Slashdot Mirror
WSJ on CraigsList and Zen of Classified Ads
prostoalex writes "Wall Street Journal profiles one of the Valley's most mysterious and secretive Web companies. A leader in online classifieds space and by some measures one of Web's top sites, CraigsList is ostensibly anti-ad and anti-self-promotion. From the article: "One industry analyst has estimated that Craigslist could generate 20 times that $25 million just by posting a couple of ads on each of its pages. If the estimate is to be believed, that's half a billion dollars a year being left on the table. What kind of company turns up its nose at $500 million?""
The kind of company that companies which wouldn't turn up their noses at $500 million doesn't want you to believe exists.
Companies can exist, thrive and even excel without taking advantage of every opportunity to maximize profit. This sort of company tends to be discomfiting to the type of company which would gladly throw some ads at you for extra revenue.
Companies like Craigslist and Costco--places that thrive on word of mouth, putting people ahead of profit, and genuine goodwill--tend to make "normal" companies uncomfortable. How do you compete when your competition has justly earned and kept the trust of the marketplace? How are you supposed to "optimize profits" with a consumer who knows what it feels like to be respected?
Obliteracy: Words with explosions
Perhaps, one that has decided that it doesn't need $500 million?
I know, it hurts my brain too.
It's like looking back in time, back to the middle ages when only the aristocracy had ad blockers on their computers.
That "industry analyst" should tell his wife that "she is leaving thousands of dollars on the table" by not becoming a part-time prostitute.
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
The kind that likes to keep its readership? How much would viewship go down if they had to be subject to ads? Or how many people will just get adblocking software? I know I already do.
Is it possible that if craigslist didn't offer most ads for free, they wouldn't be where they are today, and they couldn't have cashed in? Was linus turning away millions by not charging $50 a copy for linux? Charging money for all ads on craigslist would be killing the proverbial gold-egg laying goose because it's not producing fast enough.
--- http://davidnehme.blogspot.com
that isn't driven to make all the money possible as soon as possible. Part of the reason CraigsList is so popular and people appreciate/use it so much is because they aren't a bunch of sell outs who will spam you with ads at every possible opportunity.
Also, sometimes when running a business, the best place to be is not necessarily the "biggest" and/or "most visible" place to be. Not every company dreams of or wishes to aspire to growing into some kind of huge behemoth like Wal-Mart.
---
http://wi-fizzle.com
Censorship is obscene. Patriotism is bigotry. Faith is a vice. Slashdot 2.0 sucks.
* that doesn't want the crap politics that happens every day in corp america
* who genuinely thinks customers come first
* that wants nothing to do with the power plays in the industry (their power play is right there with their loyal customers!)
* dont want venture caps knocking on their door
* who hates the idea that facebook wants 2 Billion for less traffic and prestige than their site
* who feels that their size is good and right for them, not for wall street.
* whose leaders and owners can sleep without worries at night
Have you ever listened to Craig in an interview? Do so, and you'll find 10 more reasons than I cited, easy.
Newsfollow.com
"What kind of company turns up its nose at $500 million?" how about a successful one? one with integrity, and one in touch with its user base, and one that wants to stay around?
people also scoffed at google's little one-line blurb text ads when they came out. are they scoffing now?
i'm certain there are plenty of guys who would love to put interstitials and flash animation on craigslist. and such people would drive craigslist into the ground. you don't make money on the long term by destroying your user base's allegiance by pissing them off
so your choice is: make $500 million this year, and much less year and year after that, as your user base abandons you, by putting annoying ads on craiglist. or: make $25 million this year, and keep growing, and stay the place to go to for online classifieds for all time, since you have won and deserve and keep the respect and allegiance of your userbase
"the customer is always right" ever hear that one? some people just don't get it: they are very shortsighted. they are willing to destroy craigslist's user base for a fast buck, thereby making less money over the long haul. that's a nice sound business sense
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
An analyst claiming that an advertising site could make more money...by advertising. There's some sort of feedback loop here I just can't wrap my mind around.
