Problems at Patch.com

Does Patch market itself as journalism? If they do, they fail.

Journalism has certain standards. By any definition, Patch fails to meet those standards. (And look, MLB.com fails to meet them too, though I don't think they'd assign mommy to cover Timmy's major League debut.)

You might find an interesting, even well researched, article on Patch. Maybe they'll "scoop" the "competition" on a story about the local prom. Does that make it a journalistic endeavor?

Not for me. I can find interesting well researched articles in Specialty Coffee, Roast or Barista magazines. I still wouldn't call any of them journalistic endeavors.

 

But the problem is Patch is trying to tap into a market that cares about its community enough to go to the site on a fairly regular basis and those people, the ones that care enough to check the site, are the people who care about what's going on in that town regarding the council and school committee meetings.

I'll agree with you that traditional news outlets botched their launch online. But at some point Patch is going to have to be either 1.) A news source with legit reporters breaking legit stories that is respected as a journalistic entity or 2.) An entertainment source with the occasional news story anchored by "reporting" from anyone willing to pick up a pen and paper.

If they go Option 1, they have to change the things they're currently doing in a lot of markets and hire actual professionals, or people who at least are going to play pretend. That's the only way you gain respect as a legit news organization. If they go Option 2, and there's nothing wrong with that if that's what they decide, they'll never flourish as much as they could because people in the know won't check the site because it's, in their eyes, a waste of time.

This is all my opinion, of course. I'm just saying what I think and what I've observed being somewhat tied into a community competing with a Patch site that tries to be both.

 

This. I've haven't heard of anyone being turned down as a stringer, so while some of the stuff is pretty good on the sites I write for, a lot of it is pretty cringe-worthy.

 

The main thing is the hiring of local editors is uneven. Just because someone can write an SEO-friendly headline or shoot a video does not mean they should be in charge of a website that claims it'll be the town's primary news source.

I've noticed the better local editors are the ones who actually had some experience in the journalism world before being hired. There are some good kids right out of college, but most of them really need some time being someone's employee, instead of being everyone's boss.

 

And schiez says nobody is trying to lump all of the Patch sites together? YankeeFan is doing just that, and he is doing it from a position of ignorance.

 

I never said no one was trying to lump them together. What I said was "I don't think there's been that much of a push to lump every Patch site together."

Just because one person says they're all the same doesn't mean that's the consensus of this discussion. If it was, that would be stupid as there are (I'm sure) some Patch sites doing quality work.

 

The group lumping all of the Patch sites together is all of the Patch sites. That's what they do by carrying the brand name. If it is possible anywhere on the Patch network to have a mom covering her son's tennis match, it calls into question all of the content on the Patch network, because that is a decision about editorial philosophy.

 

So, one editor makes a bad decision and the entire network is flawed? Ridiculous. Not surprising given how desperately some people here want to slam Patch, but still ridiculous.

 

Does Patch continue to employ the editor? Could the editor continue to cover her son's matches? If the answer to those questions is yes, then it goes from being one bad decision to a management directional philosophy. Also, Patch is starting from a different place than the New York Times or ESPN.com or the local newspaper. Those places carry whatever credibility they've built up over decades or centuries. Lapses reduce that credibility, but since they're a known commodity they're going to be trusted more. Patch doesn't have that luxury.

 

LTL is right. Patch may be many sites, but it's only one brand.

If American Airlines was a terrible airline to fly out of LA on, it wouldn't make a difference if there service out of Chicago was good.

Starbucks has to offer consistent service in all of their stores because a bad experience in one store reflects poorly on the whole brand.

Hotel brands -- Marriott, Sheraton, etc. -- will take their name off of a property if the owners don't maintain the standards of their brand.

So yes, mommy covering little Timmy's game ruins the entire brand. That's how it works in every business.

The fact that mommy still works there just compounds it.

 

Here's the problem. According to this memo, they're bringing the piece-rate into the newsroom. Sorry Arianna, but journalism isn't a widget...

http://streetfightmag.com/2011/05/18/memo-from-patch-eic-more-articles-more-uvs/

 

To recap:

1. One gamer of a daily network-wide output of thousands of stories was written by the mother of a participant (and readable, at that).

2. Patch discovers that increasing posts increases readership.

Stop the presses. And get over your fucking selves.