BuzzFeed investors have pushed CEO Jonah Peretti to shut down entire newsroom(cnbc.com)
cnbc.com
BuzzFeed investors have pushed CEO Jonah Peretti to shut down entire newsroom
https://www.cnbc.com/2022/03/22/buzzfeed-investors-have-pushed-ceo-jonah-peretti-to-shut-down-newsroom.html
167 comments
If you lookup the meaning of ‘ listicle’ on iPhone, ironically Buzzfeed is mentioned in the example.
RcouF1uZ4gsC(6)
Buzzfeed should have never gone public. Pretty much the entire purpose of the rest of Buzzfeed was to ensure funding of Buzzfeed News.
Buzzfeed's purpose was to make money. Buzzfeed News was a semi-successful attempt to take money from advertisers who preferred high minded NYT/WSJ type audiences by gaining the reputation of "no, no, you see Buzzfeed News is the serious part, it actually does good stuff!".
It didn't work because the financial cards are stacked against print media, there is basically NYT and then tech billionaire charity cases like The Post and The Atlantic.
It didn't work because the financial cards are stacked against print media, there is basically NYT and then tech billionaire charity cases like The Post and The Atlantic.
I agree that Buzzfeed should not have gone public. For those of us who are more cynical, we see Buzzfeed News as the reputable veneer on the listicle business. The actual news organization was started 5 years after the listicle business.
the fun part of Buzzfeed IPO is most of backers of SPAC pull out. Buzzfeed received less money and its stock have been drilling ever since.
Expensify which featured on HN a few times have been drilling as well since IPO.
Expensify which featured on HN a few times have been drilling as well since IPO.
Here is the funny thing. People want to throw shade at the investors, but Buzzfeed staff themselves frothed when they couldn't sell off their stake in the company.
https://www.newyorker.com/news/annals-of-communications/how-...
"As it turned out, for many former employees, it was all too good to be true. This past Monday, as BuzzFeed went public, many of them learned something alarming: they weren’t able to trade the stock that they had waited years to exercise."
When you have skin in the game it aligns interests.
"As it turned out, for many former employees, it was all too good to be true. This past Monday, as BuzzFeed went public, many of them learned something alarming: they weren’t able to trade the stock that they had waited years to exercise."
When you have skin in the game it aligns interests.
https://archive.ph/nVEYM
“As the markets opened on December 6th, former BuzzFeed employees contacted their brokerages to initiate trades, but later found out that the type of stock they held, known as Class B, couldn’t be publicly traded yet. That evening, Continental, a stock-transfer company that BuzzFeed had engaged to facilitate the spac merger, sent an e-mail informing former employees that, in order to trade their Class B shares, they would have to convert them into Class A shares. In order to complete the process—which would take three to five business days—former employees were informed, they would need to print the e-mail, sign, scan, and return it.”.
“An e-mail circulating among former employees this past week raised the question of whether they could have a legal case. “This is rotten and definitely slimey, but I have not figured out if it’s illegal,” a person wrote. When asked whether anything illegal had occurred, Matt Mittenthal, a spokesman for BuzzFeed, said ‘of course not.’”.
And this only applies to past employees that exercised their options - paying some money and taxes for their equity.
“As the markets opened on December 6th, former BuzzFeed employees contacted their brokerages to initiate trades, but later found out that the type of stock they held, known as Class B, couldn’t be publicly traded yet. That evening, Continental, a stock-transfer company that BuzzFeed had engaged to facilitate the spac merger, sent an e-mail informing former employees that, in order to trade their Class B shares, they would have to convert them into Class A shares. In order to complete the process—which would take three to five business days—former employees were informed, they would need to print the e-mail, sign, scan, and return it.”.
“An e-mail circulating among former employees this past week raised the question of whether they could have a legal case. “This is rotten and definitely slimey, but I have not figured out if it’s illegal,” a person wrote. When asked whether anything illegal had occurred, Matt Mittenthal, a spokesman for BuzzFeed, said ‘of course not.’”.
