Why Blog Networks Failed
Do you remember those things that we called Blog Networks? You might have paid attention or you might have went about your life like nothing changed and that’s one of the reasons why they failed. ‘Failed’ might be a harsh term to use, but of the hundreds of blog networks that started in 2005 and 2006 which ones are thriving and by ‘thriving’ I don’t mean staying above surface?
But why did they fail? Were they just cool because anyone could start one and it was a sweet buzzword to associate yourself with for a while? It is not that hard to understand why they didn’t live up to the hype that they created for themselves. All you have to do is look at what makes a single blog successful:
- Great content. Great can mean insightful or great can mean entertaining, but if you lack it then you will lack an audience. This is the basic principle of any great blog.
- Interaction. Some of the greatest blogs have an interaction between the writer and the audience that don’t make the blog a site anymore, but a community.
- Luck. It does take some timing and luck to make it big as well. There is no sure fire success plan. Arrington hit the wave at the right time.
Most of the blog networks lacked these basic qualities. If you can’t get one blog to become a success how can you expect to make a lot of little blogs a success? How many blog networks can say they make as much as TechCrunch or boingboing in a month or hell maybe even a year? The Long Tail definitely serves a purpose here, but only if you are to become part of the fat end.
If you are to make money off of these sites you need them to make it big. When AOL began dropping WIN blogs it shouldn’t have come as any surprise because they have to look at the bottom line. Same can be said when b5media closes a site although I’m pretty sure they said they would never do such a thing. Point is, if you start a blog network and its intention is to make money you have to do it the right way and there is simply no money in tiny blogs that require resources just like there is no big money in investing in penny stocks.
But in all honesty what average person even cared if a site was part of a blog network when most of them have no meaning? For example, if you have a 9rules leaf on your site to some people that means something. It could mean:
- Great content.
- Quality site.
- Leader in niche.
- Member of a highly elitist clique who are full of themselves.
Either way the leaf means something and even then many of the readers of our Member sites could care less if they are part of 9rules or not because they care about the site. How can a blog network make its readers care about the network itself though? I’m not so sure it can. People don’t care about WIN, they care about Engadget. People don’t focus on Gawker Media, they focus on Gawker the site.
All the blog networks after WIN and Gawker spent so much time trying to make something from little bits and pieces that they forgot to evaluate what might be important to them. You can build 100s of sites, but what does that change? It just means you have 100s of sites to micro-manage now which takes away your resources.
Many blog network owners knew this yet they continued to push on and add more sites before making any of the previous ones relevant. Almost like how project managers add more coders to a project thinking it will get done faster.
So why did blog networks fail? If you haven’t figured it out yet you probably still run one yourself.
Domain registration of a site is not difficult nowadays because lots of ISP service provider companies are working and they offer you best package for your site web design. These companies also provide you internet marketing services and some of them provide you credit card processing services which work on specially designed software. These companies can also provide you wireless internet connection which is quite reliable in these days.
I think with any model like blog networks the problem is eventually they run into all they can be - to not adapt is death to anything. This is one of the major issues the majority have and had. Unless you roll with the changing net you are stuck in a link exchange / ad fest of boredom. Readers are fussy and crave more and more, stagnent just doesn’t cut it. Blogs evolve with the writer / writers and the concept of blog network is too fixed to meet with that demand. Adapt or die a core principle most seem to ignore.
By karmatosed on February 21, 2007 8:13 pm
I think blog networks that faltered did so because they failed to scale the people management side of things. The economics of content are great, but managing a freelance distributed workforce is very hard.
It’s interesting that of everything that About.com pioneered, they only patented the people management stuff.
By Matt on February 21, 2007 8:42 pm
[…] Paul Scrivens has put up a post on Wisdump about why blog networks have failed though he talks more about what makes a blog network successful. […]
By Why Blog Networks Failed by Blogging Pro on February 21, 2007 9:03 pm
Replace “blog network” with *any* industry and most businesses fail within the first 5 years. Blog networks aren’t any different than a brake shop, laundry service, hosting company or any other kind of business. The general rule in every industry is that most businesses fail, not succeed. A solid business plan is required no matter what kind of business you are running and lets face it, most blog networks don’t even have a business license, much less a business plan.
By chrispian on February 21, 2007 11:24 pm
[…] Why blog networks failed: They were rubbish. […]
By Quick Overview Feb 22nd, 2007 on February 22, 2007 12:13 am
[…] Many blog network owners knew this yet they continued to push on and add more sites before making any of the previous ones relevant. Almost like how project managers add more coders to a project thinking it will get done faster. Source: Why Blog Networks Failed » Wisdump […]
By One By One Media » Have blog networks really failed? on February 22, 2007 1:25 am
I think you figured out that after the failure of much hyped finefools blog network.
Everyone has heard the same story from Jason Calacanics few days ago.
The model which most of the blog networks employed a year ago, wont yield the best results today, but all this means is that blog networks need to evolve, rather than throw in the towel. And why I can say so? Since we are running a blog network (Instablogs Network) for a year now, and have been happy with our performance, though we still have lots of ground to be covered.
By Ankit on February 22, 2007 2:08 am
[…] Paul Scrivens has posted on the topic “Why blog networks failed” over at Wisdump.com. Do you remember those things that we called Blog Networks? You might have paid attention or you might have gone about your life like nothing changed and that’s one of the reasons why they failed. ‘Failed’ might be a harsh term to use, but of the hundreds of blog networks that started in 2005 and 2006 which ones are thriving and by ‘thriving’ I don’t mean staying above surface? […]
By SYNTAGMA » Whatever Happened to Blog Networks? on February 22, 2007 7:09 am
There is another reason why blog networks have failed. Blog networks are an attempt to impose the old media aggregation model on bloggers. The blog network is trying to still put itself between the blogger and the reader, and to take most of the value in the process.
This is why the blog networks often try to keep their editors’ names off the sites, paying them low wages or revenue shares, and turning them into anonymous staffers. They know that if the editor and the audience make a direct connection, the editor’s brand can become bigger than the blog’s brand. So they try to suppress the editor’s brand.
Of course this aggregation and suppression model goes entirely against the ethos of the web, which is that individuals can rise on their own merits and reap the rewards, without intervention by an aggregator. Since the costs of production and distribution are so low, it’s questionable why the aggregator is required (in old media, where those costs are astronomical, the aggregator can justify its existence more easily). The most successful blogs are run by individuals, and their individual name and reputation makes the brand.
At our company, SubHub, our clients are people who in many cases could be blogging. Our platform lets them charge a subscription fee for highly valuable content, or generate revenues from ads or digital downloads. We don’t act as the aggregator; we just provide a service to them under an ASP model, and get out of the way. Our clients own their own output, their own audiences and their own revenues — which is how it should be. Who needs aggregators?
Kind regards,
Evan Rudowski
By Evan Rudowski on February 22, 2007 7:44 am
And this, ladies and gentlemen, is what’s known as linkbait. Pure opinion written to drive traffic.
The truth is that while blog networks have failed, everyone knew they would. Hundreds were launched last year. Every single one couldn’t possibly succeed.
Oh, and we’ve always closed sites that don’t work. Since Month 2 we’ve closed or sold sites.
Neither of those phenomena are anything more than the industry maturing. And it is an industry. This year, the blog network industry will generate more than 50M$ in revenue.
By Jeremy Wright on February 22, 2007 10:17 am
Ankit, I’m not sure how you can say Fine Fools was a failure. Paul invested $0 into it and it launched the careers of many people who work for blog networks or run their own blogs today — David Krug, Liz Strauss, etc. He spent no money but got thousands in return, is that your definition of failure?
Jeremy, closing sites is a great idea, but don’t flip-flop and say you’ve always been of that mindset. Back when Denton was closing Oddjack you were petitioning that they not be removed or closed, but just “don’t count them” as one of Gawker Media’s main blogs anymore. Then in the podcast you did with Tyme, you said you would never drop a site because it was unfair to the writer and was of little cost to keep live, yada yada.
