I have some bad news. Here's the heart of it: we are cutting 19 of our 133 editorial positions and suspending bonus payments at the start of next year. With the savings, we are increasing base pay and hiring 10 new people on the most commercially successful Gawker sites. But I know that's scant consolation for the colleagues we're losing and for those of you who have been enjoying the bonus windfalls from breakout stories.You can guess the reason for these brutal measures: the recession. Sure, the company is currently profitable and advertising sales are up by about 30% on their level of a year ago. Our biggest clients are consumer electronics and entertainment companies that are relatively well insulated. And, yes, this is not the first time I've predicted doom: in July 2006, when we "battened down the hatches" and closed down Sploid and Screenhead; and in April this year, when we spun off Idolator, Gridskipper and Wonkette.
But now the credit crisis is clearly going to affect every sector of the economy. Advertising buys typically plunge after the Christmas shopping season, and 2009 is obviously going to be exceptionally difficult. We have to prepare for the worst, now, rather than when the worst comes upon us.
We never used to talk about the business side of the operation. Traffic was the only concern; my belief was that juicy news would draw the readers and the advertising would take care of itself. We were patient; even if it took four years for a site to develop the audience that finally registered with advertisers, we had the time. No longer.
Sites such as Consumerist, whose success has been measured more in traffic and recognition than in revenue, now need to cover their costs. I can't underline enough that this harsh commercial judgment is no reflection whatsoever on the editorial teams that are being cut.
Each of these sites performs a vital function. Consumerist provides an outlet for disgruntled consumers that exists nowhere else on the web; Valleywag has given puffed-up Silicon Valley the prick it's long needed; and Fleshbot manages to be classy and filthy at the same time. The site leads and writers on all of our sites have done exactly what we asked them to: work harder than the competition and grow the audience. It's my commercial judgment that's been at fault.
One reason we're eliminating these positions is to reinforce the teams on the sites with the most commercial appeal—Gizmodo, Kotaku, Lifehacker and Gawker—and the properties such as Jezebel, io9, Deadspin and Jalopnik which are poised to join them.
One new recruit we're confirming today is Gabriel Snyder from W Magazine in Los Angeles who, as managing editor of Gawker.com, will continue the site's evolution into a national news and entertainment site. We are also hiring new contributors at Jezebel, Deadspin, Kotaku and io9.
Even in the growing editorial teams we need to control costs. And that means a new look at traffic bonuses. We've been spending $50,000 a month on average on pageview bonuses. The scheme has made writers hustle for traffic even in teams so large that there was a risk they become lumbering. It's helped us hit a record 274m pageviews last
month, up 69% on last September.Pageview bonuses will continue this quarter. And we are committed to pageview incentives, and to measuring performance by a writer's individual pageviews, in the long term. But a first quarter spike in traffic -- and the resulting bonus payments -- could be dangerous if advertising markets are troubled next year. And we're assuming that the economy is so volatile that most of you would like a little bit more predictability about your own income.
That's why we're suspending the pageview bonus for the first quarter at least, but making up for some of the loss of income by raising pay. If you haven't recently agreed to a new rate, your monthly base amount will automatically be increased by 5% in January.
The news about the job and bonus cuts will be demoralizing. The golden age of the blog is over, people will say. Gawker Media is behaving like those big media companies that we mock so easily. I could come up with some bullshit line about how much worse it would have been to wait until we were forced to control costs; or how much more unpleasant life will be at the many internet ventures and newspapers that won't make it through the downturn. I could give you my optimistic spin about the glorious future that awaits us on the far side of this downturn.
But there is no escaping the fact that we're losing some excellent colleagues and the environment next year will be bleak. The one consolation is that there will be plenty of news for us to break — starting with this email, which you are free to leak.
]]>
I understand that gawker media has to adhere to capitalism to stay afloat, but it's sad when capitalism makes you blind to what should be your moral standards.
]]>I left Gawker Media sites alone until this one. I second discovering Lifehacker and Jalopnik through Consumerist.
I second the EECB. I'd pay monthly to keep this site ad-free and keep Chris and Casey.
]]>Instead of laying off the 19 people...why not lay off only the 9 and shuffle around the other 10 to the other sites?
It'd make more sense to me at least...
]]>@catastrophegirl: Same, the only reason I even looked at any of the other gawker sites (and because a massive jez-aholic) is because of Consumerist. Boo Gawker Media, Boo.
]]>It's the sad truth that that's what happens with every form of media. Just look at the newspaper industry - do you think they're firing the ad reps? Nope. Content is first to go - followed shortly thereafter by readers.
]]>Wow. Just wow.
By your own admission the economy sucks, and the response is to cut half the staff of the most-economy focused blog in your empire?
Best wishes to Carey and Chris. I'll gladly donate to a fund/pay a subscription/etc. to keep them on board. Best wishes to Ben and Meg as well - covering the depth and breadth of topics this blog covers with half the staff will be a challenge.
I always thought this gawkster thing was just a bunch of indepentant web sites that agreed to promote each other, I didn't know it was some company that owned you.
]]>There is an echo in the firmament... I'm having a huge case of "deja vu" right now.
I was completely unaware that the Gawker blogs required so much overhead. Good to see that you guys are on top of it, though.
]]>This is my first comment on any Gawker site, but I've been an avid reader of a few of them -- especially this one -- for quite some time.
I think many people that read TC would understand that this isn't a commercially viable website. Like Consumer Reviews, you can't take advertising... and then be impartial. I could easily see paying $25 per year to keep the current load of content coming into TC. I understand those left will work extra hard, but there's simply no way they can do it all.
