Pseudo is Dead.
September 18, 2000 2:35 PM Subscribe
Pseudo is Dead. Shocked, I tell ya, shocked.
not too surprising considering the recent shutdown of their AGN (all games network) just about a month or so ago, but unfortunate nonetheless
posted by physics at 3:11 PM on September 18, 2000
posted by physics at 3:11 PM on September 18, 2000
This is turning into a distinctly interesting chapter in the annals of business history. File under "Fatalism."
posted by highindustrial at 3:48 PM on September 18, 2000
posted by highindustrial at 3:48 PM on September 18, 2000
File under "people with no business running a business getting untold amounts of money to make a purse out of a sow's ear"
posted by owillis at 3:55 PM on September 18, 2000
posted by owillis at 3:55 PM on September 18, 2000
File under "bubble". There's plenty there already.
posted by holgate at 4:50 PM on September 18, 2000
posted by holgate at 4:50 PM on September 18, 2000
wow DEN, POP.com, and now this.
when are people going to learn that the web is not TV and you can't market online television programs, because no one will watch them? And they were surprised?
posted by mathowie at 11:54 PM on September 18, 2000
when are people going to learn that the web is not TV and you can't market online television programs, because no one will watch them? And they were surprised?
posted by mathowie at 11:54 PM on September 18, 2000
Actually I think you can market "online television programs," but only to very specific industries/interests, and they must be cheap to produce (seminars, etc) and have lots of transcripts and HTML material for people with slower connections. It is possible-- but just not the way those schmoes were going about it.
posted by chaz at 1:43 AM on September 19, 2000
posted by chaz at 1:43 AM on September 19, 2000
the talented folk at heavy.com seem to be making a decent attempt at marketing online programs offline, which is excellent
right now more people have tv than broadband internet access, so why not turn things around and produce quality video based content online that you can then sell to traditional broadcasters?
posted by sawks at 5:12 AM on September 19, 2000
right now more people have tv than broadband internet access, so why not turn things around and produce quality video based content online that you can then sell to traditional broadcasters?
posted by sawks at 5:12 AM on September 19, 2000
The problem is these guys keep trying to produce content they think the audience should like and not content the audience actually likes.
For an example, look at Details, Esquire, GQ, etc. For years they produced this high-brow boring fashion magazine stuff that guys could give a crap about. Along comes Maxim and writes stuff real guys are interested in and blows all those other mags out of the water.
posted by owillis at 7:12 AM on September 19, 2000
For an example, look at Details, Esquire, GQ, etc. For years they produced this high-brow boring fashion magazine stuff that guys could give a crap about. Along comes Maxim and writes stuff real guys are interested in and blows all those other mags out of the water.
posted by owillis at 7:12 AM on September 19, 2000
And Maxim was just a branch off of what Men's Health was doing ages ago. Maxim just did it better by covering all of the bases other than excercise, IMO.
posted by Cavatica at 8:40 AM on September 19, 2000
posted by Cavatica at 8:40 AM on September 19, 2000
« Older Can a corrupt IOC | Censorship on a public Blog? Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
"staff meeting at 1PM EST....wonder what the topic is?"
"will you guys stream the staff meeting? it might draw a record audience."
posted by aaron at 2:48 PM on September 18, 2000