0
   

New York Times Trying To Abuzz Again?

 
 
sumac
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Feb, 2005 11:22 am
For those interested in this story, you will want to read: http://www.paidcontent.org/pc/arch/2005_02_17.shtml#012397, which includes links to other pieces covering the acquisition.

Yup, Neisenholtz was promoted to senior VP for digital operations.
0 Replies
 
paulaj
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Feb, 2005 02:05 pm
Part of me has an urge to automatically boycott the new site, that is, if the same people are involved that lead to Abuzz' demise.
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Feb, 2005 02:10 pm
and I'd be back there in a flash if they used a form of the old software. I just loved the look soooooooo much.
0 Replies
 
paulaj
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Feb, 2005 02:12 pm
ehbeth, are you going to cheat on us?
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Feb, 2005 02:18 pm
errrr Embarrassed





<i play around every day>
0 Replies
 
paulaj
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Feb, 2005 02:22 pm
ehBeth wrote:
errrr Embarrassed





<i play around every day>

I don't want to do this, but you've gone to far this time...I'm telling your dad!

Scuse me while I make a call.
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Feb, 2005 02:24 pm
errrrrrrrr

he's probably already read it







(my dad is hamburger Very Happy )
0 Replies
 
paulaj
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Feb, 2005 02:55 pm
...
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Feb, 2005 03:23 pm
I think he's a pretty fine parental unit myself.


So how did he sound when ya called him?
0 Replies
 
cobalt
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Feb, 2005 04:22 am
I too read with interest about about.com and the NYTimes. It would be easier to acquire code for proper forums than to create it anew. But getting the "fan base" was the most important part of the purchase. With abuzz, we abuzzers created our own community over time but it was not as intentional as it was accidental and the ownership was not omnipotent or interested.
0 Replies
 
sumac
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Feb, 2005 06:45 am
Yup. I think the NYT is just after the click-through revenue. The vehicle is just coincidentally related to a knowledge-base, as they tried, somewhat lamely, to turn Abuzz into.
0 Replies
 
squinney
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Feb, 2005 07:05 am
This is too bad. I actually trusted About.com to give factual info. Not sure I'll be able to so easily accept what they say now.
0 Replies
 
Merry Andrew
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Feb, 2005 07:13 am
Given who's in charge here, I still think of A2K as an Abuzz spinoff. Better run, true, but ultimately inspired by the original.
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Feb, 2005 09:11 am
Squinney - about.com is one of my favourite places to go and get information on very specific technical things (and free knitting patterns of course). I've been very happy with what I've been able to find there in regard to resources in French and German so far. A different type of resource than a forum of experts like Taunton, or a search engine like Google, but quite good in its own way. You just have to know what you're looking for to pick the right resource.
0 Replies
 
squinney
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Feb, 2005 09:16 am
Agreed. I have used About.com for a lot of research. I am hoping NYT's doesn't ruin it.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Mar, 2005 12:07 pm
So, why did the New York Times pay $410 million for About.com?

Read this Online Journalism Review article and learn that the Times got a bargain.

About.com CEO explains $410 million NYT deal

Quote:
Journalists swarmed Times execs when The New York Times Co. bought About.com. Here, the About.com head tells his side, dispelling Guide compensation myths and explaining just how tough it would be to duplicate the site.
By Mark Glaser
Posted: 2005-03-07

This didn't happen when Dow Jones bought MarketWatch. It didn't happen when the Washington Post bought Slate. But when The New York Times Co. bought About.com from Primedia for $410 million, some pundits were quick to criticize the Times for overpaying for a property they deemed easy to duplicate. About.com has a hoard of 500 freelance "Guides" who write a series of blog posts and articles on everything from Children's Books to Day Trading.
When the Times announced the purchase, Web usability expert Jakob Nielsen wrote in to PressThink's Jay Rosen: "The real secret of About.com is that they have figured out a way to get 500 domain experts to work for peanuts, in return for the exalted status as 'Guides.' But the NY Times could probably have done that on its own by throwing a little prestige and a few thousand dollars at the top bloggers in each of the targeted areas they wanted to cover. Somebody who already has a prestigious brand could duplicate About.com in a year for less than $50 million. And anybody could do it in two years for $150 million."

