All of the links to the profiles appear in the first paragraph of the featured article. The companies/services are Boo, TheGlobe.com, Pets.com, Webvan, eToys, DrKoop.com, Garden.com, Kozmo, Excite@Home, and Entertaindom.
Actually, this content was built because it's interesting (and therefore satisfying for users), it ties into our coverage areas and historical mission, and it supports our business.
The format was derived from a British music magazine that I used to read, as described here:
If this were a single-page article, the length would be more than 5300 words long -- or the equivalent of around 20 double-spaced typed pages on A4 paper. Do you think that's more enjoyable to read or scroll through?
Yes, I could have comissioned it as a feature-style article, which probably would have been half as long or less, but I really don't think it would have been as effective or readable as the profiles. For instance, the profiles allow you to easily skip over companies and sections you don't want to read, whereas a feature would force you to skim.
As for generating page views, it's unfortunate that this drives so much online journalism today, but this special feature would have been commissioned regardless if we were using page views, time spent on site, or some other metric.
One of these days, a new business model will come to dominate online media -- maybe even invented by one of the Y Combinator companies -- and I honestly hope it will encourage media outlets to return to an emphasis of quality over quantity. We're in the age of the page view right now, but it won't last forever.
The second link shows a broken page for me. The first link works, except the titles/links for each of the pages are the same, which makes navigation difficult.
Thanks for giving feedback. I will have to think about a way to tag each link. I am not sure why the second link doesn't work for you. I can access it even from my mobile phone.
I'm shocked that another company would buy the rights to the Pets.com puppet. Yes, the thing was briefly well recognized, but why would you want to spend marketing dollars on a failed brand, and associate your brand with it?
Here's an idea: For my next company I'll try to buy the rights to the image of Jar Jar Binks. That should go over well.
> I'm shocked that another company would buy the rights to the Pets.com puppet.
There's a precedent in the UK. A company in the UK that provided a digital television service ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITV_Digital ) used a monkey puppet to promote its service. Like Pets.com, it failed. Like Pets.com, the rights to the puppet now belong to another company.
The monkey puppet is now used to advertise tea. The tea company was famous for adverts featuring clothed chimpanzees dubbed to promote the brand ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PG_Tips#Advertising ). However, due to the advance of animal rights, the company now uses a monkey puppet which is widely recognised in the UK.
The rights to Jar Jar Binks would go for big money today. He's a cult figure now and would go a long way towards selling a product with a little self deprecating humor.
