
The Buzzfeed Lesson - misiti3780
https://stratechery.com/2019/the-buzzfeed-lesson/
======
bhauer
I am still waiting for a good micropayments platform to allow me to support
arbitrary web sites with relatively low-friction (and high-privacy) small
payments to consume their content. I would happily pay $0.25 or thereabouts to
read articles on some of the sites I consider to be good content creators.

That said, I have somewhat high expectations. E.g., I would hope that such a
platform doesn't take too large a cut (e.g., Apple app-store sized cut)
because that's offensive to both readers and creators.

~~~
seem_2211
Completely disagree. Having to make a purchase decision is stressful and a
cognitive nuisance. I'd much rather pay $10 a month for Netflix and not think
about it, than $.20 to watch an episode.

~~~
noobiemcfoob
Netflix would prefer you do this, too. In subscription models, you are almost
guaranteed to be paying more than you're using. Only when a service is first
starting and trying to attract subscribers is it likely you are paying less
than you use.

~~~
1123581321
How do you measure the value or cost of how much someone uses for s product
like Netflix? Compared to equivalent iTunes purchases, a Netflix subscription
is inexpensive. If you are referring to the bandwidth, the cost is close to
zero anywhere.

~~~
noobiemcfoob
No, I'm not talking about bandwidth. iTunes isn't generally selling one-time
access, but perpetual ownership (kinda) of a single episode. This accounts for
the outlandish $2 per episode sort of thing.

A non-subscription model for a Netflix service would be closer to fractions of
a penny per view.

~~~
1123581321
Fractions of a penny per viewing can only refer to bandwidth costs; it's 1-2
orders of magnitude too small to cover the costs of producing or licensing a
show, let alone Netflix' other fixed operating costs.

Everything Netflix talks about is getting users to spend more time watching
shows, not less. They certainly want subscriptions because they make more
money, but they do it by aggregating a ton of content into one subscription
and providing it at effectively no variable delivery cost. The result is that
users pay less per hour watched than can be provided by anyone a la carte.

~~~
noobiemcfoob
I don't follow your reasoning. Whatever the delivery costs may be, they don't
determine the service cost. That's determined by value to the customer (though
delivery costs sets the minimal viable service cost).

Their adherence to a subscription modivates the view of getting users on the
platform for as long as possible, regardless of what they're watching. A pay
per view model would twist motivations another way.

~~~
1123581321
Yes, that is my original point I wanted to make in disagreement with you.
Netflix does not make more money off a subscription because of underuse, they
make money because of, if anything, overuse which is possible because the
value to the watcher (some number below the a la carte rental price of $2-5
set by competitors) greatly exceeds the variable cost of providing the view of
the show (nearly $0.)

------
mudil
There is a reason why we don’t have any VC investments in the media, or for
that matter, in the content creation on the internet. The reason is because
Google and FB monopolized search, advertising, and more importantly,
surveillance of individuals. So, the website that caters clinical information
to doctors competes with Candy Crush, because doctors get served relevant ads
on games, etc.

In the early days of internet, we had plethora of new media networks. No more.
The same with science websites, smart websites for children, hobby websites,
etc etc. Big tech is killing content on the internet, and instead we have fake
news controversies and privacy scandals.

This is very serious stuff for society and democracy and knowledge.

PS [https://www.cnbc.com/2019/01/28/tech-monopolies-are-
killing-...](https://www.cnbc.com/2019/01/28/tech-monopolies-are-killing-
journalism-ocasio-cortez-says.html)

Edit. Think about it: Google and FB have 80% share of the ad market, and they
actually don’t create the content. The rest 20% goes to all the publishers
from the entire world.

~~~
throwaway427
Who is "we"? There are tons of VC investments in media.

~~~
mudil
Ok, which ones? Give me examples.

