Mashable lays off staff in 'strategic shift' toward video | Hacker News Reader

Mashable lays off staff in 'strategic shift' toward video

money.cnn.com

21 pointsr72121 comments

What a bummer, I've usually thought of Mashable as just a quick-hit blog site but had been noticing longer pieces in the wild. Of all the specialty blogs, Mashable IMO had one of the best ideas. Social media will long be one of the biggest businesses in tech and requires its own specialized comprehensive coverage. From what I could tell, though, Mashable never got technical enough in its coverage...Moz made a name for itself and then a SaaS business through SEO, and social media is at least as big if not bigger than SEO these days, particularly in the mainstream mindset. Given Mashable's lead in covering social media, there was an opportunity to do SaaS and consulting...the amount that government agencies pay for shit social media consultants and software could easily fund a business where Mashable's news coverage is its loss-leader.

Edit: Apparently the head of the video team was let go just as she was about to start a shoot and was left stranded in Ohio because her company email was cut off. This is the harshest "I'm sorry to say I've been let go but I've had a great time working with my @COMPANY collagues"

https://twitter.com/nadjao/status/718099008657440769

> Well at least now we know this company has no fucking vision except total garbage click bait production.

I'm sad she is turning this into sexism though. I liked the goodbye message.

https://twitter.com/nadjao/status/718119373328760834 > Interesting that all the people they fired were intelligent, skilled journalists and producers. This is what happens when bros run media.

https://twitter.com/nadjao/status/718134509921779712 > Also let's take a moment and see that majority of the editors and producers who are now gone are women.

How are you sad if you don't know if it's true or false?

Video is extremely overrated as a medium. It's not searchable, it's not quotable, and it takes forever to consume compared to reading. I read a dozen(s) or more articles in a day, and generally watch zero videos per week.

However, videos guarantee 100% attention on any advertisements displayed during the video, which is the only thing that matters to businesses.

Yes, that is the current state of the Internet publishing industry.

How so? I know I happily ignore/do other things while ads are playing in a video I'm watching

Though I agree with your sentiment 100%, from an advertising point of view, video is looked at as a 'holy grail' situation because it can attack two of our most vulnerable senses simultaneously - visual and sonic.

Audio ads are seen as highly effective, especially if the ad is a testimonial from a respected radio/podcast personality. Video can still do plenty well with the viewer planting their eyes firmly onto the screen, but when the viewer decides not to there's still the audio, hassling us to get our subscription to BarkBox or whatever.

You're right articles are technically better in those ways, but the reality is that people are watching videos more and more. The content that people used to consume via an article is now being consumed via video, and it seems to be preferred.

Between that and the rise of ad blockers, it doesn't surprise me in the slightest that sites are fleeing to video. I think it's actually in their best interest, lest they be left behind and replaced. I've been seeing this a LOT with gaming related content. YouTube channels are essentially replacing game sites.

"Watching more and more" because it's replacing regular television/cable for many. More video though means less actual content consumed - there's only so much time in a day. Plain text is still preferred by power users due to time, bandwidth, portability, searchability, quotability, accessibility ... ect.

What age are you? Millennials watch a lot of video on Facebook/Instagram/Snapchat.

WTF has his age to do with it? He made valid criticisms of video as a medium. Everyone from little kids to grandmas watch a lot of video, but it has its drawbacks.

Because he/she made a pretty broad statement about video as a medium and then used their own experience to validate/support that statement. I think it's probably relevant to ask about their age to be able to discuss whether their personal experience is a useful data point in support of the statement.

33 :)

Since my ad blockers are preventing this article from loading, I'm just going by the Title: bad move Mashable.

I suppose that millennials consume the most videos, but power users rely on text, especially for consumption and sharing.

Advertisers always poisoning things.

Try Bloomberg's piece:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-04-07/mashable-i...

Ty. And there it is: "collaborate on new technology and advertising opportunities."

I read that and laughed. I suppose their bed is for Millennials and Advertisers now, but it's kind of interesting that Advertisers still haven't learned.

UX brains cells die though when advertisers get involved.

You say it's a bad move, but are simultaneously pointing out that you've removed their source of revenue. How is it a bad move if their goal is to pay the bills and survive? Do you have an alternative solution?

Sure. I didn't remove their source of revenue - their content still displayed for me, minus nefarious tracking, malverts and poor targeting. The solution is to stand up to ad-tech and advertisers and do ads the right way - one that respects UX. Until that happens, publishers are in a no-win situation. Videos won't solve their problem. They will cost more to produce and many will skip them or head to other places with plain text. Millennials are still going to be picky on what they watch. Maybe that generation is still learning the ramifications of ad-tech but this survey from Realtime Generation is interesting. What makes them unhappy:

- Organizations sharing data with third parties (60%). - Movement tracked in-store via personal device for marketing purposes (41%). - Online habits used to provide targeted ads and promotions (50%). - Location data used or shared (54%).

Advertisers are responsible for the current state of declining revenue for publishers because they never understood UX. Ad blocking usage is going to rise and publishers will die or eventually address the issue with advertisers.

Does anyone know why Mashable's twitter post links use the address "http://on.mash.to/?"

What is the purpose of using link shortening if you add superfluous characters that don't make sense "on"?

What does "on mash to" mean?

In other words, "more ads." Video ads pay so much it's silly.

Idiots it was all click bait anyway

Reply on news.ycombinator.com