But wait... isn’t their business all about news at its core? Maybe not so much now.
There is other stuff those investors want them to focus on -- like advertising and "content."
So.. define content. It's not news in this context. It is really about “content” marketing -- that stuff where you sell marketers essentially approved content so they can hang their messaging. Others may call it “native advertising.”
What that means is that BuzzFeed would then be just a marketing platform.
Imagine if a mid-size or struggling TV news network went the same route -- getting rid of expensive editors and reporters and just selling advertising content -- light news, non-controversial, feature-style “magazine” type stories, all with the backing of their big TV marketers.
Do you think that would be a business? It is for some companies.
Indeed, BuzzFeed started with a lot of light news content -- online quizzes, lists, and pop culture articles -- the company grew into a broad media and technology company, providing coverage on a variety of topics including politics and business, and occasionally animals, and business.
BuzzFeed developed and grew with its news coverage -- winning several awards, including a National Magazine Award, a Pulitzer Prize and the George Polk Award.
Right now the company has 100 employees and loses roughly $10 million a year, according to a report at CNBC. (It did offer buyouts to around 30 staffers). But getting rid of its new division could boost market capitalization by $300 million, according to reports.
How many other news organizations -- digital, TV or otherwise -- lose money the same way, and should do the same thing?
Could those big investors now be thinking along those same lines?