Chartreuse2: Too Cool For Its Own Good?

Filed as News on October 14, 2006 4:50 pm

Well, after a much bally-hoo’d wait, Chartreuse2 is up, and much like Duncan, I’m sitting on the fence with this one.

Chartreuse enters a whole new category of blog, which is supported by membership dues only (to the tune of $9.99/ mo). It goes one further, by also demanding its potential supplicants members to answer a few community-specific questions, such as “what is the webaddress of my ex-girlfriend turned mid-level call girl?”

Its attitude also boasts being “egotistical, audacious, and over the top”; specific features include new albums, foreign TV shows, instructions on using bit torrent (gasp! how positively 2001), and “other underground shit”.

My own snark censoring ability aside (and failing), I am very curious to know how this all pans out. Clearly Master Campbell has a built in audience that allows for him to create a sense of scarcity and exclusivity. Whether or not this manufactured “cool” will translate into bigger blogging bucks — and attract enough hype and traffic is merely speculative at this point.

But I’ll have to wait for giving a better opinion on this one.
I don’t think I’m cool enough to join in just yet.

Dr. Tony Hung blogs over at DeepJiveInterests

Tags:

This post was written by

You can visit the for a short bio, more posts, and other information about the author.


Submissions & Subscriptions

Submit the post to Reddit, StumbleUpon, Digg or Del.icio.us.

Did you like it? Then subscribe to our RSS feed!



  1. By franky posted on October 14, 2006 at 6:57 pm
    Want an avatar? Get a gravatar! • You can link to this comment

    He!
    As much as I like chartreuse, also I am doubting. I surely think his content and style are great, but at the same time am pretty shocked by it. I had epect him to invite himself people (evt. during a first period) and then always to broaden.
    When I first saw it I was rather upset. WTF? Who do you think you are? Let me tell you what you are : arrogant.. aso aso.

    But the more I think of it, someone had to break the ice and if there was one person cult enough in b’land to do so, so far, it might have been chartreuse.

    The more I think of it, the more I think I might join in the next days. Even if it were only to come occasionally with a chartreuse styled post because he sometimes inspires me.

    But to be punished twice, once having to dig his archives and once having to pay, still puts me off. Personally I think he should offer the first correct answerers some months free access (there can easily be 10 questions) and also have the option to pay for access.

    Anyway, probably I’ll soon subscribe, even if it were to get screwed. Just have to wait for the working week to start again so I have time to dig his archives. :D

  2. By Darren McLaughlin posted on October 15, 2006 at 6:01 am
    Want an avatar? Get a gravatar! • You can link to this comment

    The idea makes sense. Giving away info in the hopes of monetizing it through Adsense is tough to, so charging directly for the content is logical.

    That said, $120 per year for a blog sounds high.

  3. By Chartreuse posted on October 15, 2006 at 8:05 am
    Want an avatar? Get a gravatar! • You can link to this comment

    Contrary to popular belief, a lot of thought was put into this.

    I wanted to reinvent the site and destroying it and completely changing expectations seemed like the way to go.

    I think it raises some valid questions which should be getting discussion in light of the billion dollar buyouts and the like going on.

    Is there value in original content? If so what should the price be. (10 bucks is high to me but I didn’t want to have to raise it later.)

    And is there really a difference between opinionated content people pay for in magazines and newspapers and the content a person writes on a blog?

    I can’t expect my opinions to be valued if I don’t in some type of way value them myself.

    Plus I think there is value in having a small rabid audience instead of a large kinda into you audience.

    It’s a risky move. I like comparing it to when U2 went through their “POP’ phase. The mass majority hated it but it was best for them at the time.

    It could end up being a huge flop. If so, oh well.

    If you know you’re going to win, why play?

    Someone wrote me comparing the move to Howard Stern. He monetized his content and made it strickly for his core audience. He lost a lot of influence but gained a lot of other stuff as well. And his core fans are raving about how good the show is.

    So yeah. It’s risky. And maybe the blogosphere isn’t ready for it. But it’ll be interesting to see how it plays out.

    I’m betting a lot of people will want to at least try it out.

  4. By Tony posted on October 15, 2006 at 8:47 am
    Want an avatar? Get a gravatar! • You can link to this comment

    Sure its logical — but is it doable? My impression is that for media to make this jump from free to paid, they’ve got to have a huge install base of potential customers already.

    Mr. Cambell may have that — but as you say, how many of them will pony up $10/ mo?

    Put it another way — will it have enough compelling content to charge $10/ month?

  5. By David Krug posted on October 15, 2006 at 9:15 am
    Want an avatar? Get a gravatar! • You can link to this comment

    I just find it insulting as a blogger he asks us to pony up 10 bucks after we’ve worked hard to bring him exposure.

    Not worth it in my opinion. Doesn’t matter who you are. It’s like a slap in the face. Then he doesnt have the decency to comment on it either. Oh well. Such is life.

  6. By Tony posted on October 15, 2006 at 9:34 am
    Want an avatar? Get a gravatar! • You can link to this comment

    To be honest, I thought there would be a separate back entrance behind the velvet rope for you David. ;)

  7. By John Evans (SYNTAGMA) posted on October 15, 2006 at 10:01 am
    Want an avatar? Get a gravatar! • You can link to this comment

    >>>>>And is there really a difference between opinionated content people pay for in magazines and newspapers and the content a person writes on a blog?

  8. By David Krug posted on October 15, 2006 at 10:30 am
    Want an avatar? Get a gravatar! • You can link to this comment

    tony,
    id rather walk in the front door and its like the bars. if they want to charge a cover charge so be it. i can go down the street to the next bar where I can buy a beer and sit with normal people.

  9. By Matt Craven posted on October 15, 2006 at 11:50 am
    Want an avatar? Get a gravatar! • You can link to this comment

    I signed up – we’ll see how the first month goes and if it is worth it or not.

    Matt

  10. By Jessica Doyle posted on October 16, 2006 at 1:11 am
    Want an avatar? Get a gravatar! • You can link to this comment

    You enter a bookstore. You pick up a magazine and begin browsing it. You wouldn’t read the whole magazine front to back in the store. You may read an article or two and If you liked what you saw you would more than likely buy said magazine to read at home.

    I hope it does well… it would give bloggers another choice in the way he/she monetizes their content.

  11. By Thord Hedengren posted on October 16, 2006 at 5:38 am
    Want an avatar? Get a gravatar! • You can link to this comment

    We had (have still perhaps) a pay to read blog like this here in Sweden that got decent media exposure – and I’m talking major printed papers here, not some link or other. The blog revolved around one of the most read columnists in the tabloid press and her pregnancy. She got all the necessary exposure and sure had (probably still has) a rabid following.

    The subscriber list surfaced and it wasn’t impressive. Actually, it was quite laughable.

    No offence to Mr. Campbell, but I kinda doubt that his following is big enough to make this truly work. I think there’s some kind of mentality online that brings you up, but then kicks back as soon as you start to charge money. If it revolves around more ads on your site then you can rebound and actually not lose any readers (TechCrunch comes to mind) but to downright close non-payers out probably makes it all the harder.

    Then again I applaud the move. I won’t sign up becuase I’m poor, so you’re basically kicking me out here.

    Which is fine, because as I said I applaud the move and you’ll be able to rebound if this fails, falling back to the “well, it was worth a shot, it was an experiment, the world just isn’t ready” cliche lines.

    Best of luck!

  12. Deep Jive Interests » Prince “Chartreuse” Campbell Has Gone MIANovember 23, 2006 at 9:55 pm