I follow the irony in your post, but it's really not sad at all. The CC Times has evolved to be one pervasive, editorial rather than reporting on local news. As an added bonus, they graciously sponsor the most obnoxious telemarketing and junk mail campaigns in our area to hound former subscribers. In my mind, it's about time for the CC Times to fail once and for all. It's not that print media is dead, but they've missed the mark with their brand of journalism.

In everything but name, the consolidation has already happened. Now, instead of just having mostly the same content, the Oakland Tribune, Alameda Times-Star, Daily Review, Argus and West County Times will also have the same name on the masthead.

What's the status of the West County Times building on Lakeshore near Richmond Parkway? They kept it open with a skeleton crew for a long time... Goodbye to my old friends there at Shadelands recruitment classifieds.

You can say that again, and again. I see the movie - disheveled, "old school" workaholic reporter (played by who?), spends years tracing leads and rumors, ink to paper, fishy situation after fishy situation. Finally, along comes the tech savvy blogger (Waterfront Watch), (played by who?) uploading the dying old craft to his splashy blog, adding his own observant spins -- The city leadership is cracked. The crack widens with each of his posts. It all starts falling down. Along comes a whole bunch of Patch (played by whom?), they spread the ails further with big-money polish. The city starts to rebuild. The future....? T. Lochner is the true star. Who is the supporting cast?

When they started saying police work really wasn't dangerous and cops were making it up they completely lost me. There are other jobs out there where people work in hazardous conditions but none where you can be murdered because of your career choice. The recent shooting of a San Diego Officer waiting at a red light comes to mind. I'm happy to see the Times leave Walnut Creek. I just hope the opinion page goes away with them. The paper is a shell of what it once was.

But you need to look closely at the numbers. A typical Patch website costs $40K+ for the editor, reporter fees have been in the 10-20k range, website support and hardware another 10-20k. I think this is conservative. How is such a site going to generate 60-80k in revenue? Possibly if they could become a newspaper of record which lists all the required legal notices they might have a weak chance but I have never heard of an on line website becoming a newspaper of record ; even in this day and age not everyone is computer literate. Maybe this will change.

One of the trade publications run the numbers, and I think they figured that each Patch site costs somewhere between $120K to $150K a year to run. Remember, in addition to the editor and freelancers, they have sales staff and upper management to support. The problem is that you need to have a lot of visitors and sell a lot of ads in order to generate that revenue. And Patch doesn't have the visitors because 1) hyperlocal audiences are, by definition, limited and 2) it doesn't offer compelling content to reach even a substantial part of the available audience. Without the visitors, it's hard to sell profitable ads. Now, Patch's strategy has been to try to sell overpriced ads to local retailers who would compare them with the rates they are paying the print paper and not realize that these rates were inflated by several orders of magnitude vis a vis the cost of internet advertising. Judging by the ads featured in the San Leandro Patch, that strategy does not seem to be working well. Instead, we are seeing mostly ads from national advertisers - but these will not command premium prices.
I don't know if the Patch model was ever likely to work, but I wish AOL had given it an actual chance and not just hire reporters but had them report compelling, interesting news. I think it's probably too late in the game to start now.

1) They are looking at the numbers: 1- cost of running Patch, 2- likely revenue. It's not up to critics to have an imagination, it's up to Armstrong to have an actual plan. So far he hasn't shown he has one (thus the 40% drop in stock price).
2) I don't think Patch disappears as such, at least not until AOL disappears. I think Patch will likely merge with the local Huffington Posts. Maybe all the Patches in the East Bay will combine into a Huffington Post East Bay - kind of like the newspapers above. Of course, that will also mean many fewer journalists/editors. But beyond the Patch what I think you'll see in the post-Patch world is what you see today: independent hyper local news sites serving communities with lots of citizen involvement (e.g. Berkeleyside) and amateur blogs (like the ones my husband and I operate).
3) Betty, do you live in a town with a local newspaper? That's exactly what happens in the letter section of our weekly rag. Except that it can go on for weeks. Indeed, the letters section is the most important part of the newspaper, the one section /everyone/ reads. That's something the Patch hasn't quite understood - people want drama, not just lame stories.

