The Economic Issues Of e-Politics

h/t to Fausta for the link to Parcbench.

The evidence that can be gleaned is that Arianna and her gang of 100 acolytes that “staff” the Po have a burn rate of maybe $1M/month, giving the Po about a 24 month shelf life (from last December, giving them about a year to live … unless they get a new cash infusion).

Through previous business experience, I've been involved intermittently in discussions on monetizing web initiatives now for well over a decade. And that involves non-political projects. During a more recent meeting, a savvy politically-oriented player with his own initiative said he had come to the conclusion a for profit model just won't work. If that's generally true, and I'm not conceding that it is, it wouldn't be a big surprise given the history of political publishing.

Putting aside the ideological and particular focus on HuffPo, the Parcbench piece is also a worthwhile read as regards the economics of e-political punditry and activism. With a few worthwhile exceptions, it will not thrive without philanthropic support. One would think the Right would get that given that publications such as NRO and The Weekly Standard have bled philanthropic dollars for years. They aren't business concerns, so much as they are vanity publications for rich Republicans. It's important to understand that in reading their content.

By and large, they aren't written for you folks. Their primary job is pleasing the deep pockets that feed them so they can keep raising money to survive. So, don't look for them to go too far off the Republican plantation any time, soon. It ain't going to happen. They'd be as broke as are most bloggers, at least as regards their blogging pursuits.

While her financials aren't our, or my business, Michelle Malkin may be one of the few exceptions on the Right. And it at least seems Hot Air was the shrewd move of a very smart woman who understands the space and her own brand. At least, I hope that's the economic case, as I always admire innovators and people who accomplish significant things. Nevertheless, she did have an accomplished and successful brand with which to start.

But with all due respect to Michelle, how many of her are there? And how many of those are actually willing to come out here and be an integral part of the whole?

Certainly Instapundit is another extremely notable exception on the center-Right. I doubt there will ever be another one of him. You'd have to manufacture it from circuit boards, mp3s, law journals and sci fi mags. Don't look for mass production any time soon.

Sure, there's Lucianne - in some ways, a true original like Glenn Reynolds and Michelle. But that's a different animal, though the site certainly involves itself in the affairs of the blogs with outbound links, shared readers, and such. There's Free Republic, as well, of course. You won't find that shared space instinct so prominently at NRO, or many of the other old line Right media outlets who mostly imported the same old boring (to the grassroots) product on to the Internet. And I believe RedState is for the most part funded as a genuine blog.

It could be argued that many of them drink up Right-side funding dollars in older, inefficient and often expensive models that offer little benefit to Republicans beyond the Beltway crowd such as it is. Just don't let them know you made the argument, or they may not like you very  much. Fortunately for me, I don't generally have that concern. heh!

In fairness to NRO, Jim Geraghty is something of an exception as an individual. But he's still a part of the institution that he is and must be accountable to it in some fashion.

There is one thing I will concede though. Genuine grassroots activism on either side of the political spectrum can not succeed without money behind it. That has always been true on the Left. If Republicans of any stripe want it, sooner or later, someone other than a bunch of cash-strapped bloggers is going to have to pay for it if it is to be as truly effective as some might like it to be.

Comments

[Jana]

Exactly how far off the Republican plantation are these publications supposed to go? TWS and NR regularly publish worthwhile pieces that appeal to many active base partisans. When you write posts like this, you sound not much more politically savvy than those who advocate taking their conservative ethos to a third party, where it is bound to wilt into obscurity. The Democrats have never been more true to their liberal ideals as they are now, and thus are struggling with their 60 vote magic majority. This should be an object lesson for purists who decry those who deviate from their particular brand of "authentic" conservatism.

[montee]

Jana. I don't think Dan was saying that NRO or TWS are bad publications neither was he recommending that they should or shouldn't leave the "Republican plantation". He was just pointing out that those who might expect a more intensely partisan brand of politics that drives against the current "Republican plantation" might want to look elsewhere. Like most will say follow the money.

[Dan Riehl]

Precisely, Montee. You get an "A" for reading comprehension. lol

[Tennwriter]

Vanity publications is the wrong idea. Think Propaganda bureaus instead.

[Brad Schwartze]

Tennwriter,

Those "propaganda bureaus" also have high cash-burn rates. HBO, TNT, and TBS tend to cover CNN's lack of profits for TimeWarner. USA Network and Bravo (and ironically, CNBC) tend to pay MSNBC's bills for NBCUniversal.

And while FoxNews is said to be profitable on a standalone basis, I don't think conservative activists necessarily hail that model as the way to go (especially given certain conservatives' disdain for Sean Hannity).