4 ms·

> nowadays a lot of the institutions like a16z just appear to turn into straight up media outlets Just noting that they're only media outlets insofar as it hel

> nowadays a lot of the institutions like a16z just appear to turn into straight up media outlets Just noting that they're only media outlets insofar as it helps support their primary business model. The media play is to push brand recognition, influence the startup scene in a way beneficial to VCs, influence politics, etc.

potatolicious 5y ago
> they're only media outlets insofar as it helps support their primary business model. Sure, but isn't that the objectionable part? The core conceit of capitalism is free competition and that multiple participants on a level playing field optimizes outcomes (in the form of greater overall wealth, better products, etc.). Investors are needed for liquidity, but if some investors gain enough market power that they can change the outcome of businesses that seems deeply suboptimal and runs counter to the core conceit of capitalism. On the extreme end this would include flooding the field with so much money as to effectively wipe out competitors - including ones with superior technology/product. On the milder end it would include crowding out the marketability of less well-backed competitors by using media clout. Both seem like things very large VC firms do on the regular (though to be fair, not at all unique to a16z).
- tofuahdude 5y ago
  Just a quick clarification that my comment was only pointing out that a16z isn't a media outlet in the journalistic sense, nor in that the media outlet is the product itself. Their media content is just marketing manipulation. But I'm still interested in addressing your point: > if some investors gain enough market power that they can change the outcome of businesses that seems deeply suboptimal and runs counter to the core conceit of capitalism If a VC's media channel becomes powerful enough (ie monopolistic enough) to decide winners w/o the opportunity for competition, then sure. Though this would require substantially more power consolidation than there is currently. There's enough Tier 1 VC's and of those, the media outlets they operate are certainly not monopolistic enough as to change the business outcome in an unfair way, as currently defined by law wrt monopolistic practices. If you mean more like "if some investors gain enough market power that they can change the outcome of businesses because they invested so much money", then I still think the same point is true - there's enough capital in diverse enough hands. The most ready example being ride share; there's plenty of them.

potatolicious 5y ago

> they're only media outlets insofar as it helps support their primary business model. Sure, but isn't that the objectionable part? The core conceit of capitalism is free competition and that multiple participants on a level playing field optimizes outcomes (in the form of greater overall wealth, better products, etc.). Investors are needed for liquidity, but if some investors gain enough market power that they can change the outcome of businesses that seems deeply suboptimal and runs counter to the core conceit of capitalism. On the extreme end this would include flooding the field with so much money as to effectively wipe out competitors - including ones with superior technology/product. On the milder end it would include crowding out the marketability of less well-backed competitors by using media clout. Both seem like things very large VC firms do on the regular (though to be fair, not at all unique to a16z).

tofuahdude 5y ago
Just a quick clarification that my comment was only pointing out that a16z isn't a media outlet in the journalistic sense, nor in that the media outlet is the product itself. Their media content is just marketing manipulation. But I'm still interested in addressing your point: > if some investors gain enough market power that they can change the outcome of businesses that seems deeply suboptimal and runs counter to the core conceit of capitalism If a VC's media channel becomes powerful enough (ie monopolistic enough) to decide winners w/o the opportunity for competition, then sure. Though this would require substantially more power consolidation than there is currently. There's enough Tier 1 VC's and of those, the media outlets they operate are certainly not monopolistic enough as to change the business outcome in an unfair way, as currently defined by law wrt monopolistic practices. If you mean more like "if some investors gain enough market power that they can change the outcome of businesses because they invested so much money", then I still think the same point is true - there's enough capital in diverse enough hands. The most ready example being ride share; there's plenty of them.