To put a music style analogy out, once a band reaches profitability, it's not customary to go adding 2-3 new members. Side projects, maybe, but it's not like this kind of thing.
I just hope the publication continues its high quality.
Sure it is, if they want to grow. Writers, managers, session musicians, stylists, PR people, I could go on. Just because you don't get on stage doesn't mean you aren't vital to success of a big name band.
firing a Tour Manager or Lawyer is not the same as replacing a drummer, it just isn't.
No, and replacing your CFO is not the same as firing an administrative assistant. But they're both part of the company.
in a rough analogy, just because a waiter brings you food doesn't mean they had a hand in making it in the kitchen.
No but they are crucial to the whole restaurant experience and thus the success of the business. A bad front of house can completely wreck the best of intentions that the kitchen might have, and a great front of house can save the day if the kitchen fumbles the ball.
"Part of the company" is completely off-track and downright wrong when talking about a Lawyer versus a Drummer. A drummer contributes to the making of what the lawyer defends. This is very clear in the sense of one is a member of the band, and the other is a member of the organization. One contributes on a creative basis, the other does not. Cut-and-dried definitions here.
No front of the house could ever save a restaurant if the kitchen decides to walk out, right? No band, no organization. No pilots, no airline.
It does kind of make me chuckle that the only times I've had this kind of discussion is with a non-musician who wants to equivocate their functional role with what comes out of the guitar amp. Other people might buy it. I sure don't.
Ah! So that's what it's called. I was wondering if there was more to the world of business than all this "Grow or die!" that I hear, well, everywhere. Though it makes sense, "9th year of enough happy customers to pay the bills, just what we were going for" just doesn't make as good a headline as million dollar deals.
What other mountain is there to conquer? A bigger one? I simply don't get the desire, because while all the positives could be true, to me, I worry about the downsides. This is just me, the kind of guy who keeps a fun list of Murphy's Laws within eyesight at work.
Frankly, I'd think being associated with The New Yorker and GQ would harm Pitchfork's image more than help it.
I suspect the web will eventually cannibalize GQ (not because it's bad, but because it's not specific enough), but The New Yorker will outlive us all.
In my opinion, The New Yorker is widely considered to produce high-quality journalism.
Pitchfork's core product is the website. If the music festival shows went away, the enterprise could still be viable. I'd hope they'd structure their business plan, finances, and insurance to back-stop their exposure in that area.
To work with your music analogy, some bands don't have to release a new album to go on tour and make more money (even though they do), and this would be bands like the Rolling Stones or The Eagles. Or KISS, which I guess counts as a band, but I put more in the 'staged entertainment featuring clowns category.