My employment with Patch started with a handshake and a promise that I would be called with a job offer in the next few days. I had met with Patch’s editor in chief, Brian Farnham, at the company’s New York headquarters. This was in late October 2009, just a few months after AOL acquired the nascent hyperlocal platform for $7 million. In less than a week, I was hired to build and manage the Tarrytown-Sleepy Hollow Patch, covering a pair of Hudson River towns north of New York City.
I was one of about two dozen journalists Patch hired in the fourth quarter of that year, entrusted to replicate an online local news model that had been launched in New Jersey communities like Maplewood, Millburn, and Short Hills, suburbs on the outskirts of Newark. An end-of-year push would establish Patch in New York’s Long Island and Westchester communities, too, and further expand its coverage in New Jersey and Connecticut. At the time, AOL itself was in the process of spinning off from Time Warner, and was investing significantly in Patch as part of its strategy of repositioning the company to focus more on content creation.
The Patch idea was sold to me on the following premise: The backbone of the website’s offerings would be local news and information, with the goal being the digitization of a community—your town, online. Patch aimed to be the community newspaper and more, a hub for local businesses and a forum for community conversation: everything a local news outlet should be. We were given immense trust and responsibility to build a site to that standard.
Patch is relentlessly driven to refine and tweak its strategy to reach its goals, and it is entirely different now than it was in 2009. When I started, the organization was full of untested ideas, generalized performance targets, and grinding workloads. But it also offered local editors the unique opportunity to test content, prove their worth, and exert some influence on the editorial focus of the organization. For someone just establishing his journalism career, the fresh attitude and encouragement from the top was exciting.
Putting aside the uniform look of Patch sites at that time, we were given the opportunity to set our own work schedules and, more important, editorial priorities. Some editors focused almost exclusively on sports and schools, while others preferred hard news and politics. There was little in the way of mandates; we were to post between three and five pieces of news and information a day, with an equal amount of Twitter posts and Facebook updates.
How did we measure success? Traffic was the only indicator that sticks out in my mind—reaching our monthly unique-viewer target. The objective was to hit unique-visitor numbers equal to half of our community’s population. The most recent census numbers showed Tarrytown and Sleepy Hollow with a combined population of about 21,000, so I was aiming for 10,500 unique viewers a month.
Like the majority of Patch sites, my community had been chosen based on demographic indicators, including median household income, the performance of the school district, and the penetration of the Internet. The combination of these, and a list of other community-specific statistics, pointed to a measure of affluence in the local populace—which is not to say Patch was at all marketed as a luxury. The idea was to fill a gap in coverage left by retreating newspapers, and capture the advertising that went with it.
Most Patch editors recorded the news and civic conversation in a thorough, all-encompassing manner. For example, the Tarrytown-Sleepy Hollow site began keeping track of Tarrytown Village Trustee work sessions and criminal court happenings in both villages. It was the first time anyone had done so. I also revived the police blotter, which no one had tracked for decades. Hard news was my site’s focus, and readers told me they were amazed at how much was going on in their seemingly quiet community.
Thank you for the great look at how Patch operates and at the hard work/agility needed to keep the local sites running. However, the graf concerning the overall business prospects seems too rosy. How can you have "no doubt" that "Patch as a whole will be profitable at some point"?
The numbers you cite as a kind of rebuttal or context to BI's $100 million loss claim are dismal. You say that Armstrong claims: "that nearly half of its 863 local sites were generating about $2,000 a month in revenue by the end of the year"
Let's assume that not "nearly half", but all 863 of the Patch sites had been generating $2,000 a month in revenue for the entire year. Punching that into the calculator reveals a total of $20.7 million in revenue for that dream year.
So, roughly, it would take eight years for Patch to be operating at that level...where all 863 sites are generating $2,000 in revenue, for Patch to recoup its $160 million.
And did you mean to say "profit"? Because if that is merely revenue, and not actually profit on top of what it takes to staff and maintain a Patch site...then the math performed above is not even relevant.
I don't mean to pile onto Patch here. But this kind of idealistic naivete -- observable since at least 2003 -- that all that's needed is hard working journalists and good civic journalism to make a strong business...is not at all a helpful insight for the industry.
