5 ms·

Okay, so the reason for the sale according to Pitchfork is to grow. I know that's a popular reason, and often cited around here. But...why? To put a music styl

Okay, so the reason for the sale according to Pitchfork is to grow. I know that's a popular reason, and often cited around here. But...why? To put a music style analogy out, once a band reaches profitability, it's not customary to go adding 2-3 new members. Side projects, maybe, but it's not like this kind of thing. I just hope the publication continues its high quality.

firstworldman 11y ago
I would guess that the sale would make more sense in the context of a place like HN than it would to most fans of the site. They will benefit from the infrastructure and experience that Conde Nast offers, plus the brand lift of being associated with the house that publishes some of the best and most esteemed magazines in the world elevates them to another level as a publisher. The advertising benefits of that will be huge. The sponsorships they'll be able to get for the live events and video series will be bigger. The scope of the site could become more journalistic.
- 6stringmerc 11y ago
  See, all those make sense! From what the article states though, Pitchfork had no noteworthy problems with their operation - profitable, advertising demand, innovative presentations, "gets" of the biggest names at any given time, and live music events. By my count, they'd solved the puzzle. What other mountain is there to conquer? A bigger one? I simply don't get the desire, because while all the positives could be true, to me, I worry about the downsides. This is just me, the kind of guy who keeps a fun list of Murphy's Laws within eyesight at work.
  - firstworldman 11y ago
    I wouldn't worry too much. The most notable aspect of the recent incarnation of Pitchfork's brand is its discernment. It doesn't typically follow the hype, it creates the hype. There are always subcultural ripples that surface first in smaller ponds, but the writers and editors at Pitchfork are savvy and tend to catch on pretty quick, covering (co-opting) what's cool before most people have had a chance to catch on. The only ways that Pitchfork's brand could be hurt at this point is if they stopped focusing on 'cool' (which they won't), or if they were somehow usurped by a cooler and better outlet. Those outlets exist, but they don't have the readership, budget, marketing knowhow, or in many cases, desire to be as big as Pitchfork is. Pitchfork owns its niche, and there's virtually no competition. I have a real love-hate relationship with Pitchfork. I really waver on whether it is good or bad for music overall, but its power in the music industry is legitimately scary to many artists/labels/managers/etc.
- kenko 11y ago
  > the brand lift of being associated with the house that publishes some of the best and most esteemed magazines in the world elevates them to another level as a publisher Frankly, I'd think being associated with The New Yorker and GQ would harm Pitchfork's image more than help it.
  - tyre 11y ago
    Could you elaborate? In my opinion, The New Yorker is widely considered to produce high-quality journalism.
  - firstworldman 11y ago
    Well, first of all, these kinds of things are really just insider baseball, aren't they? I don't think most readers of magazines are interested in or knowledgeable about the portfolio of the magazine publisher. So the influence is primarily on people involved in the industry. But secondly, as the other commenter points out, being associated with The New Yorker is something that just about any journalistic enterprise would die for. I suspect the web will eventually cannibalize GQ (not because it's bad, but because it's not specific enough), but The New Yorker will outlive us all.
  - krebby 11y ago
    To advertisers? Absolutely not.
freehunter 11y ago
They have music festivals and other real-world events that take serious money to put on. To put a music style analogy out, why would a band release a new album and go on tour? So they can make more money.
- 6stringmerc 11y ago
  See also: SFX entertainment. Pitchfork's core product is the website. If the music festival shows went away, the enterprise could still be viable. I'd hope they'd structure their business plan, finances, and insurance to back-stop their exposure in that area. To work with your music analogy, some bands don't have to release a new album to go on tour and make more money (even though they do), and this would be bands like the Rolling Stones or The Eagles. Or KISS, which I guess counts as a band, but I put more in the 'staged entertainment featuring clowns category.
jakejake 11y ago
You're talking about a lifestyle company where a small group of people become successful and make a great living doing what they love. Absolute blasphemy around these parts! If you're not growing into a multi-billion dollar corporation then you might as well not exist!
- Bjartr 11y ago
  >lifestyle company Ah! So that's what it's called. I was wondering if there was more to the world of business than all this "Grow or die!" that I hear, well, everywhere. Though it makes sense, "9th year of enough happy customers to pay the bills, just what we were going for" just doesn't make as good a headline as million dollar deals.
dagw 11y ago
once a band reaches profitability, it's not customary to go adding 2-3 new members. Sure it is, if they want to grow. Writers, managers, session musicians, stylists, PR people, I could go on. Just because you don't get on stage doesn't mean you aren't vital to success of a big name band.
- 6stringmerc 11y ago
  Sigh I've had more than a few arguments about this perspective in the past, and I'll hold steadfast to one simple rule - if you're not on stage, then you're not "in the band." I didn't say "not important," but if your bassist gets sick, your PR person isn't going to get up on stage and fill in. There are ancillary roles that are important, but firing a Tour Manager or Lawyer is not the same as replacing a drummer, it just isn't. Or, in a rough analogy, just because a waiter brings you food doesn't mean they had a hand in making it in the kitchen.
  - dagw 11y ago
    I guess it all comes down to the question of what any given band is. Is it essentially a performance arts collective just trying to cover its costs or a business just trying to maximize profits. All bands fall somewhere on that spectrum, and the answer to who is part of the band depends on where they fall on that spectrum. firing a Tour Manager or Lawyer is not the same as replacing a drummer, it just isn't. No, and replacing your CFO is not the same as firing an administrative assistant. But they're both part of the company. in a rough analogy, just because a waiter brings you food doesn't mean they had a hand in making it in the kitchen. No but they are crucial to the whole restaurant experience and thus the success of the business. A bad front of house can completely wreck the best of intentions that the kitchen might have, and a great front of house can save the day if the kitchen fumbles the ball.
    - 6stringmerc 11y ago
      Hmm, well, I guess if you want to obfuscate the term "band" and expand it to be an "organization" of course we're not going to see eye-to-eye. "Part of the company" is completely off-track and downright wrong when talking about a Lawyer versus a Drummer. A drummer contributes to the making of what the lawyer defends. This is very clear in the sense of one is a member of the band, and the other is a member of the organization. One contributes on a creative basis, the other does not. Cut-and-dried definitions here. No front of the house could ever save a restaurant if the kitchen decides to walk out, right? No band, no organization. No pilots, no airline. It does kind of make me chuckle that the only times I've had this kind of discussion is with a non-musician who wants to equivocate their functional role with what comes out of the guitar amp. Other people might buy it. I sure don't.
PhasmaFelis 11y ago
Depends on whether you care about the product or the money.

