Consumerist Is For Sale

Economic times being what they are, Gawker must refocus its efforts on its most commercially successful blogs. Which means, yes, The Consumerist is for sale.

We seek a new home where our kickass blogging team can continue to thrive and grow. We get 14m+ pageviews according to Sitemeter, and 2m+ uniques according to Quantcast. Direct inquiries to gaby@gawker.com.

Comments

Edit Your Comment

  1. Crim Law Geek says:

    Weird, I didn’t realize it was April already!

  2. MostlyHarmless says:

    Aww :’(
    Please find a new home for this biting puppy.
    [White House maybe?]

  3. FightOnTrojans says:

    Will we have to show a receipt on the way out?

  4. InThrees says:

    Does Gawker have the code in place to determine how many click-forwards from a Consumerist to a money site actually result in ad revenue or click-throughs?

    • sporesdeezeez says:

      @InThrees: I’d think at that point it becomes pretty much a function of code that advertisers have on their e-commerce site. That or Gawker spyware. It’d be pretty hard to track a browser that far, but it’d be easy to track a shopper and see where they were referred from.

      In fact, I’d guess the latter is already in place and being used by advertisers to determine the return on investment for ad spaces.

      In other news, I am glad you all are optimistic. I am too. In the downsizing thread, I opined that Consumerist may be able to work in a non-profit incarnation. Maybe team up with “Nader’s Raiders” or something. I don’t know the non-profit, NGO scene that well, but I’d expect there’s something that could fit. I’m sure somebody who knows that scene better than me could be more informative…(hint hint @ more informed person).

      What’s fair market value for Consumerist, anyway? Ballpark figure?

      • Ein2015 says:
        • usa_gatekeeper says:

          @Ein2015: Yes, that would sound about right, give or take $100k … IF all the viewers see the ads. However, many of us use ad blocking with our browsers and, except for the links on the left, never see any ads on Consumerist … or anywhere else for that matter.

          In that environment, a non-profit incarnation might be the better way to go. :)

      • Haltingpoint says:

        @sporesdeezeez: Actually, it can be easily done via affiliate programs and frankly given the nature of the content on Consumerist I’m shocked that they don’t at least partially monetize by pay-per-action offers (with full disclosure of course).

        Those who switch over from ad revenue to PPA typically find they make a LOT more money if their traffic is targeted enough.

  5. Hastin says:

    Irony at it’s best. You would figure a company blogging about the downturn would be able to keep THE blog about how it affects our consumerism habits in the green.

    • Hastin says:

      Darn spellchecker switched “its” to “it’s”!

    • bria says:

      Consumerist doesn’t take ads because it’s a consumer-rights related website.

      Ever visited another Gawker website? Huge ads all over the place.

      Therefore, Consumerist doesn’t make lots of money for Gawker and apparently Gawker is putting its resources into sites that are making money.

  6. Gokuhouse says:

    First they reduced the staff and now they are selling it! Well, let’s just hope the next person/company to buy it treats the Consumerist better.

  7. misteral says:

    Please, for the love of FSM. When you pack everything up, remember to use only the correct number of appropriately sized boxes.

  8. baristabrawl says:

    But I like this site. *sigh* This is such a valid site. It’s so worthwhile. What else does Gawker do?

  9. falc says:

    what what what?!?!?!

    Internet Conspiracy Theorists: Unite!

    1) Consumerist does a story badmouthing the innerworkings of Goldman Sachs

    2) Consumerist on the chopping block…

    hmmm

  10. savvy9999 says:

    Of 18 titles launched at Gawker Media, we’ve already spun off or shuttered six. Even now, 91% of advertising revenues come from the top six remaining titles. … It’s time to choose which properties make it aboard the lifeboat

    So Consumerist is not top 6? Sacre bleu!

  11. cmcd14 says:

    somebody better pick this up, i check this site religiously. don’t you go dyin’ on me!

  12. Velifer says:

    Gawker’s gonna keep the boobies…
    Intelligent discourse? Not profitable.

    • stre says:

      @Velifer: ha, intelligent discourse! good one! i like consumerist and check it daily but the “discourse” has devolved considerably of late.

  13. Wess says:

    I think i have like a 1000 or so bucks, is that enough?

  14. TheDude06 says:

    Arent you supposed to sell when you are peaking? not tanking? The site the last 2 months is nothing like it was for any 2 month period a year ago.

    If gawker cant make any money from this site, I doubt anyone else could.

    shame!

    • Phil Villarreal says:

      @TheDude06: Your mom the last 2 months is nothing like she was a year ago.

    • midwestkel says:

      @TheDude06: This is how all companies sell. Why would you sell a company if it was making money?

      They sell to someone that has the resources to make it profitable.

      If I had the money I would definitely buy Consumerist. I have some great ideas, vision and direction on ways to get it to make money.

    • Gilbert Tang, Jr. says:

      @TheDude06: I agree with you in part as to your rationale for selling. Indeed it’s ideal to sell a business when it’s most profitable provided your model is to get in, make it great, and get out with a handsome profit.

      If, however, you have a losing proposition on your hands, it pays (literally) to cut your losses and stop the bleeding.

      As for your sentiment toward the last two months’ productivity on the site, I can’t help but agree, but only on the basis of coming to terms with the fact that even though their resources have been severely limited, they still churn out a worthy product.

      These are good people with real-deal, necessary insight, who provide an incredibly important public service. Let us hope, by all means and as opposed to shaming them, that they find another home so they can continue their excellence.

  15. Notsewfast says:

    As much as it might suck, I think breaking with Gawker is the best thing that ever happened to Wonkette. With less corporate oversight, its easier to push the envelope a little bit.

    That being said, if you’re purchased by Rupert Murdoch, cash out and go live on the beach.

    • Joey_Brill says:

      @Secret Agent Man:
      The team at Wonkette is phenomenal. The site is useful as a stepping off point.

      Consumerist is great, but has been reshuffled. It’s unsettled for me. The news is important, provocative, and helpful. It’s more timely than Consumer Reports and has a younger voice.

      A grant? A not for profit? PBS or CNN? Ben Popken will need bigger boobs and taller hair.

    • acrobaticrabbit says:

      @Secret Agent Man: *shudder* if Murdoch buys this I’m throwing my desk and chair out of my 25th floor window with a rope tied around my left foot.

  16. falc says:

    ok everyone… turn off ad-block on the consumerist…

    :-/

  17. geeniusatwrok says:

    weird… the only Gawker Media sites I read are this and Jalopnik. Gawker itself is a preening mess of self-absorbed shit, but I guess that’s what sells ads.

  18. Mr. Guy says:

    unbelievable… this is truly one of the best sites on the web, and in my opinion, the most essential blog in gawker’s stable.

    I’ll buy you guys. One question- can i put it on my credit card? if not, i’ll just take out a second mortgage on my condo, either way it’s cool.

    • Segador says:

      @Mr. Guy: Why don’t we just pay a reasonable subscription? I know I would.

      • PittsburghJen says:

        @Segador: I think that would be a great idea! I’d be more than willing to pay a fee to support what Consumerist does – it’s not found anywhere else (that I know of) and it really fills a need. That said, I’m definitely not willing to do the same for other Gawker blogs – they’re nice to read but not nice enough that I’d pay.

        • jdhuck says:

          @PittsburghJen: Agreed. Sometimes I read Lifehacker and Giz has gone to shit. Many posts on Giz neither make sense, are poorly written or don’t deal with gadgets.
          I love the consumerist and am willing to work to keep it.

          Maybe us ‘users’ could buy it.

          • Con Seannery says:

            @jdhuck: Giz used to be great, but has turned into a half Apple information center, one quarter opinion blog on such and such, one eighth questions and explanations, and one eighth actual gadget blog. Most of the tips on Lifehacker seem to be unnecessary or even taking more time than the problem they are supposed to fix.

          • ninjatoddler says:

            @jdhuck: The Giz has indeed gone to the dumps. Poor quality of writing and childish behavior of the bloggers there in terms of communicating with the site visitors.

          • Segador says:

            @jdhuck: So lets write to Ben then, and explain that this site is something we’re willing to pay to access.

  19. Anonymous says:

    I just hope whoever buys it ditches the horrible layout and restores it to something actually readable. I stopped going to the site months ago and only use the feeds because Gawker screwed up the design so badly. There’s a line between monetizing a site with new ads and a new layout and driving visitors away by screwing everything up, and Gawker crossed it ages ago.

    • jonworld says:

      @WarnerFelange: Yeah, even as a n00b web designer, I have to say that I could do a better design job than Gawker.

    • autoclavicle says:

      @WarnerFelange: If the design wasn’t change to monetize the site, then this place probably would have been sold ages ago.

      As for the design, I don’t have any problems, there’s this thing called “Adblock,” it kind of blocks ads on the internet? Might want to check that out. I imagine it’s difficult designing a site that can handle the traffic load that this site gets.

    • Drunken Economist says:

      @WarnerFelange: Gawker sites look great if you run NoScript + AdBlock + FlashBlock. You can thank Lifehacker for those tips, not me.

      But yeah, one session of Gawker media in Safari [sans PithHelmet] and I was running back to Firefox / Minefield.

    • HRHKingFridayXX says:

      @WarnerFelange: Amen to that. With the new “large print” version, I have to scroll over (thus hiding the ads from my view). Fail, fail, fail.

      I also hope it gets bought out like wonkette, which is much better after the split from gawker.

  20. Marketing NYC says:

    Just hope whoever gets it keeps it dignified

  21. absentmindedjwc says:

    @ext212: I can provide a server :)

  22. krom says:

    Time to go through my blog feeds and dump all the Gawker ones, then. No impressions from me if they’re going to drop a valuable public service like Cist.

    Why is Cist not making enough money for Gawker? Perhaps because it calls companies on their fraud and other illicit revenue-boosting bullshit? Gee. Concept.

    I’m sure they won’t be dumping Fleshbot. Sex sells. Fighting corporate greed doesn’t. This is not news. We see where Gawker leans, though. I hope Gawker chokes on its own vomit.

  23. mac-phisto says:

    here’s hoping wherever you end up is an improvement.

    hey, things around here (meaning the gawker media network) are going downhill anyway. case in point is my embedded google ad box on this page:

    {

    var google_ads = new Array();
    var google_ad;

    here’s hoping your new home doesn’t treat you like the bastard stepchild. hey consumer union, get your ass over here & buy a blog that will help increase your exposure & might generate some new c.r. subscribers!

  24. WhiteTrashLegend says:

    At least when this site sells, I won’t have to see anymore of the stupid Jezebel cross-promotion posts.

  25. gatewaytoheaven says:

    Seriously? SERIOUSLY?

    I hate my life.

  26. calquist says:

    Maybe Sears or Circuit City would be willing to buy some ad space?

