The a16z Show - Chris Best of Substack on the Future of Media

Episode Date: September 2, 2025

What if the future of media isn’t controlled by algorithms or legacy institutions—but by independent voices building directly with their audiences?In this episode, Erik Torenberg is joined by Chris Best, cofounder and CEO of Substack, along with a16z general partners Katherine Boyle and Andrew Chen.We trace the origin story of Substack and its cultural impact, including how it reinvented the business model for independent media. We also explore the evolution of blogging, the rebundling of media, and what the future holds as attention becomes the scarcest resource.Timecodes: 00:00 Introduction03:50 Origins of Substack06:29 The Evolution of Blogging & Media Models09:15 Direct Audience Connection & Platform Independence10:57 Vision for Substack & The Role of Algorithms21:06 Business Models: Ads, Subscriptions, and AI26:10 The Scarcity of Attention & Value of Good Content27:45 Unbundling, Rebundling, and the Future of Media Companies37:12 Academia, Books, and Changing Content Formats44:31 Substack’s Next Phase & Closing ThoughtsResources: Find Chris on Substack: https://cb.substack.com/Find Chris on X: https://x.com/cjgbestFind Andrew Chen on Substack: https://andrewchen.substack.com/Find Andrew on X: https://x.com/andrewchenFind Katherine on X: https://x.com/KTmBoyleFind Katherine on Substack: https://boyle.substack.com/Stay Updated: Let us know what you think: https://ratethispodcast.com/a16zFind a16z on Twitter: https://twitter.com/a16zFind a16z on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/a16zSubscribe on your favorite podcast app: https://a16z.simplecast.com/Follow our host: https://x.com/eriktorenbergPlease note that the content here is for informational purposes only; should NOT be taken as legal, business, tax, or investment advice or be used to evaluate any investment or security; and is not directed at any investors or potential investors in any a16z fund. a16z and its affiliates may maintain investments in the companies discussed. For more details please see a16z.com/disclosures. Stay Updated:Find a16z on YouTube: YouTubeFind a16z on XFind a16z on LinkedInListen to the a16z Show on SpotifyListen to the a16z Show on Apple PodcastsFollow our host: https://twitter.com/eriktorenberg Please note that the content here is for informational purposes only; should NOT be taken as legal, business, tax, or investment advice or be used to evaluate any investment or security; and is not directed at any investors or potential investors in any a16z fund. a16z and its affiliates may maintain investments in the companies discussed. For more details please see a16z.com/disclosures. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Let's talk a little bit about the future of media. Are people going to be reading less? Great writing, great media, great culture in general is this inherently valuable thing. We've entered a world where attention is the scarce resource. There was one platform that stood up and said, hey, we are protecting free speech. And that was substaffed. This was also an era where the blogging ecosystem was sort of dying. A really important moment to actually save blogging and writing on the internet.

In the early days, people would often say to me in an accusatory tone, Substack is just blogging with a business model. And I was like, that sounds pretty good. We've been talking a lot about disrupting media. What are the big plans here? I aspire that the Substack app could be a place where you look back at the time you spend on it and think, damn, I'm glad I did that. That made me a better person. What if the future of media isn't controlled by algorithms or legacy institutions, but by independent voices building directly with their audiences?

Today on the podcast, I'm joined by Chris Best, co-founder of Substack, along with A16Z, John, partner's Catherine Boyle and Andrew Chen. They trace the origin story of Substack and its cultural impact from standing up for free speech during a turbulent 2020 to reinventing the business model for independent media. We also get into the evolution of blogging, the re-bundling of media, and what the future holds. Let's get into it. Catherine, we've been talking for years about how much we love Substack even before we were formally affiliated with the company.

Why don't you go first and talk about what you find so remarkable or striking about sub-tax impact. I think the impact is truly understated. And I think we've moved so fast as a country and as an internet and as a world in the last few years that we've sort of memory hold what it was like in 2020, 2021, particularly for media, how crazy the 2020 moment was for anyone in the thought leadership space, anyone in the media space. So let me just go back to the summer of 2020. James Bennett, who was the editor of the op-ed page, the New York Times was forced to resign for publishing a sitting senator, an op-ed by a sitting senator who was still in office. The craziness that was around writing anything that was seen as

heretical or asking questions or something that was seen as unorthodox in 2020, there were mass firings, Twitter de-platformed a sitting president, Facebook as well, right? It was an extraordinary time, and I would say a fearful time, where very many people were afraid to say what they were thinking. There was always rumors of people having unfettered conversations, like how dangerous it was, that people were having these conversations behind the backs of journalists. And there was one platform that stood up and said,

hey, we are protecting free speech. And that was substack. And I think people forget that because it's just seen as, oh, of course, we're in this new time. Elon bought Twitter in November 2022. The Overton window has swung open. People can say what they thought. And I think people have forgotten

that only a few years ago, we were in desperate times where people were losing their livelihood, no one was willing to say that freedom of speech was under attack. But the one platform, the infrastructure that was there to support those people, it was Chris, it was Substack, and they never wavered. And so I think that is the cultural impact. Like where we are today, we would not be where we are today without Substack.

