Within the world of television sitcoms, the dreaded family slideshow has long served as a reliable punch line — a sort of domestic shorthand for boredom-inducing self-indulgence. (Think of Selma and Patty inflicting slide-show torture on Bart et al. on The Simpsons.)
Yet, at the moment, outside the small screen, the slideshow is enjoying a cultural renaissance. Recently, Al Gore has spun his slideshow about global warming into a much-lauded movie, An Inconvenient Truth. At the same time, Slate continues to use the slideshow format to explore the aesthetic terrain of interesting cultural phenomenon, ranging from historical representations of Helen of Troy, to college football art, to marijuana photography.
But just as various people have begun to elevate the slideshow’s reputation, one publication continues to drag it down. These days, on a fairly regular basis, BusinessWeek Online tosses up such a lousy array of slideshows that its Web site is bound to reflect badly on the entire medium. If there were such thing as the Slideshow Anti Defamation League, it would be well advised to devote its efforts to shutting down BusinessWeek Online’s entire operation.
Witness yesterday’s effort, entitled the “Wimpiest Cars of 2006.”
The slideshow is accompanied by a meandering essay ostensibly summarizing the current state of horsepower trends in today’s crop of automobiles. From the outset, we learn that rising gas prices have done little to slow down automakers in their race to build more powerful cars.
“Even as gas prices soar, manufacturers large and small continue to up the ante, making engines bigger and putting more power under the hood,” reported BusinessWeek Online. “That’s having an impact on cars of every type.”
A few paragraphs later, however, we learn that rising gas prices have, in fact, resulted in a new crop of less powerful, more fuel-efficient cars.
“Easiest to peg as power-lacking,” added BusinessWeek Online, “are vehicles now arriving on American shores as part of a new class of small, efficient subcompacts — intended, no doubt, to be the answers to nationwide gas-price woes.”
Here, a thoughtful, analytic business writer might be tempted to praise the new crop of fuel-efficient cars as a rational response to a changing marketplace. Not so, the editors at BusinessWeek Online.
“With more and more cars packing a titanic punch, performance-oriented competition has increased,” reported BusinessWeek Online. “So much so that models that can’t keep pace run the risk of coming off, well, wimpy.”
Wimpy!
At this point, we felt perfectly primed to sit back and watch a slideshow mocking pygmy-sized European imports. After all, whether you agree or disagree with ridiculing small, energy efficient cars, it’s easy to appreciate how their midget-sized proportions would lend themselves well to a visual send-up.
But what followed instead was a tedious slideshow half-heartedly criticizing a wide range of vehicles for a wide range of shortcomings, including the Jaguar X-Type (“the interior materials aren’t what you’d expect from the venerable mark”), the Chevrolet Malibu (“no optional manual gearbox”) and the Volkswagen Golf (“another case of manufacture neglect”).
The short critiques of the vehicles were accompanied by static shots of the vehicles’ exteriors — none of which looked particularly wimpy and some of which (like the outsized Mitsubishi Montero) looked downright manly.
In short, the photographs added nothing of interest to the overall argument (whatever that argument happened to be — we’re still not entirely sure). If anything the photographs detracted from the designations of wimpiness. So why turn the essay into a slideshow?
Apparently, at BusinessWeek Online, any subject, no matter how visually uninteresting, is fair game for a slideshow. How else to explain past slideshows on subjects ranging from tort reform, to Social Security reform, to blogs that have been turned into books?
What’s next? A slideshow on the pros and cons of blank wall space?
Other slideshows popping up on the BusinessWeek Web site are difficult to criticize for their aesthetic components — primarily because to do so, you would first have to get beyond the mind-boggling inanity of the subject matter.
Case in point: from May 18, 2006, a slideshow on “What Things Cost.” Or, more recently, a slideshow on “The Stuff That Sells.”
But the biggest problem is that Business Week Online’s endless slideshows might be gobbling up resources that would be better spent elsewhere — like perhaps on those antiquated things called “articles.”