Marga, I live in El Cerrito, which is within the circulation area of the West {Contra Costa} County Times, which will be, along with the Oakland Tribune, Alameda Times-Star, {Hayward} Daily Review, and {Fremont} Argus “rebranded” as the East Bay Tribune.

Betty, yeah, for whatever reason El Cerrito is not served by a hyper-local newspaper (here, in San Leandro, we have the freebie weekly San Leandro Times). So I can see that if the Patch goes away, it will leave a big hole for people interested in El Cerrito news. But I took a look at the El Cerrito Patch and couldn't find any local ads, so even the lack of an alternative news source does not seem to encourage local merchants to advertise on the Patch. That's rather telling.
My explanation of why the Patch is failing - beyond an impossible financial model - is simple: the Patch is unwilling to generate compelling content, dig into city's dirt, publish articles that people will talk about. Therefore, there is no "buzz" about the Patch, people don't meet at the local coffeehouse and say "hey, did you read about X on the Patch?". With no buzz, local merchants are reluctant to advertise, and once they hear Patch's ridiculously high rates, they decide to continue putting their $ elsewhere.
What I still don't understand is why Patch is unwilling to publish compelling articles. Why does it chose to run "Best kindergarten books" instead of "Backstabbing at City Council meetings". Why are Patch editors unwilling to do any type of digging around. I don't buy that writing these stories takes more resources than writing silly stories - and one good story will generate more hits than ten dull ones.

Sara, the fact is that Patch's model (as a whole) *CURRENTLY* is unsustainable. This is a fact that all of the fine local editors would have to acknowledge. The issue is to what extent the network and the individual sites will gain enough traction to become profitable/sustainable. This is an economics/business issue, not a journalism issue.

My prediction is that ~75% of the 850 Patch sites doesn't achieve revenue scale and will be "hollowed out" from a staffing and expense perspective.

Sara. Thank you. :-)

Well, James, you said it best: you don't pretend to know what you are talking about.

Hi Marga? I'm curious about your personal investment in the Patch model. You seem to follow (and provide comments for) a number of them in the area.

Good point, Kristina.

Kristina, if you think about it, Patch is actually following BANG's model. BANG started with a number of independent newspapers, then they were all brought together under one umbrella, kept their individual editors but published most of the same stories in all of the papers. Now, they are finally consolidating into one paper. Patch started, similarly, with a bunch of independent city patches. Now they've gone to the model in which most of the stories are shared among a number of Paches. Consolidation of Patches is the next step.
I don't personally think they will turn a bunch of Patches into one "Patch east bay", however. First of all, that would mean officially saying goodbye to hyperlocal news. The idea of hyperlocal news was Armstrong's baby, and he will keep with it until he can't help it. Second, that model wouldn't be very different from what the Patch is doing now, and it won't help the revenue situation any. Most importantly, though, is that while the Patch model has not worked, the Huffington Post model has. I think someone said that the local version of the Huffington Post in NY brought in as much revenue as all the Patches in the country combined. So, if you have one revenue model that doesn't work and one that does, eventually you either go with the one that works or you go bankrupt.

That's the Patch Paradox: how can you achieve the economies of scale, but with localized content? The first order answer is centralized (but NOT too generic) technology platform and ad sales. This part makes sense. Without this, there is no leverage. But, even with the shared back-end, the "field offices" need to have positive contribution margins. An easy way to get there would be to combine into regions, but then you start to lose the hyper local flavor. The optimal balance here will take some time to work out.

I assume the AOL strategy is to burn a lot of cash to "stake claims" and prime pumps in the hyper-local land grab. They can later dial it back a bit until they find the sweet spot. The implicit bet is that people won't notice or care when Patch morphs from 100% "hyper local" to merely "regional, with some local flavor." As others have noticed, it is already happening so we shall soon see.

