> there is basically no publisher in existence involved in any sort of news or political news coverage who says to themselves, my readers are demanding more of

> there is basically no publisher in existence involved in any sort of news or political news coverage who says to themselves, my readers are demanding more of their news on video as opposed to text. Not a single one. The move to video is driven entirely by advertiser demand. What's true is that no representative group of readers who have said what that hypothetical publisher claims they said exist. But publishers make the claim that they would say that all the time. I recently was assigned a project to convert all our technical manuals into 100-second Youtube feature highlights. You pay me, I will do what you ask, so it's done...but the analytics don't look good. Not even bots are watching those videos. > Another way of putting that is that the future that VCs and other investors were investing hundreds of millions of dollars in probably doesn’t exist. It doesn't need to exist for most or even an above-average VC. If those hundreds of millions were invested by 100 investors at $1M in each of 100 companies, and 99 tanked but 1 unicorn made a 100x return, they would continue to behave in that way.