Salon Marks Seventh Year On Its Deathbed — Subscribe Today!
	found on The L.A. Times written by MAYORBOB, edited by Ajax (Plastic) [ read unedited ] posted Wed 19 Feb 10:19am
		"This isn't yet another piece that boldly predicts the ultimate collapse of Salon, the online magazine that celebrated its seventh anniversary in muted style late last year," MAYORBOB reassures us. "No, this is a story about what Salon says needs to be done if you wish to have them to kick around in years hence. "Apparently down to its eleventh hour late last year, Salon founder David Talbot managed to find someone willing to fork over $200K to keep it afloat for a time. Talbot's project has never achieved profitability, despite much talk that it represented the journalism of the future. The 'Salon Premium' business plan, wherein part of the magazine's content was available by subscription only, has never generated the money the company had hoped for." (Leading one to wonder: does this reflect the quality of Salon's content, or the stubbornness of the "If it's on the Internet and it isn't free, fuck it" meme?)

	"Subscription will be the new business model at Salon from now on. Either readers will agree to pay a subscription fee to view all pages or they will have to settle for clicking through a series of ads that will popup occasionally. "By at least one measure -- the number of people actually reading the pages they offer -- Salon can claim a degree of qualified success. According to the site's counters, they can rely on over 3 million visitors a month, worth about 30 million page views. It also seemed to attract the right demographic that made up the 3 million visitors, young professionals earning somewhere in the neighborhood of $70K a year. But it was all for naught as, in return for all of their efforts, the magazine saw nothing but a neverending pile of debt. Do you expect you'll subscribe, plow through the ads, or just forget about it?"

[ more plastic... ]    

show almost all: 15 commentsbest: 1 comment by oldest first (ignore threads) newest first highest scores first oldest first newest first (ignore threads)

1.  Too Terrifying to Imagine   by Doasfu       at Wed 19 Feb 10:32am score of 1     I've been a Salon premium subscriber since they went premium, and have never understood the fuss. I pay about the same for a magazine subscription or two, which I enjoy once a month, whereas Salon is enjoyable daily. I can't imagine making it through work without reading Salon, which is the cornerstone of my daily surfing. I'm holding out hope that some benevolent millionaire will rub a couple of nickles together and through them David Talbot's way. Ugh. This is an interesting link detailing more of their financial woes. It's kind of funny and kind of sad to read about them trying to get out of their massively expensive downton San Francisco office lease, on which they have already missed a $200,000 payment. "To war! To war! To war we're going to go... Oh, hi-de, hi-de, hi-de, hi-de, hi-de, hi-de-ho."   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

2.  Re: Too Terrifying to Imagine   by Stevis       at Wed 19 Feb 10:37am score of 1   in reply to comment 1     Your comment about the "price of a magazine subscription" is dead-on. Until very recently, I bought into the "not free, fuck it" meme, cursing up a storm when Baseball Prospectus went with a "Premium" plan, until my wife pointed out that it was cheaper than, say, Sports Illustrated for a year. Unfortunately for Salon, now I've blown my subscription money, and I'm not sure they'll stick around for the length of a subscription... We've got two lives, one we're given, and the other one we make.--Mary Chapin Carpenter   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

3.  I like the cartoons   by chiaboy       at Wed 19 Feb 10:44am score of 1     they add one new one per day, so I usually wait until Friday and click through the inane adds real quick and then read the cartoons for the week. Unless there is a really good, insightful, interesting article that I have to read before than. Ha! Speaking of mailing it in, have you read Andrew Sullivan's column on there? I read his blog daily and you can tell its clearly his first love, full of passion, insights, polemics, and blunders. But then you read his Salon column and its like "Liberals are stupid...this proves it once and for all...good night, don't forget to tip your waitress". Absolute nothingness. If nothing else you can tell how much trouble they are in by the humber of throw away columns and articles they publish. Can a puma challenge a lion for king of the jungle?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

4.  Not enough added value   by Ozymandias       at Wed 19 Feb 10:56am score of 2 succinct     I used to visit Salon back when it was free, but except for when someone links to a Salon story, I have visited rarely since it went premium. For me the quality of stories is not significantly better than what I can get from free news sources. Also I am already surrounded by so much information on the internet that I don't have time to look at all the things I'm interested as it is.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

