If music journalism is dying a slow commercial death, then no one told Pitchfork.
While British magazines such as NME (for which I write reviews), Q and Mojo have seen paid readership nosedive over the past decade, US-based site Pitchfork has launched two music festivals, a perfect-bound print publication and a weekly app magazine, on its way to a high-profile buyout this week by publishing powerhouse Condé Nast.
It is a success that flies in the face of the perceived wisdom around music journalism. But how has Pitchfork done it?
1) Pitchfork has (a lack of) history on its side
When Pitchfork launched in 1996 the British music press was still relatively vibrant, buoyed by the success of Britpop. In the US, things were different: the music magazine sector was dominated by slow-moving monthly titles such as Rolling Stone, which meant there was a gap for a site like Pitchfork, which put a focus on emerging bands and published daily.
NME.com, which launched in 1996, also benefited from this void. But the vast majority of Britain’s music magazines, wedded to the weekly/monthly schedules of their money-making print operations, neglected their online presence.
2) 10.0: the Pitchfork rating system
Pitchfork’s album rating system, with each release rated to one decimal point between 0.0 and 10.0, has been widely mocked online. In 2007, for example, The Onion published a story in which Pitchfork founder Ryan Schreiber reviewed music as a whole, giving it a 6.8.
But while such a ludicrously precise system is easily parodied, it is distinctively Pitchfork, one step removed from the habitual five star / x out of 10 ratings of the music press. This keeps Pitchfork in the public imagination, even among its detractors.
3) Viral content
In the often rather ponderous world of music journalism, Pitchfork isn’t afraid to go for a gag or something a little out of the ordinary. The site’s infamous review of Jet’s second album Shine On featured a video of a monkey peeing into its own mouth, while a review of Radiohead’s Kid A reads like something out of a fever dream, referencing Florence’s Piazza Santa Croce and Italians shouting “Criep!”
This approach isn’t always popular – even Schreiber calls the Kid A review “notorious” – but its viral-friendly, shareable feel certainly builds interest. Schreiber told Variety that the Kid A review “got an unbelievable amount of traffic”, while the Jet piece was a social media hit at a time when the best of the British music press was still firmly locked away in print magazines.
4) Online innovation
The websites of many of Britain’s music magazines remained lamentably poor well into the 2010s and dedicated UK music sites such as The Quietus have largely concentrated on content over design.
Pitchfork, however, has pioneered new techniques in web layout in its Cover Stories features, which combine the best of print design with technical innovation. Cover Stories were intended to improve readability, according to Pitchfork president Chris Kaskie. But they also reinforce the image of a forward-facing, vibrant title that is at the forefront of digital media. Just the kind of thing, in other words, that might interest Condé Nast.
5) Expand, expand, expand
Pitchfork has not rested on its laurels. In 2006 it held the first Pitchfork Festival; in 2008 it launched video site Pitchfork.tv; and in 2013 it released the Pitchfork Review, a quarterly journal that retails for just under $20.
Not all of its new ideas have worked: Nothing Major, a site dedicated to visual arts, lasted less than a year. But Pitchfork has proved adept in using its brand to expand into other areas, sometimes – as with Pitchfork Radio – in tandem with external sponsors.
What Condé Nast bought in Pitchfork, then, was not a music publication; it was “a distinguished digital property that brings a strong editorial voice, an enthusiastic and young audience, a growing video platform and a thriving events business”, to quote CondéNast CEO Bob Sauerberg.
With the best will in the world, you can’t say the same about many UK music magazines.
