David Penberthy, editor of The Punch goes all blogwar on Crikey’s arse:
The Punch had expected to get about 80,000 readers (unique browsers) in its first month. The official figures show we ended up with 206,281 readers. This compares to Crikey, which is five years older than us, and had 179,069 readers in the same period.
This funny little niche website run out of Melbourne has been obsessing about us since we launched, and it’s something we regard as proof positive of the navel-gazy bullshit which blights the media landscape, where journos both from the independent blogosphere and big media would much rather talk about each other than the readers.
Penberthy then continues to talk about himself and Crikey instead of the readers:
Oh, and we’d also like to thank Crikey for this piece, where apart from some desperate technical quibbling about their superiority on page impressions, unsurprising given that they’re four years and 11 months older than us, they did at least have the decency to admit that we’ve already got more readers than they have.
Feeling the need to remind everyone that The Punch enjoys the backing of the entire News Ltd conglomerate, I left a comment on the piece:
Which was, of course, duly ignored (The Punch has form). So I tried to engage “Penbo” via Twitter:
@penbo How many people pay to have The Punch emailed to them every day?
To which he replied:
@GrodsCorp none
Keen to keep talking, I quickly asked:
@penbo Why no publish my comment on your story?
To which Penbo replied with deafening silence. Australia’s best conversation, apparently.
40 Comments
the irony with the Punch is that despite the enormous News ltd resources at its disposal, the website itself is oldy-worldy, hard to navigate and is incredibly blokey, potentially alienating 50% of would be readers. Yet the “funny little niche website run out of Melbourne” is far more reader-friendly and with more interesting content.
And is it just me or has the punch not been updated for material for 2 days now?
Judging by the tone of many of the replies ( of which mine was one) The Punch isn’t exactly shattering the blogworld to its foundations. Penberthy’s ludicrous comparison of Crikey’s figures to The Punch’s actually shows The Punch in a rather unflattering light when you consider the massive syndication it enjoys. Ha!
As I said earlier, ‘Imitation is the most sincere form of flattery’.
Gotta love the punchies comparing themselves to Crikey. You both should do well now. Location theory, and all o that: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Location_theory
If the best place for a clothes shop is right next to a clothes shop, where is the best place for a blog?
The Punch had expected to get about 80,000 readers (unique browsers) in its first month. The official figures show we ended up with 206,281 readers. This compares to Crikey, which is five years older than us, and had 179,069 readers in the same period.
What a buch of crap! The second and third figures can be sourced as to their accuracy but what about the first figure for the expected readership of 80k? How do we know the expected readership wasn’t 300k or more? I reckon he’s pulled this out of his arse.
I mean, 80k unique readers for a News blog with all the resources thrown behind it? If correct, they didn’t set their sights too high.
Interesting that they trumpet over the 200k hits when they are linked by the likes of Bolt who tops 1m each month.
I think they will find that unless they improve the quality of the ‘conversation’ then the hits will soon drop off.
Like a crap clothes shop next to a good one.
Feeling the need to remind everyone that The Punch enjoys the backing of the entire News Ltd conglomerate,
huh huh…
So what exactly does that mean in terms of resources? Do you know? If you don’t know that comment looks pretty stupid.
Here’s the reason i think Punch is so successful. Crikey is basically a toilet since the new owners took over. I wouldn’t spend a cent on that leftwing spamsite. When you have drop kicks and idiots like Guy Rundle you drop all pretense of being anything other than hard left, ignorant, bigoted junk.
Punch was able to do so well in short period of time , not because the rest of News was promoting their existence but because it fills a necessary void created by the continued move leftward by Crikey until it becomes a parody or simply fails.
The joke is that how many other left leaning sites Criokey needs to compete with to get paying eyeballs.
Punch will do well because unlike Crikey it wouldn’t hire anyone as deplorable as Guy Rundle.
tee, for someone who thinks the place is a toilet you spend a hell of a lot of time here.
Zoot:
you mean at pure poison? that’s a blog, Zoot, you nimbus.
tee – Do you have any specific issues with Guy Rundle?
Crikey has 180,000 different viewers per month? That’s pretty impressive, I had no idea it was such a widely read website.
zoot that’s easy, tee’s a blog crawler [sic].
Tee publishes at 11.43…8 minutes after I published this in “Not an either/or propositon” two threads away:
What’s irking the Right is that they are being challenged on an even playing-field. How facile this argument is can be judged by the insults they ritually hurl at bloggers who have the temerity to criticise them: puerile, abusive, name-calling…..all features far more in keeping with the hitherto-shameful standards of the News Ltd blogs of Andrew Bolt, Piers Akerman and Tim Blair.
