*uck you, pay me: the TechCrunch Redesign
If you want read a design critique of the new TechCrunch redesign I suggest reading Mike’s thorough analysis and thoughts. I would like to say though that after everyone is done analyzing and critiquing with all the negative feedback it won’t mean jackshit to TC’s bottomline. People will still read the site and continue to come back for his content (well most people), it’s just a shame that the readers got put in the backseat, while the advertisers got frontseat privileges. Here it is:
I know about monetizing sites and I know there is a fine line between keeping readers happy and making your bank. Actually, scratch that, keeping users happy usually just involves keeping up with your content. Arrington could put 5 more ads on the site and I doubt he would notice a dropoff in traffic. The redesign would have to be a black background with black text before people finally gave up. You wonder why gas prices continue to go up? Probably becasue we keep on buying it no matter what.
But just because he could put more ad places up there does that mean he should? He is pulling $7,500 per month just for each of the square ads in the top right with a 2 month minimum buy-in and I am going to venture a wild guess that the site doesn’t cost more than $22,500 per month to run. Once the dollars start coming in it can be hard to remove your foot from the greed gas pedal, but in this case I think it should be done as a sign of commitment to his readers. Otherwise, in turn all they got was the same content with a worse design (sorry Rachel) and more ads cluttering the page. Seems like a raw deal to me.
It’s obvious that this redesign was meant for one audience: the advertisers. In the spirit of Web 2.0 (which the site thrives on for its success) more means more. FM Publishing handles his “traditional” ads so I am suggesting he remove them, which might mean that his friendship with John Battelle might end and if he is an investor with FM (you never know with Arrington) that might make his investment worth less. Hmmmmm, maybe instead of an advertiser paying $7,500/mo Arrington gets a stake in the company, now that would be pretty cool wouldn’t it? Eh?
Okay I know it’s not fair to speculate like that, but if you read his writeup of the redesign none of it makes any sense. Hell, go back and read Tyme’s entry again to see the conflict of interest he has. Here is a quote:
And if you’re wondering about the green theme, there’s a reason for it (hint – it keeps me focused on my goals).
Nah, he didn’t just say that did he? He must be talking about eating 5 portions of broccoli a day or something because he certainly isn’t saying money is his only goal. That’s not the spirit of the web anymore (*cough*). That’s not how Mike Arrington works. When we launched the current 9rules design I was a bit worried about how the audience would receive the new ad placement. I knew advertisers would love it, but how would our readers handle it. You know what? I have received zero complaints about the ads, which doesn’t mean everyone loves them, but at least it shows they could live with them if done tastefully.
Next redesign will be green with 16 ads because we know you will keep on coming back no matter what right? Right?
But you know what? He will get more traffic this weekend due to how many people are going to write about it. He will get more RSS readers now because so many people will be turned off by the design that he will probably begin to monetize his RSS feeds as well if he hasn’t done so already. And what’s amazing is that he is able to do this with more ads on his site than either Yahoo or CNet. Maybe they just don’t get the amount of traffic he gets…
When good designers have their well thought out concepts turned bad by clients getting money signs in their head. This all sounds oh so familiar to me. A design should be a balance and for me that is what this new design lacks.
By karmatosed on May 12, 2006 1:30 pm
Maybe one day in the future we will get the real story from Rachel (the designer).
By Scrivs on May 12, 2006 1:33 pm
Just gross. As I said earlier, looks like something I’d do, not something you hire a pro designer to do
By Jesse on May 12, 2006 1:57 pm
I am summarising that I am close to the core along with others over the client and their focus even on the colour of money being at the core. Main reason I can understand this is because it has happened to me relatively recently.
By karmatosed on May 12, 2006 2:03 pm
spot on Scrives
By Tom on May 12, 2006 2:26 pm
Word. That is all.
And I agree it would be very interesting to hear Rachel’s side of the story.
