Updates from feedwordpress Toggle Comment Threads | Keyboard Shortcuts

  • feedwordpress 15:33:35 on 2022/09/14 Permalink
    Tags: , , , ,   

    Apple As An Advertising Company: Inevitable, or A $100 Billion Mistake? 


    Warning: preg_match_all(): Compilation failed: invalid range in character class at offset 7 in /homepages/23/d339537987/htdocs/ec/wp-content/themes/p2/inc/mentions.php on line 77
    Well, until it’s not.

    I hope to write something more thoughtful soon, but this piece from CNBC prompted me to at least jot down a placeholder: Apple is clearly coming for the ads business, and it’s starting exactly where Facebook did ten years ago: The app download marketplace.

    First, the news – not that it’s that new given many smarter observers have noticed Apple’s recent pivot to advertising. From CNBC: Apple plans to sell ads in new spots in the App Store by year-end.

    The addition of these new ad units only strengthens Apple’s already  robust business of selling search ads inside the app store.  Apple also sells other types of advertising, but what you might not realize is how large the app download advertising business actually is: an estimated $118 billion this year alone. Google and Facebook/Meta dominate the category, but Apple’s coming on strong – aided in large part by its decision, under the cloak of caring about consumer privacy, to kneecap the third-party data ecosystem that underpinned its competitors’ offerings. In short, Apple made it far harder for its rivals to deliver ROAS (return on advertising spend), and advertisers, being logical businesspeople, are moving spend to Apple.

    Why does this matter? Hypocrisy, for starters. Apple is spending countless millions positioning itself as anti-advertising, while at the same time privately planning to grow its own advertising business to a significant percentage of its overall revenues and profits. According to reporting from Bloomberg and elsewhere, Apple’s current advertising business stands at around $4 billion, putting it roughly in the league of Twitter, TikTok, and Snap, all of which are struggling to build app download businesses (and failing, in large part, because they can’t use data from Apple’s ecosystem). But Apple has been hiring ad platform talent lately, and some research outfits predict the company could scale its ads business to $30 billion within the next four years – putting it in the top tier of advertising giants*.

    Once that happens, it’s worth asking: How will becoming an ads business change the famously privacy-first company? I plan on digging into this question – and welcome any thoughts you might have as I do.

    • * Yes, yes, I know that $30 billion is not much given Apple’s nearly $400 billion in top line. But study this chart, and think about the fact that Apple’s services revenue – which includes advertising – has a nearly four times higher gross margin than its devices business. Put another way, every dollar in ad revenue is worth up to four times MORE than a dollar in device revenue. 

    (And PS, watch this space – Germany is suing Apple for self dealing in its ads business…)

     

     
  • feedwordpress 15:27:33 on 2022/09/10 Permalink
    Tags: , ,   

    Writing 


    Warning: preg_match_all(): Compilation failed: invalid range in character class at offset 7 in /homepages/23/d339537987/htdocs/ec/wp-content/themes/p2/inc/mentions.php on line 77

    Time was, I sat down nearly every day of the week to contemplate a blank page – and a few hours later, more or less, I’d hit “publish” in the WordPress backend, and a few hundred (or thousand) new words would appear on this site.

    It’s been a while since I’ve done that. I love writing, a process I’ve often called “thinking out loud,” and my relationship to this site was one of the most productive and important connections to the world I’ve ever had. But it’s atrophied, badly, and not a day goes by when I don’t miss it. I’m writing today not because I’ve had some insight or itch to scratch – I’ve had a million of them over the past few years, and developed an annoying habit of ignoring them all. But to be honest, I’m writing today because I can’t stand the tumbleweeds and dust bunnies dancing around this place. My email signature – the one for battellemedia.com, anyway – still has a link to this site, and this morning I considered taking it off.

