4 ms·

Mashable lays off staff in 'strategic shift' toward video

21 points by r721 11y ago

danso 11y ago
What a bummer, I've usually thought of Mashable as just a quick-hit blog site but had been noticing longer pieces in the wild. Of all the specialty blogs, Mashable IMO had one of the best ideas. Social media will long be one of the biggest businesses in tech and requires its own specialized comprehensive coverage. From what I could tell, though, Mashable never got technical enough in its coverage...Moz made a name for itself and then a SaaS business through SEO, and social media is at least as big if not bigger than SEO these days, particularly in the mainstream mindset. Given Mashable's lead in covering social media, there was an opportunity to do SaaS and consulting...the amount that government agencies pay for shit social media consultants and software could easily fund a business where Mashable's news coverage is its loss-leader. Edit: Apparently the head of the video team was let go just as she was about to start a shoot and was left stranded in Ohio because her company email was cut off. This is the harshest "I'm sorry to say I've been let go but I've had a great time working with my @COMPANY collagues" https://twitter.com/nadjao/status/718099008657440769 https://twitter.com/nadjao/status/718099008657440769 > Well at least now we know this company has no fucking vision except total garbage click bait production.
- praneshp 11y ago
  I'm sad she is turning this into sexism though. I liked the goodbye message. https://twitter.com/nadjao/status/718119373328760834 https://twitter.com/nadjao/status/718119373328760834 > Interesting that all the people they fired were intelligent, skilled journalists and producers. This is what happens when bros run media. https://twitter.com/nadjao/status/718134509921779712 https://twitter.com/nadjao/status/718134509921779712 > Also let's take a moment and see that majority of the editors and producers who are now gone are women.
  - cylinder 11y ago
    How are you sad if you don't know if it's true or false?
larrik 11y ago
Video is extremely overrated as a medium. It's not searchable, it's not quotable, and it takes forever to consume compared to reading. I read a dozen(s) or more articles in a day, and generally watch zero videos per week.
- minimaxir 11y ago
  However, videos guarantee 100% attention on any advertisements displayed during the video, which is the only thing that matters to businesses. Yes, that is the current state of the Internet publishing industry.
  - elthran 11y ago
    How so? I know I happily ignore/do other things while ads are playing in a video I'm watching
- AndrewUnmuted 11y ago
  Though I agree with your sentiment 100%, from an advertising point of view, video is looked at as a 'holy grail' situation because it can attack two of our most vulnerable senses simultaneously - visual and sonic. Audio ads are seen as highly effective, especially if the ad is a testimonial from a respected radio/podcast personality. Video can still do plenty well with the viewer planting their eyes firmly onto the screen, but when the viewer decides not to there's still the audio, hassling us to get our subscription to BarkBox or whatever.
- Reedx 11y ago
  You're right articles are technically better in those ways, but the reality is that people are watching videos more and more. The content that people used to consume via an article is now being consumed via video, and it seems to be preferred. Between that and the rise of ad blockers, it doesn't surprise me in the slightest that sites are fleeing to video. I think it's actually in their best interest, lest they be left behind and replaced. I've been seeing this a LOT with gaming related content. YouTube channels are essentially replacing game sites.
shockzzz 11y ago
In other words, "more ads." Video ads pay so much it's silly.
teaneedz 11y ago
Since my ad blockers are preventing this article from loading, I'm just going by the Title: bad move Mashable. I suppose that millennials consume the most videos, but power users rely on text, especially for consumption and sharing. Advertisers always poisoning things.
- r721 11y ago
  Try Bloomberg's piece: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-04-07/mashable-is-firing-employees-as-website-shifts-focus-to-video http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-04-07/mashable-i...
  - teaneedz 11y ago
    Ty. And there it is: "collaborate on new technology and advertising opportunities." I read that and laughed. I suppose their bed is for Millennials and Advertisers now, but it's kind of interesting that Advertisers still haven't learned. UX brains cells die though when advertisers get involved.
- Reedx 11y ago
  You say it's a bad move, but are simultaneously pointing out that you've removed their source of revenue. How is it a bad move if their goal is to pay the bills and survive? Do you have an alternative solution?
  - teaneedz 11y ago
    Sure. I didn't remove their source of revenue - their content still displayed for me, minus nefarious tracking, malverts and poor targeting. The solution is to stand up to ad-tech and advertisers and do ads the right way - one that respects UX. Until that happens, publishers are in a no-win situation. Videos won't solve their problem. They will cost more to produce and many will skip them or head to other places with plain text. Millennials are still going to be picky on what they watch. Maybe that generation is still learning the ramifications of ad-tech but this survey from Realtime Generation is interesting. What makes them unhappy: - Organizations sharing data with third parties (60%). - Movement tracked in-store via personal device for marketing purposes (41%). - Online habits used to provide targeted ads and promotions (50%). - Location data used or shared (54%). Advertisers are responsible for the current state of declining revenue for publishers because they never understood UX. Ad blocking usage is going to rise and publishers will die or eventually address the issue with advertisers.
homero 11y ago
Idiots it was all click bait anyway
cylinder 11y ago
Does anyone know why Mashable's twitter post links use the address "http://on.mash.to/?" http://on.mash.to/?" What is the purpose of using link shortening if you add superfluous characters that don't make sense "on"? What does "on mash to" mean?