And this only applies to past employees that exercised their options - paying some money and taxes for their equity.
Hello, I´m trying to connect with you on Linkedin. Can you send me a message? Ronald.
I’m pretty sure you have got the wrong person: I don’ t have a LinkedIn account. I am a JavaScript dev from Christchurch, New Zealand.
I don't really understand the proposal that employees deserve shade in this situation.
Why do the interests of former employees need to be aligned?
More toxic investors who think the world needs more ads, less investigative journalism. Good to hear that Peretti is pushing back, but somehow I doubt that he'll last if he keeps it up.
Maybe some investors are ok with an organization in a company losing $10M yearly but it doesn't really strike me as toxic for them not to be ok with this.
>Buzzfeed said quarterly revenue grew 18% year over year to $146 million. Profit rose to $41.6 million
It's not the organization, just the division.
News is responsible for the very good image that Buzzfeed has. Why do they give it up when they can finance it?
It's not the organization, just the division.
News is responsible for the very good image that Buzzfeed has. Why do they give it up when they can finance it?
Oh please, Buzzfeed does not have a good reputation, yes some articles were pretty good, but it's far from something people would be willing to defend as a good news source.
Investors don't have to shoulder costs for a service that no one cares about. You want a "what flavour of jelly bean are you" quiz you go to Buzzfeed. You want serious news you read one of the countless other site that covers world news. Yes it's cynical, but if I had money in Buzzfeed I would have pressured the CEO too.
Investors don't have to shoulder costs for a service that no one cares about. You want a "what flavour of jelly bean are you" quiz you go to Buzzfeed. You want serious news you read one of the countless other site that covers world news. Yes it's cynical, but if I had money in Buzzfeed I would have pressured the CEO too.
[deleted]
They did just win a pullitzer for their international reporting last year. I'd say that goes quite a way towards improving their reputation.
That's not what I meant, the articles from Buzzfeed News were good, I don't deny it.
That being said, their reputation as "Buzzfeed" is bad, if you repeat a piece of information to someone and say that you "read it on Buzzfeed", there will be an inherent bias that the source is bad, because most people associate them with terrible pop-culture articles on Facebook and don't even know that they won a pullitzer prize.
In that context, their reputation is permanently damaged for most people. If Buzzfeed really want to create "serious" news branch they'd have to call it something else at the very least.
That being said, their reputation as "Buzzfeed" is bad, if you repeat a piece of information to someone and say that you "read it on Buzzfeed", there will be an inherent bias that the source is bad, because most people associate them with terrible pop-culture articles on Facebook and don't even know that they won a pullitzer prize.
In that context, their reputation is permanently damaged for most people. If Buzzfeed really want to create "serious" news branch they'd have to call it something else at the very least.
BuzzFeed News can't rely on one prize to boost their reputation when they have a severe retention problem.
Two of the three reporters on that winning team no longer work there.
bavell(1)
It would make more sense to split it off into a different brand.
I rank BuzzFeed on the same level as the Huffington Post. You want real news? Go to the Associated Press directly, or Reuters.
NYT can be ok, but their monetization tactics are kind of weird
I rank BuzzFeed on the same level as the Huffington Post. You want real news? Go to the Associated Press directly, or Reuters.
NYT can be ok, but their monetization tactics are kind of weird
Yeah by organization I meant "org" not the entire company.
Sure. Just like TI, HP, and many others killed off their R&D departments because they didn't make direct profits, only ate money and produced ideas that other departments would monetize. Penny wise, pound foolish. Fuck the future, I want my money now.
Unless you're indicting the entire Western economic system (which is fair but also not something I'm going to argue about), blaming investors is nonsense. Corporate officers are responsible for having and selling a vision. If these companies got rid of the R&D departments, management owns that, not investors.
> blaming investors is nonsense.
Pardon my French, but this is bullshit. Activist investors pressuring buzzfeed are directly responsible for their actions. At best, they looked at the orgs under the umbrella and decided that the best move is to axe BFN. Experience tells me that either they're focused on short term profits, or silencing journalists they dislike.
