Success, however, is leading media pundits to look harder at BuzzFeed’s editorial contradictions — like mixing puppy stories with Putin — and ask how long it can keep this up without damaging its brand. In the last month, the question has become more pressing as partisans in the abortion and health care debates use BuzzFeed-themed pages to push controversial political messages through social media.

In response, BuzzFeed on Wednesday put out guidelines for the first time to explain what sort of webpages can be made with its platform tools, which let anyone create and publish their own BuzzFeed story. The new policy is, on one level, a logical response to a swelling number of community submissions. But on a deeper level, it reflects how BuzzFeed, as it grows in clout, is having to define its editorial voice and develop a political and ethical identity.

In a recent interview, BuzzFeed editor-in-chief Ben Smith defended the site’s potpourri-style approach to content, and claimed that news outlets really can have it both ways; they no longer have to be either a platform or a publisher nor choose between highbrow or tabloid sensibilities.

Who can use BuzzFeed’s online printing press?

BuzzFeed’s community platform tool, which has been around since 2007, lets anyone create a BuzzFeed story with ease. The feature began to get more play this May when BuzzFeed created a special community section on its homepage where writers can submit a story; if an editor selects it, the story can get featured on BuzzFeed’s home page and receive extra lift from the site’s viral wizardry.

BuzzFeed says the tool has taken off of late, with an average of 45 user-submitted stories per day in August. According to Smith, this is partly the result of companies like Harper Collins (ie “17 Problems Only Book Lovers Understand”) that are using BuzzFeed as part of their marketing strategy.

“People at companies who managed social media pages now turn to BuzzFeed,” said Smith during an interview at BuzzFeed’s office in New York’s Flatiron District. “One of the reasons people come here is that all the other platforms are optimized for sharing inside one network. But our stuff is optimized to share on all the networks — Facebook, Twitter, Pinterest and so on.”

It’s not just book publishers or cereal brands, however, that are making BuzzFeed pages. Political and activist outfits are also taking to the BuzzFeed platform, often sowing controversy at the same time.

In August, for instance, the Heritage Foundation used BuzzFeed’s publishing platform to lampoon President Obama’s health care plans. The look and feel of the story, titled “The One Time I Was Really Really Excited About Obamacare,” is vintage BuzzFeed: kooky photos, animated gifs, celebrities and big, punchy text lines; “real” BuzzFeed stories adorn the side of the page. Here’s a screenshot:

The Heritage Foundation’s attempt to channel BuzzFeed proved convincing — so convincing that it fooled Tea Party Senator Ted Cruz (R-Tex) into touting the story as proof that even the liberal media have turned on Obama. Since then, abortion activists have also created “community” pages which many believed were the work of BuzzFeed’s editorial staff.

Mad props to @buzzfeed today on this: 8 Outrageous Things Planned Parenthood Was Caught Doing – svabs.com/1f6XrRs—
Catholic Drinkie (@CatholicDrinkie) August 23, 2013

In response to this uptick in interest in user-created pages, the company on Wednesday added tweaks to its design to distinguish between unvetted community posts by a “BuzzFeed user” like the one I just made:

And, on the other hand, community posts selected by editors that get promoted on the BuzzFeed website:

BuzzFeed also for the first time issued community “guidelines” to explain what’s acceptable and when it will pull down pages. Under the golden rule of “Don’t be that Guy,” BuzzFeed lists a few more specific strictures: “no haters;” no spam; no trolling; no porn; no plagiarism; etc.

Who or what is BuzzFeed anyways?

Whatever the guidelines, for now, it appears that user-created BuzzFeed stories will keep surging through social media channels and, at least of the time, create confusion in the process. This has led Hamish Mckenzie, media reporter at PandoDaily, to declare that BuzzFeed has a “Medium problem” and that a company can be a publisher like the New York Times or a platform like Twitter — but not both.

The point is a fair one. If no one can tell who or what BuzzFeed is, its brand may implode in the eyes of readers and advertisers, who may go elsewhere in search of a site that provides a consistent editorial voice.

BuzzFeed, however, appears to think its guidelines and new design will ensure that readers are not confused. Smith points to older publications like the Economist and the Washington Post that regularly dabble with “special advertising sections” to note that readers are used to content that is not produced by staff. And, these days, he says BuzzFeed just reflects an era where news and information comes as a giant mish-mash in the first place.

