b5media.com

Advertise with us

Enjoying this blog? Check out the rest of the Business Channel

Work Boxers

Getting Stronger By Getting Smaller

by Paul on January 24th, 2006

If you look at the sidebar on the right you will notice that the Fine Fools box only contains four sites now:

Oh my god, what happened?! Everyone has left Fine Fools! Well, not really. When 2006 rolled around I had a lot of time to sit down and look at everything that I am responsible for and what direction that I wanted to take things. When looking at Fine Fools I saw a Network that more and more people were talking about and one where I admit to not helping reach its full potential because it had simply outgrown me and broke so many rules that I myself had established for blog networks. What I had was about 10 great blogs with 10 writers who were doing an excellent job of writing content, but every topic was different. The 9rules brand (in my eyes) is quality content and helping readers find it, but I had no idea what the Fine Fools brand was because every site was so different.

sidenote: Argue all you want about the importance of design and branding of a whole Network, but I would always much rather have those as an advantage than not have an advantage at all.

Looking at the sites I realized that if they weren’t part of Fine Fools I would still put them into the 9rules Network based on their content and they would thrive even moreso in those conditions because they would have communities that they would fit in more appropriately than what Fine Fools could provide. If Fine Fools became known as an Entertainment Blog Network (or whatever) what role would a cooking blog have in it?

Finally, I admit to not liking the payment structure of the whole deal. I love being able to give up 100% of the revenue on the writers’ pages, but when a site is starting off that 100% amounts to nothing. I wrote Why Blog Networks Will Fail This Year with the mindset of being a writer within a Network. Really what’s the difference between starting a blog of my own vs. starting one in a network where the revenue is shared? The difference lies in the community and what resources are made available to you. If you can’t provide those the writers are better off going the independent route.

With all of this in my head I came to the decision that to make both Fine Fools stronger and the sites of the other writers more successful that I would shrink the network and help it develop a brand, while giving ownership of the sites to the writers (if they stay in 9rules for 1 year) and helping them out with the 9rules Network where their potential of growth is up to them.

I enjoy both the WIN and Gawker models, but love the Gawker model more simply because the brand is so strong behind it and I don’t think that would be possible with a WIN-sized network. That’s the direction I would like to take FF. Interestingly enough both It’s Useless and A Man’s View had their highest traffic days yesterday partly due to the reduced Network list. Granted “highest” isn’t that much, but I found it interesting to see. Honestly this is the first time I have felt that FF is a real Network now, not because of the writers or sites (almost impossible to find such talent), but because of the focus I am able to put into it now. 9rules offers strength in numbers, while Fine Fools will be able to offer strength in its focus.

Related Stories

POSTED IN: Fine Fools

12 opinions for Getting Stronger By Getting Smaller

  • Derek Lakin
    Jan 24, 2006 at 6:16 am

    So, does this mean that those blogs that were part of FineFools before, but aren’t now, will become members of 9rules automatically?

    Presumably this means that the now non-FF blogs need to come up with their own site skins. If that’s the case how do I go about applying them to the blogs I run?

  • Mary-Ann Horley
    Jan 24, 2006 at 7:53 am

    I’m finding it really hard to restrict my network to a particular niche, there’s just too much stuff I’m interested in (That’s why I’m not launched yet!)

    First it was motorsport only, then it was all action and extreme sports, then I found someone who wants to write a popular science/engineering blog (and one of the racing sites fits better into that niche) and now I’m thinking I should add in a couple of webby blogs I write myself. Eeeek

  • ZMAng
    Jan 24, 2006 at 9:04 am

    Hehe, I’m going to look stupid, but I’ll ask this anyway.

    What I had was about 10 great blogs with 10 writers who were doing an excellent job of writing content, but every topic was different. The 9rules brand (in my eyes) is quality content and helping readers find it, but I had no idea what the Fine Fools brand was because every site was so different.

    What does the lack of Fine Fools’ brand have to do with the wide range of topics its bloggers write on?

  • ZMAng
    Jan 24, 2006 at 9:12 am

    Sorry, but I realised I needed to clarify my question a little.

    I understand that having a wide range of topics would make branding a more difficult process. I also presume that this problem can be averted through a distinctive characteristic like the 9rules or Instablogs communities.

    But how does the wide range of topics on Fine Fools become the primary reason for a lack of a distinctive brand?

  • Scrivs
    Jan 24, 2006 at 10:40 am

    Both 9rules and Instablogs have the advantage of numbers and therefore. Why would I take the numbers approach with FF if I have already done so with 9r? Running 9r is a job by itself and so making FF the best I think I can make it I had to make it small enough that I can still guide its direction.

    Don’t know if that answered your question at all.

    Derek: You got mail.

  • Scrivs
    Jan 24, 2006 at 10:42 am

    Mary-Ann: I think a big problem is that it is just too easy to get blogs up and running. I always though TooNoisy was a sports network so including a Science blog might not be good for the science blog. One of the purposes of a Network is to help pass traffic around and it’s hard to do so when you have 9 sports blog (made up number) and 1 science blog.

  • chartreuse
    Jan 24, 2006 at 7:21 pm

    I think it was a very wise move on your part.
    This is not the age of ABC and NBC. This is the age of Comedy Central and Discover.

  • adam
    Jan 25, 2006 at 12:25 am

    I believe it is a strong move in the right direction. I am waiting to see what comes next. I like to see you getting refocused on what is important.

  • Melissa
    Jan 25, 2006 at 12:40 pm

    You’ve “upgraded” me to 9rules even before the hullaballo but I am still at a loss why Escape is still with 9rules but not with finefools anymore. You said something about focusing on the blogs left. Hmmm… what about us? *whines*

  • SYNTAGMA » Blog Archive » Scrivs Shrinks Fine Fools Network
    Jan 27, 2006 at 9:51 am

    […] We’re getting used to introspective head-bangings from all over the Paul Scrivens collection (I forget how many networks and how many companies are involved). Now Scrivs has reduced Fine Fools to only four blogs. Writing on the Work Boxers blog he admits: […]

  • Martin
    Jan 31, 2006 at 10:40 pm

    love the Gawker model more simply because the brand is so strong behind it

    Gotta agree with you 100% with this one, Scrivs. I’d rather have 5-10 strongly-branded blogs tied together than 30,40 50+ “cookie-cutter”-style blogs.

    You know when you get it when all the talk is about the blog and not the blog network that owns it.

    It also has that “quality over quantity” angle - I’d rather focus on making 5 great blogs than 50 mediocre ones.

  • chartreuse (BETA) » Blog Archive » Sometimes Your Girlfriend Isn’t Really Dead:The Future Of Blog Networks
    Feb 13, 2006 at 12:45 pm

    […] Scrivs at Fine Fools realized that small is the new big, and cut the fat off of his network. A wise move. […]

Have an opinion? Leave a comment: