A&E Networks? Technology Crossover Ventures? I'm really disappointed in Vice. A $500 million party round led by drug runners, arms dealers, art thieves, smut peddlers and dictator progeny would have been far more impressive.
One of us may be filter bubbled, or perhaps we are both in different filter bubbles. I perceive Vice to be extremely relevant among my peers. I think at least once a week, while talking about some random topic, someone will say "there's a great Vice documentary about that."
Yeah, their relatively unfiltered field reports (the Ukraine reports are pretty intense to watch, basically seeing the Crimea events happen in realtime was a completely different experience than reading the summaries in the Times)
I thought their coverage of ISIS in Iraq was remarkable. And yeah they'll probably lose a reporter at some stage if they keep on like that. Though I guess they could replace them - it looks rather fun filming on the front lines, if hairy.
Vice is known, within the media world, for being pretty much the one news publication that's profitable and growing. The entire news industry is falling apart at the seams, and Vice is kicking ass. That kind of thing gets you noticed by other media companies, who want a piece of whatever it is you're doing right.
So what is Vice is doing right? Interesting, relevant, investigative journalism that is not playing to the lowest common denominator (certain sections notwithstanding). More important, it's not burdened by the legacy cost structures and operating silos that bigger, more established media companies are. Vice today is sort of like what CNN was in its early days, or if you'll extend the courtesy of indulging a somewhat wild comparison, it's similar to what MTV was in the early '80s. It's a fresh company, with a young audience, and a disciplined editorial focus.
I wouldn't compare Vice to Buzzfeed, necessarily. Both of them mystify and intrigue old-media companies. But old-media companies have an easier time grokking Vice than they do Buzzfeed. Or, at the very least, they seem to believe Vice is here to stay, while Buzzfeed and its ilk might fade.
"But it seems like they want on TV more than anything else."
Yes, and that's my best guess as to why they'd raise $500 million. You don't raise $500M to scale out your blogging and journalism efforts. You raise $500M because TV production is ridiculously expensive, and you almost need $500M if you're going to be producing a large, running slate of TV programming. (Benchmark comparison: for its original series, Netflix spends anywhere up to $30-$50M per season. News programming and other forms of non-scripted programming are less expensive than, say, "House of Cards." Nevertheless, they ain't cheap).
What the rest of the news world doesn't get, is that Vice and Comedy Central are winning because they feel sincere.
It's all about sincerity and authenticity. Why do young people still connect with Vice, The Atlantic, The Guardian, BBC, WSJ, The New York Times, Slate, Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert, John Oliver, Craig Ferguson, Jimmy Kimmel, Jimmy Fallon, Reddit? Why does a generation who grew up distrusting the establishment (Fight Club) and main stream media trust 'these' mainstream media sources.
Satire is the new Walter Cronkite & Brian Williams & Matt Lauer. Lauer sounds like a puppet, Colbert sounds like a leader. People don't want authority figures telling them what to think directly. We are post modern now, we need to form our opinions by mocking things that don't make sense. People are only willing to hear the truth if its somewhat veiled in hyperbolic mockery and rhetoric.
Vice and Comedy Central cross the authenticity of the WSJ/NYT with the entertainment of MTV and speak to the Nickelodeon generation in a way FOX/CNN/MSNBC seem unable to even grasp. (Even the pandering of VOX/UPWORTHY/SALON/GAWKER and the outrage division of journalism is starting to feel pretty damn stale, insincere, and produced.) And they can't grasp it because they are too busy clutching to the coattails and wiggling their heads up the asses of an antiquated but equally bored voting block, baby boomers.
It's telling that one man owns at least part of Vice, WSJ, and Fox News. They all pander to different populations. He doesn't care if he sells three different narratives, as long as youre paying attention to one of the things he is saying.
I guess I haven't paid too much attention to Salon and Slate. I always confuse them. Why do you consider Salon pandering and always in outrage, but not Slate? I do agree Salon does do that. Does Slate not?