    Instead, I’m writing this, both a mea culpa and a promise to all of you who followed my work over the past few decades. First, the apology: I’ve met dozens of you in the past year who’ve asked me what happened to my writing, and it both pleases and pains me to hear that question. It’s something of a mystery to me why I stopped – I still write three pages a day in my personal journal, why did I fall out of practice in the public realm? Certainly my move to New York four years ago, starting another company, wrestling with my own demons as it relates to what I feel is worth paying attention to – all of that contributed. But I think in the end I just lost confidence that I had anything interesting to say. So to those of you who still believe I might, and who’ve encouraged me to start up again, I am sorry for my absence, and I will strive to make amends.

    And now the promise: I’ve found myself at a place in life where I’m asking rather big questions. Our last child left for college last week, my wife and I have re-located to our family home off Cape Cod, I now commute weekly to New York, which is a situation I vastly prefer. Living in the city was invigorating but exhausting. I suppose I should have known, coming from Marin County, that the cacophony of NYC would wear me down. I’m back in a place that feels right again, and dipping in and out of New York’s mad energy allows me to keep connected, but not lose myself to the noise.   So I promise to lean back into writing on topics that interest me – regardless of whether anyone notices or responds. It’s meditative, it’s healing, and I miss the hell out of it.

    I promise to be a bit more personal here, to acknowledge my ignorance and blind spots, to raise more questions than answers, and to reflect on the lessons learned over more than three decades covering tech, media and business. I also promise to answer every single one of you who reaches out, should you care to. It was just such an outreach which spurred me back to this blank screen, and to the publish button – which I’ll press now, thankful that I have the opportunity to do so. See you online.

     
  • feedwordpress 13:34:20 on 2022/04/07 Permalink
    Tags: , , , , , , , ,   

    Has Innovation Died in Marketing? 


    Warning: preg_match_all(): Compilation failed: invalid range in character class at offset 7 in /homepages/23/d339537987/htdocs/ec/wp-content/themes/p2/inc/mentions.php on line 77

     

    Caveat: This will likely be one of my longish, link-heavy Thinking Out Loud pieces, so I invite you all to pour yourselves a glass of your favorite adult beverage or rustle up a fine cannabis pairing, should you care to indulge…

    As The Recount prepares for a major launch this spring, I found myself again contemplating the state of digital marketing – a subject I’ve written about extensively over the years. To not bury the lead, I find myself profoundly disappointed in the industry, which I think believes it is innovating, but in fact, is making the same mistakes old school media companies made when faced with the rise of the internet 15 years ago. But before I get into why, some background on how I came to that conclusion. 

    The Recount will soon launch a novel live news streaming product. We’ve been working on it for nearly a year, and we’re taking exactly the kind of risks that startups exist to tackle. We’ve rethought nearly every aspect of what makes “good television” in a post-social, digitally native information ecosystem. And while it’s true The Recount has a large and highly engaged social audience (tens of millions of views and engagements each week), there’s no guarantee that audience will join us in the world of live streaming. We know we have to prove ourselves – we must build and iterate a compelling service that people will find engaging, useful, and even fun. It’s risky – hell, it’s more than risky. To succeed, we have to build a service – and a brand – that our audience will want to share with friends and colleagues. In short, we know we must deliver an experience that builds community – because no media brand thrives without community.   

    Community. The word is a bit careworn, bruised from its recent run-ins with Web2 platform leaders like Zuckerberg and the casual toxicity of places like Twitter and YouTube. But community is a fundamental element of a great media brand, and it’s central to our success or failure. We think it’s so important that we’re launching our stream on Twitch, a platform that couldn’t be more different from traditional news environments in its approach to community. With one or two rare and unconventional exceptions, news has not found its footing there. So why the hell are we trying?

