FriendFeed
| Back to Home > Bulletin Board > Media Issues > Topic: How many members? |
Topic: How many members?
  Page 1 of 4   |
|
| Author | Message |
| eriksherman | Posted – 1/27/2005 2:37:56 PM | show profile Laura Toubie is claiming 750K members at MB. I wonder how many of those are multiple accounts - and how many even have real contact information. Why do I think that all the press appearances and ''high profile'' activities are just readying the grounds for selling the damn thing so they can really take the money and run? ------ Author of "Geocaching: Hike and Seek with Your GPS" - hidden at a bookstore near you... |
| brianvan0711 | Posted – 1/27/2005 3:15:14 PM | show profile | email poster ''Laura Toubie'' So she's gonna sell? Cripes! I better start checking Craigslist... |
| eriksherman | Posted – 1/27/2005 3:23:41 PM | show profile Ah, well, so much for my spelling today. Obviously should be Laurel Touby. But that would be my guess - it seems like a classic pattern of prettying something up before you send it off. Interesting that MediaBistro is a trademark of hers personally rather than of the corporation. ------ Author of "Geocaching: Hike and Seek with Your GPS" - hidden at a bookstore near you... |
| Kyle | Posted – 1/27/2005 3:46:20 PM | show profile Misprint Hi guys: Laurel was actually misquoted by that journalist (or perhaps she misspoke). Mediabistro.com logs 750,000 visitor sessions each month. We have 325,000 registered members in our database. Best, Kyle ------ -------------- Publisher/CFO mediabistro.com |
| floruja | Posted – 1/27/2005 3:57:26 PM | show profile Kyle: 1. Was she misquoted, or did she misspeak? As an organization that purports to exist to support the journalist community, one would think you would not accuse a journalist of getting the facts or a quote wrong if that were not the case. 2. If the actual number is 325,000, why does MB's boilerplate on its January 10 ''official launch of Freelance Marketplace'' press release say 350,000? See? This is what journalists do. It's called fact-checking. |
| eriksherman | Posted – 1/27/2005 4:05:34 PM | show profile Let's do a bit of analysis. I'd say that a regular user of this site might check once a day, five days a week. That means 20 sessions a month. Divide 20 into 750,000 visitor sessions (not even unique visitors) and you get 37,500 active users - and once a day during weekdays hardly seems that heavy a use. So what happens with the 287,500 other registered users? Do they get bored and leave? Doesn't seem like such a useful number to quote - unless you're trying to make things look bigger than they are. Then again, I doubt that you have real contact information for even 5% of those ''registered'' users, severely limiting their marketing value. ------ Author of "Geocaching: Hike and Seek with Your GPS" - hidden at a bookstore near you... |
| brianvan0711 | Posted – 1/27/2005 4:14:33 PM | show profile | email poster Hey, while we have a member of the staff present... Someone check out that other thread about the rebuttal article for the issue of ''Writing for pay / writing without pay''. Cause no one's answering it, and that's not looking very ''community-like''. Just my worthless $0.02... |
| Kyle | Posted – 1/27/2005 4:17:48 PM | show profile Hi Floruja: 1.) I'm not sure which happened; I wasn't around when Laurel gave the interview. That's why I said that either she was misquoted or she misspoke. I don't really think I made any ''accusations''. 2.) I'm not sure what you're referring to when you talk about a press release that quotes us as having 350,000 members. We did send out a press release on January 10th, but it said we have 300,000 members (a rounded-down figure). Could you show me where that appeared? I wish that the journalist who wrote the story (or an editor at the Sun) had called me to fact check that stat -- I would have definitely corrected it. I'm not sure what you mean when you say that you are fact checking...and I'm really not sure why your tone is so combative. I've seen some of your posts from time to time, Floruja, and it really seems like you are disenchanted with mediabistro. Obviously, we don't please everyone. But I wonder why, if you feel so strongly negative about us, why you keep using us? The same goes for you, eriksherman. I really am curious. If you are so disillusioned and really dislike what we stand for, why do you hang around? I think the constant negativity of your posts ultimately does a disservice to the community. I'm all for having commentary and debate about our products, services, content, etc., but the two of you really take this to a different level. It's beyond debate and it's just about sniping at this point. You've made it clear that you hate us or certain of our policies; if you are so disgusted, why don't you leave? ------ -------------- Publisher/CFO mediabistro.com |
| eriksherman | Posted – 1/27/2005 4:43:54 PM | show profile I'm here to try to help some other journalists. Sorry if you think that is negative. I just can't quite swallow the ''we're a community service'' pose when your actions say other things. There's a difference between what people say they stand for and what people actually stand for. I also find it interesting that staff from MB show up so seldom in discussions. Of course, it's easy to say, ''you people are negative'' without taking time to wonder why you are getting such reactions, and often from the more professionally experienced among your audience. You might see if you actually read posts and didn't dismiss them. ------ Author of "Geocaching: Hike and Seek with Your GPS" - hidden at a bookstore near you... |