By Mike Rundle on February 22, 2007 11:14 am
[…] While we’re talking, someone responded to Scrivs’ article. We talk about that too. […]
By ScrivsTyme #134 » ScrivsTyme: Sex, Lies and Podcasting on February 22, 2007 11:18 am
And Jeremy, if you want to get into a discussion about linkbait, you should check out the toolbar entry at b5media where you had the “official launch” of the *alpha version* of your toolbar. b5media “officially launches” the alpha version of a toolbar you didn’t even make yourselves. Talk about linkbait.
You guys linkbaited people to download the toolbar, then the only 2 comments on the entry were bug reports, but you never cared to respond. Bait ‘em in, then leave town. Classic.
By Mike Rundle on February 22, 2007 11:23 am
“At our company, SubHub, our clients are people who in many cases could be blogging. Our platform lets them charge a subscription fee for highly valuable content, or generate revenues from ads or digital downloads. We don’t act as the aggregator; we just provide a service to them under an ASP model, and get out of the way. Our clients own their own output, their own audiences and their own revenues — which is how it should be. Who needs aggregators?”
Hey Evan, great point, I think what you guys are doing sounds very interesting. Applying old school media rules to new media just doesn’t work but it looks like your company is trying to move past that model. Good stuff.
By Mike Rundle on February 22, 2007 11:30 am
Many blog network owners knew this yet they continued to push on and add more sites before making any of the previous ones relevant
For the smaller blog networks (or people with a network of blogs like me) part of the thinking is if I can’t get 7000 subscribers or make six-figures of earnings from one or a few quality blogs.. maybe a multiple of sites bringing in 70 subscribers and 4 figures can me give hope of growing into something much bigger. 3-4 figures per year barely covers the time spent yet alone the online and hardware costs. You all know that.
So all of this takes time and energy for the little people and maybe the content and quality isn’t up to snuff - ACCORDING TO a highly elitist clique who are full of themselves - but that’s okay. I still sleep at night (at least 6 nights a week heh) and wake up the next morning thinking that the money is in the archives, and its time to blog about more stuff today, if I can.
It’s like Aaron blogging about how crappy blogging about blogging has become etc etc .. this post about blog networks from a blog network putting down blog networks are crappy. I’m with Jeremy on this one. Linkbait. Just because you wrote, doesn’t mean its true.
IF you want to add value to why blog network fails - do a case study and name names. Which blog network failed (in your eyes) and what are their reasons? Micro managing is not a reason in my opinion. People can do that .. and chew bubble gum, spin their hands on their head in an anti-clockwise movement and still walk in a straight line sometimes.
By HART (1-800-HART) on February 22, 2007 12:45 pm
Ok, let’s cut the linkbait crap. What is it now, everything that is said that isn’t liked is linkbait? Please. The truth: you read something you didn’t like because you fall into the category. Truth hurts sometimes, but instead of calling it a name, since it stings, why not try to make things better?
Next, this highly elitist clique? Where are you getting that from? my.9rules allows ANYONE to come to our site, hang out with us. Anyone. Doesn’t sound elitist to me when Scrivs, Mike and I are posting notes and interacting with everyone.
People with no money and no clear business plan decided to follow the model of companies that launched with money and the tools to do what they needed to accomplish. Those said people handled their companies as a business. Jason spoke many times about the opportunities he had but did not pursue to stay focused.
The quality isn’t up to snuff deemed by the fact you don’t have the traffic. People made that decision. What are you doing to scale? To properly compete? That is not an attack, they are sound business questions.
You don’t like this entry because it describes you but you have so many options to scale, particularly since social networking is so popular. Blog networks have evolved, the standards of what once worked isn’t going to work very well now. That is being proved by sagging traffic numbers.
It’s no one’s fault but your own if you don’t use all the tools available to you to do better for yourself.
By Tyme White on February 22, 2007 1:05 pm
[…] So why did blog networks fail? If you haven’t figured it out yet you probably still run one yourself. […]
By Blog Networks » Blogrolle.net on February 22, 2007 1:13 pm
Dude, linkbait rule #341…
When you write a headline with a keyword in it like “failure”, then in your first paragraph recant that as “might be a harsh term to use”…
That’s linkbait. Otherwise, you should just have written the headline “Why Blog Networks Sometimes Don’t Work Out”
Why didn’t you? Because it wouldn’t have gotten me here.
You should just admit linkbait when you do it, you’ll feel better.
Note: there’s not wrong with it in my opinion, as long as you admit it. Free yourself!
By Jim Kukral on February 22, 2007 1:17 pm
I think linkbait is only used by bloggers who don’t have many links or subscribers and need more. Not all that applicable in this case with over 7000 subscribers.
By Mike Rundle on February 22, 2007 1:24 pm
The “highly elitist clique” came from the article .. if you have a 9rules leaf on your site.. Not my words ..
Just because you don’t have traffic, doesn’t mean “the people spoken and your quality isn’t up to snuff”… It could just mean that I’m lousy at promotion and marketing. And, that someday I will have traffic.
Are you one of those people? I am a member of my.9rules and visit frequently. I don’t post because you are all talking about yourselves or you shame me into thinking if I were to respond that I’m an idiot, or I will get attacked with rampart posts against me. It’s still a good idea though, and have never put it down.
By HART (1-800-HART) on February 22, 2007 1:28 pm
The point of the post was to get people to think you were dumping on all blog networks and to respond accordingly.
If you guys really, really want to get into some kind of fight, fine. But have it by yourselves.
So much for my hope we could have honest conversations at SXSW. Guess it’ll just be another slagfest where 9rules says how much better they are than everyone else. Which is, yep, elitist.
By Jeremy Wright on February 22, 2007 1:47 pm
10 years ago one might have said “hey, search engines are failing! It’s way too early to generalize about the current or future state of blogging. I think blog networks will eventually replace traditional media, but also think that will happen only when a critical mass of bloggers is reached in a niche. Only in the blog-rich tech sector has that started to happen.
By Joe Duck on February 22, 2007 2:06 pm
Actually I wasn’t starting any fight, I wrote my piece on blog networks and left it at that. I’ve always written titles like that so in hindsight I guess everything I write is linkbait. The point of the post was to share my thoughts like I always do. Do blogs succeed or do the blog networks succeed? I don’t think the blogs, if they do succeed, do so because of the network and therefore in my mind blog networks fail.
People just don’t care about blog networks as a whole, just like people don’t care about Viacom, they just want their MTV.
b5 got used as an example because you guys did something similar to what AOL is doing by shutting down a blog and I just happened to recall you saying something about keeping them up doesn’t cost that much. Then you go on here saying you have been closing them since month 2 and as Rundle pointed out then you complained that Oddjack was being shutdown. I’m sure you can understand my confusion.
As for SXSW…well…who knows and honestly who cares.
By Scrivs on February 22, 2007 2:09 pm
Hart: You just sound like you wish to make lots of money and if that is the case then creating a blog network is the wrong option. There are a ton of much better ways to make money online.
By Scrivs on February 22, 2007 2:11 pm
Joe: Lets not confuse blog networks for blogging.
By Scrivs on February 22, 2007 2:12 pm
Hart: current notes right now:
1) Do you give your blog address to co-workers?
2) Are you in a famous family?
3) What cameras do you own?
4) I hate writer’s block
5) The Official Virb Invites Note
Now how is that talking about ourselves? You have an opinion about us from I don’t know where but it’s not from interacting with us (at least not me - accept to slam what I say). On my.9rules we’re talking about things anyone can relate to, whether they have a blog or not. It’s a good opportunity to give exposure to those that do have blogs.
