Patch 2.0

[Tucsondriver]

Whether what they've been doing the last two years actually is journalism is questionable. But their parent company's CEO says they won't even be doing that much longer. Armstrong's vision for the company is a listings site, kind of like craigslist for people who live in white burbs. Letting this thing die with dignity is probably too much to ask...

Mr. Armstrong also told Ad Age that the new iteration of Patch coming later in 2012 will unlock “the vitality” of towns “for a much deeper, richer engagement level.”
(Anybody have any clue what the **** this means?)

http://betabeat.com/2012/07/aol-turning-patch-into-craigslist-competitor/

 

[Stitch]

Open bar?

 

[Mystery Meat II]

Mr. Armstrong also told Ad Age that the new iteration of Patch coming later in 2012 will unlock “the vitality” of towns “for a much deeper, richer engagement level.”
(Anybody have any clue what the **** this means?)

Either he got the accomplishment he needed to unlock it or he spent 400 Xbox Live points.

 

[britwrit]

Patch-sponsored swinger clubs.

 

[Tucsondriver]

Sounds like this plan is already in motion. I've heard that West Coast local editors are being ordered to generate sales leads and they're understandably livid. Can't imagine doing **** like that. I'd think at least a few will be telling their corporate masters to shove it.

 

[bigpern23]

I'm curious if SGreenwell has heard anything about this yet.

For as much crap as Patch gets, I know at least four hard-working journalists who are employed by AOL at Patch sites and I'd hate hear of them getting the axe or getting stuck doing something they didn't sign up for.

 

[podunk press]

I almost begged with the people who left our place for Patch to reconsider because I worried they were signing up for only a one- or two-year gig.

And they all said they knew that was probably all it would be, and they were willing to do that anyway to take the $10K bump in salary.

So they all knew.

 

[outofplace]

I almost begged with the people who left our place for Patch to reconsider because I worried they were signing up for only a one- or two-year gig.

And they all said they knew that was probably all it would be, and they were willing to do that anyway to take the $10K bump in salary.

So they all knew.

I don't think anybody signed on with Patch assuming it was there for the long haul. More a matter of hoping for the best. I know a few editors there, but they were either unemployed or kids just getting started. Leaving a more established place for a pay jump at Patch? That sounds pretty damn risky in this economy.

That said, I still think people are making a lot of assumptions here, as they have done from day one about Patch.

 

[Tucsondriver]

I almost begged with the people who left our place for Patch to reconsider because I worried they were signing up for only a one- or two-year gig.

And they all said they knew that was probably all it would be, and they were willing to do that anyway to take the $10K bump in salary.

So they all knew.

I don't think anybody signed on with Patch assuming it was there for the long haul. More a matter of hoping for the best. I know a few editors there, but they were either unemployed or kids just getting started. Leaving a more established place for a pay jump at Patch? That sounds pretty damn risky in this economy.

That said, I still think people are making a lot of assumptions here, as they have done from day one about Patch.

Many of us, myself included, assumed they'd be gone by now. The company's CEO is reporting spikes in revenue and traffic for what it's worth (take with a grain of salt, it's the CEO's assessment, not an independent auditor's) so assuming there's some truth to what he's saying, by that measure, they've proved many of us here wrong. The product is worse than I think most of us thought it would be, and nobody ever thought it was very good.

 

[TheHacker]

I almost begged with the people who left our place for Patch to reconsider because I worried they were signing up for only a one- or two-year gig.

And they all said they knew that was probably all it would be, and they were willing to do that anyway to take the $10K bump in salary.

So they all knew.

I don't think anybody signed on with Patch assuming it was there for the long haul. More a matter of hoping for the best. I know a few editors there, but they were either unemployed or kids just getting started. Leaving a more established place for a pay jump at Patch? That sounds pretty damn risky in this economy.

That said, I still think people are making a lot of assumptions here, as they have done from day one about Patch.

Many of us, myself included, assumed they'd be gone by now. The company's CEO is reporting spikes in revenue and traffic for what it's worth (take with a grain of salt, it's the CEO's assessment, not an independent auditor's) so assuming there's some truth to what he's saying, by that measure, they've proved many of us here wrong. The product is worse than I think most of us thought it would be, and nobody ever thought it was very good.

