
Why Mashable flamed out - prawn
https://digiday.com/media/mashables-fire-sale-shows-limits-vc-funding/
======
cocktailpeanuts
Funny how everyone talks like Mashable lost to Techcrunch. Look up how much TC
got acquired for, it's actually less than what Mashable got acquired for.

What REALLY happened was not that Mashable failed. It's that the entire
journalism sector failed. Mashable is just a good mascot and sacrificial lamb
because it's actually one of the most well known ones.

I say Mashable is a "mascot" because they represent exactly what's wrong with
"journalism" nowadays. Instead of producing what people should read, they have
shifted their focus onto:

1\. What people will click (Memes, controversial topics, content about other
people's misfortune) 2\. What advertisers will pay more for (Video)

It's understandable because it's been a while since "content" became
commoditized. Now media sites no longer can differentiate themselves with
content anymore and they can't figure out how to, so they just do what makes
them money in the short term.

This article also inevitably mentions Buzzfeed, which I think is what Mashable
would have been if it didn't have to go through all the trial and error.
Buzzfeed probably learned a lot from Mashable's mistakes and decided to go all
in on "I don't care about quality, I'll give you what you want, just give us
ad money".

But those who've been following the media landscape also know that that
model's not been working out either (It's a good thing that it's not).

So my take is, they didn't flame out because of all these little reasons. They
were just the symptoms. The real reason was because they have lost their soul.
It's not only Mashable that flamed out, it's that the entire media industry
that is flaming out, and OP's own publication will probably flame out too, if
they keep writing crap like this (I personally think all publications that
monetize off of someone else's misfortunes deserve to taste their own drug and
die off too)

Oh, by the way, this is nothing new, and is definitely not just because of the
Internet. If you read up on the history of the media itself, you'll realize
this type of pendulum swing between "quality content" vs. "shallow, give
people what they want in exchange for revenue" approaches have existed several
times already.

~~~
two2two
As someone who is educating oneself in journalism in hopes to ride the
"pendulum" toward "quality content" of the likes you speak of, what do you
imagine are the next steps? How can one contribute right now for a better
journalistic future?

Is this the stage where all of the "shallow" players fall while "quality"
players begin to rise? If so, using what model, as advertising, in its current
form, is an insidious factor? Will advertising need to change first? How will
quality content creators reach people and make a living once the pendulum
swings full?

I find it hard to see. During my recent experience at Thanksgiving dinner,
memes seem to have reduced some people's thoughts to a base level. I do hold
hope as I believe, as you do, this is cyclical, but the stage is vastly
different than it was in the past.

edit: themselves/oneself

~~~
dragontamer
> what do you imagine are the next steps?

At the moment, its very difficult for people to disassociate "brands" of the
parent company with the writers.

For example, I've seen John Kasich write for the Washington Post Opinion
pages. But most people expect Washington Post to be a liberal outlet.

Moving forward, a journalism outpost needs to recognize what their power is:

1\. The ability to collect opinions from people that matter. Celebrities are a
safer testbed: she said / he said gossip columns are necessary to develop the
techniques and hierarchy of the brand... but such drivel is often times seen
as "non-intelligent". The brand needs to disassociate itself from "drivel" yet
still allow it.

"Twitter", for all its faults, manages to do this perfectly. No one blames
Twitter for specific viewpoints. Other networks (such as Reddit, 4chan, or
Facebook even) have accusations of bias levied regularly against them.

2\. People attach themselves to Journalists and Editors these days. Not to
papers or organizations. People don't respect "The Washington Post" so much as
they respect "Robert Costa". Similarly, no one says they trust "Fox News", but
a lot of people trust "Chris Wallace". See the difference?

3\. This suggests that a Patreon model which champions specific journalists
would work out better in this day and age. The journalists need to create
personalities so that the readers can feel like they're connected with them
more.

