ChasNote

TechCrunch reported its traffic numbers for 2009. Google is still the #1 source of traffic to the site, bigger than direct traffic. Digg, Twitter and Google Reader round out the top 5 sources:

“Google search is the single biggest source of traffic, although it decreased from 37.3% in 2008 to 29.6% in 2009. Direct traffic is second, at 24% in 2009 (v. 25.3% in 2008). Then there’s a big drop to Digg (5.1% in 2009, 5.3% in 2008), Google sites (Reader, etc. (3.18% in 2009, 4.2% in 2008) and Twitter (2.9% in 2009, 1.2% in 2008). Feedburner, TechMeme, Facebook and Hacker News rounded out the list of top referrers in 2009.”

It’s interesting to see that Facebook doesn’t make the top 5. I’m also surprised that Twitter represents such a small percentage of total traffic, given TechCrunch has more than 1.3 million followers in Twitter. But, hey, I’m not complaining: I love to see that Digg remains TechCrunch’s biggest source of traffic after Google.

More stats on where big sites get their traffic.

From Times Online UK:

“What’s surprising, though, is that the pure-play internet media companies that might have been expected to benefit from the tectonic shifts in the industry have done badly too. Yahoo!, CNET Networks and Interactive Corp all seemed to be in a great position three or four years ago, and yet all three look like they’ll soon cease to exist in their current form as investors express their displeasure with poor stock performance.”

“Part of the explanation for this is simple enough. Yahoo! and CNET could be considered new media versions of old media models; they aim to drive large numbers of people to their pages with expensive investments in content, and monetise that traffic via display advertising. But low-cost blogs — especially in the technology news space that CNET once led — have scooped up a lot of the audience.”

FM, Huffington Post, PaidContent, TechCrunch and others are called out as alternative models.

Research from Swinburne University of Tech says bloggers are better adjusted and have healthier social lives (from TechCrunch). However, “some ‘potential bloggers’ start from a less socially integrated position.” Hmm. If I knew what’s meant by “less socially integrated,” I might be worried about my own well being.

At South By Southwest today, Ask A Ninja’s Kent Nichols explained how his budding media empire makes so much money: The “voodoo bullshit” performed by “sweaty people who drink,” aka, the ad-sales team at FM. While we all do our best to keep our perspiration to a minimum (no comment on drinking), he does have a point. And even if I didn’t agree with the characterization, let’s be honest: I’d never pick a fight with Ninja.

But what is it with the ad-sales-people-are-like-farm-animals stuff? Here’s Arrington at TechCrunch in a comment last week. (The original post discusses FM’s value, valuation and acquisition rumors from a few months back.) A stud?! I’m blushing.

Kent and Mike, thank you both for the kind (and evocative) words!

According to analysis by Richard MacManus at ReadWriteWeb, Ars Technica is the source of 87 front page Digg stories in the past 30 days, making Ars the top source for Digg conversations. Gizmodo and Engaget are close behind, filling out the top three. TechCrunch, GigaOM, VentureBeat, ReadWriteWeb and Mashable are other FM sites in the top ten. These are the brands that start the conversations, while Digg spreads the conversation to a much wider audience.

Techmeme’s Leaderboard does a similar analysis of sites-of-origin for stories tracked by its service. For the past 30 days, the top ten (in order) is TechCrunch, CNET, Engadget, NY Times, Ars Technica, ReadWriteWeb, Silicon Alley Insider, WSJ, The Register, and PaidContent.

From TechCrunch, which takes a look at Nielsen NetRatings numbers over the past few months. Andreessen was right, the strike is launching digital video into the mainstream. Add that to the cancellation of the Golden Globe Awards (the Oscars might be next) and NBC giving money back to advertisers, the Writers’ strike will go down as the turning point for video online.

If I’m going to toot my horn every time an FM partner says something nice about us (like Digg’s Kevin Rose and BoingBoing’s Cory Doctorow did last week on This Week in Tech, or Metafilter’s Matt Haughey did from the podium at Webvisions or the Newsvine gang did at their blog), I better air the dirty laundry too!

Today at TechCrunch, Mike Arrington expressed his discontent with FM. He feels we’re keeping too much of the money we earn for him:

“I think more ad networks are good things, but mostly because they will compete with the other networks and drive margins inevitably down. I consider the 40% I pay FM Publishing, my agent, way too high. But they are still a young service and I’m sticking with them. Eventually, though, they will have to fall to more sustainable levels or risk losing their bigger properties. As blogs get larger, hiring an in-house sales person becomes much more reasonable that paying ad networks 40-50% of total revenue.”

Maybe he’s right. But at the twenty-odd print magazines and websites for which I’ve worked (and had access to the P&Ls) over the past 14 years, the expenses associated with editorial and content production are in the 12-24% range. The other 76-88% of the costs are for SG&A — salespeople, account managers, IT (especially ad-server development & operations), research, accounting, and collections. Outsourcing 80% of your cost structure in exchange for 40% of the revenue may not be such an unfair deal in the end.

Mike D. at Newsvine weighed in to the discussion at TechCrunch with this (thank you, Mike D.!):

“With regards to FM, the real question for them — I believe — is whether the premiumness of the network they are creating is going to translate into noticeably higher CPMs than standard run-of-site ads in the long term. We think it might, so that’s the theory for now. Since the time we posted that Newsvine article, FM has actually sold almost our entire site out — at good CPMs — and that’s great. Couldn’t have come at a better time either as we’re doing record traffic. If this continues, I’d say FM is worth the 40% for now (other networks can take as much as 60% by the way) — although you’re right that competition can drive this down. I think what’s good about the strategy you’ve taken at TechCrunch is that you allow for the outsourced sale of targeted CPM ads (by FM) but you are still able to sell sponsorships yourself and keep 100%, as well as other revenue opportunities. In the end, targeted CPM ads (and thus, FM) should only be one component of a revenue stream.

We have indeed built our own ad system in-house and it’s ready to roll whenever we need it….

It’s really not a question of serving, tracking, or any of the other operational aspects of ad serving for us. It’s more about the selling. As an early stage company, you have two options for selling your ads: do it yourself with a full-time sales staff or outsource it. AdSense tends to make people believe that the entire advertising world is just a question of building up traffic and then letting the ads pour in automatically, but the reality is that a good sell through rate at a good CPM requires a dedicated sales staff, whether it’s internal or external.

By building our own ad system in-house, we can use FM as long as it’s a valuable relationship (which it is), and then if god forbid something goes south, we’ve got the flexibility to plug in other options or do everything ourself. Right now, we’re happy though.

My sentiments exactly!