Condé Nast Prepares for Zero Search Traffic as AI Redefines Media

应对AI重塑媒体：康泰纳仕做好搜索流量归零准备 康泰纳仕CEO Roger Lynch表示，出版机构必须假定搜索引流将会消失，转而依赖直接面向消费者的订阅、高端品牌权威以及人工采写的新闻，以在AI生成内容的洪流中生存。 康泰纳仕CEO Roger Lynch分享了这家标志性出版集团如何应对技术变革：优先发展人工采写的新闻、品牌权威以及直达消费者的关系，而非依赖搜索引擎。他探讨了从自身科技与音乐行业背景中汲取的教训、《Vogue》和《The New Yorker》等旗舰品牌的财务成功，以及如何在保障人工编辑严谨性的同时在内部应用AI来简化软件开发流程。此外，Lynch还详述了围绕全球品牌整合、Met Gala等高影响力文化活动、数字订阅增长和品牌定制内容的相关策略。 面对 AI 快速生成的低质内容冲击，康泰纳仕（Condé Nast）坚持以人类创作者为核心，聚焦深度调查与严苛事实核查，坚决不生产低门槛的合成文本，以巩固核心品牌资产。 (8:34) CEO Roger Lynch 彻底重构了此前割裂的“封建式”跨国运作架构（曾一度在米兰设立 7 个互不统属的独立办公室），将其整合为统一高效的全球协同管理体系。 (17:18) 针对 Google AI Overview 等算法调整对搜索推荐流量的冲击，康泰纳仕在预算规划中假定搜索流量趋近于零，全面转向强化与受众的直接触达关系。 (30:41) 数字订阅成为康泰纳仕核心增长动力，年收入实现 29% 的增长，且在多轮提价后用户留存率依然逐年提升，体现了权威媒体的定价权与品牌韧性。 (33:24) 公司将 AI 技术定位于提升后端效能，通过 AI 原生流程将产品研发团队由原先的 10 至 12 人精简至 3 至 4 人，开发交付速度提升至三倍。 (39:14)

Condé Nast CEO Roger Lynch argues that the proliferation of low-cost, AI-generated content is widening a divide in media, positioning human reporting and trusted prestige brands to capture outsized value as platform distribution collapses. Human Journalism as a Defense Against Synthetic Content (8:34) Lynch asserts that Condé Nast’s core competitive advantage lies in deeply researched, human-produced journalism that cannot be replicated by low-cost automated output. Flagship titles like The New Yorker rely on extensive investigation and rigorous fact-checking teams, which directly drive reader acquisition when published. Unlike newsletter creators on platforms such as Substack who rely on frequent, high-volume posting, legacy publications can sustain long-term research cycles that justify customer trust. The Collapse of Search Arbitrage and Platform Dependency (30:41) Lynch points to the recorded music industry's 27-year recovery after resisting consumer shifts as a warning against ignoring structural disruption. In response to Google results pages prioritizing AI summaries and commerce listings over organic links, Condé Nast's management now budgets under the assumption that search referral traffic will drop to zero or low single-digit levels. Media companies built on algorithmic arbitrage or social feed traffic have collapsed, prompting Condé Nast to focus entirely on direct audience relationships. Direct Monetization Through Subscriptions, Commerce, and Tentpoles (33:24) Condé Nast has pursued audience independence by growing digital subscriptions, which rose 29% year-over-year with improved retention despite price increases across major titles like Vogue and niche outlets like Pitchfork. The company also monetizes via creator marketplaces like Vet and large-scale live cultural events. For example, the Met Gala generated 3.1 billion video views within seven days of the event and drew 200 million red carpet livestream viewers, transforming single cultural moments into company-wide commercial assets. Portfolio Dynamics and AI-Driven Engineering Workflows (35:59) Lynch describes a power-law dynamic where media outlets must either dominate a broad vertical—such as Architectural Digest in design—or serve a hyper-focused, paying niche, while generalist middle-tier outlets struggle. Operationally, Lynch restructured Condé Nast from a fragmented international house into a unified entity, while using AI strictly for back-end efficiency. A technical restructuring replaced legacy 10-to-12-person product teams with 3-to-4-person units using AI for code and testing, allowing them to operate at three times the speed to free up capital for original human content. Lynch maintains that while AI can streamline back-end operations, consumer trust rests entirely on authentic human creative work, as evidenced by reader backlash following an AI-generated model appearing in a Vogue advertisement. Condé Nast's model depends on whether premium subscriber loyalty and branded campaigns can permanently offset the loss of broad web distribution.

康泰纳仕（Condé Nast）首席执行官 Roger Lynch 指出，随着搜索引擎算法挤压与人工智能低质内容的泛滥，依赖公域流量套利的通用型媒体正走向瓦解；拥有专属知识产权与事实核查能力的高端媒体品牌，则通过直接付费订阅、超级文化事件与 AI 赋能的内部技术重组，实现商业价值的持续集中。 搜索流量断流与直接订阅定价权 (30:41) Roger Lynch 认为，通过社交平台和搜索引擎进行流量套利来获取广告或电商收入的时代已经彻底结束。Condé Nast 在董事会演示中对比了搜索结果页面（SERP）的变化：七八年前搜索展示的是少数赞助广告和“十条蓝色链接”，如今页面已被顶部的 AI Overview、多排电商推荐和赞助链接占满，自然搜索结果被挤出首屏。鉴于此，Lynch 要求管理团队在编制预算时采取激进假设，将搜索流量视作仅占个位数的边缘渠道，促使旗下刊物放弃算法依附，全面转向直接建立受众联系。 摆脱算法依赖的核心落点在于直接订阅。Lynch 披露，Condé Nast 上一年度数字订阅收入同比增长 29%，且持续保持双位数增幅，这一模式已从旗舰刊物拓展至《Pitchfork》和英国《Tatler》等垂直刊物。即便过去数年公司多次大幅上调订阅价格，订阅用户的留存率不仅没有下滑，反而逐年提升。播客讨论指出，Substack 等独立创作者每月约 20 美元的收费标准锚定了受众对深度内容的心理价位，使得包含严谨核查、深度长文和高规格视觉制作的综合出版物呈现出极高的性价比。 媒体生态杠铃化与人工报道溢价 (15:20) Lynch 以录音音乐产业的沉浮作为警示：唱片业在 1999 年见顶后因诉讼对抗数字技术而陷入长期衰退，耗时近 27 年收入才重回峰值；而黑胶唱片则连续 18 年增长，演变为年轻受众与老一代共同追求的实体文化图腾。当前 AI 正在网络上生成大量低成本的粗制内容，反而凸显了严肃调查报道的稀缺性。《The New Yorker》依托专职事实核查团队对报道进行逐字核对，花费数月雕琢的深度调查发布时，会直接带来订阅量激增，这是高频更新的个人 Newsletter 平台难以实现的。 这种结构性变革正在促成媒体行业的“杠铃效应”（Barbell Effect）：处于中间层、缺乏权威度的泛媒体将被淘汰，胜出者仅存在于两端——要么是在核心大垂直类目中占据主导地位的旗舰品牌（如时尚领域的《Vogue》与设计领域的《Architectural Digest》），要么是服务极度垂直且受众黏性极高的小众刊物（如仅贡献 1% 集团收入但高度盈利的《Pitchfork》）。Lynch 补充称，《Vogue》纸刊曾因刊登含有 AI 生成模特的广告引发读者强烈抗议，读者将不满直接投向出版方，印证了核心受众对“非人工创作内容”的抵触，促使集团确立了绝不依赖 AI 批量制造内容的战略边界。 打破封建割据与超级文化事件变现 (17:18) 在内部运营架构上，Lynch 梳理了其入职时面临的严重分散局面：Condé Nast 过去如同各自为政的“封建领地”，各区域分部将彼此视为竞争对手，甚至在米兰一地就分散设有七处办公室。Lynch 推动了全面的组织重组，除首席内容官 Anna Wintour 外彻底更换了原有高管层，建立起全球协同的运营机制。这一变革消除了内耗，使集团能够将分散的地区性资源聚合为具有全球辐射力的超级文化盛事。 作为该模式的典型代表，Met Gala 在全球统一数字化宣发支持下，活动后前 7 天内的全网视频播放量突破 31 亿次，较上年增长 60%，红毯直播吸引了 2 亿全球观众；《Vanity Fair》奥斯卡派对的数字互动与商业价值亦录得 65% 的同比增长。Lynch 指出，线下活动已成为集团增速最快的业务板块之一，通过将资源集中于少数不可替代的全球文化时刻，实现了品牌影响力向数字商业收益的高倍转化。 工程团队AI重构与权威驱动型商业 (39:14) 在技术与产品研发端，Condé Nast 实施了以生成式 AI 为核心的组织精简。以往开发一个软件工程项目通常需要 10 至 12 人组成的庞大团队，涵盖技术项目经理、QA 测试工程师、产品分析师和程序员。在去年底启动试点后，团队被重塑为仅由 1 名身兼分析职责的产品经理、1 名设计师和 1 名工程师构成的 3 至 4 人小团队，代码生成与质检测试全面由 AI 承担。该模式不仅使项目迭代速度提升至以往的 3 倍，也使技术部门以更精简的人力架构支撑起全公司的数字化系统。 在商业变现方面，Condé Nast 明确拒绝自主代工制造实体商品（例如不销售自有品牌日用品），而是选择通过品牌公信力与受众号召力赋能交易。例如，集团推出创作者社交电商平台“Vet”，依托与奢侈时尚品牌的长期战略合作，协助受认证的品味引领者直接向粉丝分销商品。与此同时，定制品牌内容（Branded Content）已成为集团最大的广告营收来源，配合纸刊、展示广告与高速扩张的视频广告，构成了抵御平台算法震荡的复合变现支撑。 Roger Lynch 的核心论点在于将 AI 严格限制为后台提效工具，以此节省开支并反哺昂贵的人工深度报道，再通过直接订阅、权威电商与文化超级事件实现变现闭环；然而，该路径极大程度依赖于《Vogue》与《The New Yorker》等头部老牌媒体数十年来积淀的专有文化声誉，对于缺乏强大品牌溢价与直接付费号召力的中小出版商而言，其应对搜索断流与 AI 冲击的普适性依然面临巨大考验。

## Background 该内容由科技与商业播客频道 TBPN 于 2026 年 5 月 22 日在 YouTube 平台发布。节目特邀康泰纳仕（Condé Nast）首席执行官罗杰·林奇（Roger Lynch）进行现场直播对谈，探讨在 AI 泛滥、搜索流量剧减以及 Substack、TikTok 等新平台重塑媒体格局的背景下，如《Vogue》与《纽约客》等传统顶级媒体品牌为何更具价值，以及出版商如何从订阅、线下盛事、定制内容与技术重组中重塑竞争力。 ## TL;DR 康泰纳仕 CEO 罗杰·林奇深入剖析了传统媒体在技术剧变中的突围逻辑。他指出，在劣质 AI 内容泛滥的当下，坚持 100% 由人类创作的深度调查新闻与顶级美学具有极高溢价，读者对真实性的渴望也让纸刊与黑胶等实体媒介迎来复兴。面对 Google 搜索流量崩塌的现实，公司采取“假设搜索流量归零”的严苛生存法则，摒弃中间地带的流量套利模式，转而依托《纽约客》《Vogue》等头部品牌的强大定价弹性做大数字订阅，并通过 Met Gala 等超级文化时刻撬动数十亿级曝光。在内部治理上，康泰纳仕打破了昔日的跨国地域割据，并在研发工程侧深度引入 AI 提效，将精力和资金全力反哺给不可替代的人类采编与创意制作。 ## Atmosphere & style 整场对话在轻松风趣的技术老友闲聊与严肃冷静的商业战略推演之间切换自如，开篇伴随着吉他爱好与车库音乐回忆的诙谐调侃，随后迅速切入直面媒体行业生存危机的冷酷解剖。林奇展现出兼具资深科技操盘手与百年传媒掌舵者的果敢气场，既坦率承认搜索流量断崖式下跌与团队裁撤的残酷现实，又在谈及读者抗议 AI 虚拟模特广告时流露出毫不掩饰的欣喜与自信。整期节目节奏紧凑、观点犀利，为听众呈现了一场在算法焦虑与内容泔水时代下，顶级传统精英传媒重构自身护城河的思想交锋。 ## Bulletin - [32:21](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0AuD76FK3u4&t=1941s) 康泰纳仕 CEO 罗杰·林奇要求团队必须在假设“搜索流量完全归零”的前提下进行业务规划，果断淘汰缺乏自生壁垒的品牌，应对 Google 搜索结果被 AI 概览和广告侵吞的现状。 - [14:40](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0AuD76FK3u4&t=880s) 面对 AI 廉价生成内容成灾，康泰纳仕坚持 100% 由人类创作内容，不仅在《Vogue》刊登 AI 虚拟模特广告引发读者抗议后印证了人类真实性的高溢价，且数字订阅收入连续录得 29% 及双位数逆势增长。 - [40:11](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0AuD76FK3u4&t=2411s) 康泰纳仕内部工程团队通过 AI 深度重组，将单个项目团队从 10 至 12 人精简至 3 至 4 人，交付速度提升 3 倍，技术项目经理与专职 QA 岗位被大幅裁撤压缩。 - [45:37](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0AuD76FK3u4&t=2737s) 品牌定制内容（branded content）已超越传统展示广告成为康泰纳仕最大的广告业务支柱；同时 Met Gala 凭借全球矩阵协同，首周斩获 31 亿次播放量并推动活动业务爆发式增长。 ## Key takeaways - [04:36](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0AuD76FK3u4&t=276s) 传统唱片业曾因用起诉用户等手段对抗 Napster 和数字下载，耗费 27 年才重回 1999 年巅峰，媒体行业必须引以为戒，主动拥抱技术演变而非死守旧商业模式。 - [02:13](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0AuD76FK3u4&t=133s) Pandora 早期的核心壁垒在于将专业音乐学家的审美标签与约 90 种机器学习算法相结合，证明了人类品味与算法协作的巨大价值。 - [06:56](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0AuD76FK3u4&t=416s) 面对智能手机充斥的廉价数字内容，黑胶唱片与实体杂志在年轻受众中的复兴，反映出公众对真实性（authenticity）与自我审美投射的迫切需求。 - [09:11](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0AuD76FK3u4&t=551s) 非独家内容的分发终将被大型科技平台主导，拥有独家内容、标志性品牌心智并掌控分发主导权是传统媒体转型的关键基石。 - [10:07](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0AuD76FK3u4&t=607s) Substack 等创作者平台受制于高频更新的“仓鼠轮”机制，无法支持需要耗时 6 到 12 个月的深度调查新闻，严肃报道依然需要成熟机构的背书与事实核查支持。 - [14:40](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0AuD76FK3u4&t=880s) 在 AI 生成“数字泔水”泛滥的时代，康泰纳仕坚守 100% 人类创作，拒绝盲目跟风，通过独家深度与权威性享受更高的行业护城河溢价。 - [17:02](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0AuD76FK3u4&t=1022s) 集团打破过去米兰一地拥有七处独立办公室的封建割据旧模式，将本土纸媒割裂架构重组为适应四海一体读者的全球数字化协作网络。 - [19:13](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0AuD76FK3u4&t=1153s) 媒体格局呈现“杠铃效应”：处于顶端的旗舰品牌（如《Vogue》、《纽约客》）和垂直利基品牌（如 Pitchfork）表现强劲，而缺乏权威度又过于泛滥的中间层媒体极度脆弱。 - [21:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0AuD76FK3u4&t=1260s) 家族控股且不受 FCC 牌照和监管审批干预的治理架构，为康泰纳仕提供了免受政治与广告商干预的独立性，使其成为全球顶尖调查记者的避风港。 - [23:51](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0AuD76FK3u4&t=1431s) 康泰纳仕不做重资产自营消费品，而是依托奢侈品信任背书推出 Vet 平台，赋能时尚品味引领者实现创作者电商与社交带货转化。 - [27:52](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0AuD76FK3u4&t=1672s) 集团大幅精简线下活动频次，转而倾全力打造超级文化时刻；Met Gala 首周创下 31 亿次视频播放量，红毯直播吸引 2 亿人观看。 - [29:43](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0AuD76FK3u4&t=1783s) 依靠 Google 搜索流量与 Facebook 套利的快时尚媒体模式已经落幕，搜索流量正在被 AI 概览、商品栏和密集广告挤压殆尽。 - [33:24](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0AuD76FK3u4&t=2004s) 订阅业务在多次显著提价后留存率不降反升，并意外享受到 Substack 高价个人通讯带来的“比价红利”，让机构工业化出品的高质量内容更显性价比。 - [40:11](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0AuD76FK3u4&t=2411s) 在敏捷试点中，借助 AI 自动生成代码与 QA 测试，3 至 4 人的精简产研团队以 3 倍于传统 10 至 12 人团队的速度高效交付，重塑了内部工程结构。 - [42:53](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0AuD76FK3u4&t=2573s) 《Vogue》杂志因刊登 AI 虚拟模特广告遭读者痛批，直接印证了核心受众对“人类创作”与真实美学的高标准要求，技术提升效率的终极目的是反哺优质人类内容。 - [45:05](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0AuD76FK3u4&t=2705s) 印刷版杂志中广告是相得益彰的“核心体验”（Feature），但在数字场景下程序化弹窗则变成了干扰阅读的“Bug”，使品牌定制内容成为增长最强的广告支柱。 ## Detailed walkthrough ### [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0AuD76FK3u4&t=0s) 执掌康泰纳仕前：深耕科技与媒体交汇处的职业生涯 节目开场，主持人热情引荐了康泰纳仕（Condé Nast）现任首席执行官罗杰·林奇（Roger Lynch）。主持人和林奇上周刚见过面，开场打趣提到林奇不仅在商业领域掌舵，私底下还是一位技艺高超的吉他手。林奇笑着回应称“那曾是我一生的抱负”。在主持人的引导下，林奇回顾了自己来到康泰纳仕之前的成长历程。他坦言自己担任康泰纳仕 CEO 已有七年，但在那之前，他的整个职业生涯几乎全部扎根于技术领域，更准确地说是位于“科技与媒体内容的交汇十字路口”。 林奇操盘的第一家公司是欧洲最早的宽带服务企业之一，时间可以追溯至 1999 年。