By Richard on May 12, 2006 2:47 pm
I haven’t been to techcrunch in a while (though I always keep up to date in my feed reader,) So I wouldn’t have noticed the redesign without the onslaught of negative posts. Maybe his plan was to stir things up so people would actually go to the home page.
While I don’t care for the new design, the ads aren’t the part that bother me. They’re totally separate from the content; ads that are injected into the content or between content and comments are far worse for me. The things that bother me about the redesign are that now it looks like an ugly blog instead of a leading web news source, and the way things jump around when you mouseover images and such.
By Scott on May 12, 2006 3:55 pm
I actually like the new design better.
By John Koontz on May 12, 2006 4:47 pm
Well, i can’t design shit, but I like the new site.
I also liked the old site.
I go there for content, not for anything else
~Matt
By Matt on May 12, 2006 7:24 pm
I kind of think that if a site redesign can improve advertising income without reducing readership, it might be considered successful. Depending on the business goals of the site owner, of course.
By Mathew Patterson on May 13, 2006 2:09 am
Funny, I just unsubscribed from his feeds because the content got crappy. Now the design is crappy too :/
By Marc Köhlbrugge on May 14, 2006 2:52 pm
Strange coincidence.
By Scrivs on May 15, 2006 11:24 am
maybe its because edgeio is not working so well that Mike needs a real source of income?
I wonder what equity stake he has in that Omnidrive company for him to go from barely mentioning it to allowing/partnering with one of the founders to blog with him on TechCrunch. . .
By will on May 15, 2006 6:44 pm
When I read everyone’s comments (and I do, every single one), it makes me hate that techcrunch guy. I mean, really, really hate him. Too bad it’s me, and I’m just a guy that spent a year of his life writing about things that I love for no compensation whatsoever.
Money has nothing to do with any of this for me. Writing is everything. It also used to be about friendship with people like Scrivs, but it seems that most of those people would like to see me go away. I dunno, maybe they only pretended to be my friend, waiting for me to fuck up so they could take me out at the knees. I don’t do that. When my friends screw up I help them out. I don’t leverage it to get page views.
The green color is, exactly, cnet green. I wanted to focus on cnet because I like it and want to take page views from it.
For those of you saying how evil, greedy and fucked up I am – please remember that I’m a human being and I can only take so much.
By Michael Arrington on May 19, 2006 9:48 am
Come on now Mike, I wrote about how much you love Black people and in this case I am just calling it like I see it. Maybe your comments were not worded the way you wanted them to, but once you hit a certain level of popularity you are scrutinized a bit more. I never wailed on your character and I’m sure you are a good man (I never met you before).
I just gave an opinion about a site like you do about companies. Not like they don’t have feelings either right?
By Scrivs on May 19, 2006 9:59 am
I don’t know. When people rip on edgeio I don’t take it so personally. When hundreds of people tell you, that you, personally, are fucking evil, somehow it gets to you.
I’ve never been in the spotlight before and frankly I don’t know how to handle it.
And a funny thing – almost every one of the comments on the post about Rachel and me are wrong. It’s basically her side or my side, and really, we’re both just people. I loved working with Rachel and was incredibly sad to see her resign. I’ve never said a bad word about her (check). I don’t think I owe her an apology after her public resignation, but if she had come to me privately I would have stripped that stupid design screen shot down, publicly apologized to her and doubled her hourly rate on the spot.
I think I’m really hard to work with becasue I tend to focus on non-writing stuff at like 2 in the morning. I’ll go 3-4 days without responding to emails and then zero in and expect people to focus along with me. I think that difficulty along with the hate emails she got on the new design are what made her want to quit, and the design shot put it over the top. I dont know this for a fact because I haven’t spoken to her, but that’s my guess.
Anyway, this has been the worst week of my life. I could make a lot more money if I went back to being a lawyer, and work a lot less. If people hate techcrunch so much, and I’m not getting anything personally out of it, why bother?