You've got two weeks left. You know your population numbers. Why not give it a shot and see how many will pay for a subscription? Give us a gold star by our names or something.
]]>Interesting point you make. Maybe this is a good time to work on Gawker Media to spin Consumerist off like Wonkette? I'm not any kind of business expert, but I wonder if it's possible for Consumerist to be converted, so to speak, to a non-profit?
]]>Consumerist is what introduced me to the rest of the Gawker empire, and is still the first site I view everyday. Good luck, Chris and Carey!
]]>I do feel that because of the good this site does in informing others about companies, it has worked against them because companies don't want a site they're paying to write poorly about them, even when it's the truth.
I know that what has happened here is bad, but I hope Consumerist keeps its editorial head up and continues to assist consumers with the knowledge they should have.
Farewell Chris and Carey!
]]>Duh.
However, I bet this is the most popular site in the the Gawker media kingdom, or one of the most popular. Perhaps the other sites in the kingdom should be crediting Consumerist for the advertising. A lot of corporations track economic exchange between divisions.
]]>I'm really sorry to hear this. D:
]]>I'm sorry, but this recession bullcrap doesn't float with me. I think it's pretty cowardly to fire people over what MIGHT happen. If you CURRENTLY can't afford to operate your business, fine, you have to cut back. But if your basing decisions on what you THINK you'll be making, or losing, in the future, maybe you should try something else before shitcanning people.
I'm finding way too many businesses are using this "recession" crap as an excuse to do things they shouldn't be doing.
Cut back pay. Quit giving so many bonuses. Stop paying for porn. But for the love of Mickey Mouse, don't START by firing people.
]]>Maybe a portion of Consumerist needs to address the FuckedCompany angle? I know you're hurting now, but seriously. We're in a downturn, and part of 'consumer reporting' is telling us 'consumers' who isn't going to make the cut in this economy. And who's 'products' we shouldn't be investing in for that reason.
]]>Advertising? Revenue?
I am the guy that never looks at online advertising and if I accidently did, I would never click on a link (thus preventing some revenue being generated).
It is not greed as much as I support local businesses (or atleast megacompanies that hire local employees) whenever possible, even if it means paying slightly more (which in reality is seldom the case). I am sure I am not the only one that feels/does their web viewing this way and so the click to generate revenue model does not work well with all consumers.
It is not just Consumerist. For example, I love Pandora, but they have never made a penny from my listenership.
Websites that run on hopes of making $ from a few clicks are going to run into problems. Do I want you to sell ad space or require membership payments? Gosh darn no. But at the same time the click advertisement to generate revenue model that so many companies are using seems to have run its course. Would I pay to use Pandora? No, I am cheap and would listen to local radio (gag) instead. But maybe I would pay to listen to Premium Pandora, a site that would give me greater control over my "free" music.
Maybe Consumerist can evolve into a higher level of service for consumers. Such as paid support for those really obnoxious situations when a consumer needs some professional or semi-professional assistance. This way the Consumerist site can be a means to generate revenue by selling your own product/service and would not be forced to sell yourself to corporate greed (oops, I mean advertising) ?
]]>So sad to lose you Chris and Carey :o(
]]>(I comment on Jezebel every now and again just to provide a voice of reasons among the hysterics).
Let us know where Chris and Carey end up so we can all go read them.
]]>Having an optional Premium subscription level of service here at Consumerist (even though I don't know what features would be free, and what premium) would possibly be a decent way to help fund a site that is too dangerous for most advertisers to consider advertising on.
Hopefully someone will consider that as an actual, serious suggestion.
]]>
Thats a shame, too bad Gawker doesn't realize that if not for the stellar website that is consumerist.com, I (and I'm guessing alot of other people too) would never have stumbled across Gizmodo, Lifehacker, Jalopnik, etc.
Yeah, that basically sums it up.
]]>@Soldier_CLE:
Misspelled the name...
I meant Nick DENTON
]]>This is really weak, as others on here have said.
To Nick Danton (if he even bothers to read his own blogs):
Do you mean to tell me that in lieu of the pending crises in the United States that you are going to cut two editors from this particular media blog, in lieu of more writers/editors for "Wonkette" style "Journalism"?
That's just wrong, Nick; and you know it.
You've just managed to weaken your MOST IMPORTANT blog.
Good job.
]]>JEZEBEL is getting new staff but you're cutting here??? Are you kidding me?? Surely the market for rabid hyperfeminists who also like to chat about hair and makeup and gossip about celebrities while taking giant bong hits can't be that huge.
This is utter nonsense. I have to chime in with everyone else who's said they check this site multiple times a day and who would never have read any of the other sites if not for coming here first. I don't comment often, but I read this site every single day, and my husband does as well. This site goes beyond mere entertainment and actually provides a service. If Gawker would rather pump money into frivolous nonsense sites in order to chip away at ones that actually produce content, well, I think they will find themselves losing big time. Just like the rest of us.
Seriously, please set up a save Chris and Carey fund. I don't have a lot of money, but I will happily donate all I can. I don't know what I'd do with myself without this place.
]]>Cut Chris and Carey to hire 10 new people? Very very weak. Consumerist has been my favorite of all of Gawker media's sites and they were one of the reasons why (the whole team does a fantastic job)
I'll miss you guys.
]]>plus, i dunno, if i were rich, i would be willing to pony up some more for those less fortunate than i. just goes to show how asshole-ish some of the "have mores" can be.
]]>I have to say, Consumerist is one of my favorite sites, one of the ones I HAVE to visit (several times) daily, whereas the rest of Gawker... well, I wouldn't even know about most of those sites if not for the links on Consumerist, and while Lifehacker etc are great, Consumerist is my favorite of the bunch, by far.
