Slashdot Mirror
How Craigslist Costs Newspapers Money
Allnighterking writes "Well you knew it would happen, Now that eBay has purchased 25% of craigslist, the news is out and suddenly newspapers are claiming that it's costing them money (50-65 million U.S. dollars a year). The original Slashdot coverage is here."
craigslist? ...
Oh.. and Go Josh! Woohoo! Congrats!
US Democracy:The best person for the job (among These pre-selected choices...)
Cry me a river. Out with the old, in with the new.
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
A recent study shows that craigslist has directly saved consumers 50-65 million dollars in advertising costs, and many more 10s of millions of dollars indirectly by enabling direct human-to-human transactions with a minimal effort.
Hmm...this Internet thing seems to be a disruptive technology...whoda thunk it.
They make insane commisions solely based on their monopoly. Their fees are insane, especially after they killed their competition. Their costs are nil, but their revenues are huge.
ever since it went online. I even sent them a note saying as much when I cancelled my subscription.
This is kinda "dog bites man" ain't it?
.nosig
I can't wait for the NPIA (news paper industry association - there has to be one, right?) to start kicking in doors with the FBI trying to quash the rouge, free exchange of want-ads.
Jerry
http://www.syslog.org/
There's nothing I've put on craigslist that I would have put in a newspaper. How could they be losing money?
If aspiration is a virtue, achievement cannot be a vice.
What a bizarre way of looking at it. IMO a better way to look at it is "newspapers no longer extorting $65 million per year from local residents". Or "$65 million once wasted on newspaper classifieds now available for health, education, other productive uses".
Rather than Craigslist costing newspapers $65 million per year, I think the newspapers have been costing the local residents $65 million per year. Hooray for Craigslist. Boo to the newspapers.
Why? I have gotten tons of stuff off there. With the speed of the internet things remain up to date and communication is way better. While newspapers descriptions are limited to like 30 characters, but with craigslist there is virtually no limit...at all. Pictures, links, huge descriptions, anything you can think of. I have not looked at a newspaper classifed for a long time.
When I spend my money on your competition, it doesn't COST you money. You don't LOSE money when I don't give you MY money. You just don't GAIN money. Just because you USED to get my money doesn't mean you'll ALWAYS be able to count on getting that money. What part of "Past performance not indicative of future results" is so hard for you to understand?
You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
I find it annoying that some established businesses seem to view the continued patronage of their customers as an entitlement, even in the face of better, cheaper alternatives. It's not "costing [the business] money," it's consumers exercising the prerogative to which a free market entitles them. Instead of whining about lost revenue, perhaps these industries could adapt to the changing market, as they're supposed to in a capitalist system (*cough* RIAA *cough*).
Thats rather sad really. They are claiming lost profit as if it is the fault of craiglist, not just them loosing out in competition.
When have you seen "LA Times blames NY Times for a 30 Million dollar revenue loss"? It makes no sense. It's a (mostly) free market, and Craigslist is in competition with the papers for it. Their model works better, so they get the traffic, and the newspapers dont.
They really have no place to whine here at all.
You do not have a right to profits! Seriously, this is what an economist would call "competition." In capitalism, it is supposed to happen.
====
Crudely Drawn Games
Read your local lately? You'll find maybe ten percent new local content put alongside 90% of yesterday's wire service stories. This is just a transport mechanism for the dozens of advert flyers that are the real purpose of the paper. LET THEM DIE.
What we're seeing now is the manifestation of the new mega-corporate business model.
At some point, if a company becomes large enough, it apparently is granted some form of "seniority" in the marketplace and is no longer required to be competitive. When these companies find themselves in such positions, in lieu of being innovative or fiscally responsible, many whine and complain that their right to profit (or as Noam Chomsky says it's spelled "jobs") should be protected. From airlines to car companies, this has been happening for decades. Taxpayers subsidize the slow death of badly run businesses.
The amount of "corporate welfare" in the form of various tax incentives and trade protection to mega-corporations is exponentially greater than all other entitlements combined, almost all of which are designed to give corporations advantages in lieu of being more competitive in the marketplace.
The funny thing is that if it were a smaller company complaining about waning competitiveness, people would be unsympathetic. However, larger entities seem to not have to play by the same rules.
Let this be a lesson to would-be entrepeneurs: If at some point you employ X amount of people and purchase Y amount of political clout, you no longer have to be that concerned with the viability of your products and services.
Craigslist was (and is) still a valuable resource in every city it is in, but only as much as any semi-over-populated online resource is. While I'm not disagreeing with you (to some extent), I will disagree with the general tone of your post.
If you are smart enough to pass over the cruft and farkle, you will find the gems. If you aren't, you'll be lost in the backwash of the 'Net, just like the rest.
Interesting. Not to discount your experience with Craig's list, but I've had pretty much the opposite experience and having (no exaggeration) zero problems in any of my use of the sit:. I found one long-term contract job and several freelance projects, and hired a couple of freelancers to do work for me. I bought three pieces of good furniture and a couple of collectibles, in addition to concert tickets. I went out with three or four different girls--one I ended up dating long term, and one I'm still friends with. There were a couple of psycho-billy girls, to be sure. But that just about matches the success rate of any guy I know in "real world" scenarios!
Yep, there are nutjobs, ripoffs and scams, not to mention spam-posts that I flag regularly in my almost daily use of Craig's list. But if you are smart enough to read between the lines and use a little caution, you can get quite a lot out of the site if it's popular in your city. (On that note, I use it in Seattle, and I have friends in New York and San Francisco that swear by it for all kinds of things.)
And in the several years that I've used eBay, I have had a completely spotless experience. No cases of fraud, no sellers or buyers who have backed out. Not that it doesn't happen; I'm sure it does. But as I said, exercise a little caution, read between the lines...I don't see any reason why you can't have an experience that is at least as good as in the real world. Because, on the other hand, I've had plenty of sucky experiences with items for sale and jobs posted in the good old want ads of the local paper.
Like I said, not trying to discount your experience. But I don't think the drawbacks you mention are enough to discourage use of these community-based sites given the amount of success they've seen and the people who do have positive experiences with them. I mean, I could poke some holes in the moderation system of /. and all the rrreally hilarious supposedly +5 funnies, the supposed statistics and research that people throw around as fact to support a rant, and the religious zeal people espouse for one operating system or another to cloud issues...but here I am, day after day, reading and using the site.
Lastly, "crunchy-granola-ess" comments aside, community building around sites seems to work. (Had a look at Amazon.com lately? Reviews, recommendations, wish lists.) I don't know if you have information to demonstrate that Craig's list has been a financial failure, but I for one can't see it as the practical failure you describe. And I've got a lot of friends who feel the same.
Ban competition and GOOSH, everybody's problem is solved!
We're at the start of a major transition in mass media. (I'm tempted to refer to a singularity in the Vingean sense, but few get it.)
1. the big issue is trust. We've crossed a point where people don't believe what they read. For example, people know, and reporters admit, that they'll hear lies and not expose them. Best example, would be the White House press corps, with the heroic exception of Helen Thomas, who might be the only one asking hard questions.
2. "citizen journalism" is emerging, check out ohmynews.com and whatever Dan Gillmor's doing
3. convergence of technologies might produce someone competing with paper, like flexible displays with wifi
(This is the short version, written in a hurry, so please give me a break, okay?)
I'm telling journalist friend to start checking this out, since I figure the tipping point will happen in maybe five years. (I should know better than to predict; I'm still bitter there are no lunar colonies... and what about jetpacks?)