4 ms·

I still think this is the wrong approach. Interviews are tough to monetize because the benefits are pretty intangible. The Charlie Rose model is better I thin

by jakarta 17y ago

I still think this is the wrong approach. Interviews are tough to monetize because the benefits are pretty intangible. The Charlie Rose model is better I think. Where you do long 1 hr interviews and get sponsorships to help pay for costs. It depends on growing an audience but it can work. Another idea -- what if Andrew was able to put together conferences/events given the ties he has. He could charge for admission and have a panel of start up entrepreneurs where he interviews and moderates Q&As between the audience and entrepreneurs. Conferences are generally pretty profitable and could be worth exploring.

colinplamondon 17y ago
The Charlie Rose model only works when you're interviewing less niche figures. Rose has on lots of brilliant people, but they tend to be talking about current events, business, books, literature, art- it's a wide variety, and that helps build a broad audience. Mixergy's about successful entrepreneurs. That's niche. That just doesn't have the potential size to be pushing a large enough volume that sponsorships matter. To get a larger audience it'd be necessary to expand the subject matter, and that would dilute the value of the site itself. A better option might be to interview successful figures about how they became successful, and expand more outside of tech entrepreneurship. There's been a couple of interviews like that, and weighting it 1/3 tech, 2/3 successful figures in other arenas, there's a much larger potential audience. At the same time, keeping the laser-like focus on the nuts and bolts and numbers would craft a high-end audience, the kind that advertisers absolutely love.
davidmurphy 17y ago
This article on Charlie Rose is fascinating: http://money.cnn.com/2009/09/25/magazines/fortune/charlie_rose.fortune/index.htm http://money.cnn.com/2009/09/25/magazines/fortune/charlie_ro... He actually doesn't make a huge ton of money (he'd do well to hire sponsorship sales staff IMO).

by jakarta 17y ago

colinplamondon 17y ago

The Charlie Rose model only works when you're interviewing less niche figures. Rose has on lots of brilliant people, but they tend to be talking about current events, business, books, literature, art- it's a wide variety, and that helps build a broad audience. Mixergy's about successful entrepreneurs. That's niche. That just doesn't have the potential size to be pushing a large enough volume that sponsorships matter. To get a larger audience it'd be necessary to expand the subject matter, and that would dilute the value of the site itself. A better option might be to interview successful figures about how they became successful, and expand more outside of tech entrepreneurship. There's been a couple of interviews like that, and weighting it 1/3 tech, 2/3 successful figures in other arenas, there's a much larger potential audience. At the same time, keeping the laser-like focus on the nuts and bolts and numbers would craft a high-end audience, the kind that advertisers absolutely love.

davidmurphy 17y ago

This article on Charlie Rose is fascinating: http://money.cnn.com/2009/09/25/magazines/fortune/charlie_rose.fortune/index.htm http://money.cnn.com/2009/09/25/magazines/fortune/charlie_ro... He actually doesn't make a huge ton of money (he'd do well to hire sponsorship sales staff IMO).