The inaugural 2005 Pitchfork Media thread

http://www.suntimes.com/output/entertainment/cst-ftr-pitch03.html

hey, i pioneered that. way back in 1996, i worked on a daily website (hand-coding in HTML! pre-flash! those were the days) bringing you all the gossip, news and reviews from the edinburgh fringe.

which quickly went to every two days.

then every three days.

then "when we could be arsed".

best four weeks of my life, that job. i spent as much time as possible drunk in the pleasance bar, trying to chat up the straight one out of mel and sue.

sorry, i'll stop digressing now. back to the thread.

Best of all, no meddling from the Man. Because there is no Man. Just men -- three of them, young and hungry and practically idealistic

ROFFLES

Pitchfork is relevant, but they still have no market leverage.

Jesus Christ.

Ha ha. I'm picturing all of those free CDs floating to Chicago on a radiant wave of pure indie cred.

In Chicago, they're removed from coastal glitz and political red tape, and more connected to the music itself. Which is to say, no scenester posing, no star-struck fawning (not that they would if they could), no pressure from overbearing PR types eager to secure bons mots and prime real estate in exchange for access.

To my mind the thing PFork needs more than a redesign is to protect itself, because it's been the fat-trimmer for major media outlets for well over a year. They're doing the legwork for a lot of better-paid people out there.

Explain to me the market leverage they have, and I'll show you that the market doesn't recognize it. If the market did, Pitchfork would have the resources to, say, pay their writers. That they get a lot of hits is a nice little story for the paper, but it's a long ways from charging for content. Or being a serious contender for advertising dollars.

To paraphrase Matos, I like Pitchfork for what it is they do. I'm not slagging on Pitchfork, I'm pointing out that whomever I was jousting with over a year ago--was it you, I can't even remember--was pretty convinced that Pitchfork was on the cusp of something big, of becoming a serious contender to print outlets. But it's not. And frankly, I'd quickly choose AllMusic.com, despite it's horrific redesign and middle finger to the Mac community, over Pitchfork if I had to choose between the two.

In other words, maybe Pitchfork has had some success as tastemaker or influence in the market. Maybe. But before we start peddling the Arcade Fire as anecdotal proof, then maybe we should be analytical about all the reviews. I'd be very interested to see an empirical evaluation of Pitchfork reviews and resulting album sales or concert support. In fact, if someone at Pitchfork (or at the Sun-Times) was bright enough to do that for themselves, it would make a pretty good story.

Ha ha, so would the entire industry. I don't know how you'd do this - reviews are like ads, it may take one or it may take several to make a sale, a 0.0 for an album might spark more interest, a 10.0 might be dismissed as hype, ratings on music sites are far more subjective than in, say, a wine magazine, etc.

No website should charge for content. Only the WSJ, to the best of my knowledge, gets away with it. If you're lean, you can actually get some cash for internet advertising nowadays. The Onion's a good example, they've got an ad department that has set up a number of ad packages (like specially sponsored packages of old content on the site - "Our favorite automobile stories, sponsored by the new Toyota Camry").

Pitchfork writers get paid, in fact we all just got a good raise.

Don, as for whether the 'Fork is on the cusp of something big - I don't think it's going to explode, the way Ott bragged that it would before he quit. The 'Fork is bigger than a lot of magazines, like Magnet, and better than a number of magazines and alt-newspapers. Mainly, though, the 'Fork just offers a different experience. The whole "web sites can't beat print" thing doesn't seem like an effective argument anymore. Would you ignore Fluxblog because it has fewer readers than Spin?

It was Pitchformula. He didn't really look at the market impact though.