当时宽带方兴未艾，他们做出的破天荒举动之一，就是直接与美国国家橄榄球联盟（NFL）达成协议，在 1999 年进行 NFL 赛事的线上网络直播。主持人好奇在当年的欧洲究竟有多少美式橄榄球受众，林奇解释说，时任 NFL 专员保罗·塔利亚布（Paul Tagliabue）当时亲自飞往欧洲宣布这项超前的合作，因为联盟正试图在欧洲开拓市场（当时甚至组建了阿姆斯特丹海军将领队等欧洲联赛队伍）。林奇敏锐地意识到宽带技术将彻底改变人们消费内容的方式，随后他顺势创立了一家互联网协议电视（IPTV）公司，先后涉足视频点播 IPTV 以及后来的流媒体电视先驱 Sling TV，一路推动流媒体技术的迭代演进。 ```mermaid flowchart LR accTitle: Roger Lynch Career Evolution accDescr: A flow diagram showing Roger Lynch's path from early broadband to Condé Nast. subgraph Early["早期技术与流媒体探索"] A["1999 欧洲宽带业务<br/>(NFL直播)"] --> B["IPTV 视频点播"] B --> C["Sling TV 流媒体电视"] end subgraph AudioAndPublishing["音频与头部媒体领导"] C --> D["Pandora 音乐流媒体"] D --> E["Condé Nast 康泰纳仕 CEO"] end ``` ### [02:13](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0AuD76FK3u4&t=133s) 掌舵 Pandora：人类品味与 AI 算法的开创性结合 在连续创立并掌管数家企业后，林奇接掌了 Pandora，这也是他职业生涯中接手的第一家非自己亲手创立的公司。主持人和林奇都回忆起 Pandora 带来的神奇体验——在车库里一边与父亲打台球、摆弄器械，一边任由电台流淌出美妙音乐。当时用户在 iTunes 上购买一首歌需要 0.99 美元，而 Pandora 则利用法定强制许可机制（compulsory licensing）搭建起合法网络电台，用户虽不能随意点播单曲，却能享受无需逐首付费的电台式发现体验。尽管 Pandora 后来也推出了点播订阅服务，但入局较晚，彼时 Spotify 和其他大型科技巨头已经牢牢占据了主流市场。 林奇指出，Pandora 最核心的创新在于它在早期就成功实现了“人类品味”与“人工智能/机器学习”的有机结合。公司组建了一支由专业音乐学家（Musicologists）构成的顶尖团队，这些音乐人具备深厚的专业背景（林奇戏称在公司活动中与这群顶尖乐手一起弹吉他是这份工作最棒的福利之一）。数据科学家团队则提取音乐学家的专业分析与标签，据此开发出约 90 种不同维度的机器学习算法。针对每位听众（无论是主持人 Jordy 还是 Charles），系统会根据喜好调整各算法权重，创造出高度个性化的聆听流。林奇坦言，虽然自己也用 Spotify，但当他只想随手打开音频让它自动播放好音乐时，他依然会选择 Pandora，因为这套融合了人类专业审美品味的算法至今在自动化体验上表现卓越。 - **商业模式机制**：利用强制版权许可协议运营电台流，在单曲付费下载时代构建了低摩擦的流媒体体验。 - **算法架构特点**：专业音乐学家人工拆解曲目特质，数据科学家配合大约 90 种机器学习算法进行个性化加权调优。 ### [04:36](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0AuD76FK3u4&t=276s) 传统媒体在技术变革中的顽疾与唱片业的惨痛教训 针对媒体行业在平台剧变时动辄叫嚣“传统媒体已死”、“线性电视已死”的宿命论，林奇从历史演变角度剖析了媒体面对技术冲击时的真实演进逻辑。他尖锐地指出，媒体行业最大的通病是“跟进转型的速度太慢”。以录制音乐产业为例，其销售收入在 1999 年达到历史巅峰，随后 Napster 等点对点技术打破了传统格局。 然而，音乐行业在遭遇技术冲击时犯下了灾难性的战略错误。面对消费者行为的剧变，行业高管们没有去重塑商业模式以迎合用户，反而将精力耗费在起诉艾奥瓦州下载音乐的青少年、起诉互联网服务提供商（ISP）及家长身上，妄图强行把用户的消费习惯逼回购买实体 CD 的旧时代。这种对抗市场和用户的做法让整个产业付出了惨烈代价。直到行业全面拥抱数字下载并最终转向流媒体平台，音乐产业才重新步入增长轨道——但直到整整 27 年后的今天，其规模才勉强追平 1999 年的巅峰水平。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: Music Industry Technological Disruption Cycle accDescr: The historical cycle of the music industry from its 1999 peak, through legal resistance, to modern streaming and live revenue. subgraph Disruption["冲击与错误防御 (1999-2000s)"] P["1999 录制音乐营收巅峰"] --> N["Napster 出现与数字下载兴起"] N --> E["战略误判：起诉青少年与ISP<br/>强行捍卫 CD 模式"] end subgraph Recovery["重构与重返巅峰 (2010s-至今)"] E --> S["被动拥抱流媒体模式"] S --> R["耗时 27 年营收重回 1999 水平"] R --> L["商业变现中心转移至现场巡演与高规格线下体验"] end ``` ### [06:56](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0AuD76FK3u4&t=416s) 实体媒介的复兴、真诚性追求与转战康泰纳仕的抉择 谈及音乐媒介的最新趋势，林奇与主持人探讨了黑胶唱片持续 18 年逆势反弹的现象。黑胶唱片销售额目前已攀升至流媒体收入的约 10% 左右。更具深意的是消费群体的结构转变：过去购买黑胶唱片的主要是五六十岁的老乐迷，而如今二三十岁的年轻群体买黑胶的比例已旗鼓相当，甚至很多年轻人连唱片机都没有也会购买。林奇观察到，杂志出版行业同样出现了年轻人主动购买实体纸质杂志的平行现象。他认为这反映了在智能手机充斥着海量免费数字内容的时代，人们开始向往“真实性”（authenticity）与实物归属感；用真金白银投票购买一件实体物件，成为了自我审美与品味的物理投射。 与此同时，音乐产业的盈利引擎彻底倒置。过去艺人巡演是为了推销实体唱片，而如今发布唱片则是为了给现场巡演卖票制造声势。诸如洛杉矶 SoFi 体育场的巨额资本开支，以及泰勒·斯威夫特（Taylor Swift）“时代巡回演唱会”（Eras Tour）这种全民参与的超级现场盛宴，印证了资金与注意力正在大规模涌向不可替代的实体体验。 在此背景下，林奇谈及了自己从 Pandora 转战传统出版巨头康泰纳仕的契机。在 Pandora 被 SiriusXM 收购后，原本行事果断的林奇陷入了艰难的十字路口：他当时同时手握四个 CEO 机会，其中两个在纽约，另外两个在老家洛杉矶。在东西海岸之间频繁往返奔波、迟迟未决之际，连妻子都惊讶于他平日少有的纠结，而他最终选择了接下康泰纳仕这一极具挑战性的全球内容旗舰。 ### [09:11](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0AuD76FK3u4&t=551s) 为什么选择康泰纳仕：独家内容与掌控分发权 罗杰·林奇（Roger Lynch）回忆起自己决定执掌康泰纳仕（Condé Nast）的契机。当时他在多趟飞行旅程中翻阅各家候选公司的资料，发现每一次自己都会不由自主地被康泰纳仕的内容所吸引，迫不及待想要深入研读。他当时心里很明确：“这是对我而言在智识上最有趣的一件事，我就要去干这个。” 在选择下一站时，林奇给自己设定了几个核心标准。首先，他依然深爱内容、技术与分发模式三者交汇的领域；但至关重要的一点在于，非独家内容（无论是音乐、电影还是流媒体电视）注定会被大型科技巨头所主导。他此前从事的许多业务处理的都是非独家内容，而这一次，他渴望加入一家拥有自身独家内容与标志性品牌、能够对自身分发渠道拥有更强话语权的公司。同时，他也看重利用技术去重构商业模式与发行网络的机会，而康泰纳仕恰好与他的这些设想完美契合。 ### [10:07](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0AuD76FK3u4&t=607s) 传统品牌的长寿价值与 Substack 的“仓鼠轮”困境 节目主持人谈到了当下媒体格局的剧变。他们曾开玩笑地发布过一张调侃性质的媒体市场分布图，自嘲为“新传统媒体”（neo-traditional media），结果外界竟一本正经地将他们奉为该流派的开创者。但不可否认的是，历经数十年沉淀的《Vogue》、《Vanity Fair》（名利场）和《The New Yorker》（纽约客）等传统殿堂级品牌展现出了惊人的韧性。这种资产无法在一朝一夕间催生，往往需要二三十年甚至更久的时间积淀。主持人提出疑问：面对社交媒体泛滥的“内容饲料槽”（trough），康泰纳仕该如何进行差异化定位？ 谈及内容平台 Substack 时，主持人尖锐地指出了其运作机制对某些严肃报道的制约：独立创作者为了维系订阅，系统机制会强迫他们每周高频更新；然而许多重磅调查报道需要数月甚至长达一年的时间去打磨，“西摩·赫什（Seymour Hersh）绝不可能在 Substack 上爆料美莱村大屠杀（My Lai massacre）”。林奇对此深表赞同。他直言 Substack 对某类高产创作者是非常出色的平台，如果创作者乐于待在这种高频发布的“仓鼠轮”（hamster wheel）上，那无可厚非；但若想潜心花费 6 到 12 个月进行深度调查，Substack 的激励机制根本无法支撑这种行为，而这恰恰是《纽约客》的核心立足点。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: Substack创作者模式与纽约客深度报道模式对比 accDescr: 对比高频更新驱动的创作者订阅与长期深度调研支撑的调查新闻模式 subgraph Substack ["Substack 模式"] A["创作者独立运营"] --> B["每周高频发布内容"] B --> C["被动维系订阅转化"] C --> D["陷入高强度'仓鼠轮'"] end subgraph NewYorker ["《纽约客》深度调查模式"] E["记者数月/数年深入调查"] --> F["事实核查团队逐字严密背书"] F --> G["发布高壁垒重磅独家"] G --> H["引发读者订阅激增"] end ``` - **事实核查军团**：《纽约客》拥有一支规模庞大的专业事实核查团队，会对长篇调查稿件中的每一个字句进行地毯式核实与推敲。 - **读者奖赏深度**：每当这类经过极度严密调查、耗时数月的重磅报道刊出时，《纽约客》的付费订阅数据都会迎来显著的激增脉冲，证明高质量的新闻主义依然拥有坚实的付费意愿。 ### [14:40](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0AuD76FK3u4&t=880s) AI 垃圾内容泛滥时代：深度调查与真实记者的溢价 主持人感叹，许多科技领域的顶尖作者离开机构单飞到 Substack 后，不仅要疲于奔命地抢独家，还得兼顾卖广告等琐事，甚至陷入停不下来的更新焦虑中，反而让人期盼他们能重新打包成一个整体平台。在当前 AI 生成内容成灾、充满劣质“数字泔水”（slop）的超速媒体时代，真正走到一线进行一手事实调查的记者与作家，其社会声望和市场价值只会逆势大幅攀升。主持人坦言自己的节目本身就是互联网速食文化的产物，内容往往在发布后 24 至 48 小时内就会过气，而人们在周末闲暇时，依然渴望阅读耗费他人半年心血打磨的精品。 林奇回应道，做商业必须认清自己的核心优势，千万不要盲目跟风去变成自己不擅长的东西。自媒体可以把即时性内容做到极致并吸引特定受众，但康泰纳仕绝不能丢弃自己的长板去盲目追逐短平快。 林奇明确强调，面对铺天盖地的 AI 生成与低质廉价内容，康泰纳仕的应对策略绝不是跟风下场： - **坚持人类创作**：康泰纳仕将始终保持 100% 由人类创作内容，这是受众的根本预期所在。 - **放弃伪优势**：去卷 AI 生成内容毫无护城河可言，根本无法发挥康泰纳仕积累的任何竞争优势。 - **行业洗牌红利**：AI 浪潮可能会淘汰大量处于边缘生态的媒体，但真正具备独家生产能力的稀缺品牌不仅能安然度过剧变，反而会因此享受更高的行业红利与护城河溢价。 ### [17:02](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0AuD76FK3u4&t=1022s) 走向“品牌集合体”：米兰竟有七处各自为战的办公室 当主持人询问康泰纳仕多品牌矩阵（House of Brands）的管理哲学与 LVMH 等奢侈品巨头相比有何异同时，林奇分享了自己初入公司时遭遇的令人瞠目结舌的乱象。在刚上任时，他试图弄清楚康泰纳仕原有的组织架构，结果发现彼时的公司根本不是一个跨国集团，而是一盘散沙——各个国家的分支机构完全各自为政、独立运作，彼此之间没有任何技术协同，甚至在业务上激烈内耗与竞争。 林奇回忆道，上任仅仅三周，他便开启全球巡视并飞抵米兰。刚到米兰办事处，他就接到了助理的紧急电话，转达米兰团队的强烈不满，抱怨“CEO 来米兰出差竟然不来办公室探望大家”。林奇当时一头雾水：“我就在办公室坐着呢，我正在探访啊！”经过盘查才惊愕地发现，康泰纳仕仅仅在米兰这一个城市，竟然拥有整整七处互不相通的独立办公室：美国版团队有一处办公室，俄罗斯版团队有一处办公室，法国版团队又有一处办公室。因为每个区域分支都将彼此视为水火不容的竞争对手，谁也不愿意在同一个屋檐下办公。这一荒谬的治理割裂，成为他随后大刀阔斧重组全球业务的首要诱因。 ### [18:14](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0AuD76FK3u4&t=1094s) 摆脱封建割据：从本土纸媒走向全球数字媒体的组织重组 Roger Lynch 回顾了康泰纳仕（Condé Nast）在组织架构上的深刻变革。在传统的纸媒黄金时代，按国家和地域进行割裂管理的模式曾极具战略眼光，它让康泰纳仕成长为全球出版业巨头。然而步入互联网与数字化时代后，受众的消费习惯发生了根本性迁移——读者不再局限于本土报纸或本地资讯，而是变得极其国际化与四海一家（cosmopolitan），渴望实时浏览来自韩国、中国、瑞典或以色列等世界各地的优质内容。为了迎合这种全球化流动，康泰纳仕必须推翻既有的一切，重新设计组织结构，打破过去极其封闭、互相划界割据的“封建领地”式文化（feudal and territorial），将其重塑为一个高度协作、无缝协同的现代媒体集团。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 康泰纳仕组织战略与文化演进对比 accDescr: 展示康泰纳仕从纸媒时代的本土割据架构向数字化时代的全球协作架构的演进转变 subgraph PrintEra ["纸媒时代（传统模式）"] A["本土化内容生产"] --> B["地域割据运作架构"] B --> C["封建领地式内部文化"] end subgraph DigitalEra ["数字时代（全新战略）"] D["全球四海受众与跨国消费"] --> E["一体化协同组织"] E --> F["开放与深度协作文化"] end PrintEra -->|"数字迁徙与结构重组"| DigitalEra ``` ### [19:13](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0AuD76FK3u4&t=1153s) 头部效应与“杠铃效应”：品牌矩阵的分化 在探讨公司旗下品牌的表现时，主持人指出媒体资产往往受幂次法则（power law）支配，少数几家旗舰品牌贡献了绝大部分利润。Roger Lynch 证实了这一现象，并指出整个集团呈现明显的“杠铃效应”（barbell effect）。处于杠铃一头的是最具全球声誉的旗舰品牌： - **Vogue**：作为集团旗下规模最大的品牌，在 Roger Lynch 入职后的每一年均实现收入与盈利能力的双重稳步增长。 - **The New Yorker（《纽约客》）**：刚刚创下了史上业绩最辉煌、表现最好的一年。无论搜索引擎算法发生何种翻天覆地的变化，或是生成式 AI 掀起多大波澜，这类具有无上声誉与不可替代性的品牌始终能够超然其上。 杠铃的另一头则是垂直利基品牌，例如音乐媒体 **Pitchfork**。虽然它仅占集团总营收的 1% 左右，但由于在专业音乐品类中拥有极度忠诚、黏性极高的核心拥趸，同样活得非常健康。反倒是处在杠铃中间位置的媒体受冲击最为剧烈——它们既缺乏绝对的话语权威，涉猎领域又过于宽泛泛滥，容易在巨头平台算法波动中迷失方向，正如当年严重依赖外部平台推荐机制却缺乏护城河的 BuzzFeed 一样脆弱。 ### [21:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0AuD76FK3u4&t=1260s) 记者避风港与高管大换血：用组织文化吸引全球顶尖人才 在谈及创作者与管理层人才的吸纳策略时，Roger Lynch 自豪地表示，康泰纳仕已成为全球顶级调查与深度报道记者最理想的归宿。在当下高度政治化的舆论场中，拥有真正的独立性已成为最核心的壁垒： - **摆脱外界行政干预**：公司不隶属于联邦通信委员会（FCC）的广播牌照监管管辖，也没有像华纳兄弟探索（Warner Bros. Discovery）那类需要监管部门审批的大型收购重组需求，因此完全免于政府和监管层的政治掣肘。 - **七十年家族所有制的护城河**：控股康泰纳仕七十余年的家族股东从未因商业合作或广告商施压而干预过任何编辑选题。自 Roger Lynch 履职的七年里，资方从未打过一个干预内容的电话，使得主编与采编团队可以毫无后顾之忧地捍卫“新闻第一”（journalism comes first）的原则。这种环境既能吸引名震业界的大牌写手，也是青年新秀在行业名师身旁磨砺技艺的摇篮。 在管理层架构上，除全球首席内容官 Anna Wintour 依然留任外，所有高管团队在 Roger Lynch 到任后全部经历了一轮换血。Lynch 强调，要在一家习惯于内部搞政治斗争和过度竞争的百年老牌巨头中推进文化变革，最行之有效的方法就是撤换不符合新文化的人，并招募具备全球化视野、能跳出单纯北美思维的跨国管理人才。 ### [23:51](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0AuD76FK3u4&t=1431s) “内容到电商”的进阶：不做蛋白粉，搭建创作者生态平台 面对 2018 年前后兴起的“内容转化为电商”（content-to-commerce）风潮，以及主持人打趣提问的“《纽约客》牌蛋白粉什么时候上市”，Roger Lynch 明确厘清了康泰纳仕的商业边界。他指出，广告客户数十年来选择康泰纳仕，核心是看中其在时尚、旅行与家居设计领域对高净值受众无可替代的美学影响力。然而，康泰纳仕并不打算亲自入场做重资产的自营消费品，而是将这种权威影响力转化为强大的分销与带货网络，通过战略合作伙伴关系来促成时尚和旅游产品的交易变现。 作为其电商布局的重头戏，康泰纳仕宣布即将上线名为 **Vet** 的创作者交易平台： - **资源禀赋**：依托集团与全球头部奢侈品时尚巨头数十年来积累的深厚信任关系。 - **运作机制**：搭建底层的电商交易基础设施，将其对接给垂直领域的顶尖时尚品味引领者（taste makers）。 - **生态定位**：融合社交电商（social commerce）与创作者经济，让有影响力的时尚创作者能够在 Vet 的赋能下向粉丝分发精选奢侈单品并完成商业转化。 针对“记者网红化”（influencer journalism）所带来的利弊讨论，Lynch 认为每个子品牌的调性千差万别，《纽约客》的硬核调查记者与《Vogue》的潮流编辑自然有着完全不同的社交媒体表达空间。集团拒绝实行“一刀切”的禁令或硬性考核指标，但总体上乐见旗下的采编人才建立个人影响力，因为这最终能够为媒体机构本身的商业价值与受众拓展反向赋能。而在被问及线下活动（events）战略时，Lynch 透露活动业务正成为整个集团增长最迅猛的板块之一。 ### [27:52](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0AuD76FK3u4&t=1672s) 打造全球超级文化时刻：Met Gala 与奥斯卡派对的增长飞轮 罗杰·林奇（Roger Lynch）深入拆解了康泰纳仕（Condé Nast）在活动业务上的核心转变：他们并非盲目增加活动场次，现在的活动总数反而比他刚接手时要少得多。公司的战略重心转向倾全力打造真正的“超级文化时刻”（Cultural Moments）。以刚刚结束的年度时尚盛事 Met Gala 为例，活动上线仅 7 天内，康泰纳仕制作的相关内容就在全球斩获了惊人的 31 亿次视频播放量，同比激增 60%，而前一年本身就已经实现了 30% 的高基数增长。 主持人好奇地指出，Met Gala 至今依然保持着极其神秘的高门槛——晚宴内场既没有麦克风，也没有流媒体直播。林奇解释道，即便官方仅仅提供了红毯环节的流媒体直播，就有高达 2 亿人在线观看。这种活动每年办完，团队都会捏一把汗，惊叹“天哪，明年到底怎样才能超越这个数字”，但第二年它依然能继续暴增 65%。无独有偶，《名利场》（Vanity Fair）的奥斯卡派对（Oscar Party）在当年也实现了 65% 的惊人同比增长。 林奇强调，这种成功无法被流水线式复制成“每周办一场”，因为文化时刻本身是不可稀释的。康泰纳仕摸索出的打法是“减少数量、追求极致品质，并将其升级为真正的全球现象”。在林奇入职的七年前，Met Gala 虽然备受瞩目，但本质上仍偏向美国本土及核心时尚圈的圈内狂欢；随着康泰纳仕整合为全球一体化架构，全球旗下所有品牌协同宣发与转播，成功将其推上了全球公共文化议题的王座。 - **Met Gala 传播量**：活动后首周视频播放量达 31 亿次（同比增长 60%）。 - **红毯直播受众**：仅红毯在线直播就吸引了 2 亿独立观众观看。 - **奥斯卡派对增速**：派对相关内容传播量实现 65% 的同比爆发式增长。 ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 文化时刻的全球放大机制 accDescr: 康泰纳仕如何将稀缺的线下活动通过全球多品牌协同与流媒体转化为数十亿播放量的超级文化时刻 subgraph Strategy["精炼战略"] A["减少传统平庸活动"] --> B["聚焦顶奢稀缺 IP<br/>(Met Gala / 奥斯卡派对)"] end subgraph Execution["全球放大网络"] B --> C["红毯独家高品质直播"] B --> D["全球品牌矩阵协同宣发<br/>(Vogue、GQ、Vanity Fair)"] end subgraph Impact["商业与文化爆发"] C --> E["2亿+ 直播观众"] D --> F["31亿+ 跨平台播放量"] E & F --> G["巩固不可替代的顶级品牌心智"] end ``` --- ### [29:43](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0AuD76FK3u4&t=1783s) 媒体界的“快时尚”落幕与搜索流量套利时代的终结 话题转向了近期媒体圈关于 BuzzFeed 估值剧烈缩水的讨论（有人出资 1.2 亿美元收购其半数股权，隐含估值约 2.4 亿美元，但其营收下滑且年亏损高达 6000 万美元，受众逐渐老化）。主持人打趣称，康泰纳仕就像是“媒体界的 LVMH”，代表着顶奢传媒，而 BuzzFeed 则像是风光一时的“快时尚”——“你就当自己从没参加过什么所谓的 BuzzFeed Gala 吧”。 