The New Media Playbook with Marc Andreessen & Ben Horowitz

Today's gonna be a fun one. We're gonna dive into all things new media. What is new media? What the new media team is doing here at a16z, what we're focused on and where we're going in 2026. Really stoked to be making this happen. Ben, you had this quote which I think summarizes some of the, some of the, one of the main principles of new media. I just wanna, you know, read a small part of it and then have you elaborate. Old media is defense-oriented. In new media, offense is always better than defense. We've spent many years fretting about our results being leaked. Old media tries to please every audience. Old media is terrified of upsetting people, and new media only cares about being interesting. When in doubt, flood the zone.

Yeah. Yep. That sounds like something I said.

Why don't you share some of the tenets behind that idea and how you came to it?

Yeah.

So actually it's interesting. It's a really weird adjustment going from, you know, I mean, I spent my whole career in old media or dealing with old media and now we're in new media, you know, kind of in the history of the firm, we've been the one thing that we really, really, really, really defended against was basically leaked results. And The reason, and it goes back to in the pretty early days of the firm, the New York Times got a leak of our results and they were very early. I mean, we were like a young firm, so most of the funds were like a year old. And, you know, venture capital firms don't have high returns in the first year because like nothing happens in the first year. It's not like a stock. Market type thing, and so you know that they miss or maybe it's the Wall Street Journal, one of the two. But they misinterpreted the results, you know. So they kind of said, "Well, the early funds were good because those had enough years to get kind of returns in them." But like Fund Three was terrible, and like da da da da and so forth. And there was no, you know, because old media was still. powerful, it was very hard to combat it. You know, we put out statements and this and that and the other and blog posts explaining like why they were wrong, but it didn't land. And it was such a, like a, inside the firm, it was such a big crisis that actually I'm pretty sure Balaji quit because he thought we were dead because the New York Times had just like ruined the whole firm with that article. So it was like that kind of existential a threat. And so, you know, we were very oriented around like, okay, don't let anything out that could be misinterpreted or this or that, because you can never correct it. It goes out there and you're never going to kind of come back from it.

And say more about the flood the zone concept in terms of why it works or, you know, why and why it's so different than, you know, what would happen in the past.

Yeah. Well, so in the past, traditionally, it didn't count if it wasn't in the Wall Street Journal or the New York Times or like the Economist or CNN, or like there were maybe 8 channels that could say something. And then whatever they said was permanent in that, like once it was out there, it was very hard to deal with. And it'll be top of Google results, like the whole thing. But now, look, we can go on, Marc and I, if we really had a problem, could go on 30 podcasts, all of which get a much bigger audience than any of the publications I talked about. And just basically, and we wouldn't even have to talk about that. We could go talk about something else more interesting and erase that from everybody's memory very quickly. So it's just—

Yeah.

Without commenting on what's a better world, the laws of physics are completely different in this world than the other world. And I think to be effective as an organization in marketing and media, you have to embrace the new world because you can't be half and half because the whole motion of the old world will kill you in the new world. And, and vice versa. And so you have to kind of commit to, we're going to really care about what goes down through the old channels, or we're not going to give a fuck. Um, sorry to use language. And we're just going to, you know, say interesting things and flood the zone. And, uh, we're doing the latter, by the way.

There's a whole, uh, history to this, but, but basically like the, the, the whole idea that there's like a quote unquote corporate brand, like the whole idea that there's like a corporate like trademark. And then the whole idea that you like as a business, you basically load everything into the into that thing. And that thing, whether it's General Electric or International Business Machines or whatever, the idea that that thing is somehow abstracted away from the people involved. And then that the people involved, their main job is to try to kind of buff that thing, which kind of led to this— one way to look at it is like it led to this like 80-year kind of reign of like everything being synthetic and plastic and boring, right? Where like the— Ben and I have had this experience for many, many decades at this point. It's just like the job of a corporate CEO for a very long time was to get up on stage and to say absolutely nothing. in any sort of public event. I actually was on a board with a CEO who very firmly believed this, and he literally would come off stage having very deliberately said absolutely nothing and would've been thrilled because he had made no news, mission accomplished, right? And anyway, so Erik, to your question, basically I think the retrospective view on this, what happened was basically in the past, communication channels were just super narrow, right? And so how could you get a message through to the mass market or to your audience or to your customer base Um, you, you could only do it by kind of sending in a message that was encoded into as few bits as possible, right? Because that was kind of your only shot because it was always limited by, you know, TV broadcast airtime or it was limited by newspaper column inches or whatever. And so you just, you had to kind of crystallize everything down to this kind of minimal and sort of least offensive, you know, kind of possible position. But, but it's always been unnatural because as human beings, like that, it does, like, it never felt right. Like, you know, it always felt like weird because it's like this, you know, corporation is like this weird other kind of alien thing. it always felt weird and uncomfortable and we just kind of got used to it. And it turns out, as our friend Mitt Romney famously said, corporations are people too.

Poor Mitt.