~~~
throwaway427
The Athletic, Gimlet, Cheddar, Scroll, Piano, Tastemade...

~~~
drdeadringer
Out of these, I have heard of only Gimlet Media and that's because I'm neck
deep into podcasts.

------
anongraddebt
A number of HN comments have pointed to the internet-native advantage Buzzfeed
(BF) had, and that the layoffs are disconcerting or puzzling in this respect.
It's a fair and natural point. However, there are a number of fundamental
shifts occurring as the digital economy grows as a percentage of the total
economy. Many companies misaligned to these on-going shifts will either change
or go under.

Shouldn't an internet-native company already be well aligned to these shifts?
Not necessarily. For instance, one of the shifts underway is the increasing
transience of markets. That is, markets are created, undergo change, and die-
off at an accelerating pace. This is just one fundamental shift underway,
there are others, and companies will not exist very long if merely a portion
of the company is aligned for this new environment.

~~~
neuronic
I always wonder how one arrives at such conclusions with this kind of
confidence. Are you reading and essentially consolidating a lot of your
acquired knowledge? Is this the tenor observant people are agreeing upon at
conferences? Are you in some kind of overview position?

I am merely asking because from my perspective I feel I could never conclude
such things and I have no idea how it happens?

~~~
anongraddebt
I don't understand your question. Alternatively, if you're making an argument,
then I don't what your argument is.

------
massysett
Earlier he said the world needs good journalism and therefore journalism needs
a good business model.

I see this sentiment often but I see no support for it. There is no link
between the premise and the conclusion. Plenty of things in the world have no
business model: much fits under the umbrella of philanthropy. Others are
provided by government, which provides some things for which there used to be
a business model but now isn’t (public transportation for instance).

So it is with journalism. Philanthropy for instance could support it. So could
government. In the US the idea of government doing this raises hackles, but
it’s not uncommon worldwide; see the BBC for instance. Even in the US you see
some journalism funded with government and philanthropy (Frontline on PBS.)

------
drugme
_BuzzFeed sucks, their journalists were providing benefit to the business, so
they pivoted._

This isn't about BuzzFeed "sucking".

But rather, about its screwing over its employees while trying to appear "hip"
and "anti-establishment".

 _Can we move on?_

Until Jonah digs into his piggybank and coughs up the backpay owed to his
laid-off employees - no.

~~~
maccio92
What backpay is owed to employees? If you're referred to unpaid PTO, if it was
in their employement contract I agree. Otherwise, just another case of
clueless millennials signing contracts without reading them.

~~~
jhayward
What contract? Why do you mention one?

------
asabjorn
The article is correct that competing for the kind of content that you find on
the front page of glossy magazines in the supermarket lines is a race towards
the bottom on the internet.

The article is also correct that this is because online aggregators unlike
supermarket tabloid stands present no supply line incumbent advantage.

Offline content is a combination of ads plus upfront price. That requires some
form of friction and seems to be where content is moving. This fits better
with the necessary expectations of incumbent content providers that their way
of reaching customers should have some incumbent distribution advantage,
because in the end it needs to be a stable job for people providing the
content and for the shareholders taking the risk of providing the company that
create those jobs.

------
edwinjose
The simultaneous layoffs in many news outlets prove they lost access to a
common source of funding, perhaps that source was something like Countering
Foreign Propaganda and Disinformation Act which recently expired.

------
maccio92
Why are we acting like a journo company laying off 1000 people is the end of
the world? Are people not aware of how many other companies across many
sectors have layoffs all the time? This isn't news. BuzzFeed sucks, their
journalists were providing benefit to the business, so they pivoted. Can we
move on?

~~~
yuy910616
It's more than that. buzzfeed is essentially a type of media company, one that
is suppose to 'survive' in the new landscape where aggregates like fb, and
google dominates. to learn and understand why it is struggling has more
implications not just to the long term viability of journalism, but also to
how aggregators dominate and there fore, should be regulated, and what can
company do in a age where controlling demand is much more important than
controlling supply.

~~~
maccio92
maybe people are finally sick of trashy clickbait tabloid articles?