林奇坦言不便评判友商的微观运营，但一针见血地指出，BuzzFeed 代表的是上一个互联网周期的典型产物：通过极度敏锐的技术与算法嗅觉，大肆抓取 Google 搜索流量与 Facebook 等社交媒体流量，并将其快速转化为程序化广告或电商分成。然而，那个依靠“流量套利”（Traffic Arbitrage）生存的黄金时代已经彻底灰飞烟灭。 为了说明这种颠覆，林奇分享了康泰纳仕半年前在董事会上做过的一组震撼对比：回看七八年前的 Google 搜索结果页，顶部只有少量赞助链接，随后便是清清爽爽的“十条蓝色经典链接”（10 Blue Links），优质内容能稳定获得来自搜索引擎的大规模自然流量；而如今只要输入同一个关键词，映入眼帘的第一屏是 AI 概览（AI Overview），接着是铺天盖地的带货商品栏，再往下是密密麻麻的竞价广告。主持人也随之吐槽：“现在用户必须翻到第二页才能看见正常的有机搜索结果！这对 Google 的自身财报当然好得很，但对靠流量套利的媒体来说，无异于灭顶之灾。” --- ### [32:21](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0AuD76FK3u4&t=1941s) “假设搜索流量归零”：康泰纳仕的生存新法则 尽管康泰纳仕凭借多元化营收和品牌号召力，依然实现了收入与利润的双重增长，但 Google 算法的持续恶化始终是一股无法忽视的逆风。在过去三年里，康泰纳仕每次做年度预算都会预判搜索流量下滑，因为算法调整对传统媒体造成的冲击屡见不鲜；然而现实却比预算预测的更加残酷，每年的实际跌幅都远超预期。 为此，林奇去年给内部管理团队下达了一条决绝的硬性命令：“必须在假设‘搜索流量完全归零’的前提下做业务规划。”虽然现实中搜索流量不会真正归零，但林奇预计未来它在全站流量中的占比将跌至微不足道的个位数。 这一冷酷的假设逼迫康泰纳仕对旗下所有品牌进行全面战略体检。林奇直言，凡是在“无搜索时代”找不到清晰自生商业逻辑的品牌，公司就会果断降权并剥离资源；而拥有强大权威度、深厚细分品类护城河或能够直接吸引忠实读者的品牌，则获得重点倾斜。在林奇看来，如果没有强大的自主品牌壁垒，仅凭通用资讯去跟算法博弈，最终只能一路陪葬到底。 --- ### [33:24](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0AuD76FK3u4&t=2004s) 订阅逆势强劲、提价弹性与创作者经济带来的“比价红利” 直面平台流量萎缩的同时，康泰纳仕在付费订阅领域展现了极高的抗风险韧性。去年其数字订阅收入录得 29% 的迅猛增长，今年依然保持着健康的两位数增速。除了《纽约客》（The New Yorker）和《Vogue》展现出惊人的订阅爆发力外，公司还将数字付费墙拓展到了独立音乐评论媒体 Pitchfork 以及英国名流杂志 Tatler 等垂直品牌，全面沉淀了从底层技术系统到前台运营团队的能力。 面对通胀周期，主持人询问用户是否会对媒体涨价产生心理抵触。林奇透露，康泰纳仕过去几年对订阅费用进行了实质性的上调，每次提价前团队都做好了留存率下滑的心理准备，但令人惊喜的是，用户的实际续订留存率每年都在稳步提升，展现出了极强的价格弹性。 主持人分析认为，这种提价韧性在某种程度上意外享受到了 Substack 等个人独立创作者经济带来的“比价红利”（Pricing Dynamic）。许多独立创作者在 Substack 上开通一份一周两更、纯主观宣泄式的文字通讯，动辄收费 20 美元/月；相比之下，当用户发现支付相仿甚至更低的费用，就能订阅像《纽约客》或《Vogue》这样包含海量深度调查报道、顶尖视觉摄影、视频制作以及专业事实核查的成熟工业化出版物时，传统大刊的订阅性价比瞬间显得极为划算。尽管个人创作者拥有粉丝情感支持的天然优势，但两者的定价对照，无疑为头部严肃媒体重塑内容价值打开了新的商业空间。 - **数字订阅营收增速**：上一财年数字订阅收入大涨 29%，本财年继续维持双位数稳健攀升。 - **订阅矩阵拓展**：核心王牌《纽约客》《Vogue》领跑，Pitchfork 与 Tatler 等细分垂直阵地相继落地独立数字订阅。 - **逆周期提价表现**：在多次显著提高订阅基准价的背景下，订阅用户的留存率不降反升。 ### [36:32](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0AuD76FK3u4&t=2192s) 垂直细分与泛媒体之争：切忌卡在中间 主持人以汽车领域为例展开探讨：如今网络上既有像 Doug DeMuro 这样专注于评测每一款具体车型的博主，也有专门揭秘汽车经销商内幕的个人创作者（Car Dealership Guy），他们各自在 YouTube 上赚得盆满钵满。而在过去的纸媒时代，一本全国性的汽车杂志往往试图兼顾评测与行业商业运作两端。主持人好奇，如今在内容生态中究竟是应当进一步深耕细分领域，还是避免过度垂直化？康泰纳仕（Condé Nast）是否会考虑通过打包整合（roll-up）策略在细分领域之间寻求协同？ 康泰纳仕首席执行官罗杰·林奇（Roger Lynch）明确指出，对于出版机构而言，最致命的做法就是“卡在中间”（caught in the middle）。试图去讨好过于宽泛、体量过于庞大的大众读者群体的时代已经彻底过去了，或许五年前这种模式还能维系，但在当下已经行不通。媒体现在只有两条活路：要么在宏大的品类中做到极具规模和绝对权威——比如《Vogue》、《Architectural Digest》（建筑文摘）或《Condé Nast Traveler》（悦游）；要么就彻底吃透极度具体的细分垂直领域，拥有一批忠诚且愿意直接付费的核心受众。 林奇进一步强调，如果一家媒体重度依赖原创采编与深度新闻报道，却只单纯依靠广告来维持运营，处境将会极其艰难。高质量的采编需要高昂的投入，必须有受众心甘情愿为之掏钱的内容支撑，无论如何都绝不能迷失在不上不下的中间地带。 --- ### [38:23](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0AuD76FK3u4&t=2303s) 《穿普拉达的女魔头2》与品牌的破圈红利 话题转向了流行文化现象：筹备/上映中的《穿普拉达的女魔头2》（The Devil Wears Prada 2）引发了巨大关注，主持人询问这部票房大片是否会成为《Vogue》甚至整个集团的重大催化剂。 林奇给出了非常肯定的回答，直言它实际上成了整个康泰纳仕集团的强心剂。众所周知，这部电影以《Vogue》全球总编辑安娜·温图尔（Anna Wintour）为原型，虚构的时尚帝国背后映射的正是康泰纳仕。林奇分享了一段趣事：几周前他和集团的首席营收官（CRO）开会，提到公司第一季度的财务表现异常优异，大幅超出了既定预算，第二季度的走势同样极为强劲。当林奇询问推动这一亮眼成绩的核心驱动力是什么时，CRO 停顿了一下，笑着吐出几个字：“因为那部电影。”林奇惊讶地反问：“甚至带动了集团旗下的其他非时尚品牌？”对方回答：“外界对康泰纳仕整体的关注度和好奇心被彻底激活了。”林奇坦言，虽然业绩增长背后有更深层的商业逻辑，但这部电影确实在全球范围内掀起了极大的热度和神秘感，带来了令人惊喜的连锁效应。 --- ### [39:14](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0AuD76FK3u4&t=2354s) AI 时代的就业焦虑：“金字塔尖永远都有位置” 伴随着影视热度对企业雇主品牌的提振，主持人将视野拉高，探讨起当下整个就业市场的迷茫与焦虑：在 AI 能写稿、也能写代码的时代，年轻人是否还应该去当软件工程师？AI 固然做不了深度调查报道，但初入行的年轻创作者依然惶恐不安。康泰纳仕又是如何储备并培养下一代优秀记者的？ 林奇给出了来自长辈的朴素哲理：“小时候我妈妈总对我说：‘金字塔尖永远都有位置（There's always room at the top）。’这是极好的忠告。如果你能在自己所从事的领域做到出类拔萃，市场就永远有容纳你的空间。”在康泰纳仕，无论是采编端还是工程技术端，真正拔尖、卓越的人才永远会被争抢。 针对工程人才的结构变化，主持人也分享了自己的观察：即便是一家小型的播客制作团队（如 TBPN 早期），过去绝不会专门招募全职软件工程师，如今却全职雇佣了程序员 Tyler 来开发定制化内部工具，这表明技术降门槛反而在某些过去难以想象的组织里创造了新的岗位需求。 --- ### [40:11](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0AuD76FK3u4&t=2411s) 内部重构：技术团队从十余人精简至三四人 谈到技术与工程研发，林奇透露了一个重磅内部变革案例。康泰纳仕在去年 12 月新任命了一位产品与技术负责人。上任之初，林奇给这位高管的指令非常激进：“去质疑我们现行的一切机制，拿出一张白纸从零开始重新思考，看看如何将 AI 深度融入核心流程。” 这位新主管随即开展了为期 6 至 8 周的敏捷试点项目，彻底打破原有的组织架构： ```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: 康泰纳仕研发团队架构重组 accDescr: 展现从过去的臃肿多角色团队向 AI 赋能的精简高速团队的转型 subgraph Legacy["传统研发团队架构（10-12人）"] L1["技术项目经理 (TPM)"] L2["全职产品经理 (PM)"] L3["产品数据分析师"] L4["QA 测试工程师团队"] L5["多名软件工程师"] end subgraph Modern["AI 赋能新型团队（3-4人）"] M1["产品经理<br/>(兼任数据分析 / 借助 AI 构思与写代码)"] M2["UI/UX 设计师"] M3["核心软件工程师"] M4["AI 核心系统<br/>(负责代码生成与自动化 QA 测试)"] end Legacy -->|"试点6-8周验证后全面重组"| Modern ``` 经过实测，这种仅由三四人组成、由 AI 承担基础代码编写及全自动 QA 测试的小团队，运转交付的速度反而是此前 10 到 12 人传统团队的“整整三倍”。这也直接导致传统岗位如专职技术项目经理（TPM）、专职 QA 测试员及初级分析师的大量冗余与裁撤。林奇直言不讳：“这意味着在纯基础工程岗位上，这里的坑位毫无疑问会变少。”但反过来，产品经理获得了前所未有的自由度，凭借 AI 工具甚至能自己亲手将功能代码实现出来。 - **组织精简数据**：单一研发项目团队规模从原本的 10 至 12 人骤降至 3 至 4 人。 - **效率提升倍数**：精简后的小团队依靠 AI 协助开发与自动化测试，开发迭代速度提升至原来的 3 倍。 - **定位界限**：林奇特别重申，AI 的核心改造在于提升技术与产品开发的敏捷度，而非替代康泰纳仕赖以生存的内容创作本身。 --- ### [42:53](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0AuD76FK3u4&t=2573s) Vogue 刊登 AI 虚拟模特广告引发的风暴 当主持人问及采编内容是否可能被 AI 渗透、或是杂志广告页是否会出现 AI 生成的手表等奢侈品时，林奇分享了去年 6 月在《Vogue》纸刊上发生的一起震动行业的真实事件： 当时某品牌在《Vogue》实体印刷杂志中刊登了一则全页广告，广告画面中的时尚模特完全是由 AI 生成的虚拟人。广告刊出后，舆论瞬间引爆，读者被彻底激怒。耐人寻味的是，消费者的怒火并没有集中在投放该广告的品牌身上，而是几乎全盘倾泻向了《Vogue》本身，指责《Vogue》背叛了自身的审美与真实性标准。 然而林奇对此的反应却截然相反：“我高兴坏了，我觉得这简直太棒了！”因为这场汹涌的抗议从最严苛的读者群那里直接印证了他的核心判断：康泰纳仕的受众渴求的是“由人类创作的内容”（human-generated content），他们需要确保自己看到、读到的故事与视觉呈现是真实的，而不是算法拼凑的虚妄之物。林奇总结道，康泰纳仕可以、也必须在后端效率、读者分发、工作流等无数场景拥抱 AI，但其终极目的全都是为了“腾出资源和资金，进一步投资于由人类打造的高品质内容”。 主持人也深以为然地补充，在时尚和服饰领域，AI 存在极大的商业伦理隐患：如果用 AI 随意修改面料在模特身上的垂坠感、线条和版型，那本质上兜售的就是一件现实中根本不存在的虚假商品。 --- ### [45:05](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0AuD76FK3u4&t=2705s) 纸刊与数字广告：是体验的污点还是核心特性？ 在探讨广告与受众关系的收尾阶段，主持人抛出一个核心疑问：当我们翻开一本厚重的《Vogue》杂志时，里面的商业广告到底算是一种打扰受众的“缺陷”（Bug），还是本身就是内容体验的一部分（Feature）？ 林奇斩钉截铁地回答：“在印刷版杂志里，广告绝对是一项‘核心特性’（Feature）。”对于翻阅时尚杂志的读者而言，精美绝伦的奢侈品时装大片与杂志自身的编辑视觉相得益彰，本就是顶级美学体验不可分割的一环。 但林奇也坦承，在数字化场景下，情况则变得极为复杂。那种铺天盖地、四处弹出的程序化展示广告（programmatic display ads）往往就是一种严重的“Bug”，它打断了读者沉浸式阅读优质报道的节奏，造成了视觉污染；然而高规格、定制化的优质品牌原生内容，则依然能在数字时代扮演积极的角色。 ### [45:37](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0AuD76FK3u4&t=2737s) 品牌定制内容成为核心支柱与竞争优势 在探讨广告模式的演进时，对话谈及了传统展示广告与出版商原生整合广告之间的差异。Roger Lynch 指出，康泰纳仕（Condé Nast）目前规模最大的广告营收类别正是品牌定制内容（branded content）。这种模式之所以能够蓬勃发展并保持年年增长，是因为它完美调动了公司无可替代的核心竞争优势——旗下享誉全球的媒体品牌底蕴、高净值受众群体，以及顶级的创意制作能力。 Roger Lynch 坦言，这让公司在媒体商业变现中占据了极为有利的位置。尽管康泰纳仕依然保留着传统的展示广告（display ads）和印刷平面广告（print ads，其中部分同样采取品牌定制形式），并且拥有大量的视频广告（video ads）业务，但深度结合品牌调性与叙事创意的定制化内容，已经成为最具成长潜力的业务支柱。 - **最大广告类别**：品牌定制内容（branded content）已超越常规展示广告，成为康泰纳仕第一大广告业务支柱。 - **三大核心护城河**：该业务深度依托康泰纳仕的标志性品牌资产（Brands）、深度绑定的高价值受众（Audiences）以及卓越的创意制作能力（Creativity）。 - **多元广告矩阵**：除品牌内容外，业务仍覆盖数字展示广告、纸媒印刷广告以及快速增长的视频广告。 ### [46:15](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0AuD76FK3u4&t=2775s) 节目收尾与致谢 在交流接近尾声时，主持人向搭档确认是否还有其他补充探讨的话题，并对本次对谈能够顺利成行表达了由衷的高兴与赞许，称整场对话“非常精彩”（fantastic）。随后，主持人按惯例对全期节目进行收尾，呼吁听众在 Apple Podcasts 和 Spotify 平台上打出五星好评，前往官网 tbpn.com 订阅每日新闻通讯，并预告节目将于太平洋时间次日上午 11 点整准时直播回归。 ## Notable quotes > [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0AuD76FK3u4&t=0s) 那曾是我一生的抱负。 — Roger Lynch > [09:11](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0AuD76FK3u4&t=551s) 这是对我而言在智识上最有趣的一件事，我就要去干这个。 — Roger Lynch > [10:07](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0AuD76FK3u4&t=607s) 西摩·赫什（Seymour Hersh）绝不可能在 Substack 上爆料美莱村大屠杀（My Lai massacre）。 — 主持人 > [17:02](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0AuD76FK3u4&t=1022s) 我就在办公室坐着呢，我正在探访啊！ — Roger Lynch > [21:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0AuD76FK3u4&t=1260s) 新闻第一（journalism comes first） — Roger Lynch > [29:43](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0AuD76FK3u4&t=1783s) 现在用户必须翻到第二页才能看见正常的有机搜索结果！这对 Google 的自身财报当然好得很，但对靠流量套利的媒体来说，无异于灭顶之灾。 — 主持人 > [32:21](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0AuD76FK3u4&t=1941s) 必须在假设‘搜索流量完全归零’的前提下做业务规划。 — Roger Lynch > [36:32](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0AuD76FK3u4&t=2192s) 卡在中间（caught in the middle） — Roger Lynch > [39:14](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0AuD76FK3u4&t=2354s) 小时候我妈妈总对我说：‘金字塔尖永远都有位置（There's always room at the top）。’这是极好的忠告。如果你能在自己所从事的领域做到出类拔萃，市场就永远有容纳你的空间。 — Roger Lynch > [40:11](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0AuD76FK3u4&t=2411s) 去质疑我们现行的一切机制，拿出一张白纸从零开始重新思考，看看如何将 AI 深度融入核心流程。 — Roger Lynch > [42:53](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0AuD76FK3u4&t=2573s) 我高兴坏了，我觉得这简直太棒了！ — Roger Lynch > [45:05](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0AuD76FK3u4&t=2705s) 在印刷版杂志里，广告绝对是一项‘核心特性’（Feature）。 — Roger Lynch ## Mentioned Condé Nast, Roger Lynch, NFL, Paul Tagliabue, Sling TV, Pandora, Spotify, Napster, Taylor Swift, SoFi Stadium, SiriusXM, Vogue, Vanity Fair, The New Yorker, Substack, Seymour Hersh, LVMH, Pitchfork, BuzzFeed, Anna Wintour, Vet, Met Gala, Oscar Party, Google, Facebook, Tatler, Doug DeMuro, Car Dealership Guy, Architectural Digest, Condé Nast Traveler, The Devil Wears Prada 2, TBPN ## Video description This is our full conversation with Roger Lynch, recorded live on TBPN. We discuss why trusted media brands like Vogue and The New Yorker may become even more valuable in the AI era, how Condé Nast is adapting to the collapse of search traffic and the rise of AI-generated content, why Roger believes publishers should stop relying on Google for distribution, and how the company is thinking about subscriptions, events, branded content, creators, and the future of journalism as platforms like Substack, TikTok, and AI reshape the media industry. Sign up for TBPN’s daily newsletter at TBPN.com Follow TBPN: https://TBPN.com https://x.com/tbpn https://open.spotify.com/show/2L6WMqY3GUPCGBD0dX6p00?si=674252d53acf4231 https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/technology-brothers/id1772360235 https://www.youtube.com/@TBPNLive [Source](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0AuD76FK3u4)

[0:00] Roger Lynch: 那曾是我一生的抱负。 [9:11] Roger Lynch: 这是对我而言在智识上最有趣的一件事，我就要去干这个。 [10:07] 主持人: 西摩·赫什（Seymour Hersh）绝不可能在 Substack 上爆料美莱村大屠杀（My Lai massacre）。 [17:02] Roger Lynch: 我就在办公室坐着呢，我正在探访啊！ [21:00] Roger Lynch: 新闻第一（journalism comes first） [29:43] 主持人: 现在用户必须翻到第二页才能看见正常的有机搜索结果！这对 Google 的自身财报当然好得很，但对靠流量套利的媒体来说，无异于灭顶之灾。 [32:21] Roger Lynch: 必须在假设‘搜索流量完全归零’的前提下做业务规划。 [36:32] Roger Lynch: 卡在中间（caught in the middle） [39:14] Roger Lynch: 小时候我妈妈总对我说：‘金字塔尖永远都有位置（There's always room at the top）。’这是极好的忠告。如果你能在自己所从事的领域做到出类拔萃，市场就永远有容纳你的空间。 [40:11] Roger Lynch: 去质疑我们现行的一切机制，拿出一张白纸从零开始重新思考，看看如何将 AI 深度融入核心流程。 [42:53] Roger Lynch: 我高兴坏了，我觉得这简直太棒了！ [45:05] Roger Lynch: 在印刷版杂志里，广告绝对是一项‘核心特性’（Feature）。

