Vice Raises $500M in Its Quest for 'Total Media Domination'

Moreover over the last year their main Youtube channel has gone rather stale and most good content moved to the "Vice News" and "Motherboard" channels.

Can anyone explain the rationale for their awesome content alongside the very mediocre content this comment speaks of? Why not focus on quality content (Which has been working great for them so far?) What's the business idea here?

Seriously?

WTF. Speechless.

They do go into dire situations that are under reported. Not only that, but there doesn't seem to be much of a bias in said reporting.

But, when it comes to any sort of opinion piece, pop culture, or something of the like, the bias is overwhelming. I remember there was an article about a woman who went to the Bush Library at SMU. It was obnoxious. Terrible writing.

    > Buzzfeeditis

http://www.spectator.co.uk/arts/television/9287042/as-a-thir...

So what is Vice is doing right? Interesting, relevant, investigative journalism that is not playing to the lowest common denominator (certain sections notwithstanding). More important, it's not burdened by the legacy cost structures and operating silos that bigger, more established media companies are. Vice today is sort of like what CNN was in its early days, or if you'll extend the courtesy of indulging a somewhat wild comparison, it's similar to what MTV was in the early '80s. It's a fresh company, with a young audience, and a disciplined editorial focus.

I wouldn't compare Vice to Buzzfeed, necessarily. Both of them mystify and intrigue old-media companies. But old-media companies have an easier time grokking Vice than they do Buzzfeed. Or, at the very least, they seem to believe Vice is here to stay, while Buzzfeed and its ilk might fade.

"But it seems like they want on TV more than anything else."

Yes, and that's my best guess as to why they'd raise $500 million. You don't raise $500M to scale out your blogging and journalism efforts. You raise $500M because TV production is ridiculously expensive, and you almost need $500M if you're going to be producing a large, running slate of TV programming. (Benchmark comparison: for its original series, Netflix spends anywhere up to $30-$50M per season. News programming and other forms of non-scripted programming are less expensive than, say, "House of Cards." Nevertheless, they ain't cheap).

I doubt they are worried about their roots anymore. They haven't been a 'counter-culture' magazine for a while, they are a traditional news org.

edit: Here is their mediakit: http://scs-assets.s3.amazonaws.com/int/2014-VICE-Digital-Med...