Does Anyone Know?

"Jcarr" (jcarr) 03/07/2016 at 16:11 • Filed to: Hamilton Nolan Voted for Bush

0

45

Do Jalopnik staff cross-share these type of posts by choice or are they required to share these ones specifically by Gawker management?

More and more it seems like posts that are likely to antagonize Jalops get cross-shared.

I just want to know if I should be annoyed with Patrick and the gang, or commiserate with them.

Any of you Jalop overlords, feel free to chime in and set me straight!

For Sweden > Jcarr 03/07/2016 at 16:14

0

You scratch my back/give me more clicks, I’ll scratch your back/give you more clicks.

Jcarr > For Sweden 03/07/2016 at 16:16

0

I know that, but I’m curious if Patrick/other FP staff choose the posts themselves.

RamblinRover Luxury-Yacht > Jcarr 03/07/2016 at 16:16

0

HamNo is a blithering asscake-mongering douchecanoe, noted.

MonkeePuzzle > Jcarr 03/07/2016 at 16:18

2

here’s my thought. they are of INTEREST to us, whether we agree with the topic of not. and by sharing them here at least the pro-vehicle crowd get to have a say in the discussions.

iSureWilll > RamblinRover Luxury-Yacht 03/07/2016 at 16:18

0

His posts are ALWAYS meant to stir the pot. If you read them with that mindset then it isn’t too bad. I think his goal is to start a dialogue - sometimes in a “shit starter” kind of way.

RamblinRover Luxury-Yacht > MonkeePuzzle 03/07/2016 at 16:21

3

So in theory, we might be functioning as a secret Orlove/George/etc. anti-moron ray in use in the inter-office warfare? Huh.

HammerheadFistpunch > Jcarr 03/07/2016 at 16:21

5

I’ve heard Patrick chime in a few times on this question stating that any transportation related story is up for grabs to share on the merit of it being germane to the mission of Jalopnik. i.e. they share it because they think we would be interested in it. Beyond that I can’t say but to speculate as to expectations at Gawker HQ regarding cross-posting.

The Powershift in Steve's '12 Ford Focus killed it's TCM (under warranty!) > MonkeePuzzle 03/07/2016 at 16:21

4

!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!

Meh. We’re all stuck in the grays, and when we aren’t, we’re brow beaten by the locals for questioning the group think.

TheOnelectronic > The Powershift in Steve's '12 Ford Focus killed it's TCM (under warranty!) 03/07/2016 at 16:22

3

Isn’t the gawker sub-blog specifically called Groupthink?

TheOnelectronic > Jcarr 03/07/2016 at 16:23

7

Fun Fact: Depending on how much an Executive makes, it’s frequently cheaper for the company to have them travel by private jet than commercial due to the time savings.

Jcarr > TheOnelectronic 03/07/2016 at 16:25

4

Stop it. Stop it with your logic and capitalism loving facts.

BigBlock440 > Jcarr 03/07/2016 at 16:25

3

Does gawker have a private jet? Probably bitter they had to sell it to pay off the Hulk.

The Powershift in Steve's '12 Ford Focus killed it's TCM (under warranty!) > TheOnelectronic 03/07/2016 at 16:25

0

I think so. I’d go and confirm, but I don’t want to give them any more traffic than necessary.

BorkBorkBjork > Jcarr 03/07/2016 at 16:26

4

I despise the targeting of minorities. The 1% can fly as many private jets as they please.

StingrayJake > Jcarr 03/07/2016 at 16:28

0

The shared posts tend to have something to do with transportation or transportation-related lifestyles: ‘ban cars,’ extravagant private planes, space travel, science fiction, advanced technologies etc. The actual content of said posts (for example the infamous Walker articles) usually don’t fall in line with the “motoring enthusiast” mindset that dominates the Jalopnik commenting base.

Some things are very clearly shared because Patrick or another Jalop contributor found the article interesting (even when it’s not transportation related) and other times I suspect it’s part of a broad plan to bring audiences of specific blogs to other blogs in the Gawkersphere.