[4:58] Roger Lynch: What the music industry didn't do is look at how their customers were behaving and say, 'Okay, let me craft my business around that.' They said, 'No, I don't like that behavior. I'm going to change the behavior. Let me sue these teenagers in Iowa...' [17:18] Roger Lynch: I get a call from my assistant... 'Some of the team in Milan is upset you're not visiting.' I'm like, 'I'm in the office. I'm here visiting.'... I found out we had seven offices. [19:51] Roger Lynch: Other than Anna Wintour, every single executive has turned over since I joined the company... If you want to affect culture change, change people. [26:20] Roger Lynch: In the first 7 days... we had 3.1 billion video views of the content we created... The live stream had 200 million people tuning in. [35:59] Roger Lynch: If you try to be too broad, too large of an audience... this is not the era for that. You either need to be large and authoritative in a big category... or you need to be really nailing a specific niche where you have a loyal audience that's willing to pay. [42:53] Roger Lynch: Our future strategy [is] about using AI in many, many places to drive efficiency, to reach audiences faster, speed up the velocity of what we do. All to enable us to invest more in human-generated content.

[0:00] Anyway, [0:01] we have the perfect guy to ask [0:03] I don't know who's going to comment on [0:04] any of this but we can certainly try and [0:06] ask him about it [0:08] because we have Roger Lynch the CEO [0:09] [music] of Conde Nast with us here in [0:12] the TV and L to go home. Roger, great to [0:15] see you again. How are you doing? [0:17] For those I mean we were hanging out [0:19] last week but for those who don't know [0:21] introduce yourself. Let's go a little [0:23] bit back in time take us on your journey [0:24] and then we can get into all the hot [0:26] topics in media. [0:27] >> Sure. Well, [0:30] I've been CEO of Conde Nast for 7 years [0:32] but [0:33] prior to that I spent my whole career [0:34] really in technology. [0:35] >> Yeah, and primarily a fantastic [0:37] guitarist. [0:39] >> Thank you very much. That was my life's [0:41] ambition. [0:41] >> That was an incredible [laughter] [0:42] performance. [0:44] It's a little bit of just lore I guess [0:46] but [0:47] we we we can get into hobbies and and [0:49] things outside business but yeah take us [0:51] back what was the first job in media? [0:53] How did you get to where you were? [0:55] >> First job in media. [0:56] >> Yeah, maybe that's a good place to [0:57] start. [0:57] >> Well, I mean it depends on how you [0:59] define media. Really I spent my career [1:01] at the intersection of technology and [1:02] media. [1:03] >> Sure. [1:03] >> So the first company that I ran [1:07] was a broadband business. It was one of [1:08] the first broadband businesses in Europe [1:10] going back to 1999 and [clears throat] [1:13] literally one of the first things we did [1:15] is we did a deal with the NFL to stream [1:17] live NFL games in 1999. [1:19] >> That's great. [1:20] >> Where what what how much how much demand [1:22] was there for NFL in Europe at that [1:25] time? [1:26] >> Well, the reason the NFL was interested [1:27] in it [1:28] this is back when Paul Tagliabue was the [1:30] commissioner and he came over to [1:31] announce this [1:33] you know crazy idea that we had. [1:35] Um, was they were trying to build the [1:37] NFL in Europe and they had [1:38] >> They're like I hear people love football [1:40] over there. Why aren't we [1:41] >> [laughter] [1:41] >> Why aren't we making money? [1:42] >> I was in our football. [1:44] Um, they had I think it was a team [1:46] called the Amsterdam Admirals at the [1:47] time. Um, there was a European football [1:49] league and they were trying to promote. [1:51] And you know broadband was a really [1:53] interesting technology and I was really [1:55] excited to see how it could be used to [1:57] change how people consume content. And [1:59] that's why we did that that deal. And [2:01] then I started an IPTV company, and [2:03] first video on demand IPTV, and then [2:06] uh Sling TV, streaming TV. So, always [2:08] sort of at the intersection of [2:10] technology and media or content. Uh then [2:13] I ran Pandora, the first company I ran [2:14] that I didn't start. [2:16] >> I loved Pandora. [2:17] >> Yeah, Pandora Pandora is truly when I [2:19] think of magical when I think of magical [2:22] when I think of magical technology [2:24] experiences in my childhood, I think of [2:27] Pandora. I think of being in my garage [2:29] with my dad. We'd be like playing pool, [2:31] listening to music, or tinkering on [2:33] something. [2:34] >> songs on Pandora. It's amazing. Was [2:35] there some sort of uh unique opportunity [2:38] with Pandora around treating it like a [2:42] radio station so because it feels like [2:44] there was some sort of licensing deal on [2:46] the back end that was not the same as [2:48] Spotify or iTunes store at the time [2:51] where [2:52] >> Yeah, the trade-off I mean, I remember I [2:54] must have been I must have been [2:57] intuitively at the time I was like, [2:58] "Okay, this is a fair trade-off. Like, [2:59] I'm used to going to iTunes and having [3:01] to pay 99 cents, or I can just kind of [3:04] like roll the dice. Maybe I'll get [3:06] [laughter] my Maybe I'll get my favorite [3:07] song on Pandora." So, I found myself on [3:10] Pandora a lot and [3:11] >> Pandora took advantage of um [3:14] some rights that allowed them, [3:16] compulsory rights allowed them to stream [3:19] all of that content. And uh but, you [3:22] know, one of the trade-offs was you [3:23] couldn't choose the song. [3:25] And so, they did launch a subscription [3:27] this before long before I joined. Uh [3:29] subscription service, but we're late for [3:30] that game. They were quite late for that [3:32] game. By that time, Spotify already had [3:34] a very strong presence, and some of the [3:36] other big tech companies were getting [3:37] into it. But, uh you you you mentioned [3:39] AI. I mean, to me, one of the key things [3:41] with Pandora was the way it combined [3:45] sort of human taste with AI. So, we had [3:49] a team of musicologists. And one of the [3:51] you know, you mentioned you know, been a [3:53] guitar player all my life. One of the [3:54] best parts of that about that job is [3:56] they were all fantastic musicians. So we [3:58] do these company events and we'd play [3:59] all the time and these guys were so and [4:01] they were mostly men were so good. But [4:04] then we had the data scientists also and [4:06] they would take the work that the [4:07] musicologist did and create their [4:10] machine learning algorithms around that. [4:12] And each of the algorithms they had I [4:13] don't remember 90 or so algorithms each [4:16] one would get tuned for every individual [4:17] listener. So it'd be weighted a little [4:19] bit more Jordy likes this, Charles likes [4:21] this. And and so it creates a [4:23] personalized experience and and to me [4:27] you know, I I still listen to Pandora. I [4:28] also listen to Spotify. But when I want [4:30] something just to put something on and [4:32] let it play, I'll go to Pandora because [4:34] I think those algorithms still [4:35] outperform. [4:36] >> Yeah. And we I mean we talked to this [4:37] the new co-CEO of Spotify but [4:41] like the that AI driven feature the [4:43] promptable playlist is just coming to [4:46] Spotify like this year. And I'm sure [4:47] it's souped up and powerful and stuff [4:50] but it is it is remarkable how long that [4:53] like internet radio [4:55] >> [laughter] [4:55] >> lasted. These things have long These [4:57] things have long lives. I'm wondering [4:59] about your view on durability in media [5:02] generally. It feels like anytime that [5:05] there's some platform shift, there's [5:08] endless think pieces about [5:11] legacy media's dead. Linear TV's dead. [5:14] This is dead. Everyone loves to talk [5:15] about that. But in your experience, how [5:19] does how does the media industry [5:20] actually change as technology arrives? [5:27] >> You know, the media industry is has a [5:30] history of not changing quickly enough. [5:32] And you can start with the music [5:34] industry. You know, music recorded music [5:36] industry peaked in 1999. [5:39] And then [5:41] you know, Napster [5:43] >> And that's sales revenue. [5:44] >> Yeah. And recorded recorded [5:47] recorded music industry and all [5:48] >> we found out [5:49] like last week or the week before that [5:51] vinyl record sales are like something [5:53] like 10% of streaming revenue, which [5:56] sounds [5:56] >> So vinyl records are So that's an [5:58] interesting trend to talk about. But But [6:00] what the music industry did or didn't do [6:03] is and this is one of the big mistakes [6:05] and you know, like most [6:08] lessons that you learn, you learn the [6:10] biggest lessons from your mistakes. [6:12] What the music industry didn't do is [6:13] look at [6:15] how their customers were behaving and [6:16] say, "Okay, let me craft my business [6:19] around that." They said, "No, I don't [6:21] like that behavior. I'm going to change [6:22] the behavior. Let me sue these teenagers [6:25] in Iowa who are downloading music or sue [6:27] the ISPs or their parents or whatever so [6:29] I can change the behavior back cuz I [6:30] really like it when they buy CDs. That's [6:32] really good for my business." [6:34] That was disastrous for the industry. [6:36] So finally once they had, you know, [6:37] embraced, you know, downloads and then [6:39] streaming, it started growing again. [6:42] It's only just gotten back to the size [6:44] it was in 1999. [6:46] You know, 27 years later. [6:48] Um [6:48] >> There's more people and people still [6:49] like music just as much as they did [6:51] before. [6:51] >> Of course. Of course, but they fought it [6:53] for for far too long and and it's it's a [6:56] mistake. Vinyl records have grown every [6:59] year for the last 18 years and [7:02] sales of vinyl records and it was it [7:03] used to be people my age buying vinyl [7:05] records and collecting them. Now there [7:07] is many people in their 20s buying them [7:10] as there are people in their 50s or 60s [7:12] buying them. A lot of people in their [7:13] 20s don't even own a record player but [7:15] they buy the vinyl records. There's an [7:17] interesting trend that we and we had [7:18] seen a bit in our industry too, like [7:20] young people buying physical magazines. [7:23] >> Yeah. Yep. [7:23] >> It's like, "Why?" Well, I think it's a [7:25] search for authenticity. I think when [7:27] you have so much [7:28] >> You got the paper right here. [7:29] >> digital