We seek a new home where our kickass blogging team can continue to thrive and grow. We get 14m+ pageviews according to Sitemeter, and 2m+ uniques according to Quantcast. Direct inquiries to gaby@gawker.com.
]]>What if we passed a hat?
]]>@Velifer: ha, intelligent discourse! good one! i like consumerist and check it daily but the "discourse" has devolved considerably of late.
]]>I hope denton is paying you per click-through on this post Ben. It'll be some chunk of severance :)
]]>@drjayphd: I want a consumerist tote bag! Or t-shirt! Or cap! Tote-bag would probably be the awesomest, but how fun would it be to shop while decked out in consumerist gear?
]]>@verdantpine: Thirded. I've also recommended Consumerist to friends, co-workers, and random people in line when it seemed appropriate.
Debt snowball method completely straightened me out - I know it came from somewhere else, but the context was invaluable. I feel so much more empowered dealing with customer service people & getting my issues resolved, and felt very confident about upcoming major purchases, moving, etc since I knew I'd have Consumerist to check in with and get those always-useful tips. Now what will I do?
]]>224+ pages of comments? Is this not proof enough of the love this site gets?
Anyway, I doubt my comment gets seen under this pile, but I have a suggestion:
Most - if not all - local newspapers, news radio and television stations have a consumer advocacy function, like a "Action Brown" type individual who looks into consumer problems and complaints.
There's a dichotomy for these guys: you need eyeballs to get leverage over the companies you're investigating, but your local audience is limited in that respect. Often, the threat of a newscast appearance is enough to motivate bad companies, but sometimes it's just not enough.
I suggest that Consumerist become a media service, where support and stories can be generated from local media sources (in a way, much like it is today) so that the eyeballs for local stories can reach larger audiences. Moderation for top-level and front page presence will help ensure that the site remains relevant.
Financial support from the news media organizations/advertising revenues increasing thru increased media attention would help keep the site afloat.
]]>@anthonyhasp: Would work if you're only asking for content, wouldn't work if you wanted eyeballs to help leverage consumer complaint action.
]]>@parliboy: Count me as one: Consumerist headlines my daily Internet reading.
This will be a real blow to people who are addicted to the content and to consumers who use it as a tool to leverage against bad customer experiences.
My hope is that someone like Consumer Reports or a consumer advocay agency will get it for a fire sale price (let's say in the 6 figures) with the requirement that the employees stay on.
]]>If, however, you have a losing proposition on your hands, it pays (literally) to cut your losses and stop the bleeding.
As for your sentiment toward the last two months' productivity on the site, I can't help but agree, but only on the basis of coming to terms with the fact that even though their resources have been severely limited, they still churn out a worthy product.
These are good people with real-deal, necessary insight, who provide an incredibly important public service. Let us hope, by all means and as opposed to shaming them, that they find another home so they can continue their excellence.
]]>Bill Mahrer (sp?) got cancelled and found a new home. He wasn't all that popular because of his views and he was out spoken. Maybe Ben can keep up his media appearances and find new sponsors like Bill.
]]>What are your needs? I think you guys could get paying subscribers.
]]>This news should have been posted under the heading, "Sad."
]]>tldr: the Consumerist is good for capitalism.
]]>For example, the PS3 runs at a loss for Sony, but they continue to sell it because they make more money from the game sales that accompany it, than they lose from selling the unit at a loss.
Try and take economics 101 before you complain about other readers who know more about basic economic theory than you do.
]]>RIP Consumerist.
]]>@baristabrawl: Kotaku is a great site for gamers..
]]>Consumerist.com, over the last 18 mos. or so, is a perfect example of why you don't give an ignorant idealist a platform to speak. Even on the rare occasion that they have something intelligent to say, the biases of the staff betray them. When the site folds, it won't be missed. If I need someone to tell me that bad customer service sucks, there are 1,000+ blogs out there to tell me the obvious. Consumerist.com could have been a great site, but the shortcomings of the people running it meant it was doomed to failure.
Too bad.
]]>@NefariousNewt, Serving at the Pleasure of the President-Ele...: The differenece: NPR has tote bags. ;)
]]>Nick Denton is a Jerk...