Good luck, guys. Yet another example of crappy things happening to people who really, really don't deserve it. :(
Now where, do I send my EECB?
]]>I'm really sorry this is happening. But it just reflects the sad, sorry state of the economy. Thank you George Bush for all you do.
]]>I spend an inordinate amount of time on many of the various gawker sites, from Kotaku and Gizmodo to io9 and even the occasional peek at Fleshbot when I'm in Google chrome incognito mode, and Lifehacker when I want some nifty program. In fact, I go to the sites so much that they dominate my bookmarks Quicklinks.
But, by far, the site I visit the most is The Consmuerist. It has, in my opinion, the best writing, the most interesting stories, and I believe I learn more here then in many of my classes. Granted, I'm browsing The Consumerist in the middle of those classes but that's besides the point.
The thing I liked so much about Gawker was their great variety, and it seems to me like this variety is slowly leaking from this network. Sure, Kotaku is great for gaming news, but to be honest I can easily get the exact same information at some other sites. The same is true for Gizmodo, and io9. The thing I like most about the Gawker media network is the places like no other I've seen on the Internet.
I don't know where I'll go if The Consumerist slowly gets the axe over the next year. Hopefully, someone will leap to fill the void.
The thing that makes me sad is that I'm completely powerless to do anything about it. I guess I can click on the advertisements every time I pop in, but I don't know if 20 clicks a day is going to make a difference (I know, I'm obsessive.)
I guess I'll have to wait and see, and maybe just find something else to do with all my time. But I must say, The Consumerist, I will miss you.
In all your glory.
]]>@EricLecarde: The weekends are the most reading I do on the site. Hurray for no edit and working at the same time.
]]>I too was drawn to the other Gawker Media sites by Consumerist. In fact, I was drawn to Consumerist by an RSS feed aggregator at work, that is no longer functioning. Sigh.
]]>I'm a writer by trade I'd be willing to do a piece or two.
]]>So in 2 weeks are we going to see a post called,"Confessions of a Gawker Media Employee"? Just kidding, it'll be sad to see the two leave. The weekends are when I do most of my site. Hopefully there will be some good stuff on here to tide me over.
]]>I think that this comment is very relevant and I don't even know who Jesus is. Carey and Chris are excellent at their jobs and I am sad to see them go. This site is excellent all around and it is relevant to point out writers who are not as good. I stopped going to Gizmodo and rarely visit Kotaku because I find the writing can be very juvenile.
]]>Under your own rule, you'd probably be charged to heck ;-)
]]>1. Charge commenters fro typos
2. Charge extra for blaming the OP
3. You can only say "Best Buy Sucks" once per posting, after that, you are charged on a sliding scale
4. Oooh, got it! Don't just publish corporate email addresses for EECB. Instead build a system to send the blasts as a service and charge Consumerist readers to send them! (Best Buy, however, would always be free, as a public service)
I bet this site has helped all your other sites that do get traffic get more traffic. Thus increased the revenue there. If you do any further cutting or get rid of Consumerist, I personally will just never visit any of your other sites.
Honestly, I believe that the remaining crew should just leave and start their own Consumerist site and destroy your company.
Peace.
]]>@tenio: Yep how ironic in an election year where the Gawker family has been in the tank for Obama, Nick would do this. I love the Dem's hypocrisy. From We're making tons of money but we still need to let people go to Moveon using non union workers in LA to Tyler Perry getting busted for being an anti union buster. Definitely sad for consumerist.
]]>Why does everyone pick on the gamers and drivers? ;.;
*sniffle*
]]>Free health care? No one is proposing that.
Rewarding work? GDP doubles in US and worker pay declines. Who are you really concerned with?
Raising taxes is harmful? Bush had taxes reduced every year he was in office, and look at the mess we are in.
]]>Yes, Jezebel has its share of "filler" items. But it also has some very thought-provoking pieces, and highlights issues that are important, beyond Palin's hair. And that includes foreign policy and the state of the world now.
And, besides all the serious stuff, it's just plain fun to read. Much more fun than Redbook, Cosmo, etc. (Full disclosure: I don't really read "women's" magazines). In fact, in their Mag Hag columns, they poke fun at traditional women's magazines. Jezebel is much more than your description of it, and it shouldn't be dismissed so lightly.
That said, maybe as a woman I can find more in Jezebel than you can. Just because you do not feel that Jezebel has much to offer does not mean that everyone agrees with you. Hey, I don't find Kotaku or Jalopnik to be particularly useful or helpful - I mean, who cares about games or cars? Why not discuss foreign policy instead on those blogs? After all, those just cater to a male audience, not important at all...
*Disclaimer: I don't really think that Kotaku or Jalopnik should be cut, I just think that a comment like "let's cut Jezebel" is not helpful and am responding in kind.
]]>HIT HIM, PEOPLE! Here's my letter, now everyone join in and EECB the Gawker peeps.
After you've done that, take a little while to go back through the site and click on every story of Chris and Carey's. Hell, click on them all, Ben and Meg deserve a fat bonus, too. We've got to have a few non-CEOs getting some of the money.
To: Nick@gawker.com
Dude, WTF? Why the hell would you want to bitchslap your gateway site?
Seriously, this is the worst bit of judgment I've seen lately, and keep in mind that there have been some pretty serious lapses in the last few months. Read your own damn site and look at how many comments are already posted and protesting your decision to cut Carey and Chris. I understand that you have to look at it from a business perspective and all but if you take away what brings your readers in to begin with then you will end up with fewer readers, which begets less ad revenue, leading to further cuts, back to fewer readers, even less ad revenue, more cuts - maybe you see a pattern?