And, yes, this is partly an indictment of the entire western economic system. Rapacious focus on short term profits will be our downfall. This is merely one example of many.
Pardon my French, but this is bullshit. Activist investors pressuring buzzfeed are directly responsible for their actions. At best, they looked at the orgs under the umbrella and decided that the best move is to axe BFN. Experience tells me that either they're focused on short term profits, or silencing journalists they dislike.
And, yes, this is partly an indictment of the entire western economic system. Rapacious focus on short term profits will be our downfall. This is merely one example of many.
I think we can both agree investors are powerful. In the case of Buzzfeed and HP and so on the investors may be more powerful than management.
But I'm saying that no matter what, management is responsible for actions they take.
But I'm saying that no matter what, management is responsible for actions they take.
Investors are the ones making the decision for higher profits in the short term over long term viability of the company. It is absolutely in the investors, usually profit hungry corporate investors like superannuation or the local equivalent.
Foresight isn’t profitable. Sustainability isn’t profitable. They want next years bonus cheques not a healthy retirement fund.
Foresight isn’t profitable. Sustainability isn’t profitable. They want next years bonus cheques not a healthy retirement fund.
> blaming investors is nonsense. Corporate officers are responsible for having and selling a vision.
That's a strange point to make in a discussion about how investors are pushing management into making the short term decision.
That's a strange point to make in a discussion about how investors are pushing management into making the short term decision.
Every time I change the oil in my car it loses me money, but it's important to the overall function of the car.
A CEO of a public company is responsible for selling investors on what he/she is doing. If News is fundamental to the company or to his vision then he is responsible for explaining that or selling that vision. If investors don't believe in it I don't blame them per se I'd just say the company either shouldn't be public or they should have a CEO that can reasonably explain to investors why they should care that News exists.
Tale as old as time
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30768059
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30768059
buzzfeed news is not important or even relevant to the overall function of buzzfeed.
IT is a "cost center." Cut it all?
Maybe the problem is having investors instead of patrons.
This is what people mean when they say capitalism won't solve all our problems.
This is what people mean when they say capitalism won't solve all our problems.
> More toxic investors who think the world needs more ads, less investigative journalism.
You're talking on Hacker News where people routinely bypass paid content by posting workaround links. The same people who get angry when people stealing their SAAS subscriptions. This is the pot calling the kettle black.
You're talking on Hacker News where people routinely bypass paid content by posting workaround links. The same people who get angry when people stealing their SAAS subscriptions. This is the pot calling the kettle black.
I'm not sure that subscription fees are the panacaea to the proliferation of PR instead of journalism that you seem to think. When you had to pay for newspapers, they still had ads in them.
Those ideals died long ago when they took 500M+ of venture capital. Years later, those investors are taking their losses and public market actors can and will force them to make the hard decisions, like cutting the CEO's vanity project. Call it ruthless if you want, but any option post-VC, whether it's PE or public markets, is going to involve a lot less "lighting money on fire" projects. Outside that environment, a company is simply worth the sum of it's discounted future cashflow, with direct monetary incentive to maximize it.
I would not take anything with "buzz" in the name seriously. To me it is still gossip.
It's simply unfortunate branding.
It's simply unfortunate branding.
Funny I was using chrome on android the other day and the number of sites with huge ads that obscure content reminds me of popups in the early 2000's. Some mainstream sites are practically unusable. I suppose they've driven their engagement metrics by making a tiny 'close' button that's designed to make you inadvertently click the stupid ad.
I say we draft the ad people to defend Ukraine before we let them back into society on parole.
I say we draft the ad people to defend Ukraine before we let them back into society on parole.
Talk is cheap if you aren't the one footing the bill. The investors are likely in the top .001% in spending money on investigative journalism, but if they don't spend even more money on it, they get to receive criticism for killing journalism from people who made more lucrative investments.