I've been out of the loop all week, but I just found out you're selling Consumerist. Consumerist provides a much needed service for consumers, which we all are. Ben and the gang have taught me how to fight off two identity thefts, one credit card fraud, to chargeback an unscrupulous business, how and when to use small claims court, what businesses to avoid and which to frequent. I read Consumerist every day (well, except when I have work to do), more than I read Lifehacker, Gizmodo, Jezebel, and Jalopnik combined. Consumerist was my gateway drug, I found all the other great Gawker blogs because of Consumerist. I really thought Gawker was about telling it like it is, not the money. I'm devastated to find out that I was wrong and I've been supporting you all these years. You are seriously a money grubbing idiot if you feel that Consumerist isn't beneficial to Gawker. The reason that it doesn't make ad revenue is because they teach their readers to be wary, do you have revenue numbers from the "morning deals" links? I've used my fair share of them, but a great many of your readers use ad-block plus, because we don't want to see the ads! If we knew it was the decision for Consumerist's existence, we would have clicked like teenagers and grandparents...
Anyway, Nick Denton, I really don't like you right now. My time on the internet is important, and I choose to spend it on the Consumerist. But I'm afraid of you leave them high and dry, I'll have to boycott all the Gawker blogs I enjoy.
Remember what Sci-Fi did with Farscape? Remember how that turned out? What about NBC and the original Star Trek? Are you serious?
Suck it up and make one less million a year and do society a favor.
Tankueray
]]>[tanksbluedogblog.blogspot.com]
They all pretty much say the same thing, click on the last one for the most refined of them.
I'm also sending out an email to my whole address book.
Viva Consumerist!
]]>Anyway, you've taught us over the years how to write complaint letters. Consumerists unite!
Send a complaint to nick@gawker.com
]]>I'll give too, if it comes to that, but Denton isn't looking for reader income, he's looking for ad income generators.
]]>Apparently, just not close enough.
]]>The other one to consider is Demand Media...but they're a last resort!
]]>Just another example of a business model failure in that revenue from clicks from ads are not being sufficient to run a viable business.
I hope that the consumerist could have developed a pay for support business plan to provide services to the consumers in over their heads in need of professional or semi-professional support.
While selling up the food chain is never a good idea, at this point a strong newspaper or media chain (Time-Warner comes to mind) might be a viable buyer in that The Consumerist could be used to develop leads for serious reporting and investigation as well as an outlet to monitor their own performance.
The Consumerist has tried to do such investigation in the past and has done quite well, but the limits of personnel and budgets makes such investigations difficult to continue on a daily basis.
]]>NO! I would hate to see them take ads. Same reason why Consumer Reports doesn't take ads. Changes EVEYRTHING. Bad bad bad idea.
]]>@hhole: It really is like public radio...I have found 5 coworkers who would be willing to dontate to this site in the same manner they do for public radio. How many of us could find 3 other people who are also willing to do the same?
]]>Retailers have return policies and there's always going to be an extended warranty of some kind. Get over it and move on.
]]>I find most Gawker sites to be an abomination to journalism and even blogging, but, Consumerist is the shining star of the bunch. Away from the cheap jabs of Gizmodo or Tabloid-esque Valley Wag, there's Consumerist.
I know Gawker needs to make money, but Consumerist gets the ax? Is Ben that expensive? Because I know servers are dirt cheap. Whatever Ben gets, he deserves ten fold.
I read this site daily, usually several times a day, and I bet everyone else that has left a comment does as well.
Truth is, if not for Consumerist I probably wouldn't visit any Gawker properties. Not because they suck, I just wouldn't know about them. And when Consumerist is out of the network, so will I be.
I don't get attached to sites, I see them come and go every day. But This one is different. This one is special. It holds a loyal following. That's something advertizing cannot buy.
]]>@LionelEHutz: I'll go for tree fitty un.
]]>I just sent Ben an email asking about the same thing CCold. I think it's a great idea but will require some due diligence, an understanding of the offer and a bunch of other blah blah blah about making the site a long-term viable option.
If it can work with Consumer Reports and Gun Test Magazine (not being under the watchful eyes of corporate sponsors), surely it could work with The Consumerist.
]]>Would Gawker be willing to offer up The Consumerist as a collective? Find a price, establish a corporation for shareholders, get Consumerist members to chip in for shares $100 or whatever, take The Consumerist private and glory in the Benjamins (or maybe Washingtons) we'll make over the life of our investment.
It seems only appropriate that a consumer advocacy group should not be beholden to corporate interests. It's worked for Consumer Reports and others trying to do completely objective work.
Seriously, what does everyone think? I'm willing to put my money where my mouth is!
]]>Wait...what? And somehow FLESHBOT is allowed to live?
Is this opposite day?
Wtf man.
]]>Consumerist is a one-of-a-kind resource that MUST not die. I, for one, would be willing to donate as much as I can conceivably give in this tough economic climate to keep this site in business. Please place a "donate now" button on your site as soon as possible.
