I changed the link to nbcnews rather than businessinsider - I tested it but the paywall on there is sneaky.
The full memo is:
Dear Vice Team,
As we navigate the ever-evolving business landscape, we need to adapt and best align our strategies to be more competitive in the long term. After careful consideration and discussion with the board, we have decided to make some fundamental changes to our strategic vision at Vice.
We create and produce outstanding original content true to the Vice brand. However, it is no longer cost-effective for us to distribute our digital content the way we have done previously.
Moving forward, we will look to partner with established media companies to distribute our digital content, including news, on their global platforms, as we fully transition to a studio model. As part of this shift, we will no longer publish content on vice.com, instead putting more emphasis on our social channels as we accelerate our discussions with partners to take our content to where it will be viewed most broadly.
Separately, Refinery 29 will continue to operate as a standalone diversified digital publishing business, creating engaging, social first content. As you know, we are in advanced discussions to sell this business, and we are continuing with that process. We expect to announce more on that in the coming weeks.
With this strategic shift comes the need to realign our resources and streamline our overall operations at Vice. Regrettably, this means that we will be reducing our workforce, eliminating several hundred positions. This decision was not made lightly, and I understand the significant impact it will have on those affected. Employees who will be affected will notified about next steps early next week, consistent with local laws and practices.
I know that saying goodbye to our valued colleagues is difficult and feels overwhelming, but this is the best path forward for Vice as we position the company for long-term creative and financial success. Our financial partners are supportive and have agreed to invest in this operating model going forward. We will emerge stronger and more resilient as we embark on this new phase of our journey.
Thank you for your continued dedication to Vice and support during this time of transition.
Together, I am confident that we will overcome any challenges and achieve our shared goals.
Bruce
Lemmy is the best, thanks for taking the time to change the link.
Checking VICE now I can’t imagine they did all these cool documentaries and even a movie mocking them - the one in which their journalist was doing a vlog from the Jonhstown death cult. Amazing pieces. There should be some model to make press independent of clicks and licensing, to treat them as a public service, because we need good journalism. For a society, it’s like a pain response when it touches a hot frying pan. And reduction of it, replacement of it with social media influencers, the lack of trust to any source are probably ones of those things that lead us more and more towards hell.
That article is paywalled, but what Dixon wrote is cryptic.
“It is no longer cost-effective for us to distribute our digital content the way we have done previously,” Vice CEO Bruce Dixon said in the memo, which was seen by NBC News. Vice Media did not immediately respond to emails requesting comment on Thursday’s news.
Dixon added that the company would now “look to partner with established media companies to distribute our digital content, including news, on their global platforms, as we fully transition to a studio model.”
What is he even talking about? What is a studio model?
They’re going to only release direct to VHS content.
Ah the Sea Gal Model.
Sounds like they are going to transition to just video content because they can make more licensing videos than publishing content online and relying on ad/stream revenue.
Someone else says it was focusing on their cable channel, which makes more sense to me (I didn’t know it existed).
It’s my understanding that pivot-to-video in terms of internet journalism has been a massive failure based on false Facebook metrics.
I’m happy if it means Dark Side of the Ring is spared, at least.
Sounds to me like they’re going to sell their journalism (studio) to other companies rather than release it themselves (distribution). Kinda like if Netflix created a TV show but then sold the streaming rights to Disney.
I’m assuming he’s referring to the Vice TV cable channel.
Shows how long ago I cut the cord. That apparently launched in 2016 and I didn’t even know it existed.
deleted by creator
Maybe they’ll sell stuff to other platforms rather than be a platform. But I’m just guessing.
Sorry. Link on post changed to nbcnews. Knew there was something fishy about Business Insider but it looked normal I viewed it.
It’s all going to be “sponsored” articles written by companies looking to advertise.
Heh I used to work at VICE, none of this is a shock.
I’ve enjoyed their series of videos of abandoned towns - especially the remote Alaskan and Canadian ones with the skateboarder host that is great at making connections with locals. Great content that showed off their skill. Shame.
Not all digital reporting but a massive amount of it is just low quality. Many articles stating something with 5 tweets from random people or reddit posts or similar, blog quality op-eds; atrocious barely moderated comments sections, recycled articles, adblocker blockers, cookie notifications with too many checkboxes, autoplay irrelevant videos (relevant ones are still bad) and paywalls just aren’t good enough.
You need compelling content, you need original content and you need a compelling price point for subscriptions. On the op-ed side, everyone does a terrible job compared to some hobbyist youtubers.
Vice had some compelling content (to me) but not nearly enough for me to want to subscribe with actual money. I personally think Vice went for quantity over quality more and more plus probably grew too fast over the last decade. I guess that’s what happens when investment firms essentially control the company.
Another one bites the dust. TYT did some commentary on this during their 22 anniversary show recently.
Its been brutal for digital media the last several years. If you didn’t have subscriber base you could rely on, you might be dead by now.
Just another example that big media outlets that frame themselves as a place for journalism is just another business that’s out to make a dollar.
All these media groups are no better than a hot dog sales stand … they’ll throw everything away and sacrifice everyone and everything to keep turning a profit.
Turns out being a place for journalism and continuously losing money over time is not a sustainable model.
It can be called throwing everything away to turn a profit but not many people are interested in supporting journalism when it actually costs them money - consumers aren’t interested in paying, journalists aren’t interested in donating their time to work for free, and investors aren’t interested in donating their money to give away the journalism for free.
Its a negative feedback loop. Journalism revenue dropped when the internet became popular, so news companies sqeezed their remaining paid customers even harder (more ads, higher subscriptions, more anti-consumer tactics). As a result, even more people dropped off and the news companies once again responded by making things worse.
Similar to streaming vs. piracy (people were glad to pay for Netflix when it was GOOD), I still believe the root of the issue lies primarily with the service being offered.
I’d like to pay for more news, but I know the second I get a subscription I’m going to get junk mail and harassment from that company for the rest of my life to upgrade what I’m already paying or resubscribe. As a result, I only donate to small outlets that treat their readers well.
I think outlets like Apple News+ or Artifact are the only solution to this. People don’t want to keep up with twenty different news site subscriptions, or navigate around ad-ridden websites to get their news. Aggregators with a flat fee to unlock paywalled content, where the news site gets a cut seems the way to go.
:(
Vox does what Vice does but better anyway. Vice can get very liberal-Preachy and even I’m quite far left.
whynotboth.jxl There’s room for both. Apparently they eventually need a “sustainable business model”, though. Pssh. (Does a billionaire daddy count?)
Removed by mod