> “Though BuzzFeed is a profitable company, we don’t have the resources to support another two years of losses,” [Peretti said]
This part confuses me. The newsroom is a loss, but buzzfeed as a whole is profitable, got it. But if buzzfeed as a whole is profitable even with the news division in the red, what does it mean to say you "don't have the resources to support another two years of losses"?
This part confuses me. The newsroom is a loss, but buzzfeed as a whole is profitable, got it. But if buzzfeed as a whole is profitable even with the news division in the red, what does it mean to say you "don't have the resources to support another two years of losses"?
I guess it means it's waste of money and they could be more profitable without news division, which is their responsibility to stockholders.
Except it’s not. Their duty to the stockholders is to be responsible, not to maximize profits. If they feel their news division is important to the company and the community, that’s a perfectly valid reason to maintain it.
Actually duty to the shareholder is do as shareholders ask . Those things could be responsible or profit maximizing or not.
Legally it is hard to define either as they vague and subjective, obeying the board directions is much easier to define and codify in law.
If management does not do as shareholders ask , shareholders can get management replaced by nominating and voting for directors who want the same thing in the next general meeting or call for a emergency one.
Management reports to the board and the board reports to the shareholders.
It is hard to counter the direct wishes of all shareholders combined. However rarely all shareholders want the same thing. Management themselves own substantial shares and obviously will feel different for example.
Legally it is hard to define either as they vague and subjective, obeying the board directions is much easier to define and codify in law.
If management does not do as shareholders ask , shareholders can get management replaced by nominating and voting for directors who want the same thing in the next general meeting or call for a emergency one.
Management reports to the board and the board reports to the shareholders.
It is hard to counter the direct wishes of all shareholders combined. However rarely all shareholders want the same thing. Management themselves own substantial shares and obviously will feel different for example.
"Maximizing shareholder value" has been cause of more evil in the past 100 years than just about any other philosophy on earth, and that includes fascism.
It's simple: They prefer not to pay six-figure newsroom salaries.
Maybe I'm being too literal, but if they say they are profitable despite the current losses, then why say they don't have the resources? Clearly they do, in fact since they are profitable they have more than enough resources, by definition. I suppose what they mean to say is "we choose not to devote resources to an unprofitable division".
They have a reporter in Ukraine, Christopher Miller: https://twitter.com/christopherjm
A fictional rendition of this process in modern journalism
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZvXi8W9o_U
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bnYVH_Rrp00
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZvXi8W9o_U
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bnYVH_Rrp00
If you don't have the majority youre not the owner but an employee.
> If you don't have the majority youre not the owner but an employee.
By that definition Bezos is (well, was) an Amazon employee. And Musk is Tesla employee.
Zuckerberg owns a minority of shares but a majority of votes, so I don't know where he falls in your calculus. But I disagree with your statement as a whole, so I don't care too much about the line.
By that definition Bezos is (well, was) an Amazon employee. And Musk is Tesla employee.
Zuckerberg owns a minority of shares but a majority of votes, so I don't know where he falls in your calculus. But I disagree with your statement as a whole, so I don't care too much about the line.
Bezos does not own Amazon. Neither does Musk own Tesla. I would say Zuckerberg does own Facebook due to his majority control of votes.
Voting is not ownership though so why would you say that of Zuckerberg?
That kinda pushes you into the absurdity of the situation, actually. What is ownership, if not control? To own something is to control it, and to control something is to own it. Possession, control, and power are much more fundamental concepts than an illusiory idea of ownership sold to you by the finance industry.
I think you're overthinking it. The concepts of ownership and control are pretty well separated. It happens all the time. In leasing, for example, or silent partnership agreements.
There's nothing illusory about it, the definitions about what you can do with Facebook voting and non-voting shares would be quite rigorously defined.
There's nothing illusory about it, the definitions about what you can do with Facebook voting and non-voting shares would be quite rigorously defined.
