Problems at Patch.com

Three million visitors see Patch. Not a big number.

 

As someone who works for Patch, I'm reluctant to get into this, but here goes...

1) I make more than $35k and less than $45k, the range cited by pretty much everyone in this thread except JStar. I have no idea when he/she interviewed - maybe it was last year. But I don't know of anyone making LESS than what I'm making. I do know of people making more for cost of living reasons (someone on/near Long Island).

2) I work about 40 to 50 hours a week. Yes, I've heard the horror stories about 60+ hours a week, but at least in my region, I think my workload is pretty typical. Part of the problem stems from Patch hiring plenty of people who don't really have any management experience. Although it was just a college newspaper, I did run one at one point, which at least gives you a taste for managing weekly assignments and long-term planning. Also, at every previous journalism shop I've worked at (this is my fifth company), there is at least one poor bastard who wants to do every single story under the sun and who works 60+ hours, regardless of whether he/she gets paid for it. Meaning, I think people working well, WELL more than 40 hours a week is an unfortunate industry-wide problem.

3) Because it is essentially a risky online journalism start-up, I imagine that is why it skews a lot toward recent college graduates. I'm 26, and left a job I was making $12 an hour at for 30 to 45 hours a week, splitting between sports and news coverage. Frankly, even with all the downsizing, it hadn't been hard for me to find freelancing or entry-level work, but it is now really hard to find that intermediate step between "full-time reporter at entry level" and "on salary as an editor."

4) Sports coverage is being de-emphasized in several regions because the money expanded isn't really worth the reward (hits) in most cases. I don't really find this surprising - At least in my area, two local weeklies do a good job with sports. I find most paper's sports sections to be pretty solid to good, at least vs. what the news section is doing. (I should note though that I've never spent much of my budget on sports, since I just do most of it myself.) There is less room for hits in sports coverage vs. something underserved. I definitely understand it's not sexy to cover, say, the middle school holiday concert, but it's the kind of thing the weeklies near me don't touch.

5) It's a catch-22 with the numbers and stats, since I can't release what I get. And even if I did, would you believe me? I mean, I am drawing a paycheck from AOL / Patch, after all. Looking at what the NY Times had in their story, I imagine their numbers are either 1) from late November, when only a fraction of the current sites were up or 2) only took into account traffic going to Patch.com, or didn't encapsulate all of the UVs going to the various xxx.patch.com domains.

 

C'mon man. There's a vast difference between JStar's post and YNWA's posts.

 

Not my point. We've seen the little digs at people for jumping in to support Patch. Now we have somebody jumping in to take the other side.

 

Greenwell's been pretty honest and straight forward with his experiences, and most of what he's saying, I've seen/heard.

I'm really surprised sports is not drawing many eyeballs, though. Maybe not in small towns where you're at, sg, because preps are well covered by the weeklies. There are a lot of urban areas, though, where I'd think Patch would get a lot of hits with sports coverage.

 

So, show me some numbers. You can't talk about how reasonable the rates are and not tell me what my cost per view or cost per click is.

Cheap advertising that no one sees is worthless.

Right. In many markets -- including the ones Patch is in -- local TV and radio ads are more than affordable for advertisers. And, radio will produce the spots for you or have the talent do a live read. Hell, radio will broadcast from your car dealership for a couple of extra bucks.

 

If Patch's business model is to target affluent suburbs, but they have a residency requirement to live within 10 minutes of your coverage area, how do they expect people to live on $35-45K? Those things don't add up.

 

Why is that their problem?

 

Because their residency requirements are almost mutually exclusive with their salary offerings.

 

They don't seem to be having a problem finding people to work for them.

 

In Minnesota, a $40K salary in the suburbs can get you a good apartment or house rental. Compared to most newspaper openings, Patch pays more. That's not the issue. It's whether the expense can continue with no real idea when the network will turn a profit.

 

And $40K in some of the Patch communities in my area and you're eating off the dollar menu most of the month. I get that it depends on cost of living in the area.

But I don't get the "you must live in a ritzy suburb and we'll pay you half the median income" thing.