See http://paidcontent.co.uk/article/419-dan-wagner-will-use-shiny-blogs-to-build-fashion-network/

What do you think?

I have zero relationship to shiny, or any of the blogs, writers etc.  I'm a sometime reader of some of the blogs, and a sometime twitter follower of some of the 'personalities' involved. 

This whole comment stream is hilarious from an outsider's perspective.  Never have I seen so much self-important navel-gazing and pick-picking over the bones of what is just one fairly small (in the big scheme of things) company that has gone belly up. 

Get over yourselves…all of you.  Crap happens, all the time.  You aren't the first freelancers to get pooped on, and I know that hurts…but you are all the most vocal of your woes…who wants to hear about it?

You could all do with contemplating the motto:  'Don't complain, just work harder'....you're all (freelancers and ex-employees alike) doing yourselves no favours with all this public vulturing….

I wasn't planning on commenting on this post, but as it's my website being brought into question, I don't feel as though I have a choice. Although I'm honestly still not sure what Domestic Sluttery has to do with Shiny Media being in administration.

You're right, FOI, my writers aren't paid. But they aren't forced to write either. I'm very aware that freebies aren't pay. But I also don't hide the fact that my writers are offered something for their writing. Unlike an awful lot of websites, I've always said that (as you quoted my means of criticism) "as soon as I start making money, so will my writers". There are a huge amount of websites that don't do this (I know because I've written for them). Why attack a site that's only a few months old ? When you set up a site you don't know how well it's going to work, you don't know if you'll get the readers and media interest you need to make a living yourself, let alone pay nine other very talented individuals.

As for whether or not there's any monetary value in the site, I really don't think you're in a position to comment on that. You don't know the readership of the site, you don't know how well we're doing. Making assumptions about my business plan and how well we're going to in the future is pointless if you don't know the facts.

I firmly believe if you set up a blog to make money, your priorities are wrong. Your readers should be the priority. Content is key. I'm lucky enough that we seem to be hitting that balance at the moment. I don't for a second take my writers for granted, or think that any kind of revenue we make is going to be easy. But, we love the site, we think we offer something different. And our readers like the site as well. As long as they're still reading, we'll keep writing.

Maybe one day we'll be getting some money in our pockets as well as freebies, but who knows? I'll still edit the site. I'll still work my ass off to make it the best site I can. That's a pretty good business plan to me.

Ahh yes, getting payment. Mmm well that was always part of the 'fun' of working for Shiny Media. :)

Indeed, Andy (not all that far-fetched, surely?). I never actually had a problem with £4/post. If I had I wouldn't have worked for Shiny for more than two years. What I did have a problem with, however, was actually getting payment.

Alicia - totally take your point about the 'crass' comment. I was just being facetious anyway (in my response to Katie's comment - the original accusation wasn't mine), so apologies to Katie.

OK, WMPO (see how I'm 'acronymising' everyone's pseudonyms now?) - must just be a few people using "pants" as part of their anonymous online name.

Yes OK FoI I knew that was going to come up.

All I was saying (in this particular issue) is that people were paid different rates, some per post, some retainer. That much is fact (based on my own experience and what I've learned from talking to other SM freelancers).

I don't think I was ever paid exactly £4 per post.

"£4 a post was just one of these terms" - if it was a term at all; I'm not in a position to confirm or deny this particular rate.

Freedom of Info - 2 points:

‘The site isn’t making enough money to pay anyone yet, but we’re only four months old! We’re doing really well for such a young site. I’ve always told the girls that as soon as I’m making money, they will as well. In the meantime, they get really good freebies.’

This is true, but Domestic Sluttery was largely set up by the editors as a work of love, and the writers joined in the same spirit. No one is relying on it to provide an income; we may get paid one day but that's not why we're doing it.

And it's a completely different proposition from Shiny - you wrote for Shiny as a professional writer; rates varied from publication to publication;  £4 a post was just one of these terms.

