Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

WSJ on CraigsList and Zen of Classified Ads 278

prostoalex writes "Wall Street Journal profiles one of the Valley's most mysterious and secretive Web companies. A leader in online classifieds space and by some measures one of Web's top sites, CraigsList is ostensibly anti-ad and anti-self-promotion. From the article: "One industry analyst has estimated that Craigslist could generate 20 times that $25 million just by posting a couple of ads on each of its pages. If the estimate is to be believed, that's half a billion dollars a year being left on the table. What kind of company turns up its nose at $500 million?""
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

WSJ on CraigsList and Zen of Classified Ads

Comments Filter:
  • by American AC in Paris ( 230456 ) * on Monday June 19, 2006 @03:47PM (#15563812) Homepage
    What kind of company turns up its nose at $500 million?

    The kind of company that companies which wouldn't turn up their noses at $500 million doesn't want you to believe exists.

    Companies can exist, thrive and even excel without taking advantage of every opportunity to maximize profit. This sort of company tends to be discomfiting to the type of company which would gladly throw some ads at you for extra revenue.

    Companies like Craigslist and Costco--places that thrive on word of mouth, putting people ahead of profit, and genuine goodwill--tend to make "normal" companies uncomfortable. How do you compete when your competition has justly earned and kept the trust of the marketplace? How are you supposed to "optimize profits" with a consumer who knows what it feels like to be respected?

  • Business Ethics (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Detritus ( 11846 ) on Monday June 19, 2006 @03:53PM (#15563869) Homepage
    That "industry analyst" should tell his wife that "she is leaving thousands of dollars on the table" by not becoming a part-time prostitute.
  • by cavtroop ( 859432 ) on Monday June 19, 2006 @03:53PM (#15563870)
    What kind of company turns up its nose at $500 million

    The kind that likes to keep its readership? How much would viewship go down if they had to be subject to ads? Or how many people will just get adblocking software? I know I already do.

  • by DaveInAustin ( 549058 ) on Monday June 19, 2006 @03:54PM (#15563877) Homepage
    Is it possible that if craigslist didn't offer most ads for free, they wouldn't be where they are today, and they couldn't have cashed in? Was linus turning away millions by not charging $50 a copy for linux? Charging money for all ads on craigslist would be killing the proverbial gold-egg laying goose because it's not producing fast enough.
  • A company... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by esconsult1 ( 203878 ) on Monday June 19, 2006 @03:55PM (#15563893) Homepage Journal
    * that doesn't want the crap politics that happens every day in corp america

    * who genuinely thinks customers come first

    * that wants nothing to do with the power plays in the industry (their power play is right there with their loyal customers!)

    * dont want venture caps knocking on their door

    * who hates the idea that facebook wants 2 Billion for less traffic and prestige than their site

    * who feels that their size is good and right for them, not for wall street.

    * whose leaders and owners can sleep without worries at night

    Have you ever listened to Craig in an interview? Do so, and you'll find 10 more reasons than I cited, easy.
  • "What kind of company turns up its nose at $500 million?" how about a successful one? one with integrity, and one in touch with its user base, and one that wants to stay around?

    people also scoffed at google's little one-line blurb text ads when they came out. are they scoffing now?

    i'm certain there are plenty of guys who would love to put interstitials and flash animation on craigslist. and such people would drive craigslist into the ground. you don't make money on the long term by destroying your user base's allegiance by pissing them off

    so your choice is: make $500 million this year, and much less year and year after that, as your user base abandons you, by putting annoying ads on craiglist. or: make $25 million this year, and keep growing, and stay the place to go to for online classifieds for all time, since you have won and deserve and keep the respect and allegiance of your userbase

    "the customer is always right" ever hear that one? some people just don't get it: they are very shortsighted. they are willing to destroy craigslist's user base for a fast buck, thereby making less money over the long haul. that's a nice sound business sense
  • by RyanFenton ( 230700 ) on Monday June 19, 2006 @03:58PM (#15563920)
    Our economic lives could virtually always be exploited in countless ways if we were willing to do so. Not everyone wants to live their lives in a way to allow them to exploit every "opportunity" that can be imagined. Not everyone really wants to truly maximize the economic value of their lives either. If someone wants to just have a business of their choice without pinching all "opportunities" to fill eyeballs with the paid messages of others, I hardly consider that a tragedy, no matter what kinds of dividends it could pay to the "greater economy". Nor do I consider it a failing of the economic system that competition doesn't force him to do so. I personally would consider that more of a rare victory for the the role of humanity in our economic system - a trend I hope continues at a stronger pace than has been the case for the past few decades in the US.

