Ongo, with Alex Kazim as its CEO, was started with a $12 million first tranche of funding (not bad) from Gannett Company, The New York Times Company, and The Washington Post Company (not VC firms at all), it combines the following established news print media brands: The Associated Press, The Guardian, Slate, The Boston Globe The Miami Herald, USA TODAY, Financial Times, New York Times Picks, The Washington Post, The Indy Star, The Kansas City Star, The Miami Herald, Charlotte Observer, Detroit Free Press, The Fort Worth Star-Telegram, and other print titles. (not The San Francisco Chronicle as of this writing.)
You have to subscribe to get its information, which is news content from those publications. Ongo is an "inny" or what's called a "closed loop." A system, (1) the existence of which you have to know about as a brand, and then (2) information's sent out to you and (3) only after you pay for it.
That's three reasons why Ongo's going to have a hard time building revenue off the $12 million start. Here's another problem.
As of this writing (in case they fix it), I go to the Ongo website, and right at the top I see three links: "Ongo Is.., How Ongo Works, and in large letters, SUBSCRIBE.
Ok, so I click on SUBSCRIBE expecting to know what the cost to do so is, right? Makes sense. When I click on the link, I'm taken to a page that's just a bunch of simple HTML entry fields, and nothing - not a thing - telling me how much the subscription is, and for how long. According to The Examiner's Romona Paden, it's $6.99 per month, but that must have come from the PR folks, because guess what...it's not listed on the dog-on Ongo website!
And I'm supposed to just enter my credit card number anyway? As the folks on ESPN's NFL Prime Time say "C'MOM MAN!"
So, I'm looking around to find out the cost of subscription to Ongo, and I can't find a single mention of a price.
That's bad.
It's also a major deterrent to getting subscribers.
Kevin Skaggs, who did a good job of running SFGate.com, is the Chief Content Officer for Ongo, so this business falls into his lap. Kevin, you should have called me to beta test the damn thing, because I'd have pointed this problem out straight away then, instead of now, in print, online.
Or, that could be why you didn't call me. But I digress.
NY Times Really Committed To This?
If the New York Times is really committed to this new media effort, it could promote it at NY Times.com. But, there's no top link with the Ongo logo in it. In fact, the Facebook login button, a great way to promote Facebook, is prominent.
Ongo Arrogance
The problem with Ongo, called Hulu for news, is the idea that people want to get their news from a bunch of newspaper brands that are dying in print. The problem with not having any basis in a real open-loop, web platform, competing for search engine space with other brands, is the ability to piggy-back off popular stories online and gain subscribers and views, and value, is totally lost. This was a bad idea.
I see the "immediate" cognitive hit that making a "Hulu for news" is to those who don't know how to make their own websites, but the fact is print does not have one thing going for it that television has: TV makes its own original content.
Because TV makes original content, I can go to Hulu and see shows that are hard to get online anywhere else. Ongo's not presenting original online content, just stuff that I can get at The Huffington Post. Which was just bought by AOL for $315 Million.
The fact that Gannett, and not a VC firm, made this $12 million investment is telling. It means no VC would touch it for that much money. VC's want to see page view potential - something like 4 billion unique visitors a year. That calls for an online platform that Ongo is not - now.
I wish Ongo and Kevin luck, but this "inny" thinking's not the way to go.
No comments:
Post a Comment