\-------------

It means that moving forward: "Journalists" become personalities who deliver
the news. These personalities are collected by a neutral-feeling entity and
people are willing to funnel money directly to the personality (see Patreon).

~~~
kristianc
> 2\. People attach themselves to Journalists and Editors these days. Not to
> papers or organizations. People don't respect "The Washington Post" so much
> as they respect "Robert Costa". Similarly, no one says they trust "Fox
> News", but a lot of people trust "Chris Wallace". See the difference?

This simply doesn't ring true. What about when David Pogue and Katie Couric
went to Yahoo News? Or when Nate Silver left the NYT? Or when Mossberg/Swisher
set up Recode? The audience largely didn't follow. People trust brands and
institutions, even when they say they don't.

------
spchampion2
There was a period for me around 2008 where Mashable was one of my go-to sites
for tech news. It was like a more fun, less grumpy version of TechCrunch. And
then over time I read it less and less, until one day I realized that my
Facebook feed was a good 60% non-tech click bait posts from Mashable. I
unliked their page, and that was the end of my relationship with them.

The problem was that I think they were always a bit me too in their coverage
from the start. Even in their tech news days, they were never quite on top of
startup news like TechCrunch. It's not a surprise that they also got lost
chasing after BuzzFeed as well.

~~~
mtgx
TheVerge has been following down that path for a while, too, ever since they
decided they need to follow "tech pop culture" or something.

I used to be daily on that site, now it's more like whenever I randomly see
one of their popular posts on Reddit (which is rather rare these days).

~~~
arbie
Agreed.

"This Is My Next" had more quality articles in its short run than The Verge
has had in any given month.

------
m4tthumphrey
I have to say I'm happy Mashable failed. I used to visit Mashable regularly.
95% of my visits would originate from Facebook; mainly memes, click bait and
other time wasters but it got me through the boring times at work or on the
toilet. They always had ads but never enough to annoy me or get in the way.

The years went on and then I started to notice the ad technique of displaying
lists as a slideshow on multiple "pages". Followed by the modal popups "Sign
up to our newsletter" on every visit. Followed by the site simply not
functioning on a mobile. I even tweeted about that one, [0] which incidentally
was my last tweet about them (and probably the last time I visited them).

[0]
[https://twitter.com/search?q=from%3Am4tthumphrey%20mashable&...](https://twitter.com/search?q=from%3Am4tthumphrey%20mashable&src=typd)

------
strictnein
I just remember when they used to cover API mashups. Like this:
[http://mashable.com/2009/10/08/top-
mashups/](http://mashable.com/2009/10/08/top-mashups/)

That's where the name came from. Used to visit them a lot in those days.

------
inthewoods
I think the reason they failed is because there is a disconnect between a
media site and VC funding. VC funding means scaling - and media is challenged
to do that and do it consistently. Some businesses just aren't geared for VC
funding. There are naturally examples in media that show it can sometimes
work, but that's the exception rather than the rule in my opinion.

------
gorbachev
"10 reasons why..."

That's why they failed.

~~~
nasredin
Are you sure it's not because of "this one weird trick..."

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_weird_trick_advertisements](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_weird_trick_advertisements)

------
kennydude
Wow harsh newsletter sign up pop up. That's not cool.

------
tryingagainbro
> _> At its peak, the company had more than 300 people and was in seven
> countries, including the U.K., India and Australia._

They could have been very successful but I guess wanted to become a unicorn...

------
reiichiroh
Most properties that get bought up by Ziff Davis just sort of go there to die,
don't they?

------
Tomsredwagon
They failed because they increasingly took a political tone and pressed on
alienating everyone center to right. You can't lose 50% of the possible
audience and continue on.

~~~
geofft
> _You can 't lose 50% of the possible audience and continue on._

I don't know that I believe this. Isn't it standard advice to go with a
product that 50% of the market is excited about instead of one that 100% is
indifferent about? Aren't Breitbart and Fox News doing very well for
themselves alienating the other 50% of the audience?