    Sometimes, just creating a simple system of mutual benefit, and leaving it simple, is of much greater value than the usual constant gamesmanship of economically preditary behavior. Even in the middle of a ruthlessly free market.

    Ryan Fenton
  • by biendamon ( 723952 ) on Monday June 19, 2006 @03:59PM (#15563928)
    They rely on their reputation, and part of that reputation is the lack of annoyances. People buy, sell, and trade there because they don't have to put up with the crap that smothers most commercial websites. If they started selling ad space, their profits would probably experience a temporary spike, followed by a long, slow death as people jumped ship.

    There are other classifieds sites. We don't *have* to go to Craigslist. We go because we want to. If we stop wanting to, then Craigslist dies. Since ads would drive us away, allowing them would be short-term profitable and long-term suicide.
  • Re:A company... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by convolvatron ( 176505 ) on Monday June 19, 2006 @04:01PM (#15563940)
    the kind of company that would probably generate that much
    traffic in the first place.
  • by HardCase ( 14757 ) on Monday June 19, 2006 @04:07PM (#15563988)
    turns up its nose at half a billion dollars? No company. What kind of analyst says that a company like Craigslist can generate half a billion dollars in revenue? An analyst hyping himself, I'd say. Remember analysts who said that the Dow would hit 20,000?

    Maybe it's worthwhile to heap accolades on Craigslist for being a "good" company. Or, just maybe, they're happy with reasonable year over year growth, rather than uncontrollably exploding, not unlike a supernova.

    Besides, it strikes me that if the name of the game is for Craigslist to draw its members to view classifieds on its various sites, then it would be a disservice to those members who advertise on Craigslist to send the viewing members away from the site - even if classifieds are free. I kind of think that the idea of the sort of commercial ads mentioned in the WSJ article probably strays from the Craigslist business model.

    -h-
  • by Animats ( 122034 ) on Monday June 19, 2006 @04:08PM (#15563996) Homepage
    That's Craigslist, making it impossible to compete because of their low, low prices. And it's working. The newspaper industry is furious at being underpriced. Tough.
  • by Serveert ( 102805 ) on Monday June 19, 2006 @04:09PM (#15564007)
    Maybe Sergey Brin can take some notes.

    It's a tough concept to grasp but sometimes money isn't everything. At least Sergey is now realistic about the old "Do no evil" mantra but it's pretty sad to hear effectively, "Yes, we are filtering content for the Chinese government but... " I and I think many others stop when we hear rationalizations. Yeah it's a lot of money but consumers are waking up and paying attention. Google is helping an authoritarian government control its citizens, I don't want to hear rationalizations. Corporations need to start weighing in "ethical capitalism" costs. Sure the profits might be huge now but when you weigh in the ethical costs, those profits aren't so large.

    The key to this consumer awarness is information. We can easily learn about sweatshops thanks to the internet. We can learn about content filtering thanks to the internet. We can learn about AT&T splicing fiber for the NSA thanks to the internet.

    You can no longer rationalize and use advertising and PR as effectively as before, consumers are less ignorant. /end rant
  • by poopie ( 35416 ) on Monday June 19, 2006 @04:13PM (#15564039) Journal
    We all loved it with no ads, and then something happened and we debated about whether or not to add ads to slashdot, and it basically came down to, "we have to if we want to survive". Faced with that, most slashdotters preferred slashdot with ads to no slashdot.

