Please improve the design clarity of your infographics, you have some interesting data but the color design scheme is really unpleasant to look at. It's for me the most glaring thing you are not executing on well.
The piece argues New Media is an open playing field where anyone can go direct, then spends the rest of it describing why you actually need a16z's video team, million-follower distribution, and proprietary network to win. Both things can't be fully true. "Being interesting" is the democratized part. Being heard is still gated, just by a different gate than the old media one. The honest version isn't "anyone can go direct now." It's "the legitimizing layer moved from newspapers to firms with their own channels." Which is a real shift, but it's a new gatekeeper, not the absence of one. Does the founder without the Bear Hug actually get the same reach, or just the same permission to post?
Thanks for sharing your new media model, and congratulations to the team for the success.
Would like to hear more about what happens to legacy media in this new model?
You say this:
"Oftentimes, this includes traditional comms! The right story in the right publication can still matter a lot. But the press hit works best when it is part of the larger system, and undergirded by the founder’s own framing."
But are there now scenarios where you'd now have to choose between an exclusive in the WSJ, a16z podcast or say Upstarts media? And if so, which platform win, and in which scenarios?
"Signal is what's important, and people confer signal, not brands" is the whole essay in one line. The open question for me: once "go direct + be interesting" becomes a standardized playbook does the edge compound or compress as everyone copies the tactics?
🙌
Please improve the design clarity of your infographics, you have some interesting data but the color design scheme is really unpleasant to look at. It's for me the most glaring thing you are not executing on well.
The piece argues New Media is an open playing field where anyone can go direct, then spends the rest of it describing why you actually need a16z's video team, million-follower distribution, and proprietary network to win. Both things can't be fully true. "Being interesting" is the democratized part. Being heard is still gated, just by a different gate than the old media one. The honest version isn't "anyone can go direct now." It's "the legitimizing layer moved from newspapers to firms with their own channels." Which is a real shift, but it's a new gatekeeper, not the absence of one. Does the founder without the Bear Hug actually get the same reach, or just the same permission to post?
Thanks for sharing your new media model, and congratulations to the team for the success.
Would like to hear more about what happens to legacy media in this new model?
You say this:
"Oftentimes, this includes traditional comms! The right story in the right publication can still matter a lot. But the press hit works best when it is part of the larger system, and undergirded by the founder’s own framing."
But are there now scenarios where you'd now have to choose between an exclusive in the WSJ, a16z podcast or say Upstarts media? And if so, which platform win, and in which scenarios?
Cheers,
Greg @ www.signala.ai
"Signal is what's important, and people confer signal, not brands" is the whole essay in one line. The open question for me: once "go direct + be interesting" becomes a standardized playbook does the edge compound or compress as everyone copies the tactics?