“I think anyone who thinks that all these different kinds of contents can, or are, being separated aren’t looking at Facebook or Twitter. If you think readers can’t deal with that, where are you? It’s not the future. It’s the present.”

In Smith’s view, BuzzFeed really can be the New York Times and Twitter at the same time. If he’s right (and the jury’s still out), the BuzzFeed community pages not only juice the site’s pageviews, but serve as a talent forum;  Smith notes that many of BuzzFeed’s paid staff started out in the community pages (this is similar to how Gawker scours its comment section for new writers.)

Finally, for BuzzFeed, handing its platform to the public serves to create a laboratory where people experiment with new story telling techniques, like A Love Story in 22 Pictures:

Can BuzzFeed make it pay?

The debate over BuzzFeed’s community contributors comes at the same time as a watershed financial moment for the company: after more than five years, and several large investment rounds, CEO Jonah Peretti has declared that the site is profitable.

But still the questions persist about whether BuzzFeed is built to last. Here’s Bill Grueskin of Columbia Journalism School:

Thank you, Francine McKenna, (@retheauditors) for your skepticism on Buzzfeed claims bit.ly/1dWFxVk cc @mathewi & @pkafka—
  (@BGrueskin) September 10, 2013

Others, including Peter Kafka, are asking whether BuzzFeed’s business model — which is based on creating custom, “native ads” for brands — can scale. In other words, can BuzzFeed and brands afford the creative teams to build special snowflake ads at large volumes?

And this is where BuzzFeed’s community pages may pose a real threat. After all, if BuzzFeed’s platform is so easy to use, isn’t there a risk that more brands will simply make community pages rather than pay BuzzFeed for native ads? And, if they do, will BuzzFeed try to turn around and demand a licensing fee to use the platform?

These are questions for the future, though. For now, BuzzFeed is still pulling off its improbable straddle of hard-hitting and banal, publisher and platform. As I left the office, Smith talked up the site’s new Cairo and Moscow correspondents — more evidence that haters can hate, but that BuzzFeed is growing even as more venerable names in media struggle to tread water.

Lamb had been with BuzzFeed since almost its inception, holding the title of managing editor from 2007 until he became editorial director in late 2012. Executive editor, Ben Smith, confirmed the departure by email but did not supply any context:

“Scott is one of the best journalists, and the most creative editors, I’ve ever worked with, and he laid much of the foundation for what BuzzFeed is now.”

Update: Lamb, who Gizmodo has called one of the “25 most viral people on the internet,” provided the following comment:

“I can’t comment beyond saying it’s a new project, with more details to come soon. I’m excited to watch BuzzFeed’s continued meteoric rise from sidelines with the rest of the internet.”

Lamb’s departure comes at a time when BuzzFeed is growing rapidly; in the last year, the site has forged partnerships with established media outlets like CNN and the New York Times.

“Foreign coverage is one of the last spheres where new media haven’t competed aggressively with newspapers and television networks,” said editor-in-chief Ben Smith, in a release issued Monday morning.

The hire carries symbolic significance at a time when the Guardian is enjoying plaudits for its role in breaking a series of major stories involving surveillance by the U.S. government.

While BuzzFeed is still regarded by some as no more than a glorified forum for cat videos, the hiring of Elder — and other media establishment veterans like Smith from Politico and New York Times reporters — reflect its quest to build a serious news machine.

The hiring also reflects the diverging financial fortunes of the two publications. BuzzFeed is in a strong position due to recent investments and enthusiasm for its “native advertising” model, while the Guardian is losing considerable money as it fights for a share of the U.S. news market.

Disclosure: Guardian News & Media is an investor in the parent company of GigaOM/paidContent.

On Monday, the site announced the formal launch of BuzzFeed Entertainment which promises to “take the fun side of Hollywood very seriously” with in-depth coverage of studios, celebrities, money and more.

The west coast move will test whether BuzzFeed can muscle into the entertainment world in the same way it did with its political coverage. Last year, the site became a serious player in Washington after hiring Politico’s Ben Smith and partnering with the New York Times  at political conventions.