    If craigslist can survive without pimping ads to users, more power to them, and their userbase will only grow.
  • by furchin ( 240685 ) on Monday June 19, 2006 @04:14PM (#15564046)
    Why is it that authors of these articles can never understand the simple fact that the reason I go to Craig's List is precisely because I'm not being bombarded with ads and junk and a horrible cluttered layout? Doesn't anyone remember how refreshing Google was when it first started (and still is to a certain extent, except the other companies have de-cluttered their pages)? Yahoo was a horrible experiment gone wrong in seeing how much crap could be jammed into a portal!

    Sure, if craig's list had ads, they'd make some more money, but a lot of people, myself included, wouldn't visit as often or at all, and therefore the article's total sum of potential earnings is an over-estimate.
  • by Yardboy ( 742224 ) on Monday June 19, 2006 @04:15PM (#15564054)
    If they can make $25 mil with just 21 employees, think how much they could make if they hired 500 employees?
  • by pxuongl ( 758399 ) on Monday June 19, 2006 @04:17PM (#15564067)
    if analysts were running the show, they'd run them into the ground. industry analyst is analogous to movie critic. full of opinions, but unfortunately, none of them right
  • by kozumik ( 946298 ) on Monday June 19, 2006 @04:21PM (#15564098)
    Wow, that makes me think how much more money Toyota could make this year if they stopped making such high quality reliable vehicles, and just bolted a crappy SUV body to a cheap truck chassis, and sold it for a giant profit, like GM did. It would probably take at least 5 years before consumers really caught on, and in the meanwhile execs and shareholders could make many billions. Of course then they'd implode and Hyundai (or whoever up and coming) would have incentive to beat them in quality and steal all their customers, the way GM has lost all their customers to Toyota. Yep, real geniuses we have in business in America these days.

    From the Wall Street to the WSJ to the board room, the culture of short term thinking to screw the customer is pervasive. It's all about rape and pillage for the shareholders, kill the company (after offloading the stock to E-Trade suckers) and then invest somewhere else. Where will investors go once US business is depleted? China & India of course.
  • magic word (Score:5, Insightful)

    by conJunk ( 779958 ) on Monday June 19, 2006 @04:23PM (#15564116)
    that isn't driven to make all the money possible as soon as possible. Part of the reason CraigsList is so popular and people appreciate/use it so much is because they aren't a bunch of sell outs who will spam you with ads at every possible opportunity.

    100% right on. you used the word "spam", and while i know you meant visual spam, it reminded me of something.

    One of my favorite things about craigs list is that you *never* need an account to use it, so you know they aren't spamming you. no crap in the mail box, no crap in the box, so lots of people use it and it works.

    their whole point has been conmunity-focused interaction. it's impossible to have a community if the participants are all on the receiving end of the host's spam. if they had ads, or required accounts, it wouldn't be a community, and it wouldn't be used the way it is

  • by Infonaut ( 96956 ) <infonaut@gmail.com> on Monday June 19, 2006 @04:23PM (#15564117) Homepage Journal

    They rely on their reputation, and part of that reputation is the lack of annoyances.

    What amazes me is that this is not more obvious to so many people in the business world. The Web really just a series of interconnected user experiences. The author of this WSJ piece seems to think Craigslist is wacky - just plumb daft! - for forgoing potential revenue in favor of taking care of customers. After all, if Craigslist is taking care of its employees and making money, why wouldn't it want to have 10x the employees and 20x the profits! Why wouldn't it want to control the world?!

    This snarky little tidbit reveals how little Mr. Carney understands Craigslist, the Web, and customer satisfaction. At the end of the day, all he can think of is all of that (vaporous, as biendamon pointed out) potential profit that *someone* is missing out on:

    Having taken advantage of their hospitality for the better part of an afternoon, I stand to take my leave, but my hosts insist on driving me back to my hotel. Once there, we say our good-byes and, belatedly, a thought occurs to me -- an afterthought, perhaps. If Craigslist does what its users ask of it, and Craigslist doesn't need or seem to want all the ad revenue it declines to collect, maybe we, as end-users, should ask them to post some banner ads and give us the money instead. There's something wrong, I suppose, in that reasoning. But I like the idea.

    Argh! Someone put some banner ads on Craigslist, and do it quick, before Carney gets an aneurysm!