So I get very emotional. I'm like a super fan of Substack. I was on Substack in 2021. I'm very proud of that. But it's one of these things where I think we need to remember that we could have been living in a totally different time and a totally different culture, had people not sit up and had the courage to say that freedom of speech matters. Yeah, and this was years before Elon had bought X and it was just the first bastion of free speech.

Chris, why don't you talk about sort of when was the moment or what was the evolution for how you guys decided, hey, we're going to take this stance, even if it's going to upset some of our most important writers, even if you're going to upset some employees, some investors, their ecosystem. Talk about what that was like for you. I've always seen the free speech thing as sort of an important pillar, but not the main pillar of what substack is actually. setting out to do. The way that we think of substack is making a new economic engine for culture. And the idea, and it's not a partisan idea, it's not a political idea directly. It's just this idea that great things are made by independent voices who can do the work they believe in,

make money, have editorial freedom, have a direct connection with their audience. Basically, the backdrop of starting substack was just this idea that, hey, the internet came along and smashed a lot of the existing business models for culture. And what came in the wake of that was these massive internet scale networks that are phenomenal businesses and that connected everybody like never before. It had a lot of amazing positive attributes. But in my estimation, in our estimation, we're kind of driving us crazy. And the core of substack is this idea of independence, this idea that the individual left to

like do the thing they believe, say the thing they believe, make the thing they believe, supported by an audience that's there for them, is this like crucial ingredient in a healthy culture in a free society. And freedom of the press, freedom of speech, is one necessary precondition for that. And I kind of think that in the long arc of history, that's not hopefully that controversial of an idea. I think it's a very American idea. But at the time, because of the world was as it was, it was kind of out of vogue, shall we say, quite severely.

And I think in 2020, the thing that surprised me, the people that felt the brunt of that were not conservatives, were not Republicans necessarily. It was the people in the liberal media. In my telling, I would say, selectively the best and most interesting people

that were getting just thrown from the ramparts. And the fact that this thing that we were creating, this new economic engine for culture, that gives you this independence, happened to be there at a time where a bunch of the most interesting writers in the world were getting summarily tossed from their longtime institutions that lined up really well for us from a business perspective.

It was spicy from a cultural perspective, but that's the gig. Just quickly add, you know, I was going to say that it's amazing to see on the other side of the coin with just the blogging ecosystem how much that's changed. We've gone through kind of Live Journal and Zanga and blogger, and we had Google Reader, RIP, and then you had kind of basically a phase. Chris, when I met your co-founder, Hamish, initially,

and the company was three people, this was also an era where the blogging ecosystem was sort of dying. And you had sort of the open WordPress-powered blogging ecosystem, but there was no economic model. You ended up with a lot of spam, a lot of people hacking, like these poorly maintained PHP websites. And so I think this was also a really important moment,

to actually save blogging, really, and writing on the internet to actually create a model that for a long time, people just thought, oh, well, I'm just going to plug XYZ Amazon book and get affiliate fees, or I'm going to put Google AdSense all over my blog. That was the only way to create any sort of economic thing. And for all of us that are in tech, you know, it was cool to see that you had Ben Thompson from Strateree really show that, oh, there's maybe an alternate model. But it was almost like, always like a curiosity and something. that was like annoying to actually build. You know, you'd have to set up your blog. You'd have to

set up your payments. You'd have to do all these other things. And so I think also a really important moment for Substack to kind of emerge from the internet media side to actually clean that all up and actually make it easy to actually put together something that became the big economic engine. In the early days, people would often say to me in an accusatory tone, substack is just blogging with a business model. And I was like, that sounds pretty good. If that's all it was, that would be pretty cool. And it turns out it's more, it's podcasting. It's a whole network, but I don't know, that seems good. Yeah, and it really achieves the dream of sort of reaching your audience in the sense of if you have 100,000 Twitter followers, but you can't really engage

them and you're dependent on the platform. And that's not as thrilling as owning your own email audience. And what I love about what you guys did is you took the risk that, hey, we're going to give people their emails and they can choose to leave if they want to, as opposed to being trapped to the platform, but we're just going to build such a compelling offering that writers are going to want to stay. And it's amazing years later to see a large majority, if not all of the biggest writers, stay on the platform. There's only one thing that's better than people staying on the platform, which is when people leave the platform, take advantage of the export features, and then subsequently return to open arms and come back. We call them boomerangs, and we love to see