21 points by r721 11y ago

danso 11y ago

What a bummer, I've usually thought of Mashable as just a quick-hit blog site but had been noticing longer pieces in the wild. Of all the specialty blogs, Mashable IMO had one of the best ideas. Social media will long be one of the biggest businesses in tech and requires its own specialized comprehensive coverage. From what I could tell, though, Mashable never got technical enough in its coverage...Moz made a name for itself and then a SaaS business through SEO, and social media is at least as big if not bigger than SEO these days, particularly in the mainstream mindset. Given Mashable's lead in covering social media, there was an opportunity to do SaaS and consulting...the amount that government agencies pay for shit social media consultants and software could easily fund a business where Mashable's news coverage is its loss-leader. Edit: Apparently the head of the video team was let go just as she was about to start a shoot and was left stranded in Ohio because her company email was cut off. This is the harshest "I'm sorry to say I've been let go but I've had a great time working with my @COMPANY collagues" https://twitter.com/nadjao/status/718099008657440769 https://twitter.com/nadjao/status/718099008657440769 > Well at least now we know this company has no fucking vision except total garbage click bait production.

praneshp 11y ago
I'm sad she is turning this into sexism though. I liked the goodbye message. https://twitter.com/nadjao/status/718119373328760834 https://twitter.com/nadjao/status/718119373328760834 > Interesting that all the people they fired were intelligent, skilled journalists and producers. This is what happens when bros run media. https://twitter.com/nadjao/status/718134509921779712 https://twitter.com/nadjao/status/718134509921779712 > Also let's take a moment and see that majority of the editors and producers who are now gone are women.
- cylinder 11y ago
  How are you sad if you don't know if it's true or false?

larrik 11y ago

Video is extremely overrated as a medium. It's not searchable, it's not quotable, and it takes forever to consume compared to reading. I read a dozen(s) or more articles in a day, and generally watch zero videos per week.

minimaxir 11y ago
However, videos guarantee 100% attention on any advertisements displayed during the video, which is the only thing that matters to businesses. Yes, that is the current state of the Internet publishing industry.
- elthran 11y ago
  How so? I know I happily ignore/do other things while ads are playing in a video I'm watching
AndrewUnmuted 11y ago
Though I agree with your sentiment 100%, from an advertising point of view, video is looked at as a 'holy grail' situation because it can attack two of our most vulnerable senses simultaneously - visual and sonic. Audio ads are seen as highly effective, especially if the ad is a testimonial from a respected radio/podcast personality. Video can still do plenty well with the viewer planting their eyes firmly onto the screen, but when the viewer decides not to there's still the audio, hassling us to get our subscription to BarkBox or whatever.
Reedx 11y ago
You're right articles are technically better in those ways, but the reality is that people are watching videos more and more. The content that people used to consume via an article is now being consumed via video, and it seems to be preferred. Between that and the rise of ad blockers, it doesn't surprise me in the slightest that sites are fleeing to video. I think it's actually in their best interest, lest they be left behind and replaced. I've been seeing this a LOT with gaming related content. YouTube channels are essentially replacing game sites.

shockzzz 11y ago

In other words, "more ads." Video ads pay so much it's silly.

teaneedz 11y ago

Since my ad blockers are preventing this article from loading, I'm just going by the Title: bad move Mashable. I suppose that millennials consume the most videos, but power users rely on text, especially for consumption and sharing. Advertisers always poisoning things.

r721 11y ago
Try Bloomberg's piece: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-04-07/mashable-is-firing-employees-as-website-shifts-focus-to-video http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-04-07/mashable-i...
- teaneedz 11y ago
  Ty. And there it is: "collaborate on new technology and advertising opportunities." I read that and laughed. I suppose their bed is for Millennials and Advertisers now, but it's kind of interesting that Advertisers still haven't learned. UX brains cells die though when advertisers get involved.
Reedx 11y ago
You say it's a bad move, but are simultaneously pointing out that you've removed their source of revenue. How is it a bad move if their goal is to pay the bills and survive? Do you have an alternative solution?
- teaneedz 11y ago
  Sure. I didn't remove their source of revenue - their content still displayed for me, minus nefarious tracking, malverts and poor targeting. The solution is to stand up to ad-tech and advertisers and do ads the right way - one that respects UX. Until that happens, publishers are in a no-win situation. Videos won't solve their problem. They will cost more to produce and many will skip them or head to other places with plain text. Millennials are still going to be picky on what they watch. Maybe that generation is still learning the ramifications of ad-tech but this survey from Realtime Generation is interesting. What makes them unhappy: - Organizations sharing data with third parties (60%). - Movement tracked in-store via personal device for marketing purposes (41%). - Online habits used to provide targeted ads and promotions (50%). - Location data used or shared (54%). Advertisers are responsible for the current state of declining revenue for publishers because they never understood UX. Ad blocking usage is going to rise and publishers will die or eventually address the issue with advertisers.

homero 11y ago

Idiots it was all click bait anyway

cylinder 11y ago

Does anyone know why Mashable's twitter post links use the address "http://on.mash.to/?" http://on.mash.to/?" What is the purpose of using link shortening if you add superfluous characters that don't make sense "on"? What does "on mash to" mean?