A "hidden" cost (was Re: NYT/WSJ Staff cust | Online Adv. doesn't work)

From: Brandi Jasmine <brandi_at_brandijasmine.com>
Date: Thu 19 Apr 2001 09:15:10 -0600

RAMON RAY <ramon_at_smallbiztechnology.com>WROTE:

>Must these news sites try to re-create their offline
>news rooms? What's wrong with simply taking the existing
>news you have and putting it online? Of course you'll

That takes people-hours and/or you need "content
management software" (CMS) to manage all that content,
especially at a daily paper. Not all offline content
translates well to the online version. It's not always
that simple. Though with the amount of content I manage
on my own three sites without CMS or staff I really have
to wonder what most of these staff people have been
doing all day at some of these big sites.

>need a certain number of staff, but to have a bloated
>number and duplicating the print version, I don't see why
>this is necessary.

Some companies may wisely opt for a higher number of
staff rather than so-called "automation" tools that
don't work - or actually make matters worse. Some of
these companies are paying $50,000 a MONTH for CMS. I
am on a list of online writers and was griping about
the cost gouging going on when someone stood up and said
they heard of one installation costing (get this) ...
16 MILLION (I'm rarely left speechless but that one
took my breath away).

This software should cost MAX maybe 10-50 grand for a
site installation - not 50 grand a month. Few of the news
sites are reporting on it, I wager because they don't want
to admit they got caught buying digital snake oil. No
VP wants to admit they just flushed half a million dollars
on a product that is making their lives _more_ complicated.
I have yet to see one positive "review" of the top 10,
and most of the others are as bad or worse.

A certain CMS company that shall remain nameless has
recently been one of the few to post significant profits,
despite the downturn in the digital economy. That company
is bleeding these news sites dry and they are taking it -
though on every newsgroup where I see their name people
are frustrated and angry about the service (or lack
there of).

If you were in any other industry and the product you
delivered was so bad as to actually be worse than the
problem it purports to solve, someone would be calling
in the FTC on a fraud charge. This software is supposed to
make it easier to manage your content with less staff and
hassle but the reports and discussion groups I have read
indicates it is a digital straight-jacket and requires
_additional_ technical staff to manage. So instead of having
low-medium-pay editorial staff you have to hire additional
programmers - at higher cost! I just don't understand it
myself, but then corporate logic was never a strong suit
of mine. So far I have encountered only one editor who is
happy with his system and half of it was designed in-house.

Kind regards,

Brandi Jasmine
Writer, Digital Photographer, Illustrator
        www.brandijasmine.com
www.astrology.ca - www.twostar.com
      brandi_at_brandijasmine.com



Received on Thu Apr 19 2001 - 10:15:10 CDT