that too. I think the right to exit is really important. People thought that was very dumb. They said, well, if you just let your customers leave, won't they just leave? And I think in the short run, that might be true, but in the long run that created the right structure for us, like it meant that we have to and still have to build a network that has enough value that even though you can leave, you don't want to. And even if you do leave, you might choose to come back. And I think that has caused us to keep the right thing at the forefront of our minds. But I would say there's, I think there's something even more important about the direct connection, which is it's not just that I can leave. It's that in my mind, what a subscription is is the option to give someone to like reach out and tap you. on the shoulder. It's to say, you don't have to send me an email all the time if you don't want to, but if you want to send me a push notification, if you want to show up at the half of my inbox, I kind of like give you that right. And something that that lets you do as a writer or as a creator is to take creative risk. Something that I hear a lot from YouTubers is people who are very good at YouTube, people have massive followings who are very successful, who say, I have this

idea for a thing that I could make. And I know that it would be great. And I know there's an audience out there who would like it. But I can't make it because if I made it the way that I want to make it, no one's going to see it because it doesn't please the algorithm. And so the direct connection, in addition to being this way you can bring your audience with you, is a way to give humans the power to override the algorithm and say, hey, I've got this trust relationship with my audience. I want to exercise it and go on a limb and say, hey, I want to call in that favor and, like, have you pay attention to this thing that I'm saying is good. And sometimes it might be bad and you might unsubscribe.

But sometimes it might be great and it might be something great that could not have existed if the only way to reach everyone was to please the algorithm with them every single time. So in the beginning, it was a blogging platform with a business model, as we just said, and the vision has gotten bigger into more of a network, more of a platform across formats. Expand on what is the big vision for substack. And I'm also curious how that's evolved if that sort of the vision in 2018, 2019, 2020 is the same vision as it is now. So it's also a vision that we can trace the level. of it. I would say that we started from the very beginning with this, think of very ambitious,

some might say derangedly ambitious vision. Again, the backdrop was kind of, we think that the internet has massively reshaped the economic incentives for media. And actually, the origin of the company, I'll just briefly tell us, because it's germane here, was I was taking some time off to my last startup, and I'd always wanted to be a writer. I'd always been an avid reader. I've thought that what you read matters. And so what you read, the media you consume is not just a way you spend your life. It changes who you are. It changes who you are as an individual.

It changes how you see the world. And it changes cultures and societies. And so great writing, great media, great culture in general is this inherently valuable thing. And my first instinct was, I should make some of that. Like, I could write an essay. How hard would that be? I know how to program. I had to type.

And I started writing what was supposed to be this essay or this blog post. post detailing my frustrations with the media economy on the internet. So this is where it started. I'm like, wah, wow, look at all these great things the internet is done, but it's also kind of like created these memetic evolutionary landscapes that are driving us nuts.

This is going nowhere good. Look at how the culture is shifting. Wham, and I sent this essay to my friend Hamish, who's actually a writer, and he let me down very gently. He said, it's 2017,

and your essay is about maybe the newspaper businesses are in trouble. and maybe Facebook is not an unalloyed good. Dude, we know, everybody knows that, or everybody who's in my industry knows that. But the better question is, let's say that all of those things you're complaining about are true, what could you do about it? How could that be different?

And that we started arguing about that. And so we had this sort of, I think maybe the, this is an A16D irrelevant thing, is this sort of techno-optimist idea that it's like, look, you're not going to turn back the clock. if there's new powerful technologies that are changing how everything works, and those things come with tradeoffs, and there's upsides and downsides,

and there's contingencies. There's historical contingencies where the world could tip in one of many ways. The right way to address that is not to lament it or to wish, hey, we should go back. It's, hey, we should put these things to use in service of people. We should imagine what the best version of this future is as these new networks take off, as these new technologies take off, and we should work proactively to help usher in the better, free or more exciting version of that future.

Heady stuff. And then so we had this big idea, this big sort of grandiose thing. And then we just had the kernel of the way to start. And the way to start was we could make it dead simple to start a paid email newsletter. And that was a thing that there was probably like 20 people in the world that really, really wanted it. but they really wanted it. Like, it was going to be the best thing ever for them. And it was the kernel.

It was like the smallest possible instantiation of that much bigger idea where you were going to create this new economic engine that lets any independent voice make the things they believe in, make real money doing it. I mean, it's a way around the cold start problem because you could have an individual person, like the very first substack newsletter made total sense. So we started with a very grandiose version of substack,

firmly fixed in our minds. We'd always imagine, even then, I think, I think we looked at YouTube as the something that was like maybe the closest version to this thing that already existed. Talk more about how you decided to launch notes or go from, okay, we've got this sort of business engine where we've got all these writers making a lot of money. Where do we go from here? I'll tell one step before that because it went into my thinking. But very early on in the very early days of substack, we were like, okay, the thing that's going to be really different about substack is it's all going to be paid because that's the thing that aligns the incentives. that's the thing that makes this thing different.

