stratechery
stratechery

Is BuzzFeed a Tech Company?

It’s telling that Chris Dixon, in a blog post explaining Andreessen Horowitz’s $50 million investment, goes out of his way to explain that BuzzFeed is not really a media company, but a technological one:

We see BuzzFeed as a prime example of what we call a “full stack startup”. BuzzFeed is a media company in the same sense that Tesla is a car company, Uber is a taxi company, or Netflix is a streaming movie company. We believe we’re in the “deployment” phase of the internet. The foundation has been laid. Tech is now spreading through every industry and every part of the world. The most interesting tech companies aren’t trying to sell software to other companies. They are trying to reshape industries from top to bottom.

BuzzFeed has technology at its core. Its 100+ person tech team has created world-class systems for analytics, advertising, and content management. Engineers are 1st class citizens. Everything is built for mobile devices from the outset…BuzzFeed takes the internet and computer science seriously.

The issue is that, generally speaking, media companies don’t make for good venture capital investments. VC firms like Andreessen Horowitz aren’t looking to fund nicely profitable companies; they are searching for home runs, the one or two investments that make a fund profitable despite lots of failures. This means a focus on companies that can scale. Marc Andreessen told Adam Lashinsky in Fortune:

We describe it is we invest in Silicon Valley style companies. So we invest in the kind of companies that Silicon Valley seems uniquely good at producing at scale, you know, large numbers over time.

What makes technology companies – software companies, especially – different from media companies is the distribution of costs. Even before the Internet, for a software company, almost all of the costs were up-front fixed costs: you spent money primarily on salaries to develop a piece of software, and you spent that money well before you knew whether or not said software would sell.

The payoff, though, was that the software itself had minimal marginal costs: it cost basically nothing to produce one more copy (discs and packaging, basically). Thus, the vast majority of revenue for every single copy sold went straight to the bottom line. Moreover, most software is universal: it can be used anywhere (although localization can add to the fixed costs), and it’s useful for a long period of time. That results in the sort of scale that Andreessen was referring to.

Media companies, on the other hand, have traditionally differed from technology companies in three ways:

  • Created content had a very short shelf life, which leaves a very small amount of time to recoup the fixed costs that went into its creation
  • Media’s marginal costs (paper, ink, delivery) were higher than the marginal costs for software, at least in relative terms
  • Media was generally limited in its geographic availability

In this pre-Internet world, media did have an ace-in-the-hole: their significant up-front costs often resulted in geographic monopolies that made them the primary option for advertisers. This made media companies interesting investments for hedge funds, but the limited upside meant they were much less attractive to VCs.

Fast forward to today, and the Internet has seemingly made the differences between technology and media companies even more stark:

  • Packaging is no longer necessary, reducing the marginal cost of software to zero
  • Multiple new business models have emerged for software, such as attracting massive user bases for free which can then be monetized through advertising or premium services1
  • Media, meanwhile, has lost its local monopoly, and advertisers have fled for platforms that have more scale – there’s that word again – and better targeting

So why on earth is Andreessen Horowitz investing in a media company? Or is Dixon right – is BuzzFeed really a technological company that can use software to succeed in everything from listicles to hard news to now, their own movie production company? What has changed since Andreessen wrote in his post introducing Andreessen Horowitz:

We are almost certainly not an appropriate investor for any of the following domains: “clean”, “green”, energy, transportation, life sciences (biotech, drug design, medical devices), nanotech, movie production companies, consumer retail, electric cars, rocket ships, space elevators. We do not have the first clue about any of these fields.

I suspect what Andreessen and company have come to realize in the five years since that post was written is that because of the Internet media is more like technology than it might first appear, and that what Andreessen Horowitz cares about is not the software but the potential scale.

  • Like software, media has zero marginal cost
  • Multiple new business models have emerged for media, such as attracting massive user bases for free which can then be monetized through advertising or premium services
  • The addressable market for media is the connected population of the world, and content is itself self-selecting when it comes to effective targeting

These are all points that are overlooked by those in the media kvetching about the death of journalism: everything that is hurting traditional media companies – zero marginal costs, “free” expectations, unlimited competition because of global distribution – are opportunities for new media companies unencumbered by traditional thinking.

