How Craigslist is Keeping up Internet Ideals 173
prostoalex writes "CBS MarketWatch discusses whether Craig Newmark and CraigsList.org are missing out by not 'monetizing' their traffic or selling out to large corporations. CraigsList is currently #7 e-commerce site on the Internet with 13M unique visitors monthly, and only charges for real estate listings by professional brokers. No word on whether that income is enough to pay 24 salaries and data center fees for hosting a major Internet site." From the article: "Their noble stance gives entrepreneurs from San Francisco a great name. Despite the many unfortunate examples of greed, Internet entrepreneurs aren't all about getting rich quick and cashing out. At an entrepreneur's roots is a vision to provide a service that helps alleviate a pain point. The money thing always muddied the waters down the road. The attitude at Craigslist is a nice reminder of how entrepreneurs' ideals can still remain intact, no matter how odd they may seem in a world that worships money."
Santa says "tons of money? ho ho ho!" (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course they're missing out on making tons of money.
However, whether they're missing out in a sense which matters to them personally, presumably not, since they've obviously chosen to do what they wish to do; so MarketWatch is basically contemplating its own navel.
> No word on whether that income is enough to pay 24 salaries and data center fees for
> hosting a major Internet site.
Apparently it must be, or they wouldn't still have jobs and the sites would have closed down.
Re:Santa says "tons of money? ho ho ho!" (Score:5, Insightful)
If they charged... (Score:2, Insightful)
They are true philanthropists (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Sexual Deviants and hookers (Score:5, Insightful)
That might possibly be the majority of the traffic (I wouldn't know). However, I've gotten a few very good jobs through Craigslist, and I've spoken with HR people who say they've had better luck with Craigslist than places like Monster.com. I've also found apartments on Craigslist, and I've had friends who've bought furniture and bicycles and all sort of stuff (some of it "free" by just going to pick it up).
I'm sure that, like the internet in general, you can find many disturbing things on Craigslist, but also just like the rest of the internet, you can find many useful things, too.
Why No Link to Craig's List? (Score:5, Insightful)
Granted this one is an easy one to find, but in general, why are News sites so stingy with links to what they are reporting on.
Not providing pictures of some marvelous device they are reporting on is also a major gripe
BTW
Craig's List [craigslist.org]
Of course, if they did try to monetize it ... (Score:4, Insightful)
Personally, I just see Craiglist as a web emulation of Usenet, with a few enhancements like the ability to easily include pictures, edit your posts (cancels haven't worked on Usenet in a long time,) flag offensive posts, a web interface (which makes it easier to use for the non-technically inclined) and management that's all together in one place so things can be changed (for good or bad) a lot quicker and easier than they can on Usenet.
They did a pretty good job with it, and did a really good job with only trying to charge the people who were really willing to pay -- which brought in enough money to pay for things (I assume) but not to alienate their users. If craiglist were to try and require that everybody have accounts and charge for them, most of their users would just leave, and somebody else would probably re-implement craiglist somewhere else.
In any event, Craiglist gives up a lot of the features of Usenet, but for the most part these are features that the users have decided that they don't need -- or at least they seem to have decided that with their feet, because they're using Craiglist rather than Usenet. (Perhaps they're not even aware of Usenet, or their ISP doesn't offer a news server because it thinks if it does, it has to offer alt.binaries.* But that's another matter entirely ...)
Re:Large Corporations? (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Santa says "tons of money? ho ho ho!" (Score:5, Insightful)
You know, I've worked for a small start-up kind of business that was "missing out" on "tons of money". Basically, the owners could have sold it to a much larger company, which then would have run the company into the ground. Or, they could have adopted the same practices that their competitors were using, and made a lot more money over the short term.
However, what kept the company working the way it did, what kept their customers happy, had always been the practices that cost them a bit more or didn't make as much money in the short term. What made it a good company was that it was a small company, without a lot of red tape or bureaucracy. The practices that made the owners, employees, and customers like the company were exactly the practices that a large company or a company driven by short-term profits would not do. In short, they could have sold out at any time, and become not better than their competition for the sake of short-term gains, but chose not to because they wanted to do a good job.
I wish more companies worked like that.
Nitpicking For Dummies (Score:2, Insightful)
Okay, would in a world where money is widely worshipped meet your needs?
I don't think so. (Score:5, Insightful)
If what they've done is so easy, why doesn't someone else just create a different but similarly-oriented site, monetize it, and laugh all the way to the bank?
