“farewell outline. we have all been laid off.”(twitter.com)
twitter.com
“farewell outline. we have all been laid off.”
https://twitter.com/leahfinnegan/status/1246070831807188993
11 comments
The Outline might have been the only "digital media" site to actually have interesting looking ads. I can't find an example right now, but the ads were full-page and swipe-based, so you could read it as a story.
My adblocker catches the usual suspects, but I'm guessing these were not served from a third-party domain. I'm perfectly happy with ads that look like some effort went into them, and don't carry the numerous trackers that we now accept as part and parcel of real-time bidding networks.
They never had the Taboola/Outbrain chumbox as so many "reputable" publications do. They never had hideous Adsense ads breaking up the page.
It's too bad the site didn't have a clear identity; the topics were all over the place, and it didn't have a unique tone of voice.
Plus, I'm guessing media buyers were not pleased about having to actually create interesting looking ads that were closer to interactive sponsored content than a two-line Adsense ad they could A/B test to their heart's desire.
My adblocker catches the usual suspects, but I'm guessing these were not served from a third-party domain. I'm perfectly happy with ads that look like some effort went into them, and don't carry the numerous trackers that we now accept as part and parcel of real-time bidding networks.
They never had the Taboola/Outbrain chumbox as so many "reputable" publications do. They never had hideous Adsense ads breaking up the page.
It's too bad the site didn't have a clear identity; the topics were all over the place, and it didn't have a unique tone of voice.
Plus, I'm guessing media buyers were not pleased about having to actually create interesting looking ads that were closer to interactive sponsored content than a two-line Adsense ad they could A/B test to their heart's desire.
Ohhh, theoutline.com
I was wondering just how many employees outline.com even had and if they could just run as is with a couple people.
I was wondering just how many employees outline.com even had and if they could just run as is with a couple people.
I'm so happy we have Kurzarbeit[1] in Germany.
Our CEO told us today that they're planning for it. I don't know yet, whether I will be on it, but I assume that I will.
And it's infinitely better than losing my job.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Short-time_working
Our CEO told us today that they're planning for it. I don't know yet, whether I will be on it, but I assume that I will.
And it's infinitely better than losing my job.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Short-time_working
Kurzarbeit is a concept whose time has come. I desperately hope that governments around the world consider emulating this excellent policy during the COVID-19 pandemic and afterward. It's a great way to insulate economies from the harmful switching costs (i.e. firing and then rehiring and retraining) caused by a temporary economic downturn.
Portugal implemented this for COVID, I didn't even know it already existed in Germany. Employees get 2/3 of the regular salary, of which 30% is paid by the company and 70% by social security. Companies which ask for this are forbidden to fire anyone (except for cause).
Isn't this what the US just implemented too? You can apply for assistance through the CARES act for 100% of employee salaries and the loan is forgiven at the end if you don't lay off any of your employees
Maybe so, I wouldn't know.
I guess the forgivable SBA loans in the US might have a similar effect?
This exists elsewhere as a temporary or seasonal layoff/furlough. Many companies are going to be shedding employees through "covid related" layoffs that are not in fact covid related. Perfect time for companies to restructure without bad press.
Kurzarbeit is described on Google as "Short-time working or short time is a situation or system in which civilian employees agree to or are forced to accept a reduction in working time and pay.".
That's different than a layoff. I'd happily accept a reduction in pay and work hours over a 100% pay cut and temporary layoff, if that's what it took to keep my company alive during a temporary economic downturn.
That's different than a layoff. I'd happily accept a reduction in pay and work hours over a 100% pay cut and temporary layoff, if that's what it took to keep my company alive during a temporary economic downturn.
Yes. Kurzarbeit means the company keeps people on its payroll but doesn't give them full hours. The government tops their pay back up to 100% but the company is saved from carrying the full load. The company keeps its employees and all the valuable training they received, allowing it to get back to full speed once the downturn is over.
A free market is very inept at solving this problem because no single company is going to make the long term investment required to foresee future recessions and implement a war chest sufficient to offer Kurzarbeit. But the state can think ahead and generate a public good from this kind of program.