firstworldman 11y ago

I would guess that the sale would make more sense in the context of a place like HN than it would to most fans of the site. They will benefit from the infrastructure and experience that Conde Nast offers, plus the brand lift of being associated with the house that publishes some of the best and most esteemed magazines in the world elevates them to another level as a publisher. The advertising benefits of that will be huge. The sponsorships they'll be able to get for the live events and video series will be bigger. The scope of the site could become more journalistic.

6stringmerc 11y ago
See, all those make sense! From what the article states though, Pitchfork had no noteworthy problems with their operation - profitable, advertising demand, innovative presentations, "gets" of the biggest names at any given time, and live music events. By my count, they'd solved the puzzle. What other mountain is there to conquer? A bigger one? I simply don't get the desire, because while all the positives could be true, to me, I worry about the downsides. This is just me, the kind of guy who keeps a fun list of Murphy's Laws within eyesight at work.
- firstworldman 11y ago
  I wouldn't worry too much. The most notable aspect of the recent incarnation of Pitchfork's brand is its discernment. It doesn't typically follow the hype, it creates the hype. There are always subcultural ripples that surface first in smaller ponds, but the writers and editors at Pitchfork are savvy and tend to catch on pretty quick, covering (co-opting) what's cool before most people have had a chance to catch on. The only ways that Pitchfork's brand could be hurt at this point is if they stopped focusing on 'cool' (which they won't), or if they were somehow usurped by a cooler and better outlet. Those outlets exist, but they don't have the readership, budget, marketing knowhow, or in many cases, desire to be as big as Pitchfork is. Pitchfork owns its niche, and there's virtually no competition. I have a real love-hate relationship with Pitchfork. I really waver on whether it is good or bad for music overall, but its power in the music industry is legitimately scary to many artists/labels/managers/etc.
kenko 11y ago
> the brand lift of being associated with the house that publishes some of the best and most esteemed magazines in the world elevates them to another level as a publisher Frankly, I'd think being associated with The New Yorker and GQ would harm Pitchfork's image more than help it.
- tyre 11y ago
  Could you elaborate? In my opinion, The New Yorker is widely considered to produce high-quality journalism.
- firstworldman 11y ago
  Well, first of all, these kinds of things are really just insider baseball, aren't they? I don't think most readers of magazines are interested in or knowledgeable about the portfolio of the magazine publisher. So the influence is primarily on people involved in the industry. But secondly, as the other commenter points out, being associated with The New Yorker is something that just about any journalistic enterprise would die for. I suspect the web will eventually cannibalize GQ (not because it's bad, but because it's not specific enough), but The New Yorker will outlive us all.
- krebby 11y ago
  To advertisers? Absolutely not.

