In Shuttering Gawker, BDG Has Now Eliminated Most of Its Culture and Innovation Portfolio

Last May, the media company Bustle Digital Group began efforts to radically transform its Culture & Innovation portfolio, hiring the former global digital director of GQ, Jon Wilde, and unveiling plans to infuse the the titles with more celebrity coverage and a slate of signature events and editorial packages.

At the time, the C&I group included Mic, Gawker, Input and Inverse, two of which—Mic and Gawker—had been relaunched to much fanfare within the last two years.

The titles aimed to build up their newsletter advertising business, court the budgets of luxury brands and build out their reviews and guides sections to bolster its affiliate revenue.

In partnership with Emma Rosenblum, the chief content officer of BDG, and with the blessing of chief executive Bryan Goldberg, Wilde sought to remake the C&I titles in the image of GQ, drawing on the playbook the Condé Nast brand had developed to translate cultural cachet into cash. 

On Tuesday, however, the ambitious experiment drew to an ignominious end, the victim of ill timing and the challenge of operating a sustainable business in the turbulent world of digital media. 

In an internal memo, Goldberg informed staff that BDG would be eliminating 8% of its full-time headcount, as well as shuttering the one-and-a-half-year-old second version of Gawker, which long held a secure space in the world celebrity culture. The cuts come four months after BDG axed Input and cleaned house at Mic, as Adweek first reported.

Together, the amputations represent the majority of its C&I portfolio, leaving only Inverse, its digital entertainment and culture publisher, in a recognizable state. A representative for BDG noted that Mic is still in operation, although with a skeleton staff.

While the Tuesday layoffs of roughly 80 employees affected titles beyond Gawker, including staff at Bustle, Elite Daily and Romper, BDG has reserved its most extreme measures for the C&I group.

The decision to cut so deeply into Mic, Gawker, Inverse and Input reflects both the broader downturn in the digital advertising economy, as well as the particular challenges facing specific verticals, according to Brian Morrissey, a media analyst and author of The Rebooting newsletter. 

“Downturns force decisions and the truth is found in the spreadsheets,” Morrissey said. “[The C&I] titles do not have obviously strong endemic advertisers in the case of Gawker and Mic, while Inverse has tech advertisers, and it’s not a great time for tech.” 

At Gawker, a commercial strategy proved elusive

From its outset, Gawker’s infamously acerbic tone and diffuse editorial focus made it a challenging commercial prospect. 

The original Gawker thrived in an earlier era of digital publishing, leading analysts to question whether the title could attract advertisers and find its financial footing in this new environment. Even Gawker staff understood the risk inherent in joining the company, according to one former writer who joined the publisher at its founding.

The priorities from above kept shifting… None of it ever panned out.

Former Gawker staffer

For its first year, the publication received ample resources and had leeway to experiment. But last fall, the first signs of desperation began to show, according to the former staffer. 

Management cut the freelance budget dramatically, then began rifling through various novel strategies in hopes of landing on a solution. 

“The priorities from above kept shifting,” the person said. “First, we needed to focus on traffic, then search, then celebrity gossip, then selling packages that appealed to sponsors. None of it ever panned out.”

Sales staff struggled to sell Gawker inventory, leaving the publisher to fill its ad slots with in-house promotions for its newsletter and social media feeds. The title also lacked alternative sources of revenue, eschewing subscriptions or a robust commerce operation.

As advertising demand continued to deteriorate across the industry, the experiment ultimately proved too costly, leading to its premature closure. 

BDG focuses on Parenting, Lifestyle and Prestige

Following the dramatic reductions to the C&I portfolio, BDG has now turned its focus to its other three portfolios: Lifestyle, Parenting and Prestige.

These areas of coverage all lend themselves more naturally to multiple streams of revenue generation, Morrissey said, such as affiliate revenues and commerce options. 

They also trade in advertising categories that have proven more resilient over the last three years, including luxury fashion, health and wellness, beauty and parenting. 

By prioritizing verticals that lend themselves more organically to monetization, BDG has positioned itself to navigate the looming economic uncertainty on a more stable footing. 

But the near wholesale elimination of its C&I portfolio poses unsettling questions about the viability of any digital content that does not satisfy an explicit commercial need. 

“Money just became the foremost concern,” said the former staffer. “There was not much we could do about it.”