Salon, Nearly No Money and Ultramercials 441
Adam9 writes "As Salon fights for survival, they have introduced a new advertising program that allows you to receive a free 12 hour pass by clicking through about 10 seconds of advertisements. Currently, the advertisements are from Mercedes-Benz. According to the article, they've lost about $79.7 million from their start in 1995. They also have about 45,000 subscribers right now." Jamie also pointed out this article from the WSJ, as well as the words from Salon themselves about it.
Re:They don't know how to make business (Score:4, Insightful)
- Start up
- Get lots of subscribers
- Sell out or IPO
Like in poker, they held a bad hand too long, and now they're dead. Big deal.They have no chance in hell (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Most advertisers won't allow this... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Too Liberal (Score:4, Insightful)
Because god knows there aren't any outlets for conservatives anywhere else in the media.
Liberal media (Score:3, Insightful)
Wake, work, pick up the kids, watch Friends, chat on AOL, sleep - repeat. Not much time left in that equation to develop a curiousity about politics (or the world in general, outside of your hometown and what you see on CNN).
No Great Loss (Score:1, Insightful)
So in short, I won't be shedding too many tears over their demise, as there are a lot more online journals out-there, including some meta ones [aldaily.com] that have always been better anyway.
Too Conservative (Score:4, Insightful)
The remarkable thing about Salon is that it has actually broken a number of stories over the last half-dozen years. There are frequent examples of excellent writing (not all of it). Many people of influence keep track of what the journal is saying. That's quite an accomplishment, and a good deal more expensive to achieve than your average on-line reader-driven news clipping service (ahem).
I would not encourage them to try to be all things to all people, if such a thing were possible. Certainly there could be editorial improvements, but nothing would turn Salon into a fount of wealth. The fundamental problem is the as-yet unestablished business model for this kind of thing. Others are watching Salon cast about for the answer -- the magazine is even polling its readers' opinions -- to learn from their success or failure.
I finally did subscribe to Salon relatively recently -- I *hope* they don't go bankrupt! If they do, it will foretell decreased access to the online versions of traditional press, the failure of other online forums, and pressure on the rest to somehow raise profitability by increasing annoying advertising or other schemes. Despite it's far lower overhead,
Ask not for whom the bell tolls....
Debt, Writing and Survivability (Score:5, Insightful)
So I have to ask, was the 80M in debt really necessary? Personally, I like Salon, and it is one of only three news sites in my bookmarks (along with the BBC [bbc.co.uk] and the aforementioned Alternet.org), and I am a subscriber to their premium service. But the idea that writers won't write unless they're paid is a lot like the RIAA saying people won't make songs if they can't !@#$ you in the butt for $16.99/cd. Just doesn't make any sense. But it sure seems to make sense to Salon:
"The greatest weakness of Internet users -- all of us -- is our failure to recognize the value of intellectual property. Of course we love free access to information -- the more the better. For years, those of us who are information junkies have been like pigs in mud. It has been fun, but those something-for- nothing days are over. There is a difference between the Internet mantra that "information loves to be free" and free information."
There is a large talent pool in the world, Salon. Use it. Big names are nice but big names are why you won't exist in a few years. The notion that talented writers only write if you lob a lot of money at them is just as false for the written word as it is for music.
Re:what you're missing (Score:3, Insightful)
They really went about it the wrong way. For example: There's this one geek news site that seems to be successful winthout any real journalists, real reporters, or even real editors.
Take a page... (Score:3, Insightful)
In other words, targeting specific consumers. Salon is out there covering much of the same material with the same slant as the mainstream media. Sure they do some innovative stuff and take a little more risk, but really not that often.
Re:Too Liberal (Score:3, Insightful)
Anne Coulter actually had a hard time getting her book Slander published, and yet her book became an immediate best seller. Somewhere there is a serious disconnect with marketing people and what they think sells.
The death of News Media as we know it (Score:3, Insightful)
What it will boil down to is journalists will have to actually do something other than play on peoples emotions because the truth i.e. facts will be readily available on the net. The net will allow small time journaliistic talents to be heard on a large scale. As it is today the chances of becoming a notable and famous journalist is smaller than becoming the next Eminem.
