7 ms·

> "Most of BuzzFeed’s revenue is derived from BuzzFeed Creative, the company’s 75-person unit dedicated to creating [ads that pretend to be news stories]" May

> "Most of BuzzFeed’s revenue is derived from BuzzFeed Creative, the company’s 75-person unit dedicated to creating [ads that pretend to be news stories]" Maybe BuzzFeed has cracked the code for online "journalism" being profitable. But if this is the method, I feel bad for consumers.

JonFish85 12y ago
You mean like the New York Times' "Sponsored Content"?
mambodog 12y ago
[ads that pretend to be news stories] John Oliver recently commented on this stuff (so called "Native Advertising") on Last Week Tonight: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E_F5GxCwizc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E_F5GxCwizc
logn 12y ago
I don't see any reason to feel bad for consumers. Journalism couldn't get much worse than it already was. At least native advertising is still more explicit than, say, defense contractor GE beating the war drum via NBC/MSNBC. Or companies buying ad slots on major news networks as insurance against negative reporting on them.
- bellerocky 12y ago
  > Journalism couldn't get much worse than it already was. This is such a poor attitude that totally flies in the face of history and the situation for journalists in other places in the world, like Mexico, where hundreds of reporters have been executed in the last few years. Journalism as a profession is just fine, monetizing it might not be.
  - logn 12y ago
    Correction: Journalism in the US In the US, the profession is not fine. The major news outlets regularly bury stories the administration finds objectionable (e.g., NY Times on the Bush surveillance). They reiterate propaganda talking points (e.g., NY Times not using the word "torture" until this week). And they generally support the overall goals of each administration (majority of Americans believed Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11). Washington reporters are all too happy to be part of the insiders network and scorn people who aren't (such as Glenn Greenwald).
    - bellerocky 12y ago
      > The major news outlets regularly bury stories the administration finds objectionable You seem incredulous. "regularly bury stories" is quite an unsubstantiated claim and you listed one example for which I have seen no evidence that this happened and if it did that the reason was to please a White House administration. Yet you make the claim with great conviction. As for the Iraqi War drumming, I think that was a problem the NY Times had and was largely the result of the now discredited and very much resigned Judith Miller.
      - logn 12y ago
        > "one example for which I have seen no evidence" The evidence for the NY Times editor burying this story is well-documented. The only reason they ever published it was because the writer was going to publish it in his own book. Quote from wikipedia: "Former NYT executive editor Bill Keller decided not to report the piece after being pressured by the Bush administration" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_York_Times#Delayed_publication_of_2005_NSA_warrantless_surveillance_story http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_York_Times#Delayed_publ... Other links: "New study documents media’s servitude to government" http://www.salon.com/2010/06/30/media_258/ http://www.salon.com/2010/06/30/media_258/ "The NYT’s journalistic obedience" http://www.salon.com/2011/02/21/nyt_16/ http://www.salon.com/2011/02/21/nyt_16/ "The War Photo No One Would Publish" http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2014/08/the-war-photo-no-one-would-publish/375762/ http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2014/08/the-war-... "Propaganda model" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_model http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_model
        hnnewguy 12y ago
        >The only reason they ever published it was because the writer was going to publish it in his own book. This is an interesting interpretation. There was legal pressure from the Justice Department and an implicit threat from the Bush Administration that the New York Times could be on the hook for revealing "state secrets" and be held responsible for associated repercussions. Whether you feel that way or not, there is some conflicted, moral debate about Snowden. It's not like the NYT didn't have and want to bust the story, but the ramifications weren't clear cut, so they delayed. I'm sure you're willing to put your professional career and perhaps freedom on the line at any time, right? In the end, the story got out, as it always tends to do. The fact that people even use the NY Times and Buzzfeed in the same sentence, as if it's the same business, is hilarious.
tzm 12y ago
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_advertising http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_advertising
afafsd 12y ago
I like to think that consumers will eventually develop a mental immunity to BuzzFeed-style headlines, and then they'll be a bit stuck. There's only so many times a human can click on "Ten Amazing Things About Something Or Other That We Bet You Won't Believe" before it finally clicks in their brain that hey, wait a minute, last time I read one of these it wasn't _that_ amazing...
- eterm 12y ago
  But its already evolved from "These Things Will Amaze You" to "I Saw This And I Couldn't Believe What I Saw" (headlines shifted to first person) and will continue to evolve. As long as buzzfeed have the data they can stay ahead of the curve.
