Regardless of whether people liked the content or not: it only employed 23 people (not sure how many were freelance or part time), and I assume it had good traffic throughout its life.
Yet it wasn't able turn a profit?
Yet it wasn't able turn a profit?
23*100k = 191k/month. That excludes overhead. Writers probably make less, but even a third of that is a lot of cash just flowing out.
Someone who runs an ad-enabled site could weigh in with how much traffic you'd need to get 50-200k cashflow every month. I'm guessing it's a hell of a lot.
https://www.404media.co/advertisers-dont-want-sites-like-jez...
Advertisers don't like "controversial" content to appear next to their ads. Which I can understand from their point of view, but it means that only the blandest, middle-of-the-road content has a future in an ad-driven business model.
Back in the day of print magazines companies wouldn't necessarily have an issue with placing ads in, say, Playboy, if the ad was appropriate to the readership (e.g. cigars or whiskey to an adult audience). Maybe with everything so centralized these days and every corporation is on a hair-trigger for getting called out in social media for accidentally backing this or that cause because their ad appeared in the wrong place, that targeted approach is no longer possible.
So if your site is "controversial" in any way, the only model that makes sense is subscription.
If you're advertising on a site rich people visit (let's say Robb Report) you'd expect a higher CVR because your users probably have more money to spend.
If it's just a blog like this, that was already seeing declining traffic, the numbers aren't sustainable.
(It looks like AV Club is pulling in about 10 million views a month, fingers crossed they survive)
No I'm not! sobs in corner. Sigh, good points.