How many of those posts indicate that Consumerist was the site that lead people to explore the others? How many say that they check only one of your sites multiple times a day and that that site is Consumerist? How many of them indicate that they aren't too awfully pleased with the content on the other sites? Now compare that to the number of negative comments that are posted about Consumerist. Wow, those numbers make a big ratio, don't they, Nick?
Given the nature of Consumerist, it only makes sense to me that revenue from your other sites be shared with Consumerist. I dint go to none of dem dere fancy bidness schools or nothing, but shucks, if I was ter be a company ezecutive I don't much reckon that I'd want to pay money to put my name out there what with all dem complaints. People mights be thinking I was a bad company, too. And what if you was to rite up sometin nasty 'bout my company? I would have to pull any purty pictures or whatnot I'd have done paid for and then I'd have to get those church clothes wearing gentlemens down the hallway to ring you up and take my money back.
And you know what, the lack of ads on Consumerist gives it more credibility. I for one can say that if I read a favorable post about Company X and then noticed a large ad for Company X on the same page, I'd have to assume that Company X also got a bit of favorable copy in the deal.
Of all the economic woes that have saddened me of late (and my husband was in the mortgage biz and has since been out of work for 13 of the last 24 months) this dumb ass memo of yours is what put me over the edge. Shit, if Consumerist can't make it, then what the hell am I going to do?
FYI - I plan on posting this on Consumerist along with your email address. I hope you get a fiery hellstorm heaped upon you for this decision.
To Ben, Meg, Carey and Chris, if you all decide to leave and do your thing on another site, count me in. I'll drop Gawker faster than you can delete a "free hot girls I'm a Nigerian prince in jail lose weight while you watch tv" email. I think I can go ahead and speak for many other Consumerist loyalists - you lead, we'll follow.
Nick, please reconsider. Listen to your audience. Shuffle elsewhere, make it work. Take out a damn sub-prime loan if you have to; my husband can walk you through it. Just don't cut Consumerist.
One last thought: none of your other editors or contributors seem to be as in demand with the popular media as Ben. Surely you have thought about that type of exposure and the number of new viewers that check out Consumerist for the first time after seeing Ben talk about the grocery shrink ray. Given those fresh opportunities, I assume you've thought about how sad it would be to have all those newbies turn away from your sites because Consumerist was found to be lacking. 'Twould be a pity.
Good god, man, we are logging into Consumerist MULTIPLE TIMES A DAY! That should count for something.
I look forward to your response and I look forward to hearing that Consumerist will remain intact and ready to keep working for the masses.
SparklyJ
]]>This is disappointing beyond belief.
Consumerst is where I started, and it's still the only page I visit here daily. Does Kotaku/etc really need more staff? It seems more than adequate as it is.
]]>Loved Kotaku for years, and I avoid the competition now. The quality is in the commenters. I never really thought they needed more help. Weekends are light, but the big game news rarely happends during weekends.
]]>Burn!
But, yeah, I've never really understood what Jezebel has to offer anyone. With articles such as "Palin's hairstylist revealed" and "Engineer needs fashion help," they're doing the exact same thing that Cosmo has been doing for the last ump-ty years - keeping women focused on how they look instead of how they act, think, and work.
We have GQ, Maxim, Stuff, etc... women have Jezebel, Cosmo, Redbook, etc. Do the vapid and trendy really need outlets more than the ripped-off and harrassed? (The marketing says yes, but the economy says no. Perhaps if more attention were paid to sites like Consumerist, Motley Fool, Clark Howard, etc., we might not be in this mess.)
I'm not arguing that the editors and writers at Jezebel aren't GOOD at what they do (even though I think most of the articles are content-free, I can't say that they're poorly written), I'm simply arguing that they aren't really offering anything new or interesting.
Palin's hair? Really? Wow, that's an amazingly important subject. I'd personally rather discuss foreign policy and the state of the world NOW, and perhaps later discuss the candidates' fashion sense. If we do those in the wrong order, we risk drinking our own filtered urine in a fallout shelter after someone gets a little upset that a foreign leader called them during naptime.
I'm just sayin'...
]]>For those who use adblocker/etc to block *all* ads, and not simply the annoying flash/javascript-based ads, you have only yourselves to blame.
Ad-blocking will be he death of many sites. Not every website is supported by a large corporation, and the vast majority of non-branded websites rely on their pittance of ad revenue simply to keep sites going.
Of course, most people don't really care about that, they just want to be entertained for free.
]]>However, my inquiry is ENTIRELY relevant, Roz. Like others, I am questioning their dismissal. I am only further "upping the ante" by asking why competent, on-topic and consistant writers are losing their jobs, while nary reigned in loose cannons like Jesus keep on damaging the Gawker brand. I am really, seriously, sincerely interested in knowing.
]]>BTW I ONLY visit consumerist! I don't really care for the others. I would think there would be some people out there that would do "intern" work pro-bono on the weekends. Speaking of which... maybe check out my blog and see if I am that caliber.
]]>Booo! I like Carey!
]]>This sucks.
And what's up with firing some to hire others?
]]>@Phydeaux: Yes. I started out reading Kotaku, and added Consumerist when it started up. Guess which one I don't read anymore.
]]>Its hard to see the justification for downsizing when the market is booming.
