Post: #1

What is the business model for sites like Vice, Jezebel, Gawker media, Buzzfeed, Huffington Post etc.? Are those companies running totally off advertisers? Sponsors? Affiliate?

I know these sites pull large numbers and have full-time staff, but I'm not sure how they're monetizing. Does anyone know how these operations run on the inside? What's their full business model?

Post: #2

(07-03-2014 12:48 PM)runsonmagic Wrote:  What is the business model for sites like Vice, Jezebel, Gawker media, Buzzfeed, Huffington Post etc.? Are those companies running totally off advertisers? Sponsors? Affiliate?

I know these sites pull large numbers and have full-time staff, but I'm not sure how they're monetizing. Does anyone know how these operations run on the inside? What's their full business model?

It was ad revenue, until that started "going soft" due to competition increasing. Now they're into "sponsored content" and affiliate links, which writers have called "an ethical minefield."

In a leaked memo, Gawker founder Nick Denton wrote to his charges the following: "Your beat is helping readers buy things. You’ll be delivering content about products that Kotaku readers know, love, or should own."

The article that printed this quote went on to say:

"Gawker’s move towards what might be called “commerce journalism” (a term Denton says he doesn’t like using) is just part of the broader trend within a number of digital-media entities of trying to expand their monetization methods away from the declining banner ad business. Sites like BuzzFeed and Gawker are promoting their sponsored content offerings as the solution — although some see that approach as an ethical minefield and point to examples of poor judgment like The Atlantic‘s recent widely criticized Scientology feature."

Also, HuffPost didn't pay its bloggers at first and I'm not sure they pay most of them now. I think that ran mostly on start-up money provided by founder Arianna Huffington. Here is revenue info for Salon Media, a site that's apparently pulling in good numbers but I can't imagine how.

Post: #3

Interesting. Gawker is going affiliate? That is an ethical minefield.

I'm surprised they aren't succeeding on ad-content alone. They're still generating income in the seven figure range.

It sounds like the big leagues don't have a much different strategy than the average online marketer or manosphere site. Affiliate links, and ads. I'm surprised.

What products are they pushing? Who are their affiliates?

Also, does anyone know what Vice's model is?

Post: #4

This is the big question. Where do these sites get their funding? Ads? Contributions? Subscriptions?

I'd like to know the answer to this too....

Post: #5

Any Amazon link on Gawker Media (at least Lifehacker) as an affiliate link attached. So anything you buy on Amazon, they get a commission.

Number of views x people that purchase amazon products linked through gawker = mucho money

Post: #6

(07-03-2014 01:00 PM)Days of Broken Arrows Wrote:  Also, HuffPost didn't pay its bloggers at first and I'm not sure they pay most of them now. I think that ran mostly on start-up money provided by founder Arianna Huffington. Here is revenue info for Salon Media, a site that's apparently pulling in good numbers but I can't imagine how.

So in Q4 Salon had net revenue of $1.9 million, can anyone find the pageviews for Salon? Their media kit says they get 9.2 million uniques a month.

Here is how I think they perform:
$1.9 million in net revenue / (9.2 million monthly uniques x 10 page views per unique (estimate) x 3 months) = $6.88 CPM (Cost per mille, cost per thousand views)

$6.88 CPM is pretty easily achievable if you have good traffic from tier 1 countries (US, Canada, UK, Australia, etc). Adsense and/or some in house advertising could easily produce this.

Post: #7

Vice Business Model - worth reading in full:

https://www.quora.com/Business-Models/Wh...ness-model

Quote:Vice Media Group are a media company and they provide creative services, media strategy, research and insights for corporate clients who have deep pockets. (like Intel) Most recently, Fox bought a 5% stake in the company for $70 million.

That puts Vice valuation at 1.4 BILLION dollars and it's not because the magazine or their youtube videos bring in that much cash. They don't, and they never will. This is just the public face. Magazine and videos are a self-promotion tool that can ultimately help them drive corporate client business, which is where they make their money.

Can someone decode that? What does "partnerships" mean in this context?