What makes consumerist so unique is that it has well-educated editors and commenters, and an irreverent, uncensored way of advocating for the consumer that the world has never seen. Nowhere else can you find a repository for actually useful consumer information along with both praise and shame for companies that affect our daily lives.
Please add my voice to the hundreds will write letters, donate, and beg to keep consumerist around.
]]>@NefariousNewt, Serving at the Pleasure of the President-Ele...: Exactly my point...this is far more than entertainmnet....I know about Consumerist because its linked to from Gizmodo so much as a supplement to consumer advocacy when gadgets go wrong.
]]>@m2ky2fo: So I have been further thinking about the impact of the potential loss of this website...and it saddens me greatly. I was seriously planning on using it to teach my son who is now 3 about the consumer landscape when he became older. I will be seriously sorry to see you guys go. Hopefully you will be bought by someone or some entity that will value you as much as we readers have.
]]>Well...I guess it was inevitable. Can't make money in a capitalist environment by being critial of the capitalists. Perhaps this type of blog could benefit from partnering with something like NPR or APM. The Marketplace website has likely seen an expotential increase in visitors since the finacial crisis started in September.
]]>I like this site a lot, but my main Gawker-ing is on Deadspin. It seems like most Consumerist commenters/readers don't visit the other Gawker sites too often, if at all. I check Deadspin constantly, I check in with Consumerist a few times a day to see if there is anything interesting, and I hardly ever visit the other Gawker sites. But man, every time I post a comment here I pray that I'm not banned for saying something marginally offensive.
]]>Really all this time I had thought this was being paid for by porn sites.
]]>I sometimes visit Lifehacker, io9 and Jezebel because of links here, but Consumerist is the only one I check out regularly, sometimes daily, and share with all my friends on Facebook.
In fact, I was just in Best Buy listening to an angry customer and recommended she check out the site if BB didn't do right by her.
]]>Gawker, are you familiar with the concept of "loss leader"? Target, Best Buy, even Wal-Mart get this -- you offer a high-quality, attractive product to get people's attention -- at a price that you you aren't necessarily making money on, perhaps are even losing money on -- to get people in the door, so they will peruse your other offerings.
My introduction to Gawker was via Consumerist. I occasionally click-through to Gizmodo, Jezebel, Jalopnik, Lifehacker -- but I have none of these other sites bookmarked, only Consumerist.
Plus, Popken seems to be on the verge of being a breakout media STAR -- and you're choosing this juncture to jettison his blog? It seems like you should be courting him to give your site relevance and street cred, not unloading him as "unprofitable." How short-sighted! Get a clue!!
]]>hope the new owners dont resort to censoring the comments.
]]>I will put this in the "This Sucks" department.
I read Jalopnik every day,and Consumerist most every day also. The rest of the blogs are decent,but I don't spend much time on them at all. I think Gawker is making a mistake,but I'm not the boss.
Just don't mess with the Jalop.
]]>Gawker is really screwing up big time. Oh well. They'll be out of business soon enough.
]]>People are just sick of ads because they're distracting, poorly planed, and have a propensity to add malware to your PC. The fact that advertisers are surprised that as soon as a wide spread option came about to block them people jumped at it clearly have no right to be in business.
People want's and what they are willing to put up with shift over time, any semi-competent businessman can tell you that. Companies that can't keep up go under, simple as that.
]]>I mean there is tag called "Above and Beyond" it lists all the times companies go above and beyond the call of duty for their customers, also this is like free advertising for credit unions, considering every time a banking question is mentioned they come up as a benign alternative.
Also did you read the great press Zappos got here. Search for the Zappos tag.
]]>I mean that's why people who know anything about Apple know the 2 golden rules of Apple. 1. don't early adopt anything Apple puts out, they will shaft you. 2. Don't expect any support for 3rd party programs that aren't made by Adobe from Apple.
Also Blizzard is merged with Activision, so they don't have a soul anymore.
]]>Get to it!
]]>Any company in the world could be the next to be trashed here. So, tell me, why would they support their own worst enemy?
]]>In fact, AdBlocker (a firefox plugin) is harming the very sites that people use it to view.
Pretty soon the only reliable sites will be paid subscription only just because some people chose NOT to let companies pay to keep the sites afloat with ad revenue.
Oh well....people are stupid. What can you do?
]]>IMHO, consumerist.com should have taken more of a mediation stand that tried to bring consumers and companies together - not pit them against each other.
And, when that attempted mediation failed (as it surely would in some cases) post the failure of the company to make a thing right.
Doing things in this way (attempted mediation on the behalf of both parties) would lend consumerist MUCH more street cred and would increase the readership (and related advertising revenues) while hardly breaking a sweat.