And so in order to be very pure to our vision, we're not going to allow anybody to have a free substack or to like send emails to free people. And that evaporated with our first customer because he was like, oh, okay, then I'll just use MailChimp for the free version and then I'll, yeah, I'll funnel the people here. And he created this stitched together thing.

And it was like, oh, this is really dumb. Because if you want to be successful, if you want to make a successful paid subsdack, you have to have a free substack. stack. And in order to make that experience good and have the conversions actually work, we should just support that. And it's not an abrogation of our vision. It's actually like, you need, in order for the thing to work, you have to provide this other thing. And then the thing that we realized not too long after that was the same was actually true about Twitter and about the

social networks, which was, you know, in 2018, 2019, if you wanted to have a successful substack, you had to also have a successful Twitter or a successful Facebook or a successful LinkedIn increase. Like you had to have some top of funnel place. You know, the same way that the legacy media was struggling and like you had to have Facebook traffic or you had to have Google traffic or you had to have something. There was always these other networks that were the source of your business. So even if you were this independent writer, excuse me, independent creator, you were you were downstream of these other

platforms. And that had both a philosophical consequence, which is we're trying to make this place that has these different incentives, but you're still at the whim of the crazy, the Thunderdome, right? You still have to play the Twitter game where you still have to play the Facebook game.

And it had this very practical problem of those networks don't give a shit about you as a creator that makes money. And, you know, Mark Zuckerberg can decide in a fit of peak that people are annoying him about politics, so he's going to, like, turn off politics. And if you're a politics creator that depends on Facebook for your livelihood, you know, that's a existential event. And it's not even because it's like they're trying to do that. It's just like, hey, these networks twist and turn. And they don't really have any intrinsic interest in helping you build your audience and make the thing you believe. And so we had this. idea that in the long run, the only way we were going to like really make that work for people is to build one of these networks ourselves that was built on different laws of physics. And so we were going to build, you know, a network, a place, a destination, a place that you could

go and experience the internet and have like all of those great things that you get from social networks, but with a different business model and with a different incentive structure and it would be, it's not going to like replace them, but it'll live alongside them and it'll be like the one place on the internet where it actually does want you to succeed. It actually does want you to go and find something interesting and long form to read or long form to watch. It does want you to like find and fall in love with something enough that you might choose to pay for it.

And that's going to create a very different feel from everywhere else that just wants to keep you glued to the screen. So we had sort of this like, like theoretical idea of why we had to do this thing. But we also knew that it was going to be quite difficult. Like, it's very hard to start a new internet scale network. And it took years. And by the other, Chris, to your earlier point on this, on the algorithm, it's so interesting to watch actually all of the major platforms

move towards the algorithmic for you, you know, world. Because in that world, then actually the creator's relationship with their audience is even further away, right? Like it's literally like it actually maybe it doesn't matter. And this all originally started with, oh, well, you know, we have this problem of any, you know, social app where you need people to follow enough folks so that they get enough, you know, feed content. And well, one way to solve that is even if you're not following somebody, maybe we'll just kind of suggest things. And it turns out then the algorithms are so good that maybe that should be their entire feed is just suggested content. But then what does it mean as a creator to even build a following on one of these platforms?

if, you know, even if you have, you know, 100,000 followers or whatever, maybe they'll see none of your content because the algorithm, like, doesn't, doesn't care, like, is caring less and less about the follower graph these days. Definitely. And I think there's, I mean, there's two, and there's two attacks you could take with that. And the one that I think a lot of people, their first reaction is to say, oh, well, algorithms are bad, right? Like, the algorithm is whatever.

It's severing our ties. It's putting us into bubbles. It's exposing us too much to people outside. whatever the thing is, you know, okay, so there's tradeoffs with algorithms, therefore algorithms are bad. I think a more productive take is algorithms are powerful. And there are a tool that people use and they serve the ends that we tell them. And if we tell them better ends, they'll help us get better results. And so this is something that we talked about a lot at Substack because I think people had this.

There was a lot of our users who felt like at the time, they're like, the good thing about Substack is there is. isn't an algorithm. And I just connect directly. And that's the thing that's actually good. And I think the take that we have is there's something that's much better than that, which is what if there was an algorithm that actually served you? And that was actually trying to help you find the things that you deeply valued and actually had a, you know, like the nerd term for this is an objective function.

