PAANO KA KUMIKITA AS A BLOGGER?

Someone asked me recently, “Paano ka kumikita as a blogger?”

I understand why the question was asked. When you tell people you run a Facebook page, write regularly, produce content, maintain a website and spend a good part of your day doing all of that, the natural assumption is that you are a content creator. Content creators are supposed to earn from their content.

The expected answer is probably Facebook monetization, advertising, sponsorships, subscriptions and donations. Yes, those are part of the answer.

Here is the honest version. Morning Coffee Thoughts currently earns enough to keep operating from month to month. It helps pay for research, the website, software, subscriptions and production. It does not earn enough to give its creator a comfortable living or real financial security.

The question made me think about something I have known for quite some time. There are probably easier ways to earn more money from a political page. The price may be the independence that made the page valuable in the first place.

“NAKADIKIT KASI KAY GANITO”

I have a friend who sometimes tells me stories about people we both know.

“Dalawa na ang kotse niyan. Laging nagbabakasyon.”

Then the explanation comes almost naturally: “Nakadikit kasi kay ganito.”

The “ganito” is a politician.

I want to be careful. I have not seen those people’s finances, and I have no evidence that they received anything illegal. Being associated with a politician is not proof of corruption. What stays with me is how casually political proximity is offered as an explanation for prosperity, sometimes almost as an achievement. Parang mahusay siyang dumiskarte because he figured out which politician to attach himself to.

Whenever I hear conversations like that, I compare them with what I chose to do with MCT.

There is legitimate money in politics. Campaigns hire communications staff and consultants. Advertising agencies handle political accounts. Content creators may legally endorse candidates for compensation, subject to election and disclosure rules. None of those arrangements automatically makes anyone corrupt.

Paid political influence online is also a documented industry. Researchers Fatima Gaw and Aries Arugay identified approximately 1,425 influencer accounts across Facebook, YouTube, TikTok and Twitter that showed indicators of participation in influence operations during the 2022 Philippine elections. Their research describes influencers being selected for their social capital, meaning the audience and credibility they have built, as well as their previous performance and political notoriety. It also describes a gray area between ordinary political participation and commissioned political influence.

COMELEC has also recognized the role of online content in campaign spending. Resolution No. 11109, issued for the May 2025 elections and succeeding national and local elections, covers influencers, content creators, blogs, vlogs, podcasts, memes and social-media posts. It creates a presumption of paid service when a person openly promotes a candidate or party during the campaign. The rule exempts relatives of the candidate within the second civil degree. The presumption alone does not prove that every endorsement is paid. It shows that election regulators now treat online political promotion as something that can have monetary value and should be included in campaign-finance disclosure.

LOYALTY IS A POLITICAL CURRENCY

If your rule is to criticize the bad and acknowledge the good, you are a poor political investment. Readers may find that reassuring. A political camp may find it risky.

Suppose I agree with a politician today. Tomorrow, that politician does something dishonest or indefensible. MCT’s principle requires criticism. If the politician’s opponent does something right the following week, the same principle requires an honest acknowledgment.

A political camp paying for loyalty usually wants predictability. It wants to know who will defend its candidate during a controversy, repeat its message, attack an opponent or remain silent when silence is useful. An independent page cannot promise any of that.

Readers can expect MCT to apply its own standards. No politician can expect permanent protection from MCT. If I were running a campaign, I would understand the risk of spending heavily on a commentator who might criticize my candidate tomorrow.

That would make me a terrible propagandist. It is also the kind of commentator I want to remain.

THEY WANTED THE AUDIENCE

MCT has received approaches and offers from people associated with different political camps. I am not naming them because this article is not an accusation against any specific person, and I am not alleging that every offer was illegal.

Those conversations taught me something. MCT had already spent years finding readers, earning their attention, surviving platform changes and building enough credibility for people to return. A political operator looking at the page could see an audience already gathered in one place.

There is nothing wrong with paying for clearly identified advertising space. Sponsors have supported MCT before, and businesses buy advertising every day. A proper advertisement pays for space and access to an audience. It does not buy control over the surrounding editorial work.

As I understood them, some approaches went further than advertising. The conditions would have affected whom I could criticize, whom I should protect, what I should say or what I should ignore. Accepting that arrangement would mean selling editorial loyalty.

An official campaign page praising its own politician has limited persuasive value because the source is obvious. Praise from a page that appears independent carries more weight. The value comes from using a voice the audience already trusts.