Good luck to all!
]]>The simple fact that I have to ask proves my point. The site is geared towards bitching about mistreatment (real or perceived).
If there is such a section, it certainly is not placed in a conspicuous place (at least not conspicuous to me).
Don't get me wrong...there is certainly a need for such a site. A place to blow off steam, get contact info, warn other consumers, etc. is certainly beneficial to some people.
But, a sense of balance would find the site a lot more visitors.
For instance, why not give corporations FREE suggestion boxes for the users to stuff? Why not pull in consumer feedback from other, 3rd party sites to show a sense of balance?
What about letting posters actually vote on a post ("X% Agree Y% Disagree with this story")? That would give the writers feedback on just what kinds of stories they should be posting to further the goals of the site.
And, what about having a search engine that is tied into the articles and visitor feedback mentioned above that gives the searcher a rated list of alternatives in his/her local area(WITH A MAP!)?
It's not hard to improve this site and make it profitable. I cannot speak as to why it hasn't been done because I am not privy to the daily inner workings of consumerist.com. But, from my outside view, it looks like incompetent or indifferent management. After all, any employee would jump at the chance to better the site and safeguard his/her job. In fact, I'll bet that the writers probably suggested some of these very same things.
Getting back to business...A sense of balance is good for visitor counts and lends credibility to any site - even this one. It is important because if one store manager is an asshole, his store is probably staffed with assholes, but that doesn't mean that corporate condones - or even knows - their behavior.
Not giving that company the chance to correct the problem is not fair to them or to other consumerist visitors who may take their chances elsewhere only to be screwed over even worse.
I hate to see it fail like this. But, tossing up a template and slapping some bitchy rants in each day is simply not going to cut it on the web these days.
Again, good luck to the employees!
]]>I dont know what to even say. This is a sad turn of events.
]]>Not that I'm suggesting limits on the Interwebs, mind you.
]]>@Lucifer_Cat:
www.whitehouse.com ?
That said, I would think they'd be able to seel ads to Quicken, software companies, Apple etc.
]]>@Ein2015: And when did Consumerist institute their commenter code?
]]>How much ya asking?
]]>Ben, I'd pay to subscribe.
Doesn't Consumerist have the email addresses of all the people registered to make comments?
Why not a blanket email to see how many of us would pay, $X a year to continue subscribe?
Perhaps free content and exclusive "members only" content? Tips and articles are free, but things like actual secret phone numbers and emails are available only to paid members?
]]>@Secret Agent Man: *shudder* if Murdoch buys this I'm throwing my desk and chair out of my 25th floor window with a rope tied around my left foot.
]]>@savvy9999: io9 and consumerist are my refuge from the often mind-jello tedium that is corporate life!!
]]>In fact, when I first found the consumerist, I thought this was the main site, and the others were offshoots of this one.
I've learned so much from here, I hope all goes well and this site will survive
]]>@dragonfire81: let alone the lifeblood that i base most of my money-saving and product reviews on!!
]]>@Rectilinear Propagation: agreed! sans the cotton-mouth and mind numbness.
]]>@bria: Gotdanged corporate whores! Please don't change this site! *gets on knees* PLEASE!!
]]>..oh, and big corporations are surely getting a kick out of this. Chalk up another win for them.
]]>Seems like every company and their subbies are falling victim to layoffs, bankruptcies, bailouts...
Where does Gawker's money go? There's no reason a site with 14M pageviews should not be making money. I remember seeing the fancy Gawker office during an election thread and wondered why on earth you have such elaborate offices. A computer, internet connection and a brain...what more do you need?
Perhaps its time to move on to the next...
]]>@sicem: So because of your personal issues, you don't care if the site folds?
Frankly, your criticizing of Ben has nothing to do with you being a good "Consumerist".
A. The site is free, you are not paying for goods or services, so you are not a customer. You are free to read or not, as you wish.
B. Commenting is a site privilege and the rules are spelled out. If you have a comment on the quality of writing, or the relevancy of the post, you are encouraged to contact Consumerist, not clutter up the blog with your personal opinion.
So good riddance to you and may Consumerist outlive you and your pettiness.
]]>PS - I also know that many of my 'tech-un-savvy' friends read Consumerist because it's about something they can easily understand, and then float to the other Gawker sites, which they'd never visit normally because they're overwhelming. I'm sure this is not uncommon!
]]>@dragonfire81: I was thinking the exact same thing... a co-op consumerist!
]]>@parliboy: I only visit other Gawker pages through consumerist as well.
