Discussion
  • Read More
    LindaHamilton Nolan
    1/29/16 12:21pm

    What could go wrong?

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      Icecold DavisLinda
      1/29/16 12:27pm

      This is one of the very rare occasions where a face tattoo would improve all of the possible outcomes.

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      MBCockLinda
      1/29/16 12:29pm

      See: Al Jazeera

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    TheEvilAttorneyHamilton Nolan
    1/29/16 12:25pm

    The more pressing question is: when will we see a Gawker channel?

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      notaquarterbackTheEvilAttorney
      1/29/16 12:29pm

      500 days of whatever-her-face

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      TheRainInSpain'sTherapistTheEvilAttorney
      1/29/16 12:30pm

      A channel that links you to other channels?

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    lalaburnsHamilton Nolan
    1/29/16 12:27pm

    Well, they might not be wrong. The young people in my life are never not attached to their devices and they also never watch tv. Hell, I work in television and I never watch it. If I can’t consume it on my laptop in bed, I am not tuning in. Everyone seems to be searching for the new singular formula to follow and there isn’t one.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      Cherith Cutestorylalaburns
      1/29/16 12:35pm

      new singular formula to follow and there isn’t one.

      Netflix?

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      Burneeezelalaburns
      1/29/16 12:36pm

      May want to read up on the false consensus bias, buddy.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    goldgoldergoldestHamilton Nolan
    1/29/16 12:24pm

    You called out Vice! Invasion of the burner accounts in 3, 2, 1...

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      TwoPumpTrumpgoldgoldergoldest
      1/29/16 1:38pm

      Initially, I thought Gawker’s hate directed towards Vice was borne out of jealousy, but the quality of Vice’s reporting continues to slide to the level of a poorly written teen blog. They thinly-veiled advertising stories haven’t been interesting for quite some time.

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      9-Linesgoldgoldergoldest
      1/29/16 2:18pm

      Oh look a Gawker fanboy ....

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    Myrna Loy's Side-EyeHamilton Nolan
    1/29/16 12:21pm

    We sincerely hope that this new scam succeeds because we would love to copy it!

    Isn’t that Gawker’s feeling about Vice/Conde Nast/Reddit in general?

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      ReburnsABurningReturnsMyrna Loy's Side-Eye
      1/29/16 12:30pm

      Well, Gawker does do some original things. As far as I know their competitors, ones like Conde Nast, have never outed anybody who is not a public figure.

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      JamesBuchananZombieAppeaserMyrna Loy's Side-Eye
      1/29/16 12:33pm

      Conde Nast and Vice promote and nourish their best writers and Gawker fires them. It’s totally different.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    Sid and FinancyHamilton Nolan
    1/29/16 12:25pm

    If it’s a per-capita rate, what’s your issue with it? Vice viewers are a more coveted demographic, even if the audience is expected to start small.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      Jujymonkey3Sid and Financy
      1/29/16 12:30pm

      But their business plan seems to be “You’ll get nothing and like it!”

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      WhatthefoxsaysSid and Financy
      1/29/16 12:36pm

      I highly doubt the number of viewers in the 18-35 or whatever demo that is coveted will come anywhere near ESPN’s numbers.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    the 1969 Dodge Charger GuyHamilton Nolan
    1/29/16 12:36pm

    OK, I’ll bite. The reason a media buyer would buy high for a low-performing product is what exactly? (Unless kickbacks are involved. Are they?)

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      Cherith Cutestorythe 1969 Dodge Charger Guy
      1/29/16 12:39pm

      Demo. Vice is saying they can connect media buyers to a younger, “hipper” demo who doesn’t typically watch TV. These are the people who, even if they don’t have money, are more likely to spend what they have or use their credit cards to buy silly things they don’t need. In theory. They are basically suggesting they can be what MTV was when it first launched. But, in their view, while young people then valued music young people now value information and trend spotting.

      Whether there is any truth to them reaching that demo through this network remains to be seen.

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      BobbyBottleServiceCherith Cutestory
      1/29/16 1:06pm

      This demographic will see Viceland. Streaming from a foreign server commercial free on the interwebs.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    ennui is boringHamilton Nolan
    1/29/16 1:41pm

    Okay, their business model is actually kind of interesting. I say this as a person involved in TV ad sales. Per the article, they’re cutting down ad time to a max of 8 minutes per hour, which is less than half of standard ad time. Most hour long programming comes in at about 42 minutes. Which means hardly anyone is watching those commercials. It’s all clutter. They’re checking their texts, making sandwiches, grabbing a quick shower. But if you’re only sitting through a couple minutes at a clip, you just kind of sit there, you actually watch the commercial. So you, as advertiser are paying way more for the spot, but you’re also getting way more for the money. That said, their make-good guarantee of 0.1 isn’t exactly heartening. But if they somehow do manage to pull this off, somehow do start to pull in decent-ish ratings with the magical unicorn M18-34 demographic, it’ll be fun to watch what happens.

    I have forever been a proponent of halfing ad time and upping the prices. Everyone would win. As it stands now, no one ever watches commercials. I’m in TV advertising and I don’t watch commercials. If Vice works out, who knows? Maybe a sane ad time trend would start.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      Paul Williamsennui is boring
      1/29/16 2:10pm

      Can I ask a question I’ve always wondered about? When TBS airs a commercial for a TNT show, or NBC airs one for Comcast, or the NFL Network for, uh, the NFL, does money actually change hands?

      I ask this because it seems relevant to your point — so much of current ad time is devoted to intracompany promotion.

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      ennui is boringPaul Williams
      1/29/16 2:58pm

      Well, it depends. If it’s done on a national level, then the networks are basically just cross promoting themselves and essentially do it as trade. If it’s done at a local level, then it would be for money.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    reggieinatlHamilton Nolan
    1/29/16 12:20pm

    Most vices are expensive.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      Icecold Davisreggieinatl
      1/29/16 12:26pm

      Most vices are enjoyable.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    ╰(　´◔　ω　◔ `)╯< Woke and BokeHamilton Nolan
    1/29/16 12:39pm

    Isn’t Viceland just truTV with pretensions?

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      thaballersreballA-ballin╰(　´◔　ω　◔ `)╯< Woke and Boke
      1/29/16 2:06pm

      I’d say there already is a vice tv channel. It’s called Current tv. Does Vanguard come on anymore?

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      browniesaregoodthaballersreballA-ballin
      1/29/16 3:53pm

      If you’re into this “cool” documentary genre, Lisa Ling’s “This is Life” is EXCELLENT. Real journalism with great production quality. It’s on CNN because Ling is gasp-over 30!- years old, but it’s what Vice would be if they paid people and hired legit journalists like Current did. And I believe Current was bought by AJ?

      Reply
      <