| Kyle | Posted – 1/27/2005 5:07:34 PM | show profile Erik, You don't help journalists -- that's my whole point. There are a lot of people on this board who do help journalists. But you don't offer up anything useful in your posts. I read your reply to mjfreelancer on the AG-only board. That was the most snotty, unhelpful post I've ever read. So please, don't pretend that you're here to help people. You're here because you have nothing better to do and you want an audience for your paranoid theories that mediabistro has hidden motives in everything we do. So, in order to stand up for the community, as you suggested, I'll gladly refund your $49 AG membership fee, out of my own pocket, if you'll leave the community and take your ''help'' somewhere else. I feel strongly that the community (and particulary this BBS) would be a more productive resource for journalists with you not a part of it. ------ -------------- Publisher/CFO mediabistro.com |
| floruja | Posted – 1/27/2005 5:13:11 PM | show profile Kyle: 1. You wrote: ''Laurel was actually misquoted by that journalist (or perhaps she misspoke).'' That you led with the first and added the second parenthetically, as a maybe, puts weight on the error's being the journalist's, and misquoting is a pretty serious error in this business. 2. Watch closely here. I apologize for the 350,000 reference. That was MY error; as you state, the press release boilerplate does indeed say 300,000. So I acknowledge my error on the second point. If Laurel was NOT misquoted by the journalist and did indeed represent the number as being more than double what it is, will she likewise acknowledge her error? 3. As for my leaving: I was all set to do so--to not renew my Avant Guild membership--last autumn, and Laurel gave me an impassioned speech about the public service she provides here. I renewed and have no intention of either leaving or keeping my mouth shut when I see flagrantly bad advice being tossed freely about here. If you're lucky, next autumn I'll remember that I need only pay IRBA dues to get my insurance. Until then, you're stuck with this paying member and her comments on anything that crops up here, particularly those threads that misrepresent or do damage to this profession. But take heart: I'm confident that the MBers I have identified as actual professionals and have introduced/recommended to editors who have given them thousands of dollars in assignments find me a negative influence. |
| eriksherman | Posted – 1/27/2005 5:17:03 PM | show profile >> I read your reply to mjfreelancer on the AG-only board. That was the most snotty, unhelpful post I've ever read. So please, don't pretend that you're here to help people. You're here because you have nothing better to do and you want an audience for your paranoid theories that mediabistro has hidden motives in everything we do. << Oh, please, Kyle - you've read one post? Nothing on contract help I've offered? Nothing on negotiation? How often do you actually read these boards, anyway? And you claim that I want an audience for paranoid theories? Have you been drinking? I'm actually smiling as I'm writing this - it is so off the wall as to be amusing. I am guessing that someone will be shopping MB. Maybe I'm wrong, and I certainly wouldn't see it as a ''hidden motive''. It's business. It's an industry. You think people here don't know it, or think less of you for considering it a business? Maybe you should not assume that reading one or two of my posts actually lets you understand what I do. You seem to have me pegged as someone who spends all his time reading over this board and trying to promote some sort of secret theories all involving MB - talk about paranoid! I think that the real thing that bothers you is that I might bring up some things that you don't like to hear, and I do it in an informed way. But that's ok - you are running a business and have to get used to realizing that there will be people who don't view you the way you view yourself. And you can keep your money, thanks anyway. ------ Author of "Geocaching: Hike and Seek with Your GPS" - hidden at a bookstore near you... |
| ElizabethSpiers | Posted – 1/27/2005 5:40:55 PM | show profile Laurel WAS misquoted. I was there. Myrna missed the user/member distinction, which isn't a terribly unusual mistake. And the Sun didn't fact-check, but that's not unusual either because newspapers don't generally fact-check. (Editors spot-check.) And actually, Erik, the biggest problem with your criticisms is that they're *not* informed and we keep having to issue corrections about basic facts. You have made erroneous assumptions about our business model, the numbers behind that business model, mediabistro's editorial policies, and most outrageously, the personal motivations of mediabistro staffers (the latter of which is incredibly presumptuous given that--and correct me if I'm wrong--you've never met any of us) and you've reported those assumptions as facts. And you're not the only one. We have no problem with informed criticism. But that's not what you've been offering. |