  27. oneliketadow says:

    This is probably my favorite blog, so good luck.

    On a pedantic note, I wouldn’t call your blogging team “growing”.

    “We seek a new home where our kickass blogging team can continue to thrive and grow.”

  28. Geblah187 says:

    The Consumerist (and Ben) were on the news, for christ’s sake … and you’re telling me the site isn’t popular?

    Maybe i’m on the wrong computer … is this the Internet or the BIZZARO-NET?

  29. nocturnal99 says:

    No, don’t disappear now, now that I finally bothered registering a handle and commenting every so often!

  30. wickedpixel says:

    lets all pitch in! too bad that free Corp/LLC offer ended yesterday…

  31. elocanth says:

    That doesn’t speak well to Gawker’s business model, if they were surviving on debt alone. What with all the advertisements and CSS-takeovers done for products on their blogs, I figured they’d be doing well. Sorry to hear about that, Ben. I hope it turns out well.

  32. maztec says:

    Phah! You’re own spinoff company! PoG sounds like a good name to me.

  33. What The Geek says:

    @elocanth: While many gawker blogs have what I’m sure are very profitable ad streams (including regular ads, and the CSS takeovers) the consumerist currently has NO ads – meaning it’s not pulling it’s own weight – fiscally speaking, that is. It’s unfortunate, but I suspect this probably has a lot to do w/ the nature of the site. No one wants to advertise on the site that’s gonna call them out on their mistakes, and if the consumerist gave their advertisers a free pass ’cause they are advertisers, then the site would lose credibility.

    I wish the entire consumerist team the best of luck going forward. You all do stellar work, and I’m sure you’ll all land on your feet, regardless of what happens with the consumerist.

  34. IrvCrapper says:

    @Hastin:

    I’ve been snarky and cynical since they hired people to “monitor” comments and fired the writers. I said very, very early that this place was positioning itself to be sold by reducing its overhead and making the opinions expressed less anti-corporate.

    I knew something was up when NO propers came from the ownership when we rose up against the Flagstaff RV seller who tried to back out of the EBay sale. They didn’t want that, and they wanted nothing to do with activism.

    I’m very disappointed, and I told lots of people about this site. It used to be linked to my own blog. I removed that link a month ago.

    I still visit from time-to-time, but notice the number of recycled and only-tangentially related stories reused from the other Gawker websites.

    This is very disappointing and I feel like the ownership has betrayed this community.

    • Rectilinear Propagation says:

      I’ve been snarky and cynical since they hired people to “monitor” comments and fired the writers. I said very, very early that this place was positioning itself to be sold by reducing its overhead and making the opinions expressed less anti-corporate.

      @IrvCrapper: Well that’s new. I’ve never heard anyone accuse the moderator of being in place to get rid of comments that were against the company.

  35. Design3r says:

    The Consumeris, Lifehacker, and Gizmodo should all spin off and join forces against Gawker… Only sites worth reading.

    • Con Seannery says:

      @Design3r: Agreed, Giz has its moments of glory still, I think it’s on the decline, but every time I start to give up on it, it wins me back.

      • jdhuck says:

        @Con Seannery: I Like Frucci’s writing and Erica Ho’s writing. Everyone else seems lost and unable to put coherent ideas together.Giz made a big deal about being adults, then the staff act like a bunch of children. I guess I am getting old…..

  36. donjumpsuit says:

    Your shuttering the Consumerist and I can’t tell the difference between gawker, i09, defamer, valleywag, or jezebel ….. in fact … can someone please explain the difference between these 5 pop-culture blogs?

  37. MercuryPDX says:

    Congrats Nick. Shooting yourself in the foot with this one.

  38. Chad Cloman says:

    This is the only site where I get this type of information, and I’ve found it to be invaluable. I hope you guys stay up and running.

  39. Ein2015 says:

    While I don’t have diddly in the way of cash to help out Consumerist… if any of my time and effort (or writing) could be used to help out, then let me know. (This is where Chris Walters needs to step in and say he’ll buy it!)

  40. CRSpartan01 says:

    @Hastin: First the axing of some staff… now the site is being sold? I guess this really is the beginning of the end.

  41. Ein2015 says:

    @IrvCrapper: It’s interesting to look at the Alexa graph of Consumerist… it’s been relatively inactive since July (at least comparatively).

  42. 12-Inch Idongivafuck Sandwich says:

    Cool, hopefully whoever picks you guys up will not continue to do the stupid stuff Gawker has been doing lately that has been driving me crazy. Things like spending money updating the look/feel (really? stars and hearts?) of the site unnecessarily while there are other IT issues that should be dealt with.

    I’ve been thinking for the last few months how I need to find some new blogs to check out/replace some of these Gawker ones. Now it looks like I may not have to (with this one at least)

    Best of luck finding somewhere cool to go guys…

  43. MercuryPDX says:

    Valleywag is going too…

  44. MooseOfReason says:

    Maybe you could get Mitt Romney’s venture capital to buy it.

    They own Burlington Coat Factory, and part of Burger King. As well as other companies.

    America runs on Consumerist!

  45. Irashtar says:

    The consumerist is vital to the economy! demand bailout money!

  46. DeafChick says:

    If you go, will you bring Carey back?

  47. Valhawk says:

    Consider all remaining Gawker blogs dropped from my reading list, even Kotaku. I won’t stand for a company that marginalizes and then unloads its best blog.

    Bastards!

  48. KhaiJB says:

    saw this coming when they downsized the staff, weekend updates basically stopped and weekday updates slowed right down….

  49. canuckistani says:

    maybe you guys can merge back with Wonkette…they did a great job of satirizing your depressing economic news making me cheerful :)

  50. CupcakeKarate says:

    I throw my hat into the “I’d love to be able to continue to visit Consumerist” ring. Keep us updated on future events!

  51. Segador says:

    I’d pay a reasonable subscription to this site.

  52. Jetfire says:

    dnScoop estimates consumerist.com to be worth $10,885,440.

  53. Crazytree says:

    they gun do you like sploid!

  54. m4ximusprim3 says:

    I would just like to say that I never trusted this “Denton” guy anyway. I think you’re better off without him.

  55. bnet41 says:

    I would think one of the consumer minded non-profits would be the best fit. I wonder how much Gawker wants. Really all you are selling is the domain name, and 2 peoples services. I can’t imagine there is any IP outside of that.

    Sadly this makes sense. It’s hard to get a advertiser in the door when they risk being ripped by a post.

    Traditional media seems to handle this pretty well, but blogs are not in a position yet to dictate to the companies.

  56. elliepants says:

    Sniffle. I’m sorry, consumerist. I heart you guys.

  57. Mr-Mr says:

    Here’s hoping that CBS doesn’t buy you. After all, they’re slowly turning CNET into a CBS mouthpiece.

  58. Crabby Cakes says:

    This is terrible! Let us know what’s going on, I’ll follow you wherever you go!

  59. Whiskey Tango Foxtrot says:

    This totally sucks. Consumerist is my favorite blog, and my first “stop” every morning (as well as several times throughout the day) I have purchased items that have been reviewed here, changed my habits base on information I’ve read, learned new things, I think that of all the websites owned by Gawker, this is by far the best. I can’t believe they’d even consider getting rid of it! I’ll follow you no matter where you go! I just pray we don’t lose Ben!!!!!

  60. RodAox says:

    I hope the new management does not ruin it… aah time to find a new blog…first hsx, now this, eventually I am going to start reading books…. WHY IS GAWKER DOING THIS!!!!! KEEP CONSUMERIST ALIVE! Can we somehow do a community support for consumerist ? the way wikipedia operates….

  61. What The Geek says:

    @IrvCrapper: yea, now that you mention it, I actually submitted a couple of customer service nightmares I went through recently, and none of them got any sort of response from the consumerist staff. The site has been heavy on credit crunch info, and light on “defend the consumer against bad customer service” info. It’s a shame, really – I doubt this site will ever be what it once was again.

  62. Robobagins says:

    Wow. Most of the Gawker blogs have skewed opposite of my tastes and opinions lately, but Consumerist for sale? Maybe you just didn’t fit in with the rest of the family. I hope someone finds it in their wallet to pick up this gem.

    • Traveshamockery says:

      @Robobagins: I agree. I put up with the political overtones on the other sites now, but if Consumerist goes, there’s not a lot keeping me here. (Here being at Gawker)

  63. Heartless says:

    I religiously check consumerist on a daily basis. I’ve also been a longtime reader of other gawker sites, which seem to be going downhill. Yeah, I’m talking to you Kotaku. I find this a shame really, that a blog such as this is getting chopped. This is the type of blog that is more of an alert and non biased when it calls out the bullshit of the corporate world. I hate to see it go, but hopefully someone will pick it up that will continue it’s legacy. I’m done with Gawker Media.

    • MercuryPDX says:

      @Heartless: Yeah, I’m talking to you Kotaku.

      Agreed. You can only take so many “Fanboy Flame Wars” before you realize most of the content can be found elsewhere.

      • Heartless says:

        @MercuryPDX: Not to mention the “Look! Japanese cosplay boobs top 50 countdown!”
        If I wanted that, I’d be hitting up the porn channel. I want my gaming news exactly that – gaming news. Sad really, to see most of Gawker’s sites turn into all this. I’ve always loved most of their media.

  64. endless says:

    Can we expect some good gawker dirt stories once you are sold?

    I wish you guys the best, viva la consumerist!

  65. floyderdc says:

    The BS on the other sites I guess is what people really want. I mean even if the consumerist did allow ads how much money can a person make from it?

    The folks who want the lasted news on a Celbertard or want the latest on Julie Allison are the same who buy crap they don’t need with money they don’t have.

    I would not want to spend advertising money on a site where posters brag about spending $2.75 for food for the week, only shop local, and DIY everything except open heart surgery.

    Sad this was going to be my main connection to the outside world when I moved to my mountain cabin and left society.

  66. wboswell says:

    Well, crap! I love the Consumerist. Hopefully the new owners will treat Ben and the staff with the respect they deserve.

  67. timmus says:

    What pisses me off about this is several months ago I had some very good ideas for improving Consumerist and making it more relevant as a consumer advocacy site. I sent some emails and I never even got a reply back. Apparently Gawker let it be pigeonholed over the past year into nothing more than a blog, and now you see what happens. But Ben and Meg did a great job on the blog.. I’ve been pleased with most of the stories.

  68. originalread says:

    I hope the consumerist doesn’t disappear or get bought up by a company that will sensor the articles.

    This is were I learned how to do an EECB which I got Bank of America to refund my parents hundreds of dollars in bad bounce fees, got Circuit City to finally refund my brother a few hundred bucks, got Chase to help me out with a nasty collection agency chasing me over a merchant dispute (Yes, if the merchant doesn’t agree with your charge back, they can send a collection agency!) and finally the big one this week were I was able to get my parents adjustable mortgage that just adjusted to 12% down to 6% fixed for 30 years!