Jeremy: Well, this is about the saddest thing I’ve seen you write yet because I thought you knew me, since we used to work together. I’m not the one that changed, you did. I don’t think I’m better than anyone else. Matter of fact I try to help people.
I’ve always looked at things from a business standpoint - we held this discussion. What we said is coming true - only the strong survive. It’s not like we don’t want you to succeed - honestly, Scrivs said so today…we want you to. We don’t want anyone to fail. We aren’t a blog network, never was so it’s not like we’re saying we’re better than you or any other blog network so cut the crap.
Instead of calling names, saying Scrivs and 9rules is elitist (which I take offense too since I spend a lot of time helping others) or accusing us of dumping on blog networks, come back with something that explains why this isn’t true:
“All the blog networks after WIN and Gawker spent so much time trying to make something from little bits and pieces that they forgot to evaluate what might be important to them. You can build 100s of sites, but what does that change? It just means you have 100s of sites to micro-manage now which takes away your resources.”
Not like I didn’t tell you that a year ago Jeremy. Was it linkbait then? Was I being elitist then? Did you think I was better than you then? When I extended my offer for advice on business management/strategy, was I looking down on you (when our networks were at war I might add)?
Thank Jeremy, good to know how you really feel.
By Tyme White on February 22, 2007 2:16 pm
Ahh, Scrivs, gotcha. So by that argument, Time Warner’s a failure, Viacom’s a failure, Disney’s a failure. All parent companies are failures because people don’t care about the parent company.
I never asked anyone to care about b5. It was always meant to be kind of like “powered by x platform”.
So if we set a goal, and accomplished / exceeded that goal… we’re a failure.
Growing traffic, growing revenue, growing reach, growing profile.
Hey, if that’s a failure I’ll fail all day long and twice on Sundays.
And, Tyme, if you really think it’s somehow “worse” to do something hundreds of times vs one, then I don’t know what to say. Tens of thousands of franchises open every year on the concept that they draw all of the strength and experience from the parent company so that it’s easier than doing it on your own.
How long does it take someone to install Wordpress, setup a theme (ie: not do a custom design, just grab a theme), figure out plugins and get everything done for launch besides writing the content? 4-5 hours maybe? It takes us 5.8 seconds.
How long does it take someone to upgrade a single installation of Wordpress or to stay up to date on which plugins are out of date? Half an hour a month? It takes us 5-6 minutes.
Sure, having a larger enterprise, be it McDonalds or About.com, takes creating tools and processes to allow you to scale. But that’s no surprise, is it? We don’t have everything perfect, by far, but if your question is “is it possible to efficiently manage hundreds of sites”, the answer is “yes”. It doesn’t take us anymore work to manage 200 smaller sites than it would to manage a dozen massive ones. In fact, I’d argue that because we’ve had to build management tools it probably takes us less work.
By Jeremy Wright on February 22, 2007 2:35 pm
ps: Tyme, I’m always happy to listen to your thoughts. You’ve always had my email address and Skype ID. And I’d love to chat with you at SXSW. I’m guessing Scrivs won’t want to be there, since he doesn’t give a damn, but I personally *can’t wait* to finally meet you and hang out.
By Jeremy Wright on February 22, 2007 2:37 pm
“It doesn’t take us anymore work to manage 200 smaller sites than it would to manage a dozen massive ones.”
I’m not sure how you can effectively use that comparison since you currently do not manage a dozen massive sites, or maybe I’m just being elitist.
By Mike Rundle on February 22, 2007 2:42 pm
As someone who doesn’t own a blog network, I think the reason they fail are the following:
1. no monetization other than adsense (fmpublishing handles like 1% of blogs, if that)
2. piss poor topics (long tail my ass, the long tail still costs money to update)
3. no value added aside from the content (where are the things to bring people back, RSS isnt gonna cut it)
4. they think of themselves as blog destinations and not content or resource destinations.
By Brian Breslin on February 22, 2007 2:45 pm
Maybe you are, but I can’t tell since I can’t see your face.
If you were running a dozen sites, you’d probably: manage each bit of software individually, create unique designs for each one, have different plugins for each, have different databases for each, have different stats for each.
There’d be no economies of scale because you weren’t scaling. When you only have a dozen sites, there’s very little incentive to write larger management apps that do things like install Wordpress, manage plugins and upgrades, centralize logins, aggregate stats, create reports, etc.
You’d probably put 5-10 hours per site per month into just running things and keeping up on them. So 60-120 hours. We do less than that for general maintenance and about that if you include comment spam and such.
I mean, when Nick Denton says he spent hundreds of hours (recent conference) upgrading the software on the network, that’s pretty indicative of most organizations of that type. Where we did an upgrade last night, including testing, in 2 hours.
It doesn’t mean either model is better or worse. My point is that you can’t say “well it takes me 5 hours per month to run my blog, so b5 must spend 1000 hours on general maintenance stuff”. When we don’t. More than happy to show you some of the tools we’ve built, Mike, and to get your thoughts on other ways to aid in scaling when we’re at SXSW.
For now, though, I was just answering Tyme’s question :-)
By Jeremy Wright on February 22, 2007 2:49 pm
No actually I would consider Viacom and Disney huge successes because as parent companies they can create mini-brands that stand on their own. I still stand and say that nobody cares who the parent company is, they care about the brand and you don’t need a parent company for that. If you have a parent company that can give you what you need to make it big then great, but what blog networks have proven to be able to do that?
But you don’t do big so the individual brand doesn’t matter to you and if that doesn’t matter and whether people know about b5 or not matters, then that leaves what exactly?
As for the franchise example…that model is successful because the initial store/parent company was successful.
I’m just spitting back what you keep on putting out there man.
By Scrivs on February 22, 2007 2:50 pm
Erm, I didn’t say we don’t do big. I said we do niche. Sometimes niche means big. I mean, our Snarky Gossip site will do a million pageviews this month (you can dispute that, of course, but the Compete graph shows how the site stacks against 9rules.com and other properties: http://snapshot.compete.com/9rules.com+snarkygossip.com+businesslogs.com+nottoogeeky.com+wisdump.com+).
Also, the whole point of “we don’t do big” is that we value the individual smaller sites. If we didn’t, we’d do lohan.b5media.com instead of LohanGroupie.com.
Next time, before spitting stuff out, you may want to realize that just like Hart’s opinion of 9rules loving to talk about itself is “wrong” and out of left field… Perhaps your opinion of why and how we do things is wrong too.
Does stuff change? Sure. But I’d still rather retire a blog than sell it off. And I’d rather give it to a blogger than sell it too. So maybe it doesn’t change as much as you’d like to make others believe.
By Jeremy Wright on February 22, 2007 3:00 pm
Well to bring the conversation back on point, WIN eventually evolved into a Gawker-type network, where they concentrated most of their efforts on the Big Blogs that made them the most money: Engadget, Autoblog, and Joystiq. Jason’s said a bunch of times that AOL didn’t care about the small blogs in WIN, they just wanted the large ones and the management processes created to manage the large ones. For all intents and purposes, WIN could have killed 80% of the blogs in their network, taken the money they used to pay those writers and shuffle it into the Big 3, and probably not drop a lick of revenue.
By Mike Rundle on February 22, 2007 3:00 pm
Brian: We hate AdSense. Less than 20% of our revenue comes from AdSense.
By Jeremy Wright on February 22, 2007 3:03 pm
Mike I agree 200%.
By David Krug on February 22, 2007 3:05 pm
Mike: Agreed. But that doesn’t mean there isn’t value in niche. If About.com dropped every content area from the site that wasn’t doing 1M pageviews or more, know how many they would have had when the NYT bought them for big bucks?
6.
And the NYT wouldn’t have bought them, because they wanted the depth of content.
I understand why folk want big. But that doesn’t mean small can never, ever work.
Also, Scrivs, your perception of most franchises is wrong. When I said the 10,000 per year I was talking about smaller franchises with less than 10 open locations. Where the “brand” means nothing.