content that is in your pocket [7:31] and it's all free or free to consume, [7:35] it becomes less valuable and and maybe [7:37] less authentic to you. [7:39] And so [7:39] >> Yeah, and there's there's something [7:40] that's always been missing from like [7:43] part of the the experience of being a [7:45] music fan [7:46] to never actually go and trade your [7:49] dollars. Like I think people do like to [7:50] vote with their dollars and express [7:52] their interest and actually have this [7:54] physical embodiment of their of their [7:56] taste. [7:57] >> doing it with live music now. That's [7:58] where the money has gone. The money is, [8:00] you know, [8:01] really moved to to live. It used to be, [8:04] you know, in the '90s and '80s and [8:05] everything, people would go on tour to [8:08] support their record sales. And now it's [8:09] a reverse. You release a record so you [8:11] can go on tour and sell tickets. [8:12] >> And it feels like the in-person events [8:14] stadiums are getting like the CAPEX is [8:16] just skyrocketing across the sphere. So [8:19] far stadium here in Los Angeles, there's [8:21] like more and more ways to draw people [8:23] in with like ever larger spectacles and [8:25] these like shelling points where like [8:27] did you see Taylor Swift in the Eras [8:30] Tour like that was a key moment that [8:32] even like the casual fans needed to [8:33] find. [8:34] >> So after Pandora, talk about the the [8:36] journey into [8:38] Conde Nast. [8:39] >> Yeah, it was some [8:41] you know, we [8:42] I wasn't at Pandora very long cuz we [8:43] sold it to SiriusXM. [8:45] >> Yeah. [8:46] >> And you know, I was thinking about what [8:48] I wanted to do next and I was fortunate [8:50] enough to be in [8:52] um [8:53] process in four different companies. Two [8:55] two were in New York, two in LA. We're [8:57] we're from LA, so LA had a lot of [8:59] attractions for us. [9:01] And uh I was flying back and forth [9:02] between New York and LA and having [9:04] trouble deciding what I wanted to do. [9:06] And my wife is like, "Usually you're so [9:07] decisive." It's like, "I know, it's [9:09] really tough." And then I finally [9:11] realized on one of these flights [9:13] that when I'm sitting or I had all the [9:14] information on these companies, every [9:16] time I'd go to the Conde Nast [9:17] information. I wanted to read about [9:18] that. It was like, "And that's how I [9:20] literally how I made my decision. Like I [9:23] that's the most intellectually [9:24] interesting to me. I'm going to go do [9:25] that." [9:26] Um so and I I but there were a couple [9:28] criteria I was I had for what I did [9:31] next. [9:32] One was I still like the intersection of [9:35] content and technology and distribution [9:37] models. [9:37] >> Yeah. [9:38] >> But, [9:39] non-exclusive content was going to be [9:42] dominated by big tech companies. [9:44] You know, music, [9:45] >> Sure. [9:46] >> films, TV, whatever. The stuff that I [9:48] had been doing, it had all been [9:49] non-exclusive. Like, I wanted to go [9:51] somewhere where we had our own content, [9:52] we had our own brands, we could control [9:54] our distribution more. [9:55] And so, that was certainly one of the [9:57] criteria, but also still the opportunity [9:59] to innovate around technology, how you [10:01] use technology to create new business [10:02] models, distribution models. [10:05] And, you know, Condé Nast really fit [10:06] that well. [10:07] >> Yeah. [10:07] >> Yeah, there is [10:09] interesting [10:11] I mean, we've talked about this a ton [10:13] because [10:15] you know, thinking about all the new [10:16] categories of media, which we joked [10:18] about. We put out this really like [10:20] unhinged market map of of media [10:23] as a joke, and then unfortunately people [10:25] we like called ourselves neo-traditional [10:27] media, which was a joke, and then now [10:29] people will tell tell us and be like, [10:31] "You guys are a pioneer of neo neo-trad [10:34] media." We're like, we created that [10:36] category as a joke. [10:38] But, but something that we've [10:41] come back to over and over is just the [10:44] value of these legacy brands that have [10:47] been built across decades and how [10:50] you know, take away like the business [10:52] models and and how those are evolving, [10:54] like it just seems like the value of a [10:56] Vanity Fair or a Vogue or The New Yorker [11:00] are [11:01] shockingly durable because we're just [11:04] you can make more of these kind of [11:05] properties, but you need decades, right? [11:08] And and [11:10] and so, I'm wondering your strategy [11:13] around kind of how you think about [11:16] counter positioning these brands against [11:18] the content that is flowing so freely [11:21] across [11:23] >> You're referring to the trough? [11:24] >> What's that? Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah, the [11:26] trough of social media apps. [11:28] But, yeah, but yeah, like even uh know, [11:31] I've also talked about the [11:33] uh the challenges with Substack around [11:36] certain stories. Substack, if you're an [11:39] individual selling a subscription, it [11:41] wants it will it will reward people that [11:43] publish multiple times a week that sell [11:45] a subscription. And yet, there's so many [11:46] stories that take [11:48] >> months [11:48] >> months to tell. Year They There's a [11:50] There's great stories out there that [11:52] you'd want somebody writing spending a [11:53] year on it, right? [11:54] >> Seymour Hersh is not going to break the [11:55] My Lai massacre on Substack. [11:56] >> And so and so there's this opportunity [11:58] of like the value of brands and curators [12:01] that that is maintained and we're not [12:03] creating We are like again, I would say [12:05] we're creating new [12:06] uh iconic media brands, but it'll take, [12:08] you know, 20, 30 years, right? It just [12:10] you cannot do it overnight. Uh and then [12:12] how these things can operate as [12:14] platforms where there are a lot of super [12:16] talented uh writers that shouldn't be [12:19] trying to publish every single week [12:21] because their calling is to publish uh [12:23] maybe once a month or even once a a [12:26] quarter at different points, right? And [12:27] finding finding those lanes. So, I'm [12:29] curious about how you're thinking about [12:32] the role of the different brands under [12:34] Condé Nast and, you know, [12:36] counter-positioning against platforms [12:38] like uh traditional social media or or [12:40] Substack. [12:41] >> Look, I think you bring up a really good [12:42] point about Substack in particular, [12:44] which is it is a great platform for [12:47] certain creators. [12:48] >> Yeah. [12:49] >> And if you are if you want to be on that [12:52] bit of a hamster wheel, meaning but it [12:54] may not feel like a hamster wheel to a [12:56] lot of people. Like they they love to [12:57] publish content multiple times a week. [13:00] That's great. It's a great platform for [13:01] that. If you want to spend 6 months, 12 [13:05] months deeply researching something, and [13:07] it Substack is not the medium for that. [13:10] It won't reward that behavior. The New [13:12] Yorker is. [13:13] >> Yeah. [13:14] >> Yeah. [13:14] >> It really is. And that's And And we get [13:17] rewarded for that by our subscribers. [13:18] >> Yeah. [13:19] >> When we come out with these really [13:20] deeply researched investigative pieces [13:23] that, you know, we have a huge army of [13:25] fact-checkers at The New Yorker that [13:27] comb through every single word in that [13:30] so that when it is published it has [13:31] really really been thoroughly [13:33] fact-checked. When we publish that we [13:35] see the numbers spike on subscriptions. [13:37] Our subscribers reward us for that type [13:39] of journalism in a way that I don't [13:41] think works so well with Substack. Other [13:43] things work really really well with [13:45] Substack. [13:46] >> Yeah. [13:46] >> Um [13:46] >> Yeah, that said there's been there's [13:48] been uh you know, we were we cover tech [13:51] primarily so we've seen a lot of people [13:53] from tech leave this sort of like brands [13:56] or platforms to go to Substack and some [13:58] of the some of the times they come out [13:59] and they're just scooping every single [14:01] day and it's it's amazing. But more [14:03] often than not I'm like I actually wish [14:06] that at least a few of you guys would go [14:08] to one [laughter] company and I could [14:09] subscribe to you and [14:10] >> You could subscribe to their bundle. [14:12] >> Oh, yeah. And and I don't actually want [14:14] like for a lot of people I'm like I [14:16] think you selling ads is a waste of your [14:18] time. You should just be writing, right? [14:20] And a lot of them feel that and then the [14:22] hamster wheel thing I I was talking to [14:24] um you know, really big Substacker [14:27] uh yesterday and they were feeling that. [14:29] They were like I don't uh I don't want [14:32] to publish every day, right? But you [14:33] built a business around that and then [14:35] you're sort of like trapped to this [14:37] business model. So [14:39] uh so anyways, I think we're going to [14:41] I've I've said it uh [14:44] I think in this in this age of AI and [14:46] this age of slop uh and sort of like [14:49] ultra-fast media [14:50] uh I believe that being a true [14:52] journalist, being a reporter, being a [14:54] writer is only going to I think it was [14:56] always relatively high status, but I [14:58] think it will even go up and up and up [15:00] over [15:00] >> And become more valuable as a writer. [15:01] >> Yeah. Yeah, and it's more valuable. It's [15:03] like we want people that are doing [15:04] original journalism, fact-finding. It's [15:08] so essential and then also yeah, just [15:11] just spending spending the time. I mean, [15:13] we're we're sort of a a symptom of the [15:15] internet, right? We make ultra-fast [15:17] content, right? I don't expect people to [15:19] watch [15:20] most of any of the shows from last week, [15:23] right? Maybe there's some interviews [15:24] that are sort of durable, [15:26] but the majority of the commentary it's [15:27] just it's comes and goes, right? We [15:29] expect people to watch it in the 24 48 [15:32] hours that we create it. [15:34] But there's so much content that I think [15:36] about, you know, sitting down on a on a [15:37] Saturday where I'm like, well, maybe I [15:39] want to read I