Wondered why you were hmmmm-ing at me for a sec, but then I realised (I think). Mardypants wasn't me, I promise you. I usually happily comment anywhere and everywhere under my real name.

Ah sorry, you mean 'reports' like these

http://www.shinymedia.com/2007/01/

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/entrepreneur/article1273657.ece

I run the company that employed Katie to help us organise a regular networking event for commercial bloggers and content creators - The Sway. It was incredibly bad timing that the night of our second ever event was on the same day that the Shiny announcement came out, and we debated cancelling the event, but as sponsors had already been tied in and the venue paid, we decided not to. Instead we discussed the events openly and with sensitivity. I just wanted to raise this as it isn't at all fair to call Katie 'crass' when she was respecting the terms of her contract with us.

Katie also has not worked for Shiny for a while, so had no involvement whatsoever in what has happened. I cannot comment on how the company worked internally, and can understand completely that freelancers are upset at the lack of communication.

Mardypants ... WithMyPantsOn ... hmm…

Sorry, I meant "report" as in a legitimate news article, not a statement by an anonymous commenter claiming to be involved with Shiny Media.

I was paid varying rates depending on the content and conditions, anywhere from under £4 per post to £12 per feature. I know others who were paid a retainer and that amounts varied pretty significantly — at least, if everyone is telling the truth.

At the end of the day, freelancers are annoyed at not getting paid but no-one forced them to freelance there in the first place. I was happy at SM for a lot of the time, despite some problems and a few absurd projects from time to time, so Mardypants' blanket statement is also not wholly correct.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/pda/2008/feb/07/elevatorpitchmaxroamtackles

Mardypants comment 'You don't know anyone who doesn't like Shiny Media? Try the freelancers paid £4 a post to help them make money…!'

OK, firstly I think Shiny Media pay was individually negotiated with each writer, so a blanket statement "£4pp" doesn't work. Where exactly was this reported?

I think you're getting "business model" and "revenue" mixed up. I'm not saying I'm an expert on business, but the model - pay writers for what they've produced at a predetermined rate based on contract - was in place.

The problem is that Shiny got to a point where costs/debts exceeded income. That doesn't mean the business model in itself was wrong, just that it became untenable.

Maybe we're just misunderstanding each other.

http://thesway.org/

'The site isn’t making enough money to pay anyone yet, but we’re only four months old! We’re doing really well for such a young site. I’ve always told the girls that as soon as I’m making money, they will as well. In the meantime, they get really good freebies.'

Make sure you have your eyes open is what I am saying. If you are working for nothing, it is not a business.  Freebies is not pay.  If you don't need to be paid that's ok but I would ask why do it. Why not do somethng for yourself or for charity? Whether Shiny had a business model that enabled it to pay what is reported as £4.00 a post I would question.

The hard truth is this sort of content may have no monetary value.

Unfortunately,  I couldn't very well ask a client to cancel an event that I'd helped organise.  Timing could definitely have been better.

I just wanted to clarify that Domestic Sluttery is nothing to do with Shiny Media; it's completely separate, and our agreement with our writers is totally different, as well.

Also wanted to back up Andy Merrett's comment:

'As far as I’m aware every freelancer had a contract which stated “£x for y posts” or something along those lines.

The Shiny Media proposition (as a blog/media network, not one individual site) was always a traditional “payment for goods” model.

As has already been stated, Shiny Media was making money.

The only reason there’s now a likelihood of non-payment is because Shiny Media is in administration. That wasn’t the business model. '

Oh lovely. Katie now describes the situation as a "kerfuffle".  What a lovely way to put it. Makes it all seem so much nicer, don't you think?

http://twitter.com/shinykatie/status/2795665590

I don't think trying to keep the company afloat and operating is a bad thing, when the alternative is the directors binning the debts and dumping the creditors to serve themselves.

I'm confused with your comment, "freedom of info".

As far as I'm aware every freelancer had a contract which stated "£x for y posts" or something along those lines.