A free market is very inept at solving this problem because no single company is going to make the long term investment required to foresee future recessions and implement a war chest sufficient to offer Kurzarbeit. But the state can think ahead and generate a public good from this kind of program.
Kurzarbeit is described as "Short-time working or short time is a situation or system in which civilian employees agree to or are forced to accept a reduction in working time and pay." on Wikipedia.
That article also states that you can participate in training, which will actually give you the chance to maintain your income. Pretty cool, I think.
That article also states that you can participate in training, which will actually give you the chance to maintain your income. Pretty cool, I think.
This is what Tepperman's (furniture store) did in Canada in 2008
Being close to the publishing world, this does not surprise me. eCPM has halved, if not better depending on demographics. We will likely see this happening to places that started this pandemic out overextended.
Since you are close to this space, do you have any sense of whether the number of ad views is increasing because more people are home?
I think people were expecting a bigger influx than I’ve seen. The real, noteworthy effect seems to be seen in the extreme decrease among certain publishers. Those in the sports, and music industry as an example.
My read on the negligible positive is that those are mostly lifestyle and entertainment publishers. People already spent a lot of time on those properties naturally. Also community forums are still very active if they were active prior to this.
The thing to watch is who is able to carry their infrastructure through this with the lower ad rates. If you’re big spending on AWS, et al, you might start considering getting a little closer to bare metal.
Note that publishers with lower overhead and can hold out longer usually benefit from the earlier publisher shutdowns, as their ad impressions get soaked up by whoever else remains.
Having watched the publisher world back in 07-08 this is so far feeling very familiar.
My read on the negligible positive is that those are mostly lifestyle and entertainment publishers. People already spent a lot of time on those properties naturally. Also community forums are still very active if they were active prior to this.
The thing to watch is who is able to carry their infrastructure through this with the lower ad rates. If you’re big spending on AWS, et al, you might start considering getting a little closer to bare metal.
Note that publishers with lower overhead and can hold out longer usually benefit from the earlier publisher shutdowns, as their ad impressions get soaked up by whoever else remains.
Having watched the publisher world back in 07-08 this is so far feeling very familiar.
ad views aren't important. Look at dollars in. Over time, net dollars in must exceed net dollars paid to publishers.
I have a cxx role at a startup. We slashed our ad budget for the next 45-60 days until we figure out how deep our economic collapse is going to be; I suspect we're far from the only company.
The other thing about ecpms is most advertisers have a daily frequency cap for cookies. More browsing plus more ad slots does not necessarily equal that much more filled ad slots.
We're going to see a lot more ad-supported content companies fail as we destroy the ability to do cross-site targeting. (I'm not saying increasing privacy is bad; merely that this is an entirely-foreseeable outcome). Some sites will transition to paywalls; others will die.
Premier sites -- NYT, wapo, gawker family, etc -- will be able to do direct deals with advertisers. That takes both a dedicated salesforce, a draw, and frequent users. Mid-market sites like this will almost certainly not be able to do so.
See also Josh at Talking Points Memo's writing about transitioning to a mostly subscriber-supported model.
I have a cxx role at a startup. We slashed our ad budget for the next 45-60 days until we figure out how deep our economic collapse is going to be; I suspect we're far from the only company.
The other thing about ecpms is most advertisers have a daily frequency cap for cookies. More browsing plus more ad slots does not necessarily equal that much more filled ad slots.
We're going to see a lot more ad-supported content companies fail as we destroy the ability to do cross-site targeting. (I'm not saying increasing privacy is bad; merely that this is an entirely-foreseeable outcome). Some sites will transition to paywalls; others will die.
Premier sites -- NYT, wapo, gawker family, etc -- will be able to do direct deals with advertisers. That takes both a dedicated salesforce, a draw, and frequent users. Mid-market sites like this will almost certainly not be able to do so.
See also Josh at Talking Points Memo's writing about transitioning to a mostly subscriber-supported model.
