Spinning Salon.Com’s Demise

Reuters’ coverage of Salon.Com’s demise offers a spin that I suspect will be typical with such stories — this is proof that premium subscription services and ad revenue are inherently flawed models for Internet businesses.

The author of the article focuses exclusively on revenues, never thinking to ask just how the hell Salon.Com had expenses in excess of $10 million for 2002. Or as Pud from FuckedCompany.Com put it,

So Salon.com is $76.6M in the hole. How did these dumbfucks spend $75.6 million on a website that displays articles? No clue.

Salon.Com lasted longer, but it’s businesses practices were just as stupid as the dot.coms that crashed and burned while they spent their money on expensive furniture and wild parties.

Had they adopted sound management practices, they’d probably be profitable by now, but instead the focus early on was expensive offices, outrageously high salaries for David Talbot and company, and one after another side business that was going to make the difference (remember when it decided to get into the CMS market?)

Related Posts

1. Salon.Com’s Status — It’s All a Matter of Perspective - November 20, 2002
2. Userland and Salon? Now That’s Funny - July 15, 2002
3. Salon.Com — Still Doomed - June 26, 2002
4. Salon’s Cutting Edge 9/11 Reporting - September 24, 2001
5. NetSlaves on Salon.Com’ 10Q - June 20, 2001