patch - Gawker

posts about #patch more →
AOL's Shameless CEO Bailout
AOL Boots Loser CEO for Google's Tim Armstrong
New New York Times Survival Strategy: Become a Fancy Blog-Software Company
The New York Times Battles a Googler for New Jersey
At Last, Google Funds a Bailout for Reporters

Your version of Internet Explorer is not supported. Please upgrade to the most recent version in order to view comments.

Dsmvwl Admin Promote to frontpage Approve user Ban user ×

Schm
03/12/09

In reply to AOL Boots Loser CEO for Google's Tim Armstrong
But how will this effect my grandma's AOL service? Has anyone thought about my grandma in all of this?
Reply

Schm was starred Schm was unstarred

Takes One to Know One
03/12/09

In reply to AOL Boots Loser CEO for Google's Tim Armstrong
Excuse me. What's AOL again?
Reply

Owen Thomas
03/13/09

@frobisher: As I wrote, "the Time Warner Internet unit." Now, what does that mean? You've hit on AOL's problem right there.
Reply

Owen Thomas was starred Owen Thomas was unstarred

Nick Denton
03/12/09

In reply to AOL Boots Loser CEO for Google's Tim Armstrong
Why are you so sure he's the best man for the job? He's no product guy -- and arguably that's what AOL needs if it's to restore the business. Also, this is messy timing. AOL just hired Greg Coleman, a well-regarded sales executive. Unless they told him he'd be reporting to another sales veteran -- one he probably looks down upn -- he'll be out of there pretty sharply. And AOL will have to remake its sales team yet again -- for the fourth time in as many years.
Reply

Nick Denton was starred Nick Denton was unstarred

ZorbaTheseus
03/12/09

@Nick Denton: Here's the interesting question. Tim was clearly interviewed for the Yahoo job, presumably offered it. NO WAY was Bartz the number one choice. She's OLD, she's enterprise software, Of course the #1 was a Googler. Tim would have been ideal for YHOO - a DISPLAY business.

So why turn down YHOO and take AOL? A huge percentage of equity in the case of a spinoff? Or the chance to run TW? Tim is kind of an old media guy...
Reply

ZorbaTheseus was starred ZorbaTheseus was unstarred

Nick Denton
03/12/09

@ZorbaTheseus: Looks like neither Coleman nor the other AOL executives had any warning.

[kara.allthingsd.com]
Reply

Nick Denton was starred Nick Denton was unstarred

Owen Thomas
03/13/09

@Nick Denton: Oh, is that what we call whimsy-pursuing redesign fetishists these days -- "product guys"? Such a kind-hearted euphemism! Better than "visionary," at any rate.
Reply

Owen Thomas was starred Owen Thomas was unstarred

Nick Denton
03/13/09

@Owen Thomas: Yeah, that Mark Zuckerberg just can't stop fiddling!
Reply

Nick Denton was starred Nick Denton was unstarred

TheMac
03/05/09

In reply to New New York Times Survival Strategy: Become a Fancy Blog-Software Company
For what it's worth, I know the guy writing the FG/CH blog, and he's genuinely about the project, whatever the overall goal of the NYT may be (or the long-term dedication to such goal).
Reply

TheMac was starred TheMac was unstarred

Jasper Reardon
03/05/09

In reply to New New York Times Survival Strategy: Become a Fancy Blog-Software Company
This isn't a new strategy for the Times, really. For instance, the About.com deal that everyone derided was mostly in order to own About's search metric formulas, which have helped dramatically increase the Times' traffic.

I'm missing the point (if there is one) of the post, Owen. If the Times seemingly misses the boat on tech innovation vis-à-vis the news, you give them shit. If they make a move in that direction, you give them shit. Which is it?

Of course this posture of yours isn't unique toward the Times, but they do seem to be the most frequent target, despite the fact they are doing much better on the Web than any other news (generating) outlet. I certainly think there are things wrong with the Times, but I also wouldn't want to live without it.

In any case, smart guy, the question I have is: Do you have any ideas? Since your "criticisms" are vapid and muddled, how about you give it a shot. What is to be done?
Reply

Jasper Reardon was starred Jasper Reardon was unstarred

celery
03/05/09

@Jasper Reardon: You had an okay start, but it's pretty amateur to expect the critic to be better at the criticized's job.
Reply

celery was starred celery was unstarred

beppolina1
03/05/09

In reply to New New York Times Survival Strategy: Become a Fancy Blog-Software Company
I am from Maplewood, I am impossibly vain, and I am FIRST BITCHES!!!!!
Reply

beppolina1 was starred beppolina1 was unstarred

Mount_Prion
03/05/09

@beppolina1: Ahem.
Reply

Mount_Prion was starred Mount_Prion was unstarred

marcsiry
03/02/09

In reply to The New York Times Battles a Googler for New Jersey
As a resident of one of the Oranges (West), I can assure you that although these suburbs may be obscure, a good portion of the residents moved from New York City and still work in New York City. This is basically a NYC neighborhood - it takes less time to get here from Midtown than it does to parts of Brooklyn, Queens and the Bronx (or Manhattan, if you count Washington Heights).
Reply

marcsiry was starred marcsiry was unstarred

Tremonius
02/28/09

In reply to The New York Times Battles a Googler for New Jersey
I read that the LA Times has online revenue exceeding its editorial costs, minus printing. That means if they went strictly online, they'd be profitable. And I read the NY Times is approaching that balance.