Yeah, he was using it in a different context. He was not calling the change in PR, but for our purposes, it's all about people. It's all about the decisions that people make. When a big company or a government agency or a nonprofit or a venture firm or a startup up is making decisions and acting in the world. That's people. There are some set of people who are sitting around making that decision. And then it's kind of this almost, I don't know, shock therapy or something where it's just like, if the people who are actually making the calls actually show up and talk on their own behalf and explain themselves and actually say what they think, it blows everybody's minds. It's the response people have to Elon. It's the response people have to certain other people who are now kind of very notable in our environment who are running large things, who are very public and vocal. It's just kind of this thing of like, and it's just, it's almost like this thing where it's like, well, you know, they can't say that. And it's like, well, wait a minute. Number one, they can say that, like, you know, they're allowed to, they're like an adult in the United States of America. Like they're allowed to say, you know, whatever they want. Number one. Number two, like, how about they actually tell us what they think? Like, how about we hear directly from them so that we can actually understand what they're thinking and who they are, you know, and how they're processing reality and what their assumptions are. And of course, the technological cost for this is just that narrow media funnel just got completely blown to smithereens, right? In large part as a consequence of all the work that all of us have done on this call over the last 30 years. And so it's just, and you could kind of maybe say, love it or hate it, the days of kind of this narrow channel, narrowcasting, and then what I would argue is just this inherently deceptive practice of abstracting things away from people, that world is just clearly fading. And in the new world, we're just going to hear direct from people. And look, Look, I'm not a utopian and it's not going to be like 100% better, but I think there's no question it's a big net improvement.

Yeah. And by the way, you know, the other thing that's really interesting in retrospect is the things that people got in trouble for, canceled for, fired for, et cetera, in the past that they said in the press were all just misinterpretations. So they, you know, with somebody saying something and because it was so narrow and because you could never erase it and because you could never come back and defend it because the audience would be, you know, a thousandth of the size on the defense, you know, people just, it was all, it wasn't, I said what I thought and people thought I was a horrible person. It was, I said something, it got misinterpreted and people thought I was a horrible person. So now in this world where like, you know, people say much more like aggressive things, I would just say in terms of, you know, not being mainstream thinking, but have room to explain it. They, that rarely happens anymore. So like, I mean, everything from like Howard Dean to, you know, you name it, like in today's world, that would be nothing. But in that world, because there was no chance to say, well, like this is— what happened. You know, like there were just thousands of times when people got into incredible trouble for things that they said that were misinterpreted that they could not correct.

Yeah. And Erik, you know, Ben gave me good advice, you know, actually before you came on board, which I am trying my best to stick to, although I will tell you it is a significant personal challenge. Again, with not eating an entire box of Oreos in drink an entire bottle of scotch every night, both of which I'm also trying not to do because we live in a healthy world now, less self-destructive world. So Ben pointed out that what Ben just said basically applies into the new world actually just as much as the old world, in the sense of every time I've gotten myself into serious trouble in public over the last decade, it's because I tweeted something. And I mean, everybody on here probably knows how much I love Twitter, and it's great to be able to rip off the 100. And I was really good at compressing something super controversial in 140 characters and then really letting it rip with 280 characters. But Ben pointed out, look, every time somebody gets mad at you, just gets completely ripped at you over that, basically what's happened is it's out of context. And so what Ben said is, look, just say everything that you think, but say it on a podcast. Say it in the context of an hour and a half discussion so that you can, whatever it is, you've surrounded it with the full explanation, or say it in the form of an essay where you've fully articulated your argument and it's fully in context. And just observationally, and not just applying to myself, but just more broadly, it's actually interesting if you watch this to this day, when public figures get blown to smithereens, it's almost always because of something that's basically too short. When people actually do the full long-form explanation of what they think, even if it's on a highly controversial, even if it's imputed to be highly controversial or whatever, if it's the full explanation, it is actually harder to blow people up. And again, you could kind of say, it's actually really funny. When I was a kid, the moral panic was around television, right? Kind of pre the internet. And a lot of the moral panic in television always was around the concept of soundbites, which is you only ever get to hear like 5 seconds of what anybody's thoughts are. Right. And somehow television is now the gold standard, you know, for information transmission. The internet's evil. Like somehow it all flipped. But anyway, the point being is like the internet gives us the chance to not only express ourselves like in short form, the internet specifically gives us the chance to express ourselves in long form, right? And fully explain things. And that's, that's just so different. Like the, the, the, the hour, hour and a half, 2-hour discussion with somebody who's like deeply into something and is really involved in something. Like, yeah, I mean, we all experience this as consumers. Like it's just so much better than the, than the 30-second bit that, you know, might've been on the NBC Nightly News 30 years ago.

And by the way, you know, the long form of almost anything that's interesting, complex, a systems problem, which is most everything in politics and in technology, you need the long form. There is no soundbite that gives you any information. And so you have to have a long conversation. So it is actually much better. Oreos are vegan as far as, yeah, there's always that thing with sugar, you know, using bones or whatever to be whiter, that kind of thing.

