CNET has had a difficult time lately. CEO Shelby Bonnie resigned earlier this week in the midst of an option repricing scandal that has already claimed General Counsel Sharon Le Duy, Senior Vice President Heather McGaughey of Human Resources, and former CFO Doug Woodrum.
And recent data suggests that CNET’s overall traffic isn’t just flat, it’s declining at an alarmingly swift pace. A Jeffries & Company report released on Wednesday points to a third quarter 50% drop in CNET traffic compared to the same period in 2005, including a whopping 69% drop in traffic at WebShots.
A closer look at Comscore data for CNET shows September 2006 traffic for all CNET properties at 616 million page views, v. 1.37 billion page views in September 2005. Individual properties like Webshots went from 971 million monthly page views to just 213 million. ZDNET fell from 12 million to 8 million page views. CNET reviews went from 31 million page views to 24 million. The list goes on. All major CNET properties are either flat or down, and some are down substantially. The lone exception is download.com, which had 84 million page views in Sept ‘06, up from 70 million in September ‘05.
CNET seems to be getting hammered on all sides, with tech blogs eating up many page views that would otherwise go to them, and new social networking and other sites eating into Webshots and other CNET properties. CNET is still a company with a $1.5 billion market cap, and revenues continue to increase in this favorable advertising market (2006 estimated revenues are $400 million). But rapidly declining page views point to a less than exciting future for the company.
On the plus side, CNET seems to be making efforts to make their sites for relevant to its audience, and many of these changes are so recent that it will take a while to see how they affect traffic.
I’ve contacted CNET for a comment and they should be back to me today. I’ll update this post with any new information.
See all
Post
I’m not at all surprised as I stopped visiting CNET long ago. Their interface is way too cluttered and I got tired of being bombarded by advertisements and “sponsored links” when all I wanted was information about products and topics of interest.
Interesting. I go there when I need a review, but it’s become a little cumbersome with the way it’s laid out to where I do admit I’d ditch them for something easier. I think it’s that they put sponsor links before the links I need - it’s a hassle. I do love their download site - all my trailware comes from it. I’m surprised to hear with ZDNet - their blogs are really popular with a lot of the tech companies I know.
On a side note, all I can ever think about with CNET was the article I read about the obscene amount of money they were paying one of their execs back during the boom - she wasn’t CEO, it was like the VP of Marketing or something (the article was about layoffs, if memory serves). Nuts!
If “Video killed the radio star” then “Blogs killed C|Net”.
I am surprised it took this long.
I wonder if the stats for Webshots are down partly due to the redesign. I haven’t played with it much (before or after the redesign) but the interface does seem way more efficient than it used to be and would therefore generate less pageviews.
I’m also not sure how much Ajax they are using, but this could also account for a huge decrease in page views. Worth looking into if someone were curious.
I agree with Todd there. Citizen Journalism is the next wave. And you know something you can buy firms and companies, you just can’t buy REAL opinions. If CNET needs to survive this massive decline they need to spread out their wings and get on to the basics.
PS: I had Webshots pro account for a year and all I did was download all the high res pics for my laptop once in a couple of weeks.
so tech crunch is eating traffic of cnet
While CNET proper seems to be hitting a rough spell, their entertainment devision seems to be growing strong. Over the past year, sites like TV.com have surged and their has growth amongsth GameSpot.com, MP3.com and Metacritic.com. Gamefaqs.com continues to do well, and they do have other smaller properites in that group.
CNET is also on the cutting edge of technology, with growing use of AJAX and other technologies which have cut into the numbers, so those rankings may be a bit out of line. That being said, it does seem like they have lost their core with CNET.com and have lost all momentum with webshots.com.
I use to visit News.com every day to see what is hot in the dot com , now TechCrunch and other blogs took that spot in my browser.
I have to disagree - citizen journalism is A wave, but it’s not the “next” because it’s been going on for a long time. traditional media is adapting - my anticipation is that there’ll be a mix between the two - user driven and professional content.
I agree with Todd and Tarry.
I stopped reading CNET a long time ago after they did their last few re-designs. I go to DigitalTrends.com and either PCMag or PCWorld for my CE news.
One more thing to add , they own very interesting domain names like : chat.com , help.com , mp3.com , news.com , shopping.com , etc.