freehunter 11y ago

They have music festivals and other real-world events that take serious money to put on. To put a music style analogy out, why would a band release a new album and go on tour? So they can make more money.

6stringmerc 11y ago
See also: SFX entertainment. Pitchfork's core product is the website. If the music festival shows went away, the enterprise could still be viable. I'd hope they'd structure their business plan, finances, and insurance to back-stop their exposure in that area. To work with your music analogy, some bands don't have to release a new album to go on tour and make more money (even though they do), and this would be bands like the Rolling Stones or The Eagles. Or KISS, which I guess counts as a band, but I put more in the 'staged entertainment featuring clowns category.

jakejake 11y ago

You're talking about a lifestyle company where a small group of people become successful and make a great living doing what they love. Absolute blasphemy around these parts! If you're not growing into a multi-billion dollar corporation then you might as well not exist!

Bjartr 11y ago
>lifestyle company Ah! So that's what it's called. I was wondering if there was more to the world of business than all this "Grow or die!" that I hear, well, everywhere. Though it makes sense, "9th year of enough happy customers to pay the bills, just what we were going for" just doesn't make as good a headline as million dollar deals.

dagw 11y ago

once a band reaches profitability, it's not customary to go adding 2-3 new members. Sure it is, if they want to grow. Writers, managers, session musicians, stylists, PR people, I could go on. Just because you don't get on stage doesn't mean you aren't vital to success of a big name band.

6stringmerc 11y ago
Sigh I've had more than a few arguments about this perspective in the past, and I'll hold steadfast to one simple rule - if you're not on stage, then you're not "in the band." I didn't say "not important," but if your bassist gets sick, your PR person isn't going to get up on stage and fill in. There are ancillary roles that are important, but firing a Tour Manager or Lawyer is not the same as replacing a drummer, it just isn't. Or, in a rough analogy, just because a waiter brings you food doesn't mean they had a hand in making it in the kitchen.
- dagw 11y ago
  I guess it all comes down to the question of what any given band is. Is it essentially a performance arts collective just trying to cover its costs or a business just trying to maximize profits. All bands fall somewhere on that spectrum, and the answer to who is part of the band depends on where they fall on that spectrum. firing a Tour Manager or Lawyer is not the same as replacing a drummer, it just isn't. No, and replacing your CFO is not the same as firing an administrative assistant. But they're both part of the company. in a rough analogy, just because a waiter brings you food doesn't mean they had a hand in making it in the kitchen. No but they are crucial to the whole restaurant experience and thus the success of the business. A bad front of house can completely wreck the best of intentions that the kitchen might have, and a great front of house can save the day if the kitchen fumbles the ball.
  - 6stringmerc 11y ago
    Hmm, well, I guess if you want to obfuscate the term "band" and expand it to be an "organization" of course we're not going to see eye-to-eye. "Part of the company" is completely off-track and downright wrong when talking about a Lawyer versus a Drummer. A drummer contributes to the making of what the lawyer defends. This is very clear in the sense of one is a member of the band, and the other is a member of the organization. One contributes on a creative basis, the other does not. Cut-and-dried definitions here. No front of the house could ever save a restaurant if the kitchen decides to walk out, right? No band, no organization. No pilots, no airline. It does kind of make me chuckle that the only times I've had this kind of discussion is with a non-musician who wants to equivocate their functional role with what comes out of the guitar amp. Other people might buy it. I sure don't.

PhasmaFelis 11y ago

Depends on whether you care about the product or the money.