I'm gonna eat a, I'm gonna eat a gigantic package of Oreos tonight in Deborah's honor. I really appreciate that.

The, well, yeah, it's interesting. We've also talked about, you know, media training of the past used to be around sort of, you know, how to stay out of trouble, this kind of thing. And now, now you, you know, if you're a CEO, you wanna be, you know, something, uh, you know, Jordy from TVPN has this concept of a Joe Rogan CEO. I need someone interesting enough to go on Joe Rogan for 3 hours, someone like an Alex Karp, someone like a Palmer Luckey, right? And the flip side of that is that if you're interesting, if you're powerful, it's because you're interesting. Because that's what people want to work for. It's people want to be customers of, it's people want to invest in. And if you're powerful and interesting, you're going to be controversial. And that's something that you guys have also helped me get more accustomed to is like, hey, You know, this is the big leagues, you know, and there are people like who are going to be mad at what we're doing. And that is, that's in some ways, that's a good thing. That's evidence of our power and our interestingness.

Yeah, no, I think that's right. And I think, you know, it's hard. This is another kind of crossover between the old world and the new world, because if you're a corporate brand, then, you know, you try and keep all the dust off the brand and, you know, try and be, something that nobody hates, I guess, for lack of a better word. And then, you know, I think in today's world, to be good at marketing, you've got to be interesting. To be interesting, if you're interesting and powerful, there are going to be a lot of people who don't like you. And that's like, that's a good thing. And I was very happy to see, by the way, the infra piece, because we can get like a nice piece on like a subsection of the firm, But nobody's ever going to write like a really nice thing about the whole firm. I think that, you know, also it's a, this whole new world is much better for founder CEOs because to be a founder, you have to have an original idea and original ideas are interesting by nature. I think that professional CEOs often get to that position through very careful politicking. Which kind of is the opposite where you want to be uncontroversial, like nobody can ding you right as you get to the thing. And, you know, Mark and I have been on, you know, Mark much more than me, but been on large boards where in the large boards, you know, when it comes to picking the professional CEO, they're all about what's not wrong with him, not what's right with him or what's right with her. And so you get these very vanilla characters who definitely could not go on Joe Rogan. And that is all to our advantage because we basically deal almost entirely with founder CEOs.

I want to transition to one more structural mechanic because it's a segue into how we've built our team a little bit. And it's this, Mark, it's this McLuhan quote, if it's on TV, it's a TV show. And just talk about how the different formats yield different types of content. Um, do you want to talk about that? Okay.

You want me to do it? You want me to do it?

Yeah.

Yeah. Okay.

All right.

Okay. This is the thing. Okay. So yeah, Marshall McLuhan was the great media theorist of the, of the TV era. And actually his, his work has actually held up really well and it's, it's, it's, it's worth reading. Um, but, uh, he, he had the, he had this, this thing that Eric just said. He said, if it's on TV, it's a television show. Um, in other words, like basically the, the, the, you know, as he said, the medium is the message. Um, basically what he said is like, look, like TV, TV is a specific kind of technology. It's a specific kind of media technology. Um, and basically like all of the questions around TV are like, you know, is it a, is it, you know, it's all basically just like the only real parameter is length. Like, is it a 3-minute news segment? Is it a 20-minute sitcom? Is it a 40-minute drama? Like, there's very little kind of variation in like what you can do because it's just a linear, you know, it's just a straight, you know, just, you know, broadcast video, you know, mass broadcast video. And so he said, you know, basically the medium in its first, you know, 10 or 20 years evolved, you know, basically the concept of what we now know to be a television show, which is basically either a comedy or a drama or a combination of both. And it's basically a little story and it's a little story that plays at over 20 to 40 minutes. And it kind of has to be a self-contained story because you don't know when people are going to watch it. And, you know, now they're doing, you know, now they're doing, you know, streaming, they're doing serial stories, but, you know, television shows properly generally were, you know, where everything was a one-off. You can watch episodes out of order. And so there's like, there are the, there are these very like self-contained little, basically, you know, plays, little stage plays broadcast on video. And then there, there, there are these self-contained little stories and then, and then they need to kind of appeal to emotion because it's like an emotional medium.

Right?

It's not like an information-dense medium. It's a, you know, it's a, it's a, it's a, it's a medium that literally puts somebody in your living room. And so basically it's, it's like these little morality plays, right? Where there's, and there's got to be like good guys and bad guys and kind of a very simplistic story. And there's like a few, you know, a few mild plot twists and then everything kind of wraps up at the end. And what he says, sort of the consequence of that is like everything on television has to be a television show. And that includes everything in the real world that gets talked about on television has to be turned into a television show. Right. And this is kind of the running joke of following, I don't know, whatever current events or politics on TV right now, which is kind of a running joke, which is on either party, but it's just kind of like, oh, it's time for the next season. Oh, this is the new main plot that's happening. And then this is the new secondary plot that's happening. And if you watch CNN every night, they're just kind of just playing with these stories kind of over time, the way that a soap opera might or that a drama might, or occasionally how a comedy might. And so basically we've just lived in a world where it just seems Like everything's a TV show. Um, and it's, it's a world where like all the edges are sanded off and everything is kind of very smooth and professional and everything is kind of within this very narrow band of what can be put into these kind of little, little morality plays. Okay. So Marshall McLuhan unfortunately is long dead, but I, I assert that if he were alive today, he would say, if it's, if it's on the internet, it's a viral internet post.