    Fair question. As we thought through the implications of committing to a third-party platform for the launch of a crucial new service, and the challenges of convincing marketers that it will be worth supporting, I was reminded of a burst of writing I posted more than fifteen years ago. Back then I was struggling to navigate a similar kind of shift in how media worked. At that point, blogs and “user generated content” were an entirely new phenomenon, poorly understood and confusing to most folks in traditional media (the same might be said today of live streaming and “connected television.”) I collected my thinking in a series of posts under the loose heading of “The Conversation Economy.” The series kicked off with an insight that now feels obvious, but in 2006 was relatively fresh: Most media being made at the time was still a product of what I called a “packaged goods” mentality. Given the rise of Web2, I argued, this “packaged goods media” approach to media was certain to be eclipsed by a new, more community-driven format. At the time, blogging was several years into what turned out to be a short-lived run as the dominant form of expression on the Internet. The rise of blogs, I theorized, pointed to a tipping point in media’s evolution. Packaged Goods Media was on the decline. Long live its successor: “Conversational Media.”

    In my first post, I noted how nearly every at-scale media company – Viacom, NBC, Time Inc, NewsCorp, etc. – had recently retooled their “interactive” divisions, appointing new leaders who were less digital cowboys and more traditionally minded media execs. Even the digital giants – AOL and Yahoo! – were installing old school managers. This was 2006, mind you – Twitter didn’t exist, Facebook was two years old, Google was a search company that had just purchased YouTube. The “winners” of Web2 were still very much undeclared. 

    At the time, I questioned why the big media companies of the era were treating digital as if it were just another form of packaged goods media. Didn’t they know that this time, things would be different? For these media companies to truly win, I argued, they needed to commit to radically rethinking not only the format of their product, but their approach to community, and the business model as well. 

    So how did things turn out, 15+ years later? AOL and Yahoo! are now owned by a PE firm, Viacom is struggling to get to scale and apparently prepping itself for sale, GE sold NBC to Comcast, and Time Inc. is now owned by a billionaire philanthropist. NewsCorp relegated its digital efforts to a sideshow, and doubled down on the politics of polarization over at its subsidiary Fox News. 

    Meanwhile, the digital advertising business – a business dominated by those same large media companies 15 years ago – grew from roughly $17 billion in 2006 to nearly $500 billion last year. And we all know who reaped the lion’s share of that growth: the triopoly of Google, Meta/Facebook, and Amazon – none of which care to be described as media companies. 

    Which got me thinking: Whatever happened to the principles of The Conversation Economy? If the big digital giants beat the hapless old school media companies, did they deliver the conversational media I predicted would emerge? 

    To answer that, let’s first define what I mean by conversational media. In my post defining the term, I theorized that conversational media had at least five core characteristics:

    Conversation over Dictation. This is crucial. Packaged goods media assumes a one-to-many stance – in the case of news, that means an authoritative figure stares down the lens of a camera, telling you what’s important and why. Conversational media, on the other hand, allows for the audience to engage in a journey of discovery with the journalist, who acts more like the host of a conversation. 

    Platform over Distribution. Conversational Media are driven by network effects and the platforms that harness them. PGM products, on the other hand, are driven by tightly controlled distribution – think Comcast or DirectTV. If you make PGM, you care a lot about your distribution. In 2006, the open web was the platform, but over time, the Apples and Facebooks of the world recreated the distribution chokeholds of old media models. Bummer. 

    Service over Product. If you view your output as a discrete product (article, show, book, etc), you’re probably making packaged goods media. But if you manage your business as a service (search, social, stream, arguably even Substack), you’re in the conversational media business. 

    Iteration and Speed Over Perfection and Deliberation. By its nature, Packaged Goods Media is all about creating and shipping a highly produced product. The idea of beta is alien – it’s either ready to ship, or it’s not.  In conversational media, the key is to create, launch, and then constantly iterate. Conversational media are always in beta.

    Engagement over Consumption. Related to the first point, the model of interaction with audiences in conversational media is one of engagement – “lean forward” as opposed to “sit back.” At its peak, for example, my blog had far more comments than posts, by a ratio of about five to one. And the key to a good Twitch livestream, for example, is how the host(s) interact with the community in real time.