By Jeremy Wright on February 22, 2007 3:07 pm
There’s a value in niche but it’s not the type of value that companies are currently looking to buy another company out for. NYT bought About.com 2 years ago and they bought it for the eyeballs — 22M uniques per month. When you have 22M uniques per month staring at your content you no longer are “niche” because even your “niche” sites are big. About.com was deep AND wide AND had the eyeballs. WIN was wide BUT couldn’t make all the wide blogs have the eyeballs SO they switched and went deep with additional Joystiq blogs, additional Engadget blogs to further their largest brands.
Small will not work for a large acquisition, because companies can spend a few months of their own and create “small” for much less than they can buy it for. Companies buy out other companies for things they can’t create for themselves, just looking at how many blog networks are out there shows that having a few dozen small sites is easy, but having sites in your stable that are large and significant like Joystiq, Engadget, Gawker, Defamer is hard, which is why you don’t see any of the current blog networks coming to bat with a giant the size of any of the ones I mentioned.
By Mike Rundle on February 22, 2007 3:16 pm
Sorry, I was thrown off by the headline that read “Why b5media Doesn’t Do Big Blogs”. Everything is a niche unless you have a site that talks about everything and then hell even that may be a niche. But now you drew out the numbers game again. Let’s just play it like this:
- Before Ali we had 5 people come to the site.
- After Ali we had 10 people come to the site.
As you can see we aren’t failures either because we reached our goal of double digits this month.
Congrats on a blog reaching 1M PVs for the month. Who knew the gossip field was so addicting and successful right? I know all about valuing the smaller site. We’ve been doing it since day 1. In two months I had Damn I’m Cute at about 20k PVs daily (500k-600k) a month so what does that mean? Hell if I know. I can prove we get 10 people per month and if you wish to play the numbers game like you do on occassion you should try and back it up (this is where you slide in and tell me it wouldn’t benefit you to do so). You can understand me being a bit skeptical when I couldn’t find any comments left on the homepage. Now if the Superficial says 1M pageviews I’m going to believe it.
About.com was smart enough to keep everything on one domain and therefore could successfully add any niche without having to worry about dropping it.
As for the whole blog management thing? Honestly I would just install WordPressMU and be done with it.
By Scrivs on February 22, 2007 3:20 pm
What I keep saying (and no one listens) WIN is no longer a valid option as a comparison. It scaled when AOL bought it. WIN stands alone but the ultimate goal is to fold it into AOL and AOL does push traffic to it. AOL is a community.
As I said earlier cNet, ZDNET (owner by cNet), IGN, Yahoo - all blog networks that scaled to having communities. Gawker hasn’t and it’s not doing as well as it used to, is it?
Then there is b5, with 2.5M uniques using the old WIN model. Meaning you are starting to compete for advertisers the big guns are using. We all know there is a difference between having X traffic across the entire network and having X traffic on one blog. You can negotiate better ad contracts. To say that you have a challenge is not underestimating things. Anyone coming after you has a bigger challenge and the odds are against them. Bottom line.
Considering there are 4 components that have to be fulfilled:
1) The bloggers
2) The content
3) The users
4) The advertisers
By going small, not being able to negotiate for optimal ad contracts, fulfilling all four (particularly the content) is tough because you tied your hands. But let’s be honest, in a way Jeremy you’re scaling because you’re dabbling with adding outside (pre-established) sites to your network.
By Tyme White on February 22, 2007 3:23 pm
Hart’s opinion of 9rules loving to talk about itself is “wrong†and out of left field…
Jeremy. I never said that or meant to imply anything. That’s what Scrivs said.
For example, if you have a 9rules leaf on your site to some people that means something. It could mean:
Great content.
Quality site.
Leader in niche.
Member of a highly elitist clique who are full of themselves.
Scrivs. Actually, I do want to make money online but am realistic that I will never make a lot of it. I do want to support vacations, and other emergency savings for in case I ever got sick as a sole-practitioner. I’m always open for ideas .. and willing to try new things. But, I don’t consider myself a Blog Network .. I just have a network of blogs. toMAYtoes toMAHtoes I guess.
Tyme. You flatter me by never remembering our interactions, yet publicly post private information or whatever that 5-count was above from your site for all to see? You sure showed me! Congrats. But, oops.. as I am replying back to your comment about me, I guess my comment is now deemed to be another slam at you and not an interaction. I have no grudge against you - it’s all in your mind (I was talking about the post, not people)
By HART (1-800-HART) on February 22, 2007 3:26 pm
Graphs are great for proving whatever you want. Put your celeb site up against Socialite Life and The Superficial and it’s a different story. If Snarky Gossip does 1M pageviews per month then based on this graph, The Superficial is doing 500x the traffic of Snarky Gossip… so wait, they’re doing 500M pageviews per month? Damn, now that’s some traffic. :-X
By Mike Rundle on February 22, 2007 3:35 pm
Private? How is that private? ANYONE can see it:
http://9rules.com/notes/
You said:
“I am a member of my.9rules and visit frequently. I don’t post because you are all talking about yourselves or you shame me into thinking if I were to respond that I’m an idiot, or I will get attacked with rampart posts against me. It’s still a good idea though, and have never put it down.”
That’s in your head. It’s a friendly community where we help each other. Again it’s you with the preconceived ideas.
By Tyme White on February 22, 2007 3:35 pm
Look, all 3 of you responding. How cute of you to all point out how wrong b5’s model is (and all networks that aren’t like yours). Sorry if I said that was elitist before, because it’s obviously not elitist to think there’s only one right way to do things.
Mike: I agree, About.com had reach and depth and width. Kinda similar to some other company out there… Going wide, going deep and shooting for reach… All I said was the model could work and that audiences responded to it. Glad we agree on that. Will it work for us? Too early to tell. But “2.5M uniques” isn’t a bad start.
Scrivs: *I* drew out the numbers game? You’re the one who said no network would ever do the traffic TechCrunch does in a single month over the course of the entire year. As far as Ali, I think that’s fantastic that you guys have grown in traffic. In fact, I’d be surprised if you guys weren’t doing more than 10M pages/month right now, which just goes to show how useless any comparison graphs are. As far as the rest of your post, I’m not sure what your point is. You had a big celeb blog? Yep. About.com was smart? Yep. MU is decent? Yep (but doesn’t do everything we’d need it to). Sorry if I missed any other put-downs that may have been too subtle for me.
Tyme: We’re not using, nor have we ever used, the WIN model. If we did, we’d pay authors per post, rely almost exclusively on AdSense, have 3-4 authors per blog, not in any way promote them and spam all our blogs with “other posts in the network”. I’ve said from Day 1, and I’ll continue to say, that we have no issues selling ads. We don’t do it per blog. We do it per channel. Simple. It’s how you’d do it, and it’s how we do it. We have bloggers, content, users and advertisers. And every month each one grows. Tell me how that’s “failing”? Is it tough? Sure. But every business has it’s challenges. We’ve been up front both with what ours were, and how we were tackling them, since Day 1. That you still seem to think we sell ads on each individual blog is just evidence that maybe we’re not being clear enough.
By Jeremy Wright on February 22, 2007 3:36 pm
Mike: I love how you discount graphs now, when you’ve had entire posts before to show how small b5 was based on a minor sampling of blogs. The only reason I used a graph was to show that the million pages per month wasn’t that hard to imagine.
I didn’t say it was accurate. I just used a Mike Rundle Technique (patent pending) to show that a site was succeeding (thouh you’d use it to show it’s failing).
Graphs suck. But if I used anything else you’d call me a liar. You can’t have it every which way:
1. b5’s internl stats can’t be trusted
2. Jeremy can’t be trusted
3. External sites can’t be trusted
4. They obviously don’t have a site that does 1M pageviews… Cause Mike Rundle says so
Oh, and, Tyme, yeah, we love bringing in external sites. Does that make us a success or a failure? We’ve done that since Day 1 too.
