Tyme’s Thoughts: TechCrunch design
Bright and early this morning I noticed the new design on TechCrunch. I sent a link to Mike, Colin and Scrivs because I just knew this was one of those times when my lack in design sense was blinding me to the wonderful design a new TechCrunch design should be. Um, Mike doesn’t think so, and I agree with his analysis, but that is not what prompts my entry today. It’s this:
I’m really excited about the “TechCrunch Sponsors” area of the site in the top right. This is an area where people can purchase a permanent presence on TechCrunch and gain access to our audience. We’re going to be very selective about the brands we allow there - we’re not just putting their logos up, we’re saying that we believe in the product as well.
I bet you are Mike. Let’s check out why you’re so excited, since you’re pimping it:
Pricing for each of the four ad units is currently $7,500 per month, which translated to a very low CPM. There is a minimum term of two months, followed by a month-to-month plan where either party may terminate the relationship on 30 days notice.
4×7500=30,000×12=$360,000 a year
Let’s quote Mike:
Revenue generation from advertising isn’t and won’t be the primary goal of this site because the value of TechCrunch isn’t in page views, but in networking (I agree with Dave Winer almost entirely on this).
Yeah, right. What a difference six months makes. To find that entry I had to dig around a bit, and I noticed another pageview inflating change. The archives (if you can find them) only has 5 entries per page. To find the entry I was looking for I impatiently had to click several pages back. In total I probably created 20 impression just trying to find what I knew was there. Makes me take a much closer look at those impression figures.
And if you’re wondering about the green theme, there’s a reason for it (hint - it keeps me focused on my goals).
Yes, I get it…laughing all the way to the bank. Thanks for bashing your readers over the head with the concept. Much appreciated…and I appreciate it so much…I unsubscribed. That much focus on money + that much money + change in policy = bias (to me).
Related posts:
I wanted to give everyone an update. The conversation has continued over here. Mike is responding over there but please if you have something to say, do so in a respectful manner.
Posted on May 19th, 2006 at 12:49 pm
should I just kill the site? I never knew how much people hated me. I honestly don’t think it’s worth it anymore.
It used to be the occasional anonymous hate comment. Now people are saying who they are when they tell me they hate me. This stuff adds up to the point where I’m basically depressed all the time.
Anyway, this isn’t the crowd to talk to this about. But many of you may get what you want, soon.
Posted on May 19th, 2006 at 9:59 am
What does the guy give back? TechCrunch is the best resource I’ve found for keeping up with Web 2.0 developments. That’s why so many people read him and, apparently, people want to pay him lots of money to be on his site. Serious trade publishing is like that and more power to him for making it work by blogging.
I don’t even get the bias comment considering you haven’t shown any evidence of bias. That’s just weak.
Posted on May 18th, 2006 at 12:24 am
Jesus people! It’s not up to you to decide how much he deserves for the advertising on his site. It’s up to the advertisers to decide how much the advertising is worth.
To be honest, how much work he does or doesn’t put into it doesn’t mean a thing. It’s the fact that he owns a site that pulls in a certain amount of readers who are prepared to click on the ads.
I have a friend who is a musician. He knocked up a track in an afternoon. He’s still making money off the royalties from that track 3 years later. Should people stop using the track and stop paying him royalties simply because he’s not working for it?
The fact is, he put the work in for however long the site has been going. It’s entirely up to him whether he chooses to make some money out of all that hard work. His priorities are likely to change over time. so why should he feel bound by statements he made under different circumstances?
I really (really, really) don’t understand why people expect website owners to run sites for little or no financial reward.
Posted on May 15th, 2006 at 11:38 am
I’ve been watching the counter. It dropped down to 45,003 and now it’s back up to 47,381. It’s still a significant drop from 53,651. He needs to update his advertising page as he no longer has 50,000 subscribers.
Posted on May 15th, 2006 at 9:06 am
I agree, welcome back!
I can’t help but feel that the money is going into the wrong hands. He spends all his time doing geeky things. I understand, that’s his thing. Tyme, you spend a lot of time with your readers. I asked you many questions about 9rules and you answered every one of them, promptly. Through you 9rules earned my trust and I subscribed to at least 10 sites in the network.
Without readers there is no money to be made. Piss us off, we’re gone. It’s a simple principle. Not to imply bloggers have to bow down to us but damn, give us a reason to be loyal.
Posted on May 13th, 2006 at 8:16 am
He lost 2000 subscribers not because he launched a bad design, because the user experience changed. The trust is gone. I don’t see why people don’t understand: the site is no longer neutral opinions anymore. Hasn’t been for a long time, but his latest move confirmed it.
Posted on May 13th, 2006 at 8:00 am
Kelake you obviously thought wrong. As it was said many times here no one has a problem with a blogger making money. Quoting Mike (as per the article) he said his focus was NOT money, it was networking. Those principles are what drew his original readership.
He lost those principles. He introduced advertising on his site in 2005…no one had a real problem with it. Accepting sponsorships from companies he reviews (or in the industry) is a CLEAR conflict of interest. It’s ETHICS not the fact he’s making money.
And he lost 2000 subscribers yesterday. The counter changed.
Posted on May 13th, 2006 at 7:41 am
I thought these complaints about ads on a site went out 5 years ago. I remember at one time it was expected that a website was simply a hobby and the thought of actually making money was absurd.
But people have a life and need to make a living. What’s wrong with wanting to be paid for the time you write?
Otherwise this design nor the old is nothing to get too excited about.
Posted on May 13th, 2006 at 3:50 am
How often does Feedburner update? I know quite a few people that unsubscribed but the number does not change. I’d check back tomorrow but I doubt I will visit the site again unless something “really” important is said.
Posted on May 12th, 2006 at 9:09 pm
Can we raise 14k really quick to buy an ad in the empty spot that says, “This design sucks. Don’t click the ads!”
Posted on May 12th, 2006 at 6:54 pm
How many commercial bloggers really care about the reader? Truly? Not many, they don’t act like it. Many don’t even respond to comments.
Posted on May 12th, 2006 at 3:34 pm
Let me get this straight. He’ll be making 360K a year writing a couple of articles a day. Not only that, doesn’t he get the free products as well?
Let’s not forget the parties, status, exposure, etc. There are many other perks besides money.
I hope someone takes him down a couple of notches.
Posted on May 12th, 2006 at 3:07 pm