The end of the live streamer mega deals

PLUS: Podcasts are still undervalued

Welcome! I'm Simon Owens and this is my media industry newsletter. If you've received it, then you either subscribed or someone forwarded it to you.

If you fit into the latter camp and want to subscribe, then you can click on this handy little button:

Let’s jump into it…

The end of the live streamer mega deals

Remember when huge video networks like Mixer, Facebook, YouTube, and Kick would pay gaming live streamers tens of millions of dollars to move exclusively over to their platforms? Well, now that those mega deals are expiring, the creators who originally signed them are all migrating back to Twitch:

More than a half-dozen high-profile livestreamers started broadcasting solely on Twitch last year after contracts with Alphabet Inc.’s YouTube and the upstart Kick streaming platform expired. The gaming celebrities returned to a combined 25 million Twitch followers, according to an analysis by Bloomberg News. Several more are livestreaming simultaneously across multiple platforms — not just the one they were contracted to.

It seemed strange at the time and is even stranger in retrospect that all the major video platforms decided, en masse, that live video game streamers were deserving of huge, upfront payments — a type of deal that was extended to virtually no other kind of creator. Like how did they conclude that this one type of content was deserving of a contract that not only paid out tens of millions of dollars but also locked the creator into a single platform?

Was there something unique about live streaming, or is this just an example of a herding effect where Mixer signed that huge deal with Ninja and then every other platform determined that it somehow posed an existential threat to its own streaming business?

Perhaps uncoincidentally, I've never gotten the appeal of livestreams. Sometimes I try to tune into a stream for a huge creator just to better understand their allure, and I almost always come away feeling that this content is just completely unwatchable. There's just some fundamental generational divide that I can't cross, no matter how hard I try. In other words, this content just makes me feel old.

Not all streamer ad tiers are the same

This is a great breakdown of the ad loads for all the major streaming platforms that have cheaper, ad-supported tiers. It doesn't surprise me that Netflix has the lightest ad load given the company's longtime avoidance of ads and how much it's always prioritized user experience over short term revenue gains

It'd be interesting to compare this to the average ad-load of YouTube, which typically packs in a bunch of ads but allows you to skip many of them after five seconds. I'd also love to see a comparison to linear television, which my gut tells me contains way more ads per hour than any streamer.

Apple TV’s smart marketing strategy

This is pretty interesting. Apple TV+ is building buzz for its upcoming season 2 of Severance by distributing the first season for free on Roku:

The fan experience will be accessible directly from the Roku home screen, underscoring the high-profile placement of the deal. Roku has some 90 million users, making it one of the biggest free streaming video platforms on the market … The deal underscores the reach and power of Roku’s platform, and is yet another example of Apple pulling out all the stops to generate interest and subscriptions for Apple TV+.

This is a really smart strategy and I don't see why more streamers don't do it. By the time a second season of a show comes out, you've probably maximized the number of paid subscribers who are willing to watch the first season; by releasing that season for free, you not only create the opportunity to generate more revenue through advertising, but you vastly expand the universe of people who are excited to watch season 2, thereby increasing your subscription conversions. Imagine if every streamer did this when it wanted to build hype for a new season.

Why self-published authors rarely cross over into traditional publishing

One of the most successful book publishers in recent years specializes in finding up-and-coming self-published authors and signing special deals that allow them to keep their ebook and audiobook rights:

In an era when TikTok can catapult authors to success overnight, Bloom has developed a lucrative formula: courting self-published authors who have a built-in fan base, taking over their print distribution, building up their brand and market share and turning them into mainstream best sellers.

That model has propelled the careers of novelists who now rank among the genre’s most popular authors, including Lucy Score, L.J. Shen, Elsie Silver and Ana Huang, a mega-best-selling author whose Bloom print editions have sold more than 7 million copies, according to Circana BookScan.

Whenever I speak to an author who makes six figures a year self-publishing their novels, I always end up asking them: "So has anyone from the traditional publishing world ever reached out to you?"

The answer is almost always no. It just boggles my mind that the big publishers aren't constantly on the lookout for authors who have already proved that there's a vibrant market for their work — especially when there's ample public data that can be used to identify them.

There are exceptions to this rule, of course, but often an self-published author needs to be approaching seven figures in revenue before the traditional publishers even take notice.

Anyway, it's good to see that someone finally capitalized on this huge market opportunity.

