That Red Ventures NY Times Article

Someone earlier had created a topic about the recent NY Times article about Red Venture and for some reason that topic had been deleted before I had the chance to read & respond.

After reading the article, I found it very eye opening and am curious what other's thoughts here may be. A couple sections of the article that stood out to me:

...

Red Ventures has built a culture that blends warm enthusiasm, progressive social values and the ruthless performance metrics of the direct marketing business.

The company found itself in the publishing business almost by accident, and is now leading a shift in that industry toward what is sometimes called “intent-based media” — a term for specialist sites that attract people who are already looking to spend money in a particular area (travel, tech, health) and guide them to their purchases, while taking a cut.

It’s a step away from the traditional advertising business toward directly selling you stuff. Red Ventures, for instance, plans to steer readers of Healthline to doctors or drugs found on another site it recently acquired, HealthGrades, which rates and refers doctors. Red Ventures will take a healthy commission on each referral.

...

The arrival of Red Ventures’ executives hasn’t always gone over well among the journalists who find themselves working under Mr. Elias. Journalists, like members of a medieval guild (the guild hall is Twitter), tend to be more connected to the folkways of their profession than to any corporate culture, and some roll their eyes at Red Ventures’ rah-rah retreats, which feature fireworks and song. More troublingly, some reporters at The Points Guy, which also covers the travel industry in general (it has been a comprehensive source for information on where vaccinated Americans can travel), have complained that the new owners have eroded the already rickety wall between the site’s service journalism and the credit card sales that fund it.

Red Ventures is “all about profit maximization,” said JT Genter, who left the site more than a year ago. He and other Points Guy writers said they hadn’t been pushed to publish stories they found dubious — indeed, the site has occasionally offered carefully critical coverage of Chase and American Express, its dominant business partners. But he noted that Points Guy journalists are required to attend regular business meetings detailing how much money the site makes from credit card sales, which some take as a tacit suggestion to put their thumbs on the scale.

Mr. Elias said Red Ventures has a “nonnegotiable line” concerning the editorial independence of its sites, adding that he has given his cell number to CNET employees and instructed them to call him if they ever face pressure from the business side.

“I told them, ‘There’s a red line,’ and they’re like, ‘OK, we’ll see,’” he said.

...

“Brand and trust are at the core of everything that we do,” said Courtney Jeffus, the president of the company’s financial services division, which includes Bankrate. “If you lose brand trust, then you don’t have a business.”

There’s quite a bit of good news in the rescue of old media brands by Red Ventures and similar companies — CNET plans to hire 150 new employees this year, for instance. A deeper concern may be what it will mean to transform the internet’s independent arbiters into nothing more than the gaping maw of the sales funnel.

...

After reading the article, the new game plan for GB makes much more sense. I'm curious, is the overall GB community here comfortable with all this? I personally am not and feel more justified in having cancelled my sub.

I also just now opted out of the sale of my information through the link at the bottom of GB's homepage. Also curious, how many others have opted out of Red Ventures selling their information?

What's the overall consensus here knowing this information?

Honestly, RV's business model is not too different from the one already embraced by their competitors. For example, RTings.com uses a combination of referral links and a subscription model. Likewise, I once heard a former IGN editor explain that their weekly "HOT SALES OF THE WEEK!" articles can fund the editorial department for months. Finally, it's not as if CBSi was guilt free of the same referral link dominated business model as they slowly adopted it on CNET.

And when it comes to cookies and websites tracking your information, you obviously should know your rights, but also be aware of the ubiquity of this business model.

I mean in the end, welcome to capitalism.

Breaking news: Company wants to make money

More at 11

It seems to me that a lot of people are looking hard for a justification that they cancelled their sub after the split.

I don't think it's that complicated if you like what the site puts out, then great, if not then there's no reason to be a sub. The things described in that article has really not been seen on GB at all after the RV takeover.

I mean...GB's last owner was CBS. It's not like they were a small business just trying to make it in the big industry. I guess what I mean is I don't see a huge difference between Red Ventures and CBS. They're both media companies trying to make money, and I'm sure CBS has also done sketchy stuff trying to maximize profit. I'm not saying it's okay because everyone does it, but it's also not a big departure from previous ownership.

What is described in the article has, so far, not been reflected in the new GB shows at all. I agree that it feels like OP is reaching in order to use this article to justify their sub cancellation as not only a matter of differing taste, but of ethics as well.

You are correct, but I am genuinely curious how others are comfortable paying money to be advertised to and sold off. If this was all for free, no problem, but paying just seems like it's for suckers and one of the reasons why big business and gentrification exist.