  • by DragonWriter ( 970822 ) on Monday June 19, 2006 @04:24PM (#15564123)
    Indeed, Craigslist is plenty of ads. Analysts who say that Craigslist should seek more profit by making people view ads they aren't interested in in order to see the ads they are actively seeking by viewing Craigslist in the first place are, well, perhaps missing the source of Craigslist's dominant position.
  • More than money (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Spinlock_1977 ( 777598 ) <Spinlock_1977@yah[ ]com ['oo.' in gap]> on Monday June 19, 2006 @04:24PM (#15564128) Journal
    "What kind of company turns up its nose at $500 million?"

    One led by a person believing there is more to their enterprise than money. I think I'd like to work there.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 19, 2006 @04:27PM (#15564153)
    The targeted ads would devalue the free ads.
    If the free ads are worth less then there will be less customers.
    Less customers, less content, less visitors, less paid advertising revenue.

    Not to mention the incalculable value of goodwill and trust - I mean you just can buy that!

    Better go back to analyst school there buddy.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 19, 2006 @04:28PM (#15564160)
    This is false. They _are_ maximizing profits, just over the long term. These sorts of companies make strategic decisions which pan out over years or decades, not over one or two financial quarters. You do them a disservice, and make these managers lives more difficult, by accusing them of not seeking profits. The CEO of Costco has been beating back financial analysts and stockholders for years because people like you keep the myth going.

    The lesson is that you can make profits, and increase profits, and build a stable, long term business plan that benefits _everybody_ in myriad ways (including with dollars and cents), simply my making prudent and judicious business decisions.
    And you don't need to sacrifice any piece of the pie to make it work.

    Your type of comments make these things sound like a zero sum game. If your ecological you have less profit. If you're family friendly you make less profit. That's crap. You can do both equally well and still compete w/ the archaic business models.
  • by Misch ( 158807 ) on Monday June 19, 2006 @04:29PM (#15564164) Homepage
    Perhaps a Firefox extension is in order...
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 19, 2006 @04:31PM (#15564175)
    What's so hard to understand about craigslist being popular and not running ads? I think the analyst failed to realize that the ad revenue generated by craigslist's popularity would be significantly dimished by the popularity hit that craigslist would take for running ads.
  • 25mil is good (Score:3, Insightful)

    by bobs666 ( 146801 ) on Monday June 19, 2006 @04:35PM (#15564208)
    lets see 21 people 25 million a year.
    I can live on that.

    Why Be greedy?

  • by Serveert ( 102805 ) on Monday June 19, 2006 @04:38PM (#15564238)
    You have swallowed the Google pill so you feel better about your stock options in Google. I understand.

    It is black and white, they are making money off of censoring Chinese citizens by collaborating with the Chinese government. This isn't complex.
  • Re:Fascinating. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by E++99 ( 880734 ) on Monday June 19, 2006 @04:49PM (#15564314) Homepage
    His very existence totally undermines some of the basic tenets of capitalism.
    ...or else his existence is the epitome of the greatness of capitalism.

    On the other hand, fidelslist and jungilslist are both pretty good, except that A) they do have banner ads, and B) Fidel and Jung Il are the only ones allowed to post to them.
  • by MarkByers ( 770551 ) on Monday June 19, 2006 @04:52PM (#15564341) Homepage Journal
    How about letting people decide for themselves what charity they want to donate to, instead of forcing you choice upon them? The simplest way to do this is to not take the money off them in the first place.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 19, 2006 @05:21PM (#15564577)

    Maybe they don't want to rake it in, only to find out that their base erodes, leaving them with "just another crappy ad infested pop-up site" that has to put more and more crap on their site to make money from the eroding customer base. Meanwhile the people that made it cool in the first place go off and create their own Craigslist, stealing away the sustainable model they have now and leaving them with a craptacular popup city populated by WalMart shoppers from AOL.

    So, they are not really leaving anything on the table. The money that WSJ is talking about is only available if you cut open the golden goose.