    So did the winners of the marketing business – Google, Facebook, Amazon – build us a conversational media nirvana? The resounding answer is … hell no. They delivered us yet another version of packaged goods media – feeds, built to be consumed. It’s true, their platforms are services, but all they’ve really done is swap traditional media-as-product models for a machine-driven model where consumers are the product. The community at the core of great media brands is non-existent. We’re consumers with a doom-scrolling feed bag strapped to our face. It sucks, and we’re starting to wake up to it.  If you’re looking for quality takes on the news, it’s even worse.

    But that doesn’t mean conversational media is dead. In fact, 15 years later, I’d say the five points above offer a good framework for a large set of today’s thriving media businesses. Substack, The Athletic, Twitch, The Information, hell, even Discord – all of them focus on their communities first. 

    And guess what they don’t depend on? Advertisers. Some incorporate sponsorship or limited-scale ad units (Twitch), but by and large the core business model of conversational media has been some form of subscription.  

    Now why is that? 

    I blame marketers, full stop (told you I’d get back to that!). About the time Facebook and Google rose to prominence, marketers began to pull back on their “innovation budgets” – a percentage of their media spend reserved for learning and experimentation. In the mid aughts, most big brand marketers reserved 10 percent or more of their budgets for experimentation. The world was changing rapidly, and marketers knew that they needed to understand that change by participating in new approaches to advertising. But by 2012, the year Facebook incorporated programmatic advertising into its main news feed, those budgets were shrinking faster than the polar ice caps. 

    In my third post of the 2006 series, the longest of the three, I opined on how marketers might leverage conversational media, and what it might take to bring it to scale. Brands need safety, quality, and scale, and at the time, there was precious little of any in the newly burgeoning conversational marketing space. Regardless, brands were funding any number of remarkable experiments. I surveyed an array of innovative conversational marketing efforts, from Dice’s “conversational banners” to Open Forum from American Express. The results of these campaigns were impressive, and augured, I thought, a renaissance in how brands might go to market. Perhaps brands, I mused, might learn how to “join the conversation” and act more like members of a community. Perhaps they might even launch their own conversational media services, in partnership with media startups. After all, your brand is what other people say about you when you’re not in the room, right? 

    Could have been, but the history of marketing over the past 15 years has not been one of customer engagement, and as for supporting innovation in news – it’s been mostly crickets. Innovations budgets have all but disappeared – one senior media buyer responsible for billions in annual ad spend recently told me that they hadn’t had money for media experimentation for nearly a decade. I then polled another half dozen marketing leaders on the same question – and got exactly the same answer from each. Sure, they were willing to test out at-scale platforms like Snap or Pinterest – but investing in startups trying new things? Not so much. Like their counterparts in big media companies, marketers gave up on learning how to create conversational media. So what did they do instead? 

    Again, you guessed it. The majority of their budgets funded Google, Amazon, and Facebook. These large platforms have perfected their data-driven marketing services, and they offered brands an irresistible trade off: Pour your dollars into my finely tuned black box, and our machines will kick out the results you want to see. From 2012 to the present, marketers learned how to spin the dials and pull the levers of the machines, but they failed at the one thing that should be setting them apart: Interacting with actual customers. They thought the big platforms would let them engage with their customers, but truth be told, they’d been disintermediated by the machines.

    This is not an idle observation. In the past few years, top CMOs have begun to publicly break with the platforms. On the record, they’ll say they are concerned about the inability to moderate unsafe content, but privately, they’ll acknowledge the elephant in the room: They’ve become too dependent on an intermediary they don’t quite understand – and they fret that they’re about to be made irrelevant. They’re also deeply concerned about the impact of these platforms on our national dialog – the loss of tens of thousands of journalism jobs, the rise of mis- and disinformation

    They’re right to be concerned. The platforms’ algorithms are spectacular at identifying a potential customer and placing a marketing message in front of them, but intentionally ignorant as to the context in which that customer might be engaged (I’ve written extensively on this phenomenon, which I call Lost Context). The results are great KPIs, but an increasing disconnect between big brand marketers and the customers they supposedly excel at understanding. Marketers have over-rotated on media buying – to the detriment of innovation. It used to be that the people who bought media had roles that let them be creative – they took risks, they tried new things. But now, smart CMOs are investing in building sophisticated media-buying machines of their own, replete with first party data, machine learning algorithms, and endlessly complex dynamic creative optimization services. It’s as if the answer to their dependence on the big platforms is to replicate those same platforms inside their own companies. I’m all for independence, but  true innovation means trying something entirely new.  