]]>@WarnerFelange: Amen to that. With the new "large print" version, I have to scroll over (thus hiding the ads from my view). Fail, fail, fail.
I also hope it gets bought out like wonkette, which is much better after the split from gawker.
]]>I was doing my job as a consumerist pointing out the crappy writing and story "ideas" that were starting to past as "news" posts, yet I was banned.
Good riddance.
]]>The problem with a site like this, is it's goal is to be a whistleblower on companies who would end up being the revenue stream for consumerist.
What should have happened, consumerist should have been a non-profit that accepted donations, and actively worked to get companies to contribute as a sign of good-will towards customer service. These companies could have been identified as such to the readers.
The problem is now, gawker, who rightfully so owns something of some value, probably would not just give up the rights to such a thing to become a non-profit.
]]>I am so sad.
Besides Consumer's Union, what about the CPSC? Sponsoring a 'blog' would be so 'new government', perfectly in tune with the times and basically pocket change in terms of their budget.
I so hope you survive. Gawker, if your other properties are generating a profit from ad revenue, why can't Consumerist be the loss to offset the profits and reduce your tax burden?
Helping the consumer can be good corporate citizenship, ya betcha!
]]>Speaking of Consumer Reports, I wonder if they would consider buying Consumerist and turning it into their free, less formal arm of consumer protection.
]]>Can someone call up American Express and see if we can copy the forms they used to get some of the bailout pie? Just a little whiteout in the right places and we can keep consumerist alive!
]]>Just wanted to come out of lurking to add my "NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!" to the chours!
:'(
]]>@savvy9999: :( But it is #1 in my heart!
]]>@falc: you forgot the rest..
3. ?????
4. Profit!
Reading religiously 'til then…
]]>If there was some way to reach those companies, ones that work for long-term value creation, would love to advertise here.
Of course, these same pro-Corporatist commentators would then accuse Consumerist of being in the pocket of these stellar companies. Which... Yeah.
* Why these wannabe shills come here to vent mystifies me, but I digress.
]]>If/when Consumerist goes, I go too.
]]>Where ever this site ends up I hope it does not change for the worst.
]]>Bailout time!
]]>I add my own WTF?! to the littany of others.
]]>I guess people are starting to see no assets no worth. How much is a name really worth.
]]>So "the consumerist" was never about helping the public, it was always about making money.
If it was not generating enough revenue before, you just killed it. Nobody would want to buy it now.
]]>Ahem - attention powers that be:
The Consumerist is the only site here that's a actual destination for me. I'll check out some of the other sites - 109 and Kotaku mainly, but if Consumerist goes, I'll have no reason to come back.
]]>If you only advertise companies with sterling reputations for good service, then people will be more likely to click through. Since they know they are purchasing something from a company that the consumerist implicitly approves.
]]>This would be an ideal blog for Consumer Reports. They would treat it right.
]]>Zappos, gets lots of good press here as well.
Full Disclosure: I love Wegmans.
]]>and was trying to figure out how this happened. This summer, around the time of june/julyish they started losing page views.
The only thing I can find that changed during that time was the new comment rules, and the hiring of a moderator. I also recall that upsetting a lot of people.
]]>Those who switch over from ad revenue to PPA typically find they make a LOT more money if their traffic is targeted enough.
]]>@savvy9999: In ad sales... not traffic. Traffic is meaningless if you can't monetize it effectively.
]]>The problem is audience demographics. How many companies want to reach Consumerist's audience? The defining characteristic of readers is that they're spendthrifts. Not exactly a high value target.
]]>Consumerist - I'll read you where ever you go.
Gawker - I just finished deleting my bookmarks of you. Bye!
]]>Thanks as always for the wonderful info! {ProfJonathan}
]]>I still miss Sploid.
]]>10:14, and all is not well. :(
]]>This... this is hard to believe!
]]>"4. Offshore more. For publishers with most of their operations in the US, the decline of emerging market currencies is a potential boon. The dollar cost of development work in Hungary, for instance, has fallen by more than 30% since mid-July. It might seem perverse to push work offshore when costs in the US are falling; in fact, companies should move operations where costs are falling even faster."
It's a shame, because I frequent this site the most, then move to Lifehacker, Jezebel, and Gawker (I do have a soft spot for gossip). Should they offshore *anything*, while losing this blog they will be 1 unique less on all fronts.
]]>Seriously, to whoever may purchase this site... DO NOT CHANGE A THING. We LOVE it!
Not to mention the fact that they're comparing this website's profitability to easy audience targets like Gizmodo and Kotaku. If those types of websites weren't turning a profit, then something would be very, very wrong. As it stands, Consumerist has no concrete "target audience" and therefore requires a different profit strategy beyond the shotgun ad approach.