I never spellcheck and I freely admit it. Save your karma for more worthwhile "lol erorrs" replies
Our economic lives could virtually always be exploited in countless ways if we were willing to do so. Not everyone wants to live their lives in a way to allow them to exploit every "opportunity" that can be imagined. Not everyone really wants to truly maximize the economic value of their lives either. If someone wants to just have a business of their choice without pinching all "opportunities" to fill eyeballs with the paid messages of others, I hardly consider that a tragedy, no matter what kinds of dividends it could pay to the "greater economy". Nor do I consider it a failing of the economic system that competition doesn't force him to do so. I personally would consider that more of a rare victory for the the role of humanity in our economic system - a trend I hope continues at a stronger pace than has been the case for the past few decades in the US.
Sometimes, just creating a simple system of mutual benefit, and leaving it simple, is of much greater value than the usual constant gamesmanship of economically preditary behavior. Even in the middle of a ruthlessly free market.
Ryan Fenton
Sex and drugs are part of the answer to the parent question in the article. When the buy.com 10% off orders over $100 ads hit the site, they're going to be obligated to remove sections like "Services, Erotic", "Rants and Raves" and "Casual Encounters" -- or at least begin policing them by means other than community flagging. Yes, "Casual Encounters" is 100 men begging for sex, 1 woman laughing, and 200 bots posting single-picture links to "hotcamgirlzmilfsecks dot com" -- but that doesn't make the content any less objectionable to advertisers. In the evenings, in my town, there's an ad a minute posted in "Services, Erotic" for escorts and call-girls -- most of them legitimate (or, as legitimate as a hooker can be). ...great place to find someone giving away a washer and dryer though.
They rely on their reputation, and part of that reputation is the lack of annoyances. People buy, sell, and trade there because they don't have to put up with the crap that smothers most commercial websites. If they started selling ad space, their profits would probably experience a temporary spike, followed by a long, slow death as people jumped ship.
There are other classifieds sites. We don't *have* to go to Craigslist. We go because we want to. If we stop wanting to, then Craigslist dies. Since ads would drive us away, allowing them would be short-term profitable and long-term suicide.
And that's pretty much it. The guy is happy and making enough money as-is, apparently.
I'm all starry eyed about this guy all of a sudden. I mean, a true public servant nerd. His very existence totally undermines some of the basic tenets of capitalism. Of course, he could just cash in so fast it's amazing. But he doesn't, for some reason. And they send this guy from the 'money news source' and he manages to impress him. Not to be stared at like some kind of crazy, but to impress him and then take him back to his hotel. I mean, it's not like Craig's List is that impressive- you could rebuild it in a month (week? Three day codefest?) with the right developers. So customer service is key.... And that's what he provides. I'm bowled over.
I love the 'give us the money instead' comment, though. I've always wondered if there would ever be a way for an Internet company to farm big corporations for real people.... At first, I thought that that was what Google ad revenue was doing.
My little site.
CraigsList's popularity is due in no small part to the LACK of spamming users with all kinds of crap we don't want to see. Here's hoping they don't turn off much of their clientele by adding advertisments.
And now for a cliche-prediction-bomb: mark my words... all good things come to an end... Eventually every business capitulates to the almighty buck and CraigsList will not "buck" the trend.
(end of post)
turns up its nose at half a billion dollars? No company. What kind of analyst says that a company like Craigslist can generate half a billion dollars in revenue? An analyst hyping himself, I'd say. Remember analysts who said that the Dow would hit 20,000?
Maybe it's worthwhile to heap accolades on Craigslist for being a "good" company. Or, just maybe, they're happy with reasonable year over year growth, rather than uncontrollably exploding, not unlike a supernova.
Besides, it strikes me that if the name of the game is for Craigslist to draw its members to view classifieds on its various sites, then it would be a disservice to those members who advertise on Craigslist to send the viewing members away from the site - even if classifieds are free. I kind of think that the idea of the sort of commercial ads mentioned in the WSJ article probably strays from the Craigslist business model.
-h-
That's Craigslist, making it impossible to compete because of their low, low prices. And it's working. The newspaper industry is furious at being underpriced. Tough.