Barstool’s unique approach to creator relations

This is a fascinating breakdown of how Barstool works with its creators — in this case a podcast co-host on one of its hit shows. Barstool paid her a base salary of $175,000 and then also shared 70% of revenue with her whenever the company upsold a sponsorship on one of her personal social media accounts (eg, if it sold a $10,000 sponsorship on her Instagram account she'd get $7,000).

@stoolpresidenteGrace went on Theo Von podcast and sort of insinuated like we didn’t pay her fairly so I figured I’d just say what she made here so people can decide for themselves. She was in the last year of a 3 year deal.

Tiktok failed to load.

Enable 3rd party cookies or use another browser

Furthermore, Barstool tried to negotiate a contract for launching a new podcast with her, and in that scenario she'd continue earning her $175,000 base salary, and then Barstool would split the proceeds with her 50/50 once it had recouped the $175,000.

I don't consume any Barstool content and I know Dave Portnoy can be a polarizing figure, but I've always been impressed with how he spots and cultivates creator talent. He has a track record of plucking out relatively unknown personalities and helping to blow them up into huge stars — Alex Cooper being the most famous example.

I think a lot of traditional media companies should copy his playbook of treating content creators like partners, as opposed to employees. There's a lot of upside when your creators have just as much incentive as you do to make a media property succeed.

Please don’t take my newsletter and podcast for granted

I rely on paid subscriptions for the vast majority of my revenue. Without enough paid subscribers, I can’t continue justifying spending 40+ hours a week on my newsletter and podcast, and I’ll need to shut them down so I can seek out other work.

Let me put this another way: if you’d be disappointed if I suddenly announced that I’m shutting down my newsletter and podcast — a very real possibility — then you should probably subscribe.

Seriously, it’s only $125 for a full year, and if you’re using insights from my content to improve your own business, then that $125 pays for itself. And if you use the link below, you get 20% off for the first year:

Huge creators are now building out their own media networks

Alex Cooper is in the media empire building business.

Not only does she host one of the world’s most popular podcasts, but she’s also partnered with several up-and-coming creators to launch podcasts within her Unwell network. And now she’s even acquiring already-existing podcasts.

I do think think we're going to see this trend more and more: a star creator decides they can use their audience and resources to help other up-and-coming creators grow quicker.

Johnny Harris is a good example of this framework. He built up a full staff of producers, editors, animators, and music composers to support his own channel, which has 6.25 million subscribers. He then launched a network that allows him to help other colleagues grow their channels — first Sam Ellis with Search Party (600,000 subscribers and climbing) and then more recently with Christophe Haubursin (100,000 subscribers and climbing).

There are so many talented creators out there that could grow so much faster if they had the right production and monetization support, but they don't currently have the resources to hire staff. Networks like the ones run by Cooper and Harris essentially operate like VC firms, in that they identify these up-and-comers, invest in their growth, and then reap the benefits when their channels blow up. It's a great model.

Podcasts are still undervalued

New York magazine published a good piece about video podcasts entering the mainstream and what this means for an industry that spent its first 15 years building mostly audio-only products:

A small but vocal portion of people were unambiguous advocates for the shift to video (“Love it!” one host of a video podcast wrote), and they generally argue that it’s necessary to reach people where they are. The more tempered advocates point to how its value lies in the way existing infrastructures of digital video ultimately solve the problem of discovery long bemoaned by podcasters. “Traditional search is essentially useless for audio, so discovery is happening almost entirely in social video, which means the impulse to be found is likely to be the thing that drives decision-making about show content and, ultimately, form,” said Jon Caramanica, co-host of the Popcast.

The most exciting thing about the rise of video podcasting is how much it’s poised to vastly expand the industry. Not everyone listens to podcasts, but virtually everyone can stumble across a short podcast clip on Instagram Reels or TikTok, and millions more will sit through longform discussions on YouTube. Video podcasts basically give podcasters access to video-based advertising, which, in terms of market share, is worth tens of billions of dollars more than audio-based advertising.

Video podcasts allow podcasters to compete with virtually every other media entity, especially now that YouTube is the most-used streaming app on TVs. Until recently, podcast revenue has been modest — supposedly the entire industry generated only $2 billion in 2024 — but I think video podcasts will place it on a much steeper growth trajectory. The medium is still vastly undervalued by most legacy media companies.