have limited time. Maybe [15:41] I want to read something that somebody [15:42] put 6 months into. [15:43] >> Mhm. [15:45] Look, I think it's important to know [15:46] what you're good at and take advantage [15:48] of that and not try to be something that [15:50] you're not good at. And you guys are [15:52] really good at exactly what you just [15:54] described. And so you've made the most [15:56] of that and you've attracted a really [15:58] important audience and it's really [15:59] worked for you in a business model. [16:01] For us to try to chase that would be to [16:04] move away from what we're really good at [16:06] and try to become something different. [16:08] And I agree with you. I think where, you [16:10] know, with with [16:11] the amount of AI generated content or [16:13] low quality content that [16:15] is being flooded into the market, that [16:17] only I think accrues to the benefit of [16:20] companies that can really stand out from [16:22] that. And so don't try to be that. Like [16:24] I always tell our [16:26] you know, we we're going to always have [16:27] human created content. First of all, I [16:29] think it's what our I know it's what our [16:30] audiences expect and want. Secondly, we [16:32] have no competitive advantage over just [16:34] creating AI generated content. There is [16:36] that doesn't leverage any of the [16:37] advantages we have. And so knowing what [16:40] your advantages are competitive and and [16:41] and really building upon that I think is [16:44] always important in any business and for [16:46] the industry changes that are happening [16:48] right now, I think there's real value in [16:49] it. Because unfortunately there's going [16:51] to be fewer places that can do that [16:53] because the ones that are more marginal [16:55] may not survive the changes that are [16:57] happening. And uh and you know, our [16:59] brands have been really thriving in it. [17:02] >> Uh what is uh how do you compare your [17:06] philosophy of running like a house of [17:09] brands versus let's say an LVMH? [17:13] Is there similarities, differences? What [17:15] it what is the [17:16] uh philosophy? [17:18] >> Yeah, I mean, you know, I when I first [17:20] joined I spent a lot of time talking to [17:21] this company to try to understand how [17:23] they were organized cuz one of the [17:24] things I had to figure out is [17:26] what I wanted to do with the way we were [17:27] structured cuz we were structured very [17:29] differently. We were [17:31] um [17:32] really a loose collection of companies [17:34] all around the world. Every country [17:36] operated entirely independently from [17:38] every other country. [17:39] >> They really? [17:39] >> Oh my god, it was crazy. [17:41] There was no technology collaboration. [17:44] There was no they competed. Literally, I [17:47] remember literally 3 weeks into the job [17:50] I'm start traveling. I go to Milan. [17:53] You know, I'm trying to visit all our [17:54] different offices and I get a call from [17:56] my assistant like, you know, some of the [17:57] team in Milan is upset you're not [17:59] visiting. I'm like, I'm in the office. [18:00] I'm here visiting. [18:01] >> The wrong office. [18:02] >> I found out we had seven offices. [18:04] >> [laughter] [18:04] >> Conde Nast US had an office, Conde Nast [18:07] Russia had an office, France [laughter] [18:08] had an office, all in Milan, all [18:10] different offices because of course they [18:12] couldn't be in the same office cuz they [18:13] were competitors. [18:14] >> Yeah. [18:15] >> So, [18:16] a lot of changes to make [18:17] >> Yeah. [18:18] >> in that model. But but look, actually [18:21] it was a great strategy [18:23] when the company was a print publication [18:25] business. It worked by definition. Conde [18:27] Nast became very big, successful company [18:29] following that strategy. But it was not [18:31] the right strategy for the internet age [18:34] and a digital age and you know, how and [18:36] how audiences had changed. Audiences [18:38] moved from [18:39] oh, I read my local, you know, newspaper [18:42] or my local content to [18:43] I want to see what's you know, happening [18:45] around the world. I want to consume [18:46] content from Korea or China or Sweden or [18:48] Israel or wherever, much more [18:50] cosmopolitan in their approach to how [18:52] they consume content. And [snorts] and [18:54] so really we used that as a guidepost to [18:57] say, okay, how should we structure [18:58] ourselves? [18:59] And just, you know, question everything [19:01] about you know, how we organize [19:03] ourselves and even the culture of the [19:04] company which was [19:06] very, very territorial and [19:09] feudal and based [19:10] to to what it is today which is much [19:12] more collaborative. [19:13] >> So, obviously [19:15] plenty of efficiencies across the [19:16] portfolio, geographically. [19:19] Uh, the brands are power law driven, [19:21] right? You have a few brands that drive [19:23] the the vast majority of the revenue. [19:25] Have you been in a portfolio expansion [19:29] period or portfolio contraction period? [19:32] Is there benefit to going more focused [19:34] around the the tentpole brands or do you [19:37] want to expand further? How are you [19:39] seeing like the [19:40] >> What we find is you know, certainly our [19:43] largest, most important brands [19:46] um, have done very well in this, you [19:48] know, like Vogue is our largest brand. [19:50] Vogue has grown every year I've been at [19:52] the company. It grows revenue, grows [19:53] profitability every year. [19:55] And [19:57] >> [laughter] [19:57] >> Thank you. [19:59] It is good news. And um, [20:02] and you know, The New Yorker also, The [20:04] New Yorker just had its most successful [20:07] year ever by by a long shot. [20:10] Those brands, whatever's happening with [20:12] search algorithms or AI, they seem to [20:14] just be able to rise above it. [20:16] >> Sure. [20:16] >> We have smaller niche brands, [20:18] um, Pitchfork, a music brand, very [20:21] small, it's 1% of our revenue. [20:23] But, it has a very strong, loyal [20:25] audience in the category that it covers. [20:28] It's doing very well. And so, there's a [20:30] sort of barbell effect that's happening [20:32] at least within our portfolio. And then [20:34] we have some that are in the middle that [20:36] that are impacted more. Either they [20:38] don't have a strong authority in the [20:40] category or they're a little too broad [20:43] that they don't go deep enough in in a [20:44] specific category. [20:45] >> were just talking about BuzzFeed and it [20:46] felt like for a long time it fell into [20:48] that category of, you know, decent size [20:52] audience, but ultimately built on a [20:54] shaky ground of another platform without [20:56] that really strong core audience that [20:58] would stick around through thick and [20:59] thin. [21:00] >> How do you think about talent [21:02] identification, going with sort of [21:04] discovered talent, let's say a writer [21:07] who's established that that's that [21:10] already has a [21:11] >> [clears throat] [21:11] >> you know, following versus somebody who [21:13] you know, has a lot of potential but [21:14] maybe he hasn't had a breakout moment [21:16] yet. And then the same thing with [21:18] executives. [21:19] >> Yeah. [21:20] I think you know, first of all for [21:21] writers, we're a great home for the best [21:25] journalists in the world. [21:26] >> Mhm. [21:27] >> In part because you know, I wouldn't [21:29] have thought this was a necessary [21:31] competitive advantage several years ago, [21:32] but it is today, which is [21:35] that we're not impacted by political [21:37] influence. We we're not under the FCC's [21:41] thumb. We don't have licenses that they [21:43] need. We're not trying to buy Warner [21:44] Discovery and need merger approval. Um [21:48] and so and we're owned by a family [21:50] that's owned Conde Nast for seven [21:51] decades. [21:52] >> Yeah. [21:52] >> That you know, I've been at the company [21:53] now seven years and not once have they [21:55] ever called to interfere with anything [21:57] we do. Therefore, I don't need to do [21:59] that with our editors. We can just hire [22:00] the best editors [22:02] and stay out of their way and let them [22:03] let them do their job the best. So, that [22:05] is very attractive to journalists [22:07] because they know when they come to our [22:09] company, they're not going to get a call [22:10] from the CEO or the board or whatever [22:12] about why did you say those things about [22:15] this advertiser or whatever it is. No, [22:17] the journalism comes first and will [22:18] always come first. So, [22:20] that helps us attract very established [22:23] writers, but at the same time, we also [22:27] are a great place for people earlier in [22:29] their career to learn because they can [22:30] learn from the best. So, we always try [22:32] to make sure that we are [22:33] recruiting [22:35] really high potential new journalists [22:37] into the company as well as [22:40] you know, the best external. In terms of [22:42] executives, um [22:45] you know, other than Anna Wintour, every [22:46] other executive has turned over since I [22:49] joined the company. Every single one. [22:51] >> Wow. [22:51] >> And I did most of it immediately in in [22:55] two reasons. [22:56] One, if you want to affect culture [22:58] change, [23:00] change people. Change people that that [23:02] that that don't reflect the culture that [23:05] that you want to have. And when I got to [23:07] Conde Nast, I felt like this is not the [23:08] culture of there were great things about [23:10] the culture. [23:11] You know, the the focus on excellence [23:14] really really deep at the company. But [23:16] there were other aspects of it, very [23:17] internally competitive and political [23:19] that I that I didn't like. And I just [23:20] decided I'm going to I want to create [23:22] the culture of a company that I want to [23:24] work in. So let me find people who think [23:28] similarly about about the importance of [23:29] culture. And then secondly, because [23:33] you know, we were going from like in the [23:35] US that was a had its own CEO as a [23:37] separate company from the rest of the [23:38] world, it was very focused on the US [23:40] market. I wanted people who had much [23:42] more global perspective and global [23:44] experience. And so the skill set I [23:45] wanted to be broader than than uh what [23:48] the company had traditionally had. [23:50] >> Mhm. [23:51] Uh [23:53] probably 2018, this idea of like content [23:56] to commerce got incredibly popular. Uh [23:59] and even by the time we were starting [24:01] this show [24:02] >> You're thinking New Yorker protein [24:03] powder. When's it coming? [24:04] >> Yeah, yeah. Love that. [laughter] [24:06] Uh but even when we were starting this [24:07] show, a lot of people said, "Wow, you [24:08] have this audience of, you know, [24:10] entrepreneurs, why don't you build your [24:12] own software?" And you know, spin out [24:13] software companies or develop uh stuff [24:16] internally. And we said, uh "What with [24:18] what hours in the day are we going to do [24:20] that? And why why would we deserve to [24:22] win over a team that is, you know, [24:24] entirely dedicated to a certain problem? [24:27] Where has content to commerce worked [24:30] within Conde Nast? Uh and where have you [24:33] experimented or avoided it?" [24:35] >> Mhm. [24:35] >> [clears throat] [24:36] >> You know, the if if you think about from [24:38] an advertiser perspective, the reason [24:40] advertisers have always come to Conde [24:42] Nast is the influence that we have with [24:45] audiences, right? That that, you know, [24:47] whether it's fashion or travel or home, [24:52] you know, it's it's it's the influence [24:53] that we have. Now, [24:56] you know, [24:57] that that was very very true in the [24:59] print era, it's very true today. But, [25:01] they also have many more avenues to [25:03] reach audiences than than they used to. [25:06] So, for us when we look at commerce, we [25:08] think [25:10] that ability to influence audiences [25:12] certainly exists even more than before [25:15] because how much larger our our reach [25:17] is. [25:18] And so, we can use that maybe not to [25:20] create the New Yorker protein powder, [25:22] but to sell fashion, to sell travel. And [25:27] so, we've been investing [25:29] in commerce, but not creating our own [25:31] products per se. [25:32] >> Partnerships. [25:33] >> Yeah, in partnerships. And that that [25:34] also has grown every year. And we [25:37] announced a [25:38] it'll be launching soon an initiative we [25:40] announced last year called Vet, which is [25:42] really at the intersection of [25:45] you know, certainly e-commerce growth, [25:47] social commerce in particular, and the [25:48] creator economy. And so, [25:51] what Vet is, you know, we have [25:52] relationships with all the luxury [25:54] fashion companies. [25:57] We're using those relationships, [25:59] creating a marketplace commerce platform [26:02] that then creators can use [26:04] to connect with their audiences. And so, [26:07] we'll be working with a initially a [26:09] small number of real taste makers in [26:12] fashion [26:13] >> Mhm. [26:14] >> um and then using the relationships and [26:16] the technology we built to create this [26:19] creator marketplace called Vet. [26:20] >> How do you think about journalists [26:22] becoming influencers? Can be great, [26:25] develop their own audience, and then [26:27] that draws more people into their [26:28] stories when they do have something to [26:30] publish. Double-edged sword because if [26:33] they leave, they have an audience that [26:34] might sign up on day one. They might say [26:37] something that doesn't necessarily [26:38] represent the views of the publication. [26:42] There's sort of, you know, some some [26:44] organizations have gone back and forth [26:46] on it, either saying, "Everyone needs to [26:48] be posting on Instagram every day." [26:51] uh to "You can never post on Instagram [26:52] any day, uh how have you toyed with that [26:56] or dealt with that tension throughout [26:57] your career? [26:58] >> You know, because we have, you know, as [27:01] you said, a house of brands, our brands [27:02] are very different. So, you know, a [27:04] journalist for the New Yorker may be [27:05] very different than a journalist for [27:07] Vogue [27:08] um in their approach to that question. [27:10] So, you know, we don't [27:12] have hard and fast rules that we [27:13] >> So, no one-size-fits-all. [27:15] >> Definitely not one-size-fits-all, but we [27:17] do know that, you know, journalists that [27:20] are able to build profiles for [27:21] themselves [27:23] um tend to be good for business. So, we [27:25] certainly support that. [27:26] >> Mhm. [27:27] Got it. [27:28] >> I want to ask about events. [27:30] >> Yeah. [27:31] >> Are events more power law driven? Do you [27:33] want to [27:35] uh like raise the long tail of events? [27:38] Do more events and try and elevate to [27:41] something where there's a Met Gala [27:43] happening every week or something? I [27:45] don't know. Where where where where [27:46] where does the event strategy go? [27:47] >> Events for us um [27:50] are one of the fastest-growing parts of [27:52] our business. [27:52] >> Interesting. [27:53] >> Um but not because we're just doing more [27:55] and more events. We're actually doing [27:56] fewer events than when I started. We're [27:58] doing fewer events, but we're focusing [28:00] on [28:01] uh events that really are what we call [28:03] cultural moments. The Met Gala is a [28:05] great example of that. You know, Met [28:07] Gala was last week, you know, last [28:08] Monday. [28:09] Um you know, in the first 7 days, I just [28:12] saw the numbers last night, we had 3.1 [28:14] billion video views of the content we [28:16] created. [28:18] >> That's remarkable. [28:18] >> It is. It was up by I don't know, 60% [28:21] over last year. Last year it was up by [28:22] 30% [28:24] >> Or like there aren't necessarily I I've [28:26] never seen like you can't just live [28:27] stream it. You can't watch what happens [28:29] inside or like there aren't like [28:30] microphones at the dinner table. [28:32] Or [28:32] >> We do a live stream of the red carpet. [28:33] >> Yeah, yeah, yeah, exactly. So, it's it's [28:34] even a limited in terms of what you're [28:36] sharing. The live stream had [28:37] >> 200 million people tuning in to view it. [28:40] >> That's amazing. [28:41] >> Wow. [28:42] >> So, it it every year we do the Met Gala. [28:44] >> Yeah. [28:45] >> It just grows at a level that's hard to [28:47] believe, and we finish it and we go, "Oh [28:49] my god, how are we ever going to exceed [28:50] that next year?" And then it grows 65% [28:52] again the next year. [28:53] >> Wow. [28:53] >> And it was the same thing for the Oscar [28:54] party then. Our Oscar party this year, [28:56] 65% growth year-over-year. [28:58] >> Remarkable. [28:58] >> So, I think we found a playbook on that, [29:01] but it's not a playbook where you can [29:02] say, "Oh great, let's just do one a [29:03] week." [29:04] >> Yeah. [29:04] >> You can't create cultural moments like [29:06] that. [29:07] What you can do, what we found is doing [29:09] fewer and doing them at very high [29:11] quality [29:11] >> Sure. [29:12] >> um and make them global events. The Met [29:15] Gala is a global phenomenon now. [29:17] >> Yeah. [29:17] >> In a way that it wasn't, you know, seven [29:20] years ago when I joined. It was an [29:21] important, very important you know, [29:23] event that people in the US knew about [29:25] and you know, people in the fashion [29:27] community around the world knew. [29:28] >> Yeah. [29:28] >> But by bringing the company together [29:32] into one organization, now all of our [29:34] brands globally promoted it and promote [29:36] the live stream and the content from it. [29:39] And that's really helped elevate it to [29:40] become now a global cultural moment. [29:42] >> Yeah. [29:43] Interesting. [29:45] Uh help me [29:47] uh I don't know how much you'll be able [29:48] to say here, but help me understand why [29:50] BuzzFeed is worth something like a 120 [29:53] million. [29:54] >> No, 240. [29:55] >> They bought half the company for 120. [29:57] >> Oh, half the company. [29:58] >> Yeah, 240. [29:58] >> Uh [29:59] revenues declining [30:02] decent, you know, run rate in 60 million [30:04] a year of losses [30:06] uh [30:07] I would guess a aging audience. [30:11] Do you have any idea where the where the [30:13] value is? [30:14] >> Well, [30:15] I look, the only thing I read about that [30:17] is there was a 20 million dollars going [30:19] into it. [30:20] >> I don't understand it. [30:21] >> I thought it was 120. [30:22] >> There was a valuation of that, but [30:23] there's there's a stage. I You guys may [30:25] have read that. [30:26] >> Okay, okay, yeah, yeah. [30:27] >> Um but look, I can't speak specifics of [30:29] that business. That That was a business [30:31] that did very well. They're very [30:32] innovative around a different area of [30:35] the internet when you could take [30:39] search traffic and social media traffic [30:41] and turn it into commerce dollars or [30:42] other things. [30:43] >> Yeah. [30:43] >> That era is gone. [30:44] >> Why? [30:45] >> Why? [30:45] >> Yeah, what killed that era? Like, people [30:48] are still spending time on social media. [30:50] They're still searching on Google, and [30:52] yet publishers have not been able to [30:54] monetize traffic or generate traffic [30:57] from the activity. [30:58] >> like I I look at BuzzFeed as like, you [31:01] know, I I look at Condé Nast as as like [31:03] luxury media. That is what it That [31:06] That's my personal view on it. It's like [31:08] this is the LVMH of media. And BuzzFeed [31:10] was like a fast fashion. [31:11] >> Just say you've never been to the [31:13] BuzzFeed gala. [31:14] >> [laughter] [31:15] >> But think think about [31:17] It's really interesting. We We did this [31:19] for our board meeting about 6 months [31:21] ago. [31:21] >> Mhm. [31:22] >> Took a snapshot of search results from, [31:25] I don't know, 7 or 8 years ago. [31:26] >> Okay. [31:26] >> And what you saw were, you know, a few [31:28] sponsored links and then the 10 blue, [31:30] you know, [31:31] >> Yeah. [31:31] >> the traditional search page. [31:32] >> Yep. [31:33] >> Do the same search term today, you get [31:35] an AI overview, [31:36] >> Yep. [31:37] >> then you get rows and rows and rows of [31:38] commerce links. [31:39] >> Yep. [31:40] >> And then you get sponsored links. [31:42] >> somebody last week was saying, "How is [31:43] search revenue up?" I was like, "Have [31:46] you Have you done a search recently?" [31:48] >> [laughter] [31:48] >> I basically got to go to the second page [31:50] to get an organic result. [31:52] >> It's been