I have always assumed pretty much the same as you, Chris. There will be a lot of carnage as they start shedding employees and anyway I don't see it working. I think part of their original idea was to be able to provide highly focused ads that will be affordable and attractive to local businesses because they only cover a limited area. As soon as they become less hyperlocal the cost and attractiveness of these ads will greatly diminish. Local businesses will opt for other advertising or none at all. And in our area there do not seem to be a significant number of ads anyway, unless they are being disguised as content rather than ads. *small earthquake as I type this!

I wondered about Patch disguising ads as articles before. For two weeks, Patch run about 4 stories a day about the Alameda County Fair. Some days most of Patch's content was on the fair. Coincidentally, the fair was one of its few advertisers. Now, I wrote to both Patch and the Fair, and they both denied the Fair was paying for the stories, and I have no reason not to believe them - but it made me wonder.

I know many people who check their patch even more often than that and use it as their sole provider of local news. I question the motives of an apparently unsuccessful blogger who has made it her mission to visit patch sites and slam them individually. Perhaps it's a sign of success that patch has managed to develop such a dedicated following of stalkers in such a short amount of time!! Innovators are often painted as the devil by those who don't understand them. Good thread.

It's called San Leandro Talk (http://sanleandrotalk.voxpublica.org/) (I know, not original). I haven't updated it much this summer. My husband's blog, which is much more serious and fact-oriented (and, if I say so myself), is San Leandro Bytes (http://www.sanleandrobytes.com).

Natalie, *exactly*. Each site will stand or fall on its own merits. But so far, no Patch site is standing. A few months back AOL announced some of them *would be* profitable by this quarter, though there still doesn't seem to be much evidence of that.
I, personally, don't care whether the Patch has ads or not. I use adblock so I don't see them unless I want to. But without ads, the Patch will not survive. More importantly, without /local/ ads at premium prices it won't survive. So the lack of ads is worrisome as it predicts the fall of Patch sooner rather than later.
Now, given that there is nothing to indicate that Patch will be any more successful at attracting local advertising now than it's been before, one has to wonder what other types of revenue they're going to explore. Passing on ads as stories is a possibility. They (like local newspapers) are already getting "free" content from people advertising their own business. Our local Patch has at least two different real estate agents writing for it. Now, newspapers and magazines often publish paid advertisement that looks very much like articles, and I don't see why the Patch wouldn't look at this practice as a source of revenue. I just hope they'll be clear about it being a paid advertisement when/if they do.

A few notes from this mornings program that I'd like to share:
--The Bay Area has lost about 50% of its reporting in recent years(!)
-- The SF Chronical's revenues have fallen to $22 billion, a decline of about 53% in the last decade.
-- The Wall Street Journal had the biggest gain in circulation and continues to widen its lead. This is attributed in large part due to the fact that it specializes in "mission critical news" and many of its business subscribers rely on it for decision making within their respective industries.
--The NYT also creates "mission critical news," but it is losing revenue. It has recently initiated an online "pay wall" that is being closely watched by other news organizations. (Note: weather, sports, entertainment, etc. can be obtained for free from numerous sources. This is an example of news that is not "mission critical" and is therefor largely considered to be not chargeable to the online consumer).
--NPR receives funding from public and private grants, corporate underwriting, and listener support. It has been dubbed as "leveraging the Twitter generation" because of its adaptation of online developments.
-- Local TV news is doing better, in terms of revenue
-- Public radio is beefing up coverage
-- "Consumer Reports Magazine" also delivers "mission critical news" in the form of its reports on goods like autos and home appliances. It also has been successful in charging subscription fees to online users.

