Comments on: What's A Web Magazine Really Worth?

What's A Web Magazine Really Worth?

Stephen Elliott — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 14:44:12 -0800

What if The Huffington Post isn't worth $200 million, but say $2 million? There's a lot to love in this article, including key Nick Denton quotes on the Huffington Post's valuation.

By: Damn That Television

Damn That Television — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 14:53:35 -0800

NickyDen and HuffPo in Foofaraw!

By: mediareport

mediareport — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 14:56:05 -0800

Thank god this is getting talked about. HuffPo's one of the worst things about the 'net right now; its business model has always been absurd. The *way* in which it repurposes other folks' content is consistently sleazy and insulting. Why on earth anyone bothers with that site is beyond me.

By: shmegegge

shmegegge — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 15:02:13 -0800

Why on earth anyone bothers with that site is beyond me. because every once in a while you get the distinct impression that George Clooney blogs for it, but you're not totally sure, so you keep coming back hoping to see him post something else.

By: GuyZero

GuyZero — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 15:05:25 -0800

Web-based media business given questionable valuation; film at 11 - 11 MILLION PM!

By: ColdChef

ColdChef — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 15:07:30 -0800

I read HuffPo daily (among dozens of other sites). Why shouldn't I? I'm not being argumentative, I'd like to know what makes it worse than other news sites.

By: geoff.

geoff. — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 15:15:12 -0800

Whoa I haven't been to Huffington Post since the elections, I guess I see why. A good 1/3 of the screen is made up of this horrific AT&T Bold ad, and I see AT&T ads within the content themselves. Between this and the wholesale stealing of content, is this what a blog looks like going under? Or more to the point is this what a blog looks like when a bunch of VCs invest $25million and suddenly realize that the revenue generated is never going to recoup that in any kind of VC timeframe and thus want to plunder it as fast as possible? I feel sorry most for the junior level employees who were probably enticed to slave wages, terrible hours, no benefits and the idea that if they stick it out until their MBA/grad school stint they'll have a New Yorker like credentials on their resume, oh and they're working for the Internet! Which means fun!

By: mediareport

mediareport — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 15:20:37 -0800

That Ad Age piece really is great, if folks haven't read it, with great stuff about Digg's "frightful" finances, too. I loved this bit: The media are slowly beginning to realize that just because some VC shelled out $1 million for a 1% stake of a start-up, that doesn't mean that the start-up is worth $100 million. Suddenly we're remembering what we realized back when the Web 1.0 bubble burst: A lot of VCs are idiots who are simply flushing money down the drain. Thanks, Stephen Elliott, for bringing that here. ColdChef: I'd like to know what makes it worse than other news sites. RTFAs, hon. Seriously, ColdChef, the vampiric hustling of other folks' content while whoring out for venture capital and painting yourself as the future of the journalism business is pretty damn close to despicable.

By: furtive

furtive — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 15:27:08 -0800

So traffic aside, why give HuffPo a higher valuation? Two reasons: 1. Because master self-promoter Arianna Huffington inspired a "Simpsons" character last year; that's gotta be worth something. (If Salon Editor in Chief Joan Walsh were to inspire, say, a "Family Guy" character, then I'd insist Salon would be worth at least double its current $700K.)

/me chuckles.

By: GuyZero

GuyZero — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 15:27:10 -0800

A lot of VCs are idiots who are simply flushing money down the drain. For those who do not follow the world of high-tech venture capital, let me repeat this and state that it is true. If VCs were baseball players they would be Jose Canseco, swinging wildly at everything in the hopes of a home run but mostly striking out. I would speculate that at least one VC gave Huffington money just to get her to stop calling. $1 million for a 1% stake of a start-up If a start-up has something worthwhile, the VC will want a lot more than 1% and has the money to pay for it. A $1M investment is the equivalent of buying an airplane-sized bottle of liquor to see if you like it. The real question is what her cash flow is which I'm sure is very confidential information.

By: ColdChef

ColdChef — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 15:37:34 -0800

Seriously, ColdChef, the vampiric hustling of other folks' content while whoring out for venture capital and painting yourself as the future of the journalism business is pretty damn close to despicable. I read the article and I understand the concerns. Fair enough, but perhaps my question should have been "Why should this bother me if I don't work for venture capital groups or the media?" I mean...I'm savvy enough to tell the articles from the ads and I usually see a story there that I wouldn't have seen somewhere else. So, why should I as a casual reader give a shit how they pay their bills? (Or don't pay their bills.) Again, I'm not trying to start a fight...I'm just wondering if maybe all the hate is a tad bit of sour grapes that someone is gaming the system.