This is awesome! If you look under the coming soon, Vice travel, Vice comedy, capture+ and Vice gaming are all things that I have never heard of(soon to be released) and hit a lot o points of interest of mine.
I absolutely love VICE News and how they go first hand in dire situations that are under reported. However, their pop culture section is worse than trash, only a step above 4chan. Example: A segment where a kid makes anti-semitic jokes. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bQKtz4d-QiM&list=UUn8zNIfYAQ.... Hope VICE will grow up and remove these unnecessarily stupid content that they think are "edgy".
I'm also baffled that on one hand they have their amazing documentaries in North Korea, Syria (in IS) and other places which are absolutely awesome and on the other they have their trashy channel.
Moreover over the last year their main Youtube channel has gone rather stale and most good content moved to the "Vice News" and "Motherboard" channels.
Can anyone explain the rationale for their awesome content alongside the very mediocre content this comment speaks of? Why not focus on quality content (Which has been working great for them so far?) What's the business idea here?
Off the cuff answers, but, driving eye balls, and they engage their audiences. Which is why their valuation is so high, and why most news organizations are seeking investment into them.
They have a balance of 'mediocre' (per your comment) but engaging content, as well as very in-depth investigative documentaries. Both drive different eye balls, but they have kept their 'cool' factor for the new generation which is not following traditional news sources [1].
From the video (for those who can't be bothered to watch it): 5 year old girl: "How do you pick up a Jewish girl? Go to Auschwitz with a dust pan." Camera crew chuckles.
They definitely have biased political stories, but their documentaries often show a relatively unbiased presentation of things that are being debated or brought up currently in politics. Two great examples are the 79+ videos on what is happening in Ukraine, the coup in Thailand, printed guns, and the documentary on the deep web.
They do go into dire situations that are under reported. Not only that, but there doesn't seem to be much of a bias in said reporting.
But, when it comes to any sort of opinion piece, pop culture, or something of the like, the bias is overwhelming. I remember there was an article about a woman who went to the Bush Library at SMU. It was obnoxious. Terrible writing.
For me personally that contrast in Vice's reporting hits pretty much my personal taste. Either give me something deep & unique or some weird & fluffy stuff. But then again I consider 4chan as one of the most amazing places on the web. It has this raw, unfiltered inside-out perspective on human life that is a one of a kind.
4chan is mostly visited by gamers, otakus and adolescents. It's hardly any meaningful representation of society. Most people don't know what 4chan is.
Twitter is infinitely better than 4chan for what you're saying. On Twitter, even non-anons speak their mind freely. On 4chan only because of their anonymity do they speak freely, but in real life they probably don't have the guts.
Oh, geez, I love VICE as well but hadn't seen that kid video before and now I really wish I hadn't. I hope VICE takes it down. Incredibly cringe worthy and not worthy of VICE. Or, at least, I wouldn't have thought it was worthy of VICE before... :(
Will they be able stay true to their roots, or will they be worried to run stories because of fear one of their large advertisers will pull their contract? I mean with those sort of resources and reach they could do some serious investigative journalism.
38 comments
[ 3.8 ms ] story [ 185 ms ] threadWhat's the driver behind this? Buzzfeeditis? But it seems like they want on TV more than anything else.
https://news.vice.com/video/the-islamic-state-full-length
http://www.spectator.co.uk/arts/television/9287042/as-a-thir...
So what is Vice is doing right? Interesting, relevant, investigative journalism that is not playing to the lowest common denominator (certain sections notwithstanding). More important, it's not burdened by the legacy cost structures and operating silos that bigger, more established media companies are. Vice today is sort of like what CNN was in its early days, or if you'll extend the courtesy of indulging a somewhat wild comparison, it's similar to what MTV was in the early '80s. It's a fresh company, with a young audience, and a disciplined editorial focus.