After all, who has time to craft long-form, well-reported, well-written business features, when you’re expected to manufacture a slideshow out of every scrap of business news and silliness that happens to land on your desk?




Don't you think it would concern the editors that the traffic they get for slide shows isn't neccessarily people interested in business and finance, in other words Business Week's target market.
Are they just pimping for clicks and hoping no one notices?
Sooner or later advertisers will.
It takes really dumb management to let that happen to what used to be a really good site.
Also, their Apple coverage sucks since Alex Salkever stopped doing it.
Posted by dickie clickie on Wed 21 Jun 2006 at 06:43 PM
You don't know the half of it. The toxic management of that place has
been bragging about big gains in traffic but if you strip out all these
horrible slideshows, the traffic to Business Week's site hasn't budged
an inch. As a former employee who managed to escape a horribly abusive
environment, I know. The slideshows have nothing to do with the
magazine's brand and, in fact, do it lots of harm. What does a
slideshow on "The Smartest Superheroes" have to do with Business Week?
Or how about "Sprucing Up an Old Kitchen" or "Masterful Bedroom
Makeovers," or even better, "For the Best Barbecues Ever." My personal
favoritet "Affordable Homes in the West," and let's not forget the same
series for the Northeast, the Southeast, the Northwest, the Midwest,
and the Southwest. I kid you not--and all of them so obviously produced
from real estate agents trying to hawk houses for sale. Great
journalism, folks. It's shameless and idiotic. And the people who look
at this stuff are not what the advertisers are buying: wealthy and
educated business readers. Its a very different crowd that is funnelled
into these slideshows from the big portals. They have no interest in
Business Week and no interest in business, period. This is quite a scam
and a scandal.
______________
Posted by jdysnfrd on Thu 22 Jun 2006 at 09:16 AM
The site has totally gone down hill in the last year. The editor Rebello turned what used to be one of the best news sites on the web into a schlock fest. She's even had people in that have told her that the slideshows insulted people's intelligence. But she doesn't care and apparently thinks no one will notice that she's just borrowing content instead of producing good journalism. Well, I guess this story proves her wrong. Now what will the folks at BW do about it?
Posted by desplaines on Fri 14 Jul 2006 at 11:45 AM
In the last week Business Week Online has featured slide shows on colorful vegetables (look, a cauliflower!), kiddie tech toys, and today there's another slide show consisting of nothing but pictures of Barbie in different outfits.
This would be funny if it wasn't exacting such a huge toll. In just two years the Business Week Online staff has seen worse than 100% attrition, and that includes lots of people who were hired by Rebello and only survived the abuse for just a few months.
Despite what people say about him, CEO Terry NcGraw isn't stupid, so the only explanation I can think of why it's still going on is that his top executives aren't telling him how deep the trouble is. If one of them ever plucks up the courage, the message would go something like this: BusinessWeek Online has lost it's core readership of smart and educated investors; it's getting by on slide shows and portal traffic that advertisers don't want, even if they haven't actively started complaining about it yet. And meanwhile the site is simultaneously ruining McGraw Hill's reputation as a decent employer and an ethical company.
Back in December, Rebello & Co. made a big deal about 54 million page views in month. Well it was a scam. The slide shows advanced from picture to picture automatically, and when they finished, the cycle started from scratch all over again. If one person loaded up a bunch of browsers with different slide shows and let them run all night, there would be thousands and thousands of bogus hits on the clock in the morning -- hits that advertisers presumably paid for. Paging Eliot Spitzer. Paging Mr. Spitzer......?
Someone with the organizational heft to be heard needs to tell Terry McGraw before the damage gets any worse. If someone doesn't tell the emperor that his website has no clothes, not only will Terry have squandered a franchise that took 75 years to build, he's likely to saddle the stockholders with big legal bills as well.
Terry, are a few cheap clicks worth selling your company's soul for?
Posted by lobster on Tue 18 Jul 2006 at 03:13 PM