Too shame they are not capitalizing on all of that.
CNET is great brand. they’ve held leadership position in their respective market space for a long time until the last few years when blogs and other small more niched focused technology web sites started to take away their market share… blogging is the trend and their main competitor. apparently CNET hasn’t reacted fast enough to the blog attack.
it’ll be interesting to see how CNET deals with the pressure.
CNET should’ve bought Weblogsinc. when it was available for $25m. They would’ve overpaid just as AOL did, but at the same time they would’ve had a platform from which to launch hundreds of niche blogs. Now they’re playing catchup and losing mass traffic to blogs and upstarts.
I like Cnet.com
I go there for reviews. The main advantage they have over other sites is the amount of video reviews they have. It just brings more context to a device when you see a Cnet editor handling a device. They need to drop the portal mentality and become more open as a site. I hope they sick around.
Maybe its because cnet is not compatible with firefox… the layout is all screwed up.
cNet is boring…filled with advertising; and well, they don’t really go after and find cool news to report about. cnet has to be a leader in the tech news world; otherwise, its just…well…cnet.
if you guys want a good story; click my name…totally new technology. does cnet get they have to find good stories?
That is too bad. Cnet used to be such a great source for technology related information. Everything from reviews, previews, pictures of future products and even their little TV show endeavor. I visit every now and then, but as stated above, the social networking and other available sites DO take a LOT away from Cnet. Add in the amount of ads, sponsored links and cluttered interface and you have exactly what is happening to them now. I mean, why visit a site with ads when you can visit others without?
Just my opinion.
um look at this site - it has ads - and I’m still here (so are you). good content and good advertising go together (think tv). CNET set standards for the industry and leads by example. yeah maybe if you read enough blogs you might find some good data, photos and opinions about a product, but CNET’s editorial is reliable and everything tech that I’ve bought has been a result of using CNET as one of my sources and I’ll continue that in the future.
Let’s hope new CEO Neil Ashe can get things turned around.
On the other hand, as somebody commented, CNET has done amazing things with its brand. The content is syndicated in a ton of places, replacing wire tech stories from the likes of the AP and Reuters. Not to mention CNET on TV. Every time I walk into Costco I see CNET television playing on the big-screen TVs.
^ that’s probably through a deal with them, actually, but still.
Hmmmm . . . Doesn’t seem to be bleeding to me.
http://www.alexa.com/data/deta.....et.com#top
Again with the Comscore. Why, Michael, and I would really like an answer here, do you continue to quote Comscore, when it’s known to be inaccurate, and when it depends on spyware to gather data?
Wait, I know: it’s because outrageous, unexpected claims make for better headlines, and because several of your sponsors are in direct competition with CNET.
Comscore, forsooth. Alexa is good enough for every reputable news source, let’s just stick with them, shall we?
Well, let me just say that I still visit CNET.com regularly and find their site very informative. I can’t believe that their traffic is declining. I just hope that the traffic decline doesn’t affect their content and excellent articles.
I don’t know about Alexa - doesn’t the end user have to have the tool bar to track it? I can’t seem to figure it out - ZDNet (ironically) did an article about how Alexa wasn’t as good of a source as people think.
Maybe somebody should get into the analytics business. It seems Alexa has little competition beyond the big guns.
so what’s with techcrunch and their 1-2 posts a day lately? Shouldn’t you be putting in some time and get your post counts up, say 6-7 a day? You make all this money from sponsors (I see that you added a 7th banner) yet you can’t write a decent review or two.
2c
CNET lost a lot of points in my book after I discovered that many of their writers were stealing/borrowing, whatever you wanna call it, stories from other tech blogs.
“CNET seems to be making efforts to make their sites for relevant to its audience”
Everytime I read an article on CNET news that includes a statement like ‘Servers are powerful machines, designed to run businesses’ or words to that effect, I feel insulted. Do they really think the kind of person reading their website doesn’t know what a server is?
Vik…..can you point out some sources there? I find that very hard to believe….CNET references other blogs quite often…and always sourced when they do.
Ron, no one forced you to come to this blog. So stop hating.
I enjoy this blog and I’m sure there are copious other members who enjoy it as well. If you think Mike’s posts rely on inaccurate data or are biased, then just leave!