By: Joe Beese

Joe Beese — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 15:50:21 -0800

Does this mean we can look forward to Balthus: Painter and Pervert?

By: mediareport

mediareport — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 15:51:11 -0800

why should I as a casual reader give a shit how they pay their bills? Well, support the sites you like, sure. Me, I like sites that don't insult my intelligence with obnoxious clutter and sleazy, misleading click-through strategies. Believe me, I love and need good aggregators as much as the next internet news junkie (it's why I miss Cursor.org so much), but the "click here for more! but oops it's not really more just another few sentences we grabbed from someone else in our business who actually pays their employees sorry!" is truly pathetic, and drives me away as fast as anything I see online. If it doesn't bother you, fine. Enjoy.

By: ColdChef

ColdChef — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 15:53:29 -0800

Me, I like sites that don't insult my intelligence with obnoxious clutter and sleazy, misleading click-through strategies. Ah, I see. Fair enough. That makes perfect sense. Thank you.

By: nevercalm

nevercalm — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 15:53:52 -0800

Dude, if I had $200 million? I'd totally give it all to Huffpo if they guaranteed Arianna Huffington would never show her face or speak in public again. Then it would be worth $200 mil. Somewhat regular reader/I've met her/I'm personally involved in something featured there just about daily

By: jonmc

jonmc — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:10:22 -0800

Can we stop saying "HuffPo," please? It makes me picture a Teletubbie with asthma.

By: fire&wings

fire&wings — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:11:03 -0800

HuffingtonPost: The Smartest Guys on the Web.

By: PeterMcDermott

PeterMcDermott — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:12:49 -0800

Does this mean we can look forward to Balthus: Painter and Pervert? I'm eagerly awaiting Bernard Levin: Not too cool for tutus

By: Max Power

Max Power — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:18:31 -0800

But if Huffpo flounders who will counter all that hard hitting content at Pajamas Media?

By: Artw

Artw — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:28:07 -0800

How I miss the days of the MeFi front page basically being the Huffington Post RSS feed. Oh wait, something other than miss...

By: scody

scody — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:46:55 -0800

a Teletubbie with asthma. Ow, ow, ow, the bleu cheese dressing through my nose: it burns!

By: Alexandra Kitty

Alexandra Kitty — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:51:31 -0800

Give me my Metafilter over the Post any day...

By: parallax7d

parallax7d — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:04:39 -0800

I would also like to add that I too enjoy the website Metafilter.com.

By: saul wright

saul wright — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:24:28 -0800

Speaking as someone who went there many times a day during the election and just recently checked back in, holy shit, those Blackberry Bold ads are obscene! I can't handle it. It's like letterboxing from hell!

By: fixedgear

fixedgear — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:34:03 -0800

What does that make MeFi worth, 750 billion?

By: delmoi

delmoi — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:34:49 -0800

There are hell of a lot better news sources out there, most notably, Talking Points Memo.

By: ALongDecember

ALongDecember — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:53:13 -0800

WEBSITES THAT SIMPLY REPURPOSE OTHER'S CONTENT AREN'T WORTH MUCH... DEVELOPING...

By: elpapacito

elpapacito — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 18:36:26 -0800

So let' see: 1. controversy ..check 2. big money numbers ..check 3. celebrity ..check 4. sex allure .. milf qualifies, check 5. exploitation ..check Missing among others are moralizing, , it's everybody else fault, promise of a better tomorrow with a worse today, top10 list and schadenfreude. That surely upped Arianna celeb a bit.

By: terranova

terranova — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 19:48:00 -0800

For true valuation, Arianna should offer HuffPo on eBay.

By: stavrosthewonderchicken

stavrosthewonderchicken — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 20:14:40 -0800

Arianna Huffington is a very very annoying person. Admittedly, there are an awful lot of annoying people out there. Most of them are, when you come right down to it. But most annoying people don't get The goddamned Daily Show et al fawning all over them and goddamned Metafilter linking to them for unknown goddamned reasons, and as a consequence, aren't pushed in my face all the goddamned time. Screw the Huffington Post. I'm waiting for a time when the world is Post-Huffington.

