Problems at Patch.com

oop -- from the two threads it is clear you have an emotional and perhaps financial stake in the well-being of Patch. But there is near unanimity of opinion among analysts, experts, executives, laymen -- basically anyone you can find who doesn't work for AOL or Patch -- that the thing is a wounded cub that will survive only as long as some kind soul wants to keep spoonfeeding it. The world might all be wrong and you might be right, but based on AOL's history in general and Tim Armstrong's demonstrated cluelessness, I know where the smart money leans.

 

"Also, you are assuming a lot about the finances without any real knowledge of what they are and what the plan is."

My, you certainly are one for making inferences, aren't you? Here is a fact: You do not know me, and you have no knowledge of what my level of insight is regarding Patch's finances or it's plan. Got that?

And since you question my level of insight, consider this:

1. Patch has had massive all-hands meetings via conference call with the entire editorial organization regarding budget cuts.
2. Follow up conference calls by region have ensued.
3. Budgets for freelance spending have been cut drastically across the board.
4. Editors are still working 6-7 days in many markets.
5. Few of the sites are attracting enough advertising to show a profit.

Things could always turn around, but at this point the only difference in Patch and the Titanic is that the Titanic had a band.

 

So they are giving up on local sports coverage?

That seems like one of the areas where they actually could have gotten Web hits.

I'm perplexed.

 

Patch has massive, all-hands conference calls every time one of the higher-ups wipes his ass.

 

Obvious because I'm arguing? You really haven't been paying attention to my posts on this site, have you?

Here's a hint: I argue like this about shit that I have no attachment to all the time, usually because I have no tolerance for people who can't get their facts right or simply don't have any in the first place.

Honestly, I don't know what to think of Patch's future. I think perhaps they rushed out into as many markets as they could without having a fully-developed plan and now you are seeing some corrections. They certainly haven't marketed the thing at all, relatively speaking.

 

So you're this worked up about Patch without any vested interest? I see now, you just see this is the way to give the small-market media outlets a chance to compete, and really the New York Times should have to kick down to the Schenectady Patch site. (Yes I have been paying attention. Go NFL team that made the Super Bowl without a rapist quarterback!)

 

Now you are starting to get it. Maybe you aren't as slow as I thought.

 

What is your analysis? You've disagreed with those who say Patch doesn't have a chance, but what is its key to success.

For me, the problems are numerous. The quality of Patch sites varies from decent to worse than a rag community paper, there is little marketing behind the network, editors are overworked, there are a lot of Patch sites without ads and I don't know how it can make a profit with ad sales maxed out, and the future is dictated by Armstrong's attention span.

But we're the ones who don't know what we're talking about.

 

"Patch has massive, all-hands conference calls every time one of the higher-ups wipes his ass."

Massive all-hands conference calls to discuss expense budgets being switched from annual to quarterly? Oh, OK.

 

Patch did have an open bar, so I'm told, for a convention, so everything is fine and dandy.

 

My point was that you were acting as if it was such a rare thing to have an all-hands call. I've been told they do it about once a week. Again, those darn facts getting in your way.

Stitch, I never said that Patch is going to succeed. I said that the "evidence" doesn't really exist. It's just a lot of speculation from people who don't know what they are talking about.

Kind of like I get into arguments with the Cubs fans on here when they accuse Albert Pujols of using steroids when they have no evidence at all, just wishfull speculation. What I don't understand is why so many people on a site for journalists seem so happy about the possible demise of a company that is actually hiring.