Internet investment isn't just about banner ads and click-throughs to corporate entities. And that would be why Gawker sees no profit in this website. That seems to be their only investment strategy.
]]>No, I feel this is a failure of the sales and marketing staff at Gawker. They could have sold this to the right companies. They just did not sell it properly.
]]>I love(d?) this site.
]]>Where are we supposed to hear the voice of the consumer if this goes away? What about the forums? Will those stay up?
]]>Okay, all Consumerist readers go buy lottery tickets RIGHT NOW, and whoever wins has to promise to buy the site, okay? Go!
]]>"it's gonna be ok! say the f***ing words!"
]]>IMHO, if they can't find a buyer, it would be _classy_ of them to shift the trademark to a group of readers who would restart the site somewhere else.
]]>@IrvCrapper: Well that's new. I've never heard anyone accuse the moderator of being in place to get rid of comments that were against the company.
]]>Keep it! i came to Gawker sites because of The Consumerist.
]]>If Consumerist isn't bought up and carried on, it will sorely be missed. It's not only entertaining, but informative and useful, and has helped many, many people actually improve their lives in substantial ways. I hope it finds a way to continue, and as long as it maintains the standard of quality I've come to rely on, I'll be here to support it. That includes by way of subscription, should such a model ever prove feasible.
If not, well, it's been fun. I hope something new can fill the niche, because it will be needed.
]]>But yeah, one session of Gawker media in Safari [sans PithHelmet] and I was running back to Firefox / Minefield.
]]>Like the others have said, Consumerist led me to the other Gawker sites that I now read.
]]>Seems there's an opportunity for advertisers who want to reach smarter, independent-minded readers. For those trying to reach the opposite demo, there are the Gawker properties.
Yay?
Ben, Meghann, Roz, Alex (and Chris and Carey), I'm confident you'll find someone who'll make a decent business reaching your unique audience. Hang in there!
]]>There are some changes that would make the site more valuable to consumers...that would make it profitable and then some.
It's not that hard to turn a profit from the consumerist site. It just takes someone who wants to do it.
I think the real reason that Gawker is shedding the consumerist is that companies that hit consumerist are mostly being placed in a bad light. Now, ask yourself, how many companies do you think would give you money to praise them on one of your billboards (Gawker sites that accept advertising) when you either have or may soon trash the hell out of them on another of your billboards.
The consumerist should be on its own. It cannot complement other positive news about companies when its main focus is trashing them.
Don't get me wrong... Some of them deserve to be trashed. But, most companies are like the U.S. Government...so damned big and cluttered with middle management that upper management neither knows (nor cares in some instances) what happens to a single customer when they have millions of customers to look after.
They have to keep their eye on the big picture. Store managers and employees are supposed to be taking care of individual customers....not corporate.
Most of the time, it's a problem of scale. Nobody can take care of all of their customers all the time once the company (or government agency) reaches beyond a few hundred customers. It just can't be done. And, to trash a company because one person bitches (or is really mistreated) is simply not right.
The consumerist website would do much better if it allowed people to rate a company - like the Angie's List site and others. Sure, you could post about a bad experience and how to contact corporate, but you should also give a complete picture of the company.
People will only stare at a train wreck so long. And, no company wants to put their advertising on the side of it.
Just some constructive criticism.
Good luck to the employees! I hope you land softly in a big, fat pile of cash.
(OK.....flame away!)
]]>They sell to someone that has the resources to make it profitable.
If I had the money I would definitely buy Consumerist. I have some great ideas, vision and direction on ways to get it to make money.
]]>Consumer Reports is a different beast and can't be compared. It's entirely reviews of products. The Consumerist is a place to air bad customer service and more often than not get the problem fixed. It benefits all consumers to have a site like this shining light on companies that skimp on actual service.
]]>I'm sad to hear things will change. I hope Ben and Meghan can find solid jobs if they need to start looking.
The value the Consumerist presents to readers cannot be priced in nickels and dimes. Especially during this downturn in the economy, it's even more relevant.
If this site closes or becomes a bastardized version of itself under a different owner it will be a very sad day that only low life companies like Goldman Sachs and Best Buy will celebrate.
]]>This was probably one of the most important blogs on the internet, *directly* correlating to the most important things on most Americans minds these days, and Gawker thinks they should sell.
It's not that this blog isn't economically feasible. Every part of it is relevant. It's that Gawker failed to highlight its best blog, and instead of fixing that, it's easier to pawn it off.