If you can pay for your Justin Blairs and Judy Millers without crushing trees and smearing them with ink, well then?

Reminds me of the fax. What's the use of the fax? it's a pacifier for those who grew up with the office copier. A long-range Xerox. Have to bring these people along slowly.
Reply

Tremonius was starred Tremonius was unstarred

derek
02/28/09

@Tremonius: No it doesn't mean an online-only LA Times would be profitable. There's a lot of other costs involved in newsgathering: lawyers, travel, computers, foreign bureaus, salaries for the ad sales dept, real estate, etc.

Newspapers still make most of their money by selling ads for their print edition.
Reply

derek was starred derek was unstarred

Tremonius
03/01/09

@derek: The statement didn't include a balance sheet, but when I read "editorial expenses" I guessed that meant all of the above which didn't involve physical printing. Maybe I'll go look for the numbers now, but the intent of the column I read was that, were Tribune to cut off the presses like a used booster rocket, they'd be in the money!
Reply

Tremonius was starred Tremonius was unstarred

Tremonius
03/01/09

@Tremonius: Yep, I was ahead of the curve on this one, which was a fastball anyhow. It's just a signpost along the way, not a break-even point.

@Bradley - Here's a direct quote from Russ Stanton, from an email he sent me earlier this morning, in response to many requests from around the social media realm for clarification about his revenue comment at USC last week.

"Our digital revenue this year [for the Los Angeles Times] will be equal to our newsroom payroll (web and print) and that is salaries only."

Those are actual numbers for 2008. Our business folks are projecting that digital revenue will exceed total newsroom payroll in 2009.

Russ adds, "We're still years away from able to even consider shutting down our presses, and the ink-stained wretch in me hopes we can figure out a way to sustain this centuries-old medium for several more centuries."

[www.buzzmachine.com]
Reply

Tremonius was starred Tremonius was unstarred

Owen Thomas
03/02/09

@Tremonius: Had you, say, read Valleywag on this very subject, you might have saved yourself some time disproving your wrongheaded notion.
Reply

Owen Thomas was starred Owen Thomas was unstarred

oopsidoo
02/28/09

In reply to The New York Times Battles a Googler for New Jersey
God, these people jsut don't get it. Instead of launching this where there's no real competition, they go after a Googler. How's that Google war been going for you so far NYT?
Reply

oopsidoo was starred oopsidoo was unstarred

Shelwood
02/28/09

In reply to The New York Times Battles a Googler for New Jersey
Wake me when the war moves south. When it gets to Neshanic, I will round up my militia.
Reply

Shelwood was starred Shelwood was unstarred

Weegee's bored
02/28/09

In reply to The New York Times Battles a Googler for New Jersey
Why not Maplewood? They can't well fight over a richer 'burb like Great Neck, where 300 people lost their shirts to Uncle Bernie.
Reply

Weegee's bored was starred Weegee's bored was unstarred

Uncle_Billy_Slumming
02/28/09

In reply to The New York Times Battles a Googler for New Jersey
How soon before Carlos Salim's machine-gun toting narco soldados show up in Mountain View asking for a little face time (monkey style)?
Reply

choptop
02/28/09

In reply to The New York Times Battles a Googler for New Jersey
Funny, just last night on Real Time with Bill Mahar they were discussing the death of the newspaper, and how bloggers will be temporarily left without sources of news (especially investigative journalism). I think someone with the clout of Armstrong taking a stake in this might be just the right measure to prevent online news from going south when print news goes away.
Reply

choptop was starred choptop was unstarred

ihateyourescalade
02/28/09

@choptop: He'd better have gobs and gobs of money. Investigative journalism is incredibly expensive, and most advertisers don't want to place ads opposite investigative pieces when they could have a vapid celebrity or fashion story instead.
Reply

ihateyourescalade was starred

Shadowlayer
02/18/09

In reply to At Last, Google Funds a Bailout for Reporters
Great idea, but just in theory.

Small town america is just too cheap for this...
Reply

Shadowlayer was starred Shadowlayer was unstarred

tolles
02/17/09

In reply to At Last, Google Funds a Bailout for Reporters
Actually, maybe Tim will put a word in and try and create a higher CPM variant for truly local content vis-a-vis Adsense and Adwords.

Can't help but be good for the local news sector to have them paying attention, actually.
Reply

tolles was starred tolles was unstarred

Earlier discussions Other discussions Show all discussions Show featured discussions only Start a new discussion