Q&A Friday #42 Have You Thought About Getting A Partner?
Question: “Have you ever thought of doing a “partner site with another Blogger, Such as RTG, or possibly a “Hannity and Combes” type site with you and a Liberal Blogger posting side by side article on the same subjects?” — Don_cos
“I second Don_cos suggestion. That would be an interesting read.” — JonW
Answer: To me, having a partner would mean squabbles over money, content, and editorial control of the blog. So, I have no interest in getting in a partner for RWN.
On the other hand, there are a couple of concepts I’ve thought about that could include partnering up with other bloggers.
Remember Conservative Grapevine? It was sort of like Fark for Conservative political blogs. It was just one line for each entry, 10-12 entries per day, featuring the best material from right-of-center bloggers for the day.
It was a great concept, a great way to drive traffic to RWN, and a great way to drive traffic to other blogs. It was staying steady at 1200-1500 hits a day as well. But, I just didn’t have the time to do it. I have toyed with the idea of getting a couple of partners, resurrecting that website, and splitting the money three ways. However, it could be harder to do that than it sounds. How do you determine that the other people aren’t slacking or just promoting their friends? How do you split the money? Just 1/3 each or should it be based on links? It wasn’t so simple.
The other idea I had was doing a blog sort of like The Corner, but featuring small bloggers, at something like www.gaggle.rightwingnews.com. The idea would be for it to be sort of an ongoing conversation/group of short blog posts. If I were to get something like this going, I could drive traffic to the site via RWN and it would be helpful for smaller bloggers trying to promote themselves.
Is either of these ideas currently in the works? No. Right now, I’m staying busy working on RWN and prepping my weekly Human Events. But, in the future? I might be open to getting one of these two blog ideas going.