In Hollywood, BuzzFeed is betting on original reporting to help stand out from saturated celebrity coverage. In a phone interview, Smith said that serious entertainment reporting has been in decline since the heyday of the Los Angeles Times and that there is a “huge space” for stories that lie in between celebrity fluff and hyper-insider fare. He added that, while the volume of Hollywood coverage has shot up in recent years, most of it is repetitive.

BuzzFeed has almost finished staffing the LA office where it will initially assign 15-20 people to video, entertainment and culture beats with plans to expand more in the future. The site is also relying on veteran west coast media types like Richard Rushfield and Kate Arthur to get a foothold against the likes of Deadline, Variety and the Hollywood Reporter.

So how is BuzzFeed going to pay for all this? For now, the site has the confidence of investors who are smitten with its “native advertising” business model which eschews traditional display ads in favor of ad content that more closely mimics existing stories. Last week, investors poured nearly $20 million of new funding into BuzzFeed. The site’s $200 million valuation was enough to tie it for first place (along with Sugar Media) among the Atlantic Quartz’s list of leading new media upstarts; they were followed by Bleacher Report, Vox Media, Cheezburger Network and Business Insider.

(note: this story contains a clarification from BuzzFeed re how many reporters will staff its LA office). 

To get a sense of BuzzFeed’s unique approach to news, take a look at some of the the stories it selected as “most successful” for 2012. They include a Wall Street hooker’s wish she could tell clients they were “bad in bed” but also serious business and political features — and, of course, mega-viral listicles like “21 pictures that will restore your faith in humanity” and “50 people you wish you knew in real life.”

In the coming year, BuzzFeed is poised to shape the rest of the media industry even as it tries to keep up its own momentum. Here are five things to watch for:

Is the mix of highbrow and tabloid sleaze here to stay?

BuzzFeed made its name with fluffy fare designed to be shared by what founder Jonah Peretti calls the “bored at work crowd.” More recently, the site has sought to climb the quality ladder by hiring respected journalists and producing New Yorker-style articles. This raises the question of whether two very different forms of content quality can co-exist under the same title.

In the traditional media world, highbrow and lowbrow fare live in very different silos. The New York Times, for instance, doesn’t publish sensational headlines or sacharine cat spreads. Meanwhile, the tabloid press doesn’t bother much with long political profiles or ponderous articles about art galleries.

BuzzFeed, however, has chosen to straddle both worlds. Other media outlets may be tempted to follow in the hopes of obtaining a mass audience and serious intellectual influence. It’s too soon, though, to know if traditional divisions between highbrow and tabloid news are largely a function of the print age — or if they are instead tied to fundamental principles of trust, authority and branding.

Will BuzzFeed acquire a political identity?

When its content was based on cats, it was easy for BuzzFeed to hide any political leanings. That will be harder as the site reports more about Congress and the economy. The coming year will determine if BuzzFeed stays non-partisan or if it will take on liberal leanings like the New York Times or the Huffington Post, where Peretti was a founder.

While a middle-of-the-road approach may seem safe, other outlets like Daily Kos and Michelle Malkin show that partisanship is popular. It’s also worth noting that BuzzFeed’s mastery of emotive images and viral distribution means it could put a powerful thumb on the scale for controversial issues. Image the treatment BuzzFeed could give topics like immigration (“10 Mexicans who are a lot like you”), gun control (“4 ways a Bushmaster kills kids faster”) or the economy (“5 home remedies you can use after baby boomers drain Medicare”).

Will all those pageviews turn into money?

BuzzFeed, like the U.K.’s Daily Mail, has galloped up the reader ranks with the help of sophisticated analytics tools. In September, BuzzFeed had doubled its traffic from a year ago with 11.5 million unique visitors according to comScore numbers cited in a BusinessInsider account.

The rapid growth will help BuzzFeed stay ahead of a choppy ad market for non-specialty news sites but, in the long run, the site’s success depends on its vaunted native ad strategy. This year, BuzzFeed will be the leading test case for whether native advertising is in fact the future business model for journalism or if, as detractors say, it’s just another buzzword.

What about the mobile morass?

Like every other publisher, BuzzFeed will soon face a situation where half its traffic comes by way of a mobile device where, for most, advertising revenue is still a pittance. The mobile migration will put BuzzFeed’s native advertising strategy even further to the test.

Will a BuzzFeed competitor emerge this year?