Right.

So like, what's the native medium of the internet? Like what's the thing that, what's the form of media on the internet that like rips? And dominates. And it's clearly the viral post, right? It's, it's the viral tweet. It's the viral TikTok. It's the viral Instagram, right? It's the, it's the, it's the viral Facebook post. It's the viral Substack. It's the viral YouTube video. Like it's very clearly the post and specifically it's the viral post. Like it's, it's the one that really rips. And so, so basically you're right, right? So my theory is if it's on the internet, um, uh, everything is a viral post. And then you just ask yourself 2 questions, which is like, okay, what's the characteristic of a viral post? And, and like 9 times out of 10, it's something that like really gets people cranked up, right?

Yeah.

Like on whatever topic, right? It might be on whatever your favorite pop star said yesterday, or it might be on whatever, you know, a politician said, or it might be on whatever, you know, a business leader said or whatever. But like, it's something that like causes people to like flip out, right? Uh, you know, you know, and maybe some people flip out positively, some people flip out negatively. Something caused people to flip out. And then the other thing with viral posts that's really interesting is you can actually observe this in the data. They have this really rapid rise. Like they tend to, if they're going to take off, they tend to take off within like 12 hours. And then they spike like crazy as everybody retweets or reposts and, you know, emails it around and talks about it. And then there's basically this like half-life falloff where like within 24, it's like 12 hours up and then it's like 20, 24 hours down. And then 36 hours later, it's like gone from our collective memory. And the reason is because another one has popped up and has taken off instead. And if you kind of take a step back and kind of chart the media landscape that we've all been living in for the last, whatever, you know, for sure 5 years, but, you know, you could even say probably 10 years. What we've lived through is just literally just like thousands of cycles of viral posts. Um, okay. Is, you know, is this good or bad or something in the middle? You could have a big debate about that. Um, you know, I would argue it's its own form of emotionality, right? It's, it's basically things that spike the cortisol. And so that, you know, it's sort of things that are controversial. And so it leans into that. But, you know, the other side is there's things that are interesting, right? Um, and then the other part is, you know, the people get a vote of what goes viral, right? It's not just up to a news producer what shows up on TV. So there, there, there's that aspect to it. Another aspect to it, by the way, is that stories come and go much more quickly now, right? And so there will be something that pops and it's like the world's biggest crisis in whatever sector is talking about. And it's just like everybody in the world has an opinion. This is where I was using a while back the meme of the current thing. Like it's the current thing. Everybody has to have an opinion on the current thing. It's the most important thing in the world. And then 24 hours later, it's like it never happened because something else has become the current thing. And then that leads to, you know, the new, the new version of the old Time Honors strategy of getting through media crises, which is like, just like basically make Make sure something else becomes the new viral post, gets something else elevated into that thing. So there's this way to kind of deal with these things. But anyway, I just think as long as the internet is the medium of choice, we're going to live in a world in which this is the cycle now. It's like a 24, 36-hour cycle. By the way, the traditional media in the form of newspapers and television, at least the way I read them, is they're basically covering whatever was the viral post yesterday or a week ago. Right. And so, right. So they're being driven by the internet viral post, which is, which is, you know, which is why I think that, you know, the internet viral post is the high order thing. And I also think like that, that's not going to change. Like they, the whole long thing I could do on that, but like they literally, if you're a television, if you're a television producer or if you're a news editor or whatever, like you, you can't possibly move your organization fast enough to stay ahead of these cycles. And so what you end up doing is you end up chasing them. And that's, and basically the role of mainstream media for the rest of our life is just going to be to follow the internet viral posts.

Yeah, there was a funny joke on The Daily Show years ago where they were talking to a newspaper guy and he said, why do you call it news? You should call it olds.

That's good.

Um, it was, he was interviewing at the time the managing editor of the New York Times, uh, when he was in his office and the New York Times, you know, was expecting to get this glowing coverage on The Daily Show and whoever it was shows up in the office and says, says what Ben just said. And the guy and the editor is just like completely confused. Like he clearly has no idea. what The Daily Show guy is talking about. And he's like, well, like, what do you mean? And he's like, he points to, there's like a pile of literally physical newspapers in the guy's desk. And he says like, look, it's, it's all old news. And he's like, no, no, it's today's paper. And he's like, no, no, it's yesterday's paper. Like, I already know everything that's in that. Like, you know, and so, and yeah, and, and like, it's just basically like, again, what do they have? They're very proud of this. They have their editorial process. They have their publication process. Like they have multi-layer bureaucratic mechanism for, you know, all the news that's fit to print. You know, it's at least a 24-hour cycle to figure that out. And I mean, and you know, 24 hours later, the internet has already moved on from whatever the last thing was. And so it's just, it's, it's a, it's a, it's another example of the dog chasing the car, except now they have to chase it like every single day, which might be why they're so upset all the time.

