Problems at Patch.com

True that.

Like it or not, the sooner each of us come to grips with the fact that we're all self-employed these days, the happier we will be.

 

And a smart, aggressive college grad is a good thing. I'm sure she would be a solid hire.

But who is going to guide her, help her answer questions that don't come up in class discussions, show her how to write better, set the example of how to be a good employee, tell her stories of past situations and how they were handled, etc.?

Young journalists, even the really good ones, need daily guidance. They will not get it as lone editors of a Patch site.

 

"No doubt. I'm just saying that Cigar using the hiring of more people as a bad thing is kinda silly."

Actually, I never said such a thing. What I did say is that the Patch local editors have more work that they can do, and rather than expanding into new markets Patch will have to provide backup for the existing local editors. The job posting for associate local editors -- who will back up the local editors -- supports my theory.

I have no idea how my pointing that out can be associated with "hiring more people ... is kinda silly."

 

That's not what he said.

 

Are you really arguing now that you didn't point it out as a bad thing? It sure seemed like you thought it was.

 

Far be it for me to speak for someone else, but my impression was that he was saying the fact that they feel the need to hire these associate editors is a bad thing, in that it suggests they underestimated just how much of a workload would be heaped upon the local site editors and now have to throw even more money at the sites in order to keep from burning out their current employees.

Now, there's an argument on both sides of that, I imagine. But, given the current questions about how they can financially make this venture work with its current expense levels, I'd say it's not unreasonable to say them having to add another full-time staffer to these sites that are probably losing money already might not be a good sign.

 

"Are you really arguing now that you didn't point it out as a bad thing? It sure seemed like you thought it was. "

If I thought the hiring of more people for Patch was a bad thing I would have said it in the first sentence.

Once more: I said AOL planned poorly for Patch initially, resulting in overworked local editors. Overworking people as you ask them to work 6 or 7 days a week, is a bad thing. My post went on to note that AOL is trying to make things right by adding more staff. I never said that adding more staff was a bad thing. You drew that inference.

 

The purge is underway in my neck of the woods. Word is all local Patch sites are drastically cutting their sports coverage.

How much are they cutting, you ask? They're going from a gamer or two every day to one gamer PER WEEK..if that. Then maybe some sort of weekly roundup on how the local teams did for the week, but that's not set in stone. This is of course being done because they're 86'ing almost all their freelance sports writers and the guy who was the "Regional Sports Editor" was laid off last week.

 

Given your approach to Patch on this thread, it was a fair inference to take.

I think what Patch did was rush out into as much of the market as possible and it is constantly adapting. Also, you are assuming a lot about the finances without any real knowledge of what they are and what the plan is.

 

Patch is bleeding money. That's a given. The question is how long will AOL prop up a site that pays a lot of money for content for little revenue. I wonder if Engadget generates more revenue than Patch?

 

They plan to sell ads to pay for their expenses. Most of us are at least passingly familiar with that business model.

 

So, you are determined to continue to talk out of the wrong end of your anatomy. Got it.