If the objective function was actually closer to, in other words, the secret hidden master that the algorithm is serving is actually your own interest rather than, you know, trying to sell you more ads. You have a very sophisticated writer base and then by extension a very sophisticated reader base, very high value audiences and now, especially with video and people aren't used to paying for video in the same way that you used to paying for writing, partially because of your substacks innovation there. Will you also launch an ad network at some point or do you think that risks sort of the

golden goose in some way? How do you think about that? I kind of take the same thing we talked about with an algorithm, the same thing about building a network. I'm going to say the same thing when we talk about AI, which I assume we will do. But I see sponsorships advertising is a powerful force. And I think there are definitely like the thing that would break substack

is if we just looked at the same way that the legacy social media things built advertising and said, oh, we're just going to copy that. Like that's going to work. because if we did that, the thing we would be doing is importing the incentive structure and the business model that puts the platform at odds with the people on the platform. On the other hand, there are a ton of substackers today. Some of them are, like, in my opinion, some of the very best substackers who are selling sponsorships. and I think there's a version of unlocking, you know, more economic, more economic opportunity, more economic upside that is aligned with the idea of independence, the idea of having

differentiated value and quality. And so we're very interested in doing that. But, you know, my belief is we have to take a sort of a first principles approach and not just, you know, stuff adds in a thing, but ask the question like, what would the good version of that, this be and help build that. Yeah, I think the bare case for ads has been sort of, you know, dumb it down content or sort of, you know, click, click bait for the masses. The bull case has been sort of allows, you know, niche writers to, to monetize without charging their, their audience a ton, or it, you know, doesn't succumb to audience capture

in the same way that a subscription could. But basically there are pros and cons with both business models, and you guys have to figure out how to integrate it in a way that works for the reader and the writer. I think the same is true of all of this magical AI technology that's coming online. I mean, we're building a live product that basically feels like, you know, it feels like doing a FaceTime call

and then magically turns into a highly produced podcast and a YouTube video and a series of short form clips and a transcript, and pretty soon it's going to be in whatever language you want. and we just, we're going to live in a world where, you know, one thing you could have is you could have a bunch of like AI slop that kind of keeps dumb people clicking. The other thing you could have is you could have a future where there's way more creative leverage

and where the people who are making this independent stuff who have the independent voice can do way more, can make something much better, can realize their vision much more fully. And so in all these things, I'm kind of, you know, I think you look at the technology not as good bad. You look at it as a powerful means to an end. And if you pick the right ends, then applying the technologies is very exciting. This is something I think you were so early to understand that is sort of

common knowledge now or becoming more common knowledge, but wasn't five years ago, which is that everyone can be a creator and we don't have enough content. Like, I think there's this horrible meme. Like we have podcasts are over. We have too much content. There's too much online. And it's like, actually it's the opposite. If you look at any of the 4U feeds, most of it is now AI slot, which says that there's just a dearth of extraordinary content. And what I always thought was so brilliant

about what you understood about professional writers and having been a professional writer, it was almost like you were inside my psyche. The hardest part about writing is writing. Like, it's really, really hard to get started writing if you're like a true writer and your writer's block. And so everything you can do to make the production of that writing easier everything you can do to sort of create the flywheel

where your readers are expecting something, you're artificially creating deadlines. You can create something very quickly that turns into a host of different products that then gives you the positive feedback loop that you need to keep doing it. Like there was something about from the very beginning you really understood sort of the artist's way

or the writer's drama of just how difficult it is to be a creator. And that exists within everyone, right? Like it's like none of us are, you know, none of us are day jobs are not writing, right? but all of us are writers, all of us are creators on this pod. And so there's something about if you can make people's lives much easier and make the creation loop easier, people who have day jobs will then do it

and create magical, you know, great content to rival the kind of terrible content that now is being produced by these, like meme farms. Like I think that's like a very, you had a very early insight. And your scene sort of AI pushes this direction where it's going to be this hybrid of really creative, people using AI to make beautiful products, that otherwise it would be like the barrier for

entry is way too high to do that. Yeah, I started a whole company to procrastinate from finishing an essay, so I definitely know that. But the way the thing you're describing and the way I would put it at the time and I would still put it is we've entered a world where attention is the scarce resource. And that's actually not, that's not new with AI. I date this to kind of the social media the internet revolution, where it used to be like, when I was a kid, you could get bored. You could be sitting around and you'd be like, dang,