Yeah, they are pissed.

You know, we've really made sure to hire people who really understand the platform, not just how the platform works technically, but also the, the vibe and the taste and the, and the spirit of, of, of the platform. And we've gone all in to start Um, on, on X because those are just where the most interesting conversations are happening and where, where people are the most plugged in.

And, and the way I think about it, of course, most of the tech world is on X, you know, like it or not, like our world lives on X. Um, just because that's also where all the, both the kind of AI researchers and the AI influencers and the crypto influencers, like, like Everybody in our world lives there, uh, you know, at least in part. So we can't avoid it even if we didn't like it. Yeah. But we love it.

You were about to say something, Mark?

Oh yeah, no, I was just going to say, yeah, no, look at what Ben said is, yeah, like this is, uh, I posted a link to a book called The True Believer that kind of talks about this is, you know, the old characterization is elites and masses, which is a little bit 20th century, but yeah, like the, the, like people who are spending 24 hours a day trying to understand you know, basically in these domains like AI or, you know, politics or whatever, like they're on X like that. And that's, that, then that's not the mass market. Like that's not most of humanity, but like that's most of the people who are like basically in the, what you might, I don't know what you want to call like knowledge synthesis business or whatever, where they're trying to like understand and formulate policies on things and so forth. Um, obvious, obviously it's also true that TikTok and Instagram, you know, have just like much more reach. Like they're, you know, they're just much bigger. Um, you know, they reach the mass kind of global audience, um, more. And so that, you know, they certainly, they certainly play a role, but if you're on the leading edge of a field, like, uh, you know, it's, it's very rare that the whatever is kind of the, you know, the, you know, kind of the edge of that process of kind of idea formation, propagation, people, you know, in positions of authority kind of figuring out what they think. It's, that's almost entirely on X.

By the way, this is another huge difference between old media and new media. So if you come from old media world, there's just reach. Yeah. Right. Like the targets, you know, if you were going for a target audience, There was no real easy way to do it. I mean, you know, like maybe like if you were sports, you'd be in Sports Illustrated or whatever, but like there wasn't really a way to do it. But now with podcasts and blogs and X and so forth, you can go to an exact audience. You can really get down to an extremely narrow target in new media world. And, you know, for us, that's great because the audience, our audience is founders, not the world. And so, you know, having a way to talk to 90% of founders as opposed to 4% of the world is just a much better thing for us. Yeah.

The 2 more structural things, Mark, I want you to explain, and then I want to present some slides, you know, give some detail about what we're doing that relate to what I'm about to say. One is I want you to explain the Boyd loop and why, you know, that makes Twitter and social media so much more powerful in terms of, you know, forming consensus. Um, and then the other is the difference between written and oral culture and, and, and what's prioritized, um, in, in, you know, as we transition to oral.