  • Re:...Costco? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by modecx ( 130548 ) on Monday June 19, 2006 @05:38PM (#15564714)
    Totally... In addition to what you said, CostCo treats their employees so well that there are waiting lines to get a job in most areas, whereas there are usually no queues for jobs at Wal-Marts or Targets. I understand that they get good pay and decent benefits compared to most companies, and relative to other retail/wholesalers you wouldn't even think they were in the same business... Plus I've heard that they have a strict seniority system and with that comes vacation benefits and that sort of stuff.

    Also, from what I hear, they have what is probably the most liberal return/warranty policy of any company on the planet, though I haven't had a need to exercise that feature.

    I'm still cautious of huge "big box" retail chains, but on the whole, I'm pleased with CostCo. They seem to be non-evil and that's good enough for me. Plus, I can buy a5 gallon bucket of pickels without feeling guilty, and damnit, that's the way it should be.
  • Re:Business Ethics (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 19, 2006 @05:44PM (#15564764)
    ...and she's also going to start tatooing paid advertizements on her ass.
  • by quanticle ( 843097 ) on Monday June 19, 2006 @06:01PM (#15564885) Homepage

    Sole? Sole proprietorships and very narrowly, privately held corporations, partnerships, etc. make up a large percentage of businesses, and many of them operate in accord with interests of their owners beyond simply maximizing financial return or market value of the business.

    Sole Proprietorships make make up the majority of businesses, but, if you look at it in terms of revenue, I think you will find the largest businesses make most of the money, and have the greatest economic impact.

  • Re:...Costco? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by CheshireCatCO ( 185193 ) on Monday June 19, 2006 @06:04PM (#15564908) Homepage
    I do most of my grocery shopping at CostCo, as well as the shopping for a variety of other products. It's definitely true that some things are more expensive there, but I suspect that that has to do with negotiating power of other large chains. You definitely are *always* going to be happiest if you know the normal price for products at a few stores before you go shopping. (Safeway, for example, tends to almost always be more expensive and have worse-quality store brands than King Soopers in my area.) That said, as a rule CostCo is a lot cheaper than most other stores, provided you can store and use the item before it goes nasty. But that's also always something you should be thinking about before going shopping anywhere.
  • by Culture ( 575650 ) on Monday June 19, 2006 @06:48PM (#15565172)
    The business cost essentially nothing to run, and is making reasonable profits to allow for the founder to live a lifestyle in excess of 99.99% of americans. Every year the market share grows, because who can compete with free? When he is ready to to sell out, the marketing "geniuses" on wallstreet will look at the number of page impressions, assume they can plaster the site with flash add and make BILLIONS. He will sell out for billions, and wallstreet will run the site into the ground. What's not to like?
  • What kind indeed (Score:3, Insightful)

    by swordgeek ( 112599 ) on Monday June 19, 2006 @07:22PM (#15565391) Journal
    "What kind of company turns up its nose at $500 million?"

    The kind that believes industry analysts and experts who say outrageous things are likely talking out of their asses.

    Half a billion? I really really doubt it.
  • Re:...Costco? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by gklinger ( 571901 ) on Monday June 19, 2006 @07:39PM (#15565475)
    People like you are the reason that most retailers give the rest of us a hard time about returning things. Do you actually think that returning month old produce or electronics that you broke is honest or even fair?
  • by Bing Tsher E ( 943915 ) on Monday June 19, 2006 @07:59PM (#15565569) Journal
    Nasty old 'freedom' rears it's ugly head. To recap it for you:

    Anybody can charge whatever they want to whomever they want (except where said freedom is taken away by government edict).

    I can sell you my digital camera for $4, or I can give it to you, or I can refuse to sell it to you for $17,348.54.

    I can single you out because you drive a BMW if I like (or, rather, because you're probably a prick, which is a good bet.)
  • by cnewmark ( 45916 ) on Monday June 19, 2006 @08:27PM (#15565693) Homepage
    ... that's so secret, even I don't know about it?

    Cool!

    I should ask the folks on the N Judah or 6 or 43 bus about it.

    Craig

The key elements in human thinking are not numbers but labels of fuzzy sets. -- L. Zadeh

Working...