The Shiny Media proposition (as a blog/media network, not one individual site) was always a traditional "payment for goods" model.

As has already been stated, Shiny Media was making money.

The only reason there's now a likelihood of non-payment is because Shiny Media is in administration. That wasn't the business model.

"there are plenty of examples still in business which will publish your content on the promise of payment once the blog starts to make money - domestic sluttery describes itself in exactly this way."

I write for, and helped set up, Domestic Sluttery too, and as far as I know we contribute content regardless of payment. Could you give me more info about what you mean?

Without getting personal I don't think there is anything wrong with voicing your opinion. Shiny was a blog which on the face of it might be regarded as trusting, grass roots, something you might put your faith in, and there are plenty of examples still in business which will publish your content on the promise of payment once the blog starts to make money - domestic sluttery describes itself in exactly this way. If there is little or no likelyhood of payment, or if promised funds are not as people understand, that information should be public.

I think you might be the winner Gary. Can you write another press release like on UKR about that? It will make me feel better even if not you.

(You were going to put £4,567 until you thought it sounded a bit made up, weren't you?)

;)

Well, when everyone's ready to send out press releases about who's in charge of what and who owns the computers now, can someone tell me who I should send my invoices to for them to be ignored? Thanks.

And is anyone owed more than £4675 dating back to December 2008, or am I the "winner"?

There are probably legal rams. for me as well but given that, in my case, it's only about payment and people rarely get stuff out of either administrators or entrepreneurs anyway, I don't much care.

Ironically I tend to do better by speaking out — not that that's the reason for doing it you understand ;)

[Buy my widgets! $9.99 each]

The reason I'm commenting anonymously is that there are legal ramifications. Once that's all out of the way (which may take a while), I will be more than happy to speak openly about the way I was treated by Shiny.

My intention wasn't to attack Katie, I was responding to her comment, which I found disingenuous. I didn't particularly have a problem with her tweeting about making money from blogging - good on her, frankly - but the timing could have been better.

As for not knowing what I'm talking about re the investment, well, no, I wouldn't would I? Because, as has been confirmed by both Chris and Katie, the press release was untrue. Although I was certainly told by Shiny that once the investment was secured, payment per post and site budgets would be increased, which wasn't in fact the case.

And, yes, it's a shame Katie's getting the flak, but neither Chris nor Ashley are here, are they? And while Katie did leave Shiny earlier this year, the problems certainly began before she left.

"I’m sure A&C are dealing with freelancers via private correspondence, which is as it should be."
This isn't the case - see Paul's comment above.

Ollie - well that's all that needs to be said! A note or post SOMEWHERE saying 'unfortunately due to current legal issues we cannot comment'.

Right now there are a lot of confused, hurt people who've seen Chris's comments on other sites giving details of the administrators, posting his mobile number etc…but no official comment about what's going on. I realise they can't get on ShinyMedia.com but it's not hard to find somewhere to just make people aware of that.

Katie wasn't the first to tweet about the administration, either. She just responded to things that were already up. Someone had to.

"I find it crass that katie lee tweets about the company going into administration then the same day tweets that she is giving a talk on making money from blogging. The irony, bet the people owed money loved that. "

As one of the people owed money (until a few days ago I was the editor of Dollymix.tv) I don't find Katie's comments crass, nor am I chuckling bitterly over the irony of her Twitter updates about advocating and investigating paid blog content. Because that's her JOB. Katie doesn't work for Shiny anymore, so she's not in any way obligated to comment.

Personally I'm grateful that she commented at all, because all else is radio silence and the depressing sound of my pockets not being filled.

Sorry to disappoint.

I feel for you Ollie, as you've put a lot in to resurrecting Pies, but to say that it's unwise to sling mud and then to call the people who have tied up your blog "arseholes" and try to get people to spam someone at Partners DBMA is a little rich, perhaps?

"I’m sure A&C are dealing with freelancers via private correspondence"

That's one way of putting it I suppose.

