Random Thoughts

[Ezee E]

Never heard of The Dissolve. Humph.

[Ezee E]

What's more embarrassing? Dukes of Hazzard or this?

[number8]

Huh? Archie Bunker's character was a sexist, racist asshole. That's kind of the point.

[Irish]

Yes, I know, that's why I said most film sites aren't. They are not making money.

It's harder now than 5 years ago, but I think it's still doable if you don't do stupid shit like hiring a full time staff and renting office space in Chicago.

For a bunch of guys who worked so long at the AV Club, I was surprised that not a single one of them had any editorial chops or knew anything about running a business on the web.

Edit: But then, Kara Swisher and Walt Mossberg from WSJ had two to three times the experience and fell into the same kind of traps, so I dunno.

[Ezee E]

Huh? Archie Bunker's character was a sexist, racist asshole. That's kind of the point.

Yeah, I guess as I read into it, basically the Cartman of that time. I didn't know much about that show.

[transmogrifier]

The Dissolve was very good. Shame.

[Dukefrukem]

Meanwhile, it's been reported that PewDiePie made $7.4 million last year.

God bless the internet.

I dont have a problem with this.

Nor should anyone.

[number8]

The weird thing about the PewdiePie "controversy" is that I saw A TON of comments from bitter people saying, "This is bullshit, why is he getting paid millions for playing video games and yelling dumb stuff at them? Anyone can do that."

Um, yeah, that's the whole point of YouTube? Anyone can do it and be a star there. That's like, their main ad campaign right now.

That idiot started with nothing but a webcam, a screen capture software, and some PC games. Anyone being angry and snarky can literally try to do it also. Now whether or not people find you likable enough to give you NINE BILLION hits, that's a different story.

[ledfloyd]

It's harder now than 5 years ago, but I think it's still doable if you don't do stupid shit like hiring a full time staff and renting office space in Chicago.

For a bunch of guys who worked so long at the AV Club, I was surprised that not a single one of them had any editorial chops or knew anything about running a business on the web.

Edit: But then, Kara Swisher and Walt Mossberg from WSJ had two to three times the experience and fell into the same kind of traps, so I dunno.

Isn't Re/Code somewhat successful?

It's interesting to think about. I don't know if a film vertical can succeed in this day and age. I think the future is probably going to be film critics working with larger media organizations. It seems to be working for Grantland and Vox. Todd VanDerWerff and Wesley Morris aren't working day jobs. I imagine BuzzFeed and Vice could start doing the same thing.

Is hiring a full-time staff really "stupid shit" though? It seems like if your site can't support your staff, it's not really successful. They had a ton of freelancers. I think there staff was only like 5 or 7 people.

[number8]

Today, for the first time in 11 years, San Diego Comic-Con started and I am not there. It's a strange feeling, so I decided to write about my ten years of memories, and describe what it's like to camp out and experience the madness of Hall H.

http://www.artboiled.com/2015/fear-a...e-hall-h-line/

[Irish]

Is hiring a full-time staff really "stupid shit" though? It seems like if your site can't support your staff, it's not really successful. They had a ton of freelancers. I think there staff was only like 5 or 7 people.

To be clearer, I was referencing staff writers. Maybe you need a full time EIC, managing editor, system administrator (depending on infrastructure). Everything else you need to do, you can do with freelancers. At least at the start.

Full time employees are enormously expensive, and The Dissolve had a bunch of full time guys who wrote film reviews and did nothing else. Their entire business was based on CPM ads. There was no way they were gonna make back payroll, taxes, insurance, and rent on that many employees from users clicking on ads. Not based on their content levels in this environment. (It didn't help that they pretty much sucked at everything from social media to marketing to design to business development).

Why take on that level of burden when your business is completely untested? Why not grow it organically, instead of spending money like you're a glossy magazine and it's 1995? (I was completely dumbfounded that they rented actual, physical office space in Chicago for their website. Doing that makes zero sense for a content website, and limited the kind of people they could attract down road).

Re/Code was in a similar position. They staffed up to absurd levels over a year and a half-- 44 people to put out that website?-- and were losing money. Rumor has it they had maybe 3-6 months run rate left before going bust. So they sold themselves to Vox. The only reason they were able to do that is because Swisher & Mossberg's names still carry a little bit of weight, and the Code conference is worth real money.

