Problems at Patch.com

I hated mass conference calls I had to deal with when I was an online editor. Too big to really be effective. How often do the LEs meet with their RE as a group?

 

Then into what, pray tell, should we as an industry be sinking time and venture capital if not trying to figure out how to make the Internet work financially?
I'm not supporting Patch so much as the idea of trying something new that just may work and no, I don't work for them. I did take the risk with CoachesAid, which was a disaster and I'm still paying for it financially, but I still think local news/sports can be delivered on the Web by professionals and be profitable. Eventually.
Really, what are the true complaints about Patch? It's a content mill. The product quality varies widely from site to site. It's put many people on the edge of unemployment. Sounds an awful lot like newspapers these days.
Can Internet sites and newspapers coexist? I don't know. Maybe newspapers have to complete their death throes before advertisers truly embrace the web as a medium. Hopefully not. Hopefully, like newspapers and TV, they can coexist and thrive.

 

The fact that I don't have a better idea doesn't prove that Patch is a good idea.

Unlike Patch, (most) newspapers are profitable.

 

Online advertising won't pay the freight. Subscription sites won't work because people don't want to pay for news they can either get elsewhere for free or news they really don't care about.

Paying people $40,000 per year to compile mommy news or open houses in a city isn't wise, and it's not compelling enough to draw subscribers.

 

Varies from region to region. I see mine at least once a week. I'm not really someone who likes to be babysat by an editor though, so that's fine with me. Some of the others in my region like to get together more than that.

 

To play the biased devil's advocate though, most of the sites in my region are not in cities, and most of the information being posted isn't available for free. Yes, I think three or four of the 17 towns have daily newspapers, leaving the other suburban sites with maybe a weekly or two, and the big state daily will throw them a bone maybe once a week. And if you are a local business that wants to advertise online, you don't really have an outlet to do so right now that is targeted at local consumers.

 

All online advertising can be targeted to local customers. I can buy ad space on google or facebook that will only show up to people in my area, and it's not all that hard. In fact, I think most of facebook's revenue comes from local-targeted ads.

 

And now you are resorting to moving the goalposts and deluding yourself. Get out and just find another job? In this market?

It's simple. You and Stitch are rooting for journalists to lose their jobs and that is classless no matter how you or Stitch try to justify it.

 

I'm sorry you see it that way. I tried to explain myself honestly, and I think there's a little more gray area than you're painting.

 

Man, I don't even make the list for classlessness lately?

Anyone who has never, ever rooted for a scenario in which someone would lose a job can cast the stones in this one, but I'm skeptical that any rocks will be flying under that rule.

Of course if the choice is Patch succeeds and Patch fails, then we'd all prefer succeeds (or at least I assume so).

But I don't believe that's a realistic choice. The choice is "Patch fails soon" or "Patch is strung along by AOL venture capital long enough to fool other industry leaders to try to imitate them."

 

I said on one of these threads (it might have been this one) that the end game for Patch.com is being produced by bloggers who probably don't even get a stipend. Maybe the future Patchers and future Bleacher Reporters can get together and swear that if they keep doing shit for free, they'll get paid.

As for the whole rooting for Patch to fail thing, I think it's pretty bad to root for anything related to journalism to fail, no matter the "quality" of ownership, b/c the people who will be out on their asses--quite literally, in some cases--won't be the ones responsible for its failure. If Patch goes under, asshole Armstrong won't be held accountable. Not by any standard any of us can relate to, anyway.

 

I want a high-quality Patch network with good journalism to succeed.

I don't want a site that posts top 10 lists and open houses (framed as editorial instead of advertising) to succeed.