Problems at Patch.com

If it moves to a content-mill site where quantity is valued over quality, I want it to fail.

 

Thanks for digging up that quote, Stitch, to back me up.

This. Demand Studios and everyone on elance already puts enough crap online.

Bravo, lono, on the pic.

 

Don't knock a content mill until you've tried it. I paid for my Christmas gifts, all of them, through my Demand Studios work. And I didn't spend too much time on any of the articles. Money is money.

 

Sounds like Lean Dean's next protegé.

 

It would seem these Patch sites are hit or miss. I talked extensively with a RE about a job but decided not to pursue. I also talked about a regional sports guy, and I think they have gone about sports wrong. Sports sites locally have to do the gutter stuff like little league, youth sports as well as get info on every high school game. The site should run local roundups and during big games, make people know you will have a story up first.

As far as advertising, it would seem they put editorial in place first before advertising. This would mean the product is off the ground before the ad business. If they can get through start-up there is potential. But, it's an awfully big outlay for a public corporation.

Think of the potential though. AOL, if used correctly, would have reporters an editors in thousands of towns. You would assume a breaking news story would then get shifted up onto the AOL main page and they could syndicate that local coverage. I would assime eventually there would be more connectedness.

Right now, every patch site seems to be its own independent operation. That's good in a sense it is local, but poor for branding. Also, many of the sites are just too soft news wise. This is where a RE has to crack the whip.

 

The fact that people keep talking about how different each site is in terms of content, quality, staffing, budgets, salary, etc. is, to me, just one more sign that it will fail.

A well run company would have consistency across the country. Patch doesn't, and I'm sure it's not for a lack of trying. It's because they're unable to do it.

 

Actually, I think they're doing a good job when it comes to sports at least around here -- and around here, they have a number of stringers who get it. The only way they're going to build up audience through word-of-mouth marketing (which seems to be their strategy) is by having their folks everywhere.

And that is their main problem. The regional editors seem to take a hands-off approach with their local editors, at least in this neck of the woods. I think part of the problem, too, is that some of the areas they've chosen to homestead are very, very tiny and have little to no geographic identity.

 

Sure, but at this point, you could practically say that about some local papers.

For now, they're paying people OK wages, at least compared to a lot of other shops. And they're trying to do it right, hiring folks with experience where they can. We can have our doubts as to whether the business folks have their ducks in a row, but again, where do you NOT have that concern? The BBC is a financial clusterbleep, and I sure as hell wouldn't turn down a job there.

 

The BBC's future is secure, long-term, thanks to the license fee. The Conservatives never have been fans of the BBC, so they relish cutting its budget.

Much different than the state of the business here in America.

 

As a whole, yes. You might not feel the same if you were working for one of their lesser-known operations. (Or maybe a foreign-language broadcast on the World Service.)

 

Then it comes down to whether you just want to output crap for living or be journalist. Shoveling out crap all day isn't my cup of tea.