6 ms·

For so many news/media companies to be cutting all at the same time, I wonder if they're all having issues with earning enough ad revenue all of a sudden? Mayb

by sct202 8y ago

For so many news/media companies to be cutting all at the same time, I wonder if they're all having issues with earning enough ad revenue all of a sudden? Maybe the high spenders like Squarespace, BlueApron, and MailChimp are pulling back ad spend?

darkpuma 8y ago
Well BlueApron is on the rocks too, aren't they? So that's definitely possible.
notatoad 8y ago
The three you listed are big spenders in the world of independent youtube channels and podcasters, but are they also big customers in the context of Vice or BuzzFeed?
zjaffee 8y ago
It's that these companies have been VC funded for most of their existence, as they focus on going public, they realized they need to cut back.
- 52-6F-62 8y ago
  You’re right in part, but even publicly-shared media companies are doing the same thing.
hayksaakian 8y ago
It's January when ad spends are usually much lower than the preceeding holiday season. There are currently backs accross the board, but on the outside it's hard to say if those are seasonal or not.
75dvtwin 8y ago
without re-iterating my views about the political affiliation of these outfit. Just seeing the timing of it, all at the same time, is indeed suspicious. Another posted suggested that they have hired at disproportionally large numbers. Seems like a plausible explanation, if true. May be it related to some political changes. Or, may be, there is an unseen 'consolidation' that will commence (layoffs in tech industry, often precedes takeovers). Just speculating, though. I definitely feel, that people will not pay for opinion pieces, but will pay for investigative journalism. However, investigative journalism, in my view, lacks economic model. It is quite resource intensive, but there is no 'story origination fee' of some sort. So it has to live of donations, which could make it very biased.
- untog 8y ago
  I'm not convinced it's all that suspicious. Some immediate thoughts: - it's the start of a new year. New budgets. Plus laying people off just before the holidays is a baaaad look. - it's a lot easier to do this when lots of other outlets are doing it too, because you'll get less attention - all these companies rely on advertising for revenue, often from the exact same sources. So any softening in ad prices would affect a lot of people at once. - this is actually the latest in a long, long line of media layoffs and redundancies
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- ummonk 8y ago
  That is certainly how I feel. There are a lot of good free bloggers out there that have better opinion pieces than those in the establishment media, and there is no way I’m going to pay for the latter. At the same time, I greatly value the media’s role in investigative journalism and wish I could support outlets / journalists that break important quality investigative news, but there really isn’t a good way to do that. I think video functions as a much better format for investigative reporting though - it is much more engaging, slightly more trustworthy (because you don’t have to e.g. trust the journalist’s description of tone / body language, although selective editing can still be done), and harder for other media outlets that haven’t done the investigative legwork to just copy and redistribute.
  - ummonk 8y ago
    Huh. Why are people downvoting me? I don't think my opinion is particularly controversial, and I'm genuinely curious which part people disagree with...
  - chipotle_coyote 8y ago
    While I didn't downvote you, one could certainly make the argument that "how you feel" is, well, maybe a little...idiosyncratic and perhaps not that well-informed? First: I'm sure there are "good free bloggers" out there, but there's far, far fewer that aren't associated with new media companies now than there were a decade ago. Making money as an independent blogger is exceedingly difficult in 2019 in a way that just wasn't as true in 2009. Second: McClatchy, BuzzFeed, and Vice are all known for investigative journalism, not opinion pieces. McClatchy was once considered one of the best newspaper companies in the business, primarily based on investigative work; while Vice and BuzzFeed certainly are known for clickbait material, they've both been funding serious news stories for years. "Free bloggers" just aren't competition in this space. Third: You know that BuzzFeed in particular is in the straits that they're in because they tried to pivot to video, right? Mashable is nearly out of business because of their attempt to do so. Also, investigative journalism tends to rely on, well, investigation, not "descriptions of tone and body language." Fourth: there is, in fact, a really good way to support investigative journalism. It's--you know what I'm going to say, right?--paying for it. It turns out that an awful lot of newspapers, magazines, and journalism web sites have mechanisms set up that enable you to give them money, often on a recurring basis!
SlowRobotAhead 8y ago
The conspiracy theory going around is: The “Countering Disinformation and Propaganda Act” included in the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2017 that Obama signed. It expired Dec 2018. $160 million / 2 years / 1000 journalists laid off. Comes out to $80K annual salary & benefits. Coincidence? It's true it expired at the same time as the layoffs, it's true it was $160 million, it's true the stated goal was to combat "fakenews" (who even can say what this is anymore!), but it's probably a leap to say this was funding places like Buzzfeed, HuffPost, and others that have ridden the fakenews line themselves. edit: LOL you know it's not my conspiracy theory right :D
- javagram 8y ago
  This is a stupid conspiracy theory to spread. The money was never spent as of less than a year ago. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/04/world/europe/state-department-russia-global-engagement-center.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/04/world/europe/state-depart... President trump’s administration controlled the spending of these funds and clearly they weren’t very eager to do so.
  - rightbyte 8y ago
    So the counter argument is that the Trump admin didn't found Huff Post? The original plan was that Trump would lose.
  - SlowRobotAhead 8y ago
    Hmm, so opposing view points should be silenced because you don't agree with them? I don't even agree with the one I posted but you felt you had to silence me for mentioning it exists. I don't even mind that your NYT article doesn't seem to be about the NDAA signing that moved $160 [0], not $120 million to fight disinformation. Are you sure you that is the same topic? [0] Two years at $80 million each https://www.congress.gov/114/crpt/hrpt840/CRPT-114hrpt840.pdf https://www.congress.gov/114/crpt/hrpt840/CRPT-114hrpt840.pd...
    - javagram 8y ago
danso 8y ago
It’s not all of a sudden. I worked for a McClatchy newspaper before 2010. This was before what now seems like annual layoffs, but there were still large cutbacks and buyouts because McClatchy made the mistake of buying the Knight Ridder papers (which includes the San Jose Mercury News and Miami Herald) at peak price, taking a huge loan to do so, not realizing that newspapers were a downward spiraling industry. McClatchy has been saddled with massive debt since, and while I was there, digital revenue wasn’t even enough to cover the debt interest.
- 52-6F-62 8y ago
  I pointed this out in another one of the lay-off topic HN threads (the linked twitter thread isn’t me) You’re plenty spot on within the entire media world. https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1088503510184927233.html https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1088503510184927233.html
  - um_ya 8y ago
    It would be interesting to know how much of this news comes from selling advertisements, vs selling stories. If a company isn't making money from ads, then they're getting money from somewhere else.
    - 52-6F-62 8y ago
      A basic breakdown is: Ads Subscriptions Cover sales Syndicationed content Ads are probably the main source now, but subscriptions are still a main source as well. In some cases investments in production tools or systems or even original creations can be a boon. Actual percentages would vary amongst publishers
Jonanin 8y ago
Are they pulling back ad spend or moving it to higher performing platforms like Facebook feed? I wouldn't be surprised if it's one of the reasons papers have been so anti-fb recently.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
microcolonel 8y ago
Facebook is becoming less useful for spreading clickbait garbage, so that may be part of it.
stult 8y ago
Just a guess, but some of these companies are highly leveraged (mcclatchy definitely is), which isn't sustainable when rates have been hiked and revenue doesn't grow to match. If they're calendar year, now is the time they have to evaluate their next debt rollover. Hence the layoffs.
Chris_Chambers 8y ago
Buzzfeed is artificially kept afloat with $300 million injections every year from their puppet masters. The same can be said for most of these propaganda outlets. These shady payoffs have obviously been disrupted by Trump’s team somehow. Ad revenue was always a red herring meant to make you believe that these are legitimate businesses. They are not.