Maybe Sergey Brin can take some notes.
/end rant
It's a tough concept to grasp but sometimes money isn't everything. At least Sergey is now realistic about the old "Do no evil" mantra but it's pretty sad to hear effectively, "Yes, we are filtering content for the Chinese government but... " I and I think many others stop when we hear rationalizations. Yeah it's a lot of money but consumers are waking up and paying attention. Google is helping an authoritarian government control its citizens, I don't want to hear rationalizations. Corporations need to start weighing in "ethical capitalism" costs. Sure the profits might be huge now but when you weigh in the ethical costs, those profits aren't so large.
The key to this consumer awarness is information. We can easily learn about sweatshops thanks to the internet. We can learn about content filtering thanks to the internet. We can learn about AT&T splicing fiber for the NSA thanks to the internet.
You can no longer rationalize and use advertising and PR as effectively as before, consumers are less ignorant.
2 years and no mod points. Join reddit. Because openness is good.
We all loved it with no ads, and then something happened and we debated about whether or not to add ads to slashdot, and it basically came down to, "we have to if we want to survive". Faced with that, most slashdotters preferred slashdot with ads to no slashdot.
If craigslist can survive without pimping ads to users, more power to them, and their userbase will only grow.
Why is it that authors of these articles can never understand the simple fact that the reason I go to Craig's List is precisely because I'm not being bombarded with ads and junk and a horrible cluttered layout? Doesn't anyone remember how refreshing Google was when it first started (and still is to a certain extent, except the other companies have de-cluttered their pages)? Yahoo was a horrible experiment gone wrong in seeing how much crap could be jammed into a portal!
Sure, if craig's list had ads, they'd make some more money, but a lot of people, myself included, wouldn't visit as often or at all, and therefore the article's total sum of potential earnings is an over-estimate.
If they can make $25 mil with just 21 employees, think how much they could make if they hired 500 employees?
drink beer, and let the water run the mill
if analysts were running the show, they'd run them into the ground. industry analyst is analogous to movie critic. full of opinions, but unfortunately, none of them right
Wow, that makes me think how much more money Toyota could make this year if they stopped making such high quality reliable vehicles, and just bolted a crappy SUV body to a cheap truck chassis, and sold it for a giant profit, like GM did. It would probably take at least 5 years before consumers really caught on, and in the meanwhile execs and shareholders could make many billions. Of course then they'd implode and Hyundai (or whoever up and coming) would have incentive to beat them in quality and steal all their customers, the way GM has lost all their customers to Toyota. Yep, real geniuses we have in business in America these days.
From the Wall Street to the WSJ to the board room, the culture of short term thinking to screw the customer is pervasive. It's all about rape and pillage for the shareholders, kill the company (after offloading the stock to E-Trade suckers) and then invest somewhere else. Where will investors go once US business is depleted? China & India of course.
Wouldn't this be a horizontally stimulated market?
Sorry, couldn't resist.
Craigslist is the exception that proves the rule. Consider the following facts:
- Craigslist has no investors or debtors to satisfy.
- Craigslist has lucked into a large and loyal customer base built entirely on word-of-mouth..
- Craigslist costs very little to keep running.
- Craigslist has goals set entirely by one individual who has no desire to make more money than he needs to live off of.
If any of these factors didn't apply, Craigslist would be just another company that would be utterly incapable of turning its back on that half-gigabuck. And yet each of these factors is extremely rare.I actually find Craigslist's money policies a little short-sighted. Not that I'm entirely against them providing free ads. It's nice that you can post your resume, or sell your couch, or ask somebody to come and fix your computer, and you don't have to pay. A lot of the people who use these services couldn't afford to use them if they weren't free.
But why should all the people dealing in real estate get a free ride? I don't mean people who just want to split their rent with a roommie. I'm talking wealthly landlords and folks selling million-dollar homes. Who benefit not just from the fact that Craigslist is free, but the fact that the housing search software is well-designed. They should pay. If Mister Newmark doesn't want the money, there are plenty of worthy causes.
100% right on. you used the word "spam", and while i know you meant visual spam, it reminded me of something.