    The media landscape of 2022 is far messier, far more complicated, and even more unsettled than its 2006 incarnation. Television, the largest and most powerful of the traditional media sectors, is in full digital metamorphosis, and once again, the winners and losers are up for grabs. If ever there was a time to experiment, to learn, to try new things, it’s Right. F*cking. Now. And to not put too fine a point on it, there’s really only one way to innovate in any business: You have to spend money on things you aren’t sure will work. So I’m here to say it, loudly and proudly: It’s time to bring back the innovation budgets in media, and it’s time for media buyers to take back their profession. Our industry can’t afford to make the same mistakes we made over the past 15 years. If you agree, you know how to reach me – and I’ve got something cool I’d really love to show you. A few brave souls just might light the path to change. 

     
  • feedwordpress 18:46:48 on 2022/01/10 Permalink
    Tags: blogs, , , , , ,   

    On Building A Better Web: The Marlinspike Threads 


    Warning: preg_match_all(): Compilation failed: invalid range in character class at offset 7 in /homepages/23/d339537987/htdocs/ec/wp-content/themes/p2/inc/mentions.php on line 77

    If you want to follow the debate about crypto’s impact on society, which I believe is one of the most important topics in tech today, you better sharpen your Twitter skills – most of the interesting thinking is happening across Twitter’s decidedly chaotic platform. I’ve been using the service for nearly 15 years, and I still find it difficult to bring to heel. When following a complex topic, I find myself back where I started – in a draft blog post, trying to pull it all together.

    That’s where I’ve been this past weekend as I watched the response to a thoughtful post from Signal founder Moxie Marlinspike.  (And yes, the fact that the Twitter conversation was driven by a blog post is not lost on me…)

    For those of you who might not use the Marlinspike’s service, Signal is an encrypted messaging platform favored by pretty much everyone in the tech and media world. Marlinspike’s post laid out several shortcomings of the current web3 world, all of it based on his own extensive “tinkering” with things like minting NFTs and building distributed apps, or dapps. It’s worth reading the whole thing, but to summarize, his critique has three key points:

    First, while web3 is supposed to be about a world free of centralized services, it turns out most of the well-known web3 platforms (OpenSea, Coinbase) are, in fact, centralized just like web2 (this echoes a criticism brought up earlier in the week by Ben Thompson (sub required, worth it).

    Secondly, technical protocols evolve slowly – and protocols are the basis for a lot of web3’s magic. Marlinspike points out that most web1 protocols – like SMTP for mail – are stuck in time and fail to evolve. This is often because the protocols are decentralized – no one is in charge of improving them.

    Thirdly, there’s a lot of room for error, mischief, or worse in how many of these services and protocols currently interact – particularly around fundamental issues of trust and privacy, two pillars of web3 philosophy. Marlinspike uses the example of an NFT he created which was banned by OpenSea and subsequently disappeared from his MetaMask wallet to make his point.

    If you’re still reading, congrats – that’s a lot and we’ve not yet gotten to the good stuff, which for me is the discussion that’s evolved since Marlinspike’s post. Watching the responses come in felt a lot like reading the early blogosphere – one by one, people I admire built on Marlinspike’s thinking, challenging some of it here, deconstructing other parts there. The tone was respectful, considered – no one reacted as if their religion had been impugned.

    The first response I noticed was from Vitalik Buterin, co-creator of Ethereum.

    Buterin challenges Marlinspike’s focus on technical grounds, particularly the term “servers,” and reminds us that there’s still a ton of infrastructure and foundational software work to be done. He points out that 2022 will be a big year for ETH,  given its shift from the slower and most costly proof of work to the more nimble and efficient proof of stake.

