Problems at Patch.com

Working for Patch is what you make it. I say, be selfish! Find great stories that you'll be motivated to work on and do your best work every time. Just because it's "for Patch" instead of the Post, doesn't mean YOU should do any lower quality work. Just pretend whomever is reading your story is forming an opinion about you from that one story and won't go into your archive to find your best stuff. Just because other people are doing sub-par work doesn't mean you should. And don't expect anything will be edited. So do your best self-edit, too.

 

Just make sure you don't spend too much time reporting and writing long articles or editing freelancers.

 

You know, some brands have problems with franchisees meeting their standards. But Patch isn't run by franchisees or outside vendors. They're employees.

So, "Patch: It is what you make it!" Isn't a great brand message.

"Starbucks: It is what you make it!" Would you go there for coffee? Sure, some of them make bad coffee, but your local barista might really bust his ass.

And, I can't wait until McDonald's launches their new motto: "McDonald's: Just because other people are doing sub-par work doesn't mean you should." I'm sure that will improve service.

 

Actually, Patch is very much an entrepreneurial venture, so in fact each site is a reflection of what the individual editor makes it. It's about sweat, brains, toil, dedication and creativity, not pushing the button on an espresso machine.

Now fetch me a grande mocha latte with two shots, beaner.

 

I was writing from a Patch freelancer's point of view. I've written 150 stories since Sept. 25.

 

I'm sorry to burst your bubble again, but this is just not true.

If Patch sites were individually owned and operated, you could make this case. If you bore all the costs of running your site and just licensed the Patch brand for your town, I'd call you an entrepreneur.

Your local True Value hardware store, it's owned by an entrepreneur. Your local RE/MAX real estate agent, she's an entrepreneur.

They pay a fee to license the brand and pay into a national advertising fund. They're not guaranteed a salary. They pay their employees out of their own pocket. They pay the costs of their office/store. Etc. Etc. Etc.

Patch is nothing like that. Patch editors are salaried employees. You don't own your site. Every Patch site is corporately owned and they're owned by a giant company.

You don't pay the bills. Unless I'm mistaken, you don't sell the advertising. And you bear no risk if the site doesn't do well.

 

Except the possible loss of your job. This is too easy.

 

LOL. Yeah, that's the same as the risk born by a small business owner.

Look, describe Patch any way you want, just don't refer it as a journalistic or entrepreneurial enterprise. Those terms have definitions that Patch doesn't meet.

That doesn't mean that there aren't people doing good work. There may very well be.

It's not a personal criticism.

 

Again, though, you can't lump all the sites together. Just because one in Bumf*ck, RI decides to employ little Timmy's mom to write stories on Little Timmy doesn't mean that the Patch site in Bumf*ck, Oh isn't running a solid journalism site.

How you fail to see the merits of individual site owners baffles me and shows you're just biased against the operation as a whole.

 

The sites are individually owned? I thought they were all owned by the mothership and the editors were employees. That distinction cuts to the heart of what YF is saying.

 

schiezainc, if it wasn't for SportsJournalists.com, I'd likely not have heard of Patch until the Huffington Post/AOL deal.

I have no axe to grind and I'm being as objective as I can. In fact, I'd say the people who are a little to close to the situation are the ones having a problem viewing Patch objectively.

Of course I'm lumping the sites together. It's one brand. It's owned by one parent company.

And, if that parent company wanted to have and enforce a rule stating that mommy can't cover little Timmy's events, they would do so. They haven't.

What more needs to be said?

The bosses have sent out a memo emphasizing a priority on quantity of content, not quality. How should an objective person view that?

If one site in Ohio is doing a great job, that really just doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things. It would be happening in spite of the company's goals and objectives, not because of them.

What you're missing is that Patch is a brand. And it's not a brand that stands for journalism.

I'm sorry to be the one to tell you that and I'm sorry that you don't get/care/understand the value of a brand.

 

Precisely.

If the sites are individually owned -- actually owned -- by their operators, then I'm an ass and will take back much of what I've said.

Though, the brand would still have major issues.