5.  Re: Not enough added value   by chiaboy       at Wed 19 Feb 11:20am score of 1   in reply to comment 4     I think you get to the core of the matter (and what MAYORBOB is asking about too) they really aren't that good. They certainly aren't significantly better than the free stuff (in my opinion in many ways they are worse). Salon's failure is a classic working of the free markets, they tried so hard to generate customers (the tawdry sex headlines, sensationalistic subject matters, middle-class sensibilities) that they really ended up offering nothing new or compelling, or frankly, interesting. Can a puma challenge a lion for king of the jungle?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   9.  Re: Not enough added value   by jimray       at Wed 19 Feb 11:51am score of 1.5 scholarly   in reply to comment 4     I can't say that I agree with you on this one. The value that Salon adds is that they're an independent media, not owned by Disney, Microsoft or AOL Time Warner. Why is this important? Remember when CNN first reported on the segregationist remarks of Trent Lott? No? Well that's because it wasn't covered in any of the mainstream media until some bloggers, then Salon, then CNN, MSNBC and ABC news picked up on it. What about the debate over media consolidation in the mainstream media? This issue goes largely unreported, despite the fact that congress and the FCC are debating the merits of deregulating all media interests in the same way that radio was deregulated in 1996. I'd wager that the most this story will be reported in mainstream media is after the decision has already been made. Independent media is a good thing. It adds value by increasing the level of debate. "You're not thinking, you're just being logical" Bohr to Einstein during a debate on quantum mechanics   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   12.  Re: Not enough added value   by chiaboy       at Wed 19 Feb 12:37pm score of 0.5   in reply to comment 9     Actually I am shocked that Salon gets cred for being "independent media". That's one of my major complaints about them. To me, even though they don't have the corporate structure of CNN they don't make use of their suppossed "independence". I really don't see them covering stories that are significantly different than the big newsies, (granted they slant more to the left than Foxnews, but that's not saying much) and most importantly, they hardly ever offering anything new on these stories. If I am hearing you correctly about the Trent Lott example you are saying they weren't last to the story. (which is feint praise indeed) What I am adding is that once they got there they said nothing more meaningful than "Racism is bad, mmmkkkaayyy" Independent media is a good thing. It adds value by increasing the level of debate. I agree wholeheartedly with that notion, the problem is Salon adds nothing to the conversation. (with all due respect, "nothing" is a bit of an overstatement however there are more interesting, insightful, divergant, informative voices on Plastic on any given Wed. than there has ever been on Salon) Can a puma challenge a lion for king of the jungle?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   13.  Re: Not enough added value   by jimray       at Wed 19 Feb 1:48pm score of 1   in reply to comment 12     I think you're confusing editorializing with reporting. Yes, Plastic offers plenty of insightful opinion, but true to it's masthead, Plastic is recycling in real time. I've yet to see a single investigative report from the legions of plastards that I love so dearly. That's not why I come here, I come to vent and fume and even discuss a bit. I read Salon (occasionally, but I do read it) for reporting that isn't in the mainstream media, on issues that I'm concerned about. The example of media consolidation is prescient here. No major media outlet covers media consolidation beyond a few blurbs and maybe an article in the business/tech section with regard to standards. Corporate media interests are hopelessly biased in regards to covering the subject. Of course, it may be that the subject matter is so pathetically boring that the NY Times can't justify an investigative report, but Salon's coverage of Clear Channel, for instance, has been excellent. But maybe it's just because I hate Clear Channel. The point is, no mainstream media outlet has invested the same level of investigation as Salon has into the subject. Quite frankly, I don't think they can without being biased. Salon can and it does. As for the Lott affair, they certainly jumped in much sooner than any newspaper or cable news station. Not as quickly as Andrew Sullivan, who blew the whistle originally, but quicker than most. Yes, they can go to press faster than newspapers because they're online. But that's kind of my point. "You're not thinking, you're just being logical" Bohr to Einstein during a debate on quantum mechanics   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   14.  Re: Not enough added value   by chiaboy       at Wed 19 Feb 2:21pm score of 1   in reply to comment 13     they certainly jumped in much sooner than any newspaper or cable news station But then you sort of refute your point by saying (implying) that online media sources have a time to market advantage, and hence should be faster than the NY Times early edition. So this is nothing that is unique about Salon, its the nature of the medium. Frankly, the Clear Channel piece is the sort of thing I find most troubling. What have they added to the story? Conventional Wisdom is that Clear Channel offers a very homogenized version of media, this is bad for society because "diverse music and opinions" are vital, etc. To the quasi-hipster, but firmly middle-class readership that makes up Salon.com's core this isn't new, its preaching to the choir. (To be fair, I am painting with a broad brush, Salon has done work that has been laudable) Look at the Savage piece from the same section (I just clicked on it) he gets a new gig and Salon profiles him (or puts a hit piece on him, or whatever). The point is the Machine wants us to talk about Savage and his new show (nights on MSNBC!) and Salon obliges. Classic example of how Plastic does a better job (even though its unfair to both to compare really) of editorializing and reporting. The piece about Disney fighting for copyright extensions had lot's of folks offering opinions (editorializing) but they also offered links and resources that were factual based (reporting), the point is that on both sides of this well worn issue were new insights and strong arguments. (look at dylanr's comments, he take a position most Plasticians presumably would disagree with and makes a well thought out and expressed argument) You bring up a good point about editorial content vs. reporting. They need to make up their minds on that matter (before its too late) The sure as hell aren't the "paper of record" (or a reasonable facsimile) and their opinions are nothing more than uncontroversial mimicaries of their milieu's. In short, they are incredibly redundant. If the marketplace of ideas is best served by opposing viewpoints, then I don't think we are well served by the pablum served up by the Machine. And trust me, the Machine loves Salon almost as much as it loves ClearChannel, cause they both adhere to the Cardinal Rule: Stay on Message. Can a puma challenge a lion for king of the jungle?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   15.  Re: Not enough added value   by stankow       at Wed 19 Feb 2:28pm score of 1   in reply to comment 13     I've yet to see a single investigative report from the legions of plastards that I love so dearly. Not that I don't agree with most of what you said, but there was this piece from back in September. Maybe not investigative, but it was certainly original content.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