I agree about verticals and brands, on the whole. But I also think it's also tough to tell what's viable when at least some of these businesses (GigaOm, ReCode, Dissolve) seem badly managed.

[EyesWideOpen]

Today, for the first time in 11 years, San Diego Comic-Con started and I am not there. It's a strange feeling, so I decided to write about my ten years of memories, and describe what it's like to camp out and experience the madness of Hall H.

http://www.artboiled.com/2015/fear-a...e-hall-h-line/

Great article 8 and cool to see another perspective. I think I started going to Comic-Con the same time you did (I think that first one was the time I met you although briefly) and I went to 3 in a row and then never again. You and me are on opposite sides of the social scale so for me I got nothing out of the shared experience thing I was just there to see the content and hear the people talk. So for the first con it was wait an hour in line to get in the hall and then year two it was wait a couple hours and then by year 3 it was wait half the day and I wasn't interested in that. So I would always just go to the various comic book panels I was interested in since you could show up to those panels 5 minutes before they started and get a seat. It also just got way too overcrowded and as someone who is not going there to meet people/hang out I was better off saving my money.

[Ezee E]

Great read.

I don't think I could ever do the Hall H wait. I love the excitement. I got to experience the hype while eating dinner with wats, 8, barty, and others. But I also wanted to know about the "Walking Dead amusement park", the crazy Vikings set that was built, and all the other things going on in San Diego that seemed a ton of fun. There's no convincing the Hall H group though, and I respect that.

[Dukefrukem]

Damn, 8 isn't going to comic con? Who from MC is and where are we gonna get our inside take?

[number8]

Great article 8 and cool to see another perspective. I think I started going to Comic-Con the same time you did (I think that first one was the time I met you although briefly) and I went to 3 in a row and then never again. You and me are on opposite sides of the social scale so for me I got nothing out of the shared experience thing I was just there to see the content and hear the people talk. So for the first con it was wait an hour in line to get in the hall and then year two it was wait a couple hours and then by year 3 it was wait half the day and I wasn't interested in that. So I would always just go to the various comic book panels I was interested in since you could show up to those panels 5 minutes before they started and get a seat. It also just got way too overcrowded and as someone who is not going there to meet people/hang out I was better off saving my money.

At the Borders in downtown San Diego for the Half-Blood Prince midnight book release, right?

Yeah, and I had the realization that I was more into the experience than the perks around the same time you quit, I think 2008 was really when a lot of SDCC attendees' opinions were split about Hall H. I do the same thing you do at NYCC, I usually avoid the main panels and go to the smaller comic-related panels. But with Hall H, it's like a religious tradition we could not shake. I wanted the story of it all when I fly out of San Diego.

[ledfloyd]

To be clearer, I was referencing staff writers. Maybe you need a full time EIC, managing editor, system administrator (depending on infrastructure). Everything else you need to do, you can do with freelancers. At least at the start.

Full time employees are enormously expensive, and The Dissolve had a bunch of full time guys who wrote film reviews and did nothing else. Their entire business was based on CPM ads. There was no way they were gonna make back payroll, taxes, insurance, and rent on that many employees from users clicking on ads. Not based on their content levels in this environment. (It didn't help that they pretty much sucked at everything from social media to marketing to design to business development).

Why take on that level of burden when your business is completely untested? Why not grow it organically, instead of spending money like you're a glossy magazine and it's 1995? (I was completely dumbfounded that they rented actual, physical office space in Chicago for their website. Doing that makes zero sense for a content website, and limited the kind of people they could attract down road).

Re/Code was in a similar position. They staffed up to absurd levels over a year and a half-- 44 people to put out that website?-- and were losing money. Rumor has it they had maybe 3-6 months run rate left before going bust. So they sold themselves to Vox. The only reason they were able to do that is because Swisher & Mossberg's names still carry a little bit of weight, and the Code conference is worth real money.

I agree about verticals and brands, on the whole. But I also think it's also tough to tell what's viable when at least some of these businesses (GigaOm, ReCode, Dissolve) seem badly managed.

I didn't realize Re/Code had 44 employees. That is pretty absurd.

I think The Dissolve kind of looked at themselves as a company like Pitchfork, which does have offices and paid staff and does really well. There is also the example of companies like Vox, which launched with about 20 paid employees and offices and is doing really well.

But there is a difference between a focused media company and a sites with a wider (BuzzFeed, Vice) or news (Vox, Huffington Post, Politico) focus.