I wouldn't compare Vice to Buzzfeed, necessarily. Both of them mystify and intrigue old-media companies. But old-media companies have an easier time grokking Vice than they do Buzzfeed. Or, at the very least, they seem to believe Vice is here to stay, while Buzzfeed and its ilk might fade.
"But it seems like they want on TV more than anything else."
Yes, and that's my best guess as to why they'd raise $500 million. You don't raise $500M to scale out your blogging and journalism efforts. You raise $500M because TV production is ridiculously expensive, and you almost need $500M if you're going to be producing a large, running slate of TV programming. (Benchmark comparison: for its original series, Netflix spends anywhere up to $30-$50M per season. News programming and other forms of non-scripted programming are less expensive than, say, "House of Cards." Nevertheless, they ain't cheap).
It's all about sincerity and authenticity. Why do young people still connect with Vice, The Atlantic, The Guardian, BBC, WSJ, The New York Times, Slate, Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert, John Oliver, Craig Ferguson, Jimmy Kimmel, Jimmy Fallon, Reddit? Why does a generation who grew up distrusting the establishment (Fight Club) and main stream media trust 'these' mainstream media sources.
Satire is the new Walter Cronkite & Brian Williams & Matt Lauer. Lauer sounds like a puppet, Colbert sounds like a leader. People don't want authority figures telling them what to think directly. We are post modern now, we need to form our opinions by mocking things that don't make sense. People are only willing to hear the truth if its somewhat veiled in hyperbolic mockery and rhetoric.
Vice and Comedy Central cross the authenticity of the WSJ/NYT with the entertainment of MTV and speak to the Nickelodeon generation in a way FOX/CNN/MSNBC seem unable to even grasp. (Even the pandering of VOX/UPWORTHY/SALON/GAWKER and the outrage division of journalism is starting to feel pretty damn stale, insincere, and produced.) And they can't grasp it because they are too busy clutching to the coattails and wiggling their heads up the asses of an antiquated but equally bored voting block, baby boomers.
It's telling that one man owns at least part of Vice, WSJ, and Fox News. They all pander to different populations. He doesn't care if he sells three different narratives, as long as youre paying attention to one of the things he is saying.
As far as I know, their biggest distribution has been on Youtube. Maybe I'm wrong here, but assuming this is the case...
Some rough math: - On Youtube, they have ~5m fans. - 1287 videos
Assuming 100k per video. We're talking about ~100M - 200M aggregate views. That's minimal.
So what's so valuable about this media?
edit: Here is their mediakit: http://scs-assets.s3.amazonaws.com/int/2014-VICE-Digital-Med...
Moreover over the last year their main Youtube channel has gone rather stale and most good content moved to the "Vice News" and "Motherboard" channels.
Can anyone explain the rationale for their awesome content alongside the very mediocre content this comment speaks of? Why not focus on quality content (Which has been working great for them so far?) What's the business idea here?
They have a balance of 'mediocre' (per your comment) but engaging content, as well as very in-depth investigative documentaries. Both drive different eye balls, but they have kept their 'cool' factor for the new generation which is not following traditional news sources [1].
[1] I am at work, can't pull citations.
Seriously?
WTF. Speechless.
They do go into dire situations that are under reported. Not only that, but there doesn't seem to be much of a bias in said reporting.
But, when it comes to any sort of opinion piece, pop culture, or something of the like, the bias is overwhelming. I remember there was an article about a woman who went to the Bush Library at SMU. It was obnoxious. Terrible writing.
But probably generates more revenue than their hard-core news. I think all media outlets have struggled with this. A sad state, for sure.
4chan is mostly visited by gamers, otakus and adolescents. It's hardly any meaningful representation of society. Most people don't know what 4chan is.
Twitter is infinitely better than 4chan for what you're saying. On Twitter, even non-anons speak their mind freely. On 4chan only because of their anonymity do they speak freely, but in real life they probably don't have the guts.
I doubt they are worried about their roots anymore. They haven't been a 'counter-culture' magazine for a while, they are a traditional news org.