  - walterbell 12y ago
    It's only a matter of time before browser-based "killfile" extensions treat linkbait & native ads in the manner that banner ads have been treated. It may be temporarily profitable to prey on temporary trust, but the curve evolves on all sides of the market. If algorithms are used to write human-hostile headlines, algorithms will be used to filter human-improving content. Ask Demand Media how their Google traffic is doing post Panda algorithm updates.
- patio11 12y ago
  Take a look at the August 1985 issue of Cosmopolitan and see how tired they are of the formula. The Chilling Lure of Cocaine - Could You Be Hooked? The Bottom Line on Office Sex. 25 Ways To Ignite A Love Affair. Seriously, all real titles from one month picked at random.
  - jackweirdy 12y ago
    It never ceases to amaze me how long unsustainable things stick around for
    - deleted 12y ago
      [deleted]
madeofpalk 12y ago
To be fair, I don't think anyone thinks buzzfeed is journalism. With featured content such as "The 20 Most Australian Hashtags Ever"[1], it's nothing more than light entertainment [1]: http://www.buzzfeed.com/smwsydney/the-20-most-australian-hashtags-ever http://www.buzzfeed.com/smwsydney/the-20-most-australian-has...
- hodgesmr 12y ago
  BuzzFeed wants to be journalism, and they're making a noticeable effort to paint themselves as journalists. They have a DC bureau. They have a White House correspondent. They have field reporters. They have political editors. They even fire reporters for plagiarism[1]. Anecdotally, I know many people that have told me they "go to BuzzFeed for the lists but end up staying and reading the news." [1]: http://www.buzzfeed.com/bensmith/editors-note-an-apology-to-our-readers http://www.buzzfeed.com/bensmith/editors-note-an-apology-to-...
  - jackowayed 12y ago
    Exactly. Think of them like a television network. A major television network (eg. CBS) airs both in-depth news coverage, trashy reality shows, fictional comedies/dramas, and sports. More and better timeslots go to things other than news, those shows are advertised more, and the most successful non-news shows have more viewers than the nightly news, but the presence of those other shows doesn't mean that it's fair to say CBS doesn't do journalism.
    - hodgesmr 12y ago
      And yet we're talking about online publications. There's a reason we have CBS.com and CBSNews.com. And ABC.com and ABCNews.com. And NBC.com and NBCNews.com. If websites behaved like television--with different content available at different times--your analogy would be stronger. But they don't. It's all there all the time. And for that reason, BuzzFeed's crap is much harder to separate from any "real" content.
  - acomjean 12y ago
blutoot 12y ago
BuzzFeed readers are happy. You can feel bad for consumers only when a traditional news outlet turns into a BuzzFeed. I guess the ones that handle that transition delicately will survive.
atmosx 12y ago
Truth is, that out of the huge amount of trash coming from BuzzFeed it's hard to tell what is an ad and what is not. So, considering the quality involved, it's a smart move.
petercooper 12y ago
If they put inaccurate summaries within quotes the way you just did, that wouldn't be very good either: "custom video and list-style advertising content that looks similar to its own editorial content" != "ads pretend to be news stories" Native advertising done well is actually a rising tide that lifts all boats. Regular advertising can be as crude as "Coke is awesome, buy Coke!" and no-one really wants that. Native advertising, on the other hand, could be an intricate feature about how Coke cans are made and the history of soda cans. Would I rather have lots of screamy obnoxious ads in magazines, on TV, or on the Web.. or would I rather have well produced content that is clearly marked as being sponsor backed? The latter. And this is why it's taking off, because no-one clicks on banner ads, lots of people run ad blockers, and both media outlets and advertisers are responding by providing what readers do want and will engage with.. indeed, I predicted this years ago on Hacker News itself ;-) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3956158 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3956158 Now, can native advertising be done in a shitty, underhanded way? Absolutely. But so can journalism. So can reportage. But just because some journalism is shitty and biased doesn't mean journalism is shitty, and nor is native advertising when it's done right, it's better than display advertising because people are actually likely to consume it.
doctorpangloss 12y ago
> Maybe BuzzFeed has cracked the code for online "journalism" being profitable Cue a torrent of branded content and native advertising apologists. Native advertising is to journalism what virtual casinos are to video games. I used to be an apologist for a virtual slot machine—I even wrote some code for one. But once you get out of the system, it's so obvious: virtual casinos are unequivocally bad for the gaming ecosystem. Indeed, anything that makes its money primarily by exploiting people at the expensive of competitive creativity—like casinos or native advertising—is bad for the ecosystem. I think many people in journalism will have to discover organically that native advertising is unequivocally bad for the non-fiction ecosystem. It will make tons of money, sure, but their integrity is worth far more.
- billmalarky 12y ago
  "It will make tons of money, sure, but their integrity is worth far more." Tell that to them when they go out of business.