You’ve pointed out two examples of “big personality” CEOs that are colloquially understood to “own” their company, but your argument seems to be that they must own them by virtue of it sounding preposterous to a layperson that they don’t?
Tesla would probably exist without Musk as CEO. Amazon would certainly exist without Bezos as CEO.
Tesla would probably exist without Musk as CEO. Amazon would certainly exist without Bezos as CEO.
I kept using the word "employee", not "owner". And I think most people would agree that the largest shareholder who is CEO is not an employee in the standard use of the word.
Since the OP responded in a different post that Zuckerberg, by virtual of control of the majority of Meta stock isn't an employee, he's clearly referring to power, not to equity. And I think it's true that Bezos (if he chose to reassert himself) or Musk can do whatever they want with their respective companies. I mean, even if he doesn't control more than 20% of the stock, who do you think is going to stand up to Musk? The institutional investors? A coalition of people who bought into Tesla because they worship him? The minority that is none of the above?
Since the OP responded in a different post that Zuckerberg, by virtual of control of the majority of Meta stock isn't an employee, he's clearly referring to power, not to equity. And I think it's true that Bezos (if he chose to reassert himself) or Musk can do whatever they want with their respective companies. I mean, even if he doesn't control more than 20% of the stock, who do you think is going to stand up to Musk? The institutional investors? A coalition of people who bought into Tesla because they worship him? The minority that is none of the above?
The second he loses trust he's gone.
> Access Denied
> You don't have permission to access "http://www.cnbc.com/2022/03/22/buzzfeed-investors-have-pushe..." on this server.
> You don't have permission to access "http://www.cnbc.com/2022/03/22/buzzfeed-investors-have-pushe..." on this server.
BuzzFeed News had interesting reports on Peter Thiel.
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/josephbernstein/peter-t...
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/rosiegray/peter-thiel-d...
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/josephbernstein/peter-t...
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/rosiegray/peter-thiel-d...
Regardless of thoughts on Thiel, the second link feels like a hit piece —- the entire article hinges on one paragraph “BuzzFeed News can reveal that in at least one instance during the summer of 2016, Thiel hosted a dinner with [white nationalist]… And then Thiel emailed the next day to say how much he’d enjoyed his company.“ How many other people were at the dinner? How many other people received this email? What were the contents of the email, i.e. was it a generic thank you? Left to suspect these details would make the story less interesting
Does it matter? You couldn’t pay me enough to dine with a known white nationalist and I certainly wouldn’t be sending any thank you notes as a follow-up. I can’t imagine I’m unique in this regard.
The article doesn't establish Thiel knew the guy was a white nationalist. Guilt by association is weak by itself, but if the two just attended the same party unbeknownst to Thiel and then Thiel spammed a list-serve of attendees with "THANKS EVERYONE I ENJOYED ALL YOUR COMPANY"--that's not association. The article is so threadbare its impossible to know whether that happened or whether Thiel purposely hosted a dinner specifically for the white supremacist. Or something in between.
What are the odds the person at your table widely known for founding "Youth for Western Civilization" turns out to be a white supremacist? Talk about bad luck, Pete. It could happen to anyone, really. And it's not like Thiel has access to troves and troves of personal data on just about every person with an internet connection and a program specifically designed to identify "extremists" by analyzing patterns in their social network and interests. Oh wait...
This analysis is based on many unfounded assumptions like he knew that the guy founded Youth for Western Civilization or even what that was. I traveled in right wing circles on colleges campuses in 2006-2008 and I never hear of them until today.
If Thiel was getting into bed with this guy, then yea, you can probably impute some knowledge b/c Thiel would do some diligence. But we are talking about a dinner and an email.
I met a new person this weekend under similar circumstances. You shouldn't take that as a a sign I agree with that person's politics.
If Thiel was getting into bed with this guy, then yea, you can probably impute some knowledge b/c Thiel would do some diligence. But we are talking about a dinner and an email.
I met a new person this weekend under similar circumstances. You shouldn't take that as a a sign I agree with that person's politics.
What exactly would your objection be?