Yeah. Okay. So these are both long topics. And so I'll try to do the Cliff Notes version. Um, yeah. So, um, I'll, I'll, I'll link to the book on this, but in, in, in, in military theory, there's this concept called maneuver warfare, which basically just says like speed, speed wins, like speed, speed wins as compared to mass winning. Uh, speed wins. And so if you, if you believe that, then there's basically this framework, there's this framework called, called the OODA loop. OODA loop, which originally was developed for fighter pilots and then later for broader military strategy. And the OODA loop, what OODA stands for, it's an acronym, it stands for observe, orient, decide, act. And so it's basically the decision-making cycle, right? And so observe is like view the outside world. Orient is like figure out where you are in respect to the outside world. Decide, of course, decide what to do. Act. And basically what this guy Boyd, who came up with this idea, said was like any fighter pilot, any military corporation, any basketball player, any company, any government basically goes through a decision-making cycle that's like that in order to make decisions. We just talked about the New York Times has their own OODA loop. It's like 24 hours to go through their process. Right. And so basically what he said is if speed is the thing that matters, then the person who gets through that cycle the fastest is the one who's going to win. But he said, There's a second-order thing that happens. So one is just like, is your OODA loop faster than the other guy's? So that's one question. But he said the other thing that can happen is if you can have a sustainably faster OODA loop processing cycle than the next guy, then if you think about what happens, let's say it takes you whatever, an hour to figure something out, it takes the other guy 2 hours to figure something out. Think about what happens is like, okay, you start out on an even playing field. You both start your decision-making cycles. You operate, you make your decision within an hour. The other guy is still, we would say, is inside his own OODA loop when you make your decision, right? And so you make your decision, you act within an hour. He's only halfway through his process. He now has to start his process over, right? Because you've changed the landscape, you've changed the parameters of what's going on. So he now has to go back and reobserve and reorient and start over, right? And then of course project forward. It's like, okay, then you decide again within an hour. And then by the time he gets, and again, he gets halfway through his process, he gets interrupted. decision, he has to go back. And so what he says is, if you can be sustainably faster at running your decision loop, you can get inside the other guy's loop in a systematic and perpetual way. And basically the result of that is psychological breakdown. Basically, you destroy the psychology of the other side because they just simply, they just can no longer operate or function at all. They just like basically go into complete panic. Nothing seems to make sense. They can never get oriented. They can never make decisions. They can never, they become completely defensive, completely responsive. You completely dominate, you know, basically the playing field. And he, you know, he was a famous fighter pilot. He was a famous fighter pilot called 15-Second Boyd because his claim was, which was true, is he could beat any other fighter pilot in a dogfight within 15 seconds using this method. And so it's basically this premium on speed and quality of execution such that you are actually causing the other side to have a psychological break. By the way, again, go back to the— I think this is also a big explanation for what's happened to traditional media. The fact that the internet moves events so much faster and the internet collective crowd decides what's important so much faster, causes all the people who were television producers or news editors who thought that they were in charge of the narrative to just basically have a psychological breakdown. Like, how can you even function when the internet is just basically cycling much faster than you could? And I think this, by the way, the same is true of companies. You know, this is what Elon does, you know, to his competitors, like in the defense, you know, in the aerospace industry. This is what Anduril is now doing to companies in the defense industry. Um, you know, this quite frankly is what we try to do, you know, to our competitors in the venture industry. Um, so yeah, so that now to do that, you have to be willing to commit to being fast. Right. Um, and so you, you can't, you can't have long bureaucratic processes. You can't have a risk-averse posture. You need enough time to make the decision properly, but you can't run the fully deliberate strategy that a lot of companies used to have in the past where it was days to weeks to months to figure out what they were going to say about something. By the way, in politics, they adapted to this probably 30 years ago with the concept of the war room. And there's a famous documentary on the Clinton campaign, and I think in '88, called The War Room, where they show this. And now, Now they call it rapid response. And if you go to basically any political operation on the internet right now, they'll have an X account that's literally, they call it rapid response. So it's like, actually Department of War has one, just as an example, Department of War Rapid Response. And it's literally like they're responding in real time to stuff that's happening because they want to stay inside everybody else's OODA loop. Yeah. Okay. So there's that. And then yeah, the oral versus written thing is, it would probably take an hour to kind of go through the whole thing. But yeah, the long and short of it is there's basically In sort of human culture, there's kind of 2 ways to communicate. There's 2 fundamental modes. There's oral communication, there's written communication. Oral communication is the original form, and you could think about it literally as like people around a campfire telling stories, singing songs, reciting poetry. You can think about written communication would be kind of famously the book or the scientific journal article, right? Or the math equation or the business plan, right? A written artifact. And that basically the characteristic of orality or oral communication is it's sort of inherently emotion first, right? Because it's literally live interactions with another person. The characteristic of written communication is sort of abstraction and hopefully logic, the scientific method, intellectual rigor, analytical rigor. It used to be the case that you could kind of really divide these. In traditional mass media, it used to be the case you could say that newspapers and magazines are written, and so they would be more calmer and more dispassionate. You could say television was oral, right? It was literally people talking. And so it was going to be much more emotional and hotheaded. Basically, that's all broken down because of everything we've talked about. But the modern version of that is the internet. Okay, is the internet an oral culture or written culture? And it turns out the answer is the internet's both because the internet is everything, right? It supports every kind of media. And so a YouTube video, I will say for sure, a short-form TikTok or Instagram reel for sure is oral culture. Like it's something short and bursty and emotional and interpersonal in its experience. A long-form Substack post is for sure written culture. But then things get more complicated because a short tweet, even though it's written, is actually an oral culture thing, right? Because the fact that it's short means that it has to be like this, again, this sort of this burst of sort of, say, triggering emotionality in order to go viral. So actually tweets, I would say, are oral culture, even though they look written. And then long-form podcasts are actually written culture, even though they look oral, right? Because if you're going to talk about something for 3 hours, like that's necessarily something where you're kind of getting into abstractions and depth, you know, beyond just kind of a flash moment of emotion. Um, and so the internet lets you kind of play with these formats and, and, and the kind of impact that you want to have, um, in a way that, you know, in the past was kind of determined by exactly which fixed media you were in. And look, we all live this. Like if you want to have the internet experience of like doom scrolling and getting really pissed off at the world, like you go on TikTok and X and you can do that. If you want to like learn a lot of stuff, you can go on Substack and long-form YouTube podcasts and you can live in that world and like, you can like, you know, raise your IQ a point today. Like, you know, it's absolutely amazing. And so there is a choose your own adventure aspect to it. Um, and, um, and then of course, you know, we, you know, firms like ours need, you know, need to think hard about how we communicate because of, of the differences.