Now I’d argue there’s nothing wrong with that. When I wrote about sports in the newspaper industry, I always wanted to bring in readers that might not otherwise be interested in my section or even buy a newspaper to begin with.

What I find interesting about the Gawker post sharing is that it tends to be troll articles — articles that are meant to get a response. Why share “this city would be better if they banned cars” articles if the intention isn’t to get Jalop readers to go over there and leave comments? Yes, I think much of the sharing that goes on is targeted at generating clicks on other Gawker blogs and “promoting” conversations in the comments.

Besides, I don’t hear people complaining when Jalopnik shares Oppo posts to the FP.

haveacarortwoorthree2 > TheOnelectronic 03/07/2016 at 16:33

0

Um, unless the executives are paid by the hour, this is demonstrably false.

MonkeePuzzle > The Powershift in Steve's '12 Ford Focus killed it's TCM (under warranty!) 03/07/2016 at 16:38

0

fact. being ungreyed in one place not being universal is frustrating.

Verdog ~ manual Bro, Bro - HellHawk Equipped > TheOnelectronic 03/07/2016 at 16:38

0

Correct, plus executive security that is usually present for the top of the top C-levels

RyanFrew > Jcarr 03/07/2016 at 16:46

3

That article actually upset me more than a typical Alissa Walker post. Alissa Walker just has a differing ideology. HamNo, on the other hand, struggles with any logic whatsoever. “You should be infuriated because they’re publically run companies”. As if “public”, in this context, means taxpayer $ or something.

RamblinRover Luxury-Yacht > haveacarortwoorthree2 03/07/2016 at 16:49

0

Depends on what the executive can bill for, and whether the executive would otherwise be doing something productive with his time. Wasted time is wasted time, salaried or no.

Sam > TheOnelectronic 03/07/2016 at 16:52

0

An alternative name could have just been Circlejerk, or maybe Hivemind.

Little Black Coupe Turned Silver > TheOnelectronic 03/07/2016 at 16:56

0

No, Groupthink was the Jezebel sub-blog, but was split off the same way Oppo and Jalopnik split.

If only EssExTee could be so grossly incandescent > TheOnelectronic 03/07/2016 at 16:58

0

But Execs are salaried, not hourly?

Patrick George > Jcarr 03/07/2016 at 17:00

2

I shared it. It’s related to transportation and thus in our wheelhouse. You are welcome to jump into HamNo’s comments if you disagree with him.

I know I do, as I currently own four private jets.

Rusty Vandura - www.tinyurl.com/keepoppo > RyanFrew 03/07/2016 at 17:01

1

I’m trying to understand why people find Alissa so much of a bother. If spending time on Oppo has taught me anything , it has taught me to exercise the ignore, and sometimes, I manage to put that into practice.

Jcarr > Patrick George 03/07/2016 at 17:02

0

Thanks for the clarification, Patrick.

Rusty Vandura - www.tinyurl.com/keepoppo > RamblinRover Luxury-Yacht 03/07/2016 at 17:02

0

The trouble with you , Rover, is that you never quite tell us how you feel about anything. But you do it eloquently.

El Rivinado > Jcarr 03/07/2016 at 17:06

2

I honestly think that its just Denton trying to convert us over to his side and beliefs. He knows we Opponauts and Gearheads are either moderates or disagree with him, (For the most part), so he’s sharing clickbait articles to try and convert us over to the “Proper” New York side of his beliefs. Because there’s nothing more than big city leftists like to do then tell the other folk how to live their lives.

This is all a conspiracy of course, coming from someone who frequently hates Gawker's hypocrisy and concern trolling and doesn't even come close to agreeing with their beliefs. Now if you'll excuse me, I need to prep my arsenal and put on my tinfoil hat before the black helicopters come to get me.

Rusty Vandura - www.tinyurl.com/keepoppo > StingrayJake 03/07/2016 at 17:07

0

Generate discussion, or start a food fight? What I enjoy immensely about Oppo is that there’s so much of the former. Perhaps too much of what the FP folks cross post — or whatever they do — or their motivations for doing so, are too reminiscent of the latter, and leave folks scratching their heads on Oppo and wondering, Why put that here?

