Tom is no longer my friend.
June 29, 2011 2:54 PM Subscribe

It's official, Myspace has been sold to Specific Media with News Corporation will taking a minority equity stake in Specific Media. Specific Media touts itself as an innovative global interactive media company that enables advertisers to connect with consumers in meaningful, impactful [sic] and relevant ways. Once the crown jewel of News Corps online empire, it had faded into a quick decline selling for only $35 Million after being purchased for $580 Million in 2005. Specific Media, fueled by investment capitol have been acquiring various media platforms and faced a privacy lawsuit for re-creating deleted cookies. What this means for Myspace for now is a significant reduction in our workforce. A former employee gave some insight MySpace in their previous round of layoffs in January of this year.
posted by wcfields (106 comments total) 6 users marked this as a favorite

And nothing of value was lost.
posted by inedible at 2:55 PM on June 29, 2011 [7 favorites]

What's wrong with "impactful"?
posted by roll truck roll at 2:58 PM on June 29, 2011 [1 favorite]

What's wrong with "impactful"?

Everything.
posted by joe lisboa at 2:58 PM on June 29, 2011 [25 favorites]

...News Corporation will taking a minority equity stake in Specific Media.
Just let it go.
Just let it go.
posted by Thorzdad at 2:58 PM on June 29, 2011

no serial comma
posted by Big_B at 2:59 PM on June 29, 2011 [3 favorites]

wcfields: "News Corporation will taking a minority equity stake in Specific Media."

Woops, copy/pasted from the press release without deleting the extra words.
posted by wcfields at 3:00 PM on June 29, 2011

Plus once upon a time Google paid $900M for the exclusive rights to advertise on MySpace. (the link discusses the deal that followed that one).

One might suspect that based on this selling price that Google overpaid for those ads a bit.
posted by GuyZero at 3:01 PM on June 29, 2011 [1 favorite]

I'm not Specifically too interested.
posted by box at 3:01 PM on June 29, 2011

Another former MySpace employee chimed in here at MeFi as well. Or, I guess, it could be the same person. I dunno.
posted by NoMich at 3:03 PM on June 29, 2011

It's easy to stop a car rolling when it's on a flat surface. It's quite another thing to stop one that's rolling downhill. Specific has quite the challenge on their hands.
posted by tommasz at 3:05 PM on June 29, 2011

And if you look at it the right way 2000 to, well, now looks a lot like a bunch of smartass kids absolutely sticking it to "old media" right where it really hurts - their wallets.

"This is for..." *lunge* "...killing Kurt Cobain!" *stab" "And this is for Napster. And this..." *stabby* "...is for Clear Channel and Fox News!"
posted by loquacious at 3:05 PM on June 29, 2011 [21 favorites]

What's wrong with "impactful"?

1: It's a made up word and

2: used mostly by marketing and advertising middle managers
posted by Scoo at 3:06 PM on June 29, 2011 [9 favorites]

MySpace selling for $35 million makes them cheaper than the very whores they once created.
posted by revmitcz at 3:07 PM on June 29, 2011 [3 favorites]

When do the artists move back in for the cheap rents?
posted by entropicamericana at 3:10 PM on June 29, 2011

roll truck roll: "What's wrong with "impactful"?"

joe lisboa: "Everything."

It's in Merriam-Webster, and it's been cited back to 1973. So either you think words aren't words until they're in the OED, or you think forty years isn't long enough for something to become a legitimate word. Maybe the answer is in your email.
posted by Plutor at 3:10 PM on June 29, 2011 [8 favorites]

Scoo: "It's a made up word"

You're going to be shocked when you learn that all words are made up.
posted by Plutor at 3:10 PM on June 29, 2011 [48 favorites]

See if they gave just a fraction of that money to me just imagine what a nice boat I would have today.
posted by I Foody at 3:11 PM on June 29, 2011 [3 favorites]

Some words were handed down from god.
posted by found missing at 3:12 PM on June 29, 2011 [1 favorite]

I do not deny that impactful is a word (albeit, one not in the Metafilter dictionary, evidently) but I reserve the right to loathe it based on the contexts in which it is typically used.