WashPo’s biggest problem

I think it’s probably an understatement to say that it’s been a challenging year for the Washington Post. First its publisher came under fire for allegedly hiding evidence during the UK phone hacking scandal. Then the company lost 10% of its paid subscriber base when Jeff Bezos prevented it from running a Kamala Harris endorsement. And now it’s losing several of its star reporters to rival media outlets:

Whatever you make of it, the Post’s brain drain reflects a true inflection point for the storied institution—and a decisive moment for its publisher Will Lewis and his hand-picked executive editor Matt Murray … Lewis’s yearlong tenure has been largely defined by mutual contempt between him and his newsroom, which he rarely visits: He has been audibly impatient with their myopia and aversion to change, at the same time that many reporters lament his brash demeanor and disregard for sacred Post customs, all while quietly suspecting that he doesn’t really have a plan to save the paper.

I think the biggest problem for WashPo is that its core journalistic focus — Washington politics and policy — is just too oversaturated as a beat. I mean, can anyone honestly say at this point that we lack for political news in this country? Too many smaller, more nimble media outlets have entered the fray, to the point where WashPo would struggle to differentiate its offering even if it managed to hold on to its top talent. Not only does public interest in politics wax and wane depending on whether it's an election year, but brands are increasingly uninterested in advertising against that sort of content. When you add all this together, then it's no wonder that the paper has been losing money for years.

If Bezos truly wants the paper to compete at the national level, then he needs to seriously invest in diversifying its coverage areas well beyond Washington. That means expanding its teams covering tech, fashion, finance, gaming, and entertainment. It means placing more reporters in important regional hubs all around the world. It means launching other verticals outside of news — just as The New York Times heavily invested in its gaming, recipes, and product review content.

That's not to say the paper should completely abandon its Washington roots — in fact, its coverage of the White House and Capitol Hill will continue to be its biggest calling card — but it seems pretty clear to me that political coverage alone won't dig it out of its current hole.

After I posted about this on social media, James daSilva left this thoughtful comment:

I agree with this, but I feel like the national approach is also DOA because WaPo can't realistically match NYT — like, it would probably need to poach a decent % of those readers, since there are only so many people who are curious enough for a wide-ranging national bundle but not nerdy enough to want deeper niche coverage.

This was true even in the brighter Bezos days, IMHO. This 2017 article mentions WaPo doubling its digital-only subscribers in 6 months — but that meant it had only 40% of NYT’s digital subs.

This was my response:

I mean, at the end of the day the NYT has 10 million subscribers in a world of 1.5 billion English speakers. Both Netflix and Spotify have over 200 million subscribers each. It feels like there’s still a lot of potential subscribers out there for grabs.

I also think Bezos could think outside the box and launch products and services that the NYT doesn’t even offer. After all, he founded the world’s largest e-retail outlet and has built the world’s third largest advertising business from scratch. A decade ago Amazon barely had an advertising business and now it lags only behind Google and Meta.

How to grow a YouTube channel from scratch

A liberal pundit who initially gained a following on Twitter decided to start uploading videos to YouTube only seven months ago and grew to 250,000 subscribers in that short amount of time. This is an interesting breakdown of what he learned as a newbie YouTube creator:

First, I learned that unlike Instagram and Twitter, where going viral with political content often means being first, content quality drives virality on YouTube. Focusing on quality doesn’t just mean exerting more effort. High quality political videos layer other events and trends on top of the latest viral moment to explain why it matters to interested audiences. In other words, you are giving your viewers analysis.

This difference in strategy on YouTube comes down in large part to what audiences are primed and looking for on the platform. Creating political content on Twitter is a bit like microwaving soup: The quality might be lower but fast is best here because the people are hungry now. YouTube is more like preparing a stew: It takes longer to cook, has more meat, and the intended customers expect it to be satisfying yet digestible.

Meta still sucks at creator monetization

Meta shut down yet another one of its creator monetization experiments, this time a feature that placed ads on Instagram profiles.

I think this just speaks to the capricious nature of Meta's revenue sharing with creators. One could argue that its entire $134 billion in annual revenue is entirely dependent on the work of creators, yet instead of sharing a set percentage with them — as is the practice of platforms like Spotify, YouTube, and Substack — it rolls out these inconsequential, half-hearted payout systems that are often shuttered at the drop of the hat.

As a result, no creator can ever truly build a business within Meta's ecosystem. That's why Facebook has become an AI-infested ghost town and Instagram consists mostly of recycled TikTok and YouTube Shorts content.

I continue to be so glad I never relied heavily on Meta-owned platforms to build my audience. For me personally, Threads is the perfect example of why it’s impossible to build a true following there; I've regularly had weeks where my posts generated hundreds of thousands of impressions, yet my follower count there is actually SHRINKING. That's because no Meta-owned platform prioritizes audience loyalty. All views there are empty calories.

ICYMI: How Oovvuu grew its video platform to over 400 million streams per day