So, for example, as Dixon writes about BuzzFeed:

Internet native formats like lists, tweets, pins, animated GIFs, etc. are treated as equals to older formats like photos, videos, and long form essays.

And why shouldn’t they be? The only reason to treat a tweet differently than a pull-quote, or an animated GIF differently than a photo, is if you are worried how they will appear in print. Remove those shackles and you realize there is no difference at all. What Dixon didn’t say, though, is that this sort of liberation also applies to monetization, and that includes native advertisements. I’m quite bullish on native advertising, and I think the ethical concerns are overstated. Specifically:

  • “Native” advertisements are how every medium monetizes free content: newspaper ads are stories and pictures, magazine ads are beautiful imagery, radio ads are jingly voice-overs, TV ads are scripted stories, so on and so forth. Still, it took each of these mediums time to figure it out – they all went through their banner advertisement stage, i.e. ineffectually using an advertising format that worked on the old medium.

    In the case of the Internet, content consumption is primarily about either the timeline – think Facebook, Twitter, or even blogs – or the irresistible atomic unit that spreads on social media. We should expect – and applaud – advertising adapting itself to these formats.

  • Newspapers in particular have been the most conscientious about maintaining a “wall” between the business and editorial sides of the businesses. Newspapers, though, as I noted above, were de facto monopolies. So while it certainly benefited journalists that they need not worry about how the newspaper made money, there was absolutely a political benefit to trumpeting the objectivity and impartiality of the editorial side. Newspapers could declare themselves to be above reproach even as they made money hand over fist.

    The situation is far different on the Internet. Anyone anywhere has access to everything on the web,2 which means there are no monopolies on either the news or on advertising. Quite the contrary, in fact: the Internet is the closest thing in human history to a true marketplace of ideas, and the currency is user attention. Ultimately, well-functioning markets are a much better police of ethical lapses than self-rightous arbiters.3

    Moreover, the truth is that bias lurks in any author, or in any ownership structure, something that is of particular concern when it comes to the consolidation of traditional media. One can absolutely make the case that an organization like BuzzFeed, with clearly labeled native advertising, is a lot more trustworthy than any reporting that may come out of an organization like NBC (which is owned by Comcast). Oh sure, NBC journalists will object to that statement, but how can we every truly know?4

This is what makes BuzzFeed so interesting: absent legacy, media absolutely benefits from Internet economics as long as you can figure out effective monetization, and it’s possible BuzzFeed has done just that, and, just like their product, they have done so by abandoning that which primarily mattered in the old medium.

This begs a deeper question, then: what is a technology company? I actually don’t buy the idea that BuzzFeed has some sort of magic algorithm that makes what they do possible, and if that’s the basis on which Andreessen Horowitz is investing, then I have a bridge they may be interested in as well. However, the entire premise of this blog is that product is only one part of what matters: so does channel, distribution, advertising, business model and the addressable market. And that is what makes BuzzFeed a “tech” company: the world is their addressable market, and they make money by scaling for free.

  1. Obviously data centers and the like cost money, but again, those are fixed costs, not marginal one: each additional user is “free”
  2. Absent government intervention, of course
  3. Obviously lots of markets are not well-functioning; I’m not an absolutist here. However, when it comes to what is read online, it is much more of a level playing field than almost anything you can compare it to. That this blog is read at all is testament to that; hopefully, the fact I am monetized by my readers is a competitive advantage
  4. To be fair, the same criticism applies to Andreessen Horowitz’s involvement in BuzzFeed, and this aspect makes me just as uncomfortable as Comcast owning NBC. Moreover, it certainly is convenient that Marc Andreessen sits on the board of Facebook, BuzzFeed’s most important channel

72 thoughts on “Is BuzzFeed a Tech Company?

