A recent article by Business Insider has highlighted the growing plight of writers and staff at top digital outlets. In exchange for working for low wages, employees were promised common shares with no buy back or additional compensation and now resulting from the low performance of their sites those shares are essentially worthless, according to insiders.
It’s rather difficult to feel remorse and sympathy for those who sat from on high denigrating and berating the common man they claimed to represent. All while pushing a cultural imperialism they openly rejected, and constantly demonstrated a fierce double standard when it came to holding their own side accountable. All the while as it now turns out they fully believed they were to be imminently rich for their service to their cause.
All people have a price either direct or indirect, we’re all whores, but to be so fake in their views because you were told you would become rich for it while not asking questions for years makes you just a stupid whore.
Make no mistake, the owners of these now far Leftist outlets are living in mansions while even their early executives are left with just enough for a house payment or down payment on college for their children. The term useful idiot was coined for these exact people, by the exact people who they were working for.
“We were at the cusp of the social web blowing up. There was just massive potential. As a publisher, we were the internet darling. Advertisers were knocking at the door. There was an unspoken shared feeling that this is something big we’re part of.”
Of course when they launched they were in demand by advertisers.
You had a medium that suddenly and easily reaches the youth of the nation and advertisers wanted to capitalize on that reach.
Then over time advertisers actually looked at their returns. It took years, but eventually executives turned to their marketing teams and asked them what the exact rate of return was on their marketing investments. At the time many didn’t even have the figures, but when they returned with the exact amounts the number was so nominal it was inconsequential (i.e., wasted money and this above all else triggered the first adpocalypse).
Don’t expect this to change.
Buzzfeed, Vice, and Vox did it to themselves by courting audiences that did not have high turnover rates for their advertisers.
The old adage SJWs don’t buy stuff amply applies, so when your primary audience is not inclined to make purchases they’re not a desirable audience to have. Simple solution: cater to audiences with disposable income and a desire to dispose of that income. Their solution:
“The theory is that a combination of cutting costs and diversifying will help these companies get sustainable and remain strong as standalone companies. But in an era where size still counts when you’re courting advertisers, these companies may not stay independent for long.”
Cutting the bloat is a good idea. Sadly businesses tend to grow around management rather than production. Management being the optimizer not the producer is never a good spot to expand a business. Diversifying the same agenda, but in new mediums, is not going to produce desirable results.
One of the stated…
“It doesn’t feel like a moment of hope. It’s a very different place where a hundred million investments were going into places. We were all misguided about how these companies would turn out.”
As old wisdom says, if you do what you’ve always done, you’ll get what you’ve always got. If what you do today is futility, then why do it tomorrow and expect hope to emerge?