OK. We were wrong about the Apple TVs (maybe) - so, here’s today’s rumor: gossip says that there has been a revolt by the, mainly unpaid, writers of the Ist network against top blog guys Jake Dobkin and Jen Chung.
The Gothamist network now spreads across the globe - from London to New York to Seattle to Shanghai and this has been funded partly, the writers say, by not paying the writers. In fact recently, the restaurant reviewers had to pay for their own meals. The gossip suggests a mass move of staff to the Erati network.
Thoughts?
Facebook
Twitter
Digg
Reddit
StumbleUpon
I know both Jake and Jen…even dj’ed a happy hour for Gothamist back when it was a singular site. Haven’t kept in touch with them but they are good people who worked hard to build the site. Can’t imagine anyone wanting to revolt against them. If the issue is over free meals…clearly these contributors need to quit and come write for PSFK where we all get access to the private, site owned Lear jet…wink wink.
January 10th, 2006 at 7:29 pm
Why not if we pay better And reward our writers. It only makes sense to me.
January 11th, 2006 at 9:29 pm
Do you have a pointer to the rumor(s), or is it something you actually heard with your ears, as in not on the interweb?
January 12th, 2006 at 5:51 pm
That’s total bullshit– spread by the Cowboy, who’s looking for people to join his ill-thought-out “Erati” network (worst name ever?)
We’ve had no one quit in the last month– and we’ve taken in more than 300 applications for the few spots on staff open. That makes sense, because our traffic is close to the 10 million per month mark now, which means a lot of readership for the writers, and our pay percentages are among the highest in the industry.
We did recently begin paying all of our contributors (including people that do as little as five posts per month), at a rate competitive with Gawker and a few of the other big networks. In advance of that, we slimmed down our staff a bit– we felt that it was better to have less writers doing more posts, rather than vice-versa.
As for the Cowboy, my feeling is that it’s easy to talk smack, and very difficult to perform. Our reputation and performance speaks for itself– if Erati is still around in a year (word on the street is that it’s already failing– and I didn’t just hear that from Scrivs– check out some of the “blogs” they’ve launched and count the posts they’ve actually gotten up– it’s a joke), we’ll see how they are doing. Maybe then he’ll have something to back up all this trash talking he’s been doing.
January 12th, 2006 at 10:01 pm
i’m sure Joe DeSalazar, who happened to create over seventy recipes - unpaid - for gothamist is going to feel all warm and fuzzy inside when he finds out he’s considered a “no-one” who quit within the last month to come and write for us over at [decentcontent].
on a separate-but-sort-of-related note, i love how your definition of “recent” actually means “earlier this week”. i know i don’t currently pay my writers, but at least i’m honest about it and they don’t have to find out that SOME of the team had been getting paid whilst the rest hadn’t been in a COMMENT SECTION as some sort of lame-assed retort.
January 13th, 2006 at 1:27 am
i don’t see joe writing for you, heather. why would he? you guys have no readership, don’t pay, and only update once or twice a day, and then it’s usually a lists of links. the most interesting post you guys have run since you’ve opened was the one talking smack about gothamist.
that might sound harsh, but everything i said about your boyfriend cowboy goes double for you: you seem to spend twice as much time talking trash about other people as you do writing your own sites. i suggest we adjourn this conversation for a year– and if you’re still around then, maybe you’ll have a little more understanding about what it is we do, and have a little more respect for what we’ve built.
January 13th, 2006 at 9:04 am
How ironic that you say that: http://decentcontent.com/index.php/decenttaste/by-joe/decent-dinner-eggplant-nutmeg-risotto-parmesan-crisp/
Joe and I have spent the last month or so brainstorming and regrouping after he was so frustrated “working” for you.
Believe it or not, I have a lot of respect for what you’ve built. What I have absolutely no respect for, however, is your well-documented unprofessionalism and the underhanded manner in which you’ve treated a lot of your staff. I only find it slightly amusing that here you call our Gothamist piece “interesting”, when I’ve heard from so many sources - including people on my staff - about you bitching and badmouthing us for it. I stand by that piece to this day because of the way you continue to conduct yourself on an ongoing basis. Your ability to skirt around all of the issues I mentioned in my comment above is almost admirable.
Once upon a time, Gothamist had no readers, and until last week, no pay. Everyone has to start somewhere, and I’ll be happy to talk to you about this in a year when we have our footing. Our readership is growing slowly and steadily, and the calibre of talent we have on board already illustrates that we want to go further than rehash outdated crap like Gothamist. I have absolutely no doubt we’ll continue to attract talented writers who will thrive in the positive and creative environment we strive to provide and achieve on a daily basis.