#1 Posted by Dan Nguyen, CJR on Mon 12 Mar 2012 at 12:58 PM
Interesting piece. While reading this, I felt like I was reading my own personal memoir from time spent working at Carll Tucker's Main Street Connect. Aside from the scale of the businesses, the only difference I can see between Patch and MSC is the relationship between advertising and editorial.
MSC has no wall or door separating the departments. They lived in the same room together and fed off each other. Tucker's "Annual Visibility Packages" gave advertisers editorial coverage through "advertorials," except they were presented as regular news. They appeared on the page with an ambiguous "AVP" badge, but there were no disclaimers that indicated the content was paid for.
A brilliant revenue-generating concept, but a travesty to the editorial process. The difficulty of balancing the need for advertising with the need to maintain independent editorial coverage is nothing new, but it takes on an entirely new meaning with the internet and its vagaries. Maybe Patch will figure it out, maybe someone else will. Maybe some already have.
#2 Posted by David DesRoches, CJR on Mon 12 Mar 2012 at 01:03 PM
Too long; didn't read past FIRST FOUR PAGES. Jesus you guys get to the point. AOL IS wonDeRFUL AND WE LOV EIt SO MUCH.
#3 Posted by Rebecca Schoenkopf, CJR on Mon 12 Mar 2012 at 10:33 PM
Excellent piece and even though I didn't join Patch until 2010, my experience matched yours in a number of ways. I had a lot of experience running my larger digital news operations and my own web site, which is probably why I was so frustrated by the amount of "guidance" from Patch HQ and my regional editor.
I loved the work and the people I covered. But I was frustrated when my desire to report deeper pieces conflicted with that "5 posts a day" mandate. And there were management issues I won't get into in public.
So my old town is now in its third local editor in 18 months, and it saddens me to see the site posting stories that are sometimes literally a headline with a link to the story that was published by a local newspaper. It's one thing to be beaten by a competitor. But not even making the effort to write a version of the news makes the site almost useless in my mind. Patch needs to be more than the local stenographer and entirely too many of their sites have slid into that role.
#4 Posted by Rick Ellis, CJR on Tue 13 Mar 2012 at 01:56 AM
"Too long; didn't read past FIRST FOUR PAGES. ..." This is the mantra that's killing journalism. As soon as newsrooms embraced people with this attitude and started listening to them, the battle was lost.
#5 Posted by Robert Knilands, CJR on Tue 13 Mar 2012 at 08:01 AM
Definitely a detailed insider view of Patch's hyperlocal approach. I always felt it was going to be very hard for a website to make money on the local level. They would have to include a high number of regional or national advertising to make it work.
But for Patch, the biggest issue was content. It was just plain bad. One overworked person cannot do everything, and once someone uses the word "aggregate"...to me it means death to a website. On a community level, this just doesn't work. You have to hire a person to go out and report local news. There's no other way to get the level of detail needed to support a local website. Editors think there are other ways...there are not. Technology helps, but doesn't replace a person asking the right questions during a city council meeting.
I'm all for looking at new exciting ways to reach out to readers. Change is a must. We must adapt. The digital age is here. But it's also important to remember there are some old school ways of doing journalism (and business) that still work. Especially at the local level.
#6 Posted by Peter Weinberger, CJR on Tue 13 Mar 2012 at 09:42 AM
Peter,
Are you the Peter Weinberger who has published the Claremont Courier online as a PDF behind a paywall for awhile now? And worked as photo director at the Charlotte Observer? If so, hi, and it's great to read your perspective here. If not, hi anyway, and thanks for the perspective.
#7 Posted by Andria Krewson, CJR on Tue 13 Mar 2012 at 11:47 AM
Thank you Sean for giving us a peek inside Patch. As someone who has been working in local online news for most of the last 17 years (first with a newspaper company and now on my own), your experiences are very familiar to me.
But I have to disagree with the notion that national and regional advertising will be the thing that makes local news profitable. In fact, it's probably the opposite. Big advertisers buy in bulk and expect bulk rates. Google, Facebook and the many ad networks out there have driven the price of advertising down so low that you can't make money with them on a local level.
When I see a national ad on a local site that is pulling in maybe (if you are lucky) $2 per thousand impressions, what I really see is a lost opportunity that could be sold to a local advertiser for $10.
Local sites do not scale in a way that makes CPM based advertising profitable. Let's say your monthly cost to run a Patch site is $10,000. Best case scenario, if you run several ads on each page and average $10 CPM total, you would need a million pageviews a month just to break even.