By Jeremy Wright on February 22, 2007 3:40 pm
Oh, and Scrivs, just to keep you honest, SnarkyGossip has 2 comments on the homepage. And had 18 yesterday. It’s not one of the mega celeb sites. But then I never said it was. After all, on DIC you could go days without a comment and you did half a million a month so … what are we proving again?
By Jeremy Wright on February 22, 2007 3:43 pm
Well.. that was fun morning anyway .. if you want me to comment further, please install Subscribe-to-comments so I get an email. I will not be hitting refresh every 10 minutes like a groupie anymore (at least not today).. ~waves to everybody .. Have a good day to all!
By HART (1-800-HART) on February 22, 2007 3:45 pm
Is Snarky Gossip getting “1M” pageviews because of b5 or because of its own ability?
By Scrivs on February 22, 2007 3:45 pm
Jeremy you brought third-party graphs to this luncheon, not me buddy. I went over to it and typed some other URLs in and related it to what you said, again, I’m working off what you’re telling me in relation to a graph you linked, so where’s the foul? There are people all over asking you to back up what you say with stats, but hey, I own a Ferrari and it’s right here in my driveway. What’s my address so you can look at it? Sorry, can’t give that out, that’s only useful to my dog. Here are some Google Earth pictures that show a random red car next to my house, so obviously you can see how I own a Ferrari.
I’m not stuck on statistics, but when you jump into this conversation and start talking about one of b5’s blogs, the traffic it gets, and a link to Compete, then you better come to party.
By Mike Rundle on February 22, 2007 3:48 pm
That’s an easy one to answer, most of the visitors to DIC were looking at pictures in the gallery so why should they leave comments? Hell I’m sure some people didn’t even know there was a blog on the site.
Hart: If you don’t keep on refreshing this site has no chance of catching up with Snarky Gossip on the Compete chart.
By Scrivs on February 22, 2007 3:48 pm
Scrivs. You are probably right and look at me. I had to not only refresh once again, but post again! lol .. PS that complete chart only showed 3 sites for me, as I’m not a member
By HART (1-800-HART) on February 22, 2007 3:53 pm
Scrivs: That’s like asking if Wayne Gretzky is a great hockey player because he worked his ass off or because of good genes. You said we had no big sites. You said we couldn’t do the traffic TC does in a month even if we took a year. You said nobody cared about network blogs. You said networks couldn’t raise an audience.
Here’s the thing with saying industries or companies are failing: you do actually need to back it up.
All I did was show a single site that’s succeeding. That single site does more in a year than TC does in a month traffic-wise. It has a wide reader base. Its readers care about the blog. It raised an audience.
All it took for me to disrpove all your points was one blog.
I didn’t say b5 was bigger or better than anyone or anything. And I didn’t say 9rules was a failure (I’ve always said you guys rocked, the only attacking that ever happens in this “war” is from you guys outwards). I love Ali. Told you guys so in an email (that none of you responded to) and then on the 9rules blog.
You’ll never find us withholding praise. And we’ll never find you guys withholding criticism.
End of the day, we aren’t currently a failure. And while we may fail, it’s too early to call because the numbers certainly don’t show any signs of having “failure” written all over them.
By Jeremy Wright on February 22, 2007 3:57 pm
Jeremy you probably got my picture on a dartboard or something. If so I can send you a new one if the old one is getting dated. In fact you should make a b5 dartboard and I can make a 9r one and we can exchange them and simply use those instead of “fighting” online. At least we could drink while poking holes into each other.
By Scrivs on February 22, 2007 3:58 pm
Mike: Yeah, I’d better come to party. Cause the entire point of this thread is to nitpick every detail. That’s what it always is with you, though. Prove one detail and you shift it. Prove another and you shift it. I get the game, Mike, and I’m not playing. The only point of the graph was to show that the site was doing well. If you really, really think your graph shows that snarkygossip is doing poorly, then it also means 9rules.com is too (which I don’t believe).
Scrivs: Yeah… And of course none of our readers would come to look at the pictures either… Sorry, the only thing your statement proves is that because you had a gallery it inflates the pageviews/visitor and keeps them on the site longer. Which is great, but doesn’t prove anything about SnarkyGossip … except that we probably have more uniques than you did.
Scrivs: No dartboard. You guys do something cool, I congratulate you internally and externally. Why would we say anything bad about you guys? You’ve chosen your path, and you’re doing a fantastic job at your chosen path. The aggregator rocks. The my.9rules rocks. The community rocks.
Sorry, I have no reason to rag on you guys. Never have (besides the now-standard “where’s the business model”).
So while you can send me a picture, I’ll probably just leave it in a pile on the desk. I might even smile at it once and a while.
Seriously, any antagonism between us is purely one-directional. Long-standing, but one-directional. Sure, we’re a little tired of it, but that’s the extent of any animosity.
By Jeremy Wright on February 22, 2007 4:06 pm
Well Jeremy, I’m talking to you so aren’t I supposed to respond? :)
Let’s try this another way. When you started b5 there were many blog networks. Most died out. I think everyone agrees with that. From that standpoint alone, blog networks failed. Not all of them, most of them.
Now the ones that survived are starting to scale in order to be competitive with the 4 components I stated above. You went the small blog route but with 2.5M uniques, that’s not a failure. Do you have a challenge? Yes. Could you fail? Any business can. Challenges are good - makes you strong.
Now remove yourself from the equation. Particularly since Scrivs, said this morning, for the whole world to hear, that he wishes you success. Remove yourself because we all know you’re going to have to scale to be more than just a blog network. You’ve already started with the forums.
For all the ones after (can’t include InstaBlog because they scaled)- what are the odds of their success?
Now factor if they went the niche blog route? What are the odds of their success?
Would you recommend going niche?
That’s what this entry is about. If there were 100s of blog networks and now there are significantly less, did blog networks succeed? No, blogs did.
By Tyme White on February 22, 2007 4:09 pm
Tyme, I totally agree that most networks have and will failed. And, when asked to make recommndations on starting a network (meant to scale, not amongst a few friends) my recommendation is always one thing: go vertical. Single-vertical networks have a much greater chance of success right now than anything else. And if you can get to 2-3M uniques on a single-vertical network, you’re basically guaranteed a 5-10M buyout.
And, if that’s what this entry is about, then why are Scrivs and Mike trying to convince me that we’re failing? Why say no blog network does what TC does in a month over the course of a year?
Again, I don’t think we all need to agree, but I’ve always felt there were more synergies between b5 and 9rules than differences. The only reason we’re not doing things like sharing resources, offering your bloggers free hosting and extending ad deals is because you guys (not always you, Tyme) insist on posts and comments like the ones exhibited here.
I’ve always said we’d be stronge working together instead of against each other. After all, if we can generate an extra couple of thousand pageviews (which we undoubtedly will now that this thread is undoubtedly circulating through 9rules/scrivstyme land) just in one thread in one day, imagine the value we could bring to both networks by working together instead of independently.
You guys kick ass, and it’s always saddened us that any relationship outside of us trying to defend ourselves against your jabs was impossible.
It’s one of the reasons I was (until Scrivs’ comments) excited about SXSW: the potential to actually talk instead of always yelling.
By Jeremy Wright on February 22, 2007 4:20 pm
Btw, Scrivs, as a note, the person you linked to on Ensight asking about our stats? Works for Gawker: http://www.scottkidder.com/.
The only people clamoring for stats info are competitors or blog-journalists who want to write comparison pieces but can’t.
And, per your post on Wisdump earlier this week: we don’t define our success or failure based on our competitors demands.
