Trade EverythingJul 11
free markets are responsible for our prosperity. letâs build more of them.
Tarek MansourWelcome back to the Pirate Wires weekly digest. Every week, the Tuesday Report delivers a brief, lead story followed by a storm of fire links to catch you up on everything you need to know. This week, before we get into it: the whole Pirate Wires team is in Miami. If youâre a paying subscriber, and you havenât yet RSVPd for this afternoonâs happy hour, email me directly, and weâll add you to the list.
Onward!
---
On the radical notion of paying for shit. Ten years ago, it was close to consensus opinion that Buzzfeed was the future of news. Their editors spoke the language of the internet, mingling viral listicles and quizzes with spurts of legitimately great reporting funded by the companyâs wildly-popular nonsense, and they captured the nationâs attention. The juxtaposition of frivolous bullshit with award-winning journalism looked weird, even offensive, but it felt new, and in keeping with the ethos of the time it was all âfree,â which is to say it was funded by advertising revenue. When old media giants like the New York Times dove into a subscription revenue model, in which readers were expected to pay for writing, the tactic was criticized as hopelessly outdated, and even naĂŻve. But consensus was wrong about pretty much everything, and itâs strange we didnât see it at the time: ânew mediaâ lost with ads, an old strategy that looked new, and old media won with subscriptions, a new strategy that looked old. Sure, a 20th Century paper cost a dollar or whatever, but that hadnât been the industryâs primary source of revenue since the late 1700s. News was in the business of advertising, and in this regard it was the Times that changed, not Buzzfeed. The Times won. As of last week, Buzzfeed News no longer exists (with rumors VICE is soon to follow), the Times remains dominant, and every upstart media company in town is either employing the formerly ânaĂŻveâ subscription model, or making use of tools like Substack, which bootstraps the model on their behalf. Next up, something that doesnât make sense, and is anyway probably not legal: direct competition from the public square.
Until now, social media platforms â which facilitated the prior media war, propelled ânew mediaâ companies to prominence, and ultimately drove them all to self-destruction â have remained neutral. Every media company, along with every independent upstart, was permitted to compete in the public square. This is no longer the case.
Elon Muskâs improbable first strike against Substack, now sinking independent creators on his platform at the expense of already-dominant companies like the Times, represents the confounding gunshot start to the next media era, which is presently set to follow one of two potential paths: 1) if Twitter acts alone with independent prohibition, talented writers will leave, the platform will become a boring mid dump for sycophants and state propagandists, competitive social media platforms will cannibalize Twitterâs audience, and the company will die; 2) if every major social media platform follows Twitter, the platforms will win â first against upstart media companies and independent creators, then against the old guard press. But, in their victory, social media platforms will themselves become the media. Another word for media: publishers. This transformation will inevitably run afoul of antitrust watchdogs and Section 230 watchdogs alike, almost certainly triggering federal action, and all for a stream of revenue presently dwarfed by Facebookâs market cap.
Why? And how did we even get here?
Kids will not believe me when I say this, but people didnât always absorb their âcontentâ by way of mysterious algorithmic black magic on endlessly-scrolling crack feeds. We used to type web addresses into our browsers, and actually visit our favorite sites. This, going to âwww dot college shitpost dot comâ or whatever, was itself considered a radical departure from reading physical papers and magazines. Almost all of todayâs giant social media networks existed a decade ago, but they still mostly considered themselves places for sharing pictures with friends and stalking exes, not all-encompassing information portals through which the human race administered its entire reality. Itâs been a wild decade.
As mobile grew the population of the social internet, new media pumped its content on the newly-concentrated social networks, advertisers rushed to the major platforms, everyone entered a cash-delirious bull run, and social media algorithms began to shape our world. Companies that swam with the invisible current were rewarded, while the tone deaf were ignored. But riding the current wasnât free. After a few years, every company and writer that âwonâ the generic cash grab looked around and realized the cost of that increasingly thin slice of pie was their unique identity. In competition for attention from the Everything Feed, one must become the Everything Feed, and once youâre everything for everyone youâre nothing. Youâre worse than nothing: youâre competing with thousands of foreign content farms.
With no unique identity, media companies lost the loyalty of their audience to the gold rush social platforms. With no remaining loyal audience, once-interesting companies became slaves to the algorithm, and even slight changes in social media policy were catastrophic. But the great flattening was not equally distributed.
By reorienting its readership toward subscription and email, companies like the New York Times not only continued to grow, but â with the exception of a brief Trump derangement â basically maintained their identity. The Daily Wire, which is mostly considered a victory of conservative media, actually followed a similar pattern as the Times. Editors shared work on social, won subscriptions, and maintained loyalty. Clickbait bullshit, which eventually gave way to our endless culture war, impacted everyone to some extent, but only media brands with a direct channel to their audience, and a credit card number, survived.