And Poynter's Online News mailing list lit up with new media types aghast at the purchase. Adam Gaffin, executive editor of Network World Fusion, told me off the list that he did see some merit to the move as adding traffic and ad inventory for the Times. But still, Gaffin couldn't help himself in an e-mail to me: "Are they out of their frickin' minds? They're paying $410 million dollars for a bunch of Weblogs! And in 2005, no less! Yes, it takes time to build up a brand and the resulting page views. But Nick Denton shows how it's possible to do it in a fraction of the time it took About.com at a fraction of the cost. Imagine Denton set loose with, oh, only $100 million."

While Rosen and others talked to Martin Nisenholtz at the Times, few reporters bothered to directly ask About.com what they thought -- even as they were in the eye of the storm. (Forbes.com senior editor Penelope Patsuris says About.com was not willing to talk after the sale, referring her to the New York Times.) I talked to both the current CEO of About.com, Peter Horan, as well as a former editor, Gian Trotta, who both filled me in on the history of the site and its current incarnation.

Trotta, who now is managing the Web presence for Infinity Radio's WCBS 880 AM in New York, told me that About.com wasn't originally run by content people and that the Guides did work for very little compensation in the early days -- except for stock options.

"I went nuts trying to teach the Guides grammar and journalism," Trotta said. "The real key is not that the Guides weren't necessarily great journalists, but they had in-depth knowledge of the off- and online facets of their subject areas and were able to present it in a way that engaged, informed, empowered and entertained their audiences over a consistent level, much as bloggers aspire to do now. It also didn't hurt that About's first marketing director Victoria Bianchini was especially skilled at teaching viral marketing."

While the Guides now use a Weblog format for some of their entries, they land somewhere in between unsupervised bloggers and polished journalists, having some editorial oversight and the backing of About.com's brand name. But the site has a history of using intrusive advertising from pop-ups to poorly demarcated sponsored sections. And don't get me started on the quicksand of navigation ...

Primedia brought in Horan as CEO of About.com in December 2003, after he had headed DevX.com and had worked in the business side at tech trade publisher IDG. Horan, 50, helped optimize the site for search engines, just as the online advertising market started to explode. About.com was in the sweet spot of covering niche, targeted subjects right as targeted advertising and paid search ads swept the Net.

"If the Times and other folks that were in the [buyout] process really thought that they could recreate [About.com] that easily, they would not be stepping up to pay a premium," Horan said.

The following is an edited transcript of my interview with Horan over the phone and e-mail, as he explained the editorial process -- and compensation -- of Guides, while giving ample reasons why the Times got its money's worth.



Full article: see link above.
0 Replies
 
NeoGuin
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Mar, 2005 09:56 pm
Merry Andrew wrote:
Given who's in charge here, I still think of A2K as an Abuzz spinoff. Better run, true, but ultimately inspired by the original.


I agree, that and the fact that likely %50 of the people here are Abuzzers.

Never been much for "About.com" though
0 Replies
 
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Mar, 2005 11:11 pm
Nothing like 50% here are abuzz folk. Some of us louder stalwarts are from those days, but we're not so inbred any more. I think most people who sign in and post are via Google.
0 Replies
 
Phoenix32890
 
  1  
Reply Tue 15 Mar, 2005 11:15 pm
It is so strange how life goes on. At one point I was heartsick about Abuzz. Now I couldn't care less. I think that a lot has got to do with the fact that many of my Abuzz cronies are still around on A2K! Very Happy
0 Replies
 
Merry Andrew
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Mar, 2005 04:36 am
Phoenix32890 wrote:
It is so strange how life goes on. At one point I was heartsick about Abuzz. Now I couldn't care less. I think that a lot has got to do with the fact that many of my Abuzz cronies are still around on A2K! Very Happy


Exactly, Phoenix. It's the people that make the site. I feel there was hardly a break between Abuzz and A2K. We just packed a few things and moved to a new tent, that's all.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Leveraged Loan - Discussion by gollum
Web Site - Discussion by gollum
Corporate Fraud - Discussion by gollum
Enron Scandal - Discussion by gollum
Buying From Own Pension Fund - Discussion by gollum
iPhones - Question by gollum
Paycheck Protection Plan - Question by gollum
Dog Sniffing Electronics - Question by gollum
SIM CARD - SimTraveler - Question by gollum
Physical Bitcoin - Question by gollum
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 03/16/2025 at 12:16:54