]]>while this blows like angie dickinson, the email from nick denton speaks a lot to the strengths of the Gawker organization: the same prescience in spotting publishing opportunities is now being applied to the realities of budgeting for business -- investing in sites ahead of the curve and cutting costs ahead of the curve makes for an impressive combo.
as we all know, the next few years will blow like... well... angie dickinson... or, more accurately, like Jaws from James Bond coupled with angie dickinson's blowing stamina. am i making sense?
i wish Chris and Carey the very best. and good luck to Ben and Meghann -- I'm sure you'll find an innovative way to keep the site as current, compelling, and often frustrating as it has been since day 1.
]]>I have this site in my iGoogle and I check it on a daily basis. One of only a handful of sites that I visit regularly. The advice, information, and stories are extremely helpful.
]]>Does anyone know if Nick and other upper management took pay cuts like some other companies have done to try and minimize job cuts?
]]>I'd personally like to stick a rabid Tasmanian Devil down Nick Denton's trousers.
First the sucky layout change (yes, Nick, it bites), and then this.
Gawker management sucks.
]]>Why isn't the title of this article "Consumerist profits up 30%; Celebrates by firing 50% of employees".
]]>Greg
]]>not my preferences, but you don't fuck with the consumerist! best wishes to the departed
]]>my brother was making the point that as America walks headlong into socialism jobs will get cut left and right - free market and dog eat dog mentality is how humans work best - reward for hard work, long hours, vs giving everyone a free ride.
does everyone, EVERYONE, deserve 'free' health care (it's not f$#@ing free - nothing is f4#@ing free for f$#@'s sake)???
who's gonna pay for it?
when obama raises taxes, many 'rich' people are gonna start doing some shit for themselves - wash their own car, do their own laundry, etc etc and this is just a small example of the trickle down effect in play. those will equal JOBS LOST.
Me, I'm gonna vote for the lesser of two evils. And thank God for my faith in God's will being behind all this history in the making.
]]>I discovered consumerist through gizmodo, but I have since lost interest in reading every post on giz as consumerist tends to lend itself to quality posts that are all well worth reading.
This is a wonderful site that has taught me plenty and kept me well informed. It saddens me that my favorite gawker site will be scaling back its operations and I wish the best for the writers that will be leaving the consumerist.
]]>I've been reading quite awhile and I see the daily posts on Consumerist increase more and more thanks in part to the folks you're laying off. The busier this site gets the more I visit and that's the bottom line.
Letting writers go, especially when you're still showing a profit is a slap in the face both to your writers and your readers.
]]>Gawker Media is now becoming the "Evil Corporation" that the consumerist is against!
]]>Bad, bad business decision, Nick. Have you learned nothing from reading Consumerist?
I'll not be visiting any other Gawker sites besides this one anymore.
]]>Good luck, guys.
]]>Liss'n up Nick D. and Gawker krewe, here is feedback:
Of your sites, Lifehacker drew me in, and I've been reading Consumerist from Day 1. Of Gawker sites, I regularly read (and re-blog as links) only Consumerist and Lifehacker. You cut a demographically main sequence site IN HALF with this dumb, dumb move. I really thought y'all had more of a clue than this. Ever heard of a loss leader? I'd never venture onto Gizmodo, Kotaku, Gawker, Jezebel, io9, Deadspin or Jalopnik without the crosslinks from Consumerist and Lifehacker - they just don't have enough content that interests me to budget the reading time as I do for Consumerist and Lifehacker.
Good luck Carey and Chris, hopefully you'll find greener pastures. Hang in there Ben and Meghann. Maybe I'll write something else for y'all like the how-to-buy-a-car thing. ;o)
]]>Best of luck to the departing editors, your followers will miss you. And hopefully, follow you to you new destination(s).
]]>I really think that the Gawker Group is shooting themselves on the foot with this decision.
There is no substitute for class and quality. Surely, you'd think, that in a chain of blogs, you'd always have a money maker and a money loser. The loser gets the people in the door and the money maker gets the people to stay. It's an interdependent chain.
But, in a way, I'm not too surprised by Mr. Denton's decisions. I've already found out for myself (the hard way) of his modus operandi over a period of brush-ins at commenting in his articles over at Gawker: his site, his rules; absolutely no mercy if he disagrees with you (or if it interferes with potential revenue, I suspect).
---
Sorry to hear that you are being forced out, Chris and Carey.
Many a times have I've seen (as I'm sure you've all seen) people saying "Slow News Day?," "This has been posted before" and the like (moreso before the Commenting Code was enacted). Your editorial talents and propensity for sharing interesting articles will be missed.
]]>Definetely the wrong cuts and a piss poor gdby
]]>And drive up the pageviews of Chris and Carey's last posts these 2 weeks too.
And, ditto on the "disgruntled consumers." This site isn't JUST about that. I've been lucky enough to be treated relatively well by companies, but I still check Consumerist on the daily. Why? b/c of the helpful tips & roundups, the news links that I might otherwise have missed, the helpfulness of many of my fellow commenters. Oftentimes the comments are more helpful than the posts! I'll miss having so many posts to dip into. And the lessening of links will def. mean less looking at other Gawker properties.
]]>So, Consumerist is popular but doesn't bring in the ad revenue, huh? I guess Consumerist readers don't impulse buy a bunch of stuff they don't need...
]]>@LindsayC: Same here. I started my Gawker experience on Consumerist as well.
Like others have said, I'd totally chip in monetarily if it would help.
]]>I'm pissed. EECB sent.
]]>Management (not just of Gawker Media, but in general) need to recognize that sometimes the thing that draws attention to their more profitable products is the less-profitable product lines.