Today, the Times is valued at $6.5 billion, after a high just over $9 billion. This is a tremendous victory given what was meant to be the old guardâs final decade. Still, itâs only a victory in comparison to other media companies. At its own height in 2021, Facebook was a trillion-dollar company. So why does Elon Musk want Twitter to function more like Buzzfeed than Meta?
At first glance, nothing about Muskâs scorched earth war with Substack makes sense. Right at the top, nobody who lived through Parler, Truth, or Mastodon believes Notes, Substackâs âTwitter clone,â is a serious alternative to the platform. Everyone wants to be where everyone already is, and there is nobody in tech who doesnât understand that basic law of networks. Then, Substackâs core product, a content management system for newsletters, is also nothing like Twitter Subscriptions: Substack is broadcast, Twitter is social; Substack facilitates a writerâs ability to gather addresses and send email, Twitter is follower-based; Substack is designed for the publication of real pieces, with video embedding, social media embedding, pull quotes, and pictures, whereas Twitter Subscriptions is a bonus platform for article-length tweets, paid replies (which is actually a great idea I canât believe it took this long to launch), and audio chats; finally, and most importantly of all, Substackâs business model â Iâm sorry to say â is not gonna make it.
From the beginning, Substack granted writers full access to their subscriber list, including emails with an easy-to-export feature, and the banking information of their paying customers. This allowed writers to walk away from the platform at any time, which was and remains Substackâs major selling point;Â email is a place to build a life raft in case of hegemonic social media dictator shit, and that was rampant at the time of Substackâs founding. People often mistake creator-friendliness as Substackâs chief flaw, but creator-friendliness is why Substack exists. The companyâs flaw is its business model, which, in tandem with creator-friendliness might be longterm existential.
Instead of charging a standard SaaS fees for every user, Substack drives revenue with a ten percent cut of income generated by writers on the platform. Problematically, as with almost everything else, writers fall into a power law distribution of success. In other words, of the tens of thousands of writers who use Substack, the company only needs the top ten to survive, and that top ten can leave at any time for any reason. Elon is a businessman. There is no way he intends to clone this model, and I find it almost impossible to believe he sees the company as a threat. But he does want those writers. Why? The answer still doesnât make much sense, but he doesnât want to be Substack, Iâm pretty sure he wants to be the New York Times. And CNN. And the Babylon Bee. And everything else.
I think the strategy looks something like this: blocked from sharing their writing without Twitterâs walled garden workshop, and with no other easy way to bootstrap their own company, most young writers, perhaps more trusting of the new guard than the prior administration, will turn to Twitter as their primary source of income. With writers prohibited from direct contact with their audience (and its banking information), any little bit of business writers grow on Twitter will be captured there forever. With every independent writer on the platform, Elon really would present an alternative to the entire conventional press. For consumers, the choice would feel like âevery opinionâ in exchange for the single, mainstream media worldview. At that point, links to the New York Times, along with every other mainstream outlet, could be banned.
Victory?
It still doesnât really make sense. Why would Elon compete with media giants rather than the social media giants he could, with his resources and talent, usurp? I donât know, maybe heâs as distracted by Twitter as the rest of us, myopically focused on the single population that lives on his platform, rather than Zuckerberg, his actual competition, who isnât tweeting. Still, there is a chance Elon could once again be contrarian and right. Is Pirate Wires not only the future of media, but a threat to Meta? To Google? Could this budding cult of personality be so potent a media force it must be nipped now, while it can still be challenged? Okay, Iâm listening.
The thing is, despite what media influencers who hate the man would have you believe, Elon didnât invent the chaotic social media hellscape. Hell appears to be an innate quality of social media at scale, which nobody, on any platform, has ever been able to fix. Through the torrent of chaos, people have begun to look elsewhere for sense-making. Subscription, for a few dollars or an email or both, has been a small price to pay for sanity. I have a hard time believing Zuckerberg is drooling over Substackâs revenue right now, and I know Mark doesnât want that 230 heat. But if Iâm wrong, and all the giants come together to snuff out David (me) in the cradle? New media, conceptually, becomes an endangered species. Rebel status. The knights are gone, and the Empire has won.
So share this letter with a friend, because in a few years email might just be the last safe sea for pirates. Until then, fuck it weâll have fun.
---
Paper-bagging Lilo and Stitch. Disney is making a live-action remake of the 2002 animated film and people are upset about the casting. Did they cast non-Hawaiian actors to play the Hawaiian roles? No. Is it mostly Hawaiian people complaining? No. The backlash is largely coming from black women who feel that the Hawaiians cast are too light-skinned. Over 200 years of interracial marriage in Hawaii means that even people who claim to be full Hawaiian are, on average, only 78% native. Copy/pasting cultural critiques specific to the black American experience onto other ethnicities is nothing new, but this case is particularly naked (and funny). (Twitter) (Twitter) (PLOS ONE)
Weâre in Miami sun all week. Stay blessed, and remember: subscribe, or die.
â Solana
0 free articles left