Bingo!
you mean at pure poison? that’s a blog, Zoot, you nimbus.
tee – PP is a crikey blog.
isn’t a nimbus a car made by mitsubishi or a broom stick in harry potter?
did you mean nimrod – it means dipstick. it’s also an album by green day.
Don’t let the door hit you on the way out, tee. Actually, DO let it hit you. Seriously, if your purpose here is to simply bag crikey/Guy Rundle in your every post, you’re simply trolling. Surely you have better things to do with your time than trolling at a site you consider to be “a toilet” and a “leftwing spamsite”.
I hate to generalise but I think News Ltd and thePunch’s biggest problems are more to do with their target demographic. The biggest part of the Daily Tele’s and the Herald Sun’s readership are blue collar workers who are hardly spending their days or spare time reading online blogs and if they are their much more likely to be reading sport and celebrity type dross. The older conservative demographic that News Ltd attracts for publications like the The Australian are not in general big computer users although that may well change.
More importantly anyone who spends any time with people under the age of 30 especially those with a tertiary education quickly finds that the conservative parties have a huge demographic support problem, so apart from the rusted on young liberals type who else in that age group is actually reading thePunch?
I reckon josh is right. Here are the demographics for the tele, here for the Hun, and here for the Oz.
The Australian has more older readers, and a larger proportion of professional/managers category. It’s not hard to say exactly who the punch is aimed at (definitely men) and given the choice of stories more the Tele and Hun readers than the Oz in the news ltd stable.
Fred says:
Don’t let the door hit you on the way out, tee. Actually, DO let it hit you.
Freddie, try something original and why don’t you sod off? Twerp.
Seriously, if your purpose here is to simply bag crikey/Guy Rundle in your every post, you’re simply trolling.
Stop being an idiot, this is the only time that I’ve bagged the useless oxygen thief, Rundle.
Surely you have better things to do with your time than trolling at a site you consider to be “a toilet” and a “leftwing spamsite”.
I do have better things to do than read Croakey. I don’t read it and it’s offensive that you would even suggest I do.
Good analysis, Confessions… NOT.
Have you considered the fact that people, normal, regular half way intelligent people tend to become more conservative as they grow older, which means the Oz’s supply of readers is inexhaustible unless of course Greenland melts and kills off the entire human race next year or the one after.
Here’s a good reason why people move away from Farleftfax and why those idiots are going broke… slowly and painfully, which is a good thing..
(P)utting the passport in the bottom drawer would really hurt the people who probably care most about global warming. Those who have seen the world are likely to have not only a pile of frequent-flyer points but an affinity with the inhabitants of countries most imperilled by global warming.
that’s a dill …. sorry Adele Horin in farleftfax and why it’s loses readership. Why pay for a stupid read is what most people are saying to themselves as they buy the OZ instead of Farleftfax.
Good analysis, Confessions… NOT.
tee, try something original.
I won’t bother with the ad hominem abuse.
As I said, trolling. And personal abuse. All class, tee.
Tee: One of the signs of political nitwitism gone feral is when a commenter resorts to facile name calling-(farleftfax)? In this case about as mind-numbingly inane, inaccurate and incorrect a tag as anything I’ve ever read. What do you hope to prove by such porcine self-indulgence?
You seem to think getting older and more conservative means switching to the Oz. It has been my observation at news agencies that the owners of the withered old claws shaking with Parkinson’s disease and holding the precious small change, request more of the same. Not a sudden change of publication.
One of the many reasons the Age has hit the knackers yard was it’s slowness to deal with the on-line section of their readers. Which means the grandsons/daughters of the old crones were interested in reading it but the Age badly miss-read this much more technically savvy market. Whereas their-in your lexicon of tantrum-competitors the Herald Sun and the Oz both had instantly accessible on-line service.
As for your foetid applause for Punch, it’s very funny. No matter how much you care to dress it up rubbish, is rubbish, is rubbish.
Excellent that Scott’s publishing Tee’s posts. No better confirmation exists of the whole ratbag-Right attitude: you can’t mount a cogent argument, so you resort to abuse. No wonder you’re not going to win the next election….
Venus asks:
What do you hope to prove by such porcine self-indulgence?
Self indulgence is what I hope to prove, Venus. But not on my part.
iOne of the signs of political nitwitism gone feral is when a commenter resorts to facile name calling-(farleftfax)?
It is?
