Hacker News Reader

Comment by firstworldman | Hacker News Reader

I would guess that the sale would make more sense in the context of a place like HN than it would to most fans of the site. They will benefit from the infrastructure and experience that Conde Nast offers, plus the brand lift of being associated with the house that publishes some of the best and most esteemed magazines in the world elevates them to another level as a publisher. The advertising benefits of that will be huge. The sponsorships they'll be able to get for the live events and video series will be bigger. The scope of the site could become more journalistic.

View on HN

See, all those make sense! From what the article states though, Pitchfork had no noteworthy problems with their operation - profitable, advertising demand, innovative presentations, "gets" of the biggest names at any given time, and live music events. By my count, they'd solved the puzzle.

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.

I wouldn't worry too much. The most notable aspect of the recent incarnation of Pitchfork's brand is its discernment. It doesn't typically follow the hype, it creates the hype. There are always subcultural ripples that surface first in smaller ponds, but the writers and editors at Pitchfork are savvy and tend to catch on pretty quick, covering (co-opting) what's cool before most people have had a chance to catch on. The only ways that Pitchfork's brand could be hurt at this point is if they stopped focusing on 'cool' (which they won't), or if they were somehow usurped by a cooler and better outlet. Those outlets exist, but they don't have the readership, budget, marketing knowhow, or in many cases, desire to be as big as Pitchfork is. Pitchfork owns its niche, and there's virtually no competition. I have a real love-hate relationship with Pitchfork. I really waver on whether it is good or bad for music overall, but its power in the music industry is legitimately scary to many artists/labels/managers/etc.

> the brand lift of being associated with the house that publishes some of the best and most esteemed magazines in the world elevates them to another level as a publisher

Frankly, I'd think being associated with The New Yorker and GQ would harm Pitchfork's image more than help it.

Could you elaborate?

In my opinion, The New Yorker is widely considered to produce high-quality journalism.

Well, first of all, these kinds of things are really just insider baseball, aren't they? I don't think most readers of magazines are interested in or knowledgeable about the portfolio of the magazine publisher. So the influence is primarily on people involved in the industry. But secondly, as the other commenter points out, being associated with The New Yorker is something that just about any journalistic enterprise would die for.

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.

To advertisers? Absolutely not.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com