by sct202 8y ago

darkpuma 8y ago

Well BlueApron is on the rocks too, aren't they? So that's definitely possible.

notatoad 8y ago

The three you listed are big spenders in the world of independent youtube channels and podcasters, but are they also big customers in the context of Vice or BuzzFeed?

zjaffee 8y ago

It's that these companies have been VC funded for most of their existence, as they focus on going public, they realized they need to cut back.

52-6F-62 8y ago
You’re right in part, but even publicly-shared media companies are doing the same thing.

hayksaakian 8y ago

It's January when ad spends are usually much lower than the preceeding holiday season. There are currently backs accross the board, but on the outside it's hard to say if those are seasonal or not.

75dvtwin 8y ago

without re-iterating my views about the political affiliation of these outfit. Just seeing the timing of it, all at the same time, is indeed suspicious. Another posted suggested that they have hired at disproportionally large numbers. Seems like a plausible explanation, if true. May be it related to some political changes. Or, may be, there is an unseen 'consolidation' that will commence (layoffs in tech industry, often precedes takeovers). Just speculating, though. I definitely feel, that people will not pay for opinion pieces, but will pay for investigative journalism. However, investigative journalism, in my view, lacks economic model. It is quite resource intensive, but there is no 'story origination fee' of some sort. So it has to live of donations, which could make it very biased.

