Hi, A popular view is that each blogger should be paid for the pages they write. Essentially, if you wrote the entry, the ads on that page are yours. It makes sense and is easy to understand. If you write great content, you are immediately rewarded. This forum is using some form of revenue share, also with a similar formula. I'm trying to explore a hybrid approach. For instance, the role of a good editor is critical: shortening blog posts, forcing authors to go to the point quickly, removing spelling and grammatical mistakes, etc. Such functions are performed for all blog entries and increase the value of the site as a whole. How do you pay the editor? The popular model doesn't work for that case. What do you think? And more importantly, as a writer, what do you want? I posted a more detailed argument at http://blog.fairsoftware.net
As a writer, I only accept per-post rates for blogging gigs--no revenue share of any kind. Why? Because revenue isn't about how good the content is. If we were talking about copywriting rather than blog content, that might be a different story. The revenue could actually be worse for quality content than for crap (why it's so common for people to publish garbage articles - they give readers ads as an option to click a link and get off the page). The revenue is out of the hands of the writer in most of these cases. They're being hired to write--not to promote your site, bring in traffic, test and optimize the monetization strategy and specific ads, etc. Those things fall on the shoulders of the site owner, and as a writer I won't put my earnings into someone else's hands like that (if you suck at marketing your site, your writers suffer). That said, I also don't take on $5 blog post gigs and the like. For someone who does, revenue share might actually be a step up. For people charging rates more in line with professional levels, it's generally better to stick to per-project rates (or monthly rates if you handling blogging and comments regularly).