In this case about as mind-numbingly inane, inaccurate and incorrect a tag as anything I’ve ever read
No it’s not. It’s an accurate representation of their target audience. Who after all.. What half way decent and intelligent person ever commit in public to reading Adele Horin’s garbage? Who far that matter who pay Horin to write such nonsense? And she isn’t the only one there either.
You seem to think getting older and more conservative means switching to the Oz. It has been my observation at news agencies that the owners of the withered old claws shaking with Parkinson’s disease and holding the precious small change, request more of the same.
More of the same as in what: The Age and the SMH? Hahahahahaha. You’re kidding right? Is that why their readership has collapsed to about 3 houses in Balmain and North Fitzroy? The Age is on its last legs.
One of the many reasons the Age has hit the knackers yard was it’s slowness to deal with the on-line section of their readers.
No, not really. The reason The Age is basically almost 6 feet under is that it has become a dull and lifeless paper especially when it has dull and lifeless writers there. It also doesn’t realize that it’s not matching its target readership, which are inner suburban green party supports and the advertisers such as high-end retailers etc. Trying to entice Hives Hamilton sympathizers is going to get people running through the door at DJ’s and if they did, I would be more concerned with shop lifting.
Which means the grandsons/daughters of the old crones were interested in reading it but the Age badly miss-read this much more technically savvy market.
That’s not true. Regardless of what you say The Age was actually pretty quick to establish a role in the electronic media.
Whereas their-in your lexicon of tantrum-competitors the Herald Sun and the Oz both had instantly accessible on-line service.
Untrue. Both these papers know their target markets very well and seem to match their advertisers and the readership pretty well. They do their job pretty well.
As for your foetid applause for Punch, it’s very funny. No matter how much you care to dress it up rubbish, is rubbish, is rubbish.
Compared to what say Guy Rundle has to offer, which is really a form of intellectual abuse.
Sceptic, Fredie;
Please keep to the body of the thread and this tit for tat thing really gets dull after a while. Show some self control.
Monkey :
Why assume I would be a Liberal party supporter? If you make that assumption, you would of course be wrong.
As for you feigning fake outrage, please spare us. Freddie and the other two started this abuse by calling me all sorts of names.
And stop sucking up to Scott to as it’s very off putting and detracts from the site.
tee: again with Guy Rundle.. Did he run over your dog or something?
Tee, whilst I agree that historically older people have tended to become more conservative can you be sure that will continue. Its a bit chicken and egg I think. Did they naturally become more conservative and as a result start reading more conservative media such as the Oz, or as they became older did they become more interested in reading papers and develop conservative leanings because that’s what they were feed a constant diet of?
Also historically as people get older they become more resistant to change, hence their conservatism, but that was in an age where people left school early embarked on a job/career path, married young and spent their life with one partner and in one job. Young people now have a very different life journey ahead of them. For one thing the one’s that will survive and flourish are those that can continuously change and adapt. Are they likely to be conservative in later life? I personally doubt it. Also far to many hard right ideological conservatives, especially of the sort that have captured large parts of the Liberal party in NSW have a very hardline Christian social agenda. How much electoral appeal do you think they have and will have to generations of youth who as they age may have had many many relationships, who have friends who are gay or living in non-traditional relationships?
Finally even if a significant number do become more conservative again do you think they will be what is tradionally thought of as conservative? Your talking about generations brought up with universal health care, reasonably generous welfare etc etc. Do you think any “conservative” government in the future will be able to undo those things? I don’t, so what then qualifies as conservative in the future?
if you feed the troll his/her abusive, rambling bullshit will continue.
best to ignore tee rather than waste energy responding with stuff s/he doesn’t understand in any case.
Dam:
He irritates the hell out of me. Dam. I’m Ra, please don’t tell me you’ve forgotten about me so soon.
How’s that air so far north? Have you suffered oxygen deprivation yet? Lol.
We used to have good stoushes at Lefty’s site and I hope there was no bad feelings with you losing every single one.
Josh,
I was responding to Venus’ inane comments about why farleftfax is at the abattoir looking to get the bolt in between the eyes. I’m calling it clinically dead and the time of death is 8.06 pm.
Here’s the thing, will people continue to become conservative in later life? Possibly as I see no other evidence to suggest they won’t. Perhaps someone as untalented as Guy Rundle will continue to spout astonishingly stupid views all his life. That certainly a possibility and a real likelihood knowing him.
What you are implying is that political gravity is likely to move away from the right and stay with the left because the younger population (who is left) will remain that way. Possible, however I highly doubt it.
And the other thing is that despite the ALP winning the last election the country essentially remains a 50/50 nation with 5% swinging it for either party.