    Thank you Consumerist for literally saving my family their house and hundreds of thousands of dollars!!!

  69. ChChChacos says:

    You guys can’t die! If you do then my internet world is doomed. I check you multiple times a day, and even check your site before my email in the morning. Long live Consumerist.

  70. bobacus says:

    I got an idea. Change yourselves to a bank and apply for TARP money!

  71. MrWashy says:

    I’m in total agreement.. this completely sucks. There’s only a few blogs I do check daily and this is usually the first. I’m with Segador above, I’d pay a reasonable subscription to maintain the site and it’s brand agnosticism. The tips and advice on here alone are invaluable. Ok, Gawker, come up with a reasonable subscription that will keep this damn good property, not shaft your readers, and keep the bloggers in coffee!

  72. KStrike155 says:

    Nooooooooooo!

  73. humphrmi says:

    I join others in my trepidation. This is by far my favorite blog (it displaced /. two years ago) and even shows up on my own blog’s blogroll. I hope this mess gets worked out, and I wish Gawker appreciated the fact that I came to Consumerist first, and started reading their other sites from here.

    Good luck. Sorry I can’t buy it.

  74. allstarecho says:

    Consumerist doesn’t take in much advertising money because, well, the exact very same advertisers could be the focus of a “shame on them” story. Kind of makes sense.

  75. hipersons says:

    maybe if we all start clicking on the google adds we consumerist can stay the way it is!

  76. IrvCrapper says:

    @Hastin:

    Check out the Consumerist.com activity since July according to Alexa.com. Looks like a real dud, like they’ve gutted it, and left it to rot.

    Who’s in line to buy this clunker?

  77. DanGarion says:

    I’d like to be the first to welcome our new Consumerist overlords!

  78. thoseturtles says:

    I am horrified, if consumerist goes, I go!

  79. Ayo says:

    everyone!!! click on the ads to save the consumerist!!! or maybe not… i dunno. just don’t go belly up on me, I’ll be a pissed off information consumer if you do.

    • AskCars says:

      @Ayo: It’s not the lack of clicking that’s the problem, it’s the lack of ads period. Gawker has never had the best ad sales team. Having a site that routinely points out the negative aspects of consumer culture is probably a tough sell for even a good ad sales dept.

      That said, I would think they’d be able to seel ads to Quicken, software companies, Apple etc.

  80. bobacus says:

    Well I don’t see you guys getting past the new year if this is true. In this economy where Fortune 500 companies are having a tough time getting financing. Who is gonna buy the Consumerist? Good luck tho. I will click and visit as much as possible.

    • Haltingpoint says:

      @bobacus: That’s a good question…what happens if there are no buyers? Does it just drop in Ben’s lap and he gets to take it from there? Is there a risk that whoever buys this could drop Ben?

  81. legwork says:

    Someone big will anonymously buy and shutter the place.

  82. sleze69 says:

    I am glad that Consumerist is separating from Gawker. After that Veterans Day thread that made fun of the Army I am done with Gawker.

  83. Snarkysnake says:

    Don’t want to be alarmist here,but just in case of a meltdown/collapse that closes the site before I can react…

    It’s been fun . I really mean fun . To you folks that have flamed my nonsensical rants – thank you. Sometimes you just need someone to knock you down a peg or two and tell you that you’re full of shit.

    To the “hell,yeah ! ” people in agreement with the stuff that I have posted here, thank you. Sometimes you just need someone to validate a deeply held belief or idea.

    To the staff at Consumerist , we all know what the next big announcement will be,no use sugarcoating it. We appreciate you guys more than you will ever know.You have given us voice and challenged us to think and question the steady hum of bullshit coming from corporate America. We are in your debt.

    To Roz – You’ve added nothing to this site.They could have fucked it up without you.

    Okay,looks like thats a wrap…

  84. OletheaEurystheus says:

    Denton has managed to run Gawker into the ground IMHO this is just as sad as 2000.

    Welcome to .com 2.0 same bugs as the 1.0

  85. ninjatoddler says:

    Will the BBB step up to the plate?

    Sad to see the sorry state of affairs at my favorite blog, the only Gawker site I visit, and the most useful from their lot.

    It’s quite obvious that Gawker Media is devoid of a true leader. Companies run by a bunch of accountants will collapse eventually. Gawker, when the Consumerist gets released, you’ll be losing a daily visitor.

    • humphrmi says:

      @ninjatoddler: Ever read the BBB web-site? Most of their funding comes from “corporate partners”, i.e. companies on their “good list” who help fund them. Those companies agree to conform to their business standards, but that does not preclude them from:

      - Sitting on the tarmac for eight hours
      - Requiring receipts to leave the store with your property
      - Refusing you a deserved refund

      etc.

      I, personally, want to see Consumerist survive, but I hope it’s not under the auspices of the corporate-controlled BBB. The BBB has it’s place, but it’s not here.

  86. Bryan Price says:

    I read this on Gawker. I’m not impressed with Gawker.

  87. lestat730 says:

    Gawker… wake up! You have a lot of great blogs going and it’s a damn shame to let one go as awesome as Consumerist. I’ve grown quite fond of Gawker, and read Consumerist, Kotaku, Lifehacker, and Gizmodo regularly. Here’s hoping for a better future Consumerist!

  88. autoclavicle says:

    It’s going to be awkward when this site gets bought by AOL.

  89. morganlh85 says:

    So since they will eventually close this down…are there any OTHER good consumer issues blogs I should start frequenting before Consumerist lets me down?

  90. resonanteye says:

    bestthing on gawker…damn this sucks

  91. xcharliemx says:

    Do you guys take checks? Because I’ll buy it up in a heartbeat

  92. radiochief says:

    Wow. I am supremely sad.

    I can’t live without The Consumerist. And that was they Gateway to Lifehacker, io9, Jalopnik and yes, Fleshbot.

  93. syrian_gamer says:

    NOOOOOOOO!!! I remember when i first met consumerist, it was such a cool site. I remember thinking “Its like lifehacker but with law and money and consumers :D” And i also loved the layout since it was the same as the other sites. I hope you guys find a good new home :(

  94. Tijil says:

    Very disappointing, and I wish the best for you folks. :(

    Good luck!

    Tomas – University Place, WA

  95. Jamaces says:

    Out of all of the Gawker Media site’s;
    The consumerist is the most useful, and has been the most help to myself in dealing with companies which has taught me one lesson do not put up with bs.
    I do not understand why they would drop this, but keep say something like DeadSpin or even better Fleshbot.

  96. slowinthefastlane says:

    No matter how hard Gawker presses, don’t buy the extended warranty!!!

  97. HaddenIshan says:

    Consumers Union would be a great candidate.

  98. Grrrrrrr, now with two buns made of bacon. says:

    *sniff*

    Consumerist must be the “bad” child. You never were our real parents, Gawker..never, never, never!

    *hissy fit*

  99. MsAnthropy says:

    This utterly fucking sucks – I am gutted. I don’t even get the point of most of the rest of the Gawker sites, whereas I can honestly say Consumerist is right up there with my favorite things on the web. I check it religiously, constantly, all-the-frigging-time, read all the comments… but that doesn’t earn Gawker any $$$, does it?

  100. wrongneighborhood says:

    When Nick Denton announced a few weeks ago that he was laying off people at Consumerist and several other properties, I asked him on the blog if he was considering divesting a few of these blog properties – like he did with Wonkette, Gridskipper and that music blog no one cared.

    He said then that Consumerist was valuable enough in its own right. Did he lie? No – I think the economic environment got a lot worse – and media is just starting to feel it.

    I’m sad to see it go from under the umbrella of Gawker Media – but for the people who think that Consumerist is ending, I believe you’re sorely mistaken. It’s a heavily-trafficked blog, got a loyal following (including many of us), and it touches on a subject that few properties track so well.

    Honestly, if I knew one iota about running a media company – I would do my due diligence on Consumerist. If not to buy it, but to see who would pick it up. I mean, how many major media companies, in my opinion, would want something like this? Maybe not in this economic environment, but it’s certainly something to hold onto. It could be picked up easily, I think.

    Don’t fret, I think Ben and The Consumerist is still going to be here. We still have a lot of shitty-ass stories to tell about Circuit City’s liquidation.

  101. Anonymous says:

    Well let’s see so far 89 + mine divided into $11,000,000=$122,000 each. We need more people to join in and donate. Let’s say….110,000 more people at $100 each and we can buy The Consumerist ourselves. What do you say everyone?

  102. aftercancer says:

    Wait, you guys actually write about things that make sense, good luck guys and keep us posted.

  103. Chronotope says:

    Sorry Consumerist, we think you are awesome. Hopefully you’ll get what you need.

  104. Otaconnachos says:

    Very saddened to hear this.

  105. orlo says:

    Maybe Nader is looking for something to do? You should be ashamed of trying to trick some innocent into buying this site. 14M page-views is just a liability, since it puts strain on the the servers.

  106. tony_important says:

    boooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

  107. parliboy says:

    Here’s where I am, personally:

    Consumerist is my inroad to the other Gawker sites. I come to Consumerist daily (and in fact integrate it into my curriculum), and then sometimes I float over to the other sites to show them some love.

    If Gawker sells Consumerist, then Gawker loses my eyeballs.

    My question for the powers that be is this: how much of the readership does what I do?

    • AmericaTheBrave says:

      @parliboy: I do the exact same thing. I visit the Consumerist half a dozen times a day to check for new stories. Once in a while I click through to another Gawker site, but only through the Consumerist. Otherwise I don’t visit any Gawker sites.

      I’m sad to hear things will change. I hope Ben and Meghan can find solid jobs if they need to start looking.

      The value the Consumerist presents to readers cannot be priced in nickels and dimes. Especially during this downturn in the economy, it’s even more relevant.

      If this site closes or becomes a bastardized version of itself under a different owner it will be a very sad day that only low life companies like Goldman Sachs and Best Buy will celebrate.

    • midwestkel says:

      @parliboy: Thats exactly what I do everyday. They will loose me to.

    • Rectilinear Propagation says:

      @parliboy: I also do that (though I mostly lurk). Consumerist is like the Gawker gateway drug.

    • GyroMight says:

      @parliboy: I have to say that this is the main Gawker site I frequent (many times a day to check for updaets) as well, if the Consumerist goes, then they will lose my hits as well.

      I love(d?) this site.

    • kmw2 says:

      @parliboy:
      I agree – the only reason I ever look at the other Gawker blogs is following links from here, and I don’t notice many of the other blogs linking back.