As BuzzFeed gains influence, others may be tempted to copy its approach by employing the same package of viral content and analytics. Low barriers to entry mean that we could see the emergence of BuzzFeed clones by the end of the year — either new sites that target BuzzFeed’s verticals or old meda brands that reboot their existing offerings on a BuzzFeed model.

(Image by TijanaM via Shutterstock)

All of us at GigaOM and our sister site paidContent are into the final planning stages for our big media show on May 23 — paidContent 2012: At The Crossroads. As paidContent editor and conference chair Staci Kramer has described in her posts leading up to the conference, we’re going to be looking at a wide range of topics related to the disruption in the media industry, from newspapers to e-books, with a great lineup of speakers including Media News Group CEO Jim Paton, Vox Media founder Jim Bankoff and Pottermore CEO Charlie Redmayne. I’m looking forward to all of those sessions, but I’m also really looking forward to the two I’m moderating: an interview with Union Square Ventures partner and Twitter investor Fred Wilson and a panel with Talking Points Memo founder Josh Marshall and Vivian Schiller of NBC News.

More than perhaps anyone else, Fred Wilson has been ahead of the curve when it comes to the potential of social media such as Twitter as a disruptive force both for the web and for traditional media as a whole — a track record that arguably began many years ago with his investment in GeoCities, an early web community that was acquired by Yahoo in 1999 for $3.57 billion. Since then, Wilson and Union Square have invested in a number of other prominent social networking players, including Zynga, design community Etsy.com, Foursquare, MeetUp and of course Twitter.

While Wilson hasn’t invested in anything that is specifically focused on media, you could argue (and I have) that Twitter is getting awfully close to being a media entity, if it isn’t already. Although virtually all of its content is produced by users, Twitter still has media-like aspects, including the ability to censor tweets if necessary. More recently, the company has been adding “curation”-type features thanks in part to its acquisition of Summify, and also hiring editors to create editorial products with partners, such as the one Twitter just announced with Nascar.

The Union Square partner has also said that the world of technology and the world of media need to figure out how to help each other, and I’m looking forward to asking him more about what he means by that. In a blog post, he confessed to being a reluctant pirate when it comes to trying to watch certain sporting events that he couldn’t find legal access to — so I’d like to know how he would advise media companies to handle traditional functions like time-based “windowing” and geo-blocking in a digital era.

What’s the impact of real-time media on politics?

On the political front, we’ve seen over the past year or so how the real-time nature of the social web can play havoc with political campaigns and spin doctors. Not only can the candidates themselves post their thoughts on Twitter or Facebook — an example of what web veteran and blogging pioneer Dave Winer has called “the sources going direct” — but those comments can snowball to the point where they take over the entire political agenda, as Hilary Rosen’s remarks about Mitt Romney’s wife being a stay-at-home mother did just a few weeks ago.

Whether this is a positive thing or a negative thing for the broader political and social sphere is something I’m planning to ask Josh Marshall of Talking Points Memo and Vivian Schiller, the head of digital for NBC News and the former CEO of National Public Radio. Are we just seeing a more high-speed version of the same spin cycle we’ve seen for years, or has social media changed the balance of power for the better? What is the impact of meme-trackers such as BuzzFeed, which has added a lot of political firepower with former Politico writer Ben Smith and others, or The Huffington Post (whose co-founder Jonah Peretti is also at paidContent 2012)?

One thing we know for sure is that the world has changed in some fundamental ways thanks to the power of the web and of social media like Twitter: since anyone can be a publisher or a journalist — even for a short time — with the push of a button, we now have an unprecedented ability to see and hear what is happening in places like Tahrir Square in Egypt or Osama bin Laden’s compound in Pakistan. Politicians like former deputy British prime minister Lord Prescott say Twitter gives them “a connection to millions” without having to go through the “distorted prism” of the traditional media.

What the future holds for media companies and for society as a whole remains to be seen, but there’s no question we are going through a time of almost unprecedented disruption. I’m looking forward to hearing what Fred Wilson, Josh Marshall and Vivian Schiller — and all of the other great speakers at paidContent 2012 — have to say about that future. Please join me at the Times Center in New York on Wednesday, May 23.

Thumbnail photo courtesy of Flickr user Nony Mata