They're providing a service that people want, and are apparently making ends meet while they do it. That's hardly "selling a dollar for 50 cents." Many sites can't even manage to do that.
What MarketWatch is arguing, is that perhaps they could make even more money than they're doing. Perhaps they could. But perhaps they'd also drive away some of their audience and leave themselves open to the 'next' Craigslist.
Just because they're not making risky business decisions doesn't make them fools; I thought anyone who'd survived the dot-com burst would realize that maybe a conservative stance is underrated when it comes to building a brand and business.
Re:Whats wrong with a little greed? (Score:4, Insightful)
Nothing is wrong with greed. But, conversely, what's wrong with a little socialism?
The attitude that emenates from CL staffers (and is reflected in their users) is: There are lots of places to get your greed on, let's have one that is more happy-hippy just-a-bunch-o-friends swap-n-shop shoot-the-shit kinda place.
THAT, in my arrogant opinion, is why Craigslist has been so phenomenally successful. It is a pleasing balance between capitalism and social community
Cringely says... (Score:4, Insightful)
Obviously the question arrises as to whether that's just the natural course of evolution and it's time for the dinosoaurs for find a new bussiness model. That's too glib a response for two reasons. First, it's a matter of huge consequence to the nation and to democracy in general to have a plethora of news sources that get their profits from the masses directly so they are not beholden to a few key advertisers. Second, craig's list is a temprary anamoly. It might be said to be a loss leader for whatever is going to replace it. But someday it's going to die or get forced out of bussiness. For example, as has been widely predicted when net neutrality goes away people running big sites are going to have to start paying the ISPs for access to their customers. Or maybe Craig's list will go public or it's owners finally decide to cash in on the latent ten billion dollar value they have.
In any case we won't have free classified ads forever. But in the mean time we might loose all the newspapers.
I'm not happy with that trade. Free does not always mean the results are good. It's like someone was giving you free internet explorers for a while and you nearly lost netscape.
Re:Whats wrong with a little greed? (Score:5, Insightful)
I know slashdot's readership has a decidedly socalist leaning about many things, but what is wrong with people deciding to profit from what they have created? Why is foregoing said profit considered "noble"?
Nothing. It's not really profit that's the issue, it's mass-commercialization and expanding a site beyond the original scope, and the drive not to just make some money, but to make as much money as you possibly can.
Those goals often times are in direct opposition to providing a usefull service to the community. There's nothing noble about not making money, or anything wrong with making money. There is something noble about putting your goals of service above the goals of profit. It doesn't mean that Craigslist can't make a profit, it just means you don't throw everything else away for a drive to make more and more money.
Flagging = Good (Score:2, Insightful)
you will find that a spam, junk or get rich quick scheme gets flagged quickly and removed.
The flagging feature is one of the best parts of Craigslist IMHO.
Re:A world that worships money? (Score:2, Insightful)
I assume that most of us aren't independently wealthy. Even if you are, that money didn't just fall out of the sky. I'd hope that most of us aren't leeching off of the state. Unless you're at a public internet terminal right now, I shudder to think my tax dollars are paying for your computer and broadband connection.
Craigslist is a wonderful service, and god knows I'm a supporter of F/OSS-esque activities; however, this world runs on the concept that goods and services have value. (Yes, even if you happen to use those goods or services in conjunction with the magic box on your desk)
For instance:
Slashdot [wallst.com]
How I view Slashdot [wikipedia.org]
How I can run a program to view Slashdot [wikipedia.org]
My magic box's brain [nasdaq.com]
We can cry foul about the evils of money all day, but chances are you are spending or making it at this very moment.
Slashdot on the other hand ... (Score:5, Insightful)
"Their noble stance gives entrepreneurs from San Francisco a great name. Despite the many unfortunate examples of greed, Internet entrepreneurs aren't all about getting rich quick and cashing out.
Slashdot, on the other hand, sold out to OSDN, and has never been the same since. They could've done worse than OSDN as corporate overlords, but still, there are a lot of ex-dotters out there who miss the early days.
Re:greater good or greater bad...? (Score:3, Insightful)
I know that particularly among the over-40 set, the brand name of the local newspaper is a lot more valuable than "Craigslist" ("Who is 'Craig' and why does he have a 'list'?"). But their online classified site is atrocious. Seriously, it makes me want to just stab my eyes out. Up until fairly recently, it wasn't even searchable, and the information in each ad was the same paltry words as in the print version. The internet is a far better medium for classified ads than paper is; you can search and sort the ads in various ways (apartments in area 'foo' with rent between x and y), and drill down to read more information about a property, plus see photos.