@ Gemma: Ashley and Chris won't speak publicly because of the legal implications. And why should they use Twitter or whatever to sling mud in a public forum? (Not that I'm saying Katie is slinging mud, but to Tweet about Shiny going into admin was perhaps a little naive, something I think Katie realises.)

I'm sure A&C are dealing with freelancers via private correspondence, which is as it should be.

Cheers, Ollie

Well done Andy Merrett for offering some intelligent, fair and truthfulcommentary.  It's a horrible situation for many people involved, particularly writers who are uninformed and potentially out of pocket. I really sympathise with their frustrations.

However, it would be great if people would stop anonymously pretending they know more than they do and attacking individuals. In particular this thread's focus on taking a pop at Katie Lee is totally uncalled for and utter nonsense.

Oh and they whole "misinformation about the level of investment" debate? I was Shiny's PR at the time and with all due respect you don't know what you're talking about.

Where the hell are Ashley and Chris?  Katie seems to be getting a lot of hate here, but at least she has acknowledged what's going on.

It's all quiet from other camps. But I don't know what else we expected. Why change the habit of a lifetime?

The truth may be that there is no money to be made from blogging apart from afew big personalities, and even they are not building substantial businesses.  Michael Arrington says his publishing business runs on 3 servers. How big can that be? I don't see the problem in blogging not having a business model. It always struck me as odd that the point at which everyone can record their lives, publish for free,  anyone would go into publishing as a business.

Let's be real here, Katie is totally at liberty to speak on making money blogging based on her track record *when she was at Shiny Media* and her new company.

Perhaps those with a grudge (regardless of its justification) could at least stop hiding being anonymous pseudonyms — it's very easy to throw stones when you think you won't be identified.

Of course I understand the frustrations — I'm currently owed money and have "wasted" a month-and-a-half on providing a lot of content for Shiny's blogs (technically, if I'm not paid for this, I believe that content still belongs to me, though I've no easy way of getting hold of it) — but aiming everything at Katie because she's the one that's said the most online (notice the absence of comment from certain other (ex)directors) is wrong.

It's far too easy to simply accuse everyone who has ever been in a position of management or directorship of crassness, wrongdoing, and so forth without looking more deeply into it.

(I know the article that I wrote yesterday said that I'd stopped defending Shiny Media, but I feel it's unfair to attack individuals just because it's easy to do so)

Communications from Shiny Media bosses to staff and freelancers could always have been better, but if some of the other issues are true (I don't get how someone claiming to have over 50% of the shares can be considered "minority", by the way) then I realise communication may have been difficult.

And no, I'm in no way affiliated with any of the companies mention in this article or comments.

"I wasn't the person running the business". HAHAHA!

If you think that - as editorial director, not MD, CEO or anything else - could have just started mouthing off to the press on my own then you don't quite understand how business works when you have investors and a board. We didn't actually supply the "misinformation" it was a badly written press release from out investors.

I resigned from the board and left Shiny after trying my best to convince the board that we needed a change in management. Before that, I did my best to ensure all of my writers were paid. However, even when you have co-founders and shareholders, you still have to have a boss. And I wasn't the person running the business.

Yes, Katie, you and Ashley are both crass. Happy now?

As to how you could have been more "honest", how about correcting the misinformation about the level of investment rather than simply being privately "mortified".

In the time I worked for Shiny, your response to any complaint about payment (whether it be delays or discrepancies) was that Shiny weren't in the business of screwing freelancers. That wasn't so honest either, was it?

I would also like to hear a response from someone at Bright Station regarding this, as they must be held responsible in some way.

I left Shiny Media 6 months ago due to disagreements with my fellow co-founders about the best way to run the business. I'm not sure, poppyscales, how I could have been any more "honest" bearing in mind many of my staff remained in a company I hoped would prove me wrong and continue onwards to great success.

I'm sure you'd all have called me equally crass had I written a similar piece to Ashley Norris, blaming everyone but myself and putting my staff in the horrible position of trying to do their jobs while their old boss was mouthing off in a very unhelpful way.

