Yes, that's right-- the fact that investors pulled out and left them without money to pay their staff or tech crew isn't why they shut down, no, it's their "self-referential hipness". Brilliant analysis, friend, brilliant.
Freddie:
Your analysis is myopic and superficial. Yes, the proximate cause was funding, but why was that funding pulled? Presumably because investors didn't think they could make their money back, and why didn't investors think they could make their money back? I'm willing to bet because the hit count was lower than expected. And why was the hit count lower than expected? Because the fucking content sucked. And why did the content suck? Because of their self-referential hipness. You can disagree with that reasoning, but for fuck's sake don't blame it on funding drying up. Fools always do. "If only we had more time or money" is the refuge of losers. So, next time you show up here with sarcasm you'd better think some shit through.
Update: From the Culture11 site on why they failed:
Sometimes we were too insular, referencing the same blogs and writers as if we were at a private party. Sometimes we were too wonky and self-indulgent. Sometimes (especially when I was writing) we were just plain boring.
Sure sounds like the problem was self-referential hipness to me.
Posts
3 comments:
I'm willing to bet because the hit count was lower than expected.
That's a bet you would lose. The hit count was higher than expected and the investors (unlike the managing editor) were completely pleased with the content.
Sometimes it really is all about the money.
That's a bet you would lose. The hit count was higher than expected and the investors (unlike the managing editor) were completely pleased with the content.
Sometimes it really is all about the money.
Oh, SMACK. Maybe next time FLG shows up here with ungrounded speculation about other sites' internals, he'll start off by thinking his sh-t through.
Dumbass.
For anybody interested, it continued.
Post a Comment