Personally, I would be open to such an experience. I am not so insecure in my beliefs that I would worry on that front. I might learn something about them and the nature of the world, and maybe they would too.
Personally, I would be open to such an experience. I am not so insecure in my beliefs that I would worry on that front. I might learn something about them and the nature of the world, and maybe they would too.
Shrug. I would — and have — had dinner with all kinds of people whose beliefs and behavior diverge sharply from what I think is advisable or ethical. Having dinner with someone is not an endorsement of their worldview, full stop.
Maybe this will sound corny, and I guess it probably won't land with non-Christians, but I'll offer my heuristic anyway: What would Jesus do? I don't think shunning is the answer.
Maybe this will sound corny, and I guess it probably won't land with non-Christians, but I'll offer my heuristic anyway: What would Jesus do? I don't think shunning is the answer.
[deleted]
WWJD also entails vandalizing unethical businesses rather than operating them, so let's not get too self-righteous here.
Moneychangers in the temple don't funge with other businesses. The issue was blasphemy.
[deleted]
"Hosting a dinner for" means the white nationalist was the star of the event, a proud Thiel introducing this fellow to his contacts.
Using quotes when the quote doesn't exist should be enough to get this comment deleted.
I know nothing about Thiel, but the actual quote is "hosted a dinner with" which like the one you responded to here said, could easily mean there were 50 guests at a party and one of them was this guy.
Your made up quote is something entirely different.
I know nothing about Thiel, but the actual quote is "hosted a dinner with" which like the one you responded to here said, could easily mean there were 50 guests at a party and one of them was this guy.
Your made up quote is something entirely different.
[deleted]
News? Not seeing a single thing that isn’t biased far left nonsense.
Hardly. Clearly they are left leaning but they back up their opinion with facts. For example calling out Republicans using half-truths against Jackson to try and make her look bad. That's some good reporting.
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/paulmcleod/ketanji-brow...
We need more of this kind of journalism to keep the facts out there and point out lots of pols twist things to fool the public.
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/paulmcleod/ketanji-brow...
We need more of this kind of journalism to keep the facts out there and point out lots of pols twist things to fool the public.
Could you summarize the facts? "Calling out half-truths" is not an example of a fact.
It's a clear slant of D good, R bad, here's how we explain away what R's are saying because we think X.
There's a million left-wing outlets to do this, Buzzfeed News will not be missed.
It's a clear slant of D good, R bad, here's how we explain away what R's are saying because we think X.
There's a million left-wing outlets to do this, Buzzfeed News will not be missed.
I didn't see much "D good". There was a bit of "Specific R bad", but they only quoted that left-wing rags like the National Review to back up that what they said was bad. I won't repeat them, because they were less half-truths and more "meritless to the point of demagoguery" - (National Review).
If you think NYT and Washington Post are "left wing rags" then there is nothing I can do to convince you of any logic. Have a good day sir.
I was calling the National Review, founded by William Buckley, the famous conservative pundit, a left wing rag as a tongue in cheek way of saying even super conservative publications call it meritless.
I considered it as obvious sarcasm as calling Fox News a left-wing front of the Democratic Party.
I considered it as obvious sarcasm as calling Fox News a left-wing front of the Democratic Party.
Just because a source looks biased doesnt mean its not factual. Saying "republicans are saying awful things to/about XYZ person", if they were doing it, wouldnt be biased, it would be the truth.
And I wouldnt consider them "far left" anyway, just left of some other mainstream news sources.
And I wouldnt consider them "far left" anyway, just left of some other mainstream news sources.
> Just because a source looks biased doesnt mean its not factual.
Definitely, unfortunately the facts are usually scarce and twisted in those hit pieces.
> And I wouldnt consider them "far left" anyway, just left of some other mainstream news sources.
https://wikiless.org/wiki/Overton_window
Still far-left in my eyes, but you're not wrong in the general sense, simply because most MSM is far-left nowadays.