That trust does not belong to me alone. Readers built it with their time and attention. I have no right to quietly rent it out while continuing to present the page as independent.

MONEY IS PART OF THE PROBLEM

This is not a sermon about money being dirty. MCT needs money.

Research, software, subscriptions, equipment, website maintenance and production all cost money. A Facebook post may look simple when it reaches a reader, but the work behind it has become more complicated and more expensive.

Even established media organizations struggle with the economics of online publishing. A 2025 Philippine Institute for Development Studies report said that the movement of audiences and advertising online had not produced sustainable operations for many local newsrooms. They continued to face rising production costs, declining print revenue and the expense of moving fully online. MCT is a personal advocacy rather than a newsroom. It faces a smaller version of the same basic problem: a large digital audience does not automatically generate enough income to pay for the work serving that audience.

MCT has donors, sponsors and readers who have given money because they want the work to continue. Some have given a little, some have given more and some businesses have provided support. Others help by sharing articles and introducing the page to people I could not reach on my own. I am deeply grateful for all of it. Without that support, some of what MCT does today would not be possible.

Support is welcome. Ownership is not for sale. A donation does not purchase my opinion, and sponsorship does not give anyone editorial control.

This reader-supported model has limits. I cannot return to the same people whenever costs increase and expect them to carry the entire operation. A reader may value MCT and still need to pay for food, rent, tuition, medicine and family expenses. A political organization may calculate the value of the same audience differently because influencing that audience can produce a direct political benefit.

The people supporting an independent page usually give because they believe it should exist. The people seeking control over its audience may have a stronger financial reason to spend much more.

MCT IS REACHING A DIFFERENT STAGE

I know MCT has a shelf life. I do not know whether that means two years, five years, ten years or longer. Political attention changes. Audiences change. Facebook can alter an algorithm and disrupt the reach a page spent years building. People may eventually grow tired of hearing from you.

MCT is also operated by one person. It was never built as a media corporation with deep pockets, a permanent endowment or an institution designed to survive its founder.

I think the page is reaching maturity. I do not mean that it is dying. I mean that easy growth is becoming harder, operating costs are more visible and decisions about what happens next carry greater consequences. Growing a page from nothing is one kind of problem. Keeping it useful and sustainable without destroying what people trusted is another.

I understand the temptation. Who does not want financial security, better equipment, researchers, employees and enough money to begin a new project without first asking how to pay for it? I am not morally immune to wanting a comfortable life. I know what I am unwilling to exchange for it.

WHAT EXACTLY AM I TRYING TO GROW?

When I say I want MCT to grow, what do I mean? More followers, reach and revenue would help. So would researchers, editors, a stronger website and enough resources to build projects properly.

Growth cannot be the only measure. MCT could become financially larger while losing its freedom. It could gain access while becoming unable to criticize powerful friends. It could acquire more resources while leaving readers unsure whether an opinion came from me or from whoever was helping pay the bills.

That version might preserve the logo, Facebook page and name. It would not preserve the reason MCT exists.

I chose to run the page this way. Nobody owes me a living because I placed financial restrictions on the advocacy. I have to accept that some projects will take longer and that some ideas may remain unaffordable. MCT may eventually reach the limit of what this model can support.

I can live with that limit more easily than I can live with selling the page’s independence.

SO, PAANO NGA BA AKO KUMIKITA AS A BLOGGER?

The practical answer is Facebook monetization, sponsors, donations, reader support and legitimate opportunities that do not require MCT to surrender editorial control. At present, those sources keep the operation alive from month to month. They do not provide the income needed for a comfortable life or long-term financial security.

There may be better ways to develop this model, and I am still learning them. I could probably earn considerably more by becoming politically useful to the right people. Some political camps have already shown that they see value in the audience.

The most valuable things MCT holds are your attention and your trust. When I criticize someone, you should be able to believe that I think the facts justify it. When I praise someone, the same standard should apply. MCT will sometimes anger people who agreed with it yesterday because no political camp receives permanent protection.

Politically, that makes me unreliable. As an independent blogger, I hope it makes me reliable in the way that counts.

MCT has survived because readers, donors, sponsors and other supporters decided an independent voice was worth helping. Their support is the reason I can think seriously about what comes next. The task now is to make the page sustainable without selling the trust that gave it value.

If MCT has to grow more slowly to remain independent, then that is the path I will take. I would rather protect what readers trust than make the page bigger by surrendering control over what it says.