6 ms·

Note of clarification since the branding is easy to conflate: "Buzzfeed News" is a part of Buzzfeed, better known for viral/listicle content, but has been its o

by danso 5y ago

Note of clarification since the branding is easy to conflate: "Buzzfeed News" is a part of Buzzfeed, better known for viral/listicle content, but has been its own entity, i.e. the "serious"/indepth news and investigations. Github repo of their open-sourced work: https://github.com/BuzzFeedNews/everything https://github.com/BuzzFeedNews/everything Previous HN submissions from the domain: https://news.ycombinator.com/from?site=buzzfeednews.com https://news.ycombinator.com/from?site=buzzfeednews.com 2021 Pulitzer Prize in International Reporting: https://www.pulitzer.org/winners/megha-rajagopalan-alison-killing-and-christo-buschek-buzzfeed-news https://www.pulitzer.org/winners/megha-rajagopalan-alison-ki...

RcouF1uZ4gsC 5y ago
- hbn 5y ago
  The name "Buzzfeed" itself, even if you didn't know what it was, doesn't bring to mind serious investigative journalism. It makes you think of content being shoved out as quickly as possible, about whatever topic is popular, in hopes of getting clicks. Which is exactly what their sans-"News" site is.
  - Andrex 5y ago
    Profit at the expense of all else is toxic, in my book. The economic framework of capitalism doesn't absolve individuals of guilt, really. At the end of the day, a human being makes a decision.
    - zrm 5y ago
      Things win by out-competing other things. Competition works, and is important, because you would rather make $1 for yourself even if it reduces someone else's profit by $10. Which is how the market gets $9 more efficient. Sometimes the status quo sucks. This is often caused by a lack of competition or some kind of information problem. In media it's a little of both, but the main one is that people don't understand how they're being manipulated because the people they rely on to help them understand things are the ones manipulating them. Social media algorithms aren't designed to make you happy or informed. They're designed to make you spend all day on social media. It's not that hard to design algorithms to do the opposite. That's not the problem. The problem is people aren't informed of the choice, or don't have a choice because the network effect locks them in and the network doesn't let them choose the algorithm. So we need to solve two problems. First, divorce the network from the algorithm, so people can choose. Second, people need to be informed, so they choose the one that works for them instead of against them. The person who figures out how to do this gets the $1 at the expense of costing Facebook $10. But they're currently getting nothing, and 10% of what the incumbents get is still a lot. So who wants to make money?
      - adfgadfgaery 5y ago
      - otterley 5y ago
        If you can figure out how to make quality journalism profitable again, there are plenty of people who would love to find out.
        CamperBob2 5y ago
        Every news source that maintains a paywall should get with Apple, Google and maybe Microsoft and Facebook/Meta and set up a syndication arrangement using all of these companies (at a minimum) as access points. Then, offer an "all access pass" where someone can pay, say, $1000 or $2000 a year, access any news article from a participating provider, and never encounter another paywall, anywhere. Additionally, for $5000/year, access is ad-free. The universal subscription fee would be divided among the syndicate itself for distribution to its members as well as its access provider. The majority (but not all) of the revenue would be allocated to the members on the basis of how many times their articles were actually read. You're welcome! Any other apparently-unsolvable problems need solving, you guys know where to find me.
        torbTurret 5y ago
        Nobody will pay four-figures for digital news access that still has ads.
        CamperBob2 5y ago
        That's a negotiating point, not a dealbreaker. The important thing is to offer both options. What would keep this plan from working is if there were a lot of major holdouts that insist on keeping their own paywalls and subscription model. Can't account for that level of stupidity, but the market will eventually eliminate it. Apple News in its current state is a step in the right direction, they just need to bring it to its logical conclusion.
        5y ago
    - MangoCoffee 5y ago
