. it can be easily copied and redistributed online) then you simply can’t keep following this old dogma. I’m not going to go into more detail about this because it’s been explained before by the likes of Chris Anderson, Kevin Kelly, Michael Masnick, and Umair Haque (amongst many others).

Unfortunately this is where many companies in the publishing and music industries “don’t get it”. They do understand the ideas of new revenue streams and the benefits of free content, but they can’t imagine not having to shovel vast amounts of cash into the raging furnace that is the traditional (obsolete) marketing system - they don’t understand that the potential cost of their marketing is plummeting for exactly the same reasons of efficient distribution and connectivity.

Once they accept this (and realign their marketing strategy accordingly) then the equation will balance and they’ll see the profit.

In every industry I’ve worked in, people have been obsessively concerned about underpricing their products.

Underpricing, they say, devalues the products (because, as Chris Anderson pointed out recently, they make the mistake that “the only way to measure value is with money”).

This “underpricing=bad” argument might have some mileage for products made of atoms, but when your products are made of ones and zeroes it becomes obsolete. That’s why it’s a nonsense to charge the same price for your ebook as you charge for the paperback (or, even worse, the hardback).

Of course, the ultimate underpricing is to make something free. Making something free doesn’t devalue it. I find a lot of value in Google, Flickr, Slashdot, numerous other websites and blogs, the Kubuntu installation on my computer, Mozilla Firefox, the WordPress software this blog runs on, PHP5 & MySQL, the NHS, Channel 4, free-entry to the collections at the Tate Modern (where I can gaze, without paying, at the Bacons, Picassos, Matisses…), even the free copy of the Metro newspaper I read on the bus every morning on the way to work. I value these things.

Telling people that you believe some things should be free can generate some aggressive criticism (as you’ll know if you’ve ever read the comments on, for example, Chris Anderson’s Long Tail blog). You can feel like you’re being accused of being a communist/hippy idealist with no idea about business models in the real world. I’m sure that those naïve hippy idealists at Google—who are making a killing with their business model in the real world—would disagree.

Why is it that so many people who see themselves as “traditional hard-nosed business” types are completely clueless when it comes to the internet, especially the more recent trends in social networking?

Because they’re desperately trying to impose yesterday’s business models on today’s business. Umair Haque points to the twin obsessions of “product” and “monetization”:

When you try and “monetize your users”, you accept the almost obscene assumption that people are meant to be pimped out, sold to the highest bidder, resources to be slashed, burned, and exploited.

Umair is certainly not against businesses making money. In fact he highlights the fact that many businesses’ attempts to make money on the internet can’t make any sustainable income (because they are so clumsily contemptuous of their customers in the pursuit of profit).

Actually he summarises his argument most succinctly while replying to a comment on that same post:

as for figuring out how to capture value - the point of the principle is that when we figure out how to capture value, we must do it in a way that doesn’t destroy any value we create.

How long would Google remain the search engine of choice by such a huge margin if it sold out its users and “monetised” its clean, clear, front page (which must be the primest piece of real estate on the net) by cluttering it with ads?

Meanwhile earlier this week Trent Reznor just grossed $1.6 million in the first week of sales of Nine Inch Nail’s new album. My friend Barry examines the pricing policy in more detail, but the pertinent point here is that Reznor gave away a 9-track download of the new release for free.

$1.6 million says that his fans didn’t think that the free tracks devalued his music…

The 2006 blog post Five mistakes you’re probably making with your MySpace page (on Andrew Dubber’s blog New Music Strategies) applies equally to visual artists as it does to musicians.

The five mistakes (expanded on in much better detail in the blog post itself) are:

1. Using MySpace as your website
2. Using MySpace as your email
3. Having an impressive background image
4. Embedding lots of media
5. Writing lots of text

All of these points are absolutely correct. MySpace’s “My Pics” should not be your gallery. By all means, put loads of examples of your work in there (if they comply with MySpace’s image content rules) but don’t direct people there instead of to your own site.

Andrew Dubber reminds us:

Remember: MySpace is a tool. It’s one of many. It’s not your only shot at engaging with your audience or prospective market. It’s an important one though, and it’s one that it’s very easy to make mistakes with. Use it well.

MySpace, like any social networking site, should just be one of many outposts of your main website. In no way should it be your website (and nor should Flickr, deviantART, Artbreak, or any other social website).

I wanted to take a short break from writing long articles to provide a quick list of links to various sites and online tools which can help artists with selling art online.

So, in no particular order, I give you:

Strategies & tactics for selling art online

• Empty Easel - Selling Art Online: a selection of articles about designing artist’s websites, Google Adwords/Adsense, etc.
• Art Biz Blog - Selling Art Online: Emarketing for Artists.
• The Artrepeneur: seven tactics for online art marketing.
• eHow: selling/trading ACEO art online.
• Online Arts Marketing: this post is about using social networks to sell art, but there are many other useful articles.
• YourArtMarketing: artists’ discussion forum concerned with online sales & marketing strategies for artists.
• Technium - 1,000 True Fans: Kevin Kelly’s article about working as an artist in a long tail market.
• ArtMarketBlog - how artists can get noticed (plus many other relevant posts).

Please feel free to add a comment to provide more relevant links.

You may get a message saying your comment has been held for spam (because comments with links in them often trip the spam filters) - don’t worry, I’ll be manually checking all comments flagged as spam and will “un-flag” any false positives.

OK, read this blog post by Kevin Kelly first.

It’s the first time (in my knowledge) that a seasoned commentator has turned their attention to how an individual artist/writer/musician can work in a long tail environment, rather than examining it from the point of view of retailers (Kevin does reference some other blog posts on the subject, as do some of the comments on the blog post, but I think this is the first article that presents the theory in such a clear and succinct manner).

Go ahead and read it, I’ll wait. Read the comments too - there’s some great information in there as well.

…

Read it now? Good.

Kevin’s proposition is that an artist “needs to acquire only 1,000 True Fans to make a living”, defining a true (diehard) fan as someone who will purchase anything and everything you make. Actually the number “1,000″, as Kevin admits, depends on the particular profit margins etc. based on whether the artist in question is a painter, musician, writer, photographer etc. but the point is that it’s in that ballpark - not millions or billions. 1,000 is an achievable goal - it’s not like trying to be as famous as Damien Hurst, J.K. Rowling or Radiohead, or trying to win the lottery.

To raise your sales out of the flatline of the long tail you need to connect with your True Fans directly. Another way to state this is, you need to convert a thousand Lesser Fans into a thousand True Fans.

Assume conservatively that your True Fans will each spend one day’s wages per year in support of what you do. That “one-day-wage” is an average, because of course your truest fans will spend a lot more than that. Let’s peg that per diem each True Fan spends at $100 per year. If you have 1,000 fans that sums up to $100,000 per year, which minus some modest expenses, is a living for most folks.

OK, so how do you get 1,000 True Fans? Well, hopefully by following all the strategies I’ve been blogging about here. Making a living on the long tail is not about avoiding the aggregators, but about using the hyper-efficient distribution they provide to reach those 1,000 people who will just love your work.

And once you’ve managed to reach them, you need to invest in them - invest your time in them (by communicating with them and listening to them) because True Fans are worth investing that sort of effort in.

1. Start with a website

OK, here’s the easy-to-follow three-point guide:

1. If you are a competent web developer then create your own site.
2. If you have a friend who is a competent web developer then ask them to set you up free blog software (e.g. WordPress) on a web-host with your own domain name in return for a few free beers. Don’t ask them to set you up a non-blog site because otherwise you’ll have to keep harassing them to update it - a blog allows you to take control and regularly update your site without needing to be a web developer.
3. If you don’t know any web developers who can help you, then sign up for a blog hosted on a free blogging service (e.g. Blogger or WordPress - personally I recommend WordPress).

The Artist’s Web Wiki gives a good overview of what content to create, but I think it makes a strategic error when it says “Resist the temptation to display every piece you’ve ever created. Show off your best!”. I think this is totally wrong - it’s viewing the web in the same way as the limited space on a gallery wall (which it certainly is not).

Only displaying a small selection of work presumes a scarcity of space - and space on the web is anything but scarce (digital storage and bandwidth are abundant and their cost is increasingly tending towards zero). The only scarcity is people’s attention.