    • JulesNoctambule says:

      @parliboy: Add another one to the list of people who access the rest of Gawker as an afterthought to the Consumerist. If it isn’t here, I won’t be as likely to make the rest of the sites part of my day.

    • avantartist says:

      @parliboy: I only visit other Gawker pages through consumerist as well.

    • firefoxx66 says:

      @parliboy: I completely agree. I visit ONLY 2 sites (aside from email) on a daily basis: Feministing and Consumerist. Then, through Consumerist, I float to Jezebel, Gawker, etc. Lose Consumerist, and Gawker will lose my traffic to the other sites, too. So have fun with that, Gawker.

      PS – I also know that many of my ‘tech-un-savvy’ friends read Consumerist because it’s about something they can easily understand, and then float to the other Gawker sites, which they’d never visit normally because they’re overwhelming. I’m sure this is not uncommon!

      • Jory says:

        @firefoxx66: Unfortunately traffic doesn’t mean anything if no advertisers are buying ads. Gawker Media gets a lot of traffic, but traffic isn’t worth anything by itself.

    • endlessendres says:

      @parliboy: I am the same way with Gawker blogs, Consumerist always has been the main draw.

    • parad0x360 says:

      @parliboy: Im the same way

    • mariospants says:

      @parliboy: Count me as one: Consumerist headlines my daily Internet reading.

      This will be a real blow to people who are addicted to the content and to consumers who use it as a tool to leverage against bad customer experiences.

      My hope is that someone like Consumer Reports or a consumer advocay agency will get it for a fire sale price (let’s say in the 6 figures) with the requirement that the employees stay on.

  108. Ben_Q2 says:

    They have other sites? Where?

  109. smirkette says:

    Gawker Media introduces Sell-Out 2.0!

    This is easily the Gawker blog I read the most. As others have said, I can’t stand their eponymous blog, and Jezebel is really hit or miss, as is Gizmodo.

  110. CharityCaecus says:

    So they fire people, THEN decide to sell? Classy move.

  111. FionaMallard says:

    I hope you guys find a good buyer. The only reservation I’ve ever had about reading Consumerist is that I loathe Gawker. I think Consumerist being owned by someone else could be a really awesome thing for the integrity of the site. Too bad this is kinda shitty timing.

  112. anthonyhasp says:

    @undefined: How much? And to all of you Consumerist fans, how much are you willing to pay per month to have access? Making this a pay-for site is likely the best model, much in line with Consumer Reports.

    • AmericaTheBrave says:

      @anthonyhasp: Pay for sites are dead. Even most newspapers realized that and stopped charging for access to their websites.

      Consumer Reports is a different beast and can’t be compared. It’s entirely reviews of products. The Consumerist is a place to air bad customer service and more often than not get the problem fixed. It benefits all consumers to have a site like this shining light on companies that skimp on actual service.

    • midwestkel says:

      @anthonyhasp: A pay site wouldn’t work. I think they should do advertising from the companies that have good standings with the community. Once they do bad stuff then they cut the ad. The bad companies could come back with a promotion just for Consumerist readers that gives a discount as an apology. Maybe make money like that…

    • seanhcalgary says:

      @anthonyhasp: I am the same way. The ONLY time I read any other Gawker sites is when the story is posted here.

      Gawker is really screwing up big time. Oh well. They’ll be out of business soon enough.

    • mariospants says:

      @anthonyhasp: Would work if you’re only asking for content, wouldn’t work if you wanted eyeballs to help leverage consumer complaint action.

  113. RedwoodFlyer says:

    Maybe Gawker can just disemvowel Consumerist until they turn cash-positive?

  114. Anonymous says:

    Great, so Gawker will pump more money into its Apple advertising proxy Gizmodo.

    This was probably one of the most important blogs on the internet, *directly* correlating to the most important things on most Americans minds these days, and Gawker thinks they should sell.

    It’s not that this blog isn’t economically feasible. Every part of it is relevant. It’s that Gawker failed to highlight its best blog, and instead of fixing that, it’s easier to pawn it off.

  115. ironchef says:

    this is the crown jewel of gawker, IMHO.

  116. Anonymous says:

    When the Consumerist has been purchased, we should petition the new owners to re-hire some of our lost and beloved Consumerist employees.

  117. lukobe says:

    This is the only Gawker blog I read regularly. I hope you do find a way to survive.

  118. squishyalt says:

    The consumerist is a bit negative. There is only so much bitching and whining a person can take before needing a breather.

    There are some changes that would make the site more valuable to consumers…that would make it profitable and then some.

    It’s not that hard to turn a profit from the consumerist site. It just takes someone who wants to do it.

    I think the real reason that Gawker is shedding the consumerist is that companies that hit consumerist are mostly being placed in a bad light. Now, ask yourself, how many companies do you think would give you money to praise them on one of your billboards (Gawker sites that accept advertising) when you either have or may soon trash the hell out of them on another of your billboards.

    The consumerist should be on its own. It cannot complement other positive news about companies when its main focus is trashing them.

    Don’t get me wrong… Some of them deserve to be trashed. But, most companies are like the U.S. Government…so damned big and cluttered with middle management that upper management neither knows (nor cares in some instances) what happens to a single customer when they have millions of customers to look after.

    They have to keep their eye on the big picture. Store managers and employees are supposed to be taking care of individual customers….not corporate.

    Most of the time, it’s a problem of scale. Nobody can take care of all of their customers all the time once the company (or government agency) reaches beyond a few hundred customers. It just can’t be done. And, to trash a company because one person bitches (or is really mistreated) is simply not right.

    The consumerist website would do much better if it allowed people to rate a company – like the Angie’s List site and others. Sure, you could post about a bad experience and how to contact corporate, but you should also give a complete picture of the company.

    People will only stare at a train wreck so long. And, no company wants to put their advertising on the side of it.

    Just some constructive criticism.

    Good luck to the employees! I hope you land softly in a big, fat pile of cash.

    (OK…..flame away!)

    • jamar0303 says:

      @squishyalt: So what is the “above and beyond” section for?

      • squishyalt says:

        @jamar0303: What “above and beyond” section?

        The simple fact that I have to ask proves my point. The site is geared towards bitching about mistreatment (real or perceived).

        If there is such a section, it certainly is not placed in a conspicuous place (at least not conspicuous to me).

        Don’t get me wrong…there is certainly a need for such a site. A place to blow off steam, get contact info, warn other consumers, etc. is certainly beneficial to some people.

        But, a sense of balance would find the site a lot more visitors.

        For instance, why not give corporations FREE suggestion boxes for the users to stuff? Why not pull in consumer feedback from other, 3rd party sites to show a sense of balance?

        What about letting posters actually vote on a post (“X% Agree Y% Disagree with this story”)? That would give the writers feedback on just what kinds of stories they should be posting to further the goals of the site.

        And, what about having a search engine that is tied into the articles and visitor feedback mentioned above that gives the searcher a rated list of alternatives in his/her local area(WITH A MAP!)?

        It’s not hard to improve this site and make it profitable. I cannot speak as to why it hasn’t been done because I am not privy to the daily inner workings of consumerist.com. But, from my outside view, it looks like incompetent or indifferent management. After all, any employee would jump at the chance to better the site and safeguard his/her job. In fact, I’ll bet that the writers probably suggested some of these very same things.

        Getting back to business…A sense of balance is good for visitor counts and lends credibility to any site – even this one. It is important because if one store manager is an asshole, his store is probably staffed with assholes, but that doesn’t mean that corporate condones – or even knows – their behavior.

        Not giving that company the chance to correct the problem is not fair to them or to other consumerist visitors who may take their chances elsewhere only to be screwed over even worse.

        I hate to see it fail like this. But, tossing up a template and slapping some bitchy rants in each day is simply not going to cut it on the web these days.

        Again, good luck to the employees!

    • Valhawk says:

      @squishyalt: Wegmans, would totally buy add space here. I mean come on whenever they’re mentioned the comments page consists of people gushing about how great they are.

      Zappos, gets lots of good press here as well.

      Full Disclosure: I love Wegmans.

      • squishyalt says:

        @Valhawk: I’m glad that some people have taken it upon themselves to make sure that some companies don’t get a bum rap here. But, in a time of ever-shrinking advertising revenues, Gawker can’t really afford to piss *anybody* off.

        IMHO, consumerist.com should have taken more of a mediation stand that tried to bring consumers and companies together – not pit them against each other.

        And, when that attempted mediation failed (as it surely would in some cases) post the failure of the company to make a thing right.

        Doing things in this way (attempted mediation on the behalf of both parties) would lend consumerist MUCH more street cred and would increase the readership (and related advertising revenues) while hardly breaking a sweat.

        Good luck to all!

        • Valhawk says:

          @squishyalt: Your new hear aren’t you.

          I mean there is tag called “Above and Beyond” it lists all the times companies go above and beyond the call of duty for their customers, also this is like free advertising for credit unions, considering every time a banking question is mentioned they come up as a benign alternative.

          Also did you read the great press Zappos got here. Search for the Zappos tag.

  119. Trai_Dep says:

    So, if I have this straight: the Gawker properties that are actually about things that matter – politics and being an aware Consumer – fall to the wayside. While the ones that are blogged versions of TMZ and shopping catalogs are retained.

    Seems there’s an opportunity for advertisers who want to reach smarter, independent-minded readers. For those trying to reach the opposite demo, there are the Gawker properties.

    Yay?

    Ben, Meghann, Roz, Alex (and Chris and Carey), I’m confident you’ll find someone who’ll make a decent business reaching your unique audience. Hang in there!

  120. GC says:

    Damn. All the best to you, yours, Meghann and Marcus.

    Like the others have said, Consumerist led me to the other Gawker sites that I now read.

  121. Ninja Tree says:

    While I mainly read Kotaku, consumerist is the only other gawker blog I read, it would suck to lose The Consumerist.
    Love Live The Consumerist!

  122. Robobot says:

    @undefined: Same story here. I only look at Lifehacker since Gizmodo and Jezebel went to crap long ago and Wonkette ran off in greener, snarkier pastures. it’s not exactly high entertainment in Gawkerland these days.

  123. bluewyvern says:

    I met Lifehacker first, but Consumerist was my first daily Gawker blog. Now I read Consumerist and io9 daily, Lifehacker frequently, and others occasionally, including whenever there are cross postings. I understand the lifeboat mentality, but I think Consumerist has more value than the ad revenue it (doesn’t) bring in. It’s a high-profile blog that enhances Gawker’s reputation for more than gossip, fluff, and page view candy, and it draws in readers to the larger Gawker network — come for the Consumerist, stay for the Fleshbot, so to speak. Maybe the numbers don’t work out, but I had hoped Consumerist could continue to be a loss leader for Gawker. It looks like it is now considered just a loss.