]]>Consumerist is great, but has been reshuffled. It's unsettled for me. The news is important, provocative, and helpful. It's more timely than Consumer Reports and has a younger voice.
A grant? A not for profit? PBS or CNN? Ben Popken will need bigger boobs and taller hair.
]]>In that environment, a non-profit incarnation might be the better way to go. :)
]]>This is easily the Gawker blog I read the most. As others have said, I can't stand their eponymous blog, and Jezebel is really hit or miss, as is Gizmodo.
]]>Consumerist is my inroad to the other Gawker sites. I come to Consumerist daily (and in fact integrate it into my curriculum), and then sometimes I float over to the other sites to show them some love.
If Gawker sells Consumerist, then Gawker loses my eyeballs.
My question for the powers that be is this: how much of the readership does what I do?
]]>@Gokuhouse: i can provide legal services
]]>He said then that Consumerist was valuable enough in its own right. Did he lie? No - I think the economic environment got a lot worse - and media is just starting to feel it.
I'm sad to see it go from under the umbrella of Gawker Media - but for the people who think that Consumerist is ending, I believe you're sorely mistaken. It's a heavily-trafficked blog, got a loyal following (including many of us), and it touches on a subject that few properties track so well.
Honestly, if I knew one iota about running a media company - I would do my due diligence on Consumerist. If not to buy it, but to see who would pick it up. I mean, how many major media companies, in my opinion, would want something like this? Maybe not in this economic environment, but it's certainly something to hold onto. It could be picked up easily, I think.
Don't fret, I think Ben and The Consumerist is still going to be here. We still have a lot of shitty-ass stories to tell about Circuit City's liquidation.
]]>Don't give Best Buy any ideals!
]]>Consumerist must be the "bad" child. You never were our real parents, Gawker..never, never, never!
*hissy fit*
]]>And I, I can be an acting coach!
Just kidding, but seriously, we could run the site on donations. I would contribute money, up to 20 bucks annually or biannually
]]>Good luck!
Tomas - University Place, WA
]]>- Sitting on the tarmac for eight hours
- Requiring receipts to leave the store with your property
- Refusing you a deserved refund
etc.
I, personally, want to see Consumerist survive, but I hope it's not under the auspices of the corporate-controlled BBB. The BBB has it's place, but it's not here.
]]>I can't live without The Consumerist. And that was they Gateway to Lifehacker, io9, Jalopnik and yes, Fleshbot.
]]>As for the design, I don't have any problems, there's this thing called "Adblock," it kind of blocks ads on the internet? Might want to check that out. I imagine it's difficult designing a site that can handle the traffic load that this site gets.
]]>Maybe us 'users' could buy it.
]]>Sad to see the sorry state of affairs at my favorite blog, the only Gawker site I visit, and the most useful from their lot.
It's quite obvious that Gawker Media is devoid of a true leader. Companies run by a bunch of accountants will collapse eventually. Gawker, when the Consumerist gets released, you'll be losing a daily visitor.
]]>Welcome to .com 2.0 same bugs as the 1.0
]]>It's been fun . I really mean fun . To you folks that have flamed my nonsensical rants - thank you. Sometimes you just need someone to knock you down a peg or two and tell you that you're full of shit.
To the "hell,yeah ! " people in agreement with the stuff that I have posted here, thank you. Sometimes you just need someone to validate a deeply held belief or idea.
To the staff at Consumerist , we all know what the next big announcement will be,no use sugarcoating it. We appreciate you guys more than you will ever know.You have given us voice and challenged us to think and question the steady hum of bullshit coming from corporate America. We are in your debt.
To Roz - You've added nothing to this site.They could have fucked it up without you.
Okay,looks like thats a wrap...
]]>I am glad that Consumerist is separating from Gawker. After that Veterans Day thread that made fun of the Army I am done with Gawker.
]]>Check out the Consumerist.com activity since July according to Alexa.com. Looks like a real dud, like they've gutted it, and left it to rot.
Who's in line to buy this clunker?
]]>Good luck. Sorry I can't buy it.
]]>Agreed. You can only take so many "Fanboy Flame Wars" before you realize most of the content can be found elsewhere.
]]>This is were I learned how to do an EECB which I got Bank of America to refund my parents hundreds of dollars in bad bounce fees, got Circuit City to finally refund my brother a few hundred bucks, got Chase to help me out with a nasty collection agency chasing me over a merchant dispute (Yes, if the merchant doesn't agree with your charge back, they can send a collection agency!) and finally the big one this week were I was able to get my parents adjustable mortgage that just adjusted to 12% down to 6% fixed for 30 years!