I wish I had something to pay attention to you right now. And if you could give me something free to distract me, that would be a really good deal. And that was like, you know, that was the situation where the original, like, you know, media, like social media network giants rose up was it's like, there's this land grab for attention. Everybody has so much attention to give

and not enough things to. to distract them. And we have won that war. We have won the war on boredom, right? Nobody has the problem of, I have five minutes. I don't have anything to do to kill that time. But the amount of attention I have is not infinite. And so now I live in a world where there's no scarcity of content,

but there's a huge scarcity of good content. There's a huge scarcity of things that are worth paying attention to. And this is the fundamental insight of Substack is, you know, as somebody who has one life to live, if I could spend a little bit of money to get better culture, better ideas, more interesting use of my time,

things that help me become more the person I want or aspire to be, that's actually a phenomenal deal. And it would be insane of me not to be willing to spend money or spend a bit of effort to find that better thing. And people are starting,

the culture is starting to catch up now, I think, to this reality that's been true for a decade. that you know, you're spending your life when you choose what media to consume. I think another huge contribution that you guys have made and it is around price discovery

where it turns out the true value for, let's say Noah Smith isn't 80K writing at Bloomberg it's a million dollars or whatever it is that he makes now writing on his own. If only it existed when Catherine was a reporter at the Washington Post, maybe she wouldn't have had to... Wouldn't have had to...

this venture career. There's two, there's two, yeah, two people on this, maybe three, all of you are actually people that we've tried to recruit to be substackers, but wound up at A16Z instead. Yeah, exactly. And so it's just fascinating to see, you guys align kind of value capture and value creation in a way that wasn't aligned beforehand. And we're starting to see not just people go independent, but also sort of the re-bundling happen where people like Barry, where where Cathar is on the board of Repress, build sort of Substack first, you know, media companies and other people as well. Talk a little bit about sort of the unbundling and re-bundling

and kind of the future of how you see media companies being built. This actually reminds me of one of the first things Mark Andreessen ever said to me when we were talking about Substack. He said, you're going to do to media what the venture capital industry did to software companies or to tech. which was there used to be this time where if you were somebody who knew that to build great software, the way that you could do that would be to go get a job from somebody in a suit that would tell you what to do and pay you a salary. And the hidden reality of that situation was the people who actually could make the things

were creating so much value that they were massively getting underpaid and under-recognized compared to what they were doing, and more interesting, like less obviously, but even more interestingly, once you could free them up from that structure and you actually put them in charge, put the people who are actually making the thing, make them the boss. It massively increased variance in this very positive way.

It didn't always work, right? Not every software programmer is going to be a great founder, but the best founders who actually build the thing are so much better and so much more, and the results are so much more interesting and extreme and wonderful than the world where they just got bossed around by whoever was the software company middle management,

that the net effect of kind of like pulling the talent out and unleashing it and putting the lunatics in charge of the asylum in tech was this renaissance, basically. And I think the same thing as possible in the cultural industries. I think that the people who are actually making the stuff are the heroes. They're putting themselves on the line.

They are, you know, if we're going to have a renaissance and a new flourishing of culture, those are the people that are going to make it and the people that are investing in them and, you know, investing their time and their money and participating. And the ambition that I have and we have at Substack is to basically just like build what they need, build the tools they need, build the network they need to have a fighting chance to win. And I think we're on the way. Yeah, it's interesting.

And even if you see there are sort of solo capitalists as sort of like Noah Smith example, but then there are also people who, you know, like go on and build, you know, bigger platforms, you know, sort of much bigger than their individual selves. I think of them as ambitious media founders, right? We have a whole team at Substack who's dedicated to the principle that if you're an ambitious media founder,

We want Substack to be the best possible place to realize the biggest version of your ambition. Let's talk a little bit about the future of media in a sense of, you know, there's only 24 hours in a day. There's only, you know, a portion of that people spend, you know, engaging in content and it all competes with each other. You know, looking out a few years, do you see the amount that people spend on just that overall content in general increasing? I guess I'm curious. Like if video is obviously going to increase, are people going to be reading less or is just more of everything? Or how do you view consumption's habits changing over time? I wrote this piece called The Two Futures of Media where I kind of argue, I think inevitably when you ask these questions, you get into sort of like weird philosophical questions.

Like what is the purpose of media and what are we doing here? And I think that one of the purposes of media is to entertain to entertain. to have some effect and people use the extreme way to say this is people use media like a drug. Right? I'm going to sit there.

I'm going to scroll this thing. I'm going to watch this thing. It's going to have some effect on me in the moment. That's going to create a pleasant feeling. And that's like one of the things that I want from it. And I think that that

side of media is going to get supercharged. We have very sophisticated AI goonbots. now. Is that a good thing? I don't know, but it's happening. And we're going to have that across like, you know, everything, every short form video, everything that could be like this, you know, it's almost approaching wireheading, the science fiction idea of like you plug a wire into your brain and it stimulates the pleasure centers. I think that future is, we're well into it. It's only accelerating. The stronger the technology gets, the stronger that thing becomes. And the stronger, it's a hazard for people, quite frankly, because there's a mode of consuming. And it's a mode of