~~~
ravenstine
Not only that, but we really don't need journalists in the traditional sense
as much as we used to. It wasn't even that long ago that newspapers and TV
were people's eyes and ears. Now anyone with a phone can record video of
events as they happen, and anyone with a YouTube channel can report on the
news and make political commentary for a mere fraction of the overhead that
media firms operate on.

This isn't to say that there isn't value in traditional journalism, and I
think the viability of member-supported radio is a testament to that. But the
old guard of for-profit journalism is obsolete, and it's quickening its own
death by going hog-wild with unverified sources, hit pieces, and lack of fact
checking.

~~~
reaperducer
_we really don 't need journalists in the traditional sense as much as we used
to_

Are you under the impression that government corruption and injustice are
things of the past?

 _Now anyone with a phone can record video of events as they happen, and
anyone with a YouTube channel can report on the news and make political
commentary for a mere fraction of the overhead that media firms operate on._

Except that we live in a world of deepfakes, astroturfing, and a dozen other
reasons not to trust what is posted on the internet by any random person.

And building on my comment above, Random Joe isn't going to spend tens or
hundreds of thousands of dollars investigating illegal arms sales, contract
fraud, or hundreds of other things that big journalism companies do routinely.

 _member-supported radio is a testament to that_

Member-supported radio doesn't cover 1/1000th of what local newspapers do.

I think you may not understand the value of professional journalism, past and
present, perhaps because you haven't been exposed to it, or its consequences.

~~~
ravenstine
> Are you under the impression that government corruption and injustice are
> things of the past?

Oh, come now.

> Except that we live in a world of deepfakes, astroturfing, and a dozen other
> reasons not to trust what is posted on the internet by any random person.

And professional journalists are going to be immune to these things? A lot of
the time, journalists actually _repost_ what they see on Twitter and YouTube.
I suppose that in an ideal world journalists would wise up in the face of deep
fakes and trust their various sources a lot less, but caution != profit.

> And building on my comment above, Random Joe isn't going to spend tens or
> hundreds of thousands of dollars investigating illegal arms sales, contract
> fraud, or hundreds of other things that big journalism companies do
> routinely.

I don't agree that you need Big Journalism for that job to be done.
Individuals in the press who are outside Big Journalism, as you put it, can do
the same job independently and for a fraction of the cost.

> Member-supported radio doesn't cover 1/1000th of what local newspapers do.

Sure, _local_ newspapers have an edge over public radio, but you can also use
that same argument against Big Journalism, which despite its resources can't
do the same job that local newspapers do.

> I think you may not understand the value of professional journalism, past
> and present, perhaps because you haven't been exposed to it, or its
> consequences.

That's not a fair assessment at all.

~~~
achillesheels
I don’t comprehend the romance of journalism like the parent comment,
especially in light of a Harvey Weinstein scandal which revealed he had a
payroll of journalists. These are people that are profit motivated like any
other human being, and will often kiss the ring rather than shine light upon
it.

Idealism often dies when people start owning larger personal responsibilities.

------
cwkoss
We need to stop calling people who write articles about memes or what random
people are saying on twitter "Journalists".

Your listicle is not defending democracy, and confusing these two groups has
led to a great devaluation of trust in the remaining real journalists.

~~~
simonsarris
That was the takeaway I got from reading this thread, a BuzzFeed person
discussing BuzzFeed contributions:
[https://twitter.com/katienotopoulos/status/10896299402266296...](https://twitter.com/katienotopoulos/status/1089629940226629632)

> Wonder why suddenly quizzes took over your Facebook? That was because of
> @LouisPeitzman, who made one viral quiz that unleashed everything else (he
> probably can apologize to you personally for that).

