Media Companies Agree With Me
Shifting to More Localized Audiences
It looks like an idea I mentioned back in February, about how we might adapt in response to a monolithic winner-take-all system, is actually a strategy that media companies are pursuing!
I noted in this post about the Downside of Being a Small Creator,
The things is, if we all have to do this to “succeed”, if we’re shifting to a system where everyone must self-promote in a massive free-for-all pool, then we’re moving to a system where most people will struggle. An influencer-like system is one where the vast vast majority of people get next to nothing while just a few people reap most the rewards.
Which makes me wonder if it’s possible to shift to a system/ecosystem that is more localized.
It appears that big media companies have drawn the same conclusion.
In the monolithic national pool for news media, the New York Times has clearly won the game—or at least the prior edition of the game before the new edition that is now taking shape where AI starts to intercept viewers before they get to websites by summarizing information drawn from those websites in the search results page.
This article by Nico Grant and Katie Robertson in the New York Times talks about how Google’s new AI Overviews feature is an existential threat to publishers because if readers no longer need to actually visit the source page of information, then the actual creators of the information don’t get any site traffic and ultimately lose revenue.
The article goes on to discuss how newspapers and magazines like The Washington Post, The Texas Tribune, and the Atlantic are turning to new strategies to try to form direct relationships with readers so that they aren’t so reliant on the massive reach of Google’s search engine.
“Mike Donoghue, Subtext’s chief executive, said media companies were no longer chasing the largest audiences, but were trying to keep their biggest fans engaged.”
So, instead of everyone competing for the crown in one giant pool, they’re trying to segment out their audience of people who particularly like their work.
But what does that look like for independent creators like myself?
Focusing on a newsletter/blog/website where we can connect directly with our audience instead of on algorithmically-driven platforms like Instagram and TikTok for one. Meeting people in person like at festivals and conventions seems like an important avenue, too. I may be trying to do that in the future. You’ll hear about it here when it happens! And if you have other ideas, I’d love to hear them.
The title of this post is phrased in a slightly sensationalized way—the media companies certainly don’t read this blog/newsletter, so it’s not like they agree specifically with me. But it’s cool to see that alignment, and I think it will be good to follow up on things that I write, ideas and predictions, when it turns out they’re right or wrong.
Philip Tetlock has done a lot of work and writing on predictions, punditry, and accountability—or the lack thereof. (I enjoyed his book Superforecasting.) And one of the things he talks about is how we don’t hold pundits accountable for frequently being wrong, and how the elastic ways they word their pronouncements make it so that they can still find a way to claim victory under a wide range of outcomes down the road.
Well, I don’t want to be like that and I’m not being paid for spicy takes (or, you know, at all, so I suppose there’s that on the other hand). I’m more interested in truth, so I’ll approach things from that angle.
“From niches to riches” recently explained by Will Terry, the smart illustrator responsible for the self published children’s book “Pickle Ball Paul” just by reading the title you know what he means