> ad views aren't importanT
You sure? If it’s a supply and demand market, in increase in eyeballs can crash CPMs as the competition to get your ad to display craters.
Kinda like how a small decrease in traffic (say 10%) can turn a highway from gridlock to free flowing.
You sure? If it’s a supply and demand market, in increase in eyeballs can crash CPMs as the competition to get your ad to display craters.
Kinda like how a small decrease in traffic (say 10%) can turn a highway from gridlock to free flowing.
Advertisers only give shit about views insofar as views serve as a proxy for conversion.
I meant follow dollars in to understand dollars out. There will be some reallocation between publishers, but follow dollars in and you'll see what will most likely happen to ecpms out. The latter is a trailing measure.
iow, you will probably get more views, but dollars will probably follow the economy.
iow, you will probably get more views, but dollars will probably follow the economy.
i feel like the death of third-party cookies is not getting enough attention in the category of "death of the open web." if you are a small website, you "owned" that cookie. now small websites are going to have to strap into the big networks, or fade away like usenet.
[deleted]
Its a shame to hear, I really enjoy the Outline's content. Is there any more context as to who "all" is referring to? Is the entire site dead?
[deleted]
If this is a pure online pub, how/is this somehow related to covid-19? Not many details...
Network ad rates have crashed as there is a glut of impression but low demand from advertisers.
Many online publishers will turn to paycuts and layoffs or even go out of business in the next few weeks
Many online publishers will turn to paycuts and layoffs or even go out of business in the next few weeks
I doubt the two are related. This is just the continuation of the bottom falling out of digital media publishing. Mic.com and a few other companies went bust last year.
This wasn't a sudden change, it was the result of media companies putting their faith in social networks to distribute their content instead of trying to organically build their own audiences through say, email.
Social networks de-emphasized "news" links in their feed algorithms over the past few years, so that impacted the number of impressions those posts would receive. And beyond that, users weren't interested in clicking a link and then having to come back to FB to comment on the article.
This wasn't a sudden change, it was the result of media companies putting their faith in social networks to distribute their content instead of trying to organically build their own audiences through say, email.
Social networks de-emphasized "news" links in their feed algorithms over the past few years, so that impacted the number of impressions those posts would receive. And beyond that, users weren't interested in clicking a link and then having to come back to FB to comment on the article.
Big drops in ad revenue are affecting companies big and small.
https://www.vox.com/recode/2020/3/24/21192311/coronavirus-pa...
https://www.vox.com/recode/2020/3/24/21192311/coronavirus-pa...
loss of advertising revenue?
The tweet doesn't mention covid-19, but if it's related maybe:
1. A patron's income is more directly affected, so he suddenly withdrew support.
2. Maybe they were teetering at the edge of financial viability and the onrushing recession will kneecap them in some way (maybe no one wants to advertise anymore, or something).
1. A patron's income is more directly affected, so he suddenly withdrew support.
2. Maybe they were teetering at the edge of financial viability and the onrushing recession will kneecap them in some way (maybe no one wants to advertise anymore, or something).
[deleted]
Wasn’t this what the payroll protection program was designed for? It’s a “loan” on which the principal and interest are paid by the government to cover payroll and rent. Instead these people are just gone.
> Top U.S. banks have threatened to give the federal government’s small-business rescue program a miss on concerns about taking on too much financial and legal risk, five people with direct knowledge of industry discussions told Reuters…
> Their main concern is that the Treasury Department has said it expects lenders to verify borrower eligibility, and take steps to prevent fraud, money laundering and protect customer information under the Bank Secrecy Act, sources said. Banks are worried they could face regulatory penalties or legal costs down the line if things go awry in the haste to get money out the door, or get blamed for not moving funds fast enough if they perform due diligence the way they would in ordinary times, the sources said.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-stimul...
Another example of our crisis response failing us.