Successful local news sites like The Batavian and West Seattle Blog tend to not use CPM ads, and instead focus on providing local businesses with other online sponsorship and promotional services. The total local advertising pie is actually bigger than national advertising, anyway.
I think it's possible that a network like Patch could be profitable. I just don't see them doing what is needed to make it work. Certainly, if they think national ads will save them, then they are in for a rough ride.
#8 Posted by Kirk Caraway, CJR on Tue 13 Mar 2012 at 01:44 PM
Even before local editors got up to speed and their sites went live, it was a stressful job, due to the strain of trying to keep on top of every meeting, car accident, and sports score. The pressure was slightly alleviated by the power of the purse strings: We had a sizable freelance budget—some $2,000 a month—to experiment with general reporting and evergreen content. There was nothing better than seeing freelancers take on a regular feature, especially when that content would allow you to sleep in on a slow Sunday.
So let me see if I have this right: each editor was doing the work of two editors and a staff of reporters, but I think it's safe to guess that each one was only paid the salary of one editor: and relief came in the form of $2000 per month to pay freelancers? And that $2000, spread over a sufficient number of freelancers to make enough of a dent in the workload to allow an editor to sleep in on Sunday, meant that freelancers were getting paid--what? The whole undertaking seems predicated on everybody being hugely overworked and underpaid. Except, presumably, the brains at the top who came up with this business model. I know from experience that editing even a small weekly local paper can scarcely be done in a 40-hour week; but a small locally-owned local paper doesn't have the expectation of such astronomical profits, and doesn't build a business plan on fantasy fiction. The expectation that magic unicorns bearing panniers filled with ad dollars would descend from the sky when all this superhuman labor got the site to its pageview goals seems to have kept management in a chronic state of the fidgets; hence the constant tweaking of the content strategy and production processes. The move to aggregation of regional content was not so much relieving the editors of their workload as a first step toward dispensing altogether with the need for them, even at the cost of the very commitments to being local and unique that originally defined the whole undertaking. The expectations were not adjusted; adjustments were inevitably in the direction of somehow wringing even more out of the staff, including leaving it to them to figure out how to get people to write for them for nothing.
#9 Posted by Kia Penso, CJR on Tue 13 Mar 2012 at 04:15 PM
Dan - You are right, but according to Patch and AOL, they have a long-term strategy for making each Patch site successful and if I recall Tim Armstrong's 4Q talk, it is making them profitable over a number of year -- most Patch sites are still less than two years old. They definitely have a strategy, and while the numbers may not look good now, you can't call it quits on Patch for at least another two years (If investors stick with it). That' my opinion though.
Rebecca - Stopping at four pages out of five? There was only one paragraph on the final page.
Rick, David and Local Journos - Yep it is a hard job, but it is also very rewarding when it works right.
Peter - I would note that content does vary widely from site to site, and many, if not most, editors are pretty damn good at their jobs. But we always needed more people when I was there. It's still a need in terms of local journalism as a whole. I don't think free content and citizen participation can fill the void.
Kirk - I think regional and national ads will make Patch profitable. Local sites that are already established, like the ones you name, seem to have a much easier time due to access and familiarity with the population and its businesses (At least from my discussions with them).
Kia - I have to say that everyone, even the folks at the top, worked pretty hard at Patch. When I was there it was almost a 24-hour culture. You knew someone was up covering something, fixing a bug or trying to put out a fire at all levels of the company. I have my own opinions on aggregation, which I think probably align with yours. I don't ever see the local editor position going away at Patch - the face on the top of each page is pretty significant.
#10 Posted by Sean Roach, CJR on Tue 13 Mar 2012 at 07:40 PM
You know, folks, I'm really going to have to go with Rebecca Schoenkopf (commenter No. 5) being ironic. As in: She was joking. And taking a jab at AOL.
#11 Posted by Marc Levy, CJR on Tue 13 Mar 2012 at 10:55 PM
Patch is to local news as Starbucks was to local coffee shops. If you support Patch then you support the death of independent media, which is free from of the major corporate leash.
#12 Posted by Richard Nixon, CJR on Wed 14 Mar 2012 at 02:24 PM
It's about a guy who falls in love with an activist. She is very into human rights and fighting abuse against people in africa.