Definitely, unfortunately the facts are usually scarce and twisted in those hit pieces.
> And I wouldnt consider them "far left" anyway, just left of some other mainstream news sources.
https://wikiless.org/wiki/Overton_window
Still far-left in my eyes, but you're not wrong in the general sense, simply because most MSM is far-left nowadays.
> Still far-left in my eyes, but you're not wrong in the general sense, simply because most MSM is far-left nowadays.
What do you consider far left? Mainstream media pushes for larger police budgets, high defense spending, defends billionaires, defends foreign policies that cause death, destruction, and misery all over the world, they are almost never actually critical of politicians and/or what they say in a way that matters. They defend massive corporations that are working against Americans, push fossil fuels (and for adjacent industries, like cars), push against single payer healthcare, and many other policies that are even just slightly left of center.
No part of our mainstream media is even close to far left, basically no major source in the world is.
At best, you might get a left wing opinion article in the NYT or something, but thats still going to be sandwiched between police propaganda and the current week's article on cancel culture.
What do you consider far left? Mainstream media pushes for larger police budgets, high defense spending, defends billionaires, defends foreign policies that cause death, destruction, and misery all over the world, they are almost never actually critical of politicians and/or what they say in a way that matters. They defend massive corporations that are working against Americans, push fossil fuels (and for adjacent industries, like cars), push against single payer healthcare, and many other policies that are even just slightly left of center.
No part of our mainstream media is even close to far left, basically no major source in the world is.
At best, you might get a left wing opinion article in the NYT or something, but thats still going to be sandwiched between police propaganda and the current week's article on cancel culture.
This was easy to see coming. Prestige doesn't matter if you're a public company, all that matters is this quarter's results. Buzzfeed could play that game when their investors were happy that Jonah was incinerating their money, but now that they're public and their SPAC dropped like a rock, anything unprofitable has got to go.
"Prestige" BuzzFeed was always a tainted name there inability to realize how shitty their reputation was and release real news under a different name directly lead to this.
I'm not really sure that this matters. The problem is that the news organization didn't make money, and judging by the financials they aren't close to making money. It would be a different thing if we could point to other media companies that were making money with their better brand but they basically don't exist. They're either also unprofitable or they're massively bigger than Buzzfeed news - for example NYT has >20x the staff and has a huge reputation that took decades to establish. Buzzfeed going public was the right move, trying to go for scale and make the best of consolidation. The problem is that that plan failed because no one was willing to put up the cash to do it.
I have no idea why you are getting down-voted. It's 100% true that the absolutely terrible brand that is BuzzFeed spilled over BuzzFeed News and hurt its public perception.
Yep. Literally every thread about buzzfeed news has multiple posts explaining the different pods of the business, with the caveat that BFNews is serious.
An absolutely awful branding decision.
An absolutely awful branding decision.
> I have no idea why you are getting down-voted. It's 100% true that the absolutely terrible brand that is BuzzFeed spilled over BuzzFeed News and hurt its public perception.
Don't you have that backwards? I was always under the impression that BuzzFeed News existed to help prop up the BuzzFeed brand's reputation.
Don't you have that backwards? I was always under the impression that BuzzFeed News existed to help prop up the BuzzFeed brand's reputation.
BuzzFeed News was created later, years after BuzzFeed established its reputation as the internet equivalent of a shoddy tabloid. That crippled the News org's credibility from the very start; I know I still have a "drivel alert" instinct from their domain name, despite the knowledge that they have, in fact, produced impressive investigations at times.
And Buzzfeed News is also shit, it just looks good in comparison to Buzzfeed proper.
Eh, going public, by itself, doesn't necessarily result in this kind of outcome. There's plenty of public companies that are operating with little in profits or even at a net loss.
Presumably the way this SPAC was structured resulted in a change of control, and if you make that decision, you get what you get.
Presumably the way this SPAC was structured resulted in a change of control, and if you make that decision, you get what you get.
Lol the only thing worth keeping in that whole mess.