Is there such thing as a "spike" in traffic for a site that does hyper-local coverage? And I don't say that to be disparaging toward Patch, I'm talking about community papers on the web as well. My place is a community paper and we've got Patch sites in our area. We've been around forever and people know who we are, but we can't gain any traction on the web -- so I can't imagine the Patch sites are doing well at drawing traffic.

I try not to be cynical about it, but I now openly question whether local news makes sense on the web. I don't feel like it's what people are looking for online. How many people can we reasonably expect to click on a city council story, or a high school game story? I guess a lot of it is a function of the market, but most of the time it seems like an uphill climb. We keep pouring effort and resources into the web "because we have to," but when the traffic is light we don't step back to wonder if it's worth it. We just keep blindly doing it and waiting for it to work. Or at least that's what it feels like sometimes.

 

[Tucsondriver]

11.7 million users last month, they claim. That's for 850-plus sites. The numbers sure sound good, but at the end the day, doing well depends on whether you're drawing enough traffic to make it worth advertisers while to cover expenses and satisfy shareholders. An uphill climb for a company that's spending $150 million a year, I would think.




http://www.webpronews.com/aols-patch-set-new-traffic-revenue-record-in-may-2012-06

 

[outofplace]

I almost begged with the people who left our place for Patch to reconsider because I worried they were signing up for only a one- or two-year gig.

And they all said they knew that was probably all it would be, and they were willing to do that anyway to take the $10K bump in salary.

So they all knew.

I don't think anybody signed on with Patch assuming it was there for the long haul. More a matter of hoping for the best. I know a few editors there, but they were either unemployed or kids just getting started. Leaving a more established place for a pay jump at Patch? That sounds pretty damn risky in this economy.

That said, I still think people are making a lot of assumptions here, as they have done from day one about Patch.

Many of us, myself included, assumed they'd be gone by now. The company's CEO is reporting spikes in revenue and traffic for what it's worth (take with a grain of salt, it's the CEO's assessment, not an independent auditor's) so assuming there's some truth to what he's saying, by that measure, they've proved many of us here wrong. The product is worse than I think most of us thought it would be, and nobody ever thought it was very good.

That last bit is subjective and unfair. There is a wide range of quality among Patch sites, but these threads are dominated by certain posters digging for the crap only.

 

[Tucsondriver]

No question there's a lot of Patch-bashing and I've taken a few hacks myself. But these days you don't have to dig that hard though. I seriously doubt your friends who edit Patch sites would tell you otherwise over a shot and a beer. Or just check a few random sites. Some of the stuff could be in the Onion.

 

[outofplace]

No question there's a lot of Patch-bashing and I've taken a few hacks myself. But these days you don't have to dig that hard though. I seriously doubt your friends who edit Patch sites would tell you otherwise over a shot and a beer. Or just check a few random sites. Some of the stuff could be in the Onion.

I never denied that there is some crap. It's the people talking out of their asses, as you seem to be doing, that act as if there is no good work being done.

 

[Tucsondriver]

The ****'s out of the bag, with the whole thing about unlocking social community vitality nonsense they've been blabbering about taking shape in a redesign.

This is what it looks like:

http://bellmore.patch.com/

The redesign is just up on a handful of sites but moves to 50 by the end of the year and everybody gets wet by the end of Q1 next year
(if the company doesn't shut down before then) according to this site:

http://paidcontent.org/2012/09/23/in-patch-redesign-more-focus-on-users-and-less-on-editors/

 

[Simon]

Welp....some freshman in college is going to write a great senior thesis on how Patch.com failed as a hyper-local news solution in the post-newspaper era.

 

[TheSportsPredictor]

Patch 3.0?

CrainsCleveland.com : Subscription Center

 

[Riptide]

St. John declined to share a salary range for the company’s reporters,
but said it included benefits and was based on experience.

So maybe your "experience" will bump you from $21,000 to $21,500, right?