a16z's $360M/year media operation

You've probably seen the diagram by now.

David Booth, a16z's new Head of Ecosystem, published a breakdown of how they're "turning VC into a network effect business."

I’ve seen lots of analyse about ‘what’ they built. But it’s worth considering what this means for funds without ~447 employees.

Then I'll ask a more interesting question… What's the next blue ocean?

What “Marketing” is for a16z

Looking at David's diagram, their "Marketing" infrastructure has three components:

1. Owned Media

• Ben & Marc Show, Turpentine Network, a16z podcasts & newsletters etc.

2. Earned Media

• "Be everywhere. Help founders & GPs get visibility, earn credibility, go viral"

• Partners as individual brands (Chris Dixon, Connie Chan, Justine & Olivia Moore)

3. Outbound

• "Identify, pull interesting people into our orbit"

• Curated dinners, events, founder circles

All three feed into their "Distribution Channels" which connect to:

• Brand & Communications

• Talent Network (hiring pipeline for portfolio companies)

• Which ultimately feeds the Platform and helps companies succeed

Content attracts founders → Founders join ecosystem → Ecosystem provides talent → Talent helps companies scale → Success attracts more founders → Loop compounds.

What You Can Actually Learn From Their Playbook

Let’s be specific about what's replicable…

1. Start Personal

a16z learned early that Ben Horowitz's personal blog, or Marc’s tweetstorms were more valuable than any corporate content they could produce.

Posts about the hard realities of being a CEO - firing executives, managing depression, surviving near-death company experiences - got passed around founder circles and eventually those posts became "The Hard Thing About Hard Things," one of the most influential startup books ever written.

The lesson is that individual voices beat institutional voices. Every time. Your GP writing honestly about what they're seeing will always resonate more than your fund's official position on market trends.

Get one partner writing or talking consistently in their own voice, and leaning in to what makes them unique as an allocator (more on that here).

2. Vertical Specificity Beats General Content

a16z spent millions learning this lesson the hard way. In 2021, they launched Future.com - a standalone editorial publication aimed at being "The Atlantic of tech." Twenty-plus person team. Professional journalists. High production value.

But… it failed and they shut it down by late 2022.

Why? Because founders don't want general tech journalism. The separation between "independent media" and "a16z insights" actually made it less valuable, not more.

The lesson is focus on hyper-vertical, hyper-specific content from people with real expertise. This is actually easier for small funds than big ones. If you're a climate tech fund, you can own that vertical completely in a way a16z never could.

a16z has to serve ten verticals. If you’re a small firm, you only have to serve one (an advantage, not a constraint).

3. Content Needs Community

It’s easy to just see the volume of content when you look at a16z's model. But they have very effectively navigated the second order effects of this.

Content → Community → Network → Value

Networks create value for each other - without a16z in the middle of every transaction.

You can do this at a fraction of the scale and get similar benefits. Instead of 900K podcast downloads, you need 1,000 downloads from the right people. Instead of multiple Slack communities, you need one channel with 50 active members. Instead of dozens of curated dinners, you need one quarterly dinner with 10-15 people.

• Content attracts specific people (not everyone)

• Give them reasons to connect with each other

• Have Network infrastructure in place to compound value without you in the middle

For more on this, Cory Bolotsky has a super comprehensive piece:

Small fund version:

• Newsletter (500 subscribers in your niche)

• Slack/Discord (50 portfolio founders + operators)

• When founder needs intro/hiring → 5 people respond/refer

4. Content BEFORE Traction

a16z started building their media presence on day one. Most funds do it backwards waiting to raise Fund II, then maybe think about content.

I also did a breakdown on how Y Combinator have done this better than anyone thats worth referencing here. Like a16z, YC built media presence, attract founders through credibility and visibility, invest in best companies, success compounds because you already have distribution infrastructure, raising funds and get deals becomes easy because everyone knows who you are.

If you're waiting until you have results to start building your presence, you're already late. The infrastructure takes years to compound. Start now.

What About Resources!?