One of my favorite things about craigs list is that you *never* need an account to use it, so you know they aren't spamming you. no crap in the mail box, no crap in the box, so lots of people use it and it works.
their whole point has been conmunity-focused interaction. it's impossible to have a community if the participants are all on the receiving end of the host's spam. if they had ads, or required accounts, it wouldn't be a community, and it wouldn't be used the way it is
They rely on their reputation, and part of that reputation is the lack of annoyances.
What amazes me is that this is not more obvious to so many people in the business world. The Web really just a series of interconnected user experiences. The author of this WSJ piece seems to think Craigslist is wacky - just plumb daft! - for forgoing potential revenue in favor of taking care of customers. After all, if Craigslist is taking care of its employees and making money, why wouldn't it want to have 10x the employees and 20x the profits! Why wouldn't it want to control the world?!
This snarky little tidbit reveals how little Mr. Carney understands Craigslist, the Web, and customer satisfaction. At the end of the day, all he can think of is all of that (vaporous, as biendamon pointed out) potential profit that *someone* is missing out on:
Argh! Someone put some banner ads on Craigslist, and do it quick, before Carney gets an aneurysm!
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
Indeed, Craigslist is plenty of ads. Analysts who say that Craigslist should seek more profit by making people view ads they aren't interested in in order to see the ads they are actively seeking by viewing Craigslist in the first place are, well, perhaps missing the source of Craigslist's dominant position.
"What kind of company turns up its nose at $500 million?"
One led by a person believing there is more to their enterprise than money. I think I'd like to work there.
- The Kessel run is for nerf herders. I can circumnavigate the entire Central Finite Curve in a lot less than 12 parse
CostCo pays their employees very well for retail and treats their suppliers with respect. In return, their suppliers try hard to keep them as a customer, and CostCo's "shrinkage" (i.e. mostly employee theft) is the lowest in the industry.
Their profits are essentially the annual membership fee. Once you've paid that, you're buying everything pretty much at cost (including those higher salaries.)
They do not advertise and dispense with most of the corporate BS. Which means the customer doesn't have to pay for all of that overhead either.
The targeted ads would devalue the free ads.
If the free ads are worth less then there will be less customers.
Less customers, less content, less visitors, less paid advertising revenue.
Not to mention the incalculable value of goodwill and trust - I mean you just can buy that!
Better go back to analyst school there buddy.
This is false. They _are_ maximizing profits, just over the long term. These sorts of companies make strategic decisions which pan out over years or decades, not over one or two financial quarters. You do them a disservice, and make these managers lives more difficult, by accusing them of not seeking profits. The CEO of Costco has been beating back financial analysts and stockholders for years because people like you keep the myth going.
The lesson is that you can make profits, and increase profits, and build a stable, long term business plan that benefits _everybody_ in myriad ways (including with dollars and cents), simply my making prudent and judicious business decisions.
And you don't need to sacrifice any piece of the pie to make it work.
Your type of comments make these things sound like a zero sum game. If your ecological you have less profit. If you're family friendly you make less profit. That's crap. You can do both equally well and still compete w/ the archaic business models.
Sole? Sole proprietorships and very narrowly, privately held corporations, partnerships, etc. make up a large percentage of businesses, and many of them operate in accord with interests of their owners beyond simply maximizing financial return or market value of the business.
Widely, publicly held companies whose management's sole duty is to maximize the financial return to the owners may make up most really big businesses, but they certainly aren't most businesses.
Did you read TFA? They charge for real estate in NY. Granted, they made that decision because of spam, but not all ads are free.
Search RapidShare and MegaUpload!
lets see 21 people 25 million a year.
I can live on that.
Why Be greedy?
How about letting people decide for themselves what charity they want to donate to, instead of forcing you choice upon them? The simplest way to do this is to not take the money off them in the first place.
I'll probably be modded down for this...
I've heard numerous complaints about most of the places around here in relation to returns (Future Shop, Radio Shack, London Drugs, etc). In particular, I've yet to see somebody manage to return a digital camera that has decided to die an untimely death...even with warranty
However, with Costco, you bring in your item and you get a replacement. Sometimes even when the warranty has already passed. For that reason I highly recommend them for such things as digital cameras, etc, simply because when it comes to returns, they don't treat customers like potential cons.