Better yet, Pitchfork should require registration to view content. Nothing prowling like names or phone numbers, but something minimal like city and zip code would be a huge source of information. Yes, some people would fill in shit but you can run city against zip to make sure they are not totally useless inputs. This might drive some consumers away from Pitchfork, but the vast majority would comply with something so simple. Many, many sites ask for a lot more and get a lot more demographics--if Pitchfork's so influential and so in demand, then surely they could require registration for their content. Because as long as the content is absolutely free, the value proposition is heavily weighted towards the consumer, not the publication. Pitchfork, as Chris Ott noted above, needs to start playing gatekeeper at some point or they'll never get to the point where they can charge admission. If you could get even simple registration, you could make things really interesting for potential advertisers when you ran it up against Soundscan data or anything else.

And yeah, the WSJ is one of the few content providers to charge admission--hell, they're only the most widely read newspaper in the world, and more importantly, a huge digital provider of comprehensive, valuable financial market information. In other words, they have obvious, proven leverage against their market. I asserted above that Pitchfork has no such leverage, that their value in the market is unproven and largely based on the cost of entry: nothing. I also base this on the lack of empirical evidence supporting Pitchfork's influence. Unlike so many others around here, I don't slag on the writing at Pitchfork--I've limited my comments to it as a business entity and its relative success.

Nothing against Fluxblog or especially Matt, but right now I see the MP3 blog concept as very Friendster-esque and short lived. The barriers to entry are simply too low to harness exclusivity or command leverage/competitive advantage--I certainly like the idea of places like Fluxblog and Pitchfork, it's just that I'm not convinced of their long term sustainability. Thus, when I hear about either Fluxblog or Pitchfork breaking new acts, I'm excited on one hand but on the other hand, I'm pretty sure that there are many misses for every hit. Which is fine, but it's not exactly an earth-shattering paradigm for an advertiser.

And again, the point of my original post was to comment on how Pitchfork was supposed to blow up into a big money maker last year but didn't. I hope that it does in 2005, but right now, I don't see it happening.

I agree that the 'Fork can't bring in the same revenue as WSJ - I remember working for Inc. magazine's site back when they got $70 CPM for IBM and Anderson Consulting banner ads, droooool - but just because the 'Fork doesn't play in that space doesn't mean it isn't successful in its own. It's starting to become the destination website in the same way that the Onion and Fucked Company did in their own niches. That's not trivial.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v216/sexymollusk/3-alod2.jpg

I've also pointed out that Pitchfork is good at what it does--yep, it's a regular destination or a homepage for thousands of people every single weekday (including me.) If you feel I've trivialized this aspect, I am sorry; lots of people on ILX like to trivialize Pitchfork but I contend that most of that is based upon the quality of writing.

Finally, it is inevitable to assume that growth will ultimately drive Pitchfork. If "scads" of money are coming in and fuelling sound, long-term business practices, I'm thrilled for all involved. But without more information, I'm not willing to concede that, even as a destination, Pitchfork has a credible long-term proposition. It's still very much in the start-up phase, and in an environment where the barrier to entry (webhosting) is incredibly low, Pitchfork does not appear well fortified against the threat of competition. And that to me is not a trivial matter, either.

Gotcha - we're actually pretty much in agreement! But you know, I think Ott's the only one who ever said we were going to topple Spin in the next year. So don't hold the whole publication to that.

To tell them what they should like, yes.

has obv. never read the interviews.

As I step back into the hallway, showtime quickly approaching, Paul Banks walks around the corner, and half-remembers me:

"Wait, you look really familiar."

"Yeah. Ryan." I extend a handshake. "I'm here from Pitchfork."

"Ohhhh!! Man, thanks for putting us on your 2002 list. That paragraph was fantastic!"

Which was a surprising response, since the paragraph in question was something of a piss-take, noting the band's "skinny ties and terrible hair," and referring to them as "art-house darlings" whose "appearance was their most embarrassing aspect."

"Well, you know, it was you guys against Nellyville. He almost had it on affirmative action, but we couldn't forgive the Band-Aid."

"It was just-- it was like the opposite of what everyone else said. A lot of what's written about us is just, 'Great look!' I'd rather people said we looked like fucking tools and that the music was worthwhile."

