9 ms·

Vice was cheap to run, for a time. It started as a niche magazine in Quebec and expanded into yellow journalism with cheap to make, but provocative, YouTube doc

Vice was cheap to run, for a time. It started as a niche magazine in Quebec and expanded into yellow journalism with cheap to make, but provocative, YouTube documentaries. Then it was acquired and it pivoted sharply into being a media and news portal, with a presence on nigh every platform. The content quickly expanded in quantity, and critically overloaded itself in trying to dominate online discussion in every space.

52-6F-62 8y ago
Vice isn't cheap to run, now, though. And that last statement is a lot of conjecture. Unless you have proof of some conspiracy to dominate online discussion in every space. They do cover a wide variety of subjects, only a couple of which I've read—and they seem generally good, with the odd very good piece. Most media companies run a small gamut of niche categories: lifestyle, fashion, news, business, tech, finance, etc.
- dleslie 8y ago
  I think their rapid expansion of properties, some enormous, after 2010 speaks for itself. [0] 0: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vice_Media#Properties https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vice_Media#Properties
  - 52-6F-62 8y ago
    Then I guess we just disagree, and it's more a matter of opinion than it is a fact.
solarkraft 8y ago
> cheap to make, but provocative, YouTube documentaries That's exactly what I liked from them, but I don't really see that anymore. Motherboard is okay. That's pretty much my contact with Vice.
blacksmith_tb 8y ago
That's interesting, I would have thought the costs associated with printing a paper magazine would be fairly high compared with digital distribution, though?
- IAmEveryone 8y ago
  It’s rather meaningless compared to what the newsroom costs.
chipotle_coyote 8y ago
> Then it was acquired By who? The Wikipedia article on Vice Media says they were acquired in 1999--without listing who the acquirers were--but also says that the cofounders bought it back in 2001. All of the pivoting you're talking about appears to have happened under the original management, in any case, didn't it? They've had investment from a bunch of "old media" companies over the years, but original founder Shane Smith retained a controlling interest. (It looks like Disney will own more of the company than he does once their merger with Fox is completed.)
- dleslie 8y ago
  It's not an acquisition, per se, so much as some of it was acquired and the leadership changed at a time that major changes were being undertaken. At a time when the executive controlled roughly 3/4 of Vice, Fox purchased 5% of it; other major media have done so. Shortly before this occurance, Gavin McInnes had left his leadership role over alleged differences of opinion on how to run Vice Media. His departure, the arrival of large media conglomerates as large minority shareholders, and the rapid expansion of Vice into new properties and markets all occur within a very short time span.

52-6F-62 8y ago

Vice isn't cheap to run, now, though. And that last statement is a lot of conjecture. Unless you have proof of some conspiracy to dominate online discussion in every space. They do cover a wide variety of subjects, only a couple of which I've read—and they seem generally good, with the odd very good piece. Most media companies run a small gamut of niche categories: lifestyle, fashion, news, business, tech, finance, etc.

dleslie 8y ago
I think their rapid expansion of properties, some enormous, after 2010 speaks for itself. [0] 0: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vice_Media#Properties https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vice_Media#Properties
- 52-6F-62 8y ago
  Then I guess we just disagree, and it's more a matter of opinion than it is a fact.

solarkraft 8y ago

> cheap to make, but provocative, YouTube documentaries That's exactly what I liked from them, but I don't really see that anymore. Motherboard is okay. That's pretty much my contact with Vice.

blacksmith_tb 8y ago

That's interesting, I would have thought the costs associated with printing a paper magazine would be fairly high compared with digital distribution, though?

IAmEveryone 8y ago
It’s rather meaningless compared to what the newsroom costs.

chipotle_coyote 8y ago

> Then it was acquired By who? The Wikipedia article on Vice Media says they were acquired in 1999--without listing who the acquirers were--but also says that the cofounders bought it back in 2001. All of the pivoting you're talking about appears to have happened under the original management, in any case, didn't it? They've had investment from a bunch of "old media" companies over the years, but original founder Shane Smith retained a controlling interest. (It looks like Disney will own more of the company than he does once their merger with Fox is completed.)

dleslie 8y ago
It's not an acquisition, per se, so much as some of it was acquired and the leadership changed at a time that major changes were being undertaken. At a time when the executive controlled roughly 3/4 of Vice, Fox purchased 5% of it; other major media have done so. Shortly before this occurance, Gavin McInnes had left his leadership role over alleged differences of opinion on how to run Vice Media. His departure, the arrival of large media conglomerates as large minority shareholders, and the rapid expansion of Vice into new properties and markets all occur within a very short time span.