The newspapers could have carried their brand names onto the internet and been the local websites of first resort. But they blew it. Craigslist stepped in and offered a better product for less money (free online ads, while the newspapers were still making you pay by the word for the dead-tree kind even if you didn't want it). It's not like the newspapers didn't have a chance. They had a natural advantage -- all that supposed talent they have working in their Classified offices should have guaranteed them some success. That Craigslist managed to overtake them despite that, just further demonstrates how much of a superior product CL is.
As far as newspapers providing a social good, I'm unconvinced that the services that newspapers provide won't be replicated elsewhere. If the public cares about news and commentary, someone will step in to provide it, just as CL stepped in to provide classified ads when the newspapers failed to get with the times. I think in the future they'll be less vertical integration in the news business. Rather than having the same company pay the reporters and publish the news, we'll have one company doing the reporting and putting together newsfeeds of related material, and then various publishing and 'outlet' companies subscribing to those feeds and communicating it to people. Just because the newspaper has been the way that it's been done in the past, doesn't mean it's the only way to serve that function.
Self interest is not greed (Score:5, Insightful)
The economy moves rapidly. It is not always obvious where your money will be coming from ten years down the road (when your skill set has been made obsolete or your industry has been outsourced or what-have-you). Having a fat pile of money ensures that your needs will still be met.
So I don't know that it is fair to say that our society "worships" money. The fact is we need it, so we put a lot of effort into getting it. That's just the way it is.
So, while the business of making a lot of money quickly may seem greedy, we must admit that there are very compelling economic (and even personal) motivations for attempting to do this. The sooner you have a large nestegg, the sooner you can rest easy in the face of an unpredictable future.
Resisting this urge, and instead accepting a slower income (and along with it the risk of running out of money in the future), for the benefit of others, is noble. Does that make a failure to do this evil? Are there two polar extremes with no middle ground?
IMO, providing for your needs, now and in the future, is not greed so much as self-interest. This is the primary motivator behind a capatilist society, which is the one in which we live. I won't deny the nobility of self-sacrifice, nor will I deny that there is a point at which accumulation stops being self-interest and transforms into greed. However, I will also deny that self-interest is the same as "worshipping money" or that trying to make money quickly is greedy or evil.
Re:A world that worships money? (Score:3, Insightful)
When did it become a crime to be satisfied? (Score:2, Insightful)
Greed (Score:2, Insightful)
Surely greed is demanding everything for nothing as if website owners owe you something.
It's nice that craigslist offers so many serives for free, but personally, I wouldn't think any less of him or his website if they were to charge or place ads on the site. He has bills to pay and mouths to feed just like the rest of us.
Re:Santa says "tons of money? ho ho ho!" (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Cringely says... (Score:2, Insightful)
If the only valuable thing in newspapers is the classifieds, then there's no reason for them to exist, is there?
"unique" is distinct from "distinct" (Score:3, Insightful)
I think that you mean "distinct" visitors here,
meaning that some of them came more than once
but all their visits counted as one.
A "unique" visitor would either mean that there
was just one visitor, or that each of those visitors
was the only person like him or her. The first is
not the case, and the second is always true until
we start cloning humans or something.
Mathematically, if x and y are distinct, then
they are not equal. If x is unique, it is distinct
from all other objects. Generally, one says that
x is unique after defining a set of objects that have
some properties and then showing that the set contains
exactly one member, namely x.
Whenever you see the adjective "unique" applied to
a set of objects, it's probably being misused.
Re:Santa says "tons of money? ho ho ho!" (Score:1, Insightful)
I've never understood this attitude of self-righteous self-limiting. What is there to admire in someone who chooses not to fly as high as he can? I look at it the other way around; someone who is in a great position but throws it away out of fear that some envious little pricks will attack him for being "filthy filthy filthy stinking rich", is a coward.
That being said, I think it's altruistic presumption to suppose that Craig Newmark is thinking along those lines anyhow. There are other ways to be compensated besides money; unless you know him personally, there's no telling what non-monetary value Newmark is really "paid" in.
Re:greater good or greater bad...? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Cringely says... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Craigslist Europe. (Score:1, Insightful)
I find it interesting that amongest all the US bashing, and Americans are greedy that the EU has those problems far worse then the US....but that's not new, just unpopular.