However that has nothing to do with the discussion. The oz does well because it’s a lively newspaper and people continue to buy it because it’s a fun interesting read. You may disagree with it but it’s a fun read. Neither The Age or the SMH is a fun read. They are boring and dull. The op-ed is predictably bad with Guy Rundle types populating the page and spouting complete garbage that resembles a conveyor belt of Hives Hamilton replicants.
I’ll continue to read the Oz.
Do I think a conservative government will undo certain things? Of course but I won’t hold my breath as they’re just as statist as the ALP in most ways. Here’s the thing with the ALP i know that will turn into a bad marriage and the end result will be violence. The conservatives are basically the type will make all sorts of promises that they won’t beat me up again that turns into a lie. I possibly vote more for the conservatives as I suffer battered wives syndrome.
Universal heath care produces bad outcomes and statist intervention like right now. The government is doing its best to lengthen the lines for surgery as a way to hold back spending.
It won’t last the next 20 years in its present form and will go the same way as pensions.
Monkeywrench@21: “No better confirmation exists of the whole ratbag-Right attitude: you can’t mount a cogent argument, so you resort to abuse. No wonder you’re not going to win the next election….”
Whats that about tarring everyone with the same brush?? You’re more intelligent than that. And who’s this royal “you’re”?? Is it analagous to the royal “we”?
Oi, youse lefties, your all like….hippies and shit…get a job…
A ridiculous argument…as was your post.
Quick question -does Pure Poison also see the Crikey publication as a target?? Sort of like how Media Watch doesn’t mind having a go at ABC programs or radio shows??
Or is there a formal or informal policy of not critisizing those who pay you? Not having a go – not a lot of media companies don’t appreciate their employees having a go at the parent publication but I just wanted to ask if you have rules/guidelines in place regarding commenting on the Crikey publication.
It’s about disclosure.
I meant: not a lot of media companies appreciate……
So, Baldrick: you claim to be not just Right, but explicitly of the ratbag Right?
Glad we’ve cleared that up, then.
“What half way decent and intelligent person ever commit in public to reading Adele Horin’s garbage?”
I think you just did.
Yes Catsidhe…that it. You nailed it in one.
Thing is, Baldrick, when we use the term Ratbag Right, it is, in our minds anyway, to define someone of the right who “can’t mount a cogent argument, [and so] resort to abuse.”
If that’s a title you’re happy to live with, given that this is practically a term of art in this community, then fine. It at least gives notice that we don’t need to take notice of a single thing you say.
If you have a different definition for the term, please let us know so that we can translate out of your language.
Guy Rundle is one of the best writers in Australia today, both from command of the issues and technical ability to write. I could read his stuff with my hair on fire.
Catsidhe@34 – now we have the royal “our”??? You speak for many young Skywalker….
The ultimate point I was trying to make is that I dislike abuse of people who see themselves as the right (that’s anywhere from the centre to the far right) as much as I dislike abuse of people of the left (same definition).
Call someone a ratbag?? Go for it. Back it up. But tarnishing supposed political leanings as monkey did is a bit rich. For every “ratbag right” I can easily show you a “ratbag left”…most of them write for GLW! I expected discourse to be a little bit more mature here.
haranguemikey@35: “I could read his stuff with my hair on fire.”
So he has anaesthetic properties???
My name is Legion, for I am many.
My point being that in my experience, ‘Ratbag Right’ refers to precisely that subset of The Right which is unreliable, ad hominem, frothy, reactionary, and unable to spell syllogism, let alone to construct one. ‘Ratbag Right’ deserves a title, as it is an identifiable proper subset of The Right. And I say ‘we’ because when I use the term, others around here seem to understand me perfectly well. Except when some people decide to try and play semantic games, and get it wrong.
So, in summary: in my understanding, which is to the best of my knowledge the common understanding in this place, ‘Ratbag Right’ is a term referring to a subset of the Right, that subset being of the worst, less-intelligent-than-they-think-they-are, provocative-for-its-own-sake, noisy useful idiots. The need for a special term for same explicitly supposes the existence of the non-ratbag right, which is more than Bolt and Blair (inter alia) are capable of doing for the Left.
And of course there is a Ratbag Left. But they don’t tend to come comment here.
Tee: Thank you so much for the lecture re my comment. I’m flattered that you should have taken so much time and effort with my humble entry.:)
As you will notice this comment is being written about two weeks after your lengthy corrections. Perhaps, if you had got my name halfway right I would have seen your comment before this.
Venise
26 July 2009