untog 8y ago
I'm not convinced it's all that suspicious. Some immediate thoughts: - it's the start of a new year. New budgets. Plus laying people off just before the holidays is a baaaad look. - it's a lot easier to do this when lots of other outlets are doing it too, because you'll get less attention - all these companies rely on advertising for revenue, often from the exact same sources. So any softening in ad prices would affect a lot of people at once. - this is actually the latest in a long, long line of media layoffs and redundancies
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
ummonk 8y ago
That is certainly how I feel. There are a lot of good free bloggers out there that have better opinion pieces than those in the establishment media, and there is no way I’m going to pay for the latter. At the same time, I greatly value the media’s role in investigative journalism and wish I could support outlets / journalists that break important quality investigative news, but there really isn’t a good way to do that. I think video functions as a much better format for investigative reporting though - it is much more engaging, slightly more trustworthy (because you don’t have to e.g. trust the journalist’s description of tone / body language, although selective editing can still be done), and harder for other media outlets that haven’t done the investigative legwork to just copy and redistribute.
- ummonk 8y ago
  Huh. Why are people downvoting me? I don't think my opinion is particularly controversial, and I'm genuinely curious which part people disagree with...
- chipotle_coyote 8y ago
  While I didn't downvote you, one could certainly make the argument that "how you feel" is, well, maybe a little...idiosyncratic and perhaps not that well-informed? First: I'm sure there are "good free bloggers" out there, but there's far, far fewer that aren't associated with new media companies now than there were a decade ago. Making money as an independent blogger is exceedingly difficult in 2019 in a way that just wasn't as true in 2009. Second: McClatchy, BuzzFeed, and Vice are all known for investigative journalism, not opinion pieces. McClatchy was once considered one of the best newspaper companies in the business, primarily based on investigative work; while Vice and BuzzFeed certainly are known for clickbait material, they've both been funding serious news stories for years. "Free bloggers" just aren't competition in this space. Third: You know that BuzzFeed in particular is in the straits that they're in because they tried to pivot to video, right? Mashable is nearly out of business because of their attempt to do so. Also, investigative journalism tends to rely on, well, investigation, not "descriptions of tone and body language." Fourth: there is, in fact, a really good way to support investigative journalism. It's--you know what I'm going to say, right?--paying for it. It turns out that an awful lot of newspapers, magazines, and journalism web sites have mechanisms set up that enable you to give them money, often on a recurring basis!

SlowRobotAhead 8y ago

The conspiracy theory going around is: The “Countering Disinformation and Propaganda Act” included in the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2017 that Obama signed. It expired Dec 2018. $160 million / 2 years / 1000 journalists laid off. Comes out to $80K annual salary & benefits. Coincidence? It's true it expired at the same time as the layoffs, it's true it was $160 million, it's true the stated goal was to combat "fakenews" (who even can say what this is anymore!), but it's probably a leap to say this was funding places like Buzzfeed, HuffPost, and others that have ridden the fakenews line themselves. edit: LOL you know it's not my conspiracy theory right :D

javagram 8y ago
This is a stupid conspiracy theory to spread. The money was never spent as of less than a year ago. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/04/world/europe/state-department-russia-global-engagement-center.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/04/world/europe/state-depart... President trump’s administration controlled the spending of these funds and clearly they weren’t very eager to do so.
- rightbyte 8y ago
  So the counter argument is that the Trump admin didn't found Huff Post? The original plan was that Trump would lose.
- SlowRobotAhead 8y ago
  Hmm, so opposing view points should be silenced because you don't agree with them? I don't even agree with the one I posted but you felt you had to silence me for mentioning it exists. I don't even mind that your NYT article doesn't seem to be about the NDAA signing that moved $160 [0], not $120 million to fight disinformation. Are you sure you that is the same topic? [0] Two years at $80 million each https://www.congress.gov/114/crpt/hrpt840/CRPT-114hrpt840.pdf https://www.congress.gov/114/crpt/hrpt840/CRPT-114hrpt840.pd...
  - javagram 8y ago

danso 8y ago

It’s not all of a sudden. I worked for a McClatchy newspaper before 2010. This was before what now seems like annual layoffs, but there were still large cutbacks and buyouts because McClatchy made the mistake of buying the Knight Ridder papers (which includes the San Jose Mercury News and Miami Herald) at peak price, taking a huge loan to do so, not realizing that newspapers were a downward spiraling industry. McClatchy has been saddled with massive debt since, and while I was there, digital revenue wasn’t even enough to cover the debt interest.

52-6F-62 8y ago
I pointed this out in another one of the lay-off topic HN threads (the linked twitter thread isn’t me) You’re plenty spot on within the entire media world. https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1088503510184927233.html https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1088503510184927233.html
- um_ya 8y ago
  It would be interesting to know how much of this news comes from selling advertisements, vs selling stories. If a company isn't making money from ads, then they're getting money from somewhere else.
  - 52-6F-62 8y ago
    A basic breakdown is: Ads Subscriptions Cover sales Syndicationed content Ads are probably the main source now, but subscriptions are still a main source as well. In some cases investments in production tools or systems or even original creations can be a boon. Actual percentages would vary amongst publishers

Jonanin 8y ago

Are they pulling back ad spend or moving it to higher performing platforms like Facebook feed? I wouldn't be surprised if it's one of the reasons papers have been so anti-fb recently.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

microcolonel 8y ago

Facebook is becoming less useful for spreading clickbait garbage, so that may be part of it.

stult 8y ago

Just a guess, but some of these companies are highly leveraged (mcclatchy definitely is), which isn't sustainable when rates have been hiked and revenue doesn't grow to match. If they're calendar year, now is the time they have to evaluate their next debt rollover. Hence the layoffs.

Chris_Chambers 8y ago

Buzzfeed is artificially kept afloat with $300 million injections every year from their puppet masters. The same can be said for most of these propaganda outlets. These shady payoffs have obviously been disrupted by Trump’s team somehow. Ad revenue was always a red herring meant to make you believe that these are legitimate businesses. They are not.