    If Consumerist isn’t bought up and carried on, it will sorely be missed. It’s not only entertaining, but informative and useful, and has helped many, many people actually improve their lives in substantial ways. I hope it finds a way to continue, and as long as it maintains the standard of quality I’ve come to rely on, I’ll be here to support it. That includes by way of subscription, should such a model ever prove feasible.

    If not, well, it’s been fun. I hope something new can fill the niche, because it will be needed.

  124. Gman says:

    In many cases like this it is not the failure of the editorial staff or the site itself. Rather it is a failure of the sales and marketing staff to properly sell the site.
    The numbers in the OP are no question amazing. The fact that they cannot sell it tells me that it is a failure of the advertising department. Sorry sales guys, but that is how I see it.

  125. jchabotte says:

    Hey Gawker, it’s just called a “Loss Leader”, ok?

    Keep it! i came to Gawker sites because of The Consumerist.

  126. gibbersome says:

    Monthly subscription? If this site has voluntary $2 monthly subscription, I would definitely pay.

  127. techstar25 says:

    So you mean Consumerist isn’t making enough ad revenue? Surely companies like Circuit City, and Goldman Sachs would love to advertise here. Oh wait. I forgot. You’ve burned every bridge with every company who would ever consider advertising with you.

    • gibbersome says:

      @techstar25:
      And that’s why I love this site!

      • Rectilinear Propagation says:

        @gibbersome: Word. The fact that they didn’t have ads was kind of the point.

        • squishyalt says:

          @Rectilinear Propagation: It is also the reason they (like many other ad supported sites) are going under.

          In fact, AdBlocker (a firefox plugin) is harming the very sites that people use it to view.

          Pretty soon the only reliable sites will be paid subscription only just because some people chose NOT to let companies pay to keep the sites afloat with ad revenue.

          Oh well….people are stupid. What can you do?

          • Valhawk says:

            @squishyalt: Well that or the sites need a new business model, you know keeping up with changing markets which is basically economics 101.

            People are just sick of ads because they’re distracting, poorly planed, and have a propensity to add malware to your PC. The fact that advertisers are surprised that as soon as a wide spread option came about to block them people jumped at it clearly have no right to be in business.

            People want’s and what they are willing to put up with shift over time, any semi-competent businessman can tell you that. Companies that can’t keep up go under, simple as that.

  128. Bladefist says:

    I just don’t understand. Page views and uniques here are more then several other gawker sites. I did my homework. So this may be due to lack of sponsership.

    • squishyalt says:

      @Bladefist: That’s the problem. And there is no sponsorship of a site that feeds companies to the wolves by the companies that it attacks.

      Any company in the world could be the next to be trashed here. So, tell me, why would they support their own worst enemy?

  129. Red_Eye says:

    Just proof once more that management doesn’t give one sh*t about customers, good customer service, or quality. I would love to say I am surprised but after your earlier layoffs I’m not.

  130. robbrechter says:

    I am very unhappy with Gawker.

  131. Erwos says:

    I’m not shocked. Firing writers plus hiring a (IMHO, terrible) comment moderator really made me come here less. I turned off ad-block when I heard you guys were having issues, but apparently that didn’t make a difference. I still like the site, but the MBA in me thinks Gawker is making the right move.

    IMHO, if they can’t find a buyer, it would be _classy_ of them to shift the trademark to a group of readers who would restart the site somewhere else.

  132. Anonymous says:

    I’ve been a lurker for quite some time. this site is one of the few sites that i actually respect and value. i hope you find a buyer that realizes the value of the service this site provides.

    “it’s gonna be ok! say the f***ing words!”

  133. Mary Marsala with Fries says:

    Aw, it’ll be sad if the ‘Net loses this blog, though it losing Gawker is much less sad — Gawker has just dragged The Consumerist down further and further ever since it acquired it. And now they’ve gutted it prior to putting it up for sale, which really hurts the odds of selling it…darnit!

    Okay, all Consumerist readers go buy lottery tickets RIGHT NOW, and whoever wins has to promise to buy the site, okay? Go!

  134. Rectilinear Propagation says:

    This is extremely depressing news.

    Where are we supposed to hear the voice of the consumer if this goes away? What about the forums? Will those stay up?

  135. CColdsmoke says:

    Hmmm. Has anyone inquired into the price Gawker is asking? I’ve been looking for something to invest in. I’m sure we could put together a small group of investors if the asking price isn’t outrageous. Considering the fact that Gawker has already shot itself in the foot by saying this website isn’t profitable, I don’t see how they’re in a position to ask outrageous prices.

    • eXo says:

      @CColdsmoke: And how would you convince those ‘investors’ to put their money into a site that doesn’t turn a profit AND doesn’t advertise?

      • Gman says:

        @exo:
        This is not a failure of the consumerist. Their page views and uniques are fantastic. Its audience is also fiercely loyal and gets a lot of very positive press from the media. All of that for the right company would be fantastic targets to associate themselves with.

        No, I feel this is a failure of the sales and marketing staff at Gawker. They could have sold this to the right companies. They just did not sell it properly.

      • CColdsmoke says:

        @exo: Very simple: planning and attention to detail. This site could very easily turn a profit. Like G99 says below, this website has not been ‘sold’ properly.

        Not to mention the fact that they’re comparing this website’s profitability to easy audience targets like Gizmodo and Kotaku. If those types of websites weren’t turning a profit, then something would be very, very wrong. As it stands, Consumerist has no concrete “target audience” and therefore requires a different profit strategy beyond the shotgun ad approach.

        Internet investment isn’t just about banner ads and click-throughs to corporate entities. And that would be why Gawker sees no profit in this website. That seems to be their only investment strategy.

        • Valhawk says:

          @CColdsmoke: Basically, get companies with good customer service reputations to advertise ie. Zappo, Wegmans, etc. Then be very selective with who you allow to advertise.

          If you only advertise companies with sterling reputations for good service, then people will be more likely to click through. Since they know they are purchasing something from a company that the consumerist implicitly approves.

    • hhole says:

      @CColdsmoke: @CColdsmoke:

      I just sent Ben an email asking about the same thing CCold. I think it’s a great idea but will require some due diligence, an understanding of the offer and a bunch of other blah blah blah about making the site a long-term viable option.

      If it can work with Consumer Reports and Gun Test Magazine (not being under the watchful eyes of corporate sponsors), surely it could work with The Consumerist.

  136. DrMorison says:

    @undefined: I totally agree. If consumerist folds, that will be the last time the gawker websites see me. I have visited the other sites a lot, but I always start here.

  137. Hamtronix says:

    I had to bloody fight to get my comment ability reinstated – for some unknown reason – from what my 2 posts at the time one must have been scathing… in any case, if consumerist goes so do I. Only go to the other sites through consumerist…

  138. greyb1 says:

    I am sad.

  139. provolone says:

    I usually head to other Gawker sites from here.

  140. ncboxer says:

    WTF?

  141. segfault, registered cat offender says:

    Best Buy and Comcast get into a bidding war for Consumerist. You heard it here first.

  142. Anonymous says:

    Crud. I just discovered this site three weeks ago, and been visiting it every day since. You mean you couldn’t change the title to First National Consumerist Bank and get a bailout?

    Seriously, to whoever may purchase this site… DO NOT CHANGE A THING. We LOVE it!

  143. Elijah86 says:

    WHY! Some one must save the consumerist!

  144. qcgallus says:

    I’m sure I’m not “in the know” if you will, but if one of the points on the release by Nick Denton comes to fruition, and The Consumerist is sold/shed, it would assure my never coming to this blogring again:

    “4. Offshore more. For publishers with most of their operations in the US, the decline of emerging market currencies is a potential boon. The dollar cost of development work in Hungary, for instance, has fallen by more than 30% since mid-July. It might seem perverse to push work offshore when costs in the US are falling; in fact, companies should move operations where costs are falling even faster.”

    It’s a shame, because I frequent this site the most, then move to Lifehacker, Jezebel, and Gawker (I do have a soft spot for gossip). Should they offshore *anything*, while losing this blog they will be 1 unique less on all fronts.

  145. Echodork says:

    Wait, you’re having trouble generating ad revenue on the site that gives out corporate executives’ phone numbers on the main page?

    This… this is hard to believe!

  146. harryhoody says:

    Click, click, click. Click, click, click. Click those ads. Click those ads.

  147. MrsLopsided says:

    Gawker takes your comments … very seriously.

  148. CountryJustice says:

    So does this mean no more updates?

    10:14, and all is not well. :(

  149. jessi5000 says:

    irony of ironies… my favorite consumer advocacy website, that posts great deals and isn’t afraid to call a big company out, is FOR SALE because it isn’t profitable enough. i just hope someone with the same goals as the current staff buys it, and not GM or something. it would suck if this valuable resource turns into some twisted form of viral marketing.

  150. rucci14 says:

    Good luck finding a new home, Consumerist. The service you provide is top notch.

  151. juniper says:

    What are the other ones being divested?

    I still miss Sploid.

  152. darkryd says:

    Good. Consumerist is too good to be associated with a crap site like Gawker.

  153. professorjonathan says:

    This sucks, Consumerist folks. I wish you much success finding a buyer, and even more success keeping your jobs.

    Thanks as always for the wonderful info! {ProfJonathan}

  154. night_2004 says:

    I, for one, am probably one of many who found Gawker through the Consumerist.

    Consumerist – I’ll read you where ever you go.

    Gawker – I just finished deleting my bookmarks of you. Bye!

  155. Ken says:

    I’ll buy it, i got $50 bucks

  156. esd2020 says:

    The problem is audience demographics. How many companies want to reach Consumerist’s audience? The defining characteristic of readers is that they’re spendthrifts. Not exactly a high value target.

  157. Spin359 says:

    I made an offer. I’m sure there going to laugh at me because its too low, but i hope someone gets it and treats it right

  158. Laffy Daffy says:

    Maybe Goldman Sachs can finance the deal

  159. LoriLynn says:

    My day is ruined. I read this and Lifehacker. The rest of Gawker is nothing more than paparazzi gossip CRAP. I hope it tanks now.

  160. ? graffiksguru says:

    This is a sad day indeed. I hope some company that actually realizes what your worth buys you and pumps some money into hiring Chris and Carey back.

  161. Mike626 says:

    This is awful news, but not for you guys. Why not start a brand new blog on your own and leave Denton holding the empty shell of the Consumerist? It would be a lesson to him is serving his abject greed.

  162. Bladefist says:

    I pulled up their page views chart at
    [www.alexa.com]

    and was trying to figure out how this happened. This summer, around the time of june/julyish they started losing page views.

    The only thing I can find that changed during that time was the new comment rules, and the hiring of a moderator. I also recall that upsetting a lot of people.

