« Jerry Brown's Blog | Main | Jeff Jarvis, Bill Keller and World Domination »
PaidContent's Staci Kramer interviews the New York Times' Martin Nisenholtz about its purchase of About.com, which by one way of thinking is the world's largest blogging company. I think the Times overpaid, but the deal still makes a lot of sense in other ways.
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834207e7e53ef00d834586ffc69e2
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference NYT's Huge Blogging Buy:
» New York Times to buy about.com from jB: no - that's definitely not good enough
This story has also made it's rounds across the web and back: about.com was sold by Primedia to the New York Times company last week... The price was / is a hefty $410 million - not bad concerning the average revenue the (sub)-sites generate. Staci Kr... [Read More]
» Tact checkers: So that's why the Times boug from chattr +a -V
Times Company to Buy About.com for $410 Million.
About.com operates a network of nearly 500 guides who create sites on thousands of topics from personal finance to consumer electronics.
about.com's menagerie of authors cover an enormous ran... [Read More]
» NY Times buys About.com from Aqute Research
I view the NY Times acquisition of About.com as a sign of the Internet crash to come (see Signs list). It seems overvalued to me, and a return to [Read More]
This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.
As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.
Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.
Dan, are you saying that NYT is jumping on the cluetrain ??
Posted by: /pd | February 19, 2005 at 02:27 PM
Look's like everybody is looking for a buy, and there aren't just too many web properties with big enough visitor base to go around.
David, Owner of http://www.deprice.com
Find out a dirty little secret that will get you
10-25% Off ANY software
Posted by: David | February 19, 2005 at 03:47 PM
It may have some good content, but does NYT realize how annoying about.com can be with all that flashing crap? Or, are they planning to fix that? When googling, I try to avoid any of their links...
Posted by: Karen M. | February 19, 2005 at 04:43 PM
Karen is spot on accurate.
About.com is THE most annoying non-pornographic website on the planet: it's a winking, blinking, and pop-up stinking sink hole.
Maximum advertising for minimun content--not to mention the abhorent use of frames.
I'd say the NY Times stepped in front of the clueless train...
Think of it this way:
About.com (once an incredibly rich place) is what happens when the free wetware moment gets pumped up by the steroids of capitalism.
It is to cool, what sterility is to fecundity.
Cue the canned laughter please...
Posted by: koreyel | February 19, 2005 at 05:10 PM
...but the deal still makes a lot of sense in other ways.
Can I quote you on that in five years?
Posted by: Alex Krupp | February 19, 2005 at 06:27 PM
Should be interesting to see how this deal turns out.
Great post.
Posted by: betapundit | February 19, 2005 at 09:58 PM
It would have made sense to purchase Wikinews, but some things are just priceless...
Alex might be right on the mon(k)ey. In five years time this will be considered the best or the worst of virtual tulip manias ever ... Now, that I am almost 24 years of age ;-) somehow winters are inclined to sprint about more often than summers ...
The New York Times sunny press release says it all: Our core purpose is to enhance society by creating, collecting and disseminating high-quality news, information and entertainment. We do this at all of our properties and the same is true of About. Ranking in the top 15 most frequently visited sites, About.com is one of the Web's most popular destinations. Its network of nearly 500 experts, known as guides, create Web sites on thousands of topics – from personal finance to consumer electronics, to history and geography Compelling Strategic Benefits For Future Growth
Posted by: Jozef Imrich | February 20, 2005 at 01:19 AM
Cont ... If the news media were a stock market, the blue chips would be tanking. The establishment names that everyone used to trust have crashed in credibility and prestige, and are now living through their own Great Depression. Top executives at bastions such as The New York Times, CBS News, and CNN have been leaping from the highest windows in the business Why Blogs Are Like Tulips
Posted by: Jozef Imrich | February 20, 2005 at 02:28 AM
From the above Tulip link:
"Remember all the Internet stocks that were going to change the world and make everyone rich? Blogs are the news trade's equivalent -- without the getting-rich part."
Well who says not everyone gets rich?
The Times paid $410 million for About.com.
Let's see...
From About.com site: there are 475 guides (wetware). But no information on how much they get paid.
Although I did find this:
"3. NO COMPENSATION
If my application is accepted, I understand and agree that I will not be compensated for time spent in About's Guide Prep program and that I will be entitled to compensation from About in accordance with its then current policies ONLY if I successfully complete the Guide Prep program and become a Guide on About.com."
So let's assume that half of that $410 million goes to those 475 guides. That's about $431 thousand each.
See, blogging pays...
Posted by: koreyel | February 20, 2005 at 11:26 AM
What makes you think the guides are getting any of that money? (I hope they are, but I would not count on it.)
Posted by: Dan Gillmor | February 20, 2005 at 11:46 AM
Dan I was trying to be ironic and facetious all at the same time and probably booted them both badly.
Has there every been a more open and shut case than this? In other words that the "employees" ARE the real value of About.com?
Yet I suspect they do their guiding chores for peanuts and pride. I'd describe them as part of the "open wetware movement."
About.com is a company that stands on its head. Which is to say-- the management could be totally outsourced to Guam and no one would miss it. The creativity is all at the perimeter.
And yet, I don't expect the guides to see a dime of the purchase money.
Not one thin Roosevelt dime.
It's capitalism on steroids. All body and no brain.
Posted by: koreyel | February 20, 2005 at 12:52 PM
As one time advertiser on About (long since dropped) I think that the compensation for the "hosts" is based on ad revenue generated.
Agree that they are unlikely to see a dime from the deal itself.
I will be interesting to see what their future prospects are and how many stay.
It is obvious that the NYTimes is looking for better "reach" and I doubt that they can change their current online model to a paid one.
They do seem to have a sense of the blogworld with their allowing links into the archive.
Makes good sense in promotion of the brand.
Keep up the good work
JTH
Posted by: JTH | February 21, 2005 at 07:17 AM
As one time advertiser on About (long since dropped) I think that the compensation for the "hosts" is based on ad revenue generated.
Agree that they are unlikely to see a dime from the deal itself.
I will be interesting to see what their future prospects are and how many stay.
It is obvious that the NYTimes is looking for better "reach" and I doubt that they can change their current online model to a paid one.
They do seem to have a sense of the blogworld with their allowing links into the archive.
Makes good sense in promotion of the brand.
Keep up the good work
JTH
Posted by: JTH | February 21, 2005 at 07:18 AM
MiBo
Posted by: MIBO | July 11, 2005 at 06:40 AM
I will be interesting
Posted by: Buy Fioricet | July 12, 2005 at 01:02 PM