JonFish85 12y ago

You mean like the New York Times' "Sponsored Content"?

mambodog 12y ago

[ads that pretend to be news stories] John Oliver recently commented on this stuff (so called "Native Advertising") on Last Week Tonight: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E_F5GxCwizc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E_F5GxCwizc

logn 12y ago

I don't see any reason to feel bad for consumers. Journalism couldn't get much worse than it already was. At least native advertising is still more explicit than, say, defense contractor GE beating the war drum via NBC/MSNBC. Or companies buying ad slots on major news networks as insurance against negative reporting on them.

bellerocky 12y ago
> Journalism couldn't get much worse than it already was. This is such a poor attitude that totally flies in the face of history and the situation for journalists in other places in the world, like Mexico, where hundreds of reporters have been executed in the last few years. Journalism as a profession is just fine, monetizing it might not be.
- logn 12y ago
  Correction: Journalism in the US In the US, the profession is not fine. The major news outlets regularly bury stories the administration finds objectionable (e.g., NY Times on the Bush surveillance). They reiterate propaganda talking points (e.g., NY Times not using the word "torture" until this week). And they generally support the overall goals of each administration (majority of Americans believed Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11). Washington reporters are all too happy to be part of the insiders network and scorn people who aren't (such as Glenn Greenwald).
  - bellerocky 12y ago
    > The major news outlets regularly bury stories the administration finds objectionable You seem incredulous. "regularly bury stories" is quite an unsubstantiated claim and you listed one example for which I have seen no evidence that this happened and if it did that the reason was to please a White House administration. Yet you make the claim with great conviction. As for the Iraqi War drumming, I think that was a problem the NY Times had and was largely the result of the now discredited and very much resigned Judith Miller.
    - logn 12y ago
      > "one example for which I have seen no evidence" The evidence for the NY Times editor burying this story is well-documented. The only reason they ever published it was because the writer was going to publish it in his own book. Quote from wikipedia: "Former NYT executive editor Bill Keller decided not to report the piece after being pressured by the Bush administration" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_York_Times#Delayed_publication_of_2005_NSA_warrantless_surveillance_story http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_York_Times#Delayed_publ... Other links: "New study documents media’s servitude to government" http://www.salon.com/2010/06/30/media_258/ http://www.salon.com/2010/06/30/media_258/ "The NYT’s journalistic obedience" http://www.salon.com/2011/02/21/nyt_16/ http://www.salon.com/2011/02/21/nyt_16/ "The War Photo No One Would Publish" http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2014/08/the-war-photo-no-one-would-publish/375762/ http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2014/08/the-war-... "Propaganda model" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_model http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_model
      - hnnewguy 12y ago
        >The only reason they ever published it was because the writer was going to publish it in his own book. This is an interesting interpretation. There was legal pressure from the Justice Department and an implicit threat from the Bush Administration that the New York Times could be on the hook for revealing "state secrets" and be held responsible for associated repercussions. Whether you feel that way or not, there is some conflicted, moral debate about Snowden. It's not like the NYT didn't have and want to bust the story, but the ramifications weren't clear cut, so they delayed. I'm sure you're willing to put your professional career and perhaps freedom on the line at any time, right? In the end, the story got out, as it always tends to do. The fact that people even use the NY Times and Buzzfeed in the same sentence, as if it's the same business, is hilarious.

tzm 12y ago

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_advertising http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_advertising

afafsd 12y ago

I like to think that consumers will eventually develop a mental immunity to BuzzFeed-style headlines, and then they'll be a bit stuck. There's only so many times a human can click on "Ten Amazing Things About Something Or Other That We Bet You Won't Believe" before it finally clicks in their brain that hey, wait a minute, last time I read one of these it wasn't _that_ amazing...