-- hyper-local news organizations, such as Patch, are considered one of the emerging news sources that show promise in terms of the overwhelming decline of metro/regional newspapers. As has been correctly noted by correspondents here, generating sustainable revenue streams and readership are challenging hurdles that have not yet apparently been met by hyper-local news. On the bright side, these types of sites represent a recovery of and even intensification of reporting at the local level. In other words, they are helping to somewhat offset the impact of the decline of larger newspapers.
--
The hyper-local news site "Berkeley Side" is another example of a news organization with similar challenges and modest success in the digital age in our region.

It's not just that the WSJ has "mission critical news"...I know many Conservatives that turn to the WSJ because they have good reporters, and a better distribution or balance, if you will, in their opinion columns in terms of political views. This is why, I believe, papers like the New York Slimes and Washington Compost are failing and why the WSJ is continuing to grow. It's similar to the failure of MSNBC and CNN (very sad what happened to CNN) and the massive growth and ratings of Fox News. I used to love CNNs "Crossfire"... it was a thought provoking and stimulating show... now they've lowered themselves to the likes of Elliot Spitzer and it's a wonder no one watches them. The content of papers like the aforementioned has seen a similar demise.

I also agree that in theory, Patch is a great idea and has a chance in some areas. Like someone said previously, each is going to have to stand or fall on its own or the entire ship will go down if they keep throwing money at all of their local sites. It would be a shame because I feel that Patch provides a valuable resource to the local community that we can't get from the regional and national news outlets.

Successful business model??? Supposing your business model relies on illegal activities. But is that sustainable? I agree WSJ front pages have some good reporting, I skip the opinion page and read their food section. And the taxpayer dollars NPR relies on is like 2 %.

Agreed. As Jon Stewart quipped last week, we can fill the revenue side hole created by extending Bush era tax cuts for the rich (about 700 billion + over ten years) by slashing the government funding of "700,000 NPR's." : )

And why should any taxpayer dollars go to fund NPR when their executive calls the Tea Party racist, and they fire Juan Williams, a very fair and independent reporter for simply sharing his own personal experiences... They are an intolerant bunch of left-wing biased hacks. They need to be defunded.

fact check: The WSJ and I are on good terms.
__
Shout out also for the Economist Magazine, which is I understand, a conservative leaning journal in the UK. I gave out gift subscriptions to my dad and brother, who live in other states and are quite conservative in their views. I told them when I gave them the gift that I wanted them to be able to read good conservative journalism instead of bad. They recently both told me that they really appreciate the subscription I gave them and have become "hooked."

The Economist is not a "conservative" magazine. It's more what I would call a "libertarian" magazine, they advocate both freedom for markets and individuals. Of course, the financial crisis has made them change their tune (I think sincerely) about how much freedom markets should have. The Economist definitely has a point of view, one I don't often agree with, but it's honest about what's fact and what's opinion which I really appreciate. I'm also a fan of the WSJ (just not the editorial page, which I'm convinced was the inspiration for Stephen Colbert).

Yes, I'd echo your observation by adding that in the case of the Economist, we are really talking about "mission critical news." I had no idea that the UK had a libertarian party of much influence, so I'm skeptical at this point that the magazine is libertarian. As I mentioned before, my understanding is that it leans towards the conservative party, which is quite a different animal that the Republican party in the US (in that it isn't as extreme). In any event, I'm really glad that my gift was appreciated. The only gripe so far has been from my dad regarding the technical editing (with the two dots over specific vowels and such). I believe that as soon as he realized that it was published in England, he tried to forgive the editors their "pretentiousness." :)

Good one, Jason! Check out this opinion piece on Patch today. It, too, is generating some traffic: http://patch.com/A-lycc

There is a huge difference between being dead and being under a death sentence.

Wow, Marga. Why so sanctimonious and paternalistic? Patch and other companies are merely (attempting to) give the readers what they want. Media is driven by eyeballs. It doesn't matter how academically perfect your work product is if people don't care to read it.
I share your frustration that average readers may prefer more fluff versus substance as compared to my tastes, but why should I get more votes?
Content is driven by audiences, not corporate plots to dumb us down.
If you object to market solutions, please tell who should decide and what the rules should be.