  163. Cocotte says:

    I’m kinda shocked.. consumerist is reliable and helpful, and it’s clear that many companies keep an eye on it… ridiculous that it’s not considered successful considering the pageviews. Maybe it’s the man trying to suppress the voice of the people!

  164. ILoveVermont says:

    This would be an ideal blog for Consumer Reports. They would treat it right.

  165. El_Fez says:

    Ahem – attention powers that be:

    The Consumerist is the only site here that’s a actual destination for me. I’ll check out some of the other sites – 109 and Kotaku mainly, but if Consumerist goes, I’ll have no reason to come back.

  166. P_Smith says:

    So “the consumerist” was never about helping the public, it was always about making money.

    If it was not generating enough revenue before, you just killed it. Nobody would want to buy it now.

  167. frodo_35 says:

    I guess people are starting to see no assets no worth. How much is a name really worth.

  168. Cruc says:

    I add my own WTF?! to the littany of others.

  169. kairi2 says:

    Bailout time!

  170. LVP says:

    Wow, this is horrible. Start clicking on ads people!

    Where ever this site ends up I hope it does not change for the worst.

  171. narq says:

    Honestly, the sites on Gawker that were originally their own entity… were far far better on their own. I stopped reading some sites after they went under the wing of Gawker. It felt like they caused more fanatic obsession over certain products or companies because they pay for advertising space. While I can’t prove that, it seemed like we got more realism out of these sites before they joined gawker, then suddenly the writers love a company/product they never talked about much. See IGN for a perfect example of selling out to advertising. Too many sites have a bias and you don’t get the truth much anymore. It’s all just to get free products or advertising dollars.

  172. ElizabethD says:

    [Vader voice]: “NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!”

  173. Cattivella says:

    You can add me to the list of people that access Gawker’s sites through Consumerist. The other sites serve as mild amusement, but Consumerist provides an actual service that’s not available anywhere else.

    If/when Consumerist goes, I go too.

  174. Chitownguy885 says:

    You guys are on the TOP 2 of the gawker websites that I browse. I hope you guys get a new home, because I will still be an active reader.

  175. Trai_Dep says:

    While the pro-Corporatists* who visit think that NO advertiser would want to be here due to the “anti-company” editorial, they miss the point (on this, as well as so many other topics). Consumerist LOVES companies. Ones that do well by their customers.
    Apple, Blizzard, companies small enough to retain their soul, B&H Photo… I need some help here for other companies that have gotten good coverage here…

    If there was some way to reach those companies, ones that work for long-term value creation, would love to advertise here.

    Of course, these same pro-Corporatist commentators would then accuse Consumerist of being in the pocket of these stellar companies. Which… Yeah.

    * Why these wannabe shills come here to vent mystifies me, but I digress.

    • Valhawk says:

      @Trai_Dep: The fact that you include Apple among that list makes me question if you have ever a) worked for them, or b) tried to deal with them. They do not have a soul. They are one of the worst employers in the industry and they have a tendecy to screw over people who like them. I mean they sued one of their biggest fans for guessing they would produce a smaller macbook several years ago.

      I mean that’s why people who know anything about Apple know the 2 golden rules of Apple. 1. don’t early adopt anything Apple puts out, they will shaft you. 2. Don’t expect any support for 3rd party programs that aren’t made by Adobe from Apple.

      Also Blizzard is merged with Activision, so they don’t have a soul anymore.

  176. postnocomments says:

    I’ll buy it! Does Gawker take credit cards?

  177. thebullfrog says:

    I guess I’m in the minority. I’m a big fan of SEVERAL Gawker sites. I enjoy Consumerist immensely and learn a lot from y’all. So while Gawker media won’t lose my eyeballs, I’ll be sad to see you guys go.

    Reading religiously ’til then…

  178. SecureLocation says:

    This is a damn good consumer site but by their nature damn good consumer sites are always going to scare the hell out of advertisers. And even on the web, advertisers pay the bills.

  179. zabaat says:

    Just wanted to come out of lurking to add my “NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!” to the chours!

    :’(

  180. Burgandy says:

    Can someone call up American Express and see if we can copy the forms they used to get some of the bailout pie? Just a little whiteout in the right places and we can keep consumerist alive!

  181. DougDascenzo says:

    Speaking of Consumer Reports, I wonder if they would consider buying Consumerist and turning it into their free, less formal arm of consumer protection.

  182. SkokieGuy says:

    I am so sad.

    Besides Consumer’s Union, what about the CPSC? Sponsoring a ‘blog’ would be so ‘new government’, perfectly in tune with the times and basically pocket change in terms of their budget.

    I so hope you survive. Gawker, if your other properties are generating a profit from ad revenue, why can’t Consumerist be the loss to offset the profits and reduce your tax burden?

    Helping the consumer can be good corporate citizenship, ya betcha!

  183. ndjustin says:

    I’ve disagreed with consumerist’s recently especially during the election cycle, but I am sad to see it go.

    The problem with a site like this, is it’s goal is to be a whistleblower on companies who would end up being the revenue stream for consumerist.

    What should have happened, consumerist should have been a non-profit that accepted donations, and actively worked to get companies to contribute as a sign of good-will towards customer service. These companies could have been identified as such to the readers.

    The problem is now, gawker, who rightfully so owns something of some value, probably would not just give up the rights to such a thing to become a non-profit.

  184. ironchef says:

    maybe they should pitch this site to Consumer Reports or something.

  185. glater says:

    You mean Gawker wants to keep all the other crap blogs with boring content, but get rid of the particularly awesome one? Hi, my name is business planning. How are you today?

  186. Blaaaah says:

    I don’t care for any of the other Gawker sites. Consumerist goes, so do I.

  187. sicem says:

    @undefined: Ben once banned my account because I posted a question asking why he wrote several posts about his Dell junk mail.

    I was doing my job as a consumerist pointing out the crappy writing and story “ideas” that were starting to past as “news” posts, yet I was banned.

    Good riddance.

  188. MrsLopsided says:

    Maybe Consumerist could go the RipOffReport route and charge companies to remove negative posts.

  189. SkokieGuy says:

    @sicem: So because of your personal issues, you don’t care if the site folds?

    Frankly, your criticizing of Ben has nothing to do with you being a good “Consumerist”.

    A. The site is free, you are not paying for goods or services, so you are not a customer. You are free to read or not, as you wish.

    B. Commenting is a site privilege and the rules are spelled out. If you have a comment on the quality of writing, or the relevancy of the post, you are encouraged to contact Consumerist, not clutter up the blog with your personal opinion.

    So good riddance to you and may Consumerist outlive you and your pettiness.

  190. Mistrez_Mish says:

    Oh my. Well, looks like I’m not going to be reading any more Gawker media blogs. First Wonkette and now Consumerist. Ha! Ah well, the split from Gawker seems to have worked well for Wonkette – here’s hoping the best of luck for the Consumerist team! :-D

  191. tc4b says:

    There’s certainly a demand for this kind of site, so I’m sure something like it will survive this. If not, I’m sure my productivity at work will increase.

  192. floyderdc says:

    We could make a pitch to The National Credit Union Association. They get a lot of good press around here. Too bad there is no such things as a National Federation of Local Pizza Joints.

  193. fuddytv says:

    Just another victim of Naomi Klein’s “Shock Doctrine”.

    Seems like every company and their subbies are falling victim to layoffs, bankruptcies, bailouts…

    Where does Gawker’s money go? There’s no reason a site with 14M pageviews should not be making money. I remember seeing the fancy Gawker office during an election thread and wondered why on earth you have such elaborate offices. A computer, internet connection and a brain…what more do you need?

    Perhaps its time to move on to the next…

  194. quagmire0 says:

    Why not ask for contributions? I’d toss in a little bit if it could come close to keeping the site afloat.

  195. Sunflower1970 says:

    Sad. As some other ppl have said, Consumerist is really the only Gawker site I visit. Very rarely do I go to the other sites. If Consumerist goes, I have no reason to look at the other sites.

    In fact, when I first found the consumerist, I thought this was the main site, and the others were offshoots of this one.

    I’ve learned so much from here, I hope all goes well and this site will survive

  196. SkokieGuy says:

    Ben, I’d pay to subscribe.

    Doesn’t Consumerist have the email addresses of all the people registered to make comments?

    Why not a blanket email to see how many of us would pay, $X a year to continue subscribe?

    Perhaps free content and exclusive “members only” content? Tips and articles are free, but things like actual secret phone numbers and emails are available only to paid members?

  197. EightIsEnough says:

    How much ya asking?

  198. QuiteSpunky says:

    Damn.

  199. merekat says:

    But Ben is too secksy for unemployment lines. Damn you, Denton!

  200. AtomicPlayboy says:

    This is a great site which happens to have a bad parent in Gawker, which hosts a network of insipid and tedious content and which has a base of commenters that make the worst people here look like Nobel laureates. I would imagine that a group like the Consumers Union would love to have a blog like Consumerist to attract customers to its premium offerings. Alternately, I think many of us would pay a nominal fee to keep the site going. Paid content isn’t dead, it’s just not viable when the content is available through other means. That’s not the case here, as the content really is unique to Consumerist. Where else are you going to find weekly diatribes about receipt checks at store exits?

  201. joebobfunguy says:

    Now you can hire back those guys you fired. RIght?

  202. SabreDC says:

    @Ein2015: And when did Consumerist institute their commenter code?

  203. 3drage says:

    Sadly I’ve noticed that I’m coming to the site less often now that the extra writers and the weekend updates have been shut down. Kind of a downward spiral.

  204. Tush says:

    I hope all goes well, I come to this site everyday and I really hope you guys find a buyer.

  205. Kitteridge says:

    If I had the cash, I’d do it. This kind of site should be required for all Major Web Site Moguls, the way PSAs are required of broadcasters. You should have to have one in order to operate.

    Not that I’m suggesting limits on the Interwebs, mind you.

  206. Mark 2000 says:

    Hey, where’s the Gawker Exec Customer service number for me the call and complain? No, seriously!

  207. tc4b says:

    Am I crazy, or did Consumerist used to have articles about dilemmas sent in by readers? More and more it just seems like it’s the Daily Consumer News Aggregate, not a real service for consumers.

  208. esc27 says:

    The Consumerist has always stuck me as a higher class blog than Gawker’s other properties anyway. Hopefully a quality firm will pick it up.

  209. superbureaucrat says:

    Can we expect to see the listing under morning deals?

  210. yashichi8bit says:

    I dont know what to even say. This is a sad turn of events.

  211. RAREBREED says:

    WOW. Can it be community owned? Can we all pitch in some $$$ to keep this site up?

    • squishyalt says:

      @RAREBREED: Just start a bitching blog. There are tons of free blog sites. And, you don;t have to depend on advertisiers because the site and hosting are free.

      Get to it!