By Michael Arrington on May 19, 2006 10:05 am
That’s what happens in the blogosphere and since this is your first time maybe you will get used to it. I have been through it myself on more than one occassion and if you are true to yourself then really there is nothing to worry about. The people build you up and they can easily take you down because they are the greatest resource we have and honestly I think you should be thankful that there are this many people even concerned about what happens on your site.
And since you offered I have absolutely no problem taking TechCrunch off your hands and integrating it into the 9rules Network.
By Scrivs on May 19, 2006 10:13 am
I don’t think I want to get used to it. I think that people are pretty damned hateful and I’d like to go back to not knowing how ugly things can get.
By Michael Arrington on May 19, 2006 10:35 am
Now I think you are just being silly. With all the good shit people say about you and your site and you let the minority put you in this state of mind? Yeah people are pretty damned hateful, but people are also pretty damned grateful as well. Some people save lives and some people take them.
The world keeps on spinning.
What’s sad is that it doesn’t seem like you have learned anything from this situation and are just taking a pity approach to it which I don’t think is the right way to go about things, especially for a grown man like yourself. It’s one thing if all this “hate” occurred before the redesign, but it didn’t so maybe you have to sit back and think “hey, it’s quite possible I did something wrong to trigger this response” instead of walking around thinking you did nothing and saying you don’t owe apologies.
From two days ago.
By Scrivs on May 19, 2006 10:53 am
yes, i am absolutely, clearly in self pity mode right now. And yes, the comments are being taken very personally and I can’t really see anything else.
And fuck it, even if I wanted to change the site, I don’t have a designer. So its here to stay.
By Michael Arrington on May 19, 2006 10:55 am
Oh, and man, the hate has been non stop for months.
By Michael Arrington on May 19, 2006 11:00 am
Mike you responded on my site but since you’re hear, saying something similar…
I know what it’s like to be criticized. When I joined 9rules I was caught up in something that started long before me. I was insulted, everything I said was ripped apart, but not even close to what Scrivs went through. So we get what you’re dealing with, seriously.
Let’s tell it like it is:
1) You don’t want to change the design, that’s why it’s staying (your choice).
2) The points you make here don’t come across on your site. Why is that?
3) Your designer shouldn’t have quit the way she did. Yes, I’m a woman saying I don’t agree with another woman. Sue me. It was unprofessional. IMO she should have spoken to you first. Do I think your entry was appropriate? No, but that does not justify her actions.
I don’t know you, never met you, never spoke to you. All I have is your site to form an opinion (which you read), just like the majority of people. You can’t please everyone but you can improve the situation…once your self-pity mode expires. You can take the easy route and walk away like you hinted on my site or you can take the harder route and regain control.
People are personally attacking you because your goals aren’t clear. Your motives aren’t clear. It’s excellent that you’re listening and I know from experience that it is hard to do but take what you’re hearing, absorb it, learn from it and regain control…or shut the doors…whatever your preference because sometimes enough is enough. This was a hell of a week. Next week is a new week…has “take control” written all over it but I like a challenge.
By Tyme on May 19, 2006 11:21 am
No, I think I have control over the site. Sure, things move fast and everything isn’t as perfect as it could be. But people could express dislike for the site without saying such horrible things. There is some weird breakdown in society on blogs, where people feel free to express themselves in ways that would never happen in “real” life. Since we all didn’t grow up dealing with these very ugly expressions, we (or at least I) don’t know exactly how to deal with them.
And I don’t think I owe a different explanation to anyone than I’ve given. Don’t get me wrong – my point here is clear. Just because I am bummed that people are saying these things doesn’t make me ready to just hand control of the site over to them. I’m not that weak. Many people, including people I considered to be friends, have taken some ugly shots at me and are making lots of assumptions that are incorrect. And the comments are just plain ugly. I’m not looking for advice on how to “take control”. I’m staring at the ugly side of humanity and commenting on it, that’s all.
I also take offense at the notion that I’ve just begun listening. I’ve always listened. That’s why comments are on, and why I leave most of the hateful stuff there. I only remove comments that discuss killing or hurting me or my family, or comments that attack other people in a cruel way.