Chris, the fact that Patch has had such a difficult time attracting readers tells you that they are not giving readers what they want. Rather, they are giving them the crap they /think/ readers want (or should want). And that's offensive, and dangerous to our political system.

It's interesting that the publications that are actually doing well in this economy are those that have higher journalistic standards. Someone mentioned the WSJ which, despite its terrible editorial page, still manages to publish good stories. But the Economist, a /British/ magazine, is also doing great in the US, making money both through print and online. Their subscription base is growing (amazing for a magazine costing over $100 a year) and so are their ad sales. The Economist's stories may not be long, but they are definitely not fluff.

Now, I don't have Tim Armstrong's telephone number, I can't very well call him and say "stop with all the crap, we, readers, want quality content". So I say so publicly, hoping that others will echo the message, and somehow the message will filter up.

No need to call Timmy. The market will guide him. AOL is betting hundreds of millions of dollars on this and wants to make it work. Those are private dollars. Isn't america great!

Do you think they have a systematic incentive to get it wrong and thereby miss the chance at making millions personally? If so, please explain.

Chris, the market works by making companies that make bad decisions fail - and given AOL's 40% drop in stock price, the market seems to be working. But the market doesn't make companies make good decisions by its mere existence. If it did, then there would be no failed companies :-)

I'm just hoping that Patch's collapse will not send the message that "hyper local news don't work", but rather "hyper local fluff doesn't work".

Point taken... a couple thoughts though... could it just have been one bad or lazy local editor? I wouldn't judge all of the hundreds of local sites on one employee. Also, I don't know about CA but when I worked in NY, there were costs associated with a FOIL (Freedom of Info Law request).... remember Patch has a VERY limited budget. I certainly agree that there is room to improve, and I've had my own criticisms over proofreading mistakes and writing style from some writers, but I'm not giving up on them yet.

I don't think it was just one bad/lazy local editor. She looked great on paper, had done actual news reporting for several years, and it's not like the content of other Patches has been much better. Patch keeps talking about the "one" story they broke to the national media - you'd imagine with hundreds of Patches out there, they should have broken tons of stories by now.

With respect to the California Public Records Act requests, there is some cost to them but it's minimal. If the records are available electronically (and nowadays most are), then they must be provided electronically and they charge you something like $5 or $10 for the CD, if they are too big to be e-mailed. Otherwise they are 10 cents per page, but if the records are too huge you can always go and read them at City Hall. We've been filing CPRA for years and definitely have not gone bankrupt doing it :-)

Morning, Chris, and thanks for the FB recommendation.

I think if Marga and others looked around this site and others they would find that 82 comments was actually low for some of the topics we have explored here. Also contrary to the assertion that we're peddling "fluff" would be the pitched battles many Patch editors are waging to get previously unreported and important stories onto their pages - often with great success. A few other points: some of the "Ads" Marga refers to are generated by users hoping to sidestep our ad reps and rules and promoting *themselves* with interfaces meant to announce job changes and lost pets, until we find them and delete them - which we do. And as for the participation of local advertisers I have found that times are tight for many, but that local interest has been high and is getting even higher - particularly as more people find their local Patch, bookmark it, and make it their source for local news.

Marga's point about the public deserving great content is spot on, and we may have lost a Local Editor in her area - but change happens and sometimes it can take time to find the right replacement, someone to bring about the type of change she is requesting happen in her area.

So, she makes some valid points, paints rather broadly with others. But she did it all while receiving civil, valid, flame-less feedback from her neighbors on Patch. And that's exactly what we do every day. Hopefully she'll be one of the "Regulars," soon.

It's nice that Borenstein keeps writing about those unsustainable public pensions. People should take notice. Eventually the public will be unable to keep paying for them. He's doing what a journalist should do.

