Vice Sells Out Un-Ironically

Hey guys, I totally added "zing"s after all your comments!

@Mount_Prion: C.U.C.A.R.A.C.H.A.: touche (if only I could make the accent mark)

@moochyshuckworth:

Omigod now that's being ironic.... noble rich sell outs that don't sell out.... i guess not every hispter's a trust fund baby, some need to make cash!

Jose J Carmona

@AmberVetus: Your explanation actually explained! Thanks!

boozeshaman

Uh, okay.

[advertising.gawker.com]

Quote:

Just bring a flicker of inspiration to our creative shop, and we'll whip up a sophisticated Skin and Panorama unit that amplify your standard media units. This dynamic duo maximizes your marketing run with a "one-off" execution that is unique to the inimitable Gawker Media properties.

And this is meaningfully different from Vice's practices how?

You don't write ad copy, Hamilton, but your ad people just used the word "inimitable". SO WHAT NOW.

@Hamilton Nolan: Though, if you scroll all the way to the bottom of this page, there is ad copy currently being passed off as a sister blog of this website. Along with Jalopnik, Gizmodo and Lifehacker there is a very small black line of journalistic independance, and then Bloodcopy.

Iceland Spar

It's possible, but one bends forward rather than backward. I've heard. From a friend.

ShanghaiLil

You're definitely wrong. Not to defend Vice, but there is a difference between what Gawker and Vice covers in terms of content. I don't often come across stories in Vice about Jennifer Aniston, Bravo reality shows, the Hills & Gossip Girl, Julia Allison, paraphrased NY Times articles, 'media industry news' etc. Gawker has a similar self-conscious irreverence (which was probably modeled after Vice), but that's pretty much become the standard tone of internet writing.

AmberVetus

This is all so earth shattering! My whole life is a lie--sponsored by Vans!

@Hamilton Nolan: "I don't write the ad copy." I bet that's what the Nazis said! Am I right?

boozeshaman

@moochyshuckworth: blah blah bloo blah blah?

juustuunder

@Pareene: Oh yeah, bring the Zing!

MyrtleWilloughby

so the hipster "counter"culture is nothing more than a false rebellion, a consumerist culture masquerading as real people with a heightened sense of self?

moochyshuckworth

@Pareene: I don't know anybody who imagines greater than Hamilton!

@Hamilton Nolan: shit, hamilton, i was positive you were the ad wizard behind "SyFy"

@Mount_Prion: C.U.C.A.R.A.C.H.A.: I don't write the ad copy. There's the difference.

Maybe Gawker should do an article explaining their own "corporate sellout" policies, to compare and contrast! Because I thought Gawker was pretty much "online Vice." I'm wrong?

boozeshaman

Goddammit, where's my assistant? I did NOT authorize the release of that photo!

@narnio: did sprint pay you to take this angle? does it even matter anymore?

Hmm. At least they are still publishing, which is more than many magazines can say right now.

momof3wildkids

"...the editorial content in the magazine remains independent."

Didn't somebody else tell me this on some blog I read yesterday?

OH MY GOD JUST SHUT UP ABOUT THIS ALREADY.

Hipsters being sellouts? Now that's ironic!

SultanaEleusis

Slow news day, huh, fellas? Has Julia Allison yet to tweet anything?

@BookishLookish: Love the new hair color, dearest.

Moriturus

@NoelleBlue: I was pissed when Bloodcopy was passed off as a Gawker blog, but if they make it clear it's paid advertising, FFS they have to pay the bills somehow. Back in the good old days of print media there would be ads which attempted to duplicate the look of the newspaper itself. The newspaper would then hang a "Paid Advertising" on the ad, take the check and use the money to (try to) stay profitable.

Moriturus

@Cheap Shot: Both originated in Montreal, after all... (The Vice guys are really from Ottawa, but Vice originated in Montreal and that gross American Apparel guy is from Montreal.)

Ellabella

@SanjivaniGautam: i can glossy and free whenevs, man.