      maybe investor like NBCUniversal want to recoup their money. Buzzfeed stock have been drilling ever since IPO. "In April, however, the deal was approved when BuzzFeed CEO Jonah Peretti made NBC a guarantee of concessions that still came with a loss of some $100 million, people familiar with the matter said in the WSJ report. In order to ink the deal, Peretti agreed to terms that would put the burden on his company to raise its shares after the merger. According to the report, he had offered a portion of his stake to NBCUniversal if the shares did not reach their target." https://www.thewrap.com/nbcuniversal-expects-to-lose-100-million-on-buzzfeeds-plan-to-go-public-via-spac-report/ https://www.thewrap.com/nbcuniversal-expects-to-lose-100-mil...
    - kvathupo 5y ago
      That's valid, but the Buzzfeed executives carry much of the blame, not shareholders. There are a number of successful private companies, e.g. Wolfram Research, Huawei, Trader Joe's, Deloitte. It's quite evident that Buzzfeed went public not to finance their news business, but to seemingly cash out. After all, it's now nothing more than a $700M list builder.
  - lupire 5y ago
    "What's the buzz? Tell me what's ahappening!" More people are interested in buzz than turned off by it.
    - playpause 5y ago
      Not sure how this observation affects the point that the name “doesn't bring to mind serious investigative journalism”.
    - hbn 5y ago
      > What's the buzz? Tell me what's ahappening! Note the lack of "make sure you know what you're talking about before you tell me" What you're describing is gossip.
      - hoseja 5y ago
        And what you seem to be resistant to getting is that people viscerally love gossip.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- kube-system 5y ago
  They were bought by Bayer, which isn't much better, but they pretty much did do that: https://media.bayer.com/baynews/baynews.nsf/id/Bayer-launch-organic-vegetable-seeds-portfolio-enabling-greater-access-certified-organic-market https://media.bayer.com/baynews/baynews.nsf/id/Bayer-launch-...
  - adolph 5y ago
    Our collection of more than 125,000 microbial strains allows us to use genetic diversity to develop new and beneficial products for farmers all over the world. https://www.bayer.com/en/agriculture/agriculture-biologicals https://www.bayer.com/en/agriculture/agriculture-biologicals
  - Markoff 5y ago
    Bayer, is it that company which made Zyklon B to eliminate Jews in WW2 gas chambers? I'm always astounded how are these companies still around.
    - BongoMcCat 5y ago
      from bayers wiki page: In 1925 Bayer merged with five other German companies to form IG Farben IG Farben the made Zyklon B, and as a result it got split up after the war, into it's original companies, one of them bayer. So, yes, you are mostly correct.
      - Markoff 5y ago
        I know I am correct, it was rhetorical question, not exactly sure why downvotes, if people are that clueless they don't know such general knowledge, same as Fanta is originally Nazi drink.
- sonnyblarney 5y ago
- zeckalpha 5y ago
  Fox News and watching the Simpsons on Fox is a more direct analogy. Any problem with the branding there?
  - Larrikin 5y ago
    The more toxic the news side becomes the more I've tried avoiding the Fox shows. Bobs Burgers is about the only thing on there I still regularly watch.
    - PolygonSheep 5y ago
      Disney bought the non-news parts of Fox back in 2019 so all the animated/scripted shows have been owned by Disney for some time. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acquisition_of_21st_Century_Fox_by_Disney https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acquisition_of_21st_Century_Fo...
  - AussieWog93 5y ago
    >Fox News and watching the Simpsons on Fox is a more direct analogy. Any problem with the branding there? How? Nobody gets confused between a cartoon and a news program. They are completely differently offerings, branded completely differently. Buzzfeed, on the other hand, built up a reputation over years for pumping out lowest-common-denominator trash journalism, then later set up a serious news website under the same brand. It would be more like if Fox News bought out the BBC and called it "Fox News UK".
- lupire 5y ago
  Buzzfeed News isn't selling Buzzfeed to news readers. It's selling news to Buzzfeed readers, which is a deeply commendable activity and the branding is perfect for that.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
slickbot 5y ago
If you lookup the meaning of ‘ listicle’ on iPhone, ironically Buzzfeed is mentioned in the example.