I'm personally sick of seeing Ashleigh Banfield on CNN dressed up like an Arab reporting on issues she 1) has no real clue about and 2) probably couldn't give a shit about anyway.
Hasn't anyone been watching CNN? They report the same 2-3 stories all day, everyday. When they have been beaten to death they report them 500 more times until they are sure everyone in America has been brainwashed by it. Then they find 2-3 more stories that are exactly the same but have different faces.
The liberal media is just out of this world these days. Nothing but crying and complaining and pointing fingers at everything and everyone.
The answer is independant media run by people who do it in their spare time. Much like open source software where multiple influences and ideas are used. Right now you have nothing like that in the media, most of the news agencies are run by large corporations (MSNBC anyone?), or are influenced heavily by liberal democrats who care little about real issues.
It's time we took the media into our own hands. There is no reason you can't report what is happening locally on your own webpage. Isn't this largely what slashdot is? It's news contributed by multiple sources for the benefit of it's own contributors. You get back what you put in.
I'll end my rant there.
I like this (Score:5, Insightful)
I just went to salon and read a premium article. Here is my synopsis...
If a 10 second ad can keep salon and their reporters working I'm all for it. The US needs independent journalists. (Even if they sometimes say things you'd rather not hear. Personally I'm offended by something in Salon every single day. If I wasn't, I wouldn't bother to read it.)
Re:In other news... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I wouldn't know (Score:2, Insightful)
Mainstream American media outlets are no more liberal than the megacorps that own them. Is AOL/Time-Warner or Disney caling for the workers to take over the means of production? I don't think so. And journalists are, on average, more conservative on economic issues than most Americans [fair.org].
The myth of the "liberal media" is a successful marketing ploy of the right wing, matched only by their ability to convince average Americans that they are rich (in one poll, 19% of American voters surveyed believed that they fell into the top 1% income bracket [yahoo.com]) and thus should support their plutocratic policies.
Re:Too Liberal (Score:2, Insightful)
On the liberal side you have ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, CNN, the Associated Press (AP), PBS & NPR (taxpayer subsidized), and that doesn't include non-US based international and localized media.
Re:Too Liberal (Score:3, Insightful)
You should try sticking your head out in the world beyond the US political track. Far left my arse.
Or perhaps reading the magazine. With such noted raving lefties like Andrew Sullivan as columnists...
Re:They stayed too far to the left. (Score:3, Insightful)
Are you seriously suggesting that Rush, Ollie North, and the other right wing guys have anything to offer other than attacking? During Clinton's presidency, all they did was attack, all the time screaming about Clinton's sex life? I've haven't read much in Salon that can truly be classified as an 'attack'. Criticism is different than an attack. Read Arianna Huffington's column, you'll get alternatives, not just attacks...
Re:Too Liberal (Score:5, Insightful)
Good God, has the spectrum in the US moved that far to the right?
Salon may be left/center, but I don't recall seeing any articles demanding redistribution of land in the US or violently returning the means of production to the proletariat. Far left is Revolution, my friend, where you don't publish people like David Horowitz, you string them up in the city square.
Far left? Jesus F Christ...
Salon's averageness is its problem... (Score:4, Insightful)
...not its dopey pro-rich-liberal bias or its coastline cliquishnes or its porn-driven, moronically desperate marketing schemes.
And they've gotten more average as they've asked for more money. You can turn on any cable news channel and see Andrew Sullivan and Arianna Huffington saying the same stupid things they say in their Salon columns. Greil Marcus writes for every magazine on earth. Tom Tomorrow and Lynda Barry are more widely syndicated than Seinfeld. Damien Cave's tech columns are no better than your average +4 Interesting
They've fired their best writers (Paglia, for example) to cut costs, and hired utterly average dead-tree columnists (why King Kaufman and Allen Barra instead of, say, Ralph Wiley?--what is this, 1982?), and just flat-out failed to bring in interesting new people who could liven things up (Jim Goad, Nick Gillespie and Justin Raimondo could probably use a few extra bucks from side jobs, for example).