6.  Saving Salon   by jimray       at Wed 19 Feb 11:21am score of 1     I recently blogged about the best way to keep Salon from going under. Basically, Salon is still way too big and hasn't dealt with the realities of business on the Net in 2003. They desperately need to cut their staff. As much as Salon wants to operate like a print magazine on the web, they can't justify it. They also need to tap into the blogging meme much better and shore up their interactive offerings. My guess is that their audio streams are costing them a fortune in bandwidth and licensing to RealAudio. Switch to a free format like streaming mp3 or just dump that whole bit all together. Blogs are hot right now and only getting hotter - make Salon blogging the best there is. Build trackback into all of the articles to entice even more bloggers. Salon is fodder for the blogosphere - exploit this fact to the max. Micropayments need a fertile testbed. Keep the subscription bit for the hardcore readers, but partner with Peppercoin to show that micropayments can work for the occasional viewer. I'd pay $.50 to read the excellent series on media consolidation, for instance. I want Salon to succeed. I'm sick of CNN and Fox and M$NBC feeding their version of news down my throat. But Salon's gotta change a little bit to make it work -- just because they're on the Internet doesn't make 'em bulletproof. "You're not thinking, you're just being logical" Bohr to Einstein during a debate on quantum mechanics   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

8.  Premiums but not premium?   by veratrine       at Wed 19 Feb 11:45am score of 1     I do pay for access to Salon (I got sick of seeing interesting premium headlines that I couldn't access), but I've been disappointed of late with the quality of the material on the site. It seems to me that, back in the day, Salon used to have more stories and that their liberal bias wasn't quite so in-your-face. (Not that I don't lean to the left to the extent that I often find myself walking in circles, but I like to at least pretend to give a rational consideration to all aspects of an issue.) If Salon were more interesting, I would happily continue paying their cheapest access fee, but I think I may let my subscription go when it comes up for renewal. Sorry, Salon. Pretending to belong to a sparkling group of 18th century literati was fun while it lasted, but for me, things just aren't sparkling enough any more. eggiwegs...I'd like to smash 'em!   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

11.  Desperation   by loisaida       at Wed 19 Feb 12:30pm score of 1     When Salon changes models of access to their site seemingly every month, it reeks of desperation. I used to enjoy Salon but I got tired of seeing too many stories in the Life section like "My Daughter Is a Sophomore in High School, She's Having More Sex Than Me" or "My Marriage Is Falling Apart, Is My Mind Next?" It's like you're dreamin' about Gorgonzola cheese when it's clearly Brie time, baby.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

16.  Other Options   by mrmoog       at Wed 19 Feb 4:08pm score of 1.5 helpful     Personally, I rather liked Salon way back when (when "content was king"). I started reading it less when they started the first iteration of the premium service, and I haven't been back to it since the last big change. It's not that I believe that everything on the Internet should be free, but even now there's still a lot of stuff out there that is. It's too easy for me to convince myself not to spend any money, and then click off to somewhere else. As far as perceiving the cost in terms of a magazine subscription... well, I don't currently subscribe to any magazines (there are very few that I'd want to receive every single month). I may pick one up occasionally, but it's always on impulse, and I invariably regret it. If there were a mixture of high quality magazines for sale and variable quality magazines for free on the same rack, I'd probably wind up snatching one of the free ones (and I'd probably still wind up regretting it). Disclaimer: I'm a bit of a cheapskate.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

17.  confessions of a subscriber   by AMpants       at Thu 20 Feb 8:37am score of 1     I subscribed to Salon. I like to do my reading online, and so far it's the most all-around informative + interesting news & commentary site I've found. If Salon is the only thing I have time to read on a given day, I can at least skim the headlines and feel like I know what's going on. Yeah, some of the articles are complete crap. And they need to take better advantage of the fact that they are an online magazine and not a print magazine. But I actually chose to subscribe not so much for the inherent quality of Salon, as for the opportunity of helping to prove (hopefully!) that online content can succeed. If Salon can find a way to become profitable, maybe more online magazines will follow, and maybe some of those magazines will be better quality and more deserving of that $30. But it's never going to happen if those of us who care about online content don't jump in and start paying for something.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

18.  a post script of sorts   by chiaboy       at Fri 21 Feb 10:18am score of 1     David Lazarus was on the news this morning chatting about the article. Turns out best guesses are what was bandied about here, that it was outsourced support in India and macros of some sort. Apparently SBC wasn't being totally open at their policy and procedures so CA regulatory agencies are "investigating". Really, the funny part of the whole story is that there is now an order from "up high" at SBC that no one at the company is allowed to speak with Lazarus by phone. (he writes on SBC a great deal) Gotta love big phone companies Can a puma challenge a lion for king of the jungle?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]