The EC Patch has had some good stories amongst much fluff. The editor is a veteran reporter and he has some seasoned writers on staff. However, due to the Patch business model, I doubt Patch reporters can make a decent living off the job. At least not like a Guild job. How this will all shake out remains to be seen.

Noelle: chill a bit. I clicked over and read it. The WSJ has a column like like in their Personal Journal or Weekend section. I the the Patch folks rotate "lead" stories to appeal to a broad audience. If you click on the Danville "News" tab, there are a lot of "hard news" local stories that you would not find in a regional newspaper.

Again, I personally do not like the "fluff" very much either, but all news/media organizations have to select a mix that appeals to a broad audience. Why is this concept so hard to understand.

People are arguing that Patch is getting it all wrong. I think they fail to appreciate the diversity of opinion in their own neighborhoods.

Plus, unlike traditional media, Patch INSTANTLY knows who reads what and which storys attract the most interest (same as $$$ to Patch). Why would they systematically publish stories that no one likes?

Marga: Sometimes there are weak Patches in the quilt. Doesn't mean the blanket won't keep you warm.

It sounds like you have some very personal animosity toward your local Patch (likely toward a particular person) and you are channeling that rage into an anti-Patch crusade. That's cool. I get it.

As I said up-thread, I personally think that most Patches will not "make it" in the sense of attracting an audience large enough to support dedicated local staffing. The will be due to a combination of the composition of the community served and the talent/efforts of the "pioneer" editors/writers. I'm not surprised at all that some have failed to take root. I assure you that the grass is greener elsewhere.

Remember, fresh sod needs to be watered often and not tread upon--- but once it gets going it can be quite robust.

-Chris

Sorry Chris...but I'm not sure how many people really care about "Seeking A Luxurious Home", expecially in the situation our community/world is in today. Talk aboud FLUFF! I'm not looking for extremely hard hitting news, just actual news would be great.

Marga -
Appreciate your eyes on our site but think you're seeing what you want to see. We use the "Breaking News" graphic sparingly so its import is not diminished.

As to your second graf I haven't the vaguest idea of what you're talking about.

And as to your third graf I believe some people may be stupid and want fluff but I'm happy to report that none of those people are on Lamorinda Patch. I'm proud of our readership for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that they believe in free speech and civil discourse and, hopefully, positive change.

Good luck with your site.

JD

Both.

Editor

http://patch.com/A-kfFH

Please, tell that to the numerous community members who come in and ask for handfuls of copies because their new business was featured or their son signed with the Reds.

Sorry fellas, but even this geek girl is surprised daily by the peacock feathers on display when they or someone they know made it in the newspaper.

The net effect isn't the same.

Signed me - Perfectly good airplane x 3

Books are still around and selling good. You would think books would have been gone when moving pictures came out. Or be gone by now with these smart pads that download books etc. Nope. Curling up with a good book on a computer screen just doesn't have the same appeal to many. Many, still like Newspapers and always will, as long as we are still around. And also like the new technology. The 2,000 year old hammer and nail are still around despite nail guns and screw drivers. The perfect design will always be around.

282 million books were sold in 2009 in the U.S. in all . That aint too bad. I will bet this is more than books read online that year in America. Also the best seller list is full still each year in print. How many people have ever read a whole book online? I never have.
And by the perfect design, I mean you cannot do much better than a book for what it is intended to do. Keep and hold a writing to be read. When you consider the crocodile has remained unchanged, and the shark for millions of years, that is what is meant by perfect design. Sure other animals may be smarter, more adaptable, have more abilities, but the book is here to stay. I could be wrong but I doubt it.
Also I have seen my share of unbalanced people commenting on most online news I have read, way worse than anything I have seen in a newspaper.

However, library usage is apparently way up, so perhaps people aren't reading less, or reading fewer print books, just buying fewer new books. I haven't been able to find any statistics for sales of used books.

