Comments on: CNET Networks CEO Sounds Off on Bloggers

By: OnlyLady Facebook Group

OnlyLady Facebook Group — Mon, 17 Dec 2007 03:53:58 +0000

Great acquire by CNET. OnlyLady got strong customer group and buying power focused on cosmetics and skin care products. CNET will make a good fortune on OnlyLady advertisings. BTW: OnlyLady also got a facebook group: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=7646126325

By: Zacharias

Zacharias — Wed, 07 Nov 2007 17:55:17 +0000

Cnet, as a site, is such a mess of advertising, yellow, and okay writing it looks like a Sprint store.

It seems like they tried really, really, really hard to earn that $95 million. Type in the cnet.com, go ahead, and prepare for a page that’s 45% ads, 45% navigation (1/2 are ads, too), and 10% content (which is of course, ad supported).

If you need that many damned advertisements to make money, why bother?

By: dave mancuso

dave mancuso — Wed, 31 Oct 2007 20:50:47 +0000

mark evans is out of his gourd if he believes even a word of what he wrote. sorry folks, but reading the comments here, i don’t believe that any of you have a clue about quality. me wonders whether any of the posters here might actually work for one of those blogs. mmmmm?

By: Mark Evans

Mark Evans — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 20:15:05 +0000

CNet and Engadget are two different animals so not sure why Ashe is so concerned about. That said, if you’ve ever checked out some of CNet’s blog, it may just be a case of envy given none of them are close to Engadget or Gizmodo.

By: Water Portal

Water Portal — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 08:30:19 +0000

I am just not getting why blogs like TC attack CNet, and CNet fights back, CNet is not a blog network like Weblogs Inc. is and its more like an news or reviews portal or a little old fashioned blog network.
I mean these websites are different, they should not compete or attack each other.

By: JrffH

JrffH — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 07:54:42 +0000

“CNET is materially bigger than anyone who claims to be competing with us” Well that may be, but you are loosing money while many of your ‘competitors’ are break even or in the black. Big and bulky does not necessarily mean better or more cost effective. I do not see the login in your inference that ‘We are bigger, therefore we are more relevant’. It just doesn’t fly.

By: Greg C. B

Greg C. B — Tue, 30 Oct 2007 06:18:04 +0000

To piggyback, I guess… CNet is a whole different animal than Engaget or Gizmodo. CNet seems a bit bloated to me, kind of old-modelish. It’s a decent resource for, say, comparing prices of relatively new electronogadgets. But then again, it doesn’t take long to string together a few blog feeds (covering more specific niches and with greater attention to detail) to be more on-the-beat with prices, reviews, specs, news… or anything else you want, really.

I don’t think anyone really questioned that CNet is a bazillion times larger than a Gizmodo. But add a few more blogs to the equation, and that sum easily beats CNet’s offerings (and, to pull out some more arbitrary number crunching, these blogs probably put out their content 20-50x more efficiently than CNet).

By: Joann Loos

Joann Loos — Mon, 29 Oct 2007 18:31:36 +0000

Good for CNet. But I only go to their website AFTER I’ve decided to buy something like a printer to look at their reviews. I decide to buy something from seeing it in Engaget or Gizmodo. And if they’ve suggested a particular model, I’ll skip CNet completely.

More readers does NOT equal more power. More targeted readers do.