The word conjures up an indelible image of a clip-art-laden PowerPoint one is forced to endure. As usual, YMMV.
posted by joe lisboa at 3:12 PM on June 29, 2011 [4 favorites]

With "cloud computing" hype at an all-time high, wouldn't it be hilarious if MySpace returned to the online storage fray, back where it started? I guess they could always go back to malware.

When MySpace is eventually torn down completely, profiles and all, will the same people who've clamored for archives of Geocities and Encyclopedia Dramatica shed a tear for the loss of all those godawful band demos, blinged out GIFs and meticulously angled, trout-pout portraits?
posted by defenestration at 3:12 PM on June 29, 2011 [1 favorite]

So either you think words aren't words until they're in the OED, or you think forty years isn't long enough for something to become a legitimate word.

Oh, it might be a word. But legitimate?
posted by monju_bosatsu at 3:13 PM on June 29, 2011

It's a word from 1973.

That was not a good year for words.
posted by mazola at 3:13 PM on June 29, 2011 [8 favorites]

Oh, it might be a word. But legitimate?

Would you prefer cromulent?
posted by entropicamericana at 3:14 PM on June 29, 2011 [1 favorite]

I'll bite: Who the heck is Specific Media? Judging by the nebulous descriptions on their website, they couldn't possibly have come up with a less apt name.
posted by Sys Rq at 3:14 PM on June 29, 2011 [3 favorites]

See if they gave just a fraction of that money to me just imagine what a nice boat I would have today.

Wouldn't that depend on just what particular fraction they gave you?
posted by The World Famous at 3:17 PM on June 29, 2011

"Impactful" should only be used when discussing punctuation, as in "the impactful colon."
posted by zippy at 3:17 PM on June 29, 2011 [13 favorites]

as in "the impactful colon."

That's something you really ought to have checked out.
posted by The World Famous at 3:19 PM on June 29, 2011 [9 favorites]

the impactful colon

Mission: Impossible
posted by Sys Rq at 3:20 PM on June 29, 2011

You have to pity the poor word "Impact". It's become the most tortured word in the English language, simply because some marketing droid couldn't figure-out the difference between "effect" and "affect".
posted by Thorzdad at 3:21 PM on June 29, 2011 [23 favorites]

> One might suspect that based on this selling price that Google overpaid for those ads a bit.

Probably not by a lot. Especially not when the initial contract was signed in 2007, when Facebook was ascendent but not at the top.

Exclusive advertising contracts are inherently pricey. The absence of competition is valuable to the advertiser/broker (you have a lock on audience attention! The only ad that can be clicked on is yours!), and so the medium (magazine/TV network/website) is going to charge a premium for it.

Time magazine might only make mumble million dollars in advertising off each week's issue. But they will charge you some multiple -- maybe not a whole multiple, possibly only 1.3x; it depends on who's negotiating for each side and how much Time thinks they can milk you for -- if you propose buying up every advertising slot in an issue.

Even while MySpace was in decline, there were still many millions of page hits going on every day. Google placed a lot of ads. Google can afford it, made a pile of money on it, and probably did okay by the deal. Ultimately it might not have been profitable, but I'd bet they've lost more money on other ventures.
posted by ardgedee at 3:21 PM on June 29, 2011

Murdoch buying Myspace at $580M and selling at $35M-ish (minority stake, blah blah blah) makes me feel warm and fuzzy inside.
posted by Mister Fabulous at 3:23 PM on June 29, 2011 [19 favorites]

I'm so glad that Murdoch lost so much money here, and so publicly -- he was going to show us the way, and everyone on the internet was going to line up like cows to the slaughter to pay for whatever scum content he put out. And now that's over. Done.

