Bustle

I must confess. I read a lot of interesting articles I wouldn't normally otherwise because my friends post them on Facebook. I do read news, but I tend to focus on things that interest me, and that sometimes precludes items my friends find. They found an interesting article yesterday about a new online magazine called Bustle, and I spent a good hour trying to figure out whether the CEO believes any press is good press or he's just terribly misguided.

By-passing the fact that anyone under 30, maybe even 40, have no idea that a bustle is an undergarment worn by women during time periods requiring them to wear a dress with lift in the back every day (1910?). In fact, the first time many women hear about a bustle these days is when they go wedding dress shopping. Setting that aside and thinking maybe the founder was thinking hustle and bustle and it was already taken, I continued to read several articles implying he's a misogynist who should have his head examined.

One such article was on Slate, who I think covered the topic fairly well - new magazine exclusively addressing the fact that women like to read world news and celebrity gossip in the same sitting (HuffPo, anyone?) that was the only one of its' kind. Slate pulled out at least 15 feminist focused online magazines that do exactly the same thing as Bustle, and they launched 5-10 years ago. So what about this is new, or different for that matter? And why is this guy so impressed with himself and his product?

Bryan Goldberg founded the Bleacher Report, which covers sports news I assume he knows well and has an interest in. Clearly he has an interest in women, but I think he might be going about communicating that in a way designed to irritate and anger the very feminist women he is attempting to attract to his site. In fact, of all the sites I looked at yesterday, I never once went to Bustle to figure out if I'd even read it. I was too busy trying to figure out if, with the mountains of free time I have, the guy was enough of a jackass that I wouldn't want to support it.

Back to the news. When Forbes immediately publishes an article about whether Bustle just launched a $6.5 million dollar bust, you have to think - who gave this guy $6.5 million for this idea? Did it sound different when he pitched it? If it did, why didn't he use that pitch with the media? For most people, venture funding is hard to come by, and your idea is dissected before they agree to give money. I guess not in this case. Unless he managed to resurrect some really rich guys from oh, say, 1900 who had no idea women could write, much less be interested and understand the concepts of politics and fashion all in the same sitting.

CBC also posted something terribly funny and refreshingly balanced on the topic. They used the Twittersphere response to illustrate the backlash, and I learned a new word (mansplaining). The Globe & Mail also commented, and referred readers to a hilarious on-point piece at the Medium, which made me laugh out loud. The piece on Medium did something no other piece did, though - identified the VC's that ponied up the $6.5 mil.

By investing in what has become a laughingstock of a man's view of feminism and feminist issues that may as well have come from Elizabethan England and embarrassingly occurred yesterday, I have to wonder what they are communicating themselves. Do they believe all the nonsense Goldberg is spouting? Do they view their female customers the same way he does?

There were many more articles, written worldwide, about how badly the idea of Bustle has been communicated to the very people they view as their target market. The point here is communication matters. What you communicate directly (Bustle) or indirectly (Social+Capital Partnership, Time Warner Investment, Google Ventures, 500 Startups and Rothenberg Ventures), people listen and your target market develops perceptions about who you are.