Actually that's a distortion of their business model.<br /><br /> <br /><br /> And catty.<br /><br /> <br /><br /> And also, sites that pay contributors $500 every three months is also, as Chris Anderson would say, "approaching zero."
posted by Choire at 2009-07-09 16:16:08 ![]()
I looked for the Observer story that explains the model better, but I forgot to include it: <a href="http://www.observer.com/2009/media/zoom-yum-new-internet-paper-cover-jetpacks-international-conflict-food" target="_blank">Zoom! Yum! New Internet 'Paper' to Cover Jetpacks, International Conflict, Food</a>.
posted by Rex at 2009-07-09 16:20:48 ![]()
Oh, and on "approaching zero"... I agree!<br /><br />
posted by Rex at 2009-07-09 17:08:05 ![]()
Those feathered cutouts for the writers look awful.
posted by Jed at 2009-07-09 17:15:48 ![]()
It took me all of fifteen seconds of headline scanning to know I was not part of their target audience. I'm not sure if this says more about them or me. Maybe both.
posted by CRZ at 2009-07-10 12:10:31 ![]()
Agree re: headline scanning, and I think it's because any site with headlines and story placement that baldly designed with SEO in mind is boring to me. "Oh, you want robot readers. Okay, well, I am a human reader. Bye!"
posted by Emily at 2009-07-10 12:21:56 ![]()
holy blur filter! <br /><br /> <br /><br /> (yes, the mug shots were the first thing i noticed.)
posted by maura at 2009-07-10 12:26:48 ![]()