In a way, I'm sorry it's sold, because it was a constant online reminder of that failure, a smile anytime anyone brought up the word. Plus, maybe if they held out longer they would have lost even more money -- sweet.
posted by dancestoblue at 3:25 PM on June 29, 2011

Mister Fabulous: "Murdoch buying Myspace at $580M and selling at $35M-ish (minority stake, blah blah blah) makes me feel warm and fuzzy inside."

News Corp's revenue was $8.26 billion last quarter.
posted by zarq at 3:26 PM on June 29, 2011 [2 favorites]

"Specific has quite the challenge on their hands."

What they've really bought is a user base of millions of people who haven't yet switched to the competition, so their first challenge will be stemming the blood loss. Then, if they're smart they'll figure out what people don't like about Facebook and completely redesign Myspace to fill that niche. Surely there'd be some demand for the "antiFacebook" out there.
posted by Kevin Street at 3:28 PM on June 29, 2011

Well I don't think he did lose money though. He had all that revenue from Google - so while he might not have made as much as he was expecting to, he still did ok.
posted by awfurby at 3:28 PM on June 29, 2011

This is a really informative news post, wcfields; thanks. The "using Flash cookies to reinstate deleted traditional cookies" lawsuit is one to watch, for sure.
posted by mediareport at 3:30 PM on June 29, 2011

*lawsuits*, I should have said.
posted by mediareport at 3:31 PM on June 29, 2011

I'm so glad that Murdoch lost so much money here, and so publicly --

Me too, but I'm far gladder that impactful is a word, even if my Firefox spell-check begs to differ. Because the life I lead is nothing if not impactful.
posted by philip-random at 3:35 PM on June 29, 2011 [1 favorite]

zarq: News Corp's revenue was $8.26 billion last quarter.

Now I feel cold and sad inside. Why did you have to do that?
posted by Mister Fabulous at 3:37 PM on June 29, 2011 [3 favorites]

We already sorta covered this
posted by boo_radley at 3:37 PM on June 29, 2011

inedible: And nothing of value was lost.

I'd like to agree, except I've actually become a fan of their streaming music, and it's actually expanded well beyond the 5 track limit they used to have. For example: 12 albums and EPs by Cake (including clean and explicit versions), and a whole lot of Venetian Snares. Not samples, not a few tracks from each album, COMPLETE ALBUMS. The pop-out player is silly but I've gotten used to it, and the flash-ads are obnoxious but those disappear so nicely with ad blockers.

And also, they're a decent place to host longer videos, as they don't seem to be monitored as closely as other sites.
posted by filthy light thief at 3:39 PM on June 29, 2011 [2 favorites]

Mister Fabulous: " Now I feel cold and sad inside. Why did you have to do that?"

Sorry.....
posted by zarq at 3:41 PM on June 29, 2011

That was incredibly stupid of Google.

Specific Media touts itself as an innovative global interactive media company that enables advertisers to connect with consumers in meaningful, impactful [sic] and relevant ways.

They'll rename it 'MySpam'
posted by jamjam at 3:41 PM on June 29, 2011

When MySpace is eventually torn down completely, profiles and all, will the same people who've clamored for archives of Geocities and Encyclopedia Dramatica shed a tear for the loss of all those godawful band demos, blinged out GIFs and meticulously angled, trout-pout portraits?

I will. I've already backed up my 50+ pages of MySpace blogs, but what should I do with them? Stick them in Blogger? Leave them in my hard drive? The world must know that I saw bands and smiled at girls!

Seriously this is a blow. I know MySpace is an abandoned joke but Facebook hasn't got their music shit together yet, so finding tour dates and hearing new bands is going to be harder. MySpace made my music website job so much easier and it's still the best way to hear a bunch of tracks and decide whether I want to go to a show.
Besides the practicality it's weird that something I spent years on can just disappear or fade away. I guess it is about time it got put out of it's misery but it's like seeing an old clubhouse demolished.
posted by Lovecraft In Brooklyn at 3:41 PM on June 29, 2011 [2 favorites]

Well I don't think he did lose money though. He had all that revenue from Google . . .