Tim:
Here is just one example: http://www.kottke.org/remainder/05/08/9298.html
I heard similar complaints from Jason Calacanis, CEO of Weblogsinc, Inc.
I know that Alexa’s rankings aren’t perfect, but…
Go to Alexa.com and look at the “2yr” or “Max” traffic rankings for CNET. You’ll see that there’s an incredible and unnatural spike at the end of 2005. The slow, steady decline CNET is now experiencing is a result of traffic falling back to its natural level.
Vik…..If you look at the original story…
http://news.com.com/2100-1007_3-5843402.html
you can see this coming up in the comments and a response directly to it from the stories author…
I find it hard to believe that commentary on Google piling together tools (even a year ago) that may approximate an online OS couldn’t have been thought about by multiple people within the industry…
I do appreciate the source though…..we’ll call it a difference of opinion
I think Comscore and Jeffries Report are good sources to rely upon. I think Mike is right in pointing out that there are too many content sources (especially blogs) out there better than CNET and without the clutter.
Kal:
It is more likely that the spike is due to reclassifying the way their domains fall (now news and download are more closely associated with the CNET.com domain)….and traffic is very seasonal…so it doesn’t suprise me to much to see it fall as the year progresses…if this holiday season doesn’t reach or surpass last…then I think that there is concern in that graph
I’m right on with RobertF…they’ve just tried to add way to much junk to their site. I truly enjoy http://www.download.com , but other than that, there is just way to much on their site.
Berte
http://www.theeip.com
I’m not at all surprised - the last time I visited a CNet related site, ZDNet actually, I was affronted by so much advertising and in-browser pop-ups you literally couldn’t see the content hiding on the page. I only stayed long enough to snap a screen shot and close the browser window in disgust.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/e.....268916164/
CNet is useless.
I like cnet myself. The ads don’t seem to be a bother, but then again I am not a newbie IE user. I use flash block and a script blocker with firefox and don’t get bothered.
Interesting post. I think the common misconception is that pageviews are directly related to revenue, and as Cnet has pointed out, that is not true.
Cnet has redesigned their site, moved things around and re-categorized their reviews this year. It will take time for users to adjust and their Page Ranks and ratings to transfer over.
A little investigation on your part would have revealed that Cnet’s reviews are now one page, instead of 4-5. So naturally their pageviews have diminished there, for example.
Remember it’s about the quality of the traffic, not the quantity of pageviews. So maybe Cnet trimmed a little fat, optimized their site and improved their ad click-through-rate. That would account for the increase in revenue.
Hello…
Hello?
“Scandal”, not “Scandle”… spel-czek often?
Is CNET the tech canary in the coal mine? Will we see a move from big news sites to niche blogs? Makes sense to me. Sites like….Techcrunch or Searchblog are where I turn before CNET because I know you (Mike) and Battelle are staying up later than most of the CNET reporters and you have better connections.
I assume Webshots is getting killed by Flickr?
We use CNet often and like the site.. Great interface and many value added services.. Wish them the best.. Mike From http://www.VideoKarma.com
Michael, did you actualy look at the graph you linked to? Because if you will, you’ll see that since the beginning of 2006, CNET’s traffic has been constantly, and rather sharply, declining.
CNET is boring now, they spend too much time to criticize Microsoft. As normal IT user I want to know how Windows, Office can help me work more effectively, and live more easy. Security is importan, but one story per day about how FireFox has less security hole than IE is too annoying.
Blame the blogs for this another reason is the ad bombardment and heavy design.
CNet should be bought by Yahoo! They share much in content philosophy, and CNet has “tech cred” where Yahoo is missing it in their new tech portal.
Yahoo… are you listening? Save CNet and integrate it into Yahoo’s web editorial portal play.
“A closer look at Comscore data for CNET shows September 2006 traffic for all CNET properties at 616 million page views, v. 1.37 billion page views in September 2005. Individual properties like Webshots went from 971 million monthly page views to just 213 million. ZDNET fell from 12 million to 8 million page views. CNET reviews went from 31 million page views to 24 million. The list goes on…”
My question is what has Techcrunchs media metrix/comscore traffic done over the same time period? When I look Techcrunch up in comscore it doesn’t show up on the radar even…