As for your “boyfriend” comment about Cowboy - just because I write for one of his sites doesn’t mean I agree with everything he says and does, nor that I have any say in the workings of his network.
And for the record, quantity is totally useless without quality content.
January 13th, 2006 at 10:32 am
I think the problem a lot of people have with Gothamist is the fact that Jake admittedly makes THOUSANDS AND THOUSANDS of dollars off it, enough to not have a job, while the people who do the real work get nothing. Also, Gothamist may have quantity, but it’s written on a 3rd grade level. It’s like fisher price my first website. It’s for people who can’t understand sites like gawker (or decent content, for that matter.) I don’t know any smart people who read gothamist, except to make fun of it, and their comments section absolutely bears this out.
January 13th, 2006 at 11:02 am
“rehash outdated crap like Gothamist”? yup– seems like you’ve got a lot of respect for us. anyway, this is pointless arguing– we’re going to do amazing things this year at gothamist– and that’s the only thing that counts.
January 13th, 2006 at 11:55 am
When do i get to piss in this sess pool of bs?
January 13th, 2006 at 1:03 pm
“the most interesting post [decentcontent] have run since you’ve opened was the one talking smack about gothamist.”
That’s not true. It was this one:
http://decentcontent.com/index.php/decentstyle/by-angelina/the-modern-musts/
or this one:
http://decentcontent.com/index.php/decentstyle/by-angelina/angelinas-divine-christmas-wish-list/
I can’t decide.
Also, quit being such a little shit.
January 13th, 2006 at 1:12 pm
Angelina, I beg to differ. The Tard of the Week feature is the best thing on the internet right now. Top notch writing. We should build a shrine for the person who writes that weekly piece of genius.
January 13th, 2006 at 5:09 pm
Can I ask how my name even got brought into this when I don’t even talk to Cowboy or Jake? I don’t know how well Erati does or Gothamist for that matter and its not my job to speculate. For once I am innocent on all accounts. Exciting read though and don’t let me stop the feud.
January 13th, 2006 at 8:19 pm
the grand “puba” cowboy always says he pays better than anywhere else.
I CHALLENGE YOU cowboy, post at insid.erati how much you are paying a new blogger and with what revenue. you have no traffic. better yet, interview your authors, other than yourself (heather too) that actually write for erati.
also, nice ripp on scrivs the other day calling 9rules a blogring…then I notice the footer on erati.com and you have feeds under the heading “blogring.erati”
you have no ideas of your own do you?
January 14th, 2006 at 12:07 am
adam:
I’d love to have an idea of my own. But its so much damn fun to make fun of other peoples ideas. why start coming up with ideas of my own. ive never claimed to make googles of cash. haha. anyone can start a blognetwork. heck just soon here i might start another just to piss you and scrivs off.
scrivs:
not buying into the i don’t talk smack comment. in more than a couple of emails ive gotten from compadres they say you are really pissed at me. and are talking smack. so boohoo. i’ve tried to make peace but clearly jake is proving that you and him are buddies who have nothing better to do than talk smackola. shit that’s my job and i do it very publicly.
jake:
how about a game of chess.
January 14th, 2006 at 2:27 am
Look it’s cool if you want to call me out personally for something I said publicly, but you moved on from my network and I think I was man enough to make a public statement of how I ‘messed up” and even gave you the url and content that legally wasn’t yours. Only time I have ever talked with Jake is last year at SXSW. I know this is working out for you because the more shit you talk the more publicity you get in this little pond we call the blog network blogosphere, but really do you think I am going to send out emails to folk talking shit about you?
Your network will do whatever your network will do. You will be king of the blogosphere in 2 months and rich beyond your own means because you do everything just right. I am just slowly waiting my own doom right now. You never offered a public apology to me, you did so over email. Hail the new king!
If you wish to go after me, please go after stuff I have done wrong intentionally and not base it on what others have said. I can see why Jake is mad, but I don’t understand why he brought my name into this. For once I have taken the higher road over the past couple weeks, but you feel like its your obligation to keep on going after me.
Thanks for everything you have done for me. Kisses.
I ashamed that I even responded to this.
January 14th, 2006 at 3:58 am
Responded to comment author in private as this is getting out of hand.
January 14th, 2006 at 4:48 am