WordPress Making Money The Wrong Way

Wednesday, Mar. 30 2005 | Author: Scrivs

When I first read that Matthew Mullenweg created WordPress, Inc. I was a bit skeptical seeing how it was an open source project and I could kind of see where he was going with this. However, after reading this over at waxy.org you just have to assume that he is doing everything wrong here and exploiting the userbase that has made the project so popular to begin with.

For a project to become successful it takes a lot of hard work and dedication from a number of people. It can be argued that without Matt, WordPress wouldn’t be anywhere close to where it is now. However, it’s still an Open Source project so really there is no need for it to be where it is now. Open Source projects thrive on the passion of its developers and userbase and the userbase is what has made WordPress explode (not to mention the blog-mob that can make or break a soul) so exploiting their work (linkage) is not a good thing at all.

Numerous Open Source projects have thrived with various revenue models (most from support models) so there really is no need to use the methods that WordPress, Inc. is using to “fund” development. It’s also a shady practice to use the negative text-indent technique to hide the links from the users, but still being viewable by search engines. Running an Open Source project doesn’t require that the main people behind it show 100% transparency, but it does involve 100% trust and using this sort of method to raise capital seems to break that trust.

If working on an Open Source project is costing too much of your time and money and you have tried other more viable and trustworthy ways to raise money then maybe it’s time to walk away. I don’t think there is anything wrong with that and I assuming nobody else would have any issues with it either. The beauty of Open Source is that you can walkaway and the product can still live. Didn’t WordPress begin after the death of another blogging package? But if you have a product that has been downloaded over 100,000 times then I definitely can suggest methods to raise money without using shady tactics (and yes hiding links is a shady tactic no matter who is doing it).

I met Photomatt at this year’s SXSW and he seemed like a nice guy so hopefully when he returns he can see what makes doing this so wrong and quickly correct it. Everyone is allowed to do what they want with their sites and by no means is this illegal, but I think you do have to wonder if it’s even right or fair to the people that have made the site and software what it is today.

Sidenote: Remember all the flack SixApart got for licensing their software? Is that worse than what WordPress, Inc is doing now?

Category: Open Source

23 Responses for "WordPress Making Money The Wrong Way"

Matt Burris

March 30th, 2005 at 6:13 pm
1

Wow, that’s just sad. I can understand the need to make money, but to take advantage of the community, game search engines, and basically have the same amount of appeal as comment spammers, it’s going to create another crapstorm like MT had when they started charging license fees.

Is this another case of greed hurting another project? :|
Scrivs

March 30th, 2005 at 6:29 pm
2

Well I don’t follow the WordPress development that much, but I have never heard of any sort of ways to raise money and I think that is what bothers me most. Instead of asking the community for suggestions, they took this route.
Steve Eyre

March 30th, 2005 at 7:54 pm
3

I think the biggest problem here is the situation has been handled really badly - I was shocked when I first saw these adverts earlier today. I think advertising is definitely a choice WordPress will probably have to take, but something like this just won’t work, rather we need something more open and not as “dirty”.
Brian

March 30th, 2005 at 8:37 pm
4

I think the route Dean Allen took with TextPattern was a wise one. He created TextDrive, a web hosting company focused on the people using the blogging and other open source software (Textpattern, Wordpress, PunBB, PhotoStake, Rails, etc…). This allows him to get money, but keeps TextPattern as an open source project.

Having an option to contribute to other open-source developers is also nice. I wonder how Wordpress, Inc. will play with TextDrive.
Adam Lyttle

March 30th, 2005 at 8:51 pm
5

He is definitely exploiting the open source model. As you pointed out Scrivs, there is definitely other ways to make money from open source models. But on the same token, this is business. People may not like what he is doing (and he may lose some of his userbase), but in the end he might insure the longterm success of the site by changing to a more mainstream way of making money out of it.
Jonas M Luster

March 30th, 2005 at 11:47 pm
6

Being you don’t have Trackback/Pingback enabled, I’d like to point to my response offsite (see supplied URL). I general I agree with a lot of the notions, but would like to supplement a few of my own. And, yes, I am being hammered about it, right now :)
Adam Lyttle

March 31st, 2005 at 2:36 am
7

Jonas: Forever Geek did not label Matt as being a spammer, or spamming anyone. Scrivs was pointing out that he has concerns the way Matt is running the site and in the process he pointed out quite a few key points. None of these points have been addressed in your response, you simply directed us to a general response that you wrote up. Did you even read Scrivs article?
bob

March 31st, 2005 at 4:59 am
8

You condemn WordPress, but you own site is in violation of the Google Webmaster guidelines.

Or are those little links linking your network *realy* for human visitors and not just search engines?