  212. wiretapstudios says:

    I doubt anyone important is listening, but other than the Consumerist and Lifehacker, the rest of the Gawker sites are useless. Gizmodo has become a joke, I used to read it when they had actual info and not bullshit rumors, childish attitudes, and 18 (17 pointless) posts a day on the newest mac info. I can see Lifehacker coming up next on the chopping block. The Consumerist is one of the most important consumer-related sites on the web! How ironic that the very people who were championing the fight of what is wrong with companies under the poor management of their own company!

  213. wiretapstudios says:

    *fall under the poor management

  214. m.c.cookie says:

    Will follow you to the gates of Best Buy. Stay strong.

  215. alterboy says:

    The bad news just keeps coming for you guys and for us readers. Hopefully you guys find a buyer and if not I’m sure Ben will have a job on msnbc or some other station. Good luck guys.

  216. 5h17h34d says:

    No loss. With moderators like Roz the site was gonna be roundfiled here soon anyway.

  217. Fist-o™ says:

    I bid $10.

  218. AllenK says:

    I will put this in the “This Sucks” department.

    I read Jalopnik every day,and Consumerist most every day also. The rest of the blogs are decent,but I don’t spend much time on them at all. I think Gawker is making a mistake,but I’m not the boss.

    Just don’t mess with the Jalop.

  219. anonvmoos says:

    hope the new owners dont resort to censoring the comments.

  220. yevarechecha says:

    Huh. Well, I’m kind of broke, but I shell out $60 a year on for-pay baseball websites, so I wouldn’t be opposed to paying a reasonable fee for Consumerist. As a naive 21-year-old, this site has been really helpful in teaching me how to be a smart consumer and how to better understand basic finances. I’ve stopped myself from doing something dumb by recalling things I’ve read on here several times. It’ll suck to lose that.

  221. Cliff_Donner says:

    Sorry, I’ve only read through the first 200 or so anguished replies to this thread.

    Gawker, are you familiar with the concept of “loss leader”? Target, Best Buy, even Wal-Mart get this — you offer a high-quality, attractive product to get people’s attention — at a price that you you aren’t necessarily making money on, perhaps are even losing money on — to get people in the door, so they will peruse your other offerings.

    My introduction to Gawker was via Consumerist. I occasionally click-through to Gizmodo, Jezebel, Jalopnik, Lifehacker — but I have none of these other sites bookmarked, only Consumerist.

    Plus, Popken seems to be on the verge of being a breakout media STAR — and you’re choosing this juncture to jettison his blog? It seems like you should be courting him to give your site relevance and street cred, not unloading him as “unprofitable.” How short-sighted! Get a clue!!

    • gStein_*|bringing starpipe back|* says:

      @Cliff_Donner: i can’t improve on your statement at all.

    • verdantpine says:

      @Cliff_Donner: Seconded. Consumerist is the loss leader. Even TV networks knows that some shows have innate class and bring prestige, getting immense word of mouth, even if they have a smaller audience. (cough) Mad Men (cough)

      I sometimes visit Lifehacker, io9 and Jezebel because of links here, but Consumerist is the only one I check out regularly, sometimes daily, and share with all my friends on Facebook.

      In fact, I was just in Best Buy listening to an angry customer and recommended she check out the site if BB didn’t do right by her.

      • oneandone says:

        @verdantpine: Thirded. I’ve also recommended Consumerist to friends, co-workers, and random people in line when it seemed appropriate.

        Debt snowball method completely straightened me out – I know it came from somewhere else, but the context was invaluable. I feel so much more empowered dealing with customer service people & getting my issues resolved, and felt very confident about upcoming major purchases, moving, etc since I knew I’d have Consumerist to check in with and get those always-useful tips. Now what will I do?

    • Ubik2501 says:

      @Cliff_Donner: Excellent post. Consumerist gives Gawker some much-needed credibility and helps round up readers for the other sites as well. Losing it seems like a poor decision to me.

  222. gStein_*|bringing starpipe back|* says:

    hey guys – i just remembered this post: [consumerist.com] (reach Gawker Customer service)
    not saying you should contact them, but i suggest you let them know what you want

  223. Crazytree says:

    so are you telling us to do a EECB?

  224. Meathamper says:

    I’m betting that AOL isn’t gonna buy it. Remember all that crap that AOL took after the recording a few years back? Hopefully some people we all trust, like say Wired Blogs will buy it.

  225. Amy Alkon000 says:

    I, too, access other Gawker sites only after coming here.

  226. Anonymous says:

    The Consumerist was the only Gawker site worth visiting. This is preposterous situation.

  227. Ben_Q2 says:

    I found this site not to long ago. I read it for a bit then join it. Back then (2/3 months ago) I could come here and read when I had time. I never could read all of the stuff. Then as time went on. I found that I could not only read it all but the site became dead on the weekends. Why I still do come here. I still have no idea what other sites there are to this site. I seen the side bar but I have never click on any of them. The names sound like it would take me to a porn site.

    Really all this time I had thought this was being paid for by porn sites.

  228. Anonymous says:

    I like this site a lot, but my main Gawker-ing is on Deadspin. It seems like most Consumerist commenters/readers don’t visit the other Gawker sites too often, if at all. I check Deadspin constantly, I check in with Consumerist a few times a day to see if there is anything interesting, and I hardly ever visit the other Gawker sites. But man, every time I post a comment here I pray that I’m not banned for saying something marginally offensive.

    • Gokuhouse says:

      @MeSoHornsby: I was searching for consumer related stories after getting reamed myself and found consumerist. After that I jumped over to the other sites and now I regularly check gizmodo along with lifehacker. But I check Consumerist the most often because I like to comment on this one the most, I rarely comment on the others. I’ve argued with a commenter once and we were definitely going against the site rules but nobody got banned in that escapade. :)

    • Valhawk says:

      @MeSoHornsby: I found Consumerist first, and have since transitioned to Kotaku and io9. No longer though. The quality of content on both sites has dropped precipitously recently, and if their going to sell the Consumerist I can live without Kotaku and io9.

  229. MrGutts says:

    Have you guys looked into Weblogs Inc. Network blogs? It’s owned by AOL/Time Warner. It has a ton of cool blogs on it.

  230. OnceWasCool says:

    So much for having left wing bias in a moderate & conservative world. It is just not profitable. Stick with products and services instead of politics and fox news bashing.

  231. JanDuKretijn says:

    This is really too bad. Consumerist is one of my favorite sites. I remember finding Consumerist in the aftermath of one of my dealings with AT&T, and it made me feel empowered as a consumer. I really hope this site survives in its current form since it provides a real service. Otherwise, I hope Ben and the rest can all move into other ventures that will afford them opportunities to help, as this one has.

  232. m2ky2fo says:

    Well…I guess it was inevitable. Can’t make money in a capitalist environment by being critial of the capitalists. Perhaps this type of blog could benefit from partnering with something like NPR or APM. The Marketplace website has likely seen an expotential increase in visitors since the finacial crisis started in September.

    • m2ky2fo says:

      @m2ky2fo: So I have been further thinking about the impact of the potential loss of this website…and it saddens me greatly. I was seriously planning on using it to teach my son who is now 3 about the consumer landscape when he became older. I will be seriously sorry to see you guys go. Hopefully you will be bought by someone or some entity that will value you as much as we readers have.

    • Valhawk says:

      @m2ky2fo: This isn’t anti-capitalist. If anything it’s a tool to further competition. It forces companies to try harder because if they don’t there are alternative usually pointed out in the articles.

      tldr: the Consumerist is good for capitalism.

  233. Alessar says:

    I just started reading you guys. I hope you stick around here! I’m finding more and more I read almost all of the Gawker titles.

  234. TangDrinker says:

    If Consumer Reports were smart, they’d snap you up. It’s a sure fire way to get new (younger) readers. I’ve never seen an issue in anyone’s house who is under 65.

  235. NefariousNewt says:

    All right, time to take up a collection… how much will it take to get The Consumerist back in the fold? Give me a target. If Public Radio can get people to pony up every 6 months, I’m pretty sure we can do the same. Heck, for consumer watchdog information, I’d pay a monthly fee.

  236. phisher4 says:

    I have never posted before but have spent what likely amounts to HUNDREDS of hours reading this blog.

    Consumerist is a one-of-a-kind resource that MUST not die. I, for one, would be willing to donate as much as I can conceivably give in this tough economic climate to keep this site in business. Please place a “donate now” button on your site as soon as possible.

    What makes consumerist so unique is that it has well-educated editors and commenters, and an irreverent, uncensored way of advocating for the consumer that the world has never seen. Nowhere else can you find a repository for actually useful consumer information along with both praise and shame for companies that affect our daily lives.

    Please add my voice to the hundreds will write letters, donate, and beg to keep consumerist around.

  237. LionelEHutz says:

    I offer Tree Fitty.

  238. hhole says:

    OK, I’m going to be serious for a moment here.

    Would Gawker be willing to offer up The Consumerist as a collective? Find a price, establish a corporation for shareholders, get Consumerist members to chip in for shares $100 or whatever, take The Consumerist private and glory in the Benjamins (or maybe Washingtons) we’ll make over the life of our investment.

    It seems only appropriate that a consumer advocacy group should not be beholden to corporate interests. It’s worked for Consumer Reports and others trying to do completely objective work.

    Seriously, what does everyone think? I’m willing to put my money where my mouth is!

    • m2ky2fo says:

      @hhole: It really is like public radio…I have found 5 coworkers who would be willing to dontate to this site in the same manner they do for public radio. How many of us could find 3 other people who are also willing to do the same?

    • humphrmi says:

      @hhole: Read Nick Denton’s site, or the linked story. Consumerist is worth $10 mil to him, but doesn’t even come in in the top 90% income producers.

      I’ll give too, if it comes to that, but Denton isn’t looking for reader income, he’s looking for ad income generators.

    • chatterboxwriting says:

      @hhole: If it became a collective, I’d be willing to write a few posts per week for free (I’m a professional writer/blogger myself).

  239. Anonymous says:

    When I first saw this, it had no comments. (Yeah, I check Consumerist A LOT.) Now nearly 400 comments later I realize it wasn’t a bad dream.

    I find most Gawker sites to be an abomination to journalism and even blogging, but, Consumerist is the shining star of the bunch. Away from the cheap jabs of Gizmodo or Tabloid-esque Valley Wag, there’s Consumerist.

    I know Gawker needs to make money, but Consumerist gets the ax? Is Ben that expensive? Because I know servers are dirt cheap. Whatever Ben gets, he deserves ten fold.

    I read this site daily, usually several times a day, and I bet everyone else that has left a comment does as well.

    Truth is, if not for Consumerist I probably wouldn’t visit any Gawker properties. Not because they suck, I just wouldn’t know about them. And when Consumerist is out of the network, so will I be.

