What Happened To Forbes?

Forbes magazine is one of the great financial and business publications of all time—along with the Economist, the Wall Street Journal, and Financial Times, it’s often part of the finance professional’s daily briefing since the 1920s. It’s headquartered here in New York City.

There are plenty of great stories about entrepreneurial success and strategy, something for every shade of businessperson. Everyone looks forward to their countdowns, like the Power Rankings, America’s Best Cities and the 400 Wealthiest. “Thoughts On the Business Of Life” always takes up the final page. And for me, there’s Ken Fisher’s investment column somewhere in the middle, which I find myself reading before anything else.

So yes, the physical print edition of Forbes lives up to its subtitle of “Information For the World’s Business Leaders.”

Its online edition is a farce.

The problem starts with the writers’ portraits. For the veteran columnists in the print edition, there are dignified, black and white charcoal drawings of their mugs. On the website, everyone has a faux-dramatic selfie.

And before I get to the writing itself, I’m a blogger too. I realize we’re in the business of generating traffic and ultimately, profit. We want to get readers excited about what we have to present.

But we have to remember for whom we are writing.

And this is where the younger writers on Forbes especially are falling down on the job, because frankly, many of them write as if they have no idea what Forbes is, or who its readership is. It’s possible many of them have never even held a physical copy of the magazine!

Many of the topics on the homepage are completely inappropriate, and the restrained dignity that has made the print edition so enduring has been pushed aside in favor of cheap hyperbole and utterly irrelevant garbage.

If I’m in charge of this operation over there, I’m calling all the writers into my office and laying down the following:

If you want to review Game of Thrones or The Walking Dead, put that shit on Entertainment Weekly, not here. This is Forbes.

If you want to write cheap political pieces like “Obama’s Sanctions Will Destroy Putin” or “Did Obama Just Destroy The Internet?” put that shit on CNN or Fox, not here. This is Forbes.

If you want to talk your NCAA bracket (seriously?), put that shit on ESPN. This is Forbes.

You guys know I’m generally pretty sour about most media anyway, but thank God the print edition is still quality reading. Am I wrong here? Has anyone else noticed Forbes going the way of the Wall Street Journal, et al?

26 Comments
 

It's like Grantland doing sports and pop culture...they need to PICK ONE!

"Everybody needs money. That's why they call it money." - Mickey Bergman - Heist (2001)
 

I never said Forbes was like Grantland in content. Only in it's dilution of content.

"Everybody needs money. That's why they call it money." - Mickey Bergman - Heist (2001)
 

Forbes blows. I am not going to renew my subscription. Way over half the mag is promotional articles and advertising.

IMO, Businessweek and The Economist are a great duo. One provides good macro US focused info and the other provides in-depth global info.

 
TNA

Forbes blows. I am not going to renew my subscription. Way over half the mag is promotional articles and advertising.

IMO, Businessweek and The Economist are a great duo. One provides good macro US focused info and the other provides in-depth global info.

I have been quite impressed by the turnaround of Business Week since they have been acquired by Bloomberg, it reads pretty well

 
antmavel TNA:

Forbes blows. I am not going to renew my subscription. Way over half the mag is promotional articles and advertising.

IMO, Businessweek and The Economist are a great duo. One provides good macro US focused info and the other provides in-depth global info.

I have been quite impressed by the turnaround of Business Week since they have been acquired by Bloomberg, it reads pretty well

Agreed. I used to subscribe pre BB and also post BB. Difference is night and day.

 

@TNA : I hear ya, but I'm not ready to cancel my subscription yet. Yeah, the ads are obnoxious, but the profiles and stories are still worth reading to me.

Metal. Music. Life. www.headofmetal.com
 

I definitely have had similar thoughts....although some of the pieces are still great. They're just harder to find. Also I don't have to seemingly crawl through pages of left-leaning inflammatory bullshit to get to a sensible, facts-based piece on markets or economics news.

"When you stop striving for perfection, you might as well be dead."
 
bluegold

The list slideshows... Why do websites do that?!!?

I have always assumed this is to maximize clicks and/or pageviews. It is a sign of a bottom-feeder website - Forbes should not be doing this
 

every time you look at a new slide, it's another pageview and ~3-5 impressions, depending on how many ad units they have on the page.

The economics of online media are just brutal...everyone expects 100% of content for free and you get crappy CPMs for shitty banner ads that 99% of people ignore...so they likely pay you under $10s for every 1,000 pageview, and closer to $2 if you aren't monetizing properly. so websites turn to gimmicks like lots of slides to increase pageviews...i think it's important to keep user experience in mind, but it's tough to blame them too much when the print circulation is circling the drain and the online version is likely not even close to filling that gap.

The only way WSO stays afloat is that we have mostly a volunteer staff of bloggers, 95%+ of our other content is user generated and we have a decent blend of products and services that our visitors are after.

Also, it's not getting any easier...referral traffic from FB and Twitter is getting crushed since they are basically now forcing you to pay to reach "your" fans (in the pressure as public companies to monetize themselves) -- so you're basically at the mercy of Google's search ranking algo for your free organic search...which is why links from high authority sites are so valuable.