Thank you Consumerist for literally saving my family their house and hundreds of thousands of dollars!!!
]]>The folks who want the lasted news on a Celbertard or want the latest on Julie Allison are the same who buy crap they don't need with money they don't have.
I would not want to spend advertising money on a site where posters brag about spending $2.75 for food for the week, only shop local, and DIY everything except open heart surgery.
Sad this was going to be my main connection to the outside world when I moved to my mountain cabin and left society.
]]>I wish you guys the best, viva la consumerist!
]]>consumerist.bestbuy.com
Thank Zod it was only a dream, un couchemar!
]]>That's what she said! HEY YO!
]]>Sadly this makes sense. It's hard to get a advertiser in the door when they risk being ripped by a post.
Traditional media seems to handle this pretty well, but blogs are not in a position yet to dictate to the companies.
]]>No more Meg Marco - It's Meharijin Marojinconin.
]]>Also, I'm not sure they correctly ammortized the value of my comments over time. I'm like a goose that shits gold bricks when it comes to this site.
]]>Bastards!
]]>They own Burlington Coat Factory, and part of Burger King. As well as other companies.
America runs on Consumerist!
]]>I've been thinking for the last few months how I need to find some new blogs to check out/replace some of these Gawker ones. Now it looks like I may not have to (with this one at least)
Best of luck finding somewhere cool to go guys...
]]>Ever visited another Gawker website? Huge ads all over the place.
Therefore, Consumerist doesn't make lots of money for Gawker and apparently Gawker is putting its resources into sites that are making money.
]]>I'm looking at YOU, Woot!
]]>I've been snarky and cynical since they hired people to "monitor" comments and fired the writers. I said very, very early that this place was positioning itself to be sold by reducing its overhead and making the opinions expressed less anti-corporate.
I knew something was up when NO propers came from the ownership when we rose up against the Flagstaff RV seller who tried to back out of the EBay sale. They didn't want that, and they wanted nothing to do with activism.
I'm very disappointed, and I told lots of people about this site. It used to be linked to my own blog. I removed that link a month ago.
I still visit from time-to-time, but notice the number of recycled and only-tangentially related stories reused from the other Gawker websites.
This is very disappointing and I feel like the ownership has betrayed this community.
]]>I wish the entire consumerist team the best of luck going forward. You all do stellar work, and I'm sure you'll all land on your feet, regardless of what happens with the consumerist.
]]>Maybe i'm on the wrong computer ... is this the Internet or the BIZZARO-NET?
]]>On a pedantic note, I wouldn't call your blogging team "growing".
"We seek a new home where our kickass blogging team can continue to thrive and grow."
]]>I hate my life.
]]>hey, things around here (meaning the gawker media network) are going downhill anyway. case in point is my embedded google ad box on this page:
{
var google_ads = new Array();
var google_ad;
here's hoping your new home doesn't treat you like the bastard stepchild. hey consumer union, get your ass over here & buy a blog that will help increase your exposure & might generate some new c.r. subscribers!
]]>Why is Cist not making enough money for Gawker? Perhaps because it calls companies on their fraud and other illicit revenue-boosting bullshit? Gee. Concept.
I'm sure they won't be dumping Fleshbot. Sex sells. Fighting corporate greed doesn't. This is not news. We see where Gawker leans, though. I hope Gawker chokes on its own vomit.
]]>I'll buy you guys. One question- can i put it on my credit card? if not, i'll just take out a second mortgage on my condo, either way it's cool.
]]>In fact, I'd guess the latter is already in place and being used by advertisers to determine the return on investment for ad spaces.
In other news, I am glad you all are optimistic. I am too. In the downsizing thread, I opined that Consumerist may be able to work in a non-profit incarnation. Maybe team up with "Nader's Raiders" or something. I don't know the non-profit, NGO scene that well, but I'd expect there's something that could fit. I'm sure somebody who knows that scene better than me could be more informative...(hint hint @ more informed person).
What's fair market value for Consumerist, anyway? Ballpark figure?
]]>:-/
]]>That being said, if you're purchased by Rupert Murdoch, cash out and go live on the beach.
]]>If gawker cant make any money from this site, I doubt anyone else could.
shame!
]]>Of 18 titles launched at Gawker Media, we've already spun off or shuttered six. Even now, 91% of advertising revenues come from the top six remaining titles. ... It's time to choose which properties make it aboard the lifeboat
So Consumerist is not top 6? Sacre bleu!
]]>Internet Conspiracy Theorists: Unite!
1) Consumerist does a story badmouthing the innerworkings of Goldman Sachs
2) Consumerist on the chopping block...
hmmm
]]>