This is one of the greatest aspects of Interpol The Band. Onstage and in glossy magazine spreads, they could not appear more stuffy, vain or arrogant. You will never catch them in a moment of dishevelment; it seems they live day-to-day lives of impeccable dress, going out at 2:00 a.m. for a bottle of milk in Italian loafers and white collars-- stodgy, 19th Century statesmen who've materialized as though straight from the moon gates of a noir Ultima. Anachronisms. And yet, beneath their lacquer veneer, they're more humble than bands with an eighth of their acclaim and record sales. They're friendly, unaffected, even cheerful-- a far cry from the funereal façade they flaunt like dour peacocks.

Memories...

Yet again, I hog all the glory.

Web ads are cheaper by thousands of dollars and Pitchfork is free to the reader, so they're more attractive to both camps. Major media companies all read Pitchfork, and what I was alluding to previously, a buy-in/takeover, that didn’t happen…but it could have, and from a SPIN perspective it really needed to. SPIN doesn’t have a massive media conglomerate’s support – they’ve all got their music magazines, and regardless of how little or much money those make they’ll always be around, because they’re corporate/brand extensions. Miller’s been trying to dump Vibe/SPIN for two years, that place has been a ****in employment blender (no pun intended) since 2001. They all but run SPIN’s website off child labor – interns – for God’s sake.

It's a completely shitty reality for SPIN, but this isn't Popular Science, it's not Sports Illustrated...you know, it's indie music, it's the cheapest, most volatile and fickle demographic out there, and it's changing so much faster now, monthly print magazines don't stand a chance. There's too many bands doing too many un-extraordinary things, as opposed to popular sports where there's still plenty of room for Daily (ESPN) and more in-depth Week/Monthly (SI) feature pieces. There just isn't enough money or mystery (or as time stretches on, un-mined history) in underground music to sustain Serious Criticism of it at the financial level mandated by a print magazine.

And that might be something we could blame Pitchfork for, if it didn't boil down to blaming ourselves first.

“Spin is me. I am Spin.” – Jake Hill, 2004
“Spin is dead.” – Chris Ott, 2002

Well, precisely.

She's written for them sporadically, hasn't she? My guess is that now Ryan can actually afford to have her write more regularly, heh.

Wait, I have? News to me!

You can burn out and I did, in both writing and reading. That I've kept going/received a bit of a renewal revolves in large part about doing other things of interest and not feeling a crushing (if self-imposed) need to keep up with everything/everyone. Attempting to do that these days in the world of millions o' blogs strikes me as an exercise in futility. If I wanted to read every blog I 'should' read, I would have no time for anything else.

Now I don't hear nearly as much new music, and what I do hear mostly comes through.. attrition from the number of references here on ILM + the taste of the people giving the recommend. I spent an hour in a Borders the other day looking for something to buy with a gift card and couldn't find a single album I wanted.

Pfork should do some city guides. Serious. As in, I'm going to Boston for a week, where are the cool clubs? Where are the good record shops? Where are the thrift stores?

Phil-two to thread.

SPIN's rate base is 550,000 (+/-) a month. Pitchfork's is approaching 100,000 daily, and it's been growing at an alarming rate - readership has more than doubled over the last year. That's ridiculous success.

No, those are apples to oranges.

As you hint at, SPIN is a lifestyle magazine, and narrow in that regard compared to, say, Rolling Stone. Pitchfork is a narrowly-focused music website, something the Internet can address very well and extremely cheaply. However, it also seems that it would be easy to replicate Pitchfork's content, and if Pitchfork was significantly profitable you can be assured that competition will arrive soon. Pitchfork's done a good job developing an audience, but I'm not sure how loyal that audience is given the price of admission. You may feel that there "just isn't enough money or mystery (or as time stretches on, un-mined history) in underground music to sustain Serious Criticism of it at the financial level mandated by a print magazine" but if that's the case, then the premise of Pitchfork is on shaky ground and serious efforts to fortify it as an entity are required.