I love that as a segue because it just emphasizes how different every platform is. And it's not, you know, a lot of people or companies will just, you know, have one idea and then cross-post it, you know, across every platform, but it doesn't fully appreciate what that platform is built for and what that platform rewards. And so for every platform that we have, we have a Substack, podcast, Instagram, X, YouTube, et cetera. We have an expert running it who is obsessed with that medium. On Instagram, we're up 35% month over month right now. We have this guy, Hero, who's 18 years old and has been, grew up on Instagram and knows it like the back of his And that really matters. That makes a difference. And so with that as a segue, I want to share just a few slides that just show a little bit about what we've done so far. So what we're really trying to do is kingmake our companies, right? Is give them such a superpower in terms of getting their message out, in terms of reaching their customers, in terms of reaching their their talent, you know, the superpower that companies like Anderl have to, you know, punch way above their weight class and other brands, you know, wish that they had that level of resonance, that level of reach. We're, you know, trying to give them those superpowers. And we do that by building our own channels, our own, you know, media empire across platforms. We do that by making sure that we know everybody else. Who's got those— is my screen paused for some reason?

Okay, screen share.

But everybody else who's got those powers of distribution and having great relationships with them. And then also by just, you know, making sure that we have the expertise to be able to deploy to our companies as well. You know, Lulu put this well, you know, that people don't really invest enough in people running these platforms. And, you know, we've really spent a lot of time recruiting the right expert talent to So I'm stoked because now that we've had them build our platforms, we're going to deploy them to work on behalf of our companies. And so we're, you know, Kasser from Applied Intuition, you know, he's always been, I was an angel in Kasser as well, so I've known him for a while and he's always been complaining of like, hey, you know, why are we not valued more? Or why do we not have more resonance? Why do people, you know, why is everyone talking about other companies, not our company, given how good we are? And I said, Kasser, you know, you've never tweeted in your life. How do you expect to have tremendous, tremendous mindshare? And he finally, you know, thanks to a lot of pushing that we did, bit the bullet. And his first tweet got like 4,000 likes. And, you know, the first product we have, I'll get to in a second, was this launch as a service. The second one is going to be this founder go-direct motion. You know, we're working with Kasser, we're working with Garrett from Flock Safety. You know, that's a heroic company that should be at the stature of Anduril as well. And I really helped them build that machine. So speaking of the launch as a service offering, this was inspired early on. I was asking some of the GPs, hey, where could we make the biggest difference? Like what new product should we have? And Sarah said, if we could guarantee a viral announcement, I think that'd be a superpower for us. So we built out this launch as a service, everything soup to nuts from all the social media copy to the messaging, the You know, the rollout, we created these custom videos. You know, we hired Richard, another 18-year-old who, you know, we convinced him to go straight from high school to the NBA, i.e., not go to college, or at least not right now. And he had previously done the Clueless video and the browser-based video. And he's just got this phenomenal taste for what really does well. And so We built this video team, Richard, Ben, you know, Henry, you know, has really led this product. And you could see the views here. It's just done phenomenally well, you know, millions and millions of views for our companies. We've now scaled up this offering to offer it to all of our companies. And that's our first product. After working with companies, companies were saying, hey, you know, how do I hire people like that? And thus the New Media Fellowship was born to to help us hire them, but also help our companies hire them. And so, because, you know, there's this sweet spot where you need to be online enough to really know the, have a taste and have a sensibility and understand these new platforms, but you also need to be functioning enough and professional enough to work at one of these companies. And there's not many people can do both. And so we've really, you know, tried to create this program to be able to identify these people and then just give them a little bit more sort of technical know-how. And so our first fellowship, we had 2,000 applications. We picked 65 people. We think they're incredible. 2 hires from us came from that so far. And we think this is going to be a franchise to come. And the other part of it I'll just leave is, you know, I think we're really popularizing this term new media, seeing a number of people with, you know, new media JDs. They want a head of new media. You know, they're looking for that. And I think we're sort of in the way that we've popularized American dynamism, other people have American dynamism practices. We're starting to see that with new media. And so it's cool to see our thought leadership there. Yeah. And, you know, more to, more to come. So, so yeah, those are the things I'll leave you with in our presentation. The, you know, our channels are up tremendously and we're continuing to invest in them. We, we've got this portfolio offering launched as a service where we're, you know, now launching our go-direct motion of really helping our CEOs and companies do that. And it has to come from the CEO. So every engagement we do, the CEO is, is tremendously engaged and then we're really building out this new media category creation, this new media talent base for us because we're continuing to hire, but then also our companies.

Yeah. So Ben, any closing thoughts?