People find it easy to point fingers - but a lot of fingers pointing will be pointed back at.
Jonas M Luster

March 31st, 2005 at 7:47 am
9

Adam: Actually, I didn’t accuse Forever Geek of labeling Matt a spammer. In fact, I’ve said as much. Did you read my article? :) I know you must have, guess I am raving too intelligible sometimes. Apologies, if that’s the case.
Pete Prodoehl

March 31st, 2005 at 9:07 am
10

As far as the Six Apart thing, it didn’t come down to their licensing fees for me, it came down to the fact that the license stated (at the time, and still might) that they could force you to delete your copy of Movable Type, and you had to comply with that. I could not recommend Movable Type for any sort of commercial or serious use with that clause. I thought it was crazy to accept a license that forced you to be at the whim of it’s creators. On the other hand, WordPress is open-source, with a GPL license, and if you don’t like what Matt, or WordPress, Inc. or whoever is involved is doing, you are still free to use the software, and even fork it into another project if you like. So in the end, if you think Matt screwed up, or made the wrong decision, just be glad the right decision was made in choosing a resonable license that grants you the a good amount of rights as to what you can do with it.
Scrivs

March 31st, 2005 at 9:46 am
11

Bob: Are you joking me? The links are at least readable and are for both readers and search engines. How is that a violation?
Michel Valdrighi

March 31st, 2005 at 9:56 am
12

WordPress Inc. is NOT WordPress.

That’s all I’d rather say about all the bullshit that is being said around the selfrighteous blogosphere.
For the record though, I do not condone such practices.
cliche

March 31st, 2005 at 11:45 am
13

text-indent: -9000px; overflow: hidden;

Very offtopic, but Google crawlbot can’t catch that? Sheesh.
Scrivs

March 31st, 2005 at 11:54 am
14

It caught it and all the pages have been removed from Google’s index. It was pretty impressive how they acted on it.
Eric

March 31st, 2005 at 3:46 pm
15

I don’t know why people assume that free software cost nothing! I know for a fact that Matt pays a pretty penny for hosting every month and speaking from experience, rent ain’t cheap in San Francisco. Why then when someone uses a personal space that happens to attract a lot of readers to make a little extra to fund the project costs, that the person must be doing something wrong. People get the wrong idea about open source. It is not about being free of costs and thrives off of good feelings. It is a development model and belief and no one would argue that development or beliefs are free! If google bans it, so be it but no one should think anything less of Matt for doing it. There are far worse things that could be done to make money to fund wordpress than allowing some articles to be hosted on the domain.
JC

March 31st, 2005 at 3:51 pm
16

Bob -
You’re an idiot. Really. I mean it. No joke.

You can’t compare links in the footer of a website that leads to other websites run by the same individual (like, oh, CNN and Sports Illustrated and the like) to putting links 9000 pixels off-screen and hiding them. The links are there for human consumption, they’re there in some basic form or another on all of his websites as a sort of global network-wide header and footer.

If scrivs had those links set to the same color as the background, or had a layer over the top of them so they were hidden in some other way, sure, that’d be spamming. But he doesn’t. And actually he seems to be missing a couple of sites… where’s the betfest link, scrivs? That’s my manager’s favorite website. lol
Brian

March 31st, 2005 at 6:05 pm
17

Hey, I click those links. The 9rules network is cool, and it’s about to get even cooler!
Anil

April 1st, 2005 at 12:04 pm
18

As far as the Six Apart thing, it didn’t come down to their licensing fees for me, it came down to the fact that the license stated (at the time, and still might) that they could force you to delete your copy of Movable Type, and you had to comply with that. I could not recommend Movable Type for any sort of commercial or serious use with that clause. I thought it was crazy to accept a license that forced you to be at the whim of it’s creators.

Say wha…? I don’t think that’s ever been in there. There was a lot of misinformation spread after we changed our licensing, but I hadn’t heard this particular bit.
Rust

April 1st, 2005 at 12:57 pm
19

Your article starts off by breaking a cardinal rule of reporting - you are “assuming” that you know what’s going on based on limited information.

Someone who actually cared about this situation would not assume the worst. They would have waited for Matt’s response (which was just posted a few minutes ago on his site) and used *both* sides of the story to form an opinion. You know, something based on knowledge instead of assumption.

Why do blogs have a bad name in so many communities? It’s because that while many bloggers wish to be taken seriously (to some extent, at least) as reporters, they the worst kind of reporter - willing to stoke the flames and jump feet-first into anything without researching their topics properly. Real reporters never assume.
Scrivs

April 1st, 2005 at 1:24 pm
20

I assumed that they got paid to place articles on their site. I assumed they were using a cloaking technique. I assumed that many open source projects thrive by using other methods of generating revenue.

That’s what I stated in the entry. I wasn’t reporting, I was giving my opinion. I can assume all I want then. Were those assumptions facts though? I think so.
Scrivs

April 1st, 2005 at 1:37 pm
21

Hell, after reading his response I stick even closer to what I said.

Rust, I didn’t demean or degrade him in anyway. I said he is a nice guy. Everyone seems to love him which is a brand I definitely don’t have, so maybe your comment is the type that doesn’t lend bloggers credibility. I didn’t know that I was trying to be a journalist anyways. Thanks for letting me know.
Nicole

April 1st, 2005 at 4:49 pm
22

I just read his response. I have a lot of opinions on this matter, but honestly I don’t care that much about it one way or the other. Yes, the posted articles struck me as odd and somwehat deceitful. However, it doesn’t seem worth ruining a good European vacation over.
Nicole

April 1st, 2005 at 10:16 pm
23

Just came across this. Ouch. (Okay, I laughed. But only a little.)