Nieman Foundation at Harvard
HOME
          
LATEST STORY
Serial meets The X-Files in Limetown, a fictional podcast drawing raves after just one episode
ABOUT                    SUBSCRIBE
Feb. 17, 2009, 6:01 p.m.

How 4chan shows the challenge of monetizing a big online audience

Andy Baio points us to the last page of this Washington Post article on Chris Poole, the founder of 4chan. 4chan is an online forum where many of the Internet’s memes — things like rickrolling and lolcats — are born, and it’s a hugely popular destination online for a certain sort of mostly young, mostly male person.

It is, it must be said, not for everyone. But it gathers a big audience — 5 million unique visitors a month according to WaPo, 1.5 million according to Quantcast, or other totals depending on your source. (To put those numbers in context, 5 million would make it the size of The Boston Globe. The 1.5 million level is around the Detroit Free Press.)

But that last page of the Post article talks about how, despite that huge audience and costs that don’t go much beyond paying for web servers, Poole hasn’t been able to make a dime. In fact, he’s $20,000 in debt and putting those server bills on his credit card every month. In that sense, 4chan is like Facebook, Twitter, and Digg — sites that rely primarily on their users for their content, but which still can’t make money.

The Post story, by Monica Hesse, is quite affecting in its portrayal of Poole’s dilemma — he’s created something millions of people find valuable, and he can’t make any money off of it. But what lessons can we take for news organizations from his experience. I see two:

There’s real value in quality.

Or at least “quality.” 4chan has trouble selling ads because the traffic he gets is not the traffic advertisers want: “The crass content of the site makes it difficult to find advertisers.” You see similar things about places with lower crassness quotients, too. Dan Lyons wrote recently about the difficulty of getting advertisers interested in blogs. While news organizations aren’t yet making a mint through online advertising, they do have the sort of content lots of advertisers want to place a picture of their product next to. And that’s a valuable thing to have.

(Why “quality” in scare quotes? Because I won’t argue that newspapers vs. blogs/etc. is the same equation as quality vs. junk. There’s an enormous amount of quality in blogs — I read much more content from bloggers and other amateurs than I do from professional journalists. And a lot of what news organizations produce every day is awful. But advertisers don’t see it that way. That’s primarily because newspapers are consistent — that is, just about everything they produce meets at least a minimal quality bar. You can’t say that for “blogs” in the abstract — or anything, really, that relies primarily on its users for content.)

We may not ever be able to depend on advertising to pay the bills.

These sites show just how low the financial return per online user can be.

And maybe I’m wrong, but my working assumption is that someone in the Facebook/Digg/etc. crowd is going to figure out out to close that (perceived) quality gap with advertisers and create a comfort level equal to the one advertisers have with traditional news sites. I think that gap is temporary — based on advertisers’ temporary discomfort with the new medium and those who dwell within it.

When that happens, those new sites will have built-in edge after built-in edge: lower cost of content creation; larger scale; better personalization and targeting of ads. That’s why I have a hard time being optimistic about the long-term viability of an online news business based primarily on advertising. And that’s why the hunt for other business models is so critical.

POSTED     Feb. 17, 2009, 6:01 p.m.
SHARE THIS STORY
   
Show comments  
Show tags
 
Join the 15,000 who get the freshest future-of-journalism news in our daily email.
Serial meets The X-Files in Limetown, a fictional podcast drawing raves after just one episode
“Serial had to stay nonfictional. At the end of the show, it didn’t necessarily mean that it had a conclusion. That’s the biggest advantage we have: We’re making it up. So we can give you an ending.”
The Atlantic is returning to blogging
“We missed the kind of writing it represents. We missed the kind of audience engagement it represents.”
The mourning of AJR is less about a decline in press criticism than the loss of an institution
Like the media it covers, journalism criticism has moved from the work of a few established institutions to something more diffuse.
What to read next
2351
tweets
The New York Times built a Slack bot to help decide which stories to post to social media
The bot, named Blossom, helps predict how stories will do on social and also suggests which stories editors should promote.
1287Jo Ellen Green Kaiser: Do independent news outlets have a blind spot when it comes to ethnic media?
The head of the Media Consortium argues that, by defining themselves in opposition to mainstream media, independent progressive outlets miss out on the power of ethnic and community journalism.
1029Newsonomics: 10 numbers on The New York Times’ 1 million digital-subscriber milestone
Digital subscribers are proving to be the bedrock of the Times’ business model going forward. How much more room is there for growth — and at what price points?
These stories are our most popular on Twitter over the past 30 days.
See all our most recent pieces ➚
Fuego is our heat-seeking Twitter bot, tracking the links the future-of-journalism crowd is talking about most on Twitter.
Here are a few of the top links Fuego’s currently watching.   Get the full Fuego ➚
Encyclo is our encyclopedia of the future of news, chronicling the key players in journalism’s evolution.
Here are a few of the entries you’ll find in Encyclo.   Get the full Encyclo ➚
Grist
OpenFile
News Corp
The Dish
International Consortium of Investigative Journalists
Los Angeles Times
Poynter Institute
Drudge Report
Texas Tribune
The Blaze
West Seattle Blog
American Public Media