More on VICE:

http://digiday.com/publishers/vice-straddles-the-line/

Quote:One solution: Beef up your creative services team. Its in-house agency, Virtue, was created in 2006, well before “brands as publisher” joined the buzzword hall of fame. The team of 10 acts as a creative agency, helping brands create and distribute content. Brands that worked with Vice for original content include New Era, Absolut, The North Face and Burton.

It sounds like the magazine basically says "we make awesome shit, let us make that awesome shit for you."

Plus, they do branded content:

Quote:The Creators Project, a collaboration between Vice and Intel, is an example of this. It’s a site dedicated to the arts and has become a global initiative of events, from concerts to art exhibits. The site each week profiles new artists. The content lives on the site with videos also distributed via YouTube. For example, this is a video about how the the world of 3D printing is opening up to the masses. It’s compelling content, although you’d be hard-pressed to say it will help Intel build its brand and sell more microchips.

Another client, Palladium, a French boot company, hired Virtue as its lead agency, charged with everything from print and Web design to events and media planning. Virtue also just inked a deal in December with hair-product company Garnier.

Money-quote:

Quote:“The insight I had seven years ago is that inside every great brand is an idea and that idea used to be solely translated to commercials or print ads,” said Spencer Baim, who heads up Virtue. “We take that idea and turn that into content.”

That's their model.

On demographics:

Quote:“From an ad network perspective against a specific demographic, they’re doing a fantastic job,” said John McCarus, svp and practice lead of brand content at Digitas. “It’s hard to find 18-24-year-old male-skewed, digitally savvy innovators en masse.”

I can think of one other site that does this...

Their primary money maker is branded video:

Quote:In fact, video generates the majority of the company’s revenue. Vice produces about 40 pieces of content per day on the flagship site, plus two hours of video each day. The company has about 60 established shows, and this is where Vice’s business savvy can be seen: On the publishing front, it can charge high CPMs for its video, and on the agency side, it can create custom content for brand partners that can cost a pretty penny.

Quote:The key to making all this work is a delicate balancing act. On the one hand, Vice goes after stories many journalists couldn’t, like a piece about a German prostitute that trains dogs to have sex with people. On the other hand, it’s working hand in glove with some of the world’s largest corporations. See, for example, it’s surprisingly strong stand against sponsored posts — from a company that owns an agency.

That is tricky.

Quote:“The agency model is absolutely under fire from every direction, and if you look at most great publishers out there, including BuzzFeed, they’re very much an agency-solutions company cloaked in a media model,” McCarus said. “If I were a publisher right now, I’d be doing the same thing.”

It sounds like Vice is an advertising marketing agency... vertically integrated with the platform it's marketing to.

Very interesting.

Post: #8

(07-03-2014 04:50 PM)username Wrote:  

(07-03-2014 01:00 PM)Days of Broken Arrows Wrote:  Also, HuffPost didn't pay its bloggers at first and I'm not sure they pay most of them now. I think that ran mostly on start-up money provided by founder Arianna Huffington. Here is revenue info for Salon Media, a site that's apparently pulling in good numbers but I can't imagine how.

So in Q4 Salon had net revenue of $1.9 million, can anyone find the pageviews for Salon? Their media kit says they get 9.2 million uniques a month.

Here is how I think they perform:
$1.9 million in net revenue / (9.2 million monthly uniques x 10 page views per unique (estimate) x 3 months) = $6.88 CPM (Cost per mille, cost per thousand views)

$6.88 CPM is pretty easily achievable if you have good traffic from tier 1 countries (US, Canada, UK, Australia, etc). Adsense and/or some in house advertising could easily produce this.

$6.88 CPM is actually pretty fucking good. Kick ass actually.

OKCupid recently opened up it's advertising on a self serve platform and they are charging $2.50 per thousand. Those are big banners.

POF's minimum is only .16 per thousand. The most I have seen for quality placement is around .80. They used to be on adsense and still use google to fill unsold inventory, so to say 6.88 CPM is no big deal is not realistic.

It's a really big deal.

Post: #9

Dating sites are not full of the most desirable consumers or people looking to spend money hence the really low CPM.