@YouMustBeHarveysSqueeze: No the other Nick. The Nick your talking about is classily voicing his own bitterness on this very thread. Oh the sanctimony.

Part of reading and enjoying Vice is learning to put up with all its weird self-contradictions and hypocrisies. It's kind of like hanging around with an addict in that way.

@Hamilton Nolan: Holy hell, you mean nick douglas is still in some way responsible for the rotting of gawker!? I thought we had finally washed our hands of him!

YouMustBeHarveysSqueeze

@allyzay:

You took the words out of my mouth ..As a print editor who was downsized twice from print glossies staffs in the past 12 months, I think it's a bit ridiculous to attack Vice for a) engaging in something that's a golden standard of how glossy mags from here to Timbuktu operate and b) trying to stay afloat.

Yes, it's totally possible to run editorial content that can potentially piss off advertisers and simultaneously run content that strokes them.

@Hamilton Nolan: And listen, can you, on scout's honor, declare that you were never, ever, ever, ever nudged to cover something in your posts that might publicize one of the Gawker advertisers--be it a TV show or a pub or whatnot? If so, Gawker must be the holiest and most journalistically righteous enterprise in the entire charted universe..

snugbug

What did you imagine Vice was 'selling'? Vice moved from Montreal to NYC to make more money off ads. The whole point of Vice is to have no morals and love money and sin.

"Selling out" would imply that they had some sort of principles that they had 'sold'.

Srsly Gawker. I can't believe someone needs to spell out Vice to you.

John McDonnell

@AmberVetus: Vice, Suck, Spy, Punch. And that's what I'm calling my new band.

MyrtleWilloughby

Blah, blah, blah. I just wish my rear end looked like that.

The_Lovely_Miss_Bronx

The Salt Lake City PD should consider running mugshot Wanted ads in Vice.

I find the backlash against Bloodcopy fascinating, I really do. Gawker has always danced the dance of the devil, attempting to be an interesting and unique blog with distinct voices while also being PROFITABLE. And they've always played with hypocrisy... seriously, the burn-baby-burn attitude towards print is eternal, and obviously enjoyable to the readers who seem to now be pissed off that Gawker is attempting to find a way to stay solvent in a new age. And the editorial staff truly does seem separated from ad games like 'Bloodcopy'... hell, I'm seeing little signs that they're not overly impressed themselves.

Or perhaps they're just sick of the whining. Understandably.

Why is it so important that blogs be seen as the scrappy, independent outsider?

If this, and Twitter's new show, is pissing people off, I would recommend those people get off the interwebs somewhere about now, or adjust. Because the future? This is it.

(however - counter-argument! - it does make posts like this a bit more blatant than usual in their hypocrisy, a bit of 'hi, here's my glass house! I haz painted target!'... if there was some nudge-nudge-wink-wink in it's coverage, I think amusement would be higher, indignation lower. This is a pretty scathing snippet of a similar issue to what you're now dealing with, Mr. Nolan, what with all blow-jobbin' and whippets.)

NoelleBlue

I think Vice basically branded American Apparel and had something to do with their ads. See the parallel?

@Iceland Spar: Are you saying that there's only a thin line separating journalistic independence from madcap shilling? (Oh, well, I never expected a star anyway.)

The Lone Scout

@MyrtleWilloughby: Also: Nations of Rebels - Why counterculture became consumer culture.

Good stuff!

NoelleBlue

@Hamilton Nolan: I don't think Vice has ever claimed to be the "voice of rebellious youth". It's just a title attributed to it by publications when there are no TV shows to recap, Dlisteds to regurgitate, or Tao Lins to pardon.

horrorbiz

@Hamilton Nolan: so what you're really saying is that you're a streetcarnage fan?

shostakobitch

@boozeshaman: vice has a website, silly.

shostakobitch

@Hamilton Nolan: Is "voice of the cool rebellious youth blah blah" above or below "rage of the creative underclass" on the advertiser wishlist?