He lost money hand over fist on MySpace, Google revenue notwithstanding:

The site still lost money. For the three months through March, the News Corp segment that includes MySpace lost $165 million.

That was worse than the $150 million loss it posted a year earlier, mainly because of lower advertising revenue at the site.

That marked the 11th straight quarterly loss since mid-2008, over which time the segment lost about $1.4 billion cumulatively. source
posted by The Bellman at 3:44 PM on June 29, 2011 [1 favorite]

I was halfway joking, LiB. Thing is, it's just how the internet works. I remember back when mp3.com shuttered and rebranded. Same shit, different service.
posted by defenestration at 3:44 PM on June 29, 2011

Dear Designer,

We need something really impactful. We need to tell the story of the brand in a forward thinking manner. We need synergistic solutions that speak to the breadth of the My Space Experience and captures mind share. In conclusion, make it sticky, and make it pop.

Sincerely,
A. Douchebag, Creative Director, Twatington & Dinkly
posted by nathancaswell at 3:52 PM on June 29, 2011 [10 favorites]

No matter what happens to the actual MySpace, I think taking a picture of yourself with your arm over your head will always be called the "MySpace shot".
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 3:55 PM on June 29, 2011 [3 favorites]

Then, if they're smart they'll figure out what people don't like about Facebook and completely redesign Myspace to fill that niche. Surely there'd be some demand for the "antiFacebook" out there.

From what I read today, google+ might fill this niche nicely. I mean, I've never had a facebook account, and I'd at least like to try google+.
posted by Netzapper at 3:58 PM on June 29, 2011 [1 favorite]

News Corp's revenue was $8.26 billion last quarter.

Revenue != profit.
posted by UbuRoivas at 4:04 PM on June 29, 2011

(unless you don't have any costs)
posted by UbuRoivas at 4:05 PM on June 29, 2011

I hope they reinvent it as free somewhat sandboxy, somewhat constrained webspace for visual artists, musicians, writers and programmers. If I had my druthers, that's what they'd do - turn the once "bad neighborhood" into the art district. I have a feeling I'm going to be sorely disappointed.

MySpace, now with GentriFi.

You know what they say: where the net.artists go, the domain-squatters follow, stimulating the local economy with free-flowing bitcoins.
posted by defenestration at 4:07 PM on June 29, 2011 [2 favorites]

UbuRoivas: "(unless you don't have any costs)"

Silly Putty is about $80 for 5 pounds; do the math on how many cases one would need to create Fox & Friends and you have your major cost center right there.
posted by wcfields at 4:08 PM on June 29, 2011 [8 favorites]

(albeit, one not in the Metafilter dictionary, evidently)

Metafilter has no dictionary; your browser's built-in spellcheck function is responsible for any prescriptive guidance here.
posted by cortex at 4:09 PM on June 29, 2011 [1 favorite]

Impactful is one of my favoritest words. It's much more powerfuller than most other choices.
posted by Benny Andajetz at 4:15 PM on June 29, 2011

Apparently Justin Timberlake is actually going to try to help them turn the business around??

It's all fun until the intern's sorority party gets busted for coke, or whatever.
posted by mauvest at 4:21 PM on June 29, 2011 [1 favorite]

That was not me on Reddit - I still worked there until today. All of my thoughts were in the previous thread except for this - it feels really good to not have to take MySpace's future personally any more.
posted by flaterik at 4:21 PM on June 29, 2011

MySpace versus Facebook - Google Trends
posted by rh at 4:26 PM on June 29, 2011

What did Joachim von Ribbentrop's Myspace status say after his meeting with Vyacheslav Molotov?