Rusty Vandura - www.tinyurl.com/keepoppo > iSureWilll 03/07/2016 at 17:11

0

...which is counter to Oppo’s charter...

Jayhawk Jake > Jcarr 03/07/2016 at 17:19

1

I would like for corporate jets to not be shit on again. I’m no corporate fat cat, but I need them to make a living. KTHXBIE

uofime-2 > haveacarortwoorthree2 03/07/2016 at 17:20

0

They might not be paid by the hour, but they still only work so many hours a day. Lets call it 8, if they work 50 weeks a year (yes they take vacation) you get 2000hrs of executive per year. If you pay that executive 10 million a year (which is not unheard of) they cost 5000$/hr.

If they spend 2 days a week traveling it costs 4 million a year to have them sit in an airport and travel. To reasonably say a private plane cuts that time in half you can quickly see that the 2m/yr lease for the plane pays for itself.

Jcarr > Jayhawk Jake 03/07/2016 at 17:24

0

Don’t tell Nolan that. As far as he knows, they’re conjured into existence by some evil corporate spell, not by the blood, sweat, and tears of working class folk.

haveacarortwoorthree2 > RamblinRover Luxury-Yacht 03/07/2016 at 17:28

0

If the executive is salaried, s/he can’t “bill” for any time anyway. Also, nothing prevents the executive from working while waiting for a commercial flight or while on a commercial flight. Is commercial travel as “efficient” as private jets from a time perspective? Of course not. Is that efficiency worth $5-7,000 an hour (which (I think) doesn’t take into account the cost of purchasing the jet, the flight crew’s expenses once the plane has landed at its destination, etc.)? No, particularly when the exec is salaried. But efficiency also is a different issue than what I originally responded to, which was the incorrect assertion that “it’s frequently cheaper for the company to have them travel by private jet than commercial due to the time savings.”

StingrayJake > Rusty Vandura - www.tinyurl.com/keepoppo 03/07/2016 at 17:29

0

Eh, I think their intentions are generally good. But at the same time, they know exactly what they’re doing when they share an Alissa Walker post.

Rusty Vandura - www.tinyurl.com/keepoppo > StingrayJake 03/07/2016 at 17:45

0

I don’t understand why folks here get so agitated by Alissa Walker. I mean, I certainly get why, but I still don’t get it. I find her to be a very clever writer who just doesn’t get into unburnt hydrocarbons belching from 50-year-old carbureted automobiles. (Am I now a heretic doomed to be moderated ?) I’m pretty new here, still finding my way, but I love now not Reddit this place is.

RamblinRover Luxury-Yacht > haveacarortwoorthree2 03/07/2016 at 17:46

0

I wasn’t referring to billing for time. If the executive is comped things that take time (waiting around in lounges, buying massages, hitting the airport bar for $200/bottle booze, what-the-fuck-ever), expenses can add up in a hurry, even if they’re totally bullshit luxury expenses. While nothing prevents the executive from getting in *some* work while in the airport on his duff, if that work is not having a meeting over a tens of millions of dollar deal, that *specific* work actually might be equal to a couple grand an hour in worth. If the bump in ticket cost for extremely short notice is three grand in first class over the “normal” cost a few weeks out, and the value added in prestige to be able to drop people in via private jet...

Again, it’s not just an efficiency difference, it very well could be a difference in character of work even possible, and wasted time is wasted time. Add in that the corporate jet costs are closer to fixed and that each extra ticket is a separate expense, and any company that would like to be able to send five or six guys... well, between all factors, it can very easily be a good choice financially, not just showing off.

I’ll quibble with the “frequently” in his statement, but not that it’s possible, because it’s *very* possible for the company to see more outright financial value in Using The Jet - at least once they have one.

haveacarortwoorthree2 > uofime-2 03/07/2016 at 17:49

0

Any executive with private jet flight privileges is not going to work 8 hours a day for 50 weeks a year. That person is going to work however many hours it takes to get done what needs to get done (and get paid well for doing it).

