When is a media company also a tech company? It’s complicated

5 Comments

Elizabeth Spiers is the former editor-in-chief of Mediabistro, co-founder of Breaking Media and the founding editor of Gawker, so it’s worth paying attention to a recent blog post she wrote about the top five mistakes that digital media entities make when launching something new. But one of her points in particular stuck out for me, and that was the one about media companies that think they are technology companies, just because they happen to have a proprietary content-management system.

Spiers argues that this is popular delusion is largely an attempt to curry favor with venture-capital investors, who are more likely to hand out cash at a large valuation to a tech play rather than a boring old media business. The painful reality, she says, is that “media is not easy to scale and margins are tight,” because content still requires people to produce and edit and package it properly and technology doesn’t really change that significantly.

What makes a tech company?

Although Spiers doesn’t name any specific companies, other than the New York Observer, her point is particularly relevant to any discussion of new-media players like Vox Media or BuzzFeed, both of which have raised large sums of money based at least in part on the argument that they are technology platforms rather than traditional media companies — and in Vox’s case, much of that was based on its proprietary content-management system, which is known as Corus and often gets raves from media types.

Vox media

When Andreessen Horowitz led a $50-million round that valued BuzzFeed at almost a billion dollars, partner Chris Dixon said that part of what the firm saw as valuable was that BuzzFeed wasn’t just a media company but was a “full-stack” technology company, by which he appeared to mean that it controlled everything from the publishing system it used for content to the engine behind its advertising, and all the various pieces in between.

The Spiers post triggered a brief back-and-forth about this idea on Twitter, after Skift founder and longtime media-watcher Rafat Ali noted her point and Chris Dixon responded — saying the content-management system at media companies was only a “small piece of the puzzle,” and was analogous to the electronic dispatching system used by Uber and Lyft.

Understanding content flow

Dixon didn’t say what the rest of the puzzle consists of, but for me the difference between companies like BuzzFeed and most traditional media entities is the core position that data plays in trying to understand how content works now — the way it is shared and distributed through social services, combined with what BF founder Jonah Peretti calls the “bored at work” network. That’s the main reason why the company appointed the head of its data-science team, Dao Nguyen, as its first publisher last year.

Understanding that dynamic, and how it relates to other crucial information — such as the power of Facebook over your content — is more than just something of academic interest. It is literally the key to survival. Not understanding it is like a traditional media company not understanding exactly where its newspapers or magazines are sold, or who buys them, or when.

newspaper boxes

That’s why I think it’s important to watch not just what BuzzFeed is doing, but what other smaller players are doing, whether it’s Upworthy or even lesser-known content companies like Spartz Inc., the brainchild of twenty-something content whiz Emerson Spartz. It’s not about duplicating their practices, but about trying to figure out what they know or don’t know about how content reaches people now. It’s a vast frontier.

This is what smart media companies like BuzzFeed and Vox and Medium are trying to do (and to her credit, Spiers admits that her media-tech argument applies somewhat less to companies like Medium, which act as open platforms as well as being publishers). Are they tech companies in the classic sense of the word? No. But they are using technology in a way that media companies traditionally haven’t.

As I mentioned in a previous post, I also think they look at what they are doing in a different way — they are thinking about content and media as a product with users, whose needs and desires should be interpreted and understood, rather than as just a tube that gets filled with whatever content the editors at the other end see as worthwhile. That shift in mindset is almost as important as the actual technology itself, in my opinion.

5 Comments

George Sylvie

It’s not about technology vs. media, so much as it is about understanding that people view content as something that can be entertaining and newsworthy at the same time. Let’s just face it: Journalists (and their publishers/GMs) don’t get it because they don’t live like real people do.

Doug Hadden

This is a bit of a tangent from Burke’s comment. It does seem a bit odd that we would be contemplating the separation of ‘media’ from ‘technology.’

The problem is that all media is technology – whether industrial (printing press), analog electronic (radio) or digital. It’s just that we’ve become so accustomed to previous technology generations that we fail to realize that it is technology (McLuhan: what was figure becomes ground.)

In the past, large distribution newspapers, cable TV distribution and film studios had to become technology companies to survive. The struggle that many content media firms are attempting to overcome are analogous to previous generations that resulted in film studios owning theatres or television producers moving away from live productions.

KK

In regards to the last comment, “tube that gets filled with whatever content,” out of curiosity would you peg that to traditional media outlets? CNN/FOX/NBC/ABC/CBS? As the “media/tech” companies continue to scale and smaller ones keep popping up, does the lack of new technology for the “old” guys become an issue over the next few years?

Burke Culligan

During all phases of major media evolution – the media creators become the tech creators out of necessity – until economies of scale take over and ‘relegate’ them back to simply content producers/aggregators – at which they start using ‘industry standard’ technology…

– The ‘print’ and Newspaper companies used to invent/manufacture their own printing presses, and even their own type/layout technologies – including the early computer based ones — until other 3rd party companies made it cheaper to buy these things vs building them in house.

– The ‘broadcasting’ companies often invented their own technologies for creation, recording (radio, film, video tape), transmission, viewing, etc. Many early movie studios, invented their own camera tech, and they also owned the theaters and created a lot of the early projection technology. Early broadcast companies often had dual brands for both the content and the TVs/Radios used to consume that content, etc. (sound familiar for Apple, Android?)

– Some of the real innovators seem to simply live in both — George Lucas’s companies included movies, studio tech, video games, CGI, THX sound, RenderMan 3D software (which eventually moved to Pixar), etc…

And then there’s Disney – are they media, tech, entertainment, amusement, logistics, property? … they’re still highly innovative and invent all kinds of tech to create whatever experience they can dream up and deliver… animatronics and robotics were the originally – but now so much is done with modern tech, handheld, mobile apps, etc?

The blur between creating media, and the tech required to transfer the vision to the end consumer has always been there… and likely will continue as we continue to get into wearables, VR, self-driving cars and a persistently connected world…

NorCal and SoCal professionals should spend a lot less time consumed with pigeon holing efforts into one bucket or the other… modern media doesn’t exist without modern technology – and sometimes a media company may need to invent it to deliver on their vision… that’s all good!

Richard Bennett

Yeah, the modern web-based media firms aren’t tech in the traditional sense, but they’re not media in the traditional sense either. I think of them as vertically integrated combines of tech, media, and advertising, where the long-term play is precisely targeted ads.

Comments are closed.