    I then realized I had missed Brian Armstrong’s response, which came a few hours after Marlinspoke’s initial post:

    Armstrong runs Coinbase, arguably one of the most centralized “web3” companies built so far. His last point is key: There’s a big difference between a company built to control data (Facebook) and one that acts as a useful wrapper for data owned and controlled by the end user. VC Chris Dixon elaborates in a thread the next morning:

    Dixon is pointing out a key distinction between web2 and web3 services, regardless of their potentially centralized nature: Ease of data portability. I’ve long argued that any apps or platforms based on leveraging our data should compete on the quality of service they provide, rather than the data they lock in. In 2008, I wrote “It’s time that services on the web compete on more than just the data they aggregate.” This is Dixon’s point in a nutshell: “web3 works like web1 did. There will be centralized services built in web3 — and many will be quite useful — but their economic power and overall control will be limited by the lower switching costs due to data portability.”

    The discussion continued later that day with Matt Mullenweg, the CEO of Automattic, the company behind WordPress. WordPress drives more than 40% of the current internet, and Mullenweg has long been a standard bearer for web2’s original philosophy – that of interoperability.

    Mullenweg name checks my former partner Tim O’Reilly, whose seminal “What Is Web 2.0” paper kicked off our Web2Summit conference series and has helped frame my thinking about the Internet for the past 15+ years. Mullenweg’s point is that many original web2 services are entirely consistent with web3 philosophies. That is still true today – whether or not web3 technologies are at the core of it (Mullenweg himself might best be described as “extremely crypto curious.”)

    Debate on Marlinspike’s post continued throughout the weekend, and by Sunday, former Dropbox CTO Aditya Agarwal responded elegantly to Marlinspike’s second point, that of protocols.

    Remember that Marlinspike’s criticism of protocols is that they are slow to evolve. Agarwal explains that while this was true of protocols in the early web, it’s not necessarily true in web3 architectures. …everyone’s mental model of ‘protocols’ is that of current ones like HTTP, SMTP etc. All of those protocols are *stateless*. That has been the accepted (and generally right) model of protocol design. The biggest difference for web3 is that they are stateful protocols. In that sense, I think that pace of protocol evolution isn’t really the right mental model. If the state is generally accessible, then it is much easier to remix and compose. There haven’t been too many instances of such ‘protocols’ which is why it isn’t surprising that all of us are unsure about how to compare this to traditional models.”

    —–
     
  • feedwordpress 22:57:08 on 2022/01/05 Permalink
    Tags: , ethereum, , , ,   

    A Syllabus For The Rabbit Hole 


    Warning: preg_match_all(): Compilation failed: invalid range in character class at offset 7 in /homepages/23/d339537987/htdocs/ec/wp-content/themes/p2/inc/mentions.php on line 77

    (image) The most common complaint I hear from friends and colleagues who are interested in the crypto/web3 world is how hard it is to “get smart” on the topic – for a neophyte, there’s just so much noise and precious little signal. Sure, you might dive headfirst into crypto Twitter – but the experience is both jarring and unproductive (ditto that for crypto-related Discord servers).

    I’ve been exploring crypto for enough time to have developed a point of view on a handful of people and resources I trust to help me make sense of what is an increasingly fractious and confusing space. Below is a first draft of what I hope will evolve into a more polished “syllabus” of sorts for smart folks interested in getting smarter. This is purposefully not complete – the list could have been much, much longer. Please comment, email, or hit me up on Twitter with additional suggestions, and I’ll incorporate them as I can. And one caveat: I’m reading in this space with an eye toward crypto’s impact on tech, society, and governance. This list is *not* created with an eye toward investing in either currencies or NFTs. There’d be an entirely different set of resources for that task!

    Most of these resources are newsletters – I’m a newsletter fanatic. The ones below I almost always open when they land in my in box.

