They have hit a new low for allowing the grammy's to sponsor their site.

It is rather ironic.

booooooo

yeh it really hurts their legitimacy

HAHA.

i'm working the EMI grammy party. i've just lost all indie cred.

however, if the stones show up.....

Maybe Pitchfork gets a free tv commercial in return, haha.

I think there is one category that I even remotely care about and that is the artist who has sold under 500,000 units.

[/thread]

[broken record]why the fuck do you guys care where they are getting there advertising dollars from? i mean Suicide Girls or Ed's Dipshit Records is somehow a different kind of money than the Grammy's?I see. Pass out the MBAs[/broken record]

Yep.

Because Pitchfork is leading the front for making Independent music more mainstream. It is one of the messengers to the world that there is an alternative music out there than is being force fed to the planet thru MTV and Radio. I want them to stand behind the issues that have made them as prominent as they are. They don't need to cheapen themselves by promoting the suicide girls and the Grammys.

I'm all for them making money doing what they do.

this is true. I'd rather see a grammy ad on pitchfork than another damned suicide girls banner.

The issue is whether or not such an alliance would Change pitchfork. If it didn't make any difference in the magazine, then there is no reason why anyone should care.

who says there's an alliance?

many of the artists that they review on that site are part of the recording academy, with ascap, bmi, riaa, all those dudes. just because the academy is buying their ad space doesn't mean they're going to be humping mariah carey.

they're doing good for themselves if the recording academy is buying up their space. if they've done some shady deal to get that ad spaced bought, then you'll see it over time. in the meantime, its just a banner ad.

Yeah, you made my point better than I did. I chose the wrong word. Like calling "buying a McGriddle" a contract or something.

Oops.

haha.

here's a mcgriddle, dr. alliance.

Here-to-fore, I agree to provide the sum of 4 quarters, 3 nickels, and 2 pence, for the exchange of exactly one (1) McGriddle, to be provided to me in steaming hot condition, and otherwise unrelieved of its natural deliciousness.

First off, MTV and radio are not force feeding music to anyone. That's not how markets work. MTV and radio are giving their audience music that they want to hear. It may not be what you or I want to hear, but that's not the point.

Think of it this way, McDonald's tried to convince us that the McRib was food. We knew better, and now it is gone. Force feeding doesn't work. People buy what they want & need, not what is sold to them. Someone should probably point that out to General Motors.

Secondly, Pitchfork may be big compared to other outlets for music no one listens to, but I can guarantee 9 out of 10 people I see everyday have no idea it exists. That really hurts the chances of Pitchfork making anything all that mainstream.

Thirdly, they aren't cheapening themselves. They are merely providing a vehicle for advertisers to get their message out. Just because some magazine has an ad for Newports doesn't necessarily mean they want you to start smoking.

Also, does this also mean that Pitchfork shouldn't advertise records they pan?

Uhhh, Fu- Lazarus McRib has risen out here.

^ could have been taken word-for-word from any number of my current classes.

Toyota Plan: Research market, make what people say they want.

GM/Ford Plan: Find out what you can get cheap, then make something out of it, then tell marketing "go sell this."

Current days-onhand supply of Ford Explorers: 365-ish. Target: 60.

What happens in Las Vegas…stays in Las Vegas.

while i agree with you on a number of points, we could go further to say that people aren't hearing what they want to hear, they're hearing what they're told that they want to hear. the term "programming" goes deeper than just making a playlist...

Yeah, but that's the same as most magazines and media; they set about creating and programming content that they think their customers will find most appealing so they'll keep coming back/viewing/purchasing. That fact helps advertising, naturally.

It's not all as nefarious as some conspiracy theorists would postulate — a bunch of suits in a smoky room saying, "Let's figure out what ways we can further dumb down the sheeple this week — but every media outlet works hard to figure out what it's customers will most enjoy and keep them coming back.
That's business.

what i'm curiuos about is if the RIAA believes that they can persuade pitchfork readers to watch the grammys. sounds like a waste of money to me...

Have you seen the shit their member companies put out into the marketplace? Record companies waste money in a manner that would make the BIg Three jump off a building.