End mini-rant, -Patrick

 
Best Response

Wouldn't you say though, Patrick, that the way you are going about it is the model places need to begin to adapt to nowadays? You build a site geared towards a specific market, focusing your products to be unique and valuable. Key point there is value. Forbes doesn't provide me much value that I can't get for free. I like their rich list, that's about it. Even then I can sit here and punch 'RICH' into my Bloomberg and see the same thing. Here I can get great guides, a sweet company database and if I invest the time in learning the search function a truly incredible wealth of knowledge from experienced/highly intelligent people. You know what I get with comments on the other websites? "I just started working from home and I make 77,000 a month" and a picture of a hot chick. That's why they suck.

Sidenote, I picked up a print issue of GQ in an airport a few months ago for the first time in years. I read GQ online all the time and figured why not. I think every other page was an advertisement. Now, look, I get it. If I don't pay for access to the content I'll pay for it on the back end by reading more advertisements. But I also know that if I pay for the content, a subscription every month, i'll still get the damn ads. It's a terrible problem that we created.

Anyway, I think media sites need to get back to the idea that if you can provide some type of value it can work. The people who need to do all the crazy flash slides and crap are those who are trying to dole out the same financial news available on 30 different sites.

 

I think Economist is terrible, I got a subscription and it just seemed like a political rag. I suppose that might appeal to the more conservative people on this site (which is probably a lot of people on here). I don't classify myself as liberal by any means, but it just seemed like an entire magazine of an opinion section. Not much real serious journalism. Granted, there might have been and I missed much of it because of being turned off by the quality of a portion of the articles, and I only had the print version (never looked at the website).

For economic news I turn to WSJ, Bloomberg, Seeking Alpha (for their breakfast lists), Albourne Village and a variety of blogs (Calculated Risk being my favorite by far). If I had a subscription to FT I'd read it.

 

I hate their site and the stupid rarely updated autoplay video, so annnoying that I know avoid the site with passion.

‘The critical investment factor is determining the intrinsic value of a business and paying a fair or bargain price." W.B." we venture the motto, Margin of Safety.” Ben Graham
 

Qui saepe voluptate odio labore. Dolore itaque sapiente fugit error delectus distinctio possimus. Beatae porro quis voluptatem ratione in qui culpa voluptatem.

Autem consequatur maxime voluptatem aperiam deleniti. Nihil et rerum voluptatem corrupti dicta. Inventore id qui velit eveniet. Sint quaerat asperiores nihil ea.

Tenetur quaerat voluptatem quibusdam laborum dolorem. Magnam iure saepe architecto deleniti perferendis. Itaque omnis corporis quisquam nihil. Rerum inventore fuga harum placeat magnam expedita. Aspernatur itaque asperiores dignissimos ipsa.

 

Porro sed ea eos non ipsum. Animi ipsum dolorum facere dicta eum exercitationem accusamus. Enim soluta dolores iure porro quo. Enim voluptatem et excepturi. Possimus repudiandae accusamus autem consectetur et porro rerum.

Et in ducimus sit quasi et quia inventore. Expedita id ab minus quo aut. Perferendis numquam ipsum quibusdam repellendus quod veniam nesciunt.

Ea voluptatem dignissimos ducimus aperiam aut dolorum. Dolores consequatur est eos a nihil.

Odit repellendus vel unde qui in aspernatur. In sint aperiam porro. Suscipit velit temporibus ipsum et aut.

Get busy living

Career Advancement Opportunities

June 2026 Investment Banking

  • Evercore 01 99.4%
  • Moelis & Company 01 98.8%
  • JPMorgan 01 98.2%
  • Guggenheim Partners 01 97.7%
  • Morgan Stanley 07 97.1%

Overall Employee Satisfaction

June 2026 Investment Banking

  • Moelis & Company No 99.4%
  • Morgan Stanley 01 98.8%
  • Evercore 01 98.2%
  • BMO Capital Markets 12 97.6%
  • Banco Santander 01 97.1%

Professional Growth Opportunities

June 2026 Investment Banking

  • Moelis & Company No 99.4%
  • Evercore No 98.8%
  • Morgan Stanley 05 98.2%
  • JPMorgan No 97.7%
  • BMO Capital Markets 12 97.1%

Total Avg Compensation

June 2026 Investment Banking

  • Vice President (14) $434
  • Associates (43) $259
  • 3rd+ Year Analyst (8) $210
  • 2nd Year Analyst (22) $179
  • Intern/Summer Associate (13) $156
  • 1st Year Analyst (75) $151
  • Intern/Summer Analyst (65) $101
notes
16 IB Interviews Notes

“... there’s no excuse to not take advantage of the resources out there available to you. Best value for your $ are the...”

Leaderboard

1
redever's picture
redever
99.2
2
Secyh62's picture
Secyh62
99.0
3
kanon's picture
kanon
99.0
4
BankonBanking's picture
BankonBanking
99.0
5
DrApeman's picture
DrApeman
98.9
6
CompBanker's picture
CompBanker
98.9
7
dosk17's picture
dosk17
98.9
8
GameTheory's picture
GameTheory
98.9
9
Betsy Massar's picture
Betsy Massar
98.9
10
numi's picture
numi
98.8
success
From 10 rejections to 1 dream investment banking internship

“... I believe it was the single biggest reason why I ended up with an offer...”