Actually, Emilie - the story is about the shrinking of print news. One other Patcher weighed in early with a gleeful "We're hiring at Patch!" and that's how the topic morphed.

You could immediately cut short the rampant speculation about the business model if you gave everyone the actual numbers that you are seeing.

Hi Linda, thanks for weighing in. I haven't traced back how this conversation developed, but I *can* say that, when I took a buyout from my newspaper job in 2009, there was really nowhere to go. It was a grim and depressing time. Newsrooms are shrinking everywhere, which is, as you said, what this story is about.
The advent of Patch (in my opinion) has really changed the entire landscape of journalism, for many reporters, experienced and budding, and for the communities we cover. There are so many more opportunities now. It continues to amaze and inspire me.
There have been comments here about the high turnover rate... But I'm not really sure what a "typical" turnover rate for a start-up with 800+ employees would be. I guess I just feel like there are a lot of naysayers slinging mud without really firm ground to stand on.

(cont. from my response to Linda)
From an employment perspective, again, in my opinion, Patch has been a boon. There are the local editors and managing editors who have benefited from full-time work, and countless freelancers in local communities who have been able to connect with our outlets for regular publication.
Even those who have moved on have left with extremely marketable skills that they may have gained at Patch.
Sure, it's not a perfect system, but show me one that is. From my perspective, the benefits have completely dwarfed the negatives. I love working with Patch. I love the community I cover. I love the work I get to do on a daily basis.
I guess I just wanted to make sure that perspective was reflected in this exchange.

@Tony: (1) It's not my place to release proprietary information. (2) I don't have access to those numbers, but I do have a better sense of resource allocation at the ground level than what has thus far been reported. (3) I don't feel like that information is, or should be, publicly available, particularly given that we're a private company that offers a free service.

Private company? That may be but Isn't Patch owned by AOL, a publicly traded private company? AOL has heavily invested in Patch... the number is $120 million this year alone. Here's the opinion of one former Patch editor... http://www.businessinsider.com/confessions-of-patch-salesperson-we-sell-garbage-2011-6

And what of AOL shares? They've gone from about 27 a share late last November to under 15 a share today... sounds like confidence to me.

@Linda -- I hear that. I can't think of a single colleague who would relish the idea of contracting newsrooms! The more of us "in the trenches," the better for transparency and the public good.

@Emilie, again, thank you. I took the time to read your bio and believe you strive to provide a healthy environment for the free exchange of ideas on your site and I believe you do see the public's need to/right to know as the ultimate victim of shrinking newsrooms.

Coming up in aerospace in the 80's we were put through the Japanese Total Quality Management (TQM) followed by Continuous Process Improvement (CPI) trainings. There are times when I believe every job sector should have been made to do likewise. In these disciplines we were taught to redefine the term "customer" and identify our internal as well as our external customers. Earlier Ralph, the new editor for WC I think, opined that technology played a large role in contracting newsrooms. As a consumer of news I believe the industry, as a whole, has lost sight of who their customers are.

I may be wrong but it feels like those who make resource decisions saw the bright new shiny toy of cable news, with its reach, and thought to recreate that in print. The result is sensational headlines, loss of the man on the street identity and people have tuned out.

I don't believe all is lost in print journalism but I do believe getting back to basics is essential. That seemed to be the initial promise of Patch.

I guess if you're an economist and/or you have a clear understanding of the business model and a clear understanding of what it takes to start a huge endeavor, and how long it would take such an endeavor to become profitable, etc. etc., you may not be speculating... but I haven't seen an indication of any of that in any of the existing coverage.
But I don't think one can simply project forward from the current situation. Speaking generally, it seems like common sense that building up a huge company is going to require an initial investment for which it will take time to see returns. It seems crazy (to me) to think that a year-old company would/should already be profitable. I hope we are given that time, but, at the end of the day, I don't feel a need to sit around wondering about it. I'm not really clear on what the obsession is about this aspect of the company.
As for those citing Business Insider, which tends to post single-source stories by anonymous former (disgruntled?) employees, it's surprising to me that people *would* put weight into reporting that weak. I don't know those people, but I can say none of that reporting has resonated with me.
I'm sorry but I don't get it.