By Michael Arrington on May 19, 2006 11:57 am
And..people aren’t personally attacking me because my goals aren’t clear. They are doing it because they don’t realize that there’s a real person on the other side of those comments.
People are attacking Rachel on my site with as much hate as others direct at me. There’s no way to explain that based on your argument. People are fucked up, and you guys are stoking the flames.
By Michael Arrington on May 19, 2006 12:00 pm
Let’s get it straight:
1) I did not say control over your site – control over the situation. There’s a difference.
2) I did not say you “just” started listening, I said it’s great you’re listening during what most would consider a tough time.
3) People realize you’re a real person, they don’t get where you’re coming from because recently you’re flip-flopping all over the place. Of course it is quite possible for the casual reader to forget because there’s nothing about “you” on the about page, with the exception of that one sentence.
As far as the site is concerned, there are issues with it. No matter what term is placed in the search box only 5 results come up. Unless of course you meant that to happen.
Fanning the flames? I’m telling you my perception. You say one thing and you do something else and you expect “us” to realize your goals are clear? Your goals are clear to YOU but they definitely aren’t clear…otherwise all this drama wouldn’t have happened. Thousands of web sites launched new designs during CSS Reboot, site owners launch new designs everyday. Many of them are detested. Very rare to have a fallout like yours. That’s because the problem went deeper than design.
By Tyme on May 19, 2006 12:45 pm
Right, I now have it straight. Thanks, very much, for all the terrific advice.
By Michael Arrington on May 19, 2006 12:54 pm
Wow… the power of blogs huh? Its been an eye-opening read. Anyways, good luck with it Michael. I hope you and Rachel sort it out.
By Sherwin Techico on May 20, 2006 12:27 am
[...] Recently Mike Arrington launched a new design. There was a lot of discussion about the new design, and I dipped in the conversation too talking more about the ethical aspects of the new features of the site (sponsors). A lot of stuff happened after that and I am not about to summarize that. There is a conversation I want to point out, on Wisdump. Mike took the time to respond to the comments which is great because there were a lot of comments being made. He commented on Not Too Geeky as well but for some reason I decided to hold the discussion on Wisdump. What Mike went through the past two weeks reaffirmed some things I already knew, but took advantage of. I attempt to correct that with Ping Six. [...]
By Ping Six » Blog Archive » Tyme’s Thoughts: Why Pin Six is using the Durable theme on May 21, 2006 3:33 pm
[...] That’s a large number and I agree with them questioning their stats. Kudos. Introduction over, let’s get to the meat of my entry…I did not read it on BoingBoing, I read it on TechCrunch. Normally I don’t read TechCrunch because honestly (disclaimer) Mike Arrington isn’t one of my favorite people (compare this, which carried over here, to this – I’d have a lot more respect if he would have confessed it then) but I do respect him for the effort he puts into his site and how he keeps up with what is going on in his niche. That dedication is why I knew Mike Arrington was going to write about the Pageflakes “problem†two weeks after BoingBoing questioned it, because the problem resurfaced last week. There is a more subtle reason that I’m sure Mike Arrington won’t admit to. A “competing siteâ€, Mashable a 9rules member and a default feed in Pageflakes, “possibly” has overstated stats. Mashable’s is 4x as high as TechCrunch (yes, even I raise an eyebrow on that one). I think that is why think Mike is wrote about it, because Mike Arrington is kind of predictable. [...]
By Pageflakes, FeedBurner, accuracy in stats - Tyme’s Not Too Geeky on December 26, 2006 4:03 pm
I know this is old and I’m not sure if these comments will make it to the site but this was a great read and one of the more interesting comment threads Ive seen in awhile.
As an avid reader of TC and 9rules follower its pretty cool to see the dialog here. Mike was pretty upset to say the least.
By hornswaggled on March 19, 2007 11:41 pm