by danso 5y ago

RcouF1uZ4gsC 5y ago

hbn 5y ago
The name "Buzzfeed" itself, even if you didn't know what it was, doesn't bring to mind serious investigative journalism. It makes you think of content being shoved out as quickly as possible, about whatever topic is popular, in hopes of getting clicks. Which is exactly what their sans-"News" site is.
- Andrex 5y ago
  Profit at the expense of all else is toxic, in my book. The economic framework of capitalism doesn't absolve individuals of guilt, really. At the end of the day, a human being makes a decision.
  - zrm 5y ago
    Things win by out-competing other things. Competition works, and is important, because you would rather make $1 for yourself even if it reduces someone else's profit by $10. Which is how the market gets $9 more efficient. Sometimes the status quo sucks. This is often caused by a lack of competition or some kind of information problem. In media it's a little of both, but the main one is that people don't understand how they're being manipulated because the people they rely on to help them understand things are the ones manipulating them. Social media algorithms aren't designed to make you happy or informed. They're designed to make you spend all day on social media. It's not that hard to design algorithms to do the opposite. That's not the problem. The problem is people aren't informed of the choice, or don't have a choice because the network effect locks them in and the network doesn't let them choose the algorithm. So we need to solve two problems. First, divorce the network from the algorithm, so people can choose. Second, people need to be informed, so they choose the one that works for them instead of against them. The person who figures out how to do this gets the $1 at the expense of costing Facebook $10. But they're currently getting nothing, and 10% of what the incumbents get is still a lot. So who wants to make money?
    - adfgadfgaery 5y ago
    - otterley 5y ago
      If you can figure out how to make quality journalism profitable again, there are plenty of people who would love to find out.
      - CamperBob2 5y ago
        Every news source that maintains a paywall should get with Apple, Google and maybe Microsoft and Facebook/Meta and set up a syndication arrangement using all of these companies (at a minimum) as access points. Then, offer an "all access pass" where someone can pay, say, $1000 or $2000 a year, access any news article from a participating provider, and never encounter another paywall, anywhere. Additionally, for $5000/year, access is ad-free. The universal subscription fee would be divided among the syndicate itself for distribution to its members as well as its access provider. The majority (but not all) of the revenue would be allocated to the members on the basis of how many times their articles were actually read. You're welcome! Any other apparently-unsolvable problems need solving, you guys know where to find me.
        torbTurret 5y ago
        Nobody will pay four-figures for digital news access that still has ads.
        CamperBob2 5y ago
        That's a negotiating point, not a dealbreaker. The important thing is to offer both options. What would keep this plan from working is if there were a lot of major holdouts that insist on keeping their own paywalls and subscription model. Can't account for that level of stupidity, but the market will eventually eliminate it. Apple News in its current state is a step in the right direction, they just need to bring it to its logical conclusion.
        5y ago
  - MangoCoffee 5y ago
    maybe investor like NBCUniversal want to recoup their money. Buzzfeed stock have been drilling ever since IPO. "In April, however, the deal was approved when BuzzFeed CEO Jonah Peretti made NBC a guarantee of concessions that still came with a loss of some $100 million, people familiar with the matter said in the WSJ report. In order to ink the deal, Peretti agreed to terms that would put the burden on his company to raise its shares after the merger. According to the report, he had offered a portion of his stake to NBCUniversal if the shares did not reach their target." https://www.thewrap.com/nbcuniversal-expects-to-lose-100-million-on-buzzfeeds-plan-to-go-public-via-spac-report/ https://www.thewrap.com/nbcuniversal-expects-to-lose-100-mil...
  - kvathupo 5y ago
    That's valid, but the Buzzfeed executives carry much of the blame, not shareholders. There are a number of successful private companies, e.g. Wolfram Research, Huawei, Trader Joe's, Deloitte. It's quite evident that Buzzfeed went public not to finance their news business, but to seemingly cash out. After all, it's now nothing more than a $700M list builder.
- lupire 5y ago
  "What's the buzz? Tell me what's ahappening!" More people are interested in buzz than turned off by it.
  - playpause 5y ago
    Not sure how this observation affects the point that the name “doesn't bring to mind serious investigative journalism”.
  - hbn 5y ago
    > What's the buzz? Tell me what's ahappening! Note the lack of "make sure you know what you're talking about before you tell me" What you're describing is gossip.
    - hoseja 5y ago
      And what you seem to be resistant to getting is that people viscerally love gossip.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
kube-system 5y ago
They were bought by Bayer, which isn't much better, but they pretty much did do that: https://media.bayer.com/baynews/baynews.nsf/id/Bayer-launch-organic-vegetable-seeds-portfolio-enabling-greater-access-certified-organic-market https://media.bayer.com/baynews/baynews.nsf/id/Bayer-launch-...
- adolph 5y ago
  Our collection of more than 125,000 microbial strains allows us to use genetic diversity to develop new and beneficial products for farmers all over the world. https://www.bayer.com/en/agriculture/agriculture-biologicals https://www.bayer.com/en/agriculture/agriculture-biologicals
- Markoff 5y ago
  Bayer, is it that company which made Zyklon B to eliminate Jews in WW2 gas chambers? I'm always astounded how are these companies still around.
  - BongoMcCat 5y ago
    from bayers wiki page: In 1925 Bayer merged with five other German companies to form IG Farben IG Farben the made Zyklon B, and as a result it got split up after the war, into it's original companies, one of them bayer. So, yes, you are mostly correct.
    - Markoff 5y ago
      I know I am correct, it was rhetorical question, not exactly sure why downvotes, if people are that clueless they don't know such general knowledge, same as Fanta is originally Nazi drink.
sonnyblarney 5y ago
zeckalpha 5y ago
Fox News and watching the Simpsons on Fox is a more direct analogy. Any problem with the branding there?
- Larrikin 5y ago
  The more toxic the news side becomes the more I've tried avoiding the Fox shows. Bobs Burgers is about the only thing on there I still regularly watch.
  - PolygonSheep 5y ago
    Disney bought the non-news parts of Fox back in 2019 so all the animated/scripted shows have been owned by Disney for some time. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acquisition_of_21st_Century_Fox_by_Disney https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acquisition_of_21st_Century_Fo...
- AussieWog93 5y ago
  >Fox News and watching the Simpsons on Fox is a more direct analogy. Any problem with the branding there? How? Nobody gets confused between a cartoon and a news program. They are completely differently offerings, branded completely differently. Buzzfeed, on the other hand, built up a reputation over years for pumping out lowest-common-denominator trash journalism, then later set up a serious news website under the same brand. It would be more like if Fox News bought out the BBC and called it "Fox News UK".
lupire 5y ago
Buzzfeed News isn't selling Buzzfeed to news readers. It's selling news to Buzzfeed readers, which is a deeply commendable activity and the branding is perfect for that.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

slickbot 5y ago

If you lookup the meaning of ‘ listicle’ on iPhone, ironically Buzzfeed is mentioned in the example.