Nieman Foundation at Harvard
HOME
          
LATEST STORY
What do we want? Unbiased reporting! When do we want it? During protests!
ABOUT                    SUBSCRIBE
March 7, 2013, 12:02 p.m.
LINK: www.paleycenter.org  ➚   |   Posted by: Joshua Benton   |   March 7, 2013

AOL CEO Tim Armstrong gave a talk at the Paley Center this morning at its Media Council breakfast and touched on issues around Patch (“This is our most controversial investment”), the soon-to-be-separate magazines of Time Inc., Huffington Post Live (average view length is 12-18 minutes, he reports), and more.

On Patch, Armstrong says he took site-placement inspiration from Sam Walton’s early years of Walmart; he says it’s generating 14 million uniques a month at a 30 percent annual growth rate.

We’re driving it towards profitability. Very challenging business to manage, because the outside world — especially the journalism world — it pounds on Patch. It’s essentially going exactly against where all the other investments in content are going, and I think that’s driving people crazy…

I’m confident in Patch, but Patch has to be a profitable investment for us. There’s no use having a business that is not profitable inside of AOL’s portfolio. And one of the things we’re on is a path to profitability, and we’re going to get there by the end of the year.

He also notes the Financial Times is working on a Patch story. Lots of interesting stuff in there to Patch-watchers and people interested in what content strategy looks like at an AOL scale. (First 10 minutes embedded above, the remainder over here.)

Show tags Show comments / Leave a comment
 
Join the 50,000 who get the freshest future-of-journalism news in our daily email.
What do we want? Unbiased reporting! When do we want it? During protests!
Not all protests get treated equally. Stories about women’s marches and anti-Trump protests give more voice to the protesters than those about Black Lives Matter and other anti-racism protests.
Instagram is busy fact-checking memes and rainbow hills while leaving political lies alone
Plus: Emphasizing a publisher’s name on social doesn’t seem to impact readers’ misinfo radar much one way or the other.
Is this video “missing context,” “transformed,” or “edited”? This effort wants to standardize how we categorize visual misinformation
MediaReview wants to turn the mishmash vocabulary around manipulated photos and video into something structured.