]]>Ben, how about a donate button, if for nothing else, but to help Chris and Carey until they get a new job someplace. I know being in between jobs and be a bitch, and I'm sure it doesn't help with the sad state of the economy here.
]]>This sucks. Yes, I understand why it has to happen... but it still sucks.
]]>HISSSSSSS!!!!!!!!
The Consumerist is one of the best examples of what the internet can do to help people if applied properly.
I hope that Ben and Meghann keep up the good work apart from Gawker, but hey- we readers of The Consumerist know you gotta pay dem bills too.
Carey and Chris will definitely be missed but voices such as theirs can't be kept down for long.
Sorry to hear about this, wish you guys the best.
]]>This should be a subscription service. It would probably be the only site I'd pay for access to.
Like Consumer Reports, I would WANT to know that it isn't influenced or biased by its underwriters.
]]>In fact, for the newly initiated, the whole Gawker interwoven network of blogs if puzzling.
Anyway, I come here much less often now.
]]>@IrvCrapper: Thanks for mentioning the vetters and disemvowelers. They do seem to be the most arbitrary, unenlightened and therefore expendable of the writers.
I'm starting to think Gawker has never heard of a loss leader. I'm guessing they are about to see what happens when a loss leader such as Consumerist, which brings boatloads of new subscribers to Gawker, is underestimated.
]]>Carey, Chris,lets not get all maudlin here. You're flickering on and off these pages over the next couple of weeks,but I ,for one, will search you out wherever you end up. Godspeed ...
]]>Seems like a smart trade - a smart business move to me.
Good thing Consumerist is in the position of critiquing the business practices of others.
Peace.
]]>I hope that Nick Denton does the right thing and helps find new positions elsewhere for those who are being laid off.
]]>There are many reasons for my devotion to The Consumerist, though mostly it has to do with the fact that this site has kept me informed of issues I care about and helped expose me to countless others. I've learned more about personal and world financial issues and solutions though this site and the information it makes available than all other sources combined; I've become a smarter, better informed and empowered consumer; I've laughed, yelled and damn nearly cried at some of the outrageous subjects covered within these pages; and I've shared my love of this site with everyone that I care about. Many of them have become devoted readers as well.
I know this is not the death knell of The Consumerist however I can't help but feel a great sense of disappointment and sadness that one of the most important sites we have is suffering such a travesty.
I wish Carey and Chris the best and hope that they realize what a positive impact their work has made on peoples' lives. Here's to you and the hope that you land on your feet and find yourselves in better times.
]]>Any how, sorry to hear about the layoffs. Love the site.
One thing, I noticed that the Consumerist is pretty much dead over the weekends. I have no life and still check it over and over. Is there any way to spread the articles over the weekend as well? Delay posts or such? Even two or three articles satisfies me for a day.
]]>Not quite sure that you promoting that is the wisest of all possible decisions to make at this point...
]]>Piss on them. Chris and Carey are brilliant, funny guys with a very readable writing style. So, so sorry to see you go. I'd give you a :( but that doesn't fully express my feelings.
Perhaps a >:( is more suitable.
]]>Having worked with Adwords a ton, I'd like to point out that this is a BAD idea.
Clicks without conversions mean problems.
What Ben means to say is to click the google ads AND purchase something as a result of that click (part of the same session, so that it's tracked and Consumerist/Gawker gets credit).
]]>wow nick, you're a douchebag.
can we get a 'how to eecb gawker'? no? WTF am i going to read on the weekends now?
]]>I can only echo the comments of people saying that if it weren't for Consumerist, I would've never gone to Kotaku or Gizmodo - I'm in the key demographic for both.
It's a bit of a douchebag move, not giving us, the readers, the option to support the site by selling something like "Consumerist Premium Subscriptions" for $60 a year, or something like that.
Yeah, remember us, the readers? We're coming here to talk about supporting companies that make good moves and treat their customers (us) and employees (you guys) with respect, and products that don't suck (your stories, comments, guides, help).
]]>PS. based on the graph I can see why jobs are being cut [advertising.gawker.com]
Up is bad right?
I wish you both the very best!
]]>Guess I won't be checking this site more than once a week now, if that.
Good job, Nick!
]]>Good luck to Chris and Carey.
]]>Ironic that this site is run like a ruthless corporation. Maybe it's all a trick to lull into complacency.
]]>This is the only Gawker site I even look at, and I look at Consumerist several times a day. It provides a true, unique service to the public. I can hear Best Buy, Walmart, Sears, Countrywide and Comcast all high-fiving each other right now. There ought to be a way to make Consumerist self-supporting, without turning it into one of the bad guys it reports on.
Carey and Chris, you are both class acts. I'll miss your weekend stories. You could start your own Consumerist-like site, you know. If you do, I'll be a regular visitor.
]]>Between the Lines: "If they had posted more blatantly sexist articles and images of naked women, e.g. Gizmodo, they may be able to keep their staff members. However, their appeal is minimal since disgruntled consumers are unlikely to click on links."
Analysis: Not all sites lead directly to profit. Indirect profit is common and useful. I visit many of the Gawker sites as a package, partially because of the Consumerist. As it is, I will be re-evaluating my use of the other blogs and seeing what alternative properties from other sources are available. Preferably sources that I do not have to play the, "Is there going to be suddenly something NSFW on my reader" while in Public.
Sorry to hear this Ben, best of luck - and do not let them shut the Consumerist down!
]]>Sorry if the post was a bit... harsh... just normal Consumerist "hate-the-man" type language I suppose.
I just don't want this site to go away... I love clicking refresh too much! :P
]]>This is a huge mistake in light of the crazy financial times were in at the moment, if anything Gawker should be contributing additional resources to the Consumerist, and possibly even starting up a hardcore financial/stock market based blog as well. (Stockhacker!)