Now let's be honest about what you can't replicate. a16z has ~$40B under management, which could = roughly $360M/ year in management fees. They can afford to spend $3-5M annually on media infrastructure and still have it be a rounding error. You probably can't. Here's what requires their resources - and what you could do instead:

But is the Blue Ocean Now Red?

a16z found untapped leverage in 2009.

While Sequoia and Benchmark were backing companies and avoiding press, Marc and Ben went loud… hired the first-ever full-time PR lead for a VC firm, wrote "Software is Eating the World," built a media team while others thought it was vanity.

They professionalised what everyone else dismissed as a cost centre.

Fast forward to 2025… every fund has a podcast (or feels guilty about not having one), partners are expected to have "personal brands," "content strategy" is table stakes, and LPs ask about your media presence in DD.

The blue ocean is now red.

What a16z pioneered is now obvious. Which means it's no longer a competitive advantage.

So, copying a16z's 2009 playbook won't give you their 2025 results. You need to find the next thing that looks like a distraction but is actually leverage.

So What Might Be Next?

Here are three bets I'm watching…

Streaming / Real-Time Content

A few VCs are experimenting with live streaming. Brycent on Twitch / Vesting doing live deal analysis and getting VCs on stream for real-time, unscripted, high-frequency content.

Why it might work: Intimacy at scale through chat interaction. Volume advantage vs. podcasting. Gen Z founders consume content this way. Underpriced attention - streaming platforms aren't saturated with VC content yet.

Are you willing to stream 2-3x per week for 2 years before seeing ROI?

Owning the Entire Stack for One Vertical

Instead of being a "media company that invests," what if you were complete infrastructure for one vertical? Not just content, community, and capital - but also talent marketplace, customer network, technical infrastructure, training programs, industry events. On Deck tried this horizontally. What if someone did it vertically and went 10x deeper in a niche like immersive tech or bio?

Why it might work: When you're THE ecosystem for a domain, founder loyalty is absolute. Multiple value add or even revenue streams beyond carry.

Bottom-Up Distribution - Your Founders as Your Media

Typically, VCs create content → founders consume it → brand gravity.

Flipped model, Founders create content → VCs distribute it → brand compounds.

Instead of building a media team, help 3-5 "creator founders" in your portfolio build personal brands. Provide infrastructure - production, distribution, strategy. Their success becomes your brand. Their audience becomes your deal flow funnel.

Why this might work: Founders are more authentic. Multiple founder voices beat a single VC voice, and it can scale without headcount.

Blue oceans share three patterns:

1. They look like a distraction at first. 2009: "Why is a VC hiring a PR person?" 2025: "Why is a VC streaming on Twitch?"

2. They require different expertise. 2009: Media/journalism skills (rare in VC). 2025: Creator economy skills, live streaming production, community operations.

3. Incumbents can't easily copy it. 2009: Sequoia couldn't suddenly become loud without looking inauthentic. 2025: Established funds can't suddenly start streaming or go hyper-vertical without awkwardness.

The question: What are you willing to commit to before there's proof it works?

I'm working on a longer piece… "What does VC marketing look like in 2035?" I'll send it when it's ready - probably in the next few weeks.

The Takeaway

"Should we do what a16z did?"

Better question = "What does a16z wish they'd started 5 years ago?"

Because whatever they're building NOW (Erik Torenberg acquisition, David Booth ecosystem hire, community infrastructure) is what will be table stakes in 2030.

Which means the real opportunity is finding what's NOT obvious yet. Success is always a lagging indicator…

The pattern from a16z's success:

1. Find something everyone thinks is a distraction

2. Build it consistently for 3-5 years before it's proven

3. By the time everyone else realises it works, you have insurmountable lead

So…. What are you willing to bet on that looks wrong today?

P.S. I just released a 20-minute breakdown of all phases of a16z's media evolution - from PR weapon (2009) to ecosystem infrastructure (2025).

Laurie, Refinery Media

If you made it all the way through, thanks so much for reading! Several hundred VCs now open this every week. If it’s helped you think differently about marketing, Venture, or storytelling, please send it to someone in your orbit.