REI Coupon Code
#13 Posted by Irene Fritzscher, CJR on Sat 24 Mar 2012 at 01:06 AM
Great article, Sean. You were one of the fairest and most organized local editor i wrote for during my time with Patch. Other local editors, though, bent to the towns they covered. For example, if the p.r. person at a school didn't like a student's quote - a high school student - the local Patch editor would send me a note that the quote was removed. How can journalism be unbiased when the very organization covering the news bends to pressure?
I wish you the best in your career, and thank you for the opportunity to work with you.
#14 Posted by Anonymous, CJR on Sat 24 Mar 2012 at 01:37 PM
I have to agree with Anonymous in that I feel that my local Patch is a poor substitute for (declining) local newspapers - as they seem as if they refuse to cover a number of controversial issues. My expectation was that a blogging platform with their lofty ambitions would do more to represent a variety of views. My local patch is not really doing that. As Anonymous said, it appears that local power brokers have veto power over its stories. Which is really intolerable in some situations. Particularly when it comes to some important issues like electoral integrity and corruption.
If Patch is the future of the US's local news reporting, then a crucial piece of the machinery for maintaining our democracy is in big trouble.
A better model in my view would allow all of the people residing in the served communities to post articles and rotate them higher based on the readership and measures of readership engagement. No censorship.
#15 Posted by Walt, CJR on Mon 2 Apr 2012 at 08:01 PM
As editor of my town's weekly newspaper, I happened across this account of the Sleepy Hollow Patch's editor's too-brief career, and found it to be very well written and enlightening. I love being a weekly newspaper editor but made peace with the fact long ago that no matter how many tidbits or stories we manage to uncover we cannot possibly print them all in any given week, nor have I ever printed a newspaper without a shortcoming of some kind. That is what makes the printed weekly newspaper so wonderful - it is a human, breathing thing. Sean discovered that by accident when he found the front pages of the old local newspaper in the history books. That is what more young journalists ought to strive for - to print an actual newspaper is a thrill. All else is just a firefly's flicker on a screen.
#16 Posted by Willow, CJR on Tue 3 Apr 2012 at 02:40 AM
Stuff like this is why I want out of the biz ... who needs to be wired/plugged in all the time?
#17 Posted by SocraticGadfly, CJR on Wed 11 Apr 2012 at 07:55 PM
Read this after hearing the author on NPR today. Nice piece, and very informative. It explains a lot to me.
The content on these sites has been steadily decreasing since the start of the new year -- on any given day, what I see on my local Patches is invariably some stupid poll (this week's is for "Best Cupcake" -- I'm not kidding) or a puff piece on the "winner" of the poll (it's a joke; you can vote as many times as you like). Also, there's a lot of house-for-sale real estate content.
From what I understand from a local editor who works on the Main Line, just outside Philadelphia, editors no longer have any freelance budget at all, except for $25 or $50 here and there over the course of a month, as long as every buck spent is approved by their regional "editor" (who does no editing whatsoever). That's not exactly a recipe for a nimble news organization.
It's no wonder the Patch in Ardmore, Pa. has seen two very good editors last less than a year each. The last one (one of the rare ones with experience) was excellent, but then he was just gone. I can't say I blame him.
There also might be something about the name. "Patch" sounds silly and unsubstantial, and when the stuff that fills the pages lines up with that definition, people are going to become annoyed. I think this is why Patch has gotten so much attention in the media. They've hired a lot of people, and that's a good thing. But they are killing them off by overworking them and underpaying them. It's also annoying that the thing has so much potential, but that poor management can never let well enough alone.
The prediction I get from the local editor I know is that she'll be out of a job shortly after the November election -- if she is still there by then. Alas, she's looking for work in marketing.
#18 Posted by Samantha , CJR on Tue 17 Apr 2012 at 03:09 PM
Great article Sean. When you left Patch here in Tarrytown/Sleepy Hollow, it did not take long for Mary and I to follow. We often pondered how you could possibly muster the energy to accomplish what you did. Your amazing ability to keep your finger on the pulse of the community without casting flavoring of your own was unique and exceptional, and we feel that the TT/SH Patch has deteriorated into mostly links from other communities, which frankly does not interest us. We hope you are well and enjoying what you are currently doing. All the best!
wes&mary
#19 Posted by bob westerfield, CJR on Sun 2 Dec 2012 at 10:00 AM