"im pactful"
posted by Anything at 4:26 PM on June 29, 2011 [3 favorites]

Apparently Justin Timberlake is actually going to try to help them turn the business around??

Whoa. Someone on Twitter said something about this and I thought it was a weird joke that I just didn't get. Nope. Actual truth that I just don't get!
posted by grapesaresour at 4:32 PM on June 29, 2011

Metafilter has no dictionary; your browser's built-in spellcheck function is responsible for any prescriptive guidance here.

Pony request? A MeFi dictionary. One that replaces CorpSpeak neologisms with a link to a photo of Fred Rogers eating taters with David Foster Wallace whilst both watch The Muppet Show.
posted by joe lisboa at 4:40 PM on June 29, 2011

Or not.
posted by joe lisboa at 4:47 PM on June 29, 2011

I moved out of the Myspace building last Friday, and it was a terrific ride. I do not regret any of the 4+ years I spent with the company.

The most surreal part of those final days was doing due diligence work, including being on calls with the "client's lawyers," without ever knowing who the client was. I found out today from All Things D, like everyone else.
posted by sawdustbear at 5:06 PM on June 29, 2011 [1 favorite]

The problem with "impactful" is that it does not communicate anything, despite the brio that its practitioners imagine it to have. It's not clear from the word itself if it's a positive or negative impact, if it is extensive, if it happens slowly or quickly. It doesn't actually say anything, and this should be clear to any speaker of English, but people who are not interested in actual communication use it to lend a false impression of dynamism to their ill-formed and poorly-articulated thoughts. That's what's wrong with it.
posted by clockzero at 5:17 PM on June 29, 2011 [13 favorites]

That's an effective explanation, clockzero. Thanks.
posted by The World Famous at 5:20 PM on June 29, 2011

Impactfully put, clockzero.
posted by joe lisboa at 5:20 PM on June 29, 2011 [3 favorites]

I do not regret any of the ~~4+ years I spent with~~ paychecks I cashed from the company.

...some marketing droid couldn't figure-out the difference between "effect" and "affect".

lack of affect:

Holden: Describe in single words only the good things that come into your mind about... your mother.
Leon: My mother?
Holden: Yeah.
Leon: Let me tell you about my mother.

posted by ennui.bz at 5:25 PM on June 29, 2011 [1 favorite]

lack of affect:

Eh, we're talking about MySpace, here, not Union Carbide and the Bhopal Disaster - or Facebook.
posted by loquacious at 5:29 PM on June 29, 2011

Will someone please think of the glitter animated gifs?
posted by stormpooper at 5:34 PM on June 29, 2011 [1 favorite]

My name is Tom and your post title upsets me.
posted by marxchivist at 5:53 PM on June 29, 2011 [2 favorites]

The problem with "impactful" is that it does not communicate anything

Then we should do the needful & action it appropriately.
posted by UbuRoivas at 6:07 PM on June 29, 2011 [1 favorite]

The problem with "impactful" is that it does not communicate anything, despite the brio that its practitioners imagine it to have.

I have no particular love for "impactful", but what you say here is true of any number of semantically similar intesifying adjectives when used lazily or with intent to deceive. "Significant" means no more out of context; "notable", "awesome", "stunning", "momentous", "substantial", "extraordinary", "weighty", and on and on with different flavors fit for all sorts of varying circumstances. It's no more or less valid a word to slot into the "let's say this is a big deal" role as any of the others, and as a simple derivation from "impact" its meaning, such as it is, is crystal clear. "Of great impact" would work as well generally speaking but conciseness inclines us toward shorter forms, which is why the +ful suffix has been as productive as it has been over the centuries.