By: ed

ed — Mon, 05 Jan 2009 22:12:47 -0800

Just to be clear on this: it was the Chicago Reader's Whet Moser who broke this story in a big way, not Gawker. Stealing other people's content is the HuffPo's business model (and Gawker, at least, attributes). But despite all this, the HuffPo continues to be granted a strange credibility by the New York scene: witness not one, but two events at the 92nd Street Y. When you combine this with the HuffPo's failure to pay bloggers, this is the intellectual equivalent of slave labor. Employ people for nothing, steal the content (or resources) of others without paying, and then prop up your editorial staff as seers who can see the future. Because, after all, Arianna's highest responsibility is "to the truth." But where's the promised money for investigative reporting? What nobody told Arianna is that the truth, properly deployed, can not only hurt, but take this amateurish operation down. If someone can investigate whether or not the Huffington Post actually pays for its AP stories, and (if the HuffPo ain't paying) alert the AP's rather sensitive staff about whether HuffPo lives up to its guidelines, you could see a consummate implosion.

By: twoleftfeet

twoleftfeet — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 01:13:15 -0800

What does that make MeFi worth, 750 billion? Well, if you put stock into Quantcast's estimates of monthly traffic (as the article seems to) and you base valuation entirely on traffic then Metafilter ought to be worth a little less than half of Huffington Post. And why not put stock into Quantcast? After all, they predict that Metafilter's audience also likes discussion/chat... and that seems right on the money. Not sure about "Audience also searches for fall festival games" though.

By: twoleftfeet

twoleftfeet — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 01:19:26 -0800

But you can't put a price on love.

By: Blazecock Pileon

Blazecock Pileon — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 01:20:13 -0800

What does that make MeFi worth, 750 billion? Click-through those Suicide Girls ads and you might just save the global economy.

By: robocop is bleeding

robocop is bleeding — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 04:42:05 -0800

I read the Post during the election cycle, usually as a vein-slapping politics junkie looking for just one more hit. Now that the election cycle is over, I can't think of a reason to visit the site. There are some sites I read because I like to stay informed about certain topics, but really hate the site itself. Most Gawker sites, especially since they jettisoned The Consumerist, for example. I might have stuck with io9, but there's just something about that site that gives me the screaming heebie snarks.

By: Stephen Elliott

Stephen Elliott — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 07:04:50 -0800

I'm sure the HuffPo pays for its AP stories.

By: Artw

Artw — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 08:31:43 -0800

I might have stuck with io9, but there's just something about that site that gives me the screaming heebie snarks. Oh god yes. Occassionaly it throws up the odd good thing, but the relentless obsession with TV and "spoilers" is a little wearing, as is the emphasis on lists - nothing wrong with listy articles per-se, but you feel a little cheated of your time when they're thrown together cracked.com style as filler, and most of them consist of [x] number of Sci-Fi [somethings], with greater than two thirds of x is either not sci-fi or not [something] by anything but the most lax definitions. Tor.com is better.

By: Artw

Artw — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 08:34:11 -0800

Also the Sc-Fi channel just span off it's blog as Sci fi Wire, which somehow manages to be less breathless and unfocused than io9 despite being from the Sci Fi channel.

By: rusty

rusty — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 09:58:22 -0800

And as it has always been, annual revenue * 5 = value. In this case, "from January through August of last year... 'the site collected just $302,000 in ad revenue, according to an estimate from TNS Media Intelligence.'" So $302,000 / 8 months = $37,750 / mo * 12 = $453,000 / year * 5 = $2,265,000. I'd discount that by a quarter million for tough times and a very questionable business model, and say $2 million is about right.

By: garlic

garlic — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 11:35:17 -0800

I'd discount that by a quarter million for tough times and a very questionable business model, and say $2 million is about right. From a guy who knows a thing or two about monetizing a site that doesn't pay it's writers...

By: GuyZero

GuyZero — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 17:04:55 -0800

And as it has always been, annual revenue * 5 = value The proper revenue multiplier is hardly a constant "5". 5 isn't a bad estimate, but companies sell/have market caps for anywhere between .1 and 100 times revenue.

By: rusty

rusty — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 18:02:06 -0800

garlic: From a guy who knows a thing or two about ~~monetizing a site that doesn't~~ not pay[ing] ~~it's~~ writers... FTFY. Unfortunately I never got around to the "monetizing" part all that much. But hey, informed insiders say K5 could be worth $200 million! Someone call Nick Denton and let him know so he can piss on it. :-) Also, GuyZero: Yeah "companies" in general could be anything. It would depend on the industry. I think for web media companies in particular, 5 is a pretty good bet. I have absolutely fuck-all theory to back this up, other than just that it has come up with a number that I think is pretty reasonable every time I've used it. Presumably it has something to do with the faddish track record of web media properties, that five years is about (or a little shorter than) the growth period of any given site. But it's truly a very rough rule of thumb, one half-shuffle step away from "wild-ass guess." That said, seriously, $2 million for HuffPo would be fair to generous. Justify it however you will.