I don't know, seems like a much more insidious departure. Reading their game plan is smartly strategic, but they should probably get rid of subscriptions and just go full ads on ads. Subs are just free money for them though, so that won't happen.

@headsci: So far the premium experience on the site hasn't changed. If sponsored slots and advertorial make it through the wall then I'm out, but I wouldn't be here if Jeff G weren't the kind of person to make sure that it's never gonna happen.

If the site and all of its content were free it would likely have to rely entirely on ads, and history has shown that doing so is an ineffective way to generate money and support editorial-based websites. Unless you want every video to have an imbedded ad for a product, which is what streamers on Twitch often have to do, it is not easy to support medium to large scale websites with just ad revenue. Hence why Giant Bomb uses a subscription model. And even if the current batch of content does not speak to you, it might to others. Hence, why a subscription still feels justified for many users. They enjoy the content only accessible by paying and the ad free experience is another benefit.

And again, you have a right to know your rights when it comes to tracking cookies and targeted advertising. It's not a secret on how you can opt out of these features. However, if you are going to protest any online business that uses targeted marketing or tracking, then there are a lot of websites you should not be using.

@peezmachine: Probably correct, but there is a chance that GB isn't already advertising through "contractors". Who's to say that Albummer isn't trying to reverse psych sell the "bad" albums, Voidburger isn't selling the Super Mario movie, GrubbSnax isn't all strategic product news and who knows what's to come. I say this all jokingly; only time will tell.

Albummer is already an advertisement. GB gets some free advertisement from 2M2M, and 2M2M gets some free advertisement on GB.

I'm sure this was the whole point of contractors - they come in, do a show, and go, but the advert lives forever. GB gets some exposure through channels it might not normally find an audience, and so do the contractors. I have no doubt that soon there will be referral links to 2M2M (and other contractors) somewhere here on the website.

edit: To be clear, it's not the content that they're trying to advertise, it's the people making it.

Jesus just move on if you don't ike the site any more. This isn't some grand conspiracy.

Gonna have to go with splodge on this one, at least until future events prove otherwise.

For as critical as I am of things right now I don’t really see much reason to any more wary of this big corporate entity owning the site than I was of the previous big corporate entity owning the site.

@splodge: Agreed, this is getting to be enough already.

@efesell said:

The business model outlined in the article is rather grim. Sponsored content, referrals, and selling user data--it's the worst kind of company.

But for as much as Red Ventures sucks I think it's too early to tell what effect that will have on Giant Bomb. So far they've seemed supportive so maybe they'll just be left alone. If they start making GB all about profit maximisation that's when alarm bells go off, I think.

@noblenerf: I’m just saying that this is a “They’re the same picture” moment. I can hardly be outraged now when I’m unsatisfied with the content if I was perfectly willing to look the other way when I was not.

So, it’s Hulu. You pay, but you still get ads and your info is sold. It’s Hulu.

Listen, nothing in that article is cool or good, being successful in the tech industry literally requires sociopathy that then creates greater sociopathy. Asshole was on a cashing plane but he still only thinks of people as numbers? Fuck this guy, I hope he fails.

But as far as giant bombs editorial independence, yeah, I think that the new constant has not be corrupted by RV, at least not yet. I have yet to see Jan hold up a bottle of geritol and talk for 2 minutes about how he downs a bottle a day. The ads on the Bombcast seem the same as before, which is to say Jeff barely hides his contempt for half the products he does as reads for.

The thing that worries me is the phrase “ruthless performance metrics.” That is where the trouble starts. I hope that they can accept that GB paying for itself but maybe not making them 16 billion a quarter is fine. And I hope that upper management just leaves Jeff and Jeff the hell alone instead of meddling and micromanaging. And if not, well, Jeff G has speculated about doing it all from scratch again one day, as well as just retiring too.

TL;DR: RV is run by a sociopath, but so is every media/tech company. GB will hopefully not get hit with demands to make billions.

i mean they haven't really had free content much on the site lately so its enitery possible for that to happen. i know bakalar said shows being free/premium aren't set in stone but its a very profit heavy vibe they seem to be leaning towards lately and i get business is business and ppl cost money but at the same time what i've seen isn't what i want to put money on so if thats still the case this time next yr they just won't be getting money from me vs what we had before i would have been more than happy to support.

The article reads like every other media company I've read about.

If you think somehow Red Ventures is a ruthless media corporation but somehow CBS wasn't then I have some snake oil I'd like to sell you.