I would suggest putting every single piece of artwork/music/writing you have on your website - every finished piece, work-in-progress and preliminary sketch/demo/note. This strategy is based on the economic model explained by Chris Anderson in his book The Long Tail:

The theory of the Long Tail can be boiled down to this: Our culture and economy are increasingly shifting away from a focus on a relatively small number of hits (mainstream products and markets) at the head of the demand curve, and moving toward a huge number of niches in the tail.

In an era without the constraints of physical shelf space and other bottlenecks of distribution, narrowly targeted goods and services can be as economically attractive as mainstream fare.

With the unlimited space available on the web, you don’t need to restrict yourself to a small edited selection of pieces which (you desperately hope) will accurately capture the entire range of your creative œuvre. You can put your entire œuvre on your website and let Google et al. bring in the niche customers who are interested in what—to you—is a half-forgotten piece of work, but to the searcher is the very thing they want to see - and, perhaps, to buy.

The important thing with this strategy, however, is to make sure that it’s all organised in an easily-findable way. Again, Anderson sums this up succinctly in his book:

1. Make everything available.
2. Help me find it.

When you move from displaying a carefully curated/edited selection to making available the entirety of your life’s work (so far) then you need to think about navigation, taxonomies, hierarchies, folksonomies, inter-linking, cross-references, personalisation, search, multiple-categorisation…

2. Set up outposts on Social Networking websites

Setting up shop on a variety of social networking sites enables you to take your work out to your potential audience.

MySpace, Facebook, DeviantArt (for visual artists, writers and film-makers), YouTube (for film-makers), Flickr (for photographers and visual artists)… I won’t list them all here because Mashable has a list of 350+ social networking sites with details of their niches and specialities.

You can’t just create an account and leave it, though—the very nature of social networking sites means that they work best if you work at them—you need to network with the communities that use them.

And by that I don’t mean send out thousands of spam “friend” requests - you need to actively engage with the community in the manner that the network in question encourages and respects.

This is a community you’re trying to be part of, not a crowd of passing anonymous shoppers to blindly hand-out flyers to.

3. Set up your communications

This means an email newsletter of some sort, an RSS feed (if you’ve gone for a blog then this will come as part of the blogging software), and an easy way for people to contact you (anything from your email address or a contact form to a discussion forum or the comments section under a blog post - the more ways the better).

In part two of this article I’ll be looking at how to use your website to help your art.

When text on the web is free and abundant (even more so than music and images), why should a person pay for it? In other words, how can writers (and by “writers”, I’m including writers of fiction, screenplays, academic theory, graphic novels, journalism etc.—the whole kit and caboodle) make money when what they write is free?

The concept of “freeconomics” has been covered here before—and in many other places before I ever mentioned it—but I want to look at how it affects writers (since I’ve already looked at visual artists and musicians in this blog before, albeit only briefly so far). If you can’t sell your writing on the web, then how can the web sell your writing?

Rather than attempt to answer the question myself, I decided to get a couple of writer friends of mine to write their own answers (for free, of course!). They both work in different areas of writing and have different approaches.

So, giving their opinions today are:

• UK Screenwriter Adrian Reynolds. Adrian won a Times screenwriting competition, and a meeting with Working Title’s Tim Bevan, with his very first film treatment. Since then, he’s been working on repeating that magic, and believes he’s onto something big in its pursuit, which has taken him into all sorts of interesting directions, including writing scripts for the BBC and seeing the première of one of his plays at a women’s prison. I first met Adrian at the bottom of a muddy quarry just outside Nottingham in 1997, where we were both involved in the behind-the-scenes aspects of a live adaptation of Quatermass and the Pit.
• US Freelance Writer Steph Auteri. Steph is a freelance just about everything (writer/proofreader/classical singer). She has written on women’s issues, dating, sexuality, and self-help, and sometimes even tells the future! She has toiled away all over the publishing stratosphere, in newspaper (both weekly and daily), new media, and academic book publishing environments. She has been published in Publishers Weekly, New York Press, Nerve.com, Playgirl, and other bastions of fine writing. She wouldn’t mind writing for you as well. I met Steph when she was working for the publishing company I work for - except she worked in the New York office, and I work in the far less glamorous Brighton office.

Me: When text on the web is free and abundant (even more so than music and images), why should a person pay for it? What added value can you provide?