eterm 12y ago
But its already evolved from "These Things Will Amaze You" to "I Saw This And I Couldn't Believe What I Saw" (headlines shifted to first person) and will continue to evolve. As long as buzzfeed have the data they can stay ahead of the curve.
- walterbell 12y ago
  It's only a matter of time before browser-based "killfile" extensions treat linkbait & native ads in the manner that banner ads have been treated. It may be temporarily profitable to prey on temporary trust, but the curve evolves on all sides of the market. If algorithms are used to write human-hostile headlines, algorithms will be used to filter human-improving content. Ask Demand Media how their Google traffic is doing post Panda algorithm updates.
patio11 12y ago
Take a look at the August 1985 issue of Cosmopolitan and see how tired they are of the formula. The Chilling Lure of Cocaine - Could You Be Hooked? The Bottom Line on Office Sex. 25 Ways To Ignite A Love Affair. Seriously, all real titles from one month picked at random.
- jackweirdy 12y ago
  It never ceases to amaze me how long unsustainable things stick around for
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]

madeofpalk 12y ago

To be fair, I don't think anyone thinks buzzfeed is journalism. With featured content such as "The 20 Most Australian Hashtags Ever"[1], it's nothing more than light entertainment [1]: http://www.buzzfeed.com/smwsydney/the-20-most-australian-hashtags-ever http://www.buzzfeed.com/smwsydney/the-20-most-australian-has...

hodgesmr 12y ago
BuzzFeed wants to be journalism, and they're making a noticeable effort to paint themselves as journalists. They have a DC bureau. They have a White House correspondent. They have field reporters. They have political editors. They even fire reporters for plagiarism[1]. Anecdotally, I know many people that have told me they "go to BuzzFeed for the lists but end up staying and reading the news." [1]: http://www.buzzfeed.com/bensmith/editors-note-an-apology-to-our-readers http://www.buzzfeed.com/bensmith/editors-note-an-apology-to-...
- jackowayed 12y ago
  Exactly. Think of them like a television network. A major television network (eg. CBS) airs both in-depth news coverage, trashy reality shows, fictional comedies/dramas, and sports. More and better timeslots go to things other than news, those shows are advertised more, and the most successful non-news shows have more viewers than the nightly news, but the presence of those other shows doesn't mean that it's fair to say CBS doesn't do journalism.
  - hodgesmr 12y ago
    And yet we're talking about online publications. There's a reason we have CBS.com and CBSNews.com. And ABC.com and ABCNews.com. And NBC.com and NBCNews.com. If websites behaved like television--with different content available at different times--your analogy would be stronger. But they don't. It's all there all the time. And for that reason, BuzzFeed's crap is much harder to separate from any "real" content.
- acomjean 12y ago

blutoot 12y ago

BuzzFeed readers are happy. You can feel bad for consumers only when a traditional news outlet turns into a BuzzFeed. I guess the ones that handle that transition delicately will survive.

atmosx 12y ago

Truth is, that out of the huge amount of trash coming from BuzzFeed it's hard to tell what is an ad and what is not. So, considering the quality involved, it's a smart move.

petercooper 12y ago

If they put inaccurate summaries within quotes the way you just did, that wouldn't be very good either: "custom video and list-style advertising content that looks similar to its own editorial content" != "ads pretend to be news stories" Native advertising done well is actually a rising tide that lifts all boats. Regular advertising can be as crude as "Coke is awesome, buy Coke!" and no-one really wants that. Native advertising, on the other hand, could be an intricate feature about how Coke cans are made and the history of soda cans. Would I rather have lots of screamy obnoxious ads in magazines, on TV, or on the Web.. or would I rather have well produced content that is clearly marked as being sponsor backed? The latter. And this is why it's taking off, because no-one clicks on banner ads, lots of people run ad blockers, and both media outlets and advertisers are responding by providing what readers do want and will engage with.. indeed, I predicted this years ago on Hacker News itself ;-) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3956158 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3956158 Now, can native advertising be done in a shitty, underhanded way? Absolutely. But so can journalism. So can reportage. But just because some journalism is shitty and biased doesn't mean journalism is shitty, and nor is native advertising when it's done right, it's better than display advertising because people are actually likely to consume it.

doctorpangloss 12y ago

> Maybe BuzzFeed has cracked the code for online "journalism" being profitable Cue a torrent of branded content and native advertising apologists. Native advertising is to journalism what virtual casinos are to video games. I used to be an apologist for a virtual slot machine—I even wrote some code for one. But once you get out of the system, it's so obvious: virtual casinos are unequivocally bad for the gaming ecosystem. Indeed, anything that makes its money primarily by exploiting people at the expensive of competitive creativity—like casinos or native advertising—is bad for the ecosystem. I think many people in journalism will have to discover organically that native advertising is unequivocally bad for the non-fiction ecosystem. It will make tons of money, sure, but their integrity is worth far more.

billmalarky 12y ago
"It will make tons of money, sure, but their integrity is worth far more." Tell that to them when they go out of business.