Be annoyed at it for being prominent in marketing speak, be annoyed at it for its perceived faddishness, be annoyed at it because you just don't like the shape of the word or the feel of it on the tongue. By all means have your preferences. But arguing that it is somehow an aberration in a language brimming with semantically similar but wholly unremarked-upon words is silly. You're allowed to have peeves without just-so stories to back them up, and those stories don't make the peeves anything nobler besides.
posted by cortex at 6:09 PM on June 29, 2011 [6 favorites]

Be annoyed at it for being prominent in marketing speak, be annoyed at it for its perceived faddishness, be annoyed at it because you just don't like the shape of the word or the feel of it on the tongue. By all means have your preferences. But arguing that it is somehow an aberration ...

For the record, I wish I were able to claim that impactful is an aberration, but I did not and do not. As you say, there are plenty of shit words in the English language. (paraphrased slightly)
posted by joe lisboa at 6:21 PM on June 29, 2011

When I say "impactful" it tastes like burning!
posted by loquacious at 6:46 PM on June 29, 2011

Hello, I'm emjaybee, and I hate impactful. It's a word that sounds stupid, and is only used seriously by people (often stupid) trying to sell you something (also often stupid). It is ugly and clunky and vague and worst of all, unnecessary.

On the other hand, defenestration's comment taught me a wonderful new phrase: trout-pout. I love slang that packs so much meaning into so little space. Unlike impactful, it is both useful and interesting.

/derail

Oh yeah, and Myspace, whatever. Home of horrible band pages and avalanches of spam. Begone.
posted by emjaybee at 6:47 PM on June 29, 2011 [1 favorite]

Where should I go if I want concise band bios, tour dates, and music clips? Its mostly on Facebook now, with a bit of YouTube, but I hope they streamline it and keep the music section.
posted by Lovecraft In Brooklyn at 8:07 PM on June 29, 2011

The "My" prefix was doomed to fail. Kids today want "I" things; iPads, iPhones, iPods...

It's not about owning your content, it's about your content advertising your "I-ness".

Except YouTube. Or maybe the Wii.

Excuse us, our funding for VosotrosSpace fell through. We hope y'all will forgive us.
posted by twoleftfeet at 8:31 PM on June 29, 2011

MySpecificSpace

Still not impactful. Lacks zazz.
posted by krinklyfig at 8:31 PM on June 29, 2011

All the cool kids will have to move to My Excite or My Netscape now.
posted by twoleftfeet at 8:34 PM on June 29, 2011

Impactful is a bit like paradigm. A perfectly good word, misused to the point where you feel guilty even when you use it correctly.

Interesting side note: paradigm is a perfect paradigm for paradigm.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 8:54 PM on June 29, 2011 [1 favorite]

I feel for those poor investors who paid umpteen billion dollars to close a deal, right on the day that Google came out with a strong competitor in the same field.
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 11:07 PM on June 29, 2011

____________
posted by maxwelton at 1:55 AM on June 30, 2011

I still use myspace to find band touring dates because the only thing worse looking and less usable than myspace is a band website.
posted by srboisvert at 3:50 AM on June 30, 2011 [5 favorites]

I have no particular love for "impactful", but what you say here is true of any number of semantically similar intesifying adjectives when used lazily or with intent to deceive. "Significant" means no more out of context; "notable", "awesome", "stunning", "momentous", "substantial", "extraordinary", "weighty", and on and on with different flavors fit for all sorts of varying circumstances.

You're right that there are many multi-purpose intensifier adjectives in English that are deployed similarly. Personally, I find "impactful" to be far less meaningful than even those others you mentioned, and I think a fair proportion of English speakers think the same.

Be annoyed at it for being prominent in marketing speak, be annoyed at it for its perceived faddishness, be annoyed at it because you just don't like the shape of the word or the feel of it on the tongue. By all means have your preferences. But arguing that it is somehow an aberration in a language brimming with semantically similar but wholly unremarked-upon words is silly. You're allowed to have peeves without just-so stories to back them up, and those stories don't make the peeves anything nobler besides.