Maybe they should've tried to syndicate their reviews or something. It would've made sense to start with more freelancers, though it might have affected the quality of the product.

There's still a lot of work to be done when it comes to monetizing journalism on the internet. Matt Zoller Seitz said he's making the same amount now, as editor of RogerEbert.com and head TV critic for Vulture and New York Magazine, as he was as a staff writer for the Newark Star Ledger in 1995. Film writing seems to struggle more than music or sports writing. It's doing better than literary reviews though, which don't really exist outside of legacy media.

[Irish]

I think The Dissolve kind of looked at themselves as a company like Pitchfork, which does have offices and paid staff and does really well. There is also the example of companies like Vox, which launched with about 20 paid employees and offices and is doing really well.

Oh, I think you're totally right. They did think of themselves that way, and it was part of the problem. They launched fully formed with a full staff. That's expensive as hell, especially when their model was unproven (in my mind, there's never been much of a market in the US for serious film criticism. Like, what's the US version of Sight & Sound? Has their ever been one? The closest equivalent I can think of is stuff like Film Comment, but they're an outgrowth of Lincoln Center).

Pitchfork is a little different. They started as a one man shop out of the founder's apartment and that business has been built over the last 20 years (and their brand might be big, but their reach really isn't-- 1.5 million uniques a month).

Vox has taken $110 million in VC money over the last six years. That's a whole other ballgame. They will be well fucked when the investors come around again and say, "Hey, where's our money?" (This is what happened to GigaOm, which also seemed fine until one day it shut down abruptly).

Maybe they should've tried to syndicate their reviews or something. It would've made sense to start with more freelancers, though it might have affected the quality of the product.

There's still a lot of work to be done when it comes to monetizing journalism on the internet. Matt Zoller Seitz said he's making the same amount now, as editor of RogerEbert.com and head TV critic for Vulture and New York Magazine, as he was as a staff writer for the Newark Star Ledger in 1995. Film writing seems to struggle more than music or sports writing. It's doing better than literary reviews though, which don't really exist outside of legacy media.

I agree about syndication. It seems they left a lot of avenues unexplored. One of the things I don't understand about film criticism on the web is that it largely follows this very narrow definition that was laid down by newspapers 100 years ago. 500, maybe 750 words, single column text. And that's it.

The thing about Seitz is scary. He's got a family. That sort of pay scale seems almost criminal.

Edit: Two non-sequiturs-- I bet half of ReCode's staff was made up of sales guys and people who only worked on their conferences. Also bet that a huge chunk of Pitchfork's revenue stream comes from their branded music festival.

Edit 2: Yeah, book reviews are dead. But then I look at The Millions and wonder how the hell they do it.

[ledfloyd]

One of the things I don't understand about film criticism on the web is that it largely follows this very narrow definition that was laid down by newspapers 100 years ago. 500, maybe 750 words, single column text. And that's it.

Yeah. I like the more in-depth stuff Kent Jones does for Film Comment. Reverse Shot dabbles in that style of criticism. The House Next Door did it (does it? I haven't been there in awhile). The Dissolve did to some degree, with their movies of the week and various thinkpieces. I honestly just don't think there's that much of a market for it. The average person seems to enjoy the 500 word "should I see this or not" type review. If they don't just dismiss critics as altogether aloof.

500-750 words of single column text is the only thing that has ever been consistently profitable.

[number8]

AV Club and Grantland do a lot of retrospective feature-format reviews.

[ledfloyd]

AV Club and Grantland do a lot of retrospective feature-format reviews.

True. I forgot about AV Club. I wonder if any of the Dissolve guys will migrate back there.

[number8]

According to my film writer-full twitter feed gossip, The Dissolve folks are already being poached left and right by their respective editors. NPR being one of them. For such a short-lived site, it's considered high quality resume.

[Dead & Messed Up]

Went on a date last night, and really started crushing on the girl when we were arguing about "Buffy" and agreeing about the amazingness of "The Wire."

She liked Riley, wtf.

[ledfloyd]

If things don't work out, feel free to give her my number.

[Russ]

Went on a date last night, and really started crushing on the girl when we were arguing about "Buffy"

She liked Riley, wtf.

I've seen this before on Seinfeld. The girlfriend and the Dockers commercial.

"Hey, I know you...You're the one that likes Riley!"

[number8]

Deal breaker.