| Kyle | Posted – 1/27/2005 5:41:03 PM | show profile Your claim that I don't want you to post because I want to censor you and your ''informed commentary'' on mediabistro's business practices only makes you look more like a paranoid theorist. Don't you think if we wanted to censor people on this Board we would just delete all threads that were unflattering? Very, very few threads or posts get deleted, almost exclusively in situations where something potentially illegal had been written. I don't have time to keep going back and forth, and I've read the board long enough to know that you can never get the last word in, so I'll leave this discussion with one last request: if you really want to help people, Erik, post only when you think you can help them. If you are skilled in contracts and negotiations, limit your posts to that, and don't spend the time to shoot down a question that was either posted by someone inexperienced or poorly phrased. I think this BBS would be better if people felt less liberated to post about whatever they feel like and more when they really felt they could contribute. ------ -------------- Publisher/CFO mediabistro.com |
| brianvan0711 | Posted – 1/27/2005 5:42:05 PM | show profile | email poster I must say that this is incredibly ugly and counterproductive - and I'm sad to see this thread emerge. Even in the face of some extremely unfair criticism, I'm disappointed to see these kinds of public attacks coming from the MB staff. There's some really angry language above that I wouldn't expect from ANYONE participating here. It's horrifying to see one of the MB people blow up at a member out in the open and then throw their membership money back in their faces. I don't want to go anywhere else because of just this incident, but it's very disconcerting. |
| maruchan | Posted – 1/27/2005 6:05:38 PM | show profile ''And you'r not the only one.'' Elizabeth - this is exactly the kind of comment/attitude that leads people - who don't even know you! - to think you are just plain snarky and rude. Just thought you should know:) |
| maruchan | Posted – 1/27/2005 6:07:41 PM | show profile ''And you're not the only one.'' Elizabeth - this is exactly the kind of comment/attitude that leads people - who don't even know you! - to think you are just plain snarky and rude. Sorry you don't agree with this thread, but try a little professionalism on for size. |
| caitlinkelly | Posted – 1/27/2005 6:15:56 PM | show profile The irony is that Erik is one of the ''six figure'' fulltime freelancers who actually earns a very healthy living writing for magazines and newspapers, supports his family through this work, and is a helpful smart guy who speaks often at ASJA conferences where he's a valued member of that professional organization. Yes, he's a friend of mine. His reply re: the NYT contact was tart, I agree, but this BB has seen much worse slagging and name-calling over the years, and often from people whose skills are slim-to-none as opposed to someone with highly developed skills and insight into this industry. If everyone who really felt annoyed with MB's BBs left, you'd see -- and likely will -- an exodus of most people with any experience, whether or not they're winning popularity contests for their posts or their style. Please, let the newbies mewl at each other ad infinitum, and see how many thousands stick around for anything more than the job. A real ''community'' -- online or off -- does not preclude criticism, conflict or frank conversation. Few communities last without it. ------ Freelance writer Caitlin Kelly, has written for The New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post and other publications. You can read samples from her new book at blownawaythebook.com |
| caitlinkelly | Posted – 1/27/2005 6:17:36 PM | show profile ''stick around for the job ads.'' sigh. ------ Freelance writer Caitlin Kelly, has written for The New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post and other publications. You can read samples from her new book at blownawaythebook.com |
| ElizabethSpiers | Posted – 1/27/2005 6:33:15 PM | show profile Caitlin: we're not precluding criticism. We're precluding people making factually incorrect statements about mb or mb staffers. I'm sure you have no objection to that. |
| eriksherman | Posted – 1/27/2005 6:45:36 PM | show profile >> If you are skilled in contracts and negotiations, limit your posts to that, and don't spend the time to shoot down a question that was either posted by someone inexperienced or poorly phrased. << Kyle, I'm actually trying to say this nicely - I don't think you understand the challenges facing writers. There are many people planning to go off and blythely pitch this and that top publication and in ways that are bound to have them poison the well for years. Literally years. There is a certain amount of foundation you must set to approach an editor, and sometimes the lack of groundwork is a sign that it's better to pass a market until you are ready to put in that work - and that can include calling the pub and getting the name of the right editor. To not even cover those bases in some cases will make you look foolish - whether reasonably or not - in the eyes of an editor. And you can kiss your hard-crafted pitch goodbye, at least there. Sometimes the help someone needs is exactly what they don't want to hear. Given Caitlin's take on what I said, I can only conclude that the