Investors are the worst possible people to tell you how to create something great. I've never seen a notable public market investor who made the world a better place.
I want to say Carl Icon's push to separate PayPal from eBay was beneficial. Not that PayPal stock has done so well lately, but it's a real company providing a real service now, and overall the calculus is positive
This doesn't really dispute your point though. Rules tend to have an exception or two.
This doesn't really dispute your point though. Rules tend to have an exception or two.
Paypal separating from eBay was good financial engineerings, but at the end of the day you've got two crappy companies with 1 sinking faster than the other, neither has done well since, and separately they're both too small to compete in their markets.
> I've never seen a notable public market investor who made the world a better place.
which isn't their goal.
Investors' goal is to earn the highest return possible on their capital they invest, and take the lowest risk possible they can get away with.
Making the world a better place is something a charity does. Making money is what a company does. If the company incidentally makes the world a better place, that's great, but why does anyone expect this to happen?
which isn't their goal.
Investors' goal is to earn the highest return possible on their capital they invest, and take the lowest risk possible they can get away with.
Making the world a better place is something a charity does. Making money is what a company does. If the company incidentally makes the world a better place, that's great, but why does anyone expect this to happen?
[deleted]
It happens a lot with private investors! Companies like Tesla and SpaceX and Apple would not exist without private capital markets.
You say this like it's the natural order. There is room for ought.
No! Not the Buzzfeed newsroom!
Shut it down and move all the employees to contractors, get rid of all benefits, put up a paywall, and only pay the employees when they actually deliver quality material that you can run ads on.
Found the private equity ghoul
News doesn't make money unless you're a solo operation out of a basement or behind a paywall with 100+ years of experience under you.
> News doesn't make money unless you're a solo operation out of a basement or behind a paywall with 100+ years of experience under you.
A solo news operation sounds a lot like a OS written by one person. At some point, it takes more labor to build something than one person is capable of.
A solo news operation sounds a lot like a OS written by one person. At some point, it takes more labor to build something than one person is capable of.
OH NO! where will i get TOP 100 CELEBRITY DOGS THAT LOOK LIKE POISONOUS FROGS lists in the future?
> OH NO! where will i get TOP 100 CELEBRITY DOGS THAT LOOK LIKE POISONOUS FROGS lists in the future?
Oh don't worry, you'll still get that. In fact, that's all you'll get. Investors know how to sort the wheat from the chaff to provide us with the race to the bottom our society really needs.
Oh don't worry, you'll still get that. In fact, that's all you'll get. Investors know how to sort the wheat from the chaff to provide us with the race to the bottom our society really needs.
from Buzzfeed, because this isn't talking about the team that writes those clickbait listicles
Losing 10 million a year with 100 employees? Either journalists make a lot of money or Buzzfeed News makes next to nothing.
I don't know. If you just straight-out divide 10 million by 100, it comes out to 100,000 per employee. If you spread that out with some management, and take into account that the burdened rate of an employee is typically 1.4 times their salary, that sounds pretty accurate if the company has very little revenue.
If we're talking real journalism, I'd expect cost per head to be quite a bit higher than average, due to lots of expensed travel.
It costs a lot of money to run a business.
100 employees is a lot of people. Even if you paid them nothing more than median wage (~$52k), with healthcare and other HR costs that easily adds up to the lions share of $10 mil. And this is just talking about people. Not servers, office space, equipment, contracts & rental fees, licensing, etc.
100 employees is a lot of people. Even if you paid them nothing more than median wage (~$52k), with healthcare and other HR costs that easily adds up to the lions share of $10 mil. And this is just talking about people. Not servers, office space, equipment, contracts & rental fees, licensing, etc.
[deleted]
Github repo of their open-sourced work: https://github.com/BuzzFeedNews/everything
Previous HN submissions from the domain: https://news.ycombinator.com/from?site=buzzfeednews.com
2021 Pulitzer Prize in International Reporting: https://www.pulitzer.org/winners/megha-rajagopalan-alison-ki...