  1. Pingback: PPtown.com — Is BuzzFeed a Tech Company? (Ben Thompson/stratechery)

  2. Pingback: BuzzFeed’s valuation reflects narrowing difference between software and media distribution (Ben Thompson/stratechery) | NYC Startup News

  3. Pingback: PPtown.com — BuzzFeed’s valuation reflects how the Internet is narrowing the difference between media and software distribution (Ben Thompson/stratechery)

  4. Pingback: Bookmarks for August 12th from 06:50 to 12:19 : Extenuating Circumstances

  5. Pingback: BuzzFeed’s Future Depends On Convincing Us Ads Aren’t Ads | TechCrunch

  6. Pingback: BuzzFeed’s Future Depends On Convincing Us Ads Aren’t Ads – News Matters

  7. Pingback: BuzzFeed’s Future Depends On Convincing Us Ads Aren’t Ads | Nagg

  8. Pingback: BuzzFeed’s Future Depends On Convincing Us Ads Aren’t Ads | DailyMashable

  9. Pingback: BuzzFeed’s Future Depends On Convincing Us Ads Aren’t Ads | GRAPHUCKER

  10. Pingback: BuzzFeed’s Future Depends On Convincing Us Ads Aren’t Ads - Indian Radios | Indian Radios

  11. Pingback: BuzzFeed’s Future Depends On Convincing Us Ads Aren’t Ads | Web Tech News | Free technology news with the latest investments, gear, industry and copyright news

  12. Pingback: BuzzFeed’s Future Depends On Convincing Us Ads Aren’t Ads | Tech News Connect

  13. Pingback: BuzzFeed’s Future Depends On Convincing Us Ads Aren’t Ads - Hunter Valley Web Masters - Hunter Valley Web Masters

  14. Pingback: BuzzFeed’s Future Depends On Convincing Us Ads Aren’t Ads | iyaan.info

  15. Pingback: BuzzFeed’s Future Depends On Convincing Us Ads Aren’t Ads | My great WordPress blog

  16. Pingback: BuzzFeed’s Future Depends On Convincing Us Ads Aren’t Ads | TechNewsDB

  17. Pingback: BuzzFeed’s Future Depends On Convincing Us Ads Aren’t Ads - SocialEnterprise.com

  18. Pingback: BuzzFeed’s Future Depends On Convincing Us Ads Aren’t Ads | Sharing Interesting Stuff, Updates News & Free Tips

  19. Pingback: BuzzFeed’s Future Depends On Convincing Us Ads Aren’t Ads | GlobalNewsClub.com

  20. Pingback: BuzzFeed’s Future Depends On Convincing Us Ads Aren’t Ads | Tech Wire Daily

  21. Pingback: BuzzFeed的启示:媒体未死,只是变成了科技公司 | 23Seed

  22. Pingback: BuzzFeed’s Future Depends On Convincing Us Ads Aren’t Ads | Latest Technology News

  23. Pingback: BuzzFeed’s Future Depends On Convincing Us Ads Aren’t Ads – newcreationrecords.com

  24. Pingback: BuzzFeed’s Future Depends On Convincing Us Ads Aren’t Ads | Gear Guide Gurus

  25. Pingback: Wednesday links: shockingly bad behavior | Abnormal Returns

  26. Pingback: BuzzFeed’s Future Depends On Convincing Us Ads Aren’t Ads – Rickey J. White, Jr.

  27. Pingback: BuzzFeed’s Future Depends On Convincing Us Ads Aren’t Ads | Resume of David D. White - Project Manager, Private Fitness Coach

  28. Pingback: Is BuzzFeed a Tech Company? - stratechery by Be...

  29. Pingback: BuzzFeed’s Future Depends On Convincing Us Ads Aren’t Ads | NewsChannel4u.com

  30. It might seem a little navel gazy to ask ‘What’s a tech company,” but I agree that it’s a fun topic to ponder on. Two points come to mind:

    The piece ” There’s no such thing as a tech company anymore” by David Kanofsky/ Quartz, from last year .
    At a pitch competition I once attended – startup pitches its ecommerce site, wherein users can customize the style of shoes they want to buy – material, patterns, laces, size, etc… and the team will manage manufacture + send it to you. VC judge’s response was something along the lines of “This is not a technology company. A company that can tell me what other brand/size/style shoes will fit me perfectly when I take a picture of the shoes I’m wearing now – that’s a technology company.”