I think the curve does have to do with being young, insofar as unavoidable ignorance (mine, anyone's) fuels you to learn more; depending on your personality, you may then want to assert your take on things, and in a lot of cases that's also part of learning - it certainly was and still is for me (there's no quicker way to find out if - and more importantly how - you've got things wrong than to put your thoughts out there for "everyone" to read).

But it's a cycle that's repeated itself so many times now: up and coming writers fade into their personal lives or die or move on to bigger things...you look at a book like In Their Own Write, that documents at least three cycles right there (and one really interesting passage in it, I forget from whom, laments that more writers in the 80s didn't take the next step, didn't write personal books and didn't continue to challenge themselves...get the book if you haven't already).

We know who the Elder Statesman are today - some post here - and of the few younger critics trying to go the legitimate route - e.g. Get Paid to Write - a LOT of them post here, but that's a fray I could never enter, for both personal and financial reasons. I mean "freelance," sure, but tying my opinion on pop music to a salary, I just could never, ever do that. Which might be my loss, but, you'll have to ask Matos or Scott PL or I how our choices worked out in ten years. Chuck Eddy could obviously shed a lot more light on this subject.

I'm not arguing that Pitchfork is "significantly profitable," I'm arguing that it is successful on terms comparable to SPIN's at zero cost: that is what's significant.

The "cost of admission," as you say, is unbeatable, but so is the cost to advertisers. Peanuts compared to print costs, and that's where Pitchfork is so relatively deadly. It's the only website that's fulfilling that dread prophecy about web killing print: a 24x7 website requires maybe two or three full time employees and incurs zero production costs (hosting and overage). If they've got anywhere near the numbers SPIN has, and their content changes *every day*, that's a far more attractive audience to advertisers, and to top that, it's cheaper. You just cannot beat that (without a corporation behind you, and SPIN doesn't have that kind of backing). This is as much about SPIN's vulnerability as it is Pitchfork's success, because SPIN is so exposed, but it also points up that professionally printed independent magazines are a probably losing bet from here on out.

There aren't that many good and cheap writers out there (ignoring whether anyone thinks the 'Fork staff is "good," it looks a hell of a lot better if you read other webzines). And where we've faced serious competition, it's only been, in my mind, a good thing. Popmatters, Stylus and PSF were kicking our butt on features for the past few months, but that's spurring us to respond, which is good for everyone.

Sure, someone could surpass and even destroy the 'Fork. But someone could also unseat the Onion - how hard is that, you just tell jokes and post 'em on a website - anyone could do that, right? And anyway, few publications stay vital for more than a few years regardless. I guess I just don't worry about it. Of course, I'm also just a staffer.

Dusted
http://www.dustedmagazine.com/

Signal to Noise
http://www.signaltonoisemagazine.org/

rateyourmusic
http://rateyourmusic.com/

it will become more important/ useful.

Also rateyourmusic website design/ usability destroys AMG.

I also think there are a LOT of music writers on the web who are better than the most of the ones at Pitchfork, too, and they're not that hard to find - but most of them aren't interested in doing what Pitchfork does. Dahlen is right, I think, in that most of the other websites aren't trying to compete with Pitchfork.

Q, January 2005: "THE STONE ROSES: They could have ruled the world."

MOJO, May 2002: "THE STONE ROSES: 'We could have ruled the world.'"

Actually, reviews of older albums like those are the only pieces of music writing I find really compelling these days. It's due partly to my own focus, which has been more on re-evaluation and re-appreciation than discovering brand-new music, and the joy of reading people writing about records that they know really, really well, instead of music they've just run into. A sober second thought is always more interesting than a first impression, for my money.

http://evermusica.com/ever/music/ehm_2004_end.html

Er? Oh, you mean the 136 list? That would take a lot of revising to actually bring anywhere to print, and I honestly can't imagine who'd be interested!