consuming media and culture that is like drug addiction, where it is compelling in the moment, where it is something you want, it is something even you'd be willing to pay for, at least spend your time on, but it kind of like, it pulls against your long-term interest. And remember, the media you consume is not just how you spend your time, it's who you become. And so it degrades you. And so it makes your tastes get more base. It makes you want more of the dumb thing. It sort of pulls you in. That's already happening. It's going to continue to happen. That's a big part of the future. I think that thing is baked in right now. But that's not the only purpose of media. Right. The other purpose of media is culture. The other purpose of media is to like live in a society

and become become the kind of person you want to become and to figure out how to live and act back on the world, like the intersubjective multiplayer game of building with other people. And that is something that people really, really want as well. And I think that the same technologies that are making the first thing much more compelling can make that second thing much more compelling as well. And the thing that I think we can do at Substack is to create a version of that thing that is also fun and is also good and is also empowering and you don't have to kind of be like, I don't want to, you have to be like a monk to use Substack. You're like, well, I could scroll TikTok or I could go to the library and flip through some microfeesh. And it's like, yeah,

you could do that, but nobody's actually going to do that. And so if we can take kind of like the good and interesting and culture-laden future of media and make it really good and make it really compelling and make, have it people make money from it when they make something truly great and have people realize that, you know, I aspire that the substack app could be a place where you look back at the time you spend on it and think, damn, I'm glad I did that. That made me a better person. That made me more interesting. And I think that that is possible and that if we, when there are these massive changes, when the world changes, when technology reshapes everything, I think the fact that there's going to be change can become inevitable,

but which version of the change happens, which future you go to is contingent. Right? People often ask, like, is the future determined or is, is great man theory true? Is, you know, how does history happen? And I think it's just both, right? There are these inexorable changes that are going to happen no matter what. But then in the moments of change, which future emerges is contingent on the choices people make and the accidents of history and individual decisions. And so I think the thing that is possible for us to do is to build a version of that second future of media where people are reading things that make them smarter or listening to conversations that plug them into the world, in general, acting back on the culture and

participating and engaging in ways that they value, and that that creates a ton of economic value and creates, this is why it's an economic engine for culture, creates like a whole world that is intensely valuable and great. Is that going to be, is that going to be the world that everybody goes to? No. Some people are going to sit on the AI GoonBod, but I think we can, we can make a real difference by making that second future as good as possible. Building upon your culture point, I've started some academics, also. one substack. We've been talking a lot about disrupting media. I'm also curious if you think much about sort of academia or books or kind of these adjacent industries, or is that a distraction or you don't

think about it super deliberately? I'm a total crank on the subject of academia, so it might be fun, which is this is sort of like ill considered on my part, but I think a lot of science is totally broken. I think that a lot of the, and I think that the scientific project is incredibly important and one of the most valuable things in history, but that the practice of science and the current situation in academia and especially in academic publishing is like pretty far from good. and even to the point of like I think maybe peer review is a huge mistake and doesn't actually work and is, you know, we've got this thing that's supposed to make everything good and there's like this massive crisis of huge bodies of fake science that nobody believes because it's all larking. And I'm very interested in the idea of like, what if you apply some of these same principles? What if you give people an alternative?

What if there's just one way you could do science if you want to is. is to go on the internet and publish it. I think that's actually pretty radical and pretty interesting, and I see some early shoots of people doing that. It's a topic that I am excited about and think that there's more that we could do, but hasn't been kind of like central to our efforts so far. I was just going to say something about books, right?

Because I think it's the process of why people decide to write books today is in itself a really interesting decision, because, like, first, you have to spend, And it's a multi-year project to actually write a book. And I worked with Harper Collins to do the Cold Start problem. I think it's like been three or four years ago. But, you know, it takes like three years or something like that to actually, you know, write a book. And then, you know, many of you guys know that if you literally just get enough pre-orders

that you can get 10,000 units sold, that's like a bestseller. I mean, it's like people are not reading books right now, which is insane. There's literally, I think, like, one book printer left. in the U.S. And so if Michelle Obama decides to, you know, write a book around the same time as you, like, they're like, oh, the printer's booked for the next, you know, X months. And like, that's just how it's all down to one set of printers, which is itself insane. And so, Chris, when you compare that to like the amount of work involved in writing a book

versus being able to like click the publish button and have that go to, you know, 100,000, you know, people's inboxes each day. it's just like it's a completely different thing. Now it is fascinating that like, you know, there's certainly a cultural prestige in the fact that books have been around forever. But I have to imagine that it just changes over time. I imagine that, you know, it's like when when people were playwrights, then, you know, and film gets created, they're like, oh, wow, people love film, but like it's not as prestigious

as, you know, plays. And then TV is the same. It's like, oh, people are watching a lot of TV. It's not as prestigious as being in a film. And then we're going to go down the same thing. with like YouTube stars and, you know, streamers or, you know, whatever. So, like, I think, I think, like, a lot of this stuff is obviously very much lagging. And the ability to just reach, you know, hundreds of thousands of people, you know,

with something that you write over a cup of coffee is, like, itself, you know, just so powerful. When you really think about it from an ROI basis of, like, writing a book or a substack. And, of course, they're not mutually exclusive. Like, you know, if I were to have redone my whole thing again, I probably would have, like, written it all on substack and then taken it and put it into a book, as opposed to thinking about it like, oh, I'm going to lock myself into, you know, hotel rooms during my vacations and try to crank out all these pages and then kind of do it all as one big thing.