By Jeremy Wright on February 22, 2007 4:30 pm
Things would have been simpler if you just came in and stated your case, but you jumped in and called it linkbait. I have to step away from the computer now. You did well defending your company from my (and I guess Mike’s?) vicious attacks. I applaud you. You win.
If you go back and read the comments you can see we just pointed out that you flip flop occasionally on which strategy you are using. Then the fun began.
By Scrivs on February 22, 2007 4:30 pm
And Jeremy, that was Mike that linked to that comment and in the case of Scott asking for stats he kind of has a right to since you were using numbers which no one could see publicly. Hard not to expect him to ask to see them.
By Scrivs on February 22, 2007 4:33 pm
Flip flop. Such an ugly American word. You say it like changing strategies is a bad thing. Not that we’ve really changed strategies. Anymore than 9rules flip flopped for going from “all blog networks have failed” to “okay, some have failed… right?”
Sorry if “flip flopped” doesn’t get my back up as it might in your hometown.
In the future, feel free to write a long post on all the ways we flip flopped. Then you can half-withdraw the statement while also defending it. Then you can say you still love us and want us to succeed, while continuing to attack us and telling us all the ways we’re failing.
Then, to end the conversation you can “concede defeat”, say it was all good and that everything’s okay while taking one last jab.
That would make such a great post.
By Jeremy Wright on February 22, 2007 4:35 pm
Scrivs: Apologies. Should have realized a stats issue would have been Mike-related. I love that you guys have a massively deep need to get stats justification whenever we post, even in passing, about our stats. But when any other network does a major press release (http://www.knowmoremedia.com/2007/02/press_release_know_more_medias_1.html today, for example) you don’t harp on them.
Yet more evidence of your objectiveness and the lack of 9rules attacking b5 arbitrarily? Nawwww…
Also, I’ve just skimmed my post, and I don’t see where we mentioned any specific numbers? And even if we did, so what? Have you gone after Mike Arrington to defend TC’s supposed revenue or traffic numbers? How about Boing Boing?
No, you haven’t.
But when we say we might, just might, do more traffic in a year than they do in a month you get your undies all knotted up.
Why is that?
By Jeremy Wright on February 22, 2007 4:41 pm
Jeremy, I don’t know why you say there are many synergies, 9rules is essentially the complete opposite of b5. We don’t start our own sites or ask bloggers to write for a site they don’t own, we value custom design and development (never use off-the-shelf solutions like pre-made toolbars), we don’t do press release baloney (in fact we make fun of companies that do), we turned down VC money because we didn’t think it was necessary, and although people have left 9rules they left on their accord and we didn’t close their mouth with an NDA. We’re just trying to design and develop cool shit, we’re having a ton of fun, and we don’t care about the corporate culture junk. Our biggest similarity is that we have a number in our URL but I think it stops there.
By Mike Rundle on February 22, 2007 4:42 pm
Y’know, I’d written a big comment showing how much of an ass you were. But I’ll let the “we aren’t elitist” statements just sit with your comment where you put us down in a thousand ways for making decisions in line with our business plan, which all 3 of you have said is a sign of success and maturity. Hell, Tyme even blogged about it this week.
I’d even called out great ways we could work together all of which would have benefited you, your community, your company and the industry.
But, yeah, we’re probably not good enough to work with you. And, for the record, I can totally see how you’re not an elitist.
By Jeremy Wright on February 22, 2007 4:54 pm
Also, I call BS on you guys turning down VC money. Show me the signed term sheet. Anything else is just VC’s playing the VC game.
Until you have a term sheet, you weren’t offered money. And until you’re offered money, you can’t turn it down.
This “VC’s wanted to give us money and we turned them down” cool factor you guys play up has to stop. You’re cool, but not because you turned down money you were never offered.
By Jeremy Wright on February 22, 2007 4:59 pm
Meh, apologies for the above. Not my place to question your statements and coolness. None of my business.
Sorry about that. Just the constant insults on one hand coupled with the constant “we’re not insulting you and we love you” on the other getting under my skin.
By Jeremy Wright on February 22, 2007 5:06 pm
We never really thought it was a cool factor thing, we just thought at the time it was the right thing to do. Talking to our friends in the industry who deal with VCs we were able to understand their expectations a know that they probably wouldn’t line up with what we had planned. I got no reason to lie about turning offers away and the only time I am going to lie today is when I say I am wearing pants while writing this comment.
As for being elitist? Guess that depends on what your definition is. Do we think we do things better than others in our field? Hell yeah. Why shouldn’t every company be like that? We aren’t going to pretend that we are all equals and that this is the land where nothing separates us from them. Are we elitist to the point where we don’t listen to our audience? Hell no. We do it everyday and their constant feedback shows that.
In the future when you have to prove why you are better than Network X to advertise on you will have to show it. When you do that you are essentially being elitist.
Just like you don’t have to prove traffic or stats to anyone, but the advertisers we don’t have to prove our coolness (shit can you even do that?). Anyways I’m sure we are cool only in our own minds.
You seem to be the only one defending blog networks. I’m looking at what others are saying and it seems the majority think the model is dead as well. So don’t take this as a 9rules attack on you guys because then you would have to consider everyone agreeing with the above entry is attacking your model as well.
You know what you can do? Keep moving. Build up strong. Prove all of us wrong. And when that day comes I’ll be man enough to say you proved me wrong, job well done. You already proved me wrong with your Snarky Gossip example and how over a year it beats out TC for a month.
As for “harping” on other blog networks…they aren’t coming here to join the discussion and probably nobody else will after what us asses did throughout the day.
By Scrivs on February 22, 2007 5:22 pm
I run the KBCafe blog network. Failure and success for me is math. My profit margin is about 95%, that is, I make $20 for every dollar I spend. I’m sure many blog networks fail, there are enough idiots in this world to guarantee that fact. But I know at least one is succeeding and I suspect many others are.
By Randy Charles Morin on February 22, 2007 5:58 pm
>> Ankit, I’m not sure how you can say Fine Fools was a >>failure. Paul invested $0 into it and it launched the >>careers of many people who work for blog networks or run >>their own blogs today — David Krug, Liz Strauss, etc. He >>spent no money but got thousands in return, is that your >>definition of failure?
Maybe our definition of success and failure is different. Anyways we don`t see successful blog networks like finefools closing down so often. I have respect for you guys to be great designers and programmers but bashing other blog networks for no reason is simply not cool.
Anyways since Scrivs talked about 9rules and other blog network. Here is a chart from compete.com
http://snapshot.compete.com/instablogs.com+9rules.com+
By Ankit on February 23, 2007 4:23 am
I’m a little late on this, but to Jeremey and any others calling this post linkbait, what you fail to understand is that this is a blog. A blog owned by someone other than you, who has the right to say whatever the hell he wants.
I always considered headlines that cause you to do something (respond) effective marketing, but if you consider it “linkbaiting”, a refresher course in marketing 101 may be due.
Scrivs, you didn’t touch on design much, which I think is one of the key signals as to whether a network is destined to succeed fail.
The template approach of b5media created one of the ugliest blog networks out there, design, usability, and uniqueness wise.
By Travis on February 23, 2007 5:58 am
We have a lot of work ahead of us, but I’d like to believe that we are not failing. We try to have great talent writing great content for a very passionate community.
One thing I would add to the equation is persistence. In addition to great content & community, it also takes some time to build it.
You know how passionate some of us are during a Jobs keynote…refreshing Engadget constantly? Come by PopSugar, BuzzSugar, FabSugar, TeamSugar, and the rest of the Sugar Network on Sunday to see that same level of passion.
By Brian Sugar on February 23, 2007 12:56 pm
Randy: That’s what we like to hear.
Ankit: You guys don’t really compete with the rest of the blog networks as I see you guys being the sole dominant Indian Blog Network and you added social functionality. You guys should be doing well and as I already established we only bring in 10 people a day so of course you have us beat.
