Sporting News/AOL Fanhouse

I don't know anybody who still pays for AOL who uses broadband, let's put it that way.

 

I did until this week. I didn't have a smartphone, so I had the 11.99 plan in case I ever needed dialup, which I did for a couple of assignments a year.
When I got an android this week and down loaded the PDAnet app, one of the first things I did was ditch the paid plan and go to free AOL mail.

 

I pay the $11.99 also . It allows extra storage for old e-mail which I need to access from time to time.

 

I still use the proprietary software, and until early this year, I had the 11.99 plan as well. I had it for backup purposes and in case I ever needed dialup in a hotel. I haven't needed it at home, and I haven't been at a hotel that didn't have Internet access for a while now, so I dumped the 11.99 plan -- but I still use the AOL proprietary software now and then.

 

Do they still have chatrooms?

[/crossthreading the dusted off porn thread]

 

Well, the serious answer is yes..

 

In my inbox from AOL corporate this AM...

 

You're missing the entire point of the business transaction. None of the Sporting News folks is expecting you to suddenly starting going to sportingnews.com, or whatever the URL is. Instead, it's all about having people who are already on AOL being driven to the equivalent of AOL Sports, which right now is Fanhouse.

Make no mistake: If Fanhouse had been started as a stand-alone apart from AOL it would have crashed and burned in six months. It's 2.9 million or so unique visitors are a direct result of its being embedded within AOL. How many people do you think would be going to Fanhouse without the AOL connection? Again, this isn't about "the brand." It's about the AOL traffic.

 

But Cigar56, you can "drive" people to something all you want, but if they come to dislike that as their destination, they aren't going to keep getting on the bus, right?

Just because NBA puts a show on doesn't mean that it inherits and keeps all the ratings from Seinfeld or 30 Rock. If that show is inferior, people stop tuning in. If AOL users like SN content less than they liked Fanhouse, they'll stop clicking through in the same numbers. They aren't captives. (Maybe the codgers are, the ones still paying AOL for monthly access). If you start landing on sports programming that isn't as good as you've been getting, you'll stop seeking it out and maybe even deal some backlash to those who watered down the soup.

 

Pretty spot on column in Tech Crunch ( owned by AOL) on ominous prospects for future of AOL.
Includes two interesting quotes from Auletta article:

“AOL does not seem to be saving journalism, and journalism does not yet seem to be saving AOL…. The company has hired many talented journalists… much of what AOL publishes, though is piffle…”

Uh oh.

“Perhaps Tim Armstrong will be able to make AOL rise again, but there’s a much more common path followed by digital companies – like Wang, DEC, Starwave, Excite, and Lycos. They rise, then they sputter, and then they crash.”

http://techcrunch.com/2011/01/23/theres-no-i-in-tim/

 

What I took away from it is that people like quality, but don't search it out. I'm all for the curation aspect of news websites, as long as it's good curation instead of linkbait.

 

I took away from it that people will pay for quality and simplicity. I do. Pay for The Times/ New Yorker/ and even Tech Crunch for Kindle.