> Their main concern is that the Treasury Department has said it expects lenders to verify borrower eligibility, and take steps to prevent fraud, money laundering and protect customer information under the Bank Secrecy Act, sources said. Banks are worried they could face regulatory penalties or legal costs down the line if things go awry in the haste to get money out the door, or get blamed for not moving funds fast enough if they perform due diligence the way they would in ordinary times, the sources said.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-stimul...
Another example of our crisis response failing us.
I'm not so sure it's so black and white. Isn't this exactly the kind of situation that these banks would use as leverage to get themselves a better deal, especially as interest rate they can charge was a specific complaint?
> Members of the group include JPMorgan Chase & Co (JPM.N), Bank of America Corp (BAC.N), Wells Fargo & Co (WFC.N) Citigroup Inc (C.N), Truist BankBBTVA.UL and PNC Bank PNCBNK.UL.
Yeah, not taking their word for it.
> Members of the group include JPMorgan Chase & Co (JPM.N), Bank of America Corp (BAC.N), Wells Fargo & Co (WFC.N) Citigroup Inc (C.N), Truist BankBBTVA.UL and PNC Bank PNCBNK.UL.
Yeah, not taking their word for it.
Worse case, I'm wondering if the government could go nuclear and use the Defense Production Act. Last recession they got a massive bailout and really owe the country one IMHO. Given how many special deals these corporations have carved out it is time for them to step up an be good citizens.
Payroll Protection Program Loan (PPPL) is supposed to be rolled out today, and it's been false start so far. Two banks that I'm working with don't have anything up and running and claim SBA did not provide enough guidelines (technically not true).
See links below for more information:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/sarahhansen/2020/04/02/small-bu...
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/04/02/jpmorgan-says-its-not-ready-...
See links below for more information:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/sarahhansen/2020/04/02/small-bu...
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/04/02/jpmorgan-says-its-not-ready-...
The SBA definitely did not provide enough guidelines to banks.
I work in-house now and we've been working with a bank to get an SBA loan for our company. We're in the fortunate position of being a good risk so we passed that part of the process, but are currently stuck in limbo, because the SBA failed to provide enough information to banks about how to actually enter a loan into the program once the applicant has passed the standard KYC/risk-assessment process.
I work in-house now and we've been working with a bank to get an SBA loan for our company. We're in the fortunate position of being a good risk so we passed that part of the process, but are currently stuck in limbo, because the SBA failed to provide enough information to banks about how to actually enter a loan into the program once the applicant has passed the standard KYC/risk-assessment process.
Sure, the govt says it's effective immediately but the banks are saying something different... typical bureaucracy at work. It will take some time to sort it out. For a lot of (esp. small) companies it's going to be too little, too late. They don't have the cash reserves to go even weeks making payroll with little to no income. Companies with stronger balance sheets are trying to forecast what things look like on the other side and are concluding 'we're not going need all these people, better to cut back now'.
So it will help companies with a stronger balance sheets who expect activity to support the staff they want to keep, for a while, who are willing to take the risk believing that the govt will follow through as it says it will.
Contrary to what the talking heads are saying re: the rescue/bailout bills: this is going to hurt like hell with no quick recovery likely.
So it will help companies with a stronger balance sheets who expect activity to support the staff they want to keep, for a while, who are willing to take the risk believing that the govt will follow through as it says it will.
Contrary to what the talking heads are saying re: the rescue/bailout bills: this is going to hurt like hell with no quick recovery likely.
The government isn't writing checks for this yet. Applications are being accepted by some banks today. Money will not move until next week.
has anyone actually recieved a payment?
I was looking at this SBA loan forgiveness plan that's a part of the relief / recovery / bailout bill. I actually think right now is an incredible time to launch a startup, and I want to hire a few out of work software engineers to work with me.
My plan was to incorporate, take out a loan, and pay payroll with the entirety of it. Unfortunately it looks like the bill requires you to have been in business before February 15th with verifiable employees on payroll.
I'm really miffed, because putting unemployed employees on payroll at a new company isn't any worse than keeping existing employees on payroll at a business that doesn't have customers. In fact, if a new company is more productive and is working on solving problems that arise because of this virus, it seems more productive to solve the new problems than to keep the unviable businesses running.