Brian: Same goes with the Sugar Network. You guys added social capabilities so you went beyond just a blog network and created more of a social community around your sites.
By Scrivs on February 23, 2007 1:21 pm
I’m not sure which of you guys has the most sand in his vagina, but I suspect it is Mike Rundle.
At least we’re having a discussion about BUSINESS MODELS rather than ROUNDED CORNERS and associated bullshit.
Media buyers are still lazy, only vaguely get ‘the web’ (proof: they still buy page impressions), and major publishers are useless at targeting / segmenting.
Look no further than the slow-moving online ad industry if you want to look at why blog networks / bloggers (aka online publishers) aren’t doing amazingly well.
By Rob on February 23, 2007 1:40 pm
Ankit: Since you like charts here ya go. Is it accurate? Who knows? Who cares? It’s much more current. *shrugs
I read these comments and perhaps it is my business training but I still don’t get it.
1) Blog networks popped up right and left.
2) Most of them are dead today.
That alone says one thing: blog networks, in general, failed. Meaning more closed (or are abandoned) than stayed open. Add to it:
3) Almost all of the existing ones have scaled from being “just” a blog network. They are an advertising network (FM) or added community features (Instablogs). If you have something other than a straight forward blog network - remove yourself from the equation. cNet. Yahoo. IGN. All blog networks that scaled…not my fault when it comes to 9rules people are quick to claim 9rules is a blog network but mention those three companies (or any like them), NOOO! but guess what - they are uber forms of 9rules (adding outside blogs to their site).
That said did Scrivs say blog networks were extinct? No. They failed because most closed up. Does that mean yours will fail? Only if you allow it to. Being a straight blog network won’t be enough too much longer because social networks are becoming content networks. Blogs. Movies. Podcasts. It’s just the beginning.
It saddens me that people were so concerned about proving their company was profitable there was absolutely no discussion - I mean NONE, on how to improve the situation. Why did so many die? How to prevent it in the future? I mean damn, if I owned a blog network (and I don’t - 9rules is not a network), I would be looking at the changes going on around me and seeing how I don’t end up like the majority - that failed. But do blog networks talk about that? No, too busy throwing stats around trying to prove who is better.
If Scrivs writes “Why Blog Networks are Extinct” then it would be legit to come were and say “But my blog network is successful” and make some justifications. Until that time, look around you and count your blessing your company is still thriving, because the FACT is, most didn’t.
By Tyme White on February 23, 2007 3:47 pm
9rules’ elitism single-handedly changed my mentality towards my site and caused me to change it from blog based to portfolio based.
I signed up 3 separate times because it was the “cool” thing to do and “everyone” was doing it. I was rejected all 3 attempts. The funny thing was that nearly all of my articles regarding design and coding were constantly linked to by 9rules members. I didn’t get it… my articles are cool to the members but my site sucks according to the founders… whatever.
So, thanks to 9rules and their elitism, I no longer feel the need to write compelling design and coding articles or tutorials. Why should I give the other 9rules members the opportunity to link to my articles and cause their site to look “cool” enough for 9rules, but my site remains “uncool” in 9rules eyes?
By Craig on February 23, 2007 4:29 pm
Craig: It has always been known that only 3 people decide who gets into 9rules and it has been said many times that our choices won’t be popular with everyone. However, to say that WE ALONE caused you to change to a portfolio site is a bit ridiculous in my mind. In no way whatsoever are we the end all, be all of the web. If we are elitist because we only let in certain sites then yes and we won’t change that, but please don’t let some other entity change the direction of your own site.
That is kind like me saying I asked a girl out 3x, got rejected each time, but there were plenty of other girls that liked me. However, because of that one girl I just gave up on relationships.
Best of luck to you in the future.
By Scrivs on February 23, 2007 4:37 pm
[…] A comment left on the thrilling Why Blog Networks Failed discussion sparked some interest in this mind of mine and I would like to dive a bit deeper into it. I’m not sure which of you guys has the most sand in his vagina, but I suspect it is Mike Rundle. […]
By Slow-moving online ad industry » Wisdump on February 23, 2007 4:38 pm
Not really going to get into inter-network debates. It sorta sours my mouth.
But, Hart, I wish you wouldn’t talk shit about my opinion without talking shit on my blog.
By Aaron Brazell on February 23, 2007 5:42 pm
Damn, you all are beefing like Clear Channel. I hope there’s no drivebys at SXSW this year :) Wonderful debate though. I was considering starting a niche based blog network, but this conversation has truly opened my eyes. The market is really over saturated, and I don’t know if I have anything innovative to add. Anyway, why don’t you all finish this debate in a podcast. I would love to hear it! I’m sure we can find someone to host it, or hell just break-dance fight? On a serious note, I think you all are some of the most innovative people on the web, and a joint venture would put a lot of pressure of on the competition. Good luck folks.
By Markus on February 23, 2007 11:01 pm
Scrivs:>> Ankit: You guys don’t really compete with the rest of the blog networks as I see you guys being the sole dominant Indian Blog Network and you added social functionality.
Instablogs Network might be based in India, but the audience we cater to is worldwide. We receive over 75% visitors from North America and Europe alone. Thousand of members of Instablogs Community don`t belong to India.
Since your blog network (finefools) FAILED doesn’t mean every blog network is going to fail just like you. Its better to check your mistakes rather than preaching others.
Anyways if you are point is Blog network need to evolve then we have lots of discussions few months ago on it. Surely blog networks need to evolve and its time they should start thinking to add more functionality and features to their existing setup. But the thing is ANY industry which is serious about their future thinks and work to evolve with more features to keep themselves updated with time.
We at Instablogs have added features and functionality to our Network to enrich our readers experience and help them to interact with our bloggers in a better way.
>> Tyme: Ankit: Since you like charts here ya go. Is it accurate? Who knows? Who cares? It’s much more current. *shrugs
I wasn`t the first one to bring charts and graphs to the discussion.
>> Tyme: Almost all of the existing ones have scaled from being “just†a blog network. They are an advertising network (FM) or added community features (Instablogs). If you have something other than a straight forward blog network - remove yourself from the equation.
Adding community features doesn’t change a blog network to something else. Our core product is still the blog posts our bloggers produce. We have only changed the way how our readers interact with our bloggers. We have empowered our bloggers, centralized the system so that our readers can find the articles they like to read easily.
>> Tyme: If Scrivs writes “Why Blog Networks are Extinct†then it would be legit to come were and say “But my blog network is successful†and make some justifications.
Tyme, why don`t your go and read the post by Scrivs once more. Scrivs was the one who was giving justifications why 9rules was successful and other blog networks failed.
By Ankit on February 24, 2007 2:18 am
[…] Why Blog Networks Failed ? (tags: blog blognetwork blogging) […]
By 美味饻 Blog Archive » links for 2007-02-24 on February 24, 2007 11:18 am
[…] Why Blog Networks Failed Petite analyse sur les raisons des échecs de certains networks de blogs. contenu > qualité > leader sur une niche > et … et… et … (tags: blog blogs community networks toread web20 blogging blognetwork business) […]
By Shoob » Blog Archive » links for 2007-02-24 on February 24, 2007 12:21 pm
Ankit, let’s go over some points shall we?
1) Your company is based in a country with over 1 billion people in it, so to gloat that 75% of your traffic comes from outside of your country is a bit strange to me. You guys could be a powerhouse with just Indian-based traffic alone. To each their own though right?
2) Yes I remember those discussions. You even attributed many of the ideas in your portal last year to the ideas that Rundle freely threw out there for you.
3) We are all aware of what you have done with Instablogs since you continuously remind us of it and its great and we think that moves you beyond the blog network category. If you kept up with the comments Tyme even gave you props earlier on (don’t think that will happen again though).
