4 ms·
The point is not hosting, but to monetize the Rolling Stone's brand reputation. They have a well-known and somewhat trusted brand (although less trusted than it
by Veen 6y ago
The point is not hosting, but to monetize the Rolling Stone's brand reputation. They have a well-known and somewhat trusted brand (although less trusted than it once was [0]). They're allowing "thought leaders"—aka PR flacks—to leverage their brand to publicize marketing and personal branding content. Forbes does the same.
[0]: https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/06/business/media/rolling-stone-retracts-article-on-rape-at-university-of-virginia.html https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/06/business/media/rolling-st...
- audiometry 6y agoThat’ll quickly devalue that “brand”. Kind of like how I “value” Forbes “magazine” — ie: avoid all links to it.
- Veen 6y agoYes, it will. But it's owned by Penske Media Corporation, who seem to prefer to milk the brand for all it's worth before its inevitable demise.
- mxxx 6y agoDidn’t realise Forbes did this. No wonder it’s full of garbage.