I would just say that, you know, particularly if you've spent time in the prior media regime, you know, of old media, you know, you really have to rethink every instinct that you have because it's one of the Weirdest things where all your instincts are wrong. I mean, we're actually experiencing a little bit of this in AI too, which, you know, Martine wrote a great post on, which is like in the old world of software, the one thing you knew is you couldn't throw money at a problem and now you can throw money at a problem. And so like you don't even realize how much of your thinking is affected by that old rule. And I would say this is that in spades where every single instinct you have is incorrect if you're in this world and you just have to let it all go. And this is why people lament, oh, the right wing built this big podcast network and blah, blah. That's not what happened. What happened is Trump just understood new media for whatever. I don't know why he did because he's so old and he's been in old media the whole time, But like he just rolled right into it and, you know, not at a technological level, but as a media, as a medium. And I think that, you know, we've got to do that. We have to understand it and we have to kind of play by the new rules.

All my favorite comedians, podcasters, et cetera, always tell their guests, don't read the comments. What do you guys think? Do the manic Reddit posters drive you nuts? I have not dived into our podcast comment section, but I have seen a16z rage on Reddit. Not surprising. Uh, for what it's worth, every technical conference I've been at while at a16z has always had an a16z fanboy raving about our podcast. Um, yeah, so Erik, read the contents or read the comments. Don't read the comments.

Uh, don't read the comments if they're going to affect what you say. Um, it's, it's kind of like the Yelp problem, you know, people who care enough to post either, either absolutely love it or absolutely hate it. And we've definitely got But at this point, it doesn't affect me, so I read the comments. But, you know, I, well, you know, Mark and Ben have helped me not get too concerned about some of the commentary on Twitter by, you know, certain anonymous Twitter posters who, you know, raging in their basements, et cetera. But yeah, in short, don't read the comments.

Yeah. So I'll just maybe close on 2 things. So one is, There's a long history of this. And so if you read any sort of biography or autobiography of any sort of professional author, you know, who writes books for a living, like 100% of the time, at some point they will tell you, oh, the one thing I never do is read the critics, right? I never read the reviews. And then they'll say, well, actually, no, that's not true. I always read the reviews. Because I know I shouldn't, right? Like, I know I shouldn't. I know I shouldn't because, like, critics, like, by definition are, like, you know, basically bitter, you know, bitter people. who aren't writing novels or whatever. And so of course they're going to be mad. Um, um, uh, and, and I know I shouldn't read. I know it's very bad for me. I know it's going to really screw me up. Um, and, and, and then I, I try and then it's like a magnetic pull. I, I always end up reading them, you know, 'cause it's like 3 in the morning and I can't resist. And then I always end up getting mad. Um, and so there, there, you know, there is this push and, and it used to be right. Only professional authors or professional filmmakers or whatever had critics, right? Uh, reviews. And now basically, right, the entire, the entire world is a critic. And so I, I think we all, we all, we all, we all kind of have that. It's, it's a little bit of a, it's a little bit of a push and a pull. And so that is a little bit difficult. I will say, I think maybe a thing to kind of bear in mind, I couldn't resist. I posted a link to another book on this topic that has a great title called Kill All Normies. And it's a book actually from like a decade ago that talked about this kind of very angry internet culture that kind of developed after the 2000s. And because by the way, the internet was not always like this. In the very, very early days, the internet was so hard to get onto that the only people who were on the internet were like basically super, basically like smart, super successful people.

Yeah.

Newsgroups were really good then.

Yeah. Yeah. Like pre-1993, newsgroups were like utopia. Um, and then, uh, and then, uh, and then sort of post-1993, things started going sideways and then things start, the modern kind of caustic internet culture really developed in the, in the 2000s and 2010s. Um, but, but basically it like, it actually turns out there's like a genealogy to it and it actually turns out like a lot of it is literally Literally, it's like Call of Duty lobbies for online gaming. So it's literally like online gaming lobbies, because when the Xbox and the PlayStation rolled out voice interaction for the first time, they're like, oh, it'd be great for players to be able to talk to each other. And it turns out you just get 12-year-old boys in these lobbies just torching the fuck out of everybody and literally trying to get under their opponent's skin and then being willing to anonymously say absolutely anything to Do it. Um, right. And so that led to, you know, you know, very, very coarse, very vulgar, very offensive, you know, kind of thing. And then that, you know, kind of flipped, you know, that kind of culture kind of expanded into early internet forums like Something Awful. And then it started metastasizing into things like, um, you know, like YouTube comments. Um, uh, and then, you know, and then obviously social media kind of blew that open. And so, um, there is this, um, uh, you know, there, there is this kind of, you know, I don't know, like rage undercurrent to everything. Um, and I guess it just, you'd say, you know, you just got, you do kind of literally have to think about if these are people literally in their, in their, in their parents' basement.

And by the way, you know, the other thing is generally when we get attacked in the comments or, or stuff like that, it's somebody with like 4 followers or like a bot or something like that.

So yeah.

That's, uh, by the way, that, that includes when it's very little interesting to read in them, I would say.

Yeah. And that includes when it's, hey, Mantra Vinod.

Yeah. Yes. Yes.