• kingthrillgore@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    63
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    They really think a brand name has value even after you sucked the value out of it. Its not even like trying to buy a good one word domain name because it has no value either, vice.com is worth less than, say gavinmcinnesbuttpl.ug because genericness has no value nowadays.

    • thisbenzingring@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      34
      ·
      9 months ago

      Vice was a very good and authentic source for a while. I recently just had to tell my friend that it’s not the same thing as it was 5 years ago. He was flabbergasted. I’m heartbroken by the loss personally. The documentary they did sometimes was absolutely fascinating. The one about the Florida heroin addicts that live in the fishing industry was one that comes to mind. Nobody else had stories like they were doing. It’s a damn shame!

      Anyways what my point is, not every knows about these takeovers. And the people who suck the life out of them and their reputation are winning.

      The book The Iron Heel by Jack London is very illuminating in the 1984 type way but about capitalism. The main character has a few specific speeches that really hit home.

  • DominusOfMegadeus@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    44
    ·
    9 months ago

    “you could chalk some of this up to media strategy focused on search; sites that have been running for years have strong archives and good reputations that cause them to rank high in Google search results. Someone looking for a movie review will see, say, The A.V. Club pop up high in their Google results and click to the page. That’s as far as the Spanfellers of the world care to think; it doesn’t matter if the review is written by AI or illegibly slathered with ads because the company got its click, which translates into the ad revenue or visitor traffic that looks nice in the spreadsheets that are the only way these media owners actually engage with their own sites.”

    What an age we live in!

      • angrymouse@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        9 months ago

        This eventually will happen, idk if I would be alive since 98% of the internet run in a google browser engine

          • MysticKetchup@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            9 months ago

            The issue is that ads these days are largely less about actually informing people about a product and more about a well-known brand keeping its market dominance. At this point, there’s basically no one who doesn’t know about McDonald’s or Coke but they still advertise heavily because they want to constantly be on people’s minds. They’re not really concerned about a return on their advertising investment as long as they’re still maintaining their position.

            • lemmyvore@feddit.nl
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              9 months ago

              So you’re saying Coke execs don’t live by metrics and are ok with throwing money out the window?

              • MysticKetchup@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                9 months ago

                No, just that sales is probably not the only metric they’re looking at when buying ads. It’s about maintaining their brand image too.

                We saw this with Amazon when a bunch of news articles about their union busting and poor work conditions were breaking. There were tons of ads from Amazon about how much people love working there and how great it is. They knew they needed to influence their public image and advertising is how they do it.

    • Optional@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      Nothing has changed since the early 90s. With the exception that idiot executives think they’re experienced . . IT . . cybers or . . whatever.

      There was a few brief shining points where developers actually got rich and did some cool things. But, Big Money got no soul.

  • nyan@lemmy.cafe
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    36
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    9 months ago

    “How stupid do they think we are”? The answer is, very stupid. It’s sort of an offshoot of Dunning-Kruger: overestimating their own intelligence leads them to underestimate everyone else’s.

  • owen@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    18
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    9 months ago

    And here I was, thinking that Vice had already been enshittified

  • Custoslibera@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    9 months ago

    I don’t think portraying the execs as just dumb and the general public as mega brains is accurate…

    The execs want to strip out value as profit and take actions to maximise this, they don’t care if it fundamentally tanks the business because as long as they make a profit overall they can just drop the husk that’s left at the end and move onto another business they can bleed dry.