I’m becoming more and more convinced that About.com is a variation on the Geosign business model.
So why has new media commentator and former About.com consultant Jeff Jarvis never mentioned that in his effusive praise for its P and L? He was a consultant there and should know where the revenues are coming from. Or maybe he’s from the American Capital school of assessing the viability of internet “publishers”…
It strikes me as very odd to bang on about the Times’ need to change (Agreed, it does) and hold out About.com as a “bright spot” given just how shakey its revenues and profits would appear to be.
AnnBrocklehurst.com 
About.com’s so-called ‘content’ is not only mediocre, it’s bad for the vast majority. Most if not all of the editors won’t reply to emails (they left, that’s why), the articles haven’t been updated from the initial day they were written… it’s bad, bad, bad.It occurred to me they were an MFA operation a while back and I’m glad I’m not the only one with that thought. In any case, first visit to your blog, very impressed so far 🙂
LikeLike
Thank you.I can’t for the life of me figure out why (almost) no one ever makes this point about About.com.It seems kind of important.
LikeLike