I support the site with my money, because I enjoy what they do. If I stop enjoying it, then I’ll stop paying. I don’t need to hypothesize what the site will look like two years from now. I like these guys, support these guys, and hope they do well. Hopefully Red Ventures doesn’t mess with the recipe, but if they do fingers crossed it isn’t in an obnoxious way.

This.

@ungodly: about the most well said and healthy way to look at it all.

Even if Red Ventures wanted to muck around with the lines between ad and journalism, Jeff has been there before, refused it, left his job over it, and successfully started his own business from it. So, I'm not too worried about it.

Don't know if anyone's looking for a job. But here you go, this is an integrated marketing manager for Gamespot/GBomb/etc. Seems relevant to this topic as well.

Red Ventures Careers

This has bee my go to answer for ever one of these topics after the split.

That's the one.

Semi-professional journalist here (I freelance now and again).

People who point out that this isn't radically different from other media companies are right. Mostly.

The thing about Living In A Society is that if you run a journalistic outlet of any sort, there are several different ways to keep the lights on. They all have a different sort of moral hazard associated with them.

You wanna sell ads? Well, you open yourself up to the possibility that advertisers may try to influence your coverage.

You wanna sell subscriptions or run a patreon? Well, you have to make sure you're giving your supporters something useful and interesting, rather than just more of what they know they like.

Wanna run a non-profit? Well, who donates? Who sits on your board of directors? What entanglements do they have?

And so on and so on. Those different hazards may not strike you as equally bad. They're not, necessarily. But you, the journalist have to make your peace with one of them.

It's tricky, is all I'm saying.

ETA: You, the consumer can and should do whatever you want. If, as in the case of the OP, Red Ventures' strategy rubs you the wrong way, don't pay 'em. And opting out of having your info sold is good practice anyway in my book.

Yup. And, to be honest, I've never seen subbing as something for me to do in perpetuity. I spent over a decade happy with the free stuff and took a cheap year as a way to get my fill of premium content. I don't take anything personal if the site takes a direction I'm not liking.

Uhh, do you own a subscription to... most things? With some exceptions (like subs such as Netflix that don't have ads), everything described in the article is very standard.

Now, that is not to say I think it's ideal. I would love to live in a media world that is more "pure," but nothing I've read here seems to indicate that Red Venture is doing anything more insidious than other media companies do.

And to be clear, if a site is offering you something for free chances are high that, you are the product, and your information is being sold off (and/or you're being advertised to). Even if you do pay them money, they might sell your info off. Do I love that? No. But it's not new. And since Giant Bomb's premium subscription still removes ads from the site and the podcasts, it actually stands above a lot of other outlets. I also don't foresee any changes in editorial content given this information. Like, what, is the next episode of The Very Online Show going to be brought to you by the Unicode Consortium?

Over the past week in particular, I've suddenly been flooded with more GB content than I can personally watch in the free time I have available, which makes it totally worthwhile to keep the subscription for me. Nothing in this article is changing the opinion for me.

"and some roll their eyes at Red Ventures’ rah-rah retreats, which feature fireworks and song."

Hmmm...seems very cult-like.

Good thing Brad, Vinny and Alex got out when they did!

Duder, that's like every company ever now. They expect everyone to act like a family, and many do, but when they leave the office they don't hate it any less. It's just greasy shit that Salesforce, Google, CBS, etc. etc. and every Silicon Valley startup that got past the 2-year-point do. It sucks, but Red Ventures is NOT unique in this.

I think it's worth pointing out that to an outside observer, it seemed GB-under-CBSi was close-ish to "upper management just leaves them alone" at least relative to some bigger breadwinners like Gamespot or CNET or whatever. But based on some of Vinny's stated issues with corporate management, I think the risk of a division being left alone is that when that division asks for slight budget increases or more office space or whatever, nobody doling out annual budgets really cares to lend an ear to the needs of that division because they're not posting attention-grabbing growth each quarter.

Not trying to say being left alone is good or bad, I just think it can be a rough deal either way.

Yeah, I mean even smaller companies do this now. My wife works remotely for a pretty great place in general (very employee friendly, strong focus on work/life balance, etc...) and every year (pre-COVID at least) all the employees would gather in Boston for their company wide summit which would consist of small competitions, large dinners, awards, and a lot of rah-rah stuff. In some ways it can be good, in others it feels very much like some sort of misguided attempt to be or at least seem more employee friendly. It's EVERYWHERE now and definitely not specific to Red Ventures, or even big companies.

Hate to say it, but that was a younger more idealistic Jeff who was single or at least not married with children. Who knows what is on his mind these days, other than taking care of his family like a husband and father should.