Of course the guy is disgruntled. It's stipulated in the article that he's a self described "disgruntled employee". There's no attempt to show otherwise. The points made are valid, especially the one about Patch's advertising. These aren't his opinions. These are facts, whether truthful or not, that's another story. It seems to me there may be a ring of truth to it as I have yet to see any local advertisers on my local Patch site, Union City.

Ron, of course Patch needs to remove spiteful, vile, attack, profane or opinionated postings by people that the editor wants to remove. We have to maintain a politically correct world while pandering to the imaginary will of some mindless drone in charge of the editing function. Look, nigger was removed from current study editions of Huckleberry Fin. Soon you will need perimission to to read most books. The school of hard knocks, life, is now a state of bullying and a crime in some folks mind.

The editors and paid staff of Patch are the released former employees of newspapers. Of course they want to defend Patch, otherwise they will end up like their Blogging Partners, unpaid and on the dole or just about to be that.

Do not look for great journalism, it is just a job. Do not rock the boat, feed the kids, go out to eat, put gas in the car and be glad that you are not part of the 12+% who are out of work.

There is no room in Patchville for Mighty Casey. He has struck out. Be happy that maybe Patch will be successful as the electronic successor to the Penny Dreadful or cat box and bird cage liner.

Crusading journalists? Not in Patch.

Of course inappropriate comments should be deleted. That is how Kamenev and Zinoviev disappeared from Soviet history. First their photos and then their presence.

As to your comment about Editor, no the editor edited their reporters and the focus of the department or desk that the editor ran. The editor did not edit John Q. The editor chose the few letters that they would print.

Soon the Supreme Court will decide whether the internet and digital data is interstate commerce and therefore under federal jurisdiction. Until that time the internet and posting is simply the wild west. Sheriff Patch can deal with his version of miscreants any way he wants, until the town fathers ask him to clean up his act.

It appears that AOL is losing about $45M/year at current rates. They have $450M in cash. If everything remains the same they could go on like this for another 10 years. But things rarely remain the same. An immediate collapse is not about to happen.

After completing our India restructuring, our current head count excluding Patch is at approximately 4100, down from over 7,000 two years ago. We also continue to ship resources to areas where we see significant growth in the future. For instance, during July, we reduced staffing levels by approximately 150 people across different areas of our domestic operations, and we will reinvest these savings in areas like video, mobile, Huffington Post expansion, and Patch.

Ross Sandler - RBC Capital Markets - Analyst
Thanks, guys. Just two questions first. Tim, can you talk a little bit about the current environment you are seeing in domestic display in 3Q, were July, or these first few days August any different than the ending trajectory in June? And then the second question for Artie, so this new updated range of $340 million to $370 million for 2011, is obviously below Consensus expectation. I am just wondering what the disconnect is? Is it because you are expecting lower revenue from higher margin areas, or are the Patch losses accelerating? And then given the access and search secular declines, is there any comfort that that this might be the trough run rate by which we can build on next year, or are you expecting next year to be below this range?

P. 10
Artie Minson - AOL Inc. - CFO
Hey, it is Artie. Let me answer a couple of your specific questions there.

What a moron that gut is. And Harvard's "The Forum for Growth and Innovation" is equally moronic. Can't beleive this is the crap you learn at Harvard. "Disruptive innovation" describes a process by which a product or service takes root initially in simple applications at the bottom of a market and then relentlessly moves ‘up market’, eventually displacing established competitors. Ex. Cell phones disrupting land lines, and discount retailers disrupting full service retailers. Duh.
One commenter was right when he wrote, "It´s easier for companies like Garnett or McClatchy to learn to capitalize on their local websites than to AOL to compete with them for local news and revenue."