  31. Pingback: BuzzFeed的启示:媒体未死,只是变成了科技公司 - 科技辣

  32. Pingback: Strategy - On What Was Uncovered Yesterday | Prudent Trader

  33. Pingback: Episode 013: BuzzFeed and Native Advertising | Exponent

  34. Pingback: We Love the Internet 2014/33: The Facial fitness edition | Curiously Persistent

  35. Pingback: Internet y la maldita (bendita) publicidad | Incognitosis

  36. Pingback: BuzzFeed’s Future Depends On Convincing Us Ads Aren’t Ads - I like itI like it

  37. Pingback: This Week in Review: Ferguson and press freedom, and BuzzFeed’s $50 million boost

  38. Pingback: Podcast: Exponent Episode 013 - BuzzFeed and Native Advertising | stratechery by Ben Thompson

  39. Pingback: BuzzFeed’s Future Depends On Convincing Us Ads Aren’t Ads

  40. Pingback: BuzzFeed’s Future Depends On Convincing Us Ads Aren’t Ads | My WordPress Website

  41. Pingback: BuzzFeed’s Future Depends On Convincing Us Ads Aren’t Ads | Demo

  42. Pingback: Incognitosis de fin de semana (XXVI) | Incognitosis

  43. Pingback: BuzzFeed’s Future Depends On Convincing Us Ads Aren’t Ads - Ganhar Grátis

  44. Pingback: BuzzFeed’s Future Depends On Convincing Us Ads Aren’t Ads - #Зізнання_Львів

  45. Pingback: Mobile Gaming’s Giant Treadmill – DIGITS to DOLLARS

  46. Pingback: BuzzFeed’s Future Depends On Convincing Us Ads Aren’t Ads : Andres Sooneste Official Website

  47. Pingback: BuzzFeed’s Future Depends On Convincing Us Ads Aren’t Ads | Sales Blog

  48. Pingback: BuzzFeed’s Future Depends On Convincing Us Ads Aren’t Ads | FearForFall

  49. Pingback: BuzzFeed’s Future Depends On Convincing Us Ads Aren’t Ads - BaoTongHop.net

  50. Pingback: BuzzFeed’s Future Depends On Convincing Us Ads Aren’t Ads | How to Use and Run Softwares

  51. Pingback: The shared digital future of media

  52. Pingback: addictive! the full service mobile agency

  53. Pingback: BuzzFeed’s Future Depends On Convincing Us Ads Aren’t Ads | Amazing WordPress

  54. Pingback: Cajón semanal de enlaces nº27 | Periferia Digital

  55. Pingback: The Verge threw a hackweek and invited everyone they know

  56. Pingback: Future of media bla-de-bla « Damien Mulley

  57. Pingback: Facebook y los titulares basura: ¡no podrás creer lo que pasó después!!! » El Blog de Enrique Dans

  58. Pingback: Vector 55: The ethics of copying with Ben Thompson | iPhoneMama

  59. Pingback: Vector 55: The ethics of copying, with Ben Thompson | MOBILE361

  60. Pingback: Vector 55: The ethics of copying, with Ben Thompson | iPhone 4 everyone

  61. Pingback: Facebook y los titulares basura: ¡no podrás creer lo que pasó después!!! - PanaMundial

  62. Pingback: Facebook y los titulares basura: ¡no podrás creer lo que pasó después!!!

  63. Pingback: Facebook y los titulares basura: ¡no podrás creer lo que pasó después!!! - PINN

  64. Pingback: Vector 55: Turtles all the way down, with Ben Thompson | Backlink Energiser 3

  65. Pingback: If BuzzFeed is a tech company, sure, I suppose GE can be a media company

  66. Pingback: Kostenstruktur bei Medienunternehmen - Katharina Brunner

  67. Pingback: Is It the Golden Age for Journalism? |

  68. Pingback: As tech firms take on the role of newsrooms, will they care about legal fights …

  69. Pingback: Entre el “native advertising” y el periodismo no es oro todo lo que reluce | Periferia Digital

  70. Pingback: Peak Google | stratechery by Ben Thompson

  71. Pingback: BuzzFeed’s Future Depends On Convincing Us Ads Aren’t Ads - Mua gì?

  72. Pingback: BuzzFeed’s Future Depends On Convincing Us Ads Aren’t Ads | Health & Lifestyle

Join the Conversation