Actually, ebay owns 25% of Craigslist.
Totally... In addition to what you said, CostCo treats their employees so well that there are waiting lines to get a job in most areas, whereas there are usually no queues for jobs at Wal-Marts or Targets. I understand that they get good pay and decent benefits compared to most companies, and relative to other retail/wholesalers you wouldn't even think they were in the same business... Plus I've heard that they have a strict seniority system and with that comes vacation benefits and that sort of stuff.
Also, from what I hear, they have what is probably the most liberal return/warranty policy of any company on the planet, though I haven't had a need to exercise that feature.
I'm still cautious of huge "big box" retail chains, but on the whole, I'm pleased with CostCo. They seem to be non-evil and that's good enough for me. Plus, I can buy a5 gallon bucket of pickels without feeling guilty, and damnit, that's the way it should be.
Constitutional rights may be respected, repealed, or modified; but they must never be ignored.
Plus, I can buy a 5 gallon bucket of pickels without feeling guilty, and damnit, that's the way it should be.
Pregnant much? ;-)
Sole Proprietorships make make up the majority of businesses, but, if you look at it in terms of revenue, I think you will find the largest businesses make most of the money, and have the greatest economic impact.
We all know what to do, but we don't know how to get re-elected once we have done it
I do most of my grocery shopping at CostCo, as well as the shopping for a variety of other products. It's definitely true that some things are more expensive there, but I suspect that that has to do with negotiating power of other large chains. You definitely are *always* going to be happiest if you know the normal price for products at a few stores before you go shopping. (Safeway, for example, tends to almost always be more expensive and have worse-quality store brands than King Soopers in my area.) That said, as a rule CostCo is a lot cheaper than most other stores, provided you can store and use the item before it goes nasty. But that's also always something you should be thinking about before going shopping anywhere.
Costco is generally considered to be a "model company" in how it treats its employees and customers.
e mployee_benefits_walmart.htmls _costco.php
There's a couple of not-necessarily-unbiased articles about it (both seem to take a WALMART BAD! COSTCO GOOD! spin, which while I probably agree with it, is pretty definitely a spin):
http://reclaimdemocracy.org/articles_2004/costco_
http://www.seattleweekly.com/news/0450/041215_new
Also, someone mentioned Costco sells items at their cost and only makes a profit on memberships. That does not appear to be accurate:
"Costco caps its profit margin on most products at 14% and allows itself slightly higher margins only on its Kirkland Signature store brand (a name derived from its previous headquarters in Kirkland) with a strict 15% profit limit."
(From the Costco page at Wikipedia, with a reference to a source article.)
the kind of company that knows it has more of a future by restraining its greed rather than by indulging it.
when religion is no longer the opiate of the masses, governments will resort to real opiates.
Don't have a cite, but I vaguely remember reading that while each individual large business has much more of an economic effect than any individual small business, the sum total of all economic effect generated by all small businesses is significantly more than the sum total of all economic effect generated by all "large" businesses (subject to your definitions of small & large, of course).
A society could do a lot worse than have economic policies which favored small businesses, and to ignore the desires of large businesses. You'd tend to end up with a highly-competitive & agile marketplace, but where no individual actor (aside from the government of course) is likely to be big enough to cause significant damage to the society even if they wanted to.
That would be nice, I could afford a hummingbird feeder that hummingbirds really like.
Craig
The business cost essentially nothing to run, and is making reasonable profits to allow for the founder to live a lifestyle in excess of 99.99% of americans. Every year the market share grows, because who can compete with free? When he is ready to to sell out, the marketing "geniuses" on wallstreet will look at the number of page impressions, assume they can plaster the site with flash add and make BILLIONS. He will sell out for billions, and wallstreet will run the site into the ground. What's not to like?
----- There are two kinds of people in this world, my friend; those with loaded guns, and those who dig.
"What kind of company turns up its nose at $500 million?"