    I don’t get attached to sites, I see them come and go every day. But This one is different. This one is special. It holds a loyal following. That’s something advertizing cannot buy.

  240. Anonymous says:

    Good, I hope this site goes to hell. I get that this site is trying to “look out” for the consumer from the “big bad” retailers because no one knows how to look at a reciept for the return policy, but it’s when most of the time the posts are crap and very biased that make this site less trustworthy then the retailers your bashing.

    Retailers have return policies and there’s always going to be an extended warranty of some kind. Get over it and move on.

  241. Corporate-Shill says:

    Just another example of a business model failure in that revenue from clicks from ads are not being sufficient to run a viable business.

    I hope that the consumerist could have developed a pay for support business plan to provide services to the consumers in over their heads in need of professional or semi-professional support.

    While selling up the food chain is never a good idea, at this point a strong newspaper or media chain (Time-Warner comes to mind) might be a viable buyer in that The Consumerist could be used to develop leads for serious reporting and investigation as well as an outlet to monitor their own performance.

    The Consumerist has tried to do such investigation in the past and has done quite well, but the limits of personnel and budgets makes such investigations difficult to continue on a daily basis.

  242. RedwoodFlyer says:

    Consumer’s Union – the Consumer Reports guys – would be a natural fit. They’ve been toying with expanding their online presence for awhile, and were in discussions with ripoff reports awhile back, but found the site too caustic… Consumerist is much better organized and screened, so I’d thing that would work well…

    The other one to consider is Demand Media…but they’re a last resort!

  243. Tankueray says:

    Seriously!? I’ve had so much work this week I haven’t been able to keep up. This truly sucks. How much is it selling for? Can the 215 commenters get together and buy it? If we put in $500,000 each? Ben, put up a page with a paypal donation link so we can all donate to buy Consumerist and you can be your own boss. If there are conflicts of interest, I will host it on my site.

    Anyway, you’ve taught us over the years how to write complaint letters. Consumerists unite!

    Send a complaint to nick@gawker.com

  244. Tankueray says:

    Okay, another idea. Let’s all get Google to give consumerist unlimited storage at Google Apps for your Domain. Then it can stay up for free, maybe with Google ads. So, here’s my shot.

    [tanksbluedogblog.blogspot.com]

    [blog.myspace.com]

    [sites.google.com]

    [www.bluedogblackdog.com]

    They all pretty much say the same thing, click on the last one for the most refined of them.

    I’m also sending out an email to my whole address book.

    Viva Consumerist!

  245. Tankueray says:

    To: nick@gawker.com

    Nick Denton is a Jerk…

    I’ve been out of the loop all week, but I just found out you’re selling Consumerist. Consumerist provides a much needed service for consumers, which we all are. Ben and the gang have taught me how to fight off two identity thefts, one credit card fraud, to chargeback an unscrupulous business, how and when to use small claims court, what businesses to avoid and which to frequent. I read Consumerist every day (well, except when I have work to do), more than I read Lifehacker, Gizmodo, Jezebel, and Jalopnik combined. Consumerist was my gateway drug, I found all the other great Gawker blogs because of Consumerist. I really thought Gawker was about telling it like it is, not the money. I’m devastated to find out that I was wrong and I’ve been supporting you all these years. You are seriously a money grubbing idiot if you feel that Consumerist isn’t beneficial to Gawker. The reason that it doesn’t make ad revenue is because they teach their readers to be wary, do you have revenue numbers from the “morning deals” links? I’ve used my fair share of them, but a great many of your readers use ad-block plus, because we don’t want to see the ads! If we knew it was the decision for Consumerist’s existence, we would have clicked like teenagers and grandparents…

    Anyway, Nick Denton, I really don’t like you right now. My time on the internet is important, and I choose to spend it on the Consumerist. But I’m afraid of you leave them high and dry, I’ll have to boycott all the Gawker blogs I enjoy.

    Remember what Sci-Fi did with Farscape? Remember how that turned out? What about NBC and the original Star Trek? Are you serious?

    Suck it up and make one less million a year and do society a favor.

    Tankueray

  246. jrlcopy says:

    @EE: Same, if it wasn’t for Consumerist I would never have stumbled upon the rest of the crap that is Gawker… But once consumerist is gone, I’ll no longer visit those sites, since the tempation of that left hand navigation will be gone.

  247. nrwfos says:

    @undefined: I haven’t read all 400+ posts here. But I do want to express my extreme disappointment about this development. Of all Gawker’s sites, Consumerist is the only one I frequent on a daily basis. The others I go to infrequently. They are good, but don’t cover what I’m really interested in as well as Consumerist. Unfortunately, Consumerist takes the side of the Consumer and most businesses don’t want to invest in that. Not much money in it for them. I’m sad about this because Consumerist has opened my eyes to lots of info I wouldn’t have had otherwise. It has saved me lots of money and grief. I don’t know what could be done to save it. Ben going on all the different mainstream media commenting on issues should show Gawker just how valuable he and this site is. I’ve recommended this site numerous times to friends and on message boards I go to. I won’t be going to the other Gawker sites after Consumerist is gone because I won’t know what interests me there, and I don’t have the time or inclination to read all the blogs out there…especially some of the less useful ones (I won’t mention names). I hope Consumerist can be saved – maybe by some news organization… but if it goes I hope the staff of Consumerist find successful places elsewhere soon.

  248. DAK says:

    Truth be told, this is probably long overdue. The quality of the posts have been suffering for quite some time, in part because the writers and editors couldn’t help but push their own opinions/agendas. There’s very little of value on the site these days, and unless the writers/editors change, there’s no reason to think that that would be any different under any other owner.

    Consumerist.com, over the last 18 mos. or so, is a perfect example of why you don’t give an ignorant idealist a platform to speak. Even on the rare occasion that they have something intelligent to say, the biases of the staff betray them. When the site folds, it won’t be missed. If I need someone to tell me that bad customer service sucks, there are 1,000+ blogs out there to tell me the obvious. Consumerist.com could have been a great site, but the shortcomings of the people running it meant it was doomed to failure.

    Too bad.

  249. parad0x360 says:

    @InfiniTrent: Consumerist and Kotaku are the 2 sites I visit most. I wouldnt have found Kotaku without Consumerist…consider that Gawker.

  250. parad0x360 says:

    I visit the other Gawker sites because of Consumerist. I wouldnt have become so attached to Kotaku without this site. I check this site many times a day for updates and when there are none I branch out and click Gawker links. Without this site that will no longer happen.

  251. CRSpartan01 says:

    Game over. It’s been nice knowing you, Gawker. Maybe someday in the future I’ll give what survives of you a second thought.

    RIP Consumerist.

  252. MrsLopsided says:

    Posts in this thread are typical of whiney Consumerist readers.
    - We don’t like ads.
    - You should operate at a loss.
    - Good bye Gawker, I’m taking my non-revenue page-views elsewhere.
    There’s no way to pay the bills with this lot. Whoever picks up Consumerist will have to re-invent it.
    Thanks Gawker. It’s been a great ride but good luck selling it after this thread.

    • Valhawk says:

      @MrsLopsided: No, if you’d actually read instead of generalize, you’d see they say its a loss-leader. This part of Gawker runs at a loss, but it attracts people to the other parts of Gawker. So losing it would be a net loss. Even if it does not generate direct revenue per se it still adds credibility to Gawker, which in general lacks it somewhat.

      For example, the PS3 runs at a loss for Sony, but they continue to sell it because they make more money from the game sales that accompany it, than they lose from selling the unit at a loss.

      Try and take economics 101 before you complain about other readers who know more about basic economic theory than you do.

      • MrsLopsided says:

        @Valhawk:
        Posters speculate that Consumerist is a loss-leader that results in a net gain to Gawker. Apparently Gawker has numbers that show a net loss. The expense is not worth the return. Theory meets reality.

  253. robyns says:

    Gawker kills off the sites I like; I miss Sploid, and soon I’ll be missing Consumerist, to a much larger degree.

  254. Instigator says:

    This news should have been posted under the heading, “Sad.”

  255. Anonymous says:

    I would contribute a yearly fee to keep you guys going.

    What are your needs? I think you guys could get paying subscribers.

  256. nrwfos says:

    Okay, so all this good information that has been given here – we’ll lose it all. What a job it would be to go back and try to save it all. I was depending on Consumerist to do that!

    Bill Mahrer (sp?) got cancelled and found a new home. He wasn’t all that popular because of his views and he was out spoken. Maybe Ben can keep up his media appearances and find new sponsors like Bill.

  257. mariospants says:

    224+ pages of comments? Is this not proof enough of the love this site gets?

    Anyway, I doubt my comment gets seen under this pile, but I have a suggestion:

    Most – if not all – local newspapers, news radio and television stations have a consumer advocacy function, like a “Action Brown” type individual who looks into consumer problems and complaints.

    There’s a dichotomy for these guys: you need eyeballs to get leverage over the companies you’re investigating, but your local audience is limited in that respect. Often, the threat of a newscast appearance is enough to motivate bad companies, but sometimes it’s just not enough.

    I suggest that Consumerist become a media service, where support and stories can be generated from local media sources (in a way, much like it is today) so that the eyeballs for local stories can reach larger audiences. Moderation for top-level and front page presence will help ensure that the site remains relevant.

    Financial support from the news media organizations/advertising revenues increasing thru increased media attention would help keep the site afloat.

  258. Landru says:

    That banner is a little like a funeral notice. I suspect that most readers who see it will be turned off and stop coming back.

  259. chenry says:

    God damn this is the saddest news ever.

  260. m4ximusprim3 says:

    I hope denton is paying you per click-through on this post Ben. It’ll be some chunk of severance :)

  261. MrsLopsided says:

    Alexa has flaws but shows a decline in Consumerist traffic since June. Click on “max” for a 10 month trend.
    [www.alexa.com]

  262. bsalamon says:

    what about turning it into a co-operative, or a corporation…where shares are offered, and we could each own a share of consumerist?

  263. platoreborn says:

    How long till Consumerist.com shows up on its own Morning Deals?

  264. terrytaillard says:

    My timing, as usual, sucks. I just discovered the Consumerist and it is being sold. Really, it’s not my fault! Seriously, what does this say about the future of blogs and the viability of the free content paid by advertising business model? Even the big brands (Facebook) have not been able to monetize free content. Is it because of the economy and will pass when (if) the economy improves or is it something systemic? Either way, bad news for fans of good, free content and especially fans of Consumerist.

    What if we passed a hat?

  265. Ninja007 says:

    Fuck the consumerist. You all are a bunch of fascist assholes. Ever since you hired that bitch Roz to ban all the non-comformists this place has been on a decline. I used to like this place, bring back Joel.