3 ms·
They're also falling victim to many of the traps startups do with regard to VC funding. Vice (and Buzzfeed for that matter) are ticking along nicely, generating
by untog 8y ago
They're also falling victim to many of the traps startups do with regard to VC funding. Vice (and Buzzfeed for that matter) are ticking along nicely, generating a profit. But they're not generating enough profit for their investors, so they're forced to jump through cost-cutting hoops that will ultimately be to the detriment of their product.
- mrguyorama 8y agoI wonder if there was ever a time in history where it was okay to just run a business and make some money.
- bdamm 8y agoStill can be done. Just gotta stay private.
- lotsofpulp 8y agoEven private businesses are at risk of a well funded company coming undercutting them on costs until they sell themselves or fold.
- maxxxxx 8y agoThe majority of businesses still work that way. VC backed companies are outliers but they are in the press a lot.
- joncrane 8y agoAny publicly held company is ethically obligated to maximize profits as the agents of the shareholders, the vast majority of which only want the stock price to be maximized.
- InitialLastName 8y agoCan only work if everyone whose money you're using to run the business is OK with it.
- kamarg 8y agoReally depends on how the company is setup. If you have shares issued, you really only need a majority (not everyone) of the people with voting shares to be ok with it.
- AJ007 8y agoThere has been plenty of in depth reporting about what was going on at Vice. They knew damn well what they were doing. Pump and dump on an unsuspecting old media company that still had tons of money.
- 52-6F-62 8y agoThis happened similarly with "traditional" media in the 90s. Properties got bought up, and owning papers and magazines was a hot item. They were posting large gains yearly, and shareholders were pleased. When those gains started going down, shareholders became not so pleased! Then the company puts pressure on the properties to cut costs and perform better and sell more to keep those gains coming against a downward pressure that was almost constant. The companies put more pressure on the properties, etc. Many of those properties cut print production completely over the past 20 years and have moved solely online with teams a small fraction of the size they once had. A few emerged less damaged, but still not what they once were financially. There's a great thread about this very thing happening: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1088503510184927233.html https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1088503510184927233.html And I guess it's now happening to the online-native media companies. It will probably hit tech harder in the coming years too, if these histories are evidence of a pattern.
- siruncledrew 8y agoFrom an investment perspective, I just don't see how the ROI is there for modern digital media companies to incentivize the 'slow pace' of journalism like with 'traditional' media. That's not to say investigative journalism doesn't exist anymore, but news companies are much more cognizant about 'production metrics' so longer, time-consuming pieces are much less frequent. You said it well: investors want their dollars. It's like manufacturing: more sales = more dollars. More news = more revenue. The barriers to entry (and republishing) are also a lot lower now. Why sink a bunch of time and resources into a single piece, when another news company could just come along and say "Thanks for doing the work for us!" and republish it for ad revenue with minor edits. Everyone is rushing to be first, which typically results in a first publisher with nearly instant fast-followers. Plus, when news is ubiquitous and free, users have tons of choices to read the story from, so there is always an alternative around the corner.