Also, your numbers assume that the person spends the entire 8 commercial travel hours doing absolutely nothing while the 8 private jet travel hours are fully productive. You actually can get a ton of work done sitting in the airport (and clearly the exec would be an airline club member and wouldn’t even have to sit with the riff raff in the terminal) and on a plane (most likely first class). Even if you say only 4 hours of the commercial travel time is productive and all 8 of the private jet time is (which I think is faulty), it changes the calculus dramatically. Also, for a $2m annual lease (which would be cheap and typically would not include the variable costs of each flight), you would not be getting a top of the line jet — so your cruise speed will be substantially slower and the range would not be as great, which means stopping to refuel on longer flights (both of which increases your travel time, thereby reducing the perceived advantage of private jets).

Finally, once you consider the variable costs of each flight (which most people peg at between $5-7k/hour), you are at best break even under your scenario. Given what I said in the prior paragraph, it really is a money-losing proposition under even the most favorable assumptions.

So what it boils down to is a perk for executives. That’s what it’s always been. If a business wants to offer it as a perk and properly discloses it, then it’s up to the shareholders to accept or reject it. But trying to justify it as anything other than a perk is, IMHO, disingenuous.

haveacarortwoorthree2 > RamblinRover Luxury-Yacht 03/07/2016 at 18:06

0

The variable cost of running a private jet is from $5-7k per hour, so I wouldn’t say that “corporate jet costs are closer to fixed.” And if the exec is going to waste airport time getting all that crap, there isn’t going to be a lot of work done on the private jet either. Moreover, a big part of the problem with the private jet perk is that the jet is not used for in-flight meetings or taking several people to the same place but instead are the sole province of one or two high level execs, to be kept ready for their sole use.

As you note, the biggest reason IMO why execs want the perk is “the value added in prestige to be able to drop people in via private jet.” The second biggest reason — especially for the super rich class of execs (e.g., Diller) — is that they can pass the cost onto others instead of paying for it themselves.

Now in a minority of cases, it probably does make sense. Energy exploration companies that have to fly people to places where there are not commercial airports would be one example — assuming that they actually are doing what you suggest and having multiple people on the plane.

RamblinRover Luxury-Yacht > haveacarortwoorthree2 03/07/2016 at 18:20

0

“closer to fixed” in terms of headcount. They don’t double for two executives, triple for three, unlike tickets and accommodation. That’s what I meant. Also, in terms of available time, I was thinking in terms of airport time loss - flight schedule related mismatch of availability, layover, and the like - more so than time-on-plane. A lot of the value of an executive is having them available (if not for so many hours) whenever during the business week they might be needed, and that one extra hour and a half of layover that particular Wednesday might really hurt.

Also, digging up the “prestige” issue, that and other things like the “freshness” of said executive on arrival are hard to quantify but absolutely could have a positive effect on the balance sheet. I don’t really have an issue with “passing the cost on to others” in the sense that it’s part of a whole package - and there have always been parts of the package with different tax and costing outcomes.

Anyway, I wasn’t as much having an issue with you saying he was wrong, so much as having the opinion that the *manner* in which he was *somewhat* wrong wasn’t quite that clearcut.

iSureWilll > Rusty Vandura - www.tinyurl.com/keepoppo 03/07/2016 at 18:27

0

Apparently not Jalopnik’s eh?

Rusty Vandura - www.tinyurl.com/keepoppo > iSureWilll 03/07/2016 at 18:58

0

#notreddit

Santiago of Escuderia Boricua > TheOnelectronic 03/07/2016 at 20:10

0

Jezebel user blog. The name is ironic since they’re so often accused of it by idiots

StingrayJake > Rusty Vandura - www.tinyurl.com/keepoppo 03/07/2016 at 20:18

0

Yeah I'm actually in favor of advancing transportation technology, but I admit I'm still one of those clinging-to-my-fossil-fuels types. I think most folks don't even read the stories, probably just read the headlines.

Rusty Vandura - www.tinyurl.com/keepoppo > StingrayJake 03/07/2016 at 20:26

1

Yeah. I don’t judge anyone for liking fossil fuels, but I draw a line at rolling coal.