I didn't mean to suggest that it's a complete aberration or anomalously aberrational. I don't think what I said was really a just-so story, or that I was attempting to make my personal opinion "nobler" than it would be without my relatively brief rationale. I think you're being just a tad pedantic, cortex :-)
posted by clockzero at 8:21 AM on June 30, 2011

And nothing of value was lost.

Among other big (and small) deal comings and goings, the history of the so-called internets seems to be a history of big-deal corporate entities wandering boldly, arrogantly, foolishly into deceptively easy money-making situations and getting their asses handed to them. Case in point (and one that seems mostly forgotten), Disney (who turned everything they touched into gold back in the 90s) and the their Go.com misadventure which cost them better part of a billion dollars in slightly more than two years (late 1998 through early 2001).

One is reminded of those old movies where a file of redcoats (or perhaps cavalry) wander into a narrow canyon and get massacred by various enemy elements lying in wait. I always loved those movies.
posted by philip-random at 9:15 AM on June 30, 2011

METAFILTER: people who are not interested in actual communication use it to lend a false impression of dynamism to their ill-formed and poorly-articulated thoughts
posted by philip-random at 9:16 AM on June 30, 2011

Personally, I find "impactful" to be far less meaningful than even those others you mentioned

But why? Why is the word itself less meaningful than other words that fill the same role? Is the root word "impact" itself somehow relatively bereft of meaning? Is there something suspect about the +ful suffix derivation, in general or in this case? What is it that makes the word lack meaning? Annoyance at a word's marketroid social circle doesn't gut it of semantic content.

I think you're being just a tad pedantic, cortex

Heaven forfend, my good fellow.
posted by cortex at 9:40 AM on June 30, 2011

Pedants? In my MetaFilter?
posted by entropicamericana at 11:15 AM on June 30, 2011

But why? Why is the word itself less meaningful than other words that fill the same role? Is the root word "impact" itself somehow relatively bereft of meaning? Is there something suspect about the +ful suffix derivation, in general or in this case? What is it that makes the word lack meaning? Annoyance at a word's marketroid social circle doesn't gut it of semantic content.

Those are interesting questions. Impact, itself, is not the most colorful word, so that doesn't help matters, and I think you're on to something with your suffix thought there. Usually adjectives ending in "ful" are derived from specific qualities or states of being; beauty, awake, harm, etc. Impact has no quality. It has no emotional resonance, no connection to a state of being that means anything to anyone. So the resulting description is floridly insubstantial. That's what I was getting at earlier.

Heaven forfend, my good fellow.

Would that it would, but alas.
posted by clockzero at 1:21 PM on June 30, 2011

Impact has no quality. It has no emotional resonance, no connection to a state of being that means anything to anyone.

It has no impact, you're saying?
posted by cortex at 3:00 PM on June 30, 2011 [2 favorites]

No emotional resonance? Clearly you're not talking about the font.
posted by box at 3:12 PM on June 30, 2011

The surface of the moon is very impactful.
posted by Sys Rq at 3:56 PM on June 30, 2011 [1 favorite]

But, seriously, folks: Who is MySpace's daddy, and what does he do?

Does Specific Media have any sort of history or profile that can be summed up in an actual, buzzword-free description? They don't even have an entry on Wikipedia, ffs.
posted by Sys Rq at 4:02 PM on June 30, 2011

Sys Rq: "Does Specific Media have any sort of history or profile that can be summed up in an actual, buzzword-free description? They don't even have an entry on Wikipedia, ffs."

They are the trafficer / monitizer of web ad-space. Think of them as JCDecaux or Clear Channel Outdoor is to billboards: SM sells your ad space in aggregate to advertisers and cuts you, the site owner, a royalties check. You get more money through them versus if you would have tried to sell your own ad space.

Here's a list of the different things they sell [pdf].
posted by wcfields at 4:24 PM on June 30, 2011

Oh. They sell banner ads. How quaint!
posted by Sys Rq at 4:41 PM on June 30, 2011

It has no impact, you're saying?

