The SeattlePI.com is reportedly hiring 20 ad reps—does that number strike anyone else as high-bordering-on-deranged? Web advertising, like all other forms of advertising, is cratering; and is there a local web-only publication/links-a-thon anywhere that employes 20 ad reps? Does Crosscut employ that many ad reps? Does Gawker? Does anyone?
UPDATE: The managing editor at Gawker tells me that he doesn’t know the exact number of ad reps currently on staff there, “but it has to be under a dozen.”
But will wine be made available for them?
It isn’t bizarre at all when you think about it. Especially when you compare it to Gawker.
Semi-related:
Note to those of you who never actually read the printed PI: thanks for being jackasses and taking all the papers from the machines this morning so that regular folks can’t get a copy. And no, you’re not going to get $100 for them on ebay.
@3 – Yeah, how dare those non-regular folks get up early and get a significant newspaper from a public newspaper machine before your lazy ass did. You’re REGULAR, after all, and they’re not. You DESERVE IT MORE.
@stinkbug
yeah — well at least they’re printing a second run today. I had to walk down the block for mine. The Times box right out front was still full. Jackasses indeed. 🙂
That is insanely high. Where’d you get this bit of information. I think the Times employees about 30 display reps total and that’s to sell into the Times and PI. Or they were.
Think anybody will do a “shits in the PI” today? Hmm?
You didn’t read the full coverage on why they’re hiring 20 reps. They’re going to try to build an online advertising operation, of which the P-I will be a part, but which will also encompass an existing white/yellow pages operation at Hearst, etc.
In fact, the rumor is that they might float the operation out to offer services to…The Stranger, the Weekly, and regional newspapers.
Don’t just think PI, Dan, think Hearst.
From the NYT article: “Because the newspaper has had no business staff of its own, the new operation plans to hire more than 20 people in areas like ad sales.”
I don’t read that as 20 ad reps, but 20 employees in various business roles, some of whom will be ad reps.
@3 – I fed my bird caviar last night and grabbed my special, greatest hits edition early this morning.
brb gotta steal something from qfc
Shouldn’t the managing editor of Gawker know exactly how many ad reps work there!?
Also, @8 and 9 have it right: Dan, you should really try reading, then thinking, *then* posting some time. It’s how real journalists work.
@13 – Considering how Gawker editors typically last two weeks, max, it isn’t surprising that they don’t know how many ad reps they have.
Hell, I doubt they even know their own editorial staff.
This is a time when Slog could really be stepping up as a local on-line news & commentary source, but instead I’m seeing a lot of misquoted articles, age-ophobic and fat-ophobic rants, pointless rambling by Charles and… hold on, I have to go… free wine!
free wine for everyone! JUST FUCKING STEAL IT!
The Seattle Times article said “10-20” not 20.
@3, if you are a “regular,” why didn’t you have a print subscription?
Considering how old the PI columnists are, who are they going to sell ads to?
WW II vets?
Why would Gawker have an editor? Isn’t it just some celebutard gossip blog?
What’s Crosscut?
I think it’s funny that you assume that just because we found your blog somehow, we all read every obscure blog on the web.
Gawker’s sweatshop business model is hardly one to be emulated, not for any business that wants to keep employees longer than 12 weeks, anyway.
Also, I suspect that the P-I’s new business model absolutely demands enough page views and ad clicks that if 20 ad reps aren’t busy, they’re going to fail — like Gawker has been since the day they opened shop.
Gawker has a business model?
What’s she look like?
Gawker has a business model?
What’s s/he look like?