The kind that believes industry analysts and experts who say outrageous things are likely talking out of their asses.
Half a billion? I really really doubt it.
"People who do stupid things with hazardous materials often die." -- Jim Davidson on alt.folklore.urban
craig@craigslist.org ... and you're right, don't believe everything you read.
I do think I need a simpler, plainer feeder; the hummingbirds check mine out, no feeding, and I have plenty in my backyard.
thanks!
Craig
People like you are the reason that most retailers give the rest of us a hard time about returning things. Do you actually think that returning month old produce or electronics that you broke is honest or even fair?
Nasty old 'freedom' rears it's ugly head. To recap it for you:
Anybody can charge whatever they want to whomever they want (except where said freedom is taken away by government edict).
I can sell you my digital camera for $4, or I can give it to you, or I can refuse to sell it to you for $17,348.54.
I can single you out because you drive a BMW if I like (or, rather, because you're probably a prick, which is a good bet.)
... that's so secret, even I don't know about it?
Cool!
I should ask the folks on the N Judah or 6 or 43 bus about it.
Craig
Yeah yeah, I know, rah rah Costco you-have-a-corporate-conscience-so-I-can-feel-good -giving-you-money and all that, but WalMart is not nearly as bad a place to work as people make it out to be. Granted, its probably not going to appeal that much to somebody who reads Slashdot, but people beat a path to their door when they open a new store:
a rt26.html)
c /a/2005/08/17/MNGDPE91AH1.DTL)
When one opened in a not-so-great neighborhood in Chicago, they got 25,000 applications (!) for 325 jobs. (http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/cst-nws-walm
In New Jersey, 8,000 applicants for 350 jobs. (http://www.nysun.com/article/34316)
In Oakland, 11,000 for 400. (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/
Help poke pirates in the eyepatch, arr.
If I recall, too many scams. (I'm not sure, since others in customer service handle those; my focus is on NYC apartment brokers, light forums moderation, spamvertising, stuff like that.)
Sometimes, we have to make awkward decisions, based on feedback, but most decisions are subject to future revision.
You can ask more, here, or email craig@craigslist.org
If you can excuse the small amount of self promotion, I think that this is essentially an ethical decision.
With my company (http://www.beskerming.com), we run no ads on our site, and our free mailing list is just that, free. There are no subscription fees, no advertising, no vendor pitches (besides our own occasional announcement), no spam, and no vendor sponsorship. It keeps our readers happy, and we have seen our influence stretch to over 400 million people via those responsible for their information and financial security, without really pimping the service to all and sundry. So long as we've keep our overheads low, it doesn't matter how many people receive our message from that service. Sure, we'd like to make more money, grow the company and all that other stuff, but it all goes back into the company - improving the services we provide our clients.
Faith in humanity keeps the list free, and it breeds some responses in kind. After the list started getting spammed with pump'n'dump scams (at least the moderator was spammed - no messages made it on the list), we sent out a simple request for recipients to review their system security and to ask anybody they had forwarded a copy of our messages to to do the same. Within 18 hours, the spam stopped. No subscriber has ever unsubscribed, and even after polling them for what they wanted to have done with the list, most responded that they enjoyed having access to a truly free list and wanted it kept that way.
We originally started the list to build credibility and reputation in the eyes of the market, and to show some of our capabilities, and even though we only recently started spreading word about it, we have attracted some quality readership who are firm supporters (at least of our free work).
Yeah, it would be easy to spam the list silly with ads, sell the subscriber list, and otherwise bleed the readership dry, but that is not ethically or morally justifiable and so long as I control the ethical path of the company, it will never happen.
One argument that is often used to support the nepotism that used to take place in large family-owned companies is that the family had a vested interest in keeping the company solvent, and knew what it took from generation to generation to support and maintain the wealth and health of the company. Never mind that by the third generation things usually went pear shaped, as that generation was far enough removed from the founders who created the wealth so as to not understand what sacrifice and effort was required for the health of the company. Basically, the ethical decisions that created and grew the company in the first place were discarded for short term enjoyment of the wealth.
InfoSec that matters, when it counts.