Browse their archives from three to five years ago. The articles were mostly good. They were almost all interesting. Some were even surprising. But they waited until the site degenerated into PBS blandness (plus occasional class-baiting "I Was a Stripper for a Day" and "Trailer-Park Republicans: Whitey in the Wild" bilge and "classy" porn for prissy feminists and self-hating men) to start asking for money.
That--and simple mismanagement--is why they're broke. And they deserve it. "Lilies that fester..."
Re:I will NEVER buy a Mercedes again. (Score:2, Insightful)
You dorealize that Ford bought Volvo? So only buy Volvo if you now want a piece of american shite.
Re:Too Liberal (Score:1, Insightful)
AM radio talk shows
Quick, name three nationally syndicated left-wing AM radio talk show hosts!
ABC, CBS, NBC
I suppose you could argue that a couple anchors are "left-wing".
The weekly policy shows are dominated by conservatives. ie: This Week, Meet the Press. Featured guests and "Experts" tend to be conservative more often than not.
MSNBC, CNN
Both of which are dominated by right-wing hosts.
PBS & NPR
Haven't been watching lately, have you? Again, the policy & news shows are predominantly conservative or business centric.
Newspapers? The vast majority(60-40) endorsed Bush in 2000.
I've noticed that convservatives seem to think anything that's not heavily tilted to the right is "left-wing."
Re:How did they lose $80 million? (Score:3, Insightful)
Can anyone make basic sense of this?
Dead-tree opinion magazines (Score:2, Insightful)
I think most of the opinion magazines operate on profit margins ranging from slim to negative and are at least partially reliant on the kindness of wealthy owners or public grants. National Review has William F. Buckley, The Weekly Standard is the pet project of the Kristol family, The American Prospect got bailed out by Bill Moyers [commondreams.org] a couple years back, Harper's has had a several near-death experience [harvard.edu], Paul Newman and Robert Redford are co-owners [movieclub.com] of The Nation, and gazillionaire Mort Zuckermain bailed out The Atlantic Monthly from a severe deficit. Even the popular market is awfully tough -- just ask Oprah or Rosie, or the people who used to run Jane and Sassy.
All of the opinion mags above target roughly the same demographic as Salon (if not necessarily the same ideologies), and all have equivalent- or higher-quality writing, established reputations, and an existing subscriber base to draw from. The surprising thing is that anyone ever thought Salon's business model would surpass them.
Re:Hmmm.... (Score:3, Insightful)
The "National Socialist" name was propagandistic, dumbass. The Nazis needed all the political leverage they could get in the twenties. Hitler figured people would be dumb enough to fall for this, and he was right. In fact people still fall for it even today.
It's like the "Recording Industry Artists of America". Don't believe everything you read.
Re:what you're missing (Score:3, Insightful)
Slashdot works fine when somebody is already writing about the topic of interest and is willing to give their material away for "free" (meaning free or with ads).
Salon (and every other decent magazine) pays people to write new material. Sure, they have stuff from an AP feed, but I can get an AP feed anywhere. What I'm buying with my subscription to Salon (or, say, The Economist) is that new material.
That material costs money to produce and more money to edit. That money has to get to the writers and editors somehow. How would you suggest?
Re:Too Liberal (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't even mind some bias in what I read; hell, Slashdot is very biased (though I happen to agree with most (but not all!) of /.'s leanings...). But Salon went way too far with it. Many of their articles just seemed like flamebait to me, arguing for the sake of promoting the writer's ideology to the exclusion of all logic or sense.
Maybe I'd like Salon more if I were a serious far-lefter, but I'm pretty moderate on most issues. And for that reason I prefer to get my news in a way that is at least somewhat impartial. I mean, I want to be able to still seperate factual content from the writer's bias when I'm reading between the lines, and Salon just makes that difficult because the bias is so extreme. I used to read Salon a lot but it got to the point where I felt like most of the articles contained at least one blatent lie. That was too much and I quit visiting.