The turbulent financial times are of great interest to myself and a LOT of other Americans right now, who typically wouldn't care about the economy quite so much - now that there is a recession on, I find myself much more inclined to visit financial related news posts than ever before.
Gosh darnnit Gawker, you should be taking advantage of this trend and not stifling it!@#$%^%^
]]>This is truly sad news. Carey and Chris, I wish you both the best of luck. I'll be sorry to see you go.
]]>I'm also going to be less inclined to visit the other sites in the Gawker network that the Consumerist resources are being funneled to out of sheer protest/spite for this decision.
Furthermore, I for one have lost a lot of respect for for the Gawker network in the past couple hours since this decision was announced.
]]>Back in the days of yee olde Gawker Media I think they actually had some sort of comparison chart between the blogs.
(I stupidly posted this as a reply to someone else earlier, sorry!)
]]>Just to be a little on topic: Their pot humor is cute in a high school way, but overall the Jezebel editors are mediocre on their good days. Seeing them coming out better than Consumerist in all this is pretty infuriating.
]]>@Kia:
+1
I'll miss you Chris and Carey.
I hope this isn't the beginning of suck for gawker. I never looked at any of the others until I found Consumerist.
]]>INJUSTICE!
]]>Honestly, I think this is one of the best sites on the 'net. What the hell? I understand that they want Gizmodo, Kotaku, and Jalopnik to be highly profitable, but I can't see how the Consumerist isn't part of that. They get about as many front page Diggs as any Gizmodo article does, and the thing about the Gizmodo articles is that usually they're just a repeat of some other previously posted news. Most of the content on Consumerist is completely unique! It's not like there's an Engadget-style competitor....
Argh, I'm becoming more disillusioned daily, and I didn't think it was even possible after all that's happened in recent times.
@crazypants: You are exactly right. I read Lifehacker, Jalopnik, and Gizmodo regularly, after finding them through Consumerist.
This is sad news.
]]>They're also letting Moe go on Jezebel, she's also one of my favorite writers...
]]>This sucks a great deal - I'm so sorry. Consumerist is on its own a fine and informative site; and moreover serves as a gateway to the other, allegedly more 'profitable' sites. I don't agree with the slashing and restaffing (that won't be redeployment - which is silly - a good writer is a good writer).
If you're seeking donations or weekend warriors to volunteer please don't hesitate to ask.
]]>I would definitely cough up a few of my devaluing quarters for the cause.
The other sites are good, certainly lifehacker, but they always get loaded after consumerist.
]]>Consumerist may not be the most profitable of the sites, but is likely the most respected of the Gawker lot, and that is directly due to the folks who work here.
Hey! Nick! Listen up!
If you haven't done it yet, you need to get rid of Richard Blakeley the idiot behind Gizmodo's TV-turnoff "stunt" at CES who was banned from attending the show...
He directly cost people money and time at what could easily have been once-in-a-lifetime opportunities for them personally and their companies.
Blakeley needs to go first, not the good folks here at Consumerist.
]]>Hard decision, but it may be a good decision for the company in the long run.
]]>I have to say that I am impressed with the announcement email, though. Even though he knew it would be leaked (I love the last line granting permission), it was detailed, thoughtful, & respectful. I was very much expecting something like, "Choose those members of your team to be terminated. They will have 10 minutes to clear out their desks and will be escorted out of the building by armed officers."
]]>oh. the. irony.
]]>In FF:
1. Under Tools select "Adblock Plus..."
2. Click "Add Filter".
3. In the form box type: @@|http://consumerist.com/
4. Click OK, then start clicking ads. :)
This almost has me feeling guilty for using Firefox with NoScript; almost... If it wasn't for allowing www.consumerist.com; yimg.com; about:blank; google-analytics.com permission to run on my laptop (while denying four other scripts) I might see, and might be inclined, to click on the ads running that generate revenue for this site -- which might help to generate more revenue for the site.
Unfortunately I feel that Consumerist.com is a victim of it's own success; you've taught me how to resist adverts and all their temptation at the expense of your own site.
]]>Best of luck to Chris and Carey - good talent like you is hard to keep and even harder to let go.
]]>I never post here, but read regularly
I'm not going to tell Nick Denton how to... aw hell why not?
Nick, you're gutting the best (and easily most respected) of the lot. Does Gizmodo and Kotaku really need more writers at the expense of the Consumerist being 2 people now?
I guess so. If you hadn't thrown in that line about adding more people elsewhere, you'd have me. But in the years I've read Lifehacker, Kotaku, Gizmodo I've never thought "Man I wish there were more posts!". Cause there's plenty.
]]>On a side note, I only have one bookmark link to all the Gawker media sites: Consumerist.com. I do visit Jalopnik, Gizmodo, and Lifehacker, but I hit all of them from the sidebar links on Consumerist. If this site gets bad enough that I stop visiting, then consider all the other sites I mentioned off my bookmarks.
]]>insert name, has never had an article on consumerist!
There'd be like 5 whole companies right there!
]]>You will be missed!
/tearyeyes
]]>I read the other sites ONLY when they get linked from here. I already sent my politely worded email to Nick.
]]>@Phydeaux: And what exactly does that mean? Brian Crecente does a great job at that place, and when you read his posts you know where he stands on the topic. Just like with The Consumerist.
Of course, I wouldn't have found Kotaku without The Consumerist, but that doesn't make one editor at one site better than another editor at another site.