    Cobie

    The trend of pseudonyms is strong in crypto, and Cobie, whose real name – I think –  is Jordan Fish, is yet another example. His essays are dense, cogent, and much praised in crypto circles. I’m particularly fond of his recent post “Wtf is web3“.

    Jarrod Dicker

    Jarrod is something of a unicorn in the media/crypto/VC space, in that he’s a recent operator at a high level (WashPo, HuffPo), a founder in the crypto space (Po.et), a respected writer on media/web3 (his Darkstar Mirror site is a must read), and now a major force in investing as lead of crypto for TCG.

    Messari

    A respected early research firm in the space, most of the links require a subscription, but have good info before the jump. I find the roundups at the end of the daily newsletter very good as well.

    Li Jin

    I’m relatively new to Jin’s writing  – but she’s been a force in the VC world for some time. This piece, with Katie Parrott, is a fine example of her work, which tends to be accessible to new folks in the space.

    Packy McCormick

    This guy is the deep dive guru for startup analysis, and he’s gone all the way down the rabbit hole on crypto/web3 in the past year or so. It takes A LOT to get through his sometimes 5-10,000 word pieces, but I grok all of them, and read many. Favorites: The Laboratory for Complex Problems, Discord, Imagine a PlaceStatus Monkeys, The Great Online Game. Oh and like so many writers, he’s started a VC fund as well.

    Vitalik Buterin

    Dude’s the godfather of Ethereum, so everyone watches what he says. Follow him on Twitter, he posts his essays there.

    Balaj Srinivasan

    Srnivasan is perhaps the most evangelical and articulate of the crypto power elite. I don’t agree with a lot of his philosophy, but he’s very smart and a must read/listen (worth searching for his name in your favorite podcast app).

    The Generalist

    This multi-author newsletter is not all about crypto, but it’s worth a perusal. I learned a lot from its MetaMask deep dive.

    Chris Dixon

    Chris has been writing about this space for what seems forever, and was one of the first to define and popularize web3. And with his perch as point on crypto for a16z, his views matter even more.

    Fred Wilson

    Wilson has been blogging his thoughts as a VC forever, and he still blogs several times a week, covering a pretty broad waterfront in a folksy, short form voice. When he covers crypto/web3, where he’s an OG’s OG, everyone pays attention.

    Katie Haun

    Another must follow on Twitter, and worth listening to any pod she’s on. Was a lead on crypto at a16z, recently started her own fund.

    Decrypt

    This industry news site was started a few years back by pal and Wired OG Josh Quittner.  I use their daily newsletter as a way to navigate ongoing coverage. You might also check out CoinDesk and Coinbase’s in house organ.

    Forefront

    I appreciate the format of this newsletter – good summaries, good pieces. I can’t figure out what the company behind it is all about, but the links are consistently strong.

    The Block

    A finance/defi-focused outfit, its newsletter has good set of newsy items.

    Real Vision Crypto Briefing

    I don’t read this as much, as it often drives you toward a subscription product or videos I don’t have time to watch, but the news summaries and lead items are often good.

    Casey Newton/Platformer

    I’ve followed Casey’s work on tech since he started, lately he’s been doing a lot of good analysis on web3/crypto.

    Ben Thompson

    He doesn’t cover crypto that much, and he’s got his quirks, but I read Thompson’s stuff almost daily. One of the must reads on tech more broadly.

    Azeem Azhar’s Exponential View

    Like Thompson, Azhar has a much broader view of the world than just crypto, but he’s been focusing in on it of late. Plus, all his other stuff is great context for what’s happening beyond web3.

    Will Wilkinson

    For one reason: He wrote the excellent Is Crypto Bullshit? Oh, and related, don’t miss Max Read’s Is Web3 Bullshit? 

    Again, if you have input on this brief list, and especially if you have additions, please add to comments!

     
c
compose new post
j
next post/next comment
k
previous post/previous comment
r
reply
e
edit
o
show/hide comments
t
go to top
l
go to login
h
show/hide help
esc
cancel