After 6 months running my own company (Miramus.com) that makes money out of blogging (and having run the editorial division of Shiny, which also - for many years - made money) I'm apparently not entitled to work with another client to help other blog networks? Say what?

I find it crass that katie lee tweets about the company going into administration then the same day tweets that she is giving a talk on making money from blogging. The irony, bet the people owed money loved that.

I'm sure we'll find out the truth in two or three years time, when Katie says "Oh yes, we just never got around to correcting that particular fact".

moving forward, katie lee who blogs on the telegraphs blog platform is reported by that newspaper to be giving no comment on minoriry shareholder action named by the telegraph as dan wagner. it was lee who twittered news of shinys collapse earlier this week. she is now promoting skimlinks. given her track record and failure to be honest over press reports of the finances of her previous company i think buyer beware is in order

I'm sorry I did not see your request to email until now. I think Paul and Colin have gone some way to highlighting what needs looking into.

Too often now the question is being asked whether the mess Shiny Media finds itself in is some representation of the fact that blogging in the UK is on the way out.

Really the more mundane truth is evident - these particular 'bosses' couldn't organise a piss up in a brewery.

As I understand it the company has admitted publicly that the amount of investment trumpeted in the media wasn't correct, but they were advised not to put it right. I find this appalling. They obviously welcomed the publicity but should have had a much tighter rein on cashflow.

Though when you consider how hard people have had to chase for their money over the years from this shower, I suppose it makes more sense. The thought of the sum really being as much as was reported, and people being treated the way they were was too depressing for words.

Some bloggers - some of whom are embroiled in court cases going back months for money owed for posts written that built this company's reputation, have now started to blog and tweet about how they have been treated. That's got to be encouraging. I hope more do and the scales will fall away from the eyes of the media who reported these characters as such innovators.

"independent blog publishers have struggled to replicate the success of Gawker, WeblogsInc or b5media"

Success like b5media?? Thats laughable!! b5media can not be compared to weblogsinc or gawker. Please. b5media is another train wreck much like Shiny that took vc money and pissed it all away.

Hey Chris, mind pinging me? You should have my skype/twitter/email/cell :)

Interested to see if we can pick up where things left off, or start something new together.

I doubt this "new" company will have many friends after the appalling way it's treated its staff over this.

Finding out you've been made redundant via a blog post? Finding out the company has gone bust via TWITTER?!

Very new media, but not a classy way to conduct business. I'd also like to hear a response from someone at Bright Station regarding this, as they must be held responsible in some way.

Unless they're happily registering new domain names to rip-off lots of people in the same way again at this very moment, which is what this off-the-shelf "administration" deal sounds like.

Nice one Chris. Thanks for letting all the freelancers (me included) who are owed hundreds ( if not thousands) of pounds by Shiny who to ring for financial recompense via a comment on a news post. Although let's face it - if you've sold all your 'assets' to your shinier new company then there will be pretty much no financial recompense for anyone who worked so hard to make your sites some of the most read and most talked about in their respective industries. Let me repeat - nice one.

'Just to make it clear' No.2: As editor of Who Ate All the Pies, I currently have no access to the site. I am locked out effectively because of the dispute between Shiny and the "minority shareholder", which is incredibly frustrating – not to mention costly – as Pies is not involved in said dispute. (Not Chris Price's fault, I might add.)

Ollie Irish
Editor, whoateallthepies.tv

Good piece Rob - very informative and well balanced. Just to make it clear the business received under a million pounds in venture capital, not the $4.5 million often reported. Also every effort was made to continue trading, including selling of assets, redundancies, downsizing offices and, in the case of the directors, substantial pay cuts. Creditors should call the administrator Wilson Field on 0114 235 6780.

Want to email, Reader?

Please will someone look beyond the hype and praise heaped on Shiny Media by industry reporters to date and ask serious questions about how this was run as a business?