With that said, nothing about Red Ventures being a cold corporation that wants to make money isn't surprising to me. In fact, this is what I fear about GB and where its going.

And people saying "get over it", Vinny, Brad, and Alex couldn't. Let that sink in. I won't tell people what to do with their money. I still haven't made up my mind on whether I'll stay or not in terms of being a premium member. I'm still in a wait and see phase.

Oh we're back to making up why Vinny Brad and Alex left again even when they already said the exact reasons why that's awesome.

Bah! I don't buy into any of your insinuations about what Red Venture really intends as a Corp. with it's (not so) covert desire to make money..

Though I have taken to barricading my bedroom door at night, lest R.V send one of it's acolytes to pour molten lead down my ear whilst I sleep.

Naw! They wouldn't do that, I am a subscriber! And in the meantime I am learning all I need to know about Red Ventures (and their ilk), buy by playing the Ascent.

I'm safe,

for now...

I really can't believe people are still saying stuff like this with zero evidence of anything. Some of y'all need to find better ways to spend your time than irrationally spinning conspiracy theories with all other evidence to the contrary. It's not good for anyone involved.

@sethmode: Nothing I said was a conspiracy theory. They said they didn't want to be under corporate control for various reasons and wanted to move on from that and do their own thing, which they did with Nextlander. It seems to me that some people still don't want to accept what they said out of their own mouths. They said they didn't have any hard feelings, but it wasn't for them. And please, keep your disagreements respectful.

@av_gamer: They said absolutely nothing about Red Ventures. Vinny could not have been more specific that corporate culture in general was taking a toll on himself and also his family life. He wanted to have more control over his schedule and have more creative control, and the other two said the same. You're making the Red Ventures thing up because you want it to be true so you can point at something and say "See I told you it's bad" when you have ZERO evidence that that had anything to do with it. Which is a conspiracy theory at worst, unfair speculation about the lives of people you don't know at best.

And your point being? Just because they didn't mention them by name doesn't change the reason they left. And like I said, they left for various of reasons, you mentioning Vinny's reason was one of them. Red Ventures, CBSi, CNET, name your poison. They're all corporate institutions that the OG 3 wanted to move on from. Therefore, my point stands. And speaking of Vinny, he also said he left because he was tired of feeling invisible in the corporate structure. He said he understood why it happens, but he still didn't like it.

I was about to watch Jeff B's Mandalorian pinball machine vid, but it might be an elaborate campaign to get me to watch the Mandalorian. I won't fall for this now i've read this thread!

The inner workings of Red Ventures, at this point, seems completely irrelevant. Giant Bomb is changing and putting out new and different stuff, but I'm still enjoying it, therefore, I will continue to subscribe. As soon as the site begins to suck and becomes unappealing to me, I will unsubscribe. I don't think that it needs to be any more complicated than that.

I don't know if you're attempting to move the goal posts here, but this thread isn't about the general corporate structure or about why Alex, Brad and Vinny left; it's about Red Ventures and if they're "bad" and you all but outright say that Alex, Brad and Vinny left because of Red Ventures. I'm choosing to take them at their word because I don't know them, and their word was that they were burned out by the day-to-day corporate bullshit and after several years, it makes sense. You're trying to spin it as if they saw some doomed writing on the wall and jumped ship when we have ZERO evidence that that was the case. It's why this always becomes annoying because it's people assuming they know everything about these people that in reality they know nothing about. Maybe someday there will turn out to be more to this and we'll learn it, but right now, speculating like that is not only rude and insulting to the remaining GB staff, it's also rude to Alex, Brad and Vinny.

Watch the latest garage stream from Jeff, he talks about RV a little at about 21:58 (amongst other site stuff).

Yeah, that stream is a must watch video. Jeff lays out the site is moving in a new direction he's wanted it to go for a while and that he enjoys not being under the influence of a company that has a heavy TV influence. If these words are the exact opposite of what you want to hear, the good news is that there are streamers and website still pounding the round-the-clock coverage of every and any video game that comes out.

That article honestly sounds like most sites now. Pitchfork and Polygon both point you to places to buy stuff they cover in most of their articles which would have been unacceptable a decade ago. But it's how things are now.

@fugoy: This is how I feel. I don't give a shit if that's the goal, as long I still care about the content and the people.

I haven't watched the latest Garage Stream yet, but if people think the site's new direction came about because of any Red Venture involvement, go back and listen to Jeff talk about the last website redesign. Where he mentions that he was looking into websites that produce and host video content for ideas. Websites outside of the games industry. And the focus on getting a "Shows" page. I think Jeff has been thinking about this stuff for a while.