How platforms abandon their homegrown creators

Welcome! I'm Simon Owens and this is my tech and media newsletter. You can subscribe over here or just click on this handy little button:

Facebook is currently rolling out what it’s calling a “News tab,” a dedicated section on its platform that aggregates news story links from about 200 publishers, and for reasons that I can’t fathom it’s actually paying some of these publishers upward of $3 million a year for the privilege of linking to them (most agree that this is a PR stunt that will help Facebook’s efforts to wave off antitrust probes).

As with most Facebook actions, this one has generated its fair share of controversies, especially in its decision to include racist hate site Breitbart among the publishers. But lost within this debate is the persistent throughline of how large platforms discriminate against independent publishers in their efforts to court mainstream media companies.

There are currently tens of thousands of publishers that try to leverage Facebook’s enormous reach to drive eyeballs to their content, and every time Facebook carves out prime real estate for select publishers it hand picks, it’s depriving these smaller publishers of attention, making it that much harder for them to surface their content in front of audiences.

It’s not just Facebook that engages in this type of behavior. In fact, it should be considered a law of the internet that any sufficiently large platform will eventually abandon its homegrown creators in order to court mainstream media and celebrities.

YouTube is a prime example of this law in action. Few platforms can lay claim to a more cohesive and vibrant community, one that has spawned some of the most creative filmmaking of the 21st century. Yet in YouTube’s quest to scale its advertising revenue to tens of billions of dollars a year, it’s slowly shifted its priorities away from this community in favor of promoting traditional media companies and celebrities.

I’ve written in the past about how YouTube’s done this with its trending video tab, lowering the bar for mainstream television networks while making it nearly impossible for organic YouTubers to be featured. But this week we’ve seen some new data on how YouTube is funneling advertising money away from independent creators and toward their mainstream counterparts.

Back in 2017, YouTube came under fire for running advertisements next to what some considered extremist content. The outrage that emerged in the wake of these revelations resulted in what many have termed the “adpocalypse.” Essentially, creators saw their advertising revenue crater virtually overnight as an opaque algorithm determined whether their content was “brand unsafe.”

YouTube also launched a program called “Google Preferred,” a category that brands could opt into. In exchange for paying higher advertising rates, brands could ensure their ads would run against the most premium, brand-safe content the platform had to offer.

To calculate whether a video qualified for Google Preferred, YouTube assigned it a “P Score,” a number that, when it reached a certain threshold, allowed the video access to this more lucrative advertising inventory. The P Score was meant to be hidden from creators, but some enterprising coders discovered the P Score hidden in YouTube’s source code. They then examined the score across thousands of the most popular channels to see what kind of content qualified for Google Preferred.

And you won’t be shocked to learn that the channels that generated the highest P Scores all hailed from mainstream TV shows: The Late Show with Stephen Colbert; Late Night with Seth Meyers; The Daily Show with Trevor Noah. Virtually no homegrown channels made the top 10. Just as YouTube has been lowering the bar for its Trending tab, it’s also done the same for Google Preferred. “I think this confirms our long time suspicions that ‘homegrown talent’ is being pushed aside in favor of ‘advertiser friendly’ late night TV hosts,” YouTuber Nicholas DeOrio told FFWD. 

I wrote a recent column about how we often leave out the independent creator community when assessing the health of the media industry, and that this community now comprises hundreds of thousands of content producers who collectively generate somewhere north of $10 billion in revenue. But because they often operate on the edges of media, they’re the ones most likely to be negatively affected when a major platform shells out $3 million to a mainstream media company to aggregate its content. As an independent creator, you can spend years building up an audience and a solid revenue base, but it only requires a single tweak to a platform’s algorithm to take it all away. 

Want to interact with me directly?

I have a secret Facebook group that’s only promoted to subscribers of this newsletter. I try to post exclusive commentary to it sometimes and have regular discussions with its members about the tech/media space. Go here to join. [link]

Why an online polling platform hired a seasoned journalist to run it

Advance Publications is one of the largest media companies in the world. It owns dozens of newspapers, the Conde Nast magazine empire, and even Reddit.

A few years ago, it created the Alpha Group, a tech incubator that would launch small startups and try to grow them into thriving, standalone businesses. One of those startups was called The Tylt, and it’s a platform that allows its users to participate in online opinion polls on a wide range of issues. The Tylt was successful enough that Alpha Group spun it off as its own company.

Recently, The Tylt hired Selena Roberts, a seasoned journalist who’s written for The New York Times and Sports Illustrated, to serve as its executive editor. I recently sat down with Roberts to learn about the site’s editorial ambitions and whether online, unscientific polls have any journalistic value. [link]

A non-hyperbolic article about the video streaming wars

If you follow news around streaming video on demand services, then you’re likely aware that the “streaming wars” are heating up, with new services set to be launched from Disney, WarnerMedia, and Apple. Often these services are framed as potential Netflix killers, with the writer at some point citing surveys showing that most consumers will only subscribe to a maximum of four streaming products.

I’ve always found this framing to be kind of silly. Products like Disney+ and HBO Max pose a much bigger threat to the kind of expensive cable packages offered by companies like Comcast, as the average consumer will weigh whether to continue paying $100+ a month for cable when they can instead cut the cord and still have access to enormous libraries of content.

That’s why I was glad to come across an article appropriately titled “Everyone’s Wrong About the Streaming Wars.” It actually runs through the math of what it costs to subscribe to streaming services and places that price in historical terms. Its conclusion? There are going to be lots of successful streaming services, not just three or four.

The changing metrics for influencer marketing

From Digiday: “For [influencer marketing] clients, we’re now doing 90% Instagram Stories and 5%-10% Instagram feed. We’ve had entire buys move to Instagram Stories.”

How Deadspin could rise from the ashes

You’ve probably read about the collapse of Deadspin after many of its writers resigned in protest of regressive business practices. I published a mini tweet thread about how I think the cohort of former Deadspin writers could launch an independent publication and quickly generate a sustainable revenue base. The newsletter platform Substack published its own tweet thread about how it thinks the writers should go about this. 


Did you enjoy this newsletter? Then you should subscribe here:

Simon Owens is a tech and media journalist living in Washington, DC. Follow him on TwitterFacebook, or LinkedIn. Email him at For a full bio, go here.