Yeah, no, I agree with that. I think there's this like cyclical moral panic that happens, and it certainly happened in media where it's like people are writing on the internet without an editor. Oh my God. No one's editing the writing on the internet. What are we going to do? that was like the media's version of this.

It's the same thing happening with books. People are reading, but it's not in a book. Like they're reading things on the internet, but the book process is, you know, it's incredible to me. And it happens all the time. It's always like legacy industries realizing that the internet actually is a thing,

that it becomes easier to produce the same thing you were going to produce in a book format or the same thing you were going to write for a print paper. It can be put on the internet, and it's the same content. And so I think there's always these like moral panics that were somehow getting dumber

or people aren't, reading enough, and that's a huge problem. And I just don't think people are looking at it holistically, that people are reading. They're reading in different ways. Yes, you could say something there is a huge problem if young people grow up never having read an actual physical book that was written before the current times. That's a different discussion. But the moral panics about the actual medium, I think, are something that are very cyclical have been happening since the birth of the internet. And it hasn't necessarily affected. It's affected the freedom of what we can actually say and the freedom of what we can get our hands on.

But it hasn't necessarily affected our ability to read. And certainly, I would argue, it actually hasn't affected our ability to make arguments either, which I know would be controversial in some domains. But I think it's more the moral panic of industries realizing that things are changing and they have to adapt. Yeah. And there's an interesting question about where sort of, what is the source of kind of intellectual culture these days?

Or is it more streamers? Is it more Twitter nons? more professors, more journalists. I think, you know, Alex Denko wrote this really interesting sort of, you know, case for why it's long form writing. And one of the reasons he said was it's not that everyone reads the long form writing. It's that an important group of people reads it and then translates it or transmits it in kind of a different format and then the masses read or sort of engage with that content. And I think just having a more sophisticated understanding of the supply chain gives us a greater appreciation

for sort of long-form writing as a source. Yeah, and Eric, to your point there, it's like what that means is everything that you read in sort of, you know, printed out, you know, pieces of paper, you know, in traditional press is like delayed by a huge amount compared to, you know, the actual discourse that's happening on the internet. And so, and long form, of course,

is like you're actually able to generate really original thoughts. And then, of course, all the meme wars are, are where the real discussion happens in real time. So you kind of have both, you know, both, both flows like generating, you know, cultural, cultural, you know, knowledge over time. So Chris, we're here partially to celebrate your big round. $100 million. Is that right?

$100 million, yeah. So talk about why raise $100 million. You're already, you know, crushing it as a business. There's already a lot of cash. What are the big plans here? So I think the big story of this to me is we've, had this long-term ambition for what are the pieces of sub-sac. I literally put this meme in my pitch deck, which was, you know, the handshake meme.

And one hand is the, you know, a model that supports independence. And the other hand is an internet scale network. And to me, this is sort of like the core of what subsdeck has always meant to be is, hey, this model that supports the independence, but also this like this place, this part of the internet that's a first class destination that has this like thriving scene that that feeds it. And I think after years and years and years of working to kind of make that into a reality, we have that fledgling network alive now and it's growing.

And I see the next phase of substack as kind of like feeding that machine and helping it sort of like grow and throw off all of this value and like economic value for the creators and cultural value for the world. And it's kind of going to mean rebuilding the company to, match that scale and ambition. And this fundraise was really just a way to unlock that kind of transformation. And so we're sort of like in an exciting period of reimagining, you know, the product, the company and what this thing can become now.

Well, that's a great place to wrap. Chris, thanks so much for coming on a podcast. Thanks. Thanks for listening to the A16Z podcast. If you enjoy the episode, let us know by leaving a review at rate thispodcast.com slash a16Z. We've got more great conversations coming your way. See you next time.

As a reminder, the content here is for informational purposes only. Should not be taken as legal business, tax, or investment advice, or be used to evaluate any investment or security and is not directed at any investors or potential investors in any A16Z fund. Please note that A16Z and its affiliates may also maintain investments in the companies discussed in this podcast. For more details, including a link to our investments, please see A16Z.com forward slash disclosure.

closures.