I'm saying impactful has less impact than impact.
posted by clockzero at 9:45 PM on June 30, 2011

Their frigging website is so frustrating and slow to use I don't even bother to log on and update my artist songs anymore. The barrage of messages, the way they try to steer you towards horrible top-40 favored content... fuck those guys with a barge pole.

Yeah, for all of its problems, MySpace was (once upon a time) a decent way to promote music and reach out to fans. I used to get messages from DJs asking for CDs to play on their radio shows or at clubs, but that completely dried up after their huge revamp. Now it's just a spam factory, and it's somehow even uglier than it was before. Maybe Justin Timberlake has some brilliant ideas on how to fix it, but I'm not holding my breath.

The tragic thing is that it still absolutely blows away Facebook as a platform for musicians.
posted by malocchio at 7:57 AM on July 1, 2011

I'm saying impactful has less impact than impact.

Does "beautiful" have less impact than "beauty", "doleful" less than "dole", "cheerful" less than "cheer", "eventful" less than "event"? Or, does the +ful prefix have a subtle sorting function where everything other than "impact" gets assigned to the "still gets to be a credible word" bin and impact goes in the "it's a bit crap now, actually" by some discernible criteria?

What is the specific quality or emotional resonance or state of being that means anything to anyone of e.g. "duty", or "ear", or "fruit", or "use", or "zest", that +ful derivatives of those roots get a pass for all of those? What sets "impact" categorically apart from all the other unremarkable words that take that suffix, or its derivative form apart from all the other unremarkable +ful derivatives?
posted by cortex at 8:13 AM on July 1, 2011

someone said as much already. Impactful doesn't cut it because a certain variety of vacuous, greedy, bottomline-obsessed, corporate bullshit artists were early adapters. Fuck them and their favorite words. In time, perhaps the wound will heal and we'll be able to judge "impactful" on its context-free merits ... but first we need to eat all the rich.
posted by philip-random at 10:43 AM on July 1, 2011

Early adopters were the folks using it in the 19th century. Marketers are Johnnies Come Lately.

And, again, I make no argument that faddish bizspeak saturation isn't a justification for being annoyed at the word, or any other. Be annoyed by it by all means. Avoid using it, either out of specific dislike for the word or out of sensible caution about using a word others will react overtly to.

But annoyance or tactical avoidance for those reasons says nothing about the actual semantic content of the word itself, so any claim that the problem is with the word or its root rather than with popular perceptions of the crap habits of marketers needs to be justified external to that angle. It's those claims I'm responding to, not to any idea that being annoyed by the word if you want to be annoyed by it is a problem.

If I have a thesis here, it's that the fact that it's satisfying or popular to repudiate the marketing industry should not be used as a smokescreen for poorly justified claims about language. "Eat the rich" is, all else aside, not linguistics, and neither is casual peevery.
posted by cortex at 11:01 AM on July 1, 2011

It's surprising to me that 'impactful' is so offensive to many. It's a word like any other, but the truth is that it's a terrible sounding word. IMO it's a legitimate word but the English language could be better off without it.
posted by danielcoda at 2:06 AM on July 2, 2011

OTOH, the English language could be improved by a word like 'intactful', especially because it's one of those kinds of words that will lead to endless ongoing confusion between in-tactful (the true meaning) and intact-ful (the idiot's version) so in effect it will become a sort of lit mouse test for proper language use.
posted by UbuRoivas at 4:46 AM on July 2, 2011

I don't know, something about it seems a tad cruel.

I mean, I don't want to respond to every tactless act by setting a mouse on fire.
posted by box at 7:50 AM on July 2, 2011

« Older The Oxford writing and style guide no longer advoc... | Get ready to meet the fourth o... Newer »

This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments

Tom is no longer my friend. June 29, 2011 2:54 PM Subscribe

Tom is no longer my friend.
June 29, 2011 2:54 PM Subscribe