Steph Auteri: I’m not so sure that a person should be paying for any of the content they’re finding online. The only web content I pay for is that on Mediabistro.com. I pay an annual fee to be a member of their AvantGuild program, and gain access to their How to Pitch articles and other features. The reason I find these to be so valuable is that the How to Pitch pieces provide specific and necessary information for mag pitching, such as contact names and e-mail addresses that I’d otherwise have to get off my ass to find out myself.

That’s why, as an online writer, I believe your best bet is either space advertising or supplementary materials (and by supplementary materials, I mean stuff like exclusive e-books or databases, or even nifty t-shirts that promote your site).

As you say, there are too many freebies out there for anyone to find it worth their while to pay for plain old blog content.

Me: What business models are available for the writer - how can a writer make a living (or even just a bit of extra cash from their hard work)?

Adrian Reynolds: When, with your technical assistance, I created www.yoodothatvoodoo.com, I did so for a number of reasons. A key one was and is to raise my profile among the community of online screenwriters that’s become known as the scribosphere.

In looking at what most of online screenwriters did, I knew I wanted to do something different. Like, believe it or not, most screenwriters don’t provide free writing samples on their sites: I’ve made a point of doing this. That means my site functions as a resource, and also as a marketing tool: if you as, say, a producer come across several sites, one way to distinguish them is by the scripts they include. The fact that mine does, and most peoples’ don’t, is in my favour.

Another aspect that came out of exploring how poor most screenwriters’ sites are is that I wanted to provide evidence of my ability to think about stories and the different media I work in. Again, there’s precious little evidence in most screenwriting blogs, many of which are fairly facile semi-personal diaries about what the writer had for lunch and their difficulties getting their agent to return a call. By contrast, I write pretty much every day a piece of 400 words or so that touches on some or other aspect of writing, creativity, film, television, theatre or comics. You may or may not like all of those pieces, but they undeniably paint a picture of me as someone with something to say about their craft and industry, which is more than can be said for most screenwriting blogs.

Steph Auteri: How can a writer make a living with their actual writing, and not just an almost-daily proofreading gig and once-in-awhile work for their former employer? Like, their actual writing? If only I knew.

Fortunately, I subscribe to sites such as ProBlogger.net, so I know that there are ways to trick out your blog—as I mentioned before—with supplementary materials and advertising? So you can, in fact, make money with your blogging. If you’re lucky. And if you’re dedicated enough to put in the time to build a money-making blog.

Outside of your blog, you can always…

• guest-blog at other blogs somehow related to yours,
• forget about that damn blog of yours (or at least make it second priority) by getting a paying blogging gig elsewhere,
• pitch your heart out to the mags & newspapers; print ain’t dead yet!
• sell out and do some copywriting, though that can be difficult as well. But it does make much better money.

Me: Has all of this work paid off?

Adrian Reynolds: Yes, and in unexpected ways. I was expecting to slowly make an impression with some of the more credible screenwriting resources, and that has happened, and I have acquired new readers as a result. I’ve also been approached by people who’ve read my script samples, checked out my piece on script doctoring, and have approached me about working on their short film and feature scripts. Perhaps the best piece of feedback I received came from someone on StumbleUpon. Their comment has disappeared—out of date I guess—but what they said demonstrated to me that I’d achieved what I set out to do, writing to the effect that ‘pretty much every day you’ll come across a real nugget here, particularly if you’re into screenwriting‘. Mission accomplished.

My big success with the site comes from an unexpected source however. I post on another forum which has nothing do with screenwriting, but where my profile links to www.youdothatvoodoo.com. And people who’ve been taken with what I’ve said on that forum have come to check out my profile and site, and got in touch to offer me work. As a result of which I’m now consulting on a TV series proposal by a very successful businessman, and have been discussing running very lucrative trainings on creativity with a couple of other people. I’m also advising people about how to improve their marketing, an area already know about and work in, but which my increasing knowledge of building an online brand is contributing towards in a big way.

So: have I got people to commission me to write scripts through my site? No…but that was never likely to be the case anyway. But I have got people interested in me as a writer, and potentially as someone who can work with them on their script, and who can also deliver on other fronts, such as training and marketing. All of which is already helping to boost my income—and all of which has happened since the site went live on December 31st last year.