actual spirit of what I was trying to say got lost. I already ''made nice'' with that poster, and I think explained myself a bit more clearly. Maybe not, but there is only so much I can do. However, many of the posters are going to find that they cannot be tender when people express opinions. If you think that one post was rough, try getting feedback from editors who have no time to be nice. I'll also note, as Brian did, that you take personal attacks to a new level, and one that I think is totally uncalled for. I also think that you owe me an apology, though I don't expect it. Elizabeth Spiers, you said that you are precluding people making factually incorrect statements about MB and MB personnel. Would you like to point out exactly what was inaccurate? Otherwise, you are leaving things at the level of innuendo, which hardly seems useful in the light of the standards that Kyle is demanding, even if he isn't fulfilling them. ------ Author of "Geocaching: Hike and Seek with Your GPS" - hidden at a bookstore near you... |
| Kyle | Posted – 1/27/2005 6:46:30 PM | show profile One more thing I want to chime in with one last thing (breaking my earlier promise, I know...) I wish I hadn't made the post in which I offered ErikSherman his money back. That set this whole discussion along a less helpful path. I rarely mix it up in BBS posts. I've seen a lot of untruths about MB and its intentions and policies posted here, and kept my mouth shut most of the time. And when I have chimed in, it was usually just to offer factual corrections, and I've been very careful to keep it polite. But what set me off this time, really, was the negativity about the company which seemed excessive and implied deception. And from what I've seen from ErikSherman and Floruja, every single comment that relates to MB is negative, sarcastic, and implies that we are somehow wronging them or deceiving them. In this thread alone: ''seems like a classic pattern of prettying something up before you send it off.'' ''See? This is what journalists do. It's called fact-checking'' ''Doesn't seem like such a useful number to quote - unless you're trying to make things look bigger than they are. Then again, I doubt that you have real contact information for even 5% of those ''registered'' users, severely limiting their marketing value.'' ---- I really don't understand why the assumptions are so negative and stated so sarcastically. We're not the government! Erik Sherman later claims that ''It's business. It's an industry. You think people here don't know it, or think less of you for considering it a business?'' If you believe this Erik, why do you go to such lengths to point out negative opinions and unflattering (and untrue) homespun calculations about this business? Caitlin, I've always admired your posts, you always present an even-headed argument. Do you really think I was trying to preclude debate? And do you not see what I'm talking about with certain posters having an excessive anti-MB angle in their posts that in truth is unfounded and unhelpful? Call me crazy, but I think there is a huge difference between questioning and criticizing MB from time to time and the implicit nature of the post that Erik started here. ------ -------------- Publisher/CFO mediabistro.com |
| Kyle | Posted – 1/27/2005 6:53:06 PM | show profile this post wasn't started to be helpful. it was started to put forward an opinion that a deception was taking place. and if that is who you think we are, why would you want to be a paying customer of ours? ------ -------------- Publisher/CFO mediabistro.com |
| Kyle | Posted – 1/27/2005 7:06:17 PM | show profile sorry: ''this post wasn't started to be helpful'' should say ''this thread wasn't started to be helpful''. I'll apologize to you for offering your money back, Erik, if you apologize to me. As a journalist, surely you realize that if you had claimed in print without any evidence or research to support it, that ''you doubt we have real contact information for even 5% of our registered users, severly limiting their marketing value'' you'd be libeling us. Why you felt it would be professional, helpful, or appropriate to make that statement on this BBS, I am unclear. ------ -------------- Publisher/CFO mediabistro.com |
| lurker | Posted – 1/27/2005 7:10:54 PM | show profile I’m appalled at this thread. Erik has done nothing but offered help and advice on this bulletin board. He adds value to many, many discussions and MB should be glad to have such an experienced journalist who sacrifices his time to frequent this board. There are only maybe three or four active bulletin board users who (in my opinion) have proved themselves time and time again to be well-respected longtime “true” journalists, and Erik is one of them. I’ve never met Erik in person, but it would be an honor to do so. I don’t think it’s right, or in good business ethics, to publicly attack a longtime, good paying customer. This isn’t the first time MB staffers have dealt with criticism in this manner (and have taken issues personally) and it really ruins the credibility of the site. Perhaps there was another way—a politer way—to contribute to this discussion and make a point without throwing money back in Erik’s face. Of all the name-calling and immaturity that has appeared in other posts, I’m really surprised that this post was taken so to heart. |
| Page 1 of 4 |
|