1. This is Vice. They are the voice of the cool rebellious youth blah blah. That's relevant.

2. No matter where you are, you can't have your editorial staff work on AD CAMPAIGNS and still claim they're independent.

3. Direct all complaints about "Blood Copy" to nick@gawker.com. We, the Gawker editorial staff, don't have anything to do with it, because we are "independent" in the traditional sense.

maybe they just want to start beef with vice? u know like the bloods and crips? east side vs west side? Dc Vs Marvel? 50 cent vs Nas? Pappa Smurf Vs. Garamel, rihanna's face vs. chris brown.... that kinda stuff

SanjivaniGautam

Oh and Hamilton, can you maybe break down the impenetrable barrier between you and Gawker ad sales, and ask them about the story of Gizmodo's "Trek Yourself" ad?

@Freddie DeBoer: Damn Nick Douglas beat me to the punch.

Freddie DeBoer

Lord knows, the home of BloodCopy has the standing to throw stones....

Freddie DeBoer

Guys, you are totally missing the rockin' party on the BloodCopy blog!

and Terry shoots for Belvedere Vodka, who the fuck cares...really.

tailpipebananna

@BadUncle: Much fewer bruises? You're probably right.

@BookishLookish: if you look carefully you can still see the hand print from your much-deserved spanking.

P.S. This post reminds me of that company that "bought" a "blog" for vampires, by vampires that reads like a long and boring series of ads for Tru Blood. But yeah, way to sell out, Vice.

TableNine

Great, a new fetish inspired - "Just keep reading, honey."

daveyjonesisdead

@No Day Like Friday: they're also going to "whip up" some sophisticated shit!! whores.

Mr. Smith, meanwhile, said that although Vice editorial staff members are consulted about marketing and advertising campaigns, the editorial content in the magazine remains independent.

this isn't an oxymoron...? you can get someone on your edit team to write and/or approve off on someone's advertorial or a custom content guide insert or curated back-article sponsorship or whatever and not have that actually affect what goes into the real editorial content of the magazine.

why is gawker spending this entire week being mystified by what are actually totally standard long-time publishing practices? we fucking did this at science for crying out loud! you guys are crackin me up imo. i'm not saying that you're wrong that it's a real big blurring of the quaint old fashioned church-and-state notion but it's not like vice just invented this thing right now today.

hot damn it, it's hard being a magazine who's content is free... granted advertisers pay us good green..... we gottta pay are bills still cus, u can't glossy and free in a recession... u dig?

SanjivaniGautam

@BookishLookish: You really should think about getting some bookshelves.

@moochyshuckworth:
Or maybe something that is/was a counter-culture has been appropriated to sell stuff for like, the past 40 years.

[books.google.com]

In other news, Thomas Frank is hot. No irony intended.

MyrtleWilloughby

I remember the last time you guys did this story. You were mad about an "ad" that was on the cover of vice. it was a total sellout. Then I noticed that your whole masthead and "hot" news stories of the day were brought to everyone by Purina Mist or something like that. Something that actually had some horrendous autoplay function and made navigation of the site a pain in the ass.

Liberace

@Iceland Spar: Blood, indeed. Akin to the Chinese Walls in "Investment" Banks.

Goethewritesdrivel

@boozeshaman: More like: "We haf wayz of making you write ze ad copy!"

Goethewritesdrivel

Who cares? As long as it's still FREE and the "dos and don'ts" are still hilarious, I'll still read it. Sellout, shmellout.

I was going to reply with something witty about how hypocritical this post is but I was too distracted by that Bloodcopy logo alongside all the other Gawker properties on your footer.

@Moriturus: I knew that you would, sweets.

Vice is a 90s relic, zine-era hipster a-holeism (its earnest schmuck cousin is Adbusters) that managed to turn itself into an internet brand. But where would snark-ass sites like Gawker and Wonkette be without such a pioneer?

glucious

Gigantic granny panties = cool and rebellious?

LoveHerFace