I'll have to figure something else out...
My plan was to incorporate, take out a loan, and pay payroll with the entirety of it. Unfortunately it looks like the bill requires you to have been in business before February 15th with verifiable employees on payroll.
I'm really miffed, because putting unemployed employees on payroll at a new company isn't any worse than keeping existing employees on payroll at a business that doesn't have customers. In fact, if a new company is more productive and is working on solving problems that arise because of this virus, it seems more productive to solve the new problems than to keep the unviable businesses running.
I'll have to figure something else out...
While the government is shoveling money out the back of a truck right now to try to keep the economy afloat even they, IMHO rightly, have limits right now. This is to keep established businesses such as restaurants, small manufacturers etc. alive, not to fund risky startups.
A new business is far riskier than keeping an existing one. You seem to have forgotten the need for prroven product-market fit.
Sounds like you were basically just going to start a company on the basis of a government handout, well okay. Surely you can see how your "idea" is susceptible to fraud and why they have some requirements for qualifications.
Additionally, it's LIKELY that the company which was already established had product/market fit, proven tangible value, and paying customers. It's UNLIKELY that your "startup" will/would...especially if you're the type of person who would exploit such situation as you describe above.
Additionally, it's LIKELY that the company which was already established had product/market fit, proven tangible value, and paying customers. It's UNLIKELY that your "startup" will/would...especially if you're the type of person who would exploit such situation as you describe above.
its a program to keep business afloat, not launch new ones.
Yeah, but GP has a point; from a total employment standpoint, there is no difference. In fact encouraging new business at this time could create a burst of new, lean, innovative startups solving real problems from a time of hardship, rather than fake problems from a time of prosperity.
There are existing startup incentive programs...
The point of CARES is to keep existing revenue-generating businesses open, and their employees paid.
And quite frankly, as a former techie it's kind of disgusting that people in the tech community are complaining that their employee-free, revenue-free, 1-day-old startup doesn't qualify for a program intended to keep existing, otherwise viable businesses (absent COVID19) running and their employees paid. This is not the time for the tech community to launch yet another regulatory arbitrage startup that exploits everyone else.
The point of CARES is to keep existing revenue-generating businesses open, and their employees paid.
And quite frankly, as a former techie it's kind of disgusting that people in the tech community are complaining that their employee-free, revenue-free, 1-day-old startup doesn't qualify for a program intended to keep existing, otherwise viable businesses (absent COVID19) running and their employees paid. This is not the time for the tech community to launch yet another regulatory arbitrage startup that exploits everyone else.
> employee-free
I want to hire people. I'm probably still going to do this, but dip into my savings to do so.
I want to hire people. I'm probably still going to do this, but dip into my savings to do so.
> from a total employment standpoint, there is no difference
There are huge differences. The obvious, but unstated, difference is the existing network of businesses that already work together.
There are huge differences. The obvious, but unstated, difference is the existing network of businesses that already work together.
It's probably overly simplistic to treat jobs as fungible that way.
Efforts to keep existing companies intact make sense. Efforts to encourage support creating new ones do too - but they aren't the same effort as they aren't the same effect (notwithstanding OP's contention that they are).
Efforts to keep existing companies intact make sense. Efforts to encourage support creating new ones do too - but they aren't the same effort as they aren't the same effect (notwithstanding OP's contention that they are).
If we are spending billions or trillions on keeping existing companies intact, surely it's because letting them fail and then rebuilding would be more expensive. If it made sense to just start new businesses, then we wouldn't even be trying to save the old ones.
It costs money to set up a business, plus it's risky. Doesn't make sense to encourage that now. The whole point of giving people money is so that they don't have to recreate existing businesses when things are more normal.
You'll have a better shot at new business grants/loans on the other side of this when they're looking to do stimulus. Right now, they're just trying to minimize the amount of implosions with existing businesses.
Marketing and events, two mainstays for specialty news, have evaporated, and many online pubs don't have enough subscribers.