And sometimes the way to “make something profitable” is buy it, strip it down and sell it off.
2 Likes
I cannot phrase it better. In all honesty, if CBS is not interested in operating Chowhound, then it is better for both parties that CBS sells it.
1 Like
If, at this point, they could even find a buyer.
1 Like
Maybe we should run a kickstarter campaign and offer to buy the archive 
5 Likes
Maybe this should be a separate thread?
I was only kidding. I don’t think they are interested in it…
For sale: Website with storied history and valuable archive. Some cosmetic and structural damage from a recent renovation. Currently undergoing a refinement of its user base to eliminate fractiousness and dissent. Best offer.
2 Likes
small_h, do you work in real estate??? Like it. LOL.
It was just pointed out to me that former CHs are replying to this article. Not a bad idea. Maybe they’ll do a followup.
I don’t. I’m a terrible salesperson. But reasonably good at arranging words.
1 Like
Clearly, the author was neither a Hound nor spent any time comparing the old and New.
This may be cynical, but this article may well be intended as a touniquet or cautery.
I’ve asked this on CH and never got a response. Is there any proof that CH was losing money? A post on CH, an article somewhere, anything?
I just can’t understand how CH can’t at least break even when hundreds of people are providing so much quality content for free.
What is CH ? I have never heard of it .
4 Likes
So true. I don’t know. I was just guessing if it is not profitable. My guess is that Chowhound’s biggest cost is the data storage, maybe? I know there was the Chow side of it which means there is a team of people writing recipes and articles as well.
Problem is. Do they really get much income from anything?
The proof that they were losing money is the fact that they laid off most of their writing staff.
1 Like
To me, that could indicate the Chow side of it was losing money, but not necessarily the discussion boards.
bmorecupcake, without membership fees or advertising, a website has no way to make money. The “old” CH demographic skewed toward middle-aged/senior, a group less likely to click ad links than users who teethed on tablets. It’s reasonable to conclude that neither Chow nor CH were profitable. Before CH was sold to C-net, owner Jim Leff, plus other members, paid the costs of presenting it out of their own pockets. In another HO thread, I suggested that a fee for participation here be considered. Is it unfair for one person to have to pay for it, and a nominal fee is enough to keep away troll/drive-by posters.
1 Like
I also think that a lot of the established CH user base uses an Adblocker and/or simply ignores everything it has no interest in, so there’s that too. Not really sure that’s a demographic thing so much as a productivity thing, but maybe younger users just click more in general.
3 Likes
another model is to solicit voluntary donations from members. somebody has to pay for the bandwidth. I use ad blockers so I contribute to a couple sites.
1 Like
In the long run, we need ads on HungryOnion for sure. fee or donation will not work. Donation is not going to be enough. Fee. It has the problem of be a double edge sword. On one hand, you gain revenue by getting the fee. On the other hand, you will discourage participation due to the fee – considering all the other alternative and yet similar sites do not charge fees. Until HungryOnion is head and shoulder above every other competition there, a fee will not work.
