Gawker 
Enter your username and password.
New York, 11:18 AM
Thu Nov 12
59 posts in the last 24 hours
Tip Your Editors:
tips@gawker.com
Tipline: 646-214-8138
Editor-in-Chief:
Gabriel Snyder | Email
West Coast Editor:
Richard Rushfield | Email
Contributing Editors:
Valleywag:
Ryan Tate | Email
Media:
Hamilton Nolan | Email
Politics:
Alex Pareene | Email
Investigations:
John Cook | Email
Entertainment:
Brian Moylan | Email
Weekends:
Foster Kamer | Email
Video Editor:
Richard Blakeley | Email
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.
08/31/09
OK, I take that back... RollingStone.com did used to have the most readily available copy of the "Imagine" video before YouTube and I've pointed toward it numerous times, but I really don't think I'd like it, if the website were to try and replace the magazine. As with all my subscriptions, but especially Rolling Stone, I actually look forward to getting my hard copy in the mail and have a ritual about reading it.
US Weekly is just a gossip rag and it's understandable that they have better traffic; their competition is online, there's lots of blogs linking to gossip and the text is just a lot of blurbs. Rolling Stone, Playboy, Vanity Fair, etc are lifestyle publications; They have devoted readerships, long-form articles and all of their websites are suffering online.
08/31/09
IOW: Like pretty much everyone else, I read almost every word of every Rolling Stone, but we're not going to do that online. No amount of "engagement" is going to change this fact and unless the "engagement" is going to be separate animal, disconnected from the offline content, then I don't see a reason for them to worry too much more than their stated goal of bringing site management in-house.
Online ads don't pay as well as offline and though there's been a noticable advertising slump (not as many fashion ads), I'm sure the offline situation is temporary and an ad-free Twitter feed isn't going to add anything toward the bottom line.
08/30/09
08/31/09
08/31/09
09/01/09
08/30/09
I can take the Beatles cover even if the article is rehashing the same bullshit, it primarily takes from John's interview when he was out of his head on smack and angry. I love how the author completely ignores the fact that John in later years said he lied through his teeth during that interview.
Plus, it would be nice if R.S. would for once focus on the fact that John and Paul made up, but I guess hating each other is better copy.
The Rolling Stone website is a mess. I think one of the most ridiculous things is that Rolling Stone a MUSIC MAGAZINE rarely if ever breaks new music news. It's pathetic that People Magazine can beat them to the punch.
08/31/09
[www.observer.com]
Another huge newsstand issue this year? The Adam Lambert coming-out issue.
And again, RS *does* break music news. (Like the aforementioned Adam Lambert story -- which was probably one of the biggest non-death music-related stories this year as far as garnering public interest.) But a) music is pretty sprawling, probably much more so than any other popular art form, which guarantees that any news it breaks won't be of vital importance to everyone; and b) music news is rarely important enough to a wide swath of the populace to warrant being "broken."
08/30/09
08/30/09
Yet, P4k is probably one of the least interactive sites of its type. (Thank God for that too, could you imagine the hell that the comment section would be unless they had a moderated, Gawker like roll-out?)
The thing is, most people know what they're going to get on p4k -- the decimals with the sometimes good, sometimes not 500+ words attached, news headlines involving the latest mental state of the dude in Wavves, streaming mp3s probably blogged about somewhere else before, etc. Usually, being a music fan, i'll find something that makes it worth glancing at once or twice a day.
Rolling Stone, not so much? Except maybe for the latest news on past-their-prime or dead rockers (oh hey, Pearl Jam, Cobain, MJ, Oasis and the Beatles currently on the front page).
Which is basically to say, RS should work on their content (whether the focus should even be music anymore, I'm not sure) before going after "user engagement."
It might see a temporary bump in traffic, but it won't doing anything for their identity (which, as of right now, I'm not even sure what it is), legacy, influence and relationship with readers beyond "engagement." Which, for a flagship publication should be, at least, of some importance.
08/30/09
Even putting aside Hunter Thompson, the most memorable pieces I've read in Rolling Stone over the last few years have been long form articles on topics such as bug chasers, a tiny subsection of the gay community that actively tried to contract HIV; a story about a average suburban American kid who become a violent African drug lord; and even a piece in the latest issue about a blind kid, who used to "swatting" to seek revenge on woman who wouldn't give him phone sex.
All stories that have absolutely nothing to do with music.
When sites like TMZ can provide on demand beaver shots and celebrity meltdowns, showing Britney Spears posing with a purple Teletubbie just isn't provocative anymore. And as Foster pointed out, in terms of music journalism, Rolling Stone just doesn't have a clear cut niche anymore.
I say downsize the operation (even further), and make it into a less highbrow, more pop culture Slate.com, focusing on the long form human interest stories they actually do well. Or at least spin that off into a different site, so when the new Rolling Stone.com inevitably does fail, not everything goes down with the ship.
08/30/09
08/30/09
08/30/09
08/30/09
Perhaps it could go into gossip! How's that Smoking Section blog working out, anyway? Cough.
08/30/09
I'm amazed it happened this quickly, although I suppose that once it got digitized and decoupled from the physical object, it was only a matter of time.
07/15/09
07/15/09
The last page is an excellent explanation why cap and trade is a bad idea. It brought up issues besides how bad this will be for consumers and industry.
07/15/09
07/15/09
06/22/09
06/22/09
06/22/09
06/22/09
COLLARS POP, PANTIES DROP. AIIIIIIGHT!
06/22/09
06/22/09
GS is paying back the money (our money) with interest specifically so that they can return to the policies that made them the juggernaut in the financial industry that they are.
Goldman has a history of paying its employees the largest and most obscene bonuses of any of the investment banking firms. If that was a bad business practice for them, then that was - and now that they are repaying their debt is - solely the business of the shareholders.
Thanks for treating our money like a loan, GS and not a hand out. FWIW, I'm not outraged.
06/22/09
06/22/09
[www.reuters.com]
@ae38: You may be right. My info was definitely from pre-financial meltdown times (2005-2006). At that time GS paid out more $ in bonuses than any other firm. However, those bonuses could have been lower on a percentage basis. I may not have been clear, but I wasn't trying to be deceptive. I couldn't find an exact source on this, but this article kind of points to what I was referring:
[www.nytimes.com]
06/22/09