[asiando]

This would make sense if Rolling Stones wants to be a sort of Medium: You pay us to host your content.

However to make sense they’d also have to share the profits from the ads on the page.

[Veen]

The point is not hosting, but to monetize the Rolling Stone's brand reputation. They have a well-known and somewhat trusted brand (although less trusted than it once was [0]). They're allowing "thought leaders"—aka PR flacks—to leverage their brand to publicize marketing and personal branding content. Forbes does the same.

[0]: https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/06/business/media/rolling-st...

[mxxx]

Didn’t realise Forbes did this. No wonder it’s full of garbage.

[audiometry]

That’ll quickly devalue that “brand”. Kind of like how I “value” Forbes “magazine” — ie: avoid all links to it.

[Veen]

Yes, it will. But it's owned by Penske Media Corporation, who seem to prefer to milk the brand for all it's worth before its inevitable demise.

[Pet_Ant]

Presumably they are cashing in on their name so you’ll get more exposure to your idea if you publish on Rolling Stone vs Medium. So what they are selling you is eyeballs and legitimacy for content & money. Makes sense.

It’s a shame because I grew up reading Spin & Rolling Stone and they have become unsustainable and now irrelevant empty shells of themselves.

[oneeyedpigeon]

I don't quite get the analogy - Medium doesn't charge a fee to host content, does it?