4) What is your fascination with Fine Fools? If “failure” in this case means doesn’t exist anymore than fine point taken. However, if failure means starting a company where the main cost is the domain names, giving away those sites to the people who wrote them to jumpstart their own careers in problogging (David Krug, Liz Strauss, Melissa Petri just to name a few) and then selling that network for thousands in just a 5 months span then I am guilty as charge. It was a failure.
5) You’re correct. Jeremy was the first to bring charts in, but you wanted to flaunt yours around as well.
You make it sound like I think 9rules is a blog network. Never claimed it was and never will. You should try reading the entry again next time and seriously don’t take it to heart when I say they fail. If you are succeeding then props to you, nothing to worry about right? I mean the web is talking about your company anyways so what do you have to be concerned with…
By Scrivs on February 24, 2007 3:44 pm
Every time I see a comment by David Krug, his “website” is different.
By Rich on February 25, 2007 5:48 pm
Jeremy said:
That working together thing, would that be before or after you said something about buying Workboxers? I’ve been watching it since Krug purchased, patiently waiting to see what happened to it. Common sense he’d sell it (it’s what he does - we said that on ST the other day).
And you bought it. You bought a Scrivs site, filled with his personal opinions. A site that used to be in Fine Fools. I’m sure you have a logical explanation for that one but it sure as hell blows the theory that Scrivs is wrong. About anything. You bought his site.
Me? It would be a cold day in hell before I purchased the site of someone I constantly accused of dogging my company. I wouldn’t want any part of it - even if it were free. Obviously we’re nothing alike…
By Tyme White on February 26, 2007 6:21 am
Look, more constructive criticism!
Just about any dig’ll do, eh guys? We bought a site that Scrivs failed on so that selling was the only way to make a buck. And that makes Scrivs right about everything.
Yeah, that’s an obvious jump. Kinda like saying if you buy Colgate you support slave labour, seal killing and elephant poaching.
By Jeremy Wright on February 26, 2007 9:50 am
Actually, it’s more “I don’t believe he bought a site Scrivs gave away.” Jeremy, he gave it away. To Jamsi. I don’t get the logic in buying it. Only has 1000 subscribers, no decent PR, not a traffic puller. I don’t get it and you owe no one explanations.
I’m going to do an entry on NTG because I don’t want to hijack Scrivs’ entry with my own thoughts about this. As an example I just read a stat that 66% of Americans are overweight and in debt. If a person isn’t overweight or in debt are they going to say the stats are wrong? No, they are going to go on about their business because it doesn’t apply to them. There are exceptions but it doesn’t make the stat wrong, nor the statements.
You guys made this entry about your companies - defending yourselves for no reason, then put everyone on the defensive with linkbait accusations, stupid ass charts, insults hurling. Amazing. Can’t get an intellectual discussion here. Done trying.
Thank God blogs succeeded. They are viable to build businesses around - no one said they weren’t. Just because a business model has blogs doesn’t make it a blog network. That’s common sense.
And I will not be at SXSW. Kind of wish I was though…
By Tyme White on February 26, 2007 2:03 pm
[…] This discussion brought out the passion in people who wanted to continuously remind me of my “failure” known as the Fine Fools Network. Fine Fools was my side project. It was my version of how a blog network should run. The idea was simple, you come up with a decent idea for a site and I would host it and you would earn all the ad revenue for the pages that you write. So essentially what I got was frontpage ad revenue while the writers got internal page revenue. My thinking was that if I am not going to pay them straight up for the work they put in, I might as well give them the opportunity to earn what they put in. […]
By My Failures » Wisdump on February 26, 2007 3:29 pm
Anyone here of Federated Media? They represent both TechCruch and Boing Boing along with a 110 others (Digg, Ars Technica, Dooce). They keep growing and making money for their sites.
no failure there
By JackMayhofferr on February 26, 2007 3:43 pm
Ok Scrivs, lets go over those points once again..
>> 1) Your company is based in a country with over 1 billion people in it, so to gloat that 75% of your traffic comes from outside of your country is a bit strange to me. You guys could be a powerhouse with just Indian-based traffic alone. To each their own though right?
Ignorance is bliss, my dear friend.
I have done a post on it few months ago, with a graph of Google Analytics. You can find it here. . If you want more graphs or proofs, please don`t hesitate to ask.
Though you are right we could be powerhouse with Indian traffic alone, but right now we have only two blogs out of 130+ blogs catering to only Indian audience. Anyways with the advent of broadband penetration in India, not only Instablogs Network but many many networks will see a sharp rise in Indian traffic in coming days.
>> 2) Yes I remember those discussions. You even attributed many of the ideas in your portal last year to the ideas that Rundle freely threw out there for you.
I have great respect for Mike Rundle, and have always attributed him as a top notch programmer and designer, though many times I haven`t agreed with him. But if you think Rundle inspired Instablogs Community and we worked only on his ideas, you better start your medicines again. The discussion took place in Sept 06, and the community was launched next month in Oct 06.
>>3) We are all aware of what you have done with Instablogs since you continuously remind us of it and its great and we think that moves you beyond the blog network category. If you kept up with the comments Tyme even gave you props earlier on (don’t think that will happen again though).
I think you were the first one to remind how great 9rules is and each and every other blog network is a failure, so I thought you might be happy to hear others progress too.
As I told earlier too, Instablogs is still a network of blogs and our core produce is the blog posts’, in which we help bloggers to monetize their work and earn profit for ourselves too. By adding features or social functonality we haven`t changed our product but the way how our customers (readers) get it. We consider Instablogs still a blog network.
>> 4) What is your fascination with Fine Fools? and then selling that network for thousands in just a 5 months span then I am guilty as charge. It was a failure.
I have no fascination with finefools. Just wanted to remind you “Those who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.”
If you want to tell what a decent blog network earn in less than a week, you made by selling the entire blog network and is a run away success, then I agree with you.
More power to ya. .
By Ankit on February 27, 2007 1:10 am
[…] The CEO of 9 Rules wrote recently over at his blog about Why Blog Networks Failed. It’s quite insightful and why not learn from what others fail at to help you succeed. This article also sparked quite a few other articles that I list here about blog networks failing. I included most of them cause you can learn a thing or two from each commentary on this wisdump post. […]
By 41 Links to Help You Start a Blog Network : Board Shorts and Business Suits on April 6, 2007 3:40 am
I dont know about other blog netwroks but about Instablogs. This is how it works:
1. There are 50+odd low paid youngsters in India who keep scouring the internet and lift content created primarily by others.
2.This content is then mercilessly stolen(including images) and put up on Instablogs.
3. Most of Instablog bloggers have no opinion of thier own and quite possible they have never used the gadgets they write about, never been to places they talk about and never seen the movies they review.
4. Instablog is a outsourcing model for blogging to server Americans from India. Scour the information from American sources and present it back to them.
4. They do citizen journalism. where they never report from the field , and steal news stories from so called traditional media sites and link them on thier blogs as breaking news. Look at IndiaDaily blog. It is an outrageous.
Is this is what future of blogging is? It is bloggers like instablogges who will give blogging a bad name.
By Gaurav on April 17, 2007 9:47 am
[…] Blog Netoworks “were” all the rage a year ago. Blog Networks since that time have failed, and others have really flourished, just like any industry that takes off. The rage might be over from the perspective of starting a Network but not much is different when it comes to how blogs can benefit greatly from them. […]
By Are Blog Networks the Rage? : Skinny Moose Media on June 11, 2007 4:36 pm
[…] You’ve heard it over and over - and as Paul Scrivens points out on his Wisdump blog - if you consistently make great content on your blog (and throw in interaction and luck, according to Mr. Scrivens), the readers will come. […]
By Blog Networks and the Long Tail on June 22, 2007 8:09 am
[…] Why Blog Networks Failed. Yes, the post itself is interesting. Yes, your eyes will glaze over long before the 84th […]
By What Blog Networks Fight About at Henricus on January 29, 2008 7:32 pm