This isn't a layoff of journalists, its a layoff of custodians of low-brow
content farm writing. If that's all, then the main problem in the journalism-
apocalypse is that these people were called journalists in the first place.

~~~
rdtsc
I clicked on the twitter link, I don't know why really, I probably shouldn't
have

> "A bunch of people were laid off (and more to come! Fuck!) who quite
> literally created and shaped the internet as we know it today."

I think this what people mean when they talk about Poe's law
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe%27s_law](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe%27s_law).
For a short while I thought I was reading a parody.

> "BuzzFeed changed the internet, for better or worse (if you say worse to me
> right now please eat my ass)," ... "They gave moral clarity, heart, and a
> mission that was never craven click-lust, but driven by serious
> consideration of humans"

It seems the team builders there failed on the moral clarity bit. At least
there is more work to be done, but time has run out it seems.

It's interesting to observe how confident they are that they shaped the
internet for the better. Something tells this is not an anomaly and most of
them share that belief. This is a great example self and group brainwashing.
And notice the part where if you disagree with them, you get immediately
attacked. Clearly the qualities of a sophisticated investigative journalist,
ready to report news in an unbiased and objective manner.

------
burfog
It's a bunch of people with insane degrees (literally a PhD in "romantic
comedies", WTF why is this even possible) living in places they can't afford
and writing nonsense.

These people loved telling factory workers and especially coal miners to
"learn to code". You could tell there was a certain smug glee, taking perverse
pleasure in the fact that aging white males (can't imagine any of the other
coal miners) in MAGA hats (all coal miners wear them all day long, right?)
would have to get educated and somehow enlightened.

Now these writers are annoyed that people on Twitter are saying they should
learn to code. Well... that's just funny, and very well deserved.

Personally, I'd rather they didn't all learn to code. Steel mills are hiring.
Mao said to make steel.

~~~
afarrell
How is a PhD in romantic comedies any more ridiculous than a PhD focusing on
the works of Ovid, Aristophanes, or Shakespeare?

~~~
ohithereyou
One of these things enriches society and sheds light on the universal
experiences in human existence.

The other fuels consumerism, depression, and relegates women to either damsels
in distress, objects of conquest, or abuse victims.

~~~
ModernMech
> The other fuels consumerism, depression, and relegates women to either
> damsels in distress, objects of conquest, or abuse victims.

I wonder in what ways, and what are the effects of such depictions. If only
there was some group of people interested in researching such a thesis...

------
johnvanommen
The author lost me at _" Back in 2015 I wrote that BuzzFeed [Was] the Most
Important News Organization in the World."_

~~~
yuy910616
do you know who this author is?

~~~
devmunchies
who is it? i don't see an author listed on the page.

~~~
canadianwriter
Well it's a one author site. It's Ben Thompson, he has been doing this for
quite some time and is an important figure. Here is the about page:
[https://stratechery.com/about/](https://stratechery.com/about/)

There is also his Wikipedia which gives a good amount of info:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Thompson_(writer)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Thompson_\(writer\))

------
olivermarks
'journalism' and publishing is always about advertising revenue, and
historically the big platforms with the most reach (Murdoch's tabloid
newspaper empire, TV) were the big money earners because of number of eyeballs
and ears served. There are no barriers to publishing online today but it is
still all about the platform and number of people using it, and that platform
today is arguably Google and FB/Insta/WA. Who creates and writes the
'journalism', however cogent, perceptive and well thought out is largely
irrelevant. How often do you remember who specifically actually wrote an
article on a site like Buzzfeed? You do a lot better building a niche brand
like stratechery as Ben has done...

------
8bitsrule
"The inferior product is advertising"

Got that right. Partly because adverts are boring and uncreative ... much like
Buzzfeed

"now advertisers ... can reach the exact customers [at] Facebook and Google."

That has yet to be demonstrated. Was it ever true? Is it still?

"Back in 2015 I wrote that BuzzFeed [Was] the Most Important News Organization
in the World... So what went wrong?"

I glance at many newsfeeds every day. I found little value in Buzzfeed. So,
you were wrong.

