4 ms·

Regardless of whether people liked the content or not: it only employed 23 people (not sure how many were freelance or part time), and I assume it had good traf

by danjac 3y ago

Regardless of whether people liked the content or not: it only employed 23 people (not sure how many were freelance or part time), and I assume it had good traffic throughout its life. Yet it wasn't able turn a profit?

FredPret 3y ago
That's a ton of money out the door every month. 23*100k = 191k/month. That excludes overhead. Writers probably make less, but even a third of that is a lot of cash just flowing out. Someone who runs an ad-enabled site could weigh in with how much traffic you'd need to get 50-200k cashflow every month. I'm guessing it's a hell of a lot.
- cantSpellSober 3y ago
  They were pulling in about 4 million pageviews a month, I'd expect $50-100k, but it's not that simple. If you're advertising on a site rich people visit (let's say Robb Report) you'd expect a higher CVR because your users probably have more money to spend. If it's just a blog like this, that was already seeing declining traffic, the numbers aren't sustainable. (It looks like AV Club is pulling in about 10 million views a month, fingers crossed they survive) https://www.similarweb.com/website/jezebel.com/#traffic https://www.similarweb.com/website/jezebel.com/#traffic
  - in_cahoots 3y ago
    If you don’t see the writing on the wall with AV Club, you’re in denial. They’ve lost all of their best writers via attrition and forcing staff to move to LA. Half their content is mindless videos, and the main long-form content they have now is AI-generated listicles. No more features or music reviews, very few TV reviews. What value is that website providing these days?
    - cantSpellSober 3y ago
      > you’re in denial No I'm not! sobs in corner. Sigh, good points.
- danjac 3y ago
  Another viewpoint here: https://www.404media.co/advertisers-dont-want-sites-like-jezebel-to-exist/ https://www.404media.co/advertisers-dont-want-sites-like-jez... Advertisers don't like "controversial" content to appear next to their ads. Which I can understand from their point of view, but it means that only the blandest, middle-of-the-road content has a future in an ad-driven business model. Back in the day of print magazines companies wouldn't necessarily have an issue with placing ads in, say, Playboy, if the ad was appropriate to the readership (e.g. cigars or whiskey to an adult audience). Maybe with everything so centralized these days and every corporation is on a hair-trigger for getting called out in social media for accidentally backing this or that cause because their ad appeared in the wrong place, that targeted approach is no longer possible. So if your site is "controversial" in any way, the only model that makes sense is subscription.

by danjac 3y ago

FredPret 3y ago

That's a ton of money out the door every month. 23*100k = 191k/month. That excludes overhead. Writers probably make less, but even a third of that is a lot of cash just flowing out. Someone who runs an ad-enabled site could weigh in with how much traffic you'd need to get 50-200k cashflow every month. I'm guessing it's a hell of a lot.

cantSpellSober 3y ago
They were pulling in about 4 million pageviews a month, I'd expect $50-100k, but it's not that simple. If you're advertising on a site rich people visit (let's say Robb Report) you'd expect a higher CVR because your users probably have more money to spend. If it's just a blog like this, that was already seeing declining traffic, the numbers aren't sustainable. (It looks like AV Club is pulling in about 10 million views a month, fingers crossed they survive) https://www.similarweb.com/website/jezebel.com/#traffic https://www.similarweb.com/website/jezebel.com/#traffic
- in_cahoots 3y ago
  If you don’t see the writing on the wall with AV Club, you’re in denial. They’ve lost all of their best writers via attrition and forcing staff to move to LA. Half their content is mindless videos, and the main long-form content they have now is AI-generated listicles. No more features or music reviews, very few TV reviews. What value is that website providing these days?
  - cantSpellSober 3y ago
    > you’re in denial No I'm not! sobs in corner. Sigh, good points.
danjac 3y ago
Another viewpoint here: https://www.404media.co/advertisers-dont-want-sites-like-jezebel-to-exist/ https://www.404media.co/advertisers-dont-want-sites-like-jez... Advertisers don't like "controversial" content to appear next to their ads. Which I can understand from their point of view, but it means that only the blandest, middle-of-the-road content has a future in an ad-driven business model. Back in the day of print magazines companies wouldn't necessarily have an issue with placing ads in, say, Playboy, if the ad was appropriate to the readership (e.g. cigars or whiskey to an adult audience). Maybe with everything so centralized these days and every corporation is on a hair-trigger for getting called out in social media for accidentally backing this or that cause because their ad appeared in the wrong place, that targeted approach is no longer possible. So if your site is "controversial" in any way, the only model that makes sense is subscription.