]]>It is beyond hypocritical for Gawker to do this to Consumerist, considering the point of the blog. They are firing 19 people who supposedly did nothing wrong, and are hiring 10 new people. Circuit City, anyone? And giving everyone raises(!!!???!!!) And firing people from the blog because it's not as commercially successful as another? Do Gawker even know what the blog is about, let alone read it? Maybe they should start charging people to read articles, or charge layout fees, word fees, writer fees, and baggage fees to the readers, a la United Airlines.
And blaming the economy. Really? Did the grocery store shrink ray turn on the Consumerist out of vengeance for bringing it's existence to light? Maybe Gawker should charge more for their ad space, or move writers around rather than drop them. It's called LOYALTY.
And I can't really read a blog about protecting people from large evil companies when it's RUN BY ONE.
]]>As I am sure my email certainly won't turn anything around - those of you getting let go best of luck and please hit the ground running.
]]>Back in the days of yee olde Gawker Media I think they actually had some sort of comparison chart between the blogs, but that's apparently long gone.
Best of Luck, Chris and Carey.
]]>I suppose this is an opportunity for a competitor though, as Consumerist will be significantly weakened.
]]>I'll still keep reading the Consumerist because I think the work being done here is good, and while it will suffer with the staff cut in half (two people can't do the work of four, especially the caliber of work we nearly always see here) I believe it will still be important to read. It's just a shame that the most valuable, as I see it, of the Gawker sites is the one getting cut in half.
I will, however, stop reading Kotaku and io9 entirely...half in protest and half because I really wasn't enjoying the content on either anymore.
Condolences to the staffers leaving (hopefully for greener pastures) and best wishes for the two staying to handle the workload as well as they can given the circumstances.
]]>They should start up their own site, and prove everyone wrong.
]]>And as far as the properties such as Jezebel, io9, Deadspin and Jalopnik (and Gawker, which I've never even heard of) which are poised to join them, None of these have any appeal to me. So good for your parent company! Wise choices!
]]>This is a real bummer, and I have to say I'm surprised that Consumerist was chosen as one of the sites in which to make cuts.
Best of luck to Carey and Chris.
]]>Consumerist always seemed like it was probably 4th in line after Gawker, Giz, and Koataku.
Sorry to hear that guys. I think Gawker media has ditched some of its real value for the purpose of maximizing revenue (Most recently the spin-off of Wonkette.)
]]>Tell Nick that this is the *only* Gawker-owned blog that I read every single day; heck, I practically read it every hour on weekdays. I used to be a Gawker.com and Defamer.com regular, but haven't looked at either in nearly a year. Jezebel I only visit when it's linked here.
Bummer, man. :-(
]]>Maybe they can start their own blog to compete (something like the Customerian?) and if they do well enough, there will be a buyout/merger and all will be one again! :)
But then again...
]]>Something I have never understood, and perhaps I'm just ignorant, but the one thing that drives people to media site, content, is the first thing that usually gets cut via cutting the people that gather the content. Same thing can be seen with newspapers, magazines, etc.
Instead of cutting costs by eliminating people, perhaps pursuing new revenue streams for consumerist would be a better route. A sponsored weekly podcast? When a company gets some good press here, offer them a premium "Gold Medal of Service" ad spot. Just some ides off the top of my head.
Sorry for the layoffs. Maybe you can be two of the 10 new hires? Otherwise, best of luck.
]]>Sounds like something Circuit City would do. =\
]]>I'm saddened that Kotaku is such a large part of this company's success. The site's contributors are often terrible.. :(
]]>Let us know where you'll be heading, I'll keep reading you!
]]>@TVarmy: I'm in!
Ben?
]]>Also, has anybody watched the clickthrough from sites like Consumerist to other sites (such as io9, etc)?
And while I'm on my rant that Nick Denton will probably never read... has anybody noticed that it seems like the only "advertising" here is for Gawker Artists? Is that because somebody forgot to push advertising for Consumerist or because companies like Apple and Comcast (aka Frank's Twitter Cable Service) don't want to appeal to consumers who like hearing that some companies CAN fix their own wrongs?
Seriously. Not satisfied. I check this website many times daily. I love looking through the morning deals. I love reading success stories.
Even if this is the way it has to be... can we have a better explanation?
]]>What can I do to help? No, really. What can we, the readers who love The Consumerist, do to help keep these valued editors who enrich our lives?
This is my favorite site on the whole internet. Please save Carey and Chris!
]]>Lifehacker seems like a good fit to me. Now get it done Mr. Denton.
]]>@akacrash:
nick@gawker.com
Or you can launch an Executive Snail Mail Carpet Bomb:
Nick Denton
76 Crosby St
NY, NY 10012
;-) It's only fair.
]]>@crazypants: I second your last two sentences. I'd read Chris and Carey's blogs if they started their own (individually or together).
]]>Personally I view this as a gigantic mistake and I'm terribly upset about it to say the least.
To the two employees that were "let go," have you considered starting your own consumer advocacy website?
I would certainly visit it daily if your content was up to par with your postings on the consumerist.
]]>@Phydeaux: ZING
]]>they are basically getting new ppl for lifehacker and gizmodo...and screwing every1 else
]]>Best to you, Carey and Chris. I hope this all gets turned around soon, and that you can come back.
]]>I'm sorry :(
]]>Wow...that sucks. Can your readers donate to keep them around? I'd chip in for that. Or I'd chip in for Ben to work on the weekends. I need my daily consumerist fix!!!
]]>Where can we launch an EECB to protest?!
]]>I promise not to question anyone's journalistic integrity when jobs are on the line...
]]>Weak. Super-weak.
]]>