good for Google. [31:53] >> Yeah, yeah, it's been great. It's been [31:55] great. Great for business. [31:56] >> a publisher, you've you've been crammed [31:58] on that page. [31:59] >> So, [31:59] um if you were if you had a business [32:01] that relied on that [32:03] >> to arbitrage that traffic to sell [32:05] whatever, [32:06] um that business got very, very [32:08] difficult. [32:09] >> Yeah, yeah, yeah. [32:09] >> So, [32:10] you know, in Look, the changes in search [32:12] traffic have certainly impacted our [32:14] business, but not to the point that we [32:16] haven't been able to grow our revenues [32:17] and grow our profitability, but it's a [32:19] headwind. [32:20] >> But, you know, last year, so, you know, [32:22] each of the last 3 years, [32:24] we would do our budgets and we'd put [32:25] some forecasts in of search traffic [32:27] declining, [32:29] you know, why? Just because we'd seen [32:31] the pattern of algorithm changes, and [32:33] generally those algorithm changes were [32:35] negative. They had negative impacts. [32:37] So, we're going to forecast it be to be [32:39] down and then every year it was down [32:40] more than we forecast. [32:41] >> Yeah. [32:42] >> So, last year I told our teams, assume [32:44] there's no search. [32:45] >> Mhm. [32:45] >> You have to have your businesses planned [32:48] >> Mhm. [32:48] >> as if search is zero. [32:50] >> Mhm. [32:50] >> We don't expect it to be zero. [32:51] >> Yeah. [32:52] >> But, we you know [32:53] >> Don't bank on it. [32:53] >> We expect it to be a single digit [32:55] percentage of our traffic. [32:56] >> Mhm. [32:57] >> Very low. [32:58] So, we started working on plans for each [33:01] of our brands around that. And some of [33:02] the brands we looked at said, "Hm, they [33:04] don't really have a good plan for that." [33:06] >> Yeah. [33:06] >> So, we're going to re-prioritize on the [33:07] ones that that do. And uh [33:10] um but if it you know, if you don't have [33:12] those paths forward [33:13] >> Mhm. [33:14] >> it you know, if you don't have really [33:15] strong authoritative brands or brands [33:17] have very strong niche in certain areas [33:19] or direct audiences [33:20] um then you're just going to be fighting [33:22] that all the way down. [33:24] >> Talk about subscriptions, bundles, [33:27] uh subscription pricing in a time when [33:29] we have little sp- spurts of inflation [33:32] here and there. Um how important has [33:35] that been? How resilient has the [33:37] subscriber model been? What are you [33:39] seeing there? [33:40] >> You know, it's um [33:42] it's a it's a very important part of our [33:43] revenue stream and what you know, our [33:46] digital subscriptions grew 29% last year [33:49] revenue. [33:49] >> Oh, wow. [33:50] >> And um [33:51] you know, [33:52] >> It's a big [33:52] >> growing double digit percentages this [33:54] year. So, it's a really important growth [33:55] area of our business. [33:56] >> Yeah. [33:57] >> And we're launching more digital [33:59] subscriptions for more brand like [34:00] Pitchfork, small brand, just launched a [34:02] subscription earlier this year. Tatler [34:04] another small brand in the UK launched [34:06] it, but you know, our big brands the New [34:07] Yorker [34:08] you know, very very strong growth. Vogue [34:10] is showing incredible growth in digital [34:12] subscriptions. So, that's that's an area [34:14] that's important to us and we think we [34:16] built up some really good capabilities [34:18] both on the technology side, but then [34:20] also on [34:21] just the people capability side, too. [34:23] >> Yeah. And then uh do subscribers get [34:25] stuck in a mentality of I pay a certain [34:27] amount and they're resistant to a price [34:29] adjustment in a time of inflation or is [34:32] there some price elasticity there? [34:34] >> You know, we have um [34:36] we have raised prices on subscriptions [34:38] fairly materially over the last couple [34:40] of years. [34:40] >> Okay. [34:41] >> And [34:42] you know, each year we think, "Okay, [34:44] we're raising the price. We're going to [34:46] the retention is going to go down." And [34:47] actually the retention has gone gotten [34:49] better every single year. [34:50] >> Yep. [34:51] >> So, um the elasticity looks pretty good [34:53] for us so far. [34:54] >> Yeah, in some ways [34:56] uh you know, and and we're the biggest [34:58] fans of independent creators on on [35:00] Substack and other newsletter platforms. [35:02] Like we we really [35:04] uh we have a lot of them on the show. We [35:05] subscribe to a lot of them. But in some [35:08] in some ways they're helping you your [35:10] guys's like pricing dynamic and [35:13] they're like, "Well, I want $20 a month [35:15] for my newsletter that publishes, you [35:17] know, twice a week. And I just kind of [35:20] like write what I'm thinking. And you [35:21] guys are like, "Well, we're going to [35:23] give you, you know, all of these stories [35:25] and all of this like video and images [35:28] and and uh you know, these deeply [35:30] researched stories." And so your product [35:33] or a subscription for one of the brands [35:34] starts to look like incredible value cuz [35:37] you're like the alternative my dollars [35:38] are going to go way less far with an [35:41] independent creator in terms of volume [35:43] of stories. Now, you don't get the same [35:45] dynamic that they have which people just [35:47] like to support independent writers and [35:50] content creators. That's a part of it. [35:51] It's just [35:52] you enjoy saying putting you know, kind [35:54] of helping somebody be in business. But [35:56] um I think uh that's an interesting [35:58] dynamic. [35:59] >> Can you talk about uh the [36:02] further niche-ification of media? [36:06] Architectural Digest, The New Yorker, [36:08] these are [36:10] already not niche publications, but they [36:12] have a category. Vogue, GQ, right? [36:15] There's a there's a a theme to the to [36:19] the product. Um [36:20] and what we've been tracking over the [36:22] last couple of years is that [36:24] uh the internet-native media properties, [36:26] the creators have been able to find even [36:29] smaller niches. So, we've talked to [36:32] someone who just does, you know, car [36:34] reviews or just does [36:37] uh [36:38] the [36:39] >> car dealership [36:40] >> car dealer the car dealership guy was a [36:42] good example of like that that would not [36:45] be a national magazine, but he's made a [36:47] business work there. And I'm wondering [36:49] if there's opportunity for [36:52] more niching or if there's value in not [36:55] over niching a product and how you're [36:57] thinking about cuz you see all these [36:59] niches and you think okay, maybe there's [37:01] a roll-up strategy or maybe there's some [37:03] sort of, you know, synergy between them, [37:05] but that's already sort of playing out [37:06] on the platform in the sense that like [37:07] YouTube is making money from both Doug [37:10] DeMuro reviewing every car and the car [37:12] dealership guy talking about the dealer [37:14] side of the automotive industry. And [37:16] these are separate from an automotive [37:18] magazine that might sort of in previous [37:20] era address both sides. [37:21] >> Mhm. [37:22] >> You know, I think where [37:25] publications [37:27] can get hurt is if they're caught in the [37:28] middle. [37:29] >> Sure. [37:30] >> If you if you try to be too broad, too [37:32] large of an audience [37:34] this is not the era for that. You know, [37:36] 5 years ago maybe that worked, but but [37:38] not today. [37:39] You either need to be large and [37:41] authoritative in a big category. [37:43] >> Yep. [37:43] >> Vogue [37:44] >> It's a good example. [37:45] >> Or Architectural Digest. [37:46] >> Yes. [37:47] >> Or Condé Nast Traveler would be another [37:48] one. [37:49] >> Or you need to be really nailing a [37:51] specific niche where you have a [37:53] loyal audience that's willing to pay. [37:55] >> Mhm. [37:56] >> And and and you know, ad supported only, [37:59] tough. That's that's if if you are if [38:02] you have a brand where you're investing [38:03] in the journalism. If you have to make [38:04] significant investments in journalism, [38:06] supporting that just with advertising is [38:08] is a tough place to be. But if you've [38:11] got, you know, [38:13] really content that people are willing [38:15] to pay for [38:16] >> Mhm. [38:16] >> [clears throat] [38:16] >> then [38:17] but to do that don't get caught in the [38:20] middle. [38:20] >> Yeah. [38:21] >> That makes sense. [38:23] The Devil Wears Prada is uh The Devil [38:25] Wears Prada 2 box office hit. [38:29] Uh do you expect that to be a pretty [38:30] major catalyst for for Vogue? [38:34] >> You know, it's it's actually actually [38:36] been a catalyst for Condé Nast broadly. [38:38] You know, the obviously the movie is, [38:40] you know, based on Anna Wintour and the [38:42] company is based on Condé Nast and uh [38:46] but uh [38:47] you know, I was I was talking to our [38:48] chief revenue officer a couple weeks ago [38:50] and [38:51] like, you know, we had a really good [38:51] first quarter, we exceeded budget, and [38:53] second quarter was looking strong. And I [38:55] asked her like, you know, what's driving [38:57] the strength? And she stopped for a [38:59] minute, she said, "The movie." I said, [39:00] "What?" [39:01] >> Wow. [39:02] >> Like, that's driving even other brands? [39:04] Said, "I think there's just more [39:05] interest in Condé Nast in general." Now, [39:07] I think it's more than just that, but, [39:09] you know, I think the movie has created [39:11] a lot of intrigue. [39:12] And uh and it's been fun. [39:14] >> I imagine it's good for hiring, but can [39:16] you zoom out and talk a little bit about [39:18] the hiring pipeline? There's so much [39:20] uncertainty in the job market. Should [39:21] you become a software engineer? Are [39:23] there going to be no software engineers? [39:25] The AI can write stuff, but can't really [39:27] do investigative journalism, but there's [39:29] still a lot of anxiety. Like, how are [39:31] you seeing the next crop of great [39:33] journalists develop right now? [39:35] >> Yeah. [39:36] >> Or advice that you give to like new [39:38] grads who want to work at Condé Nast? [39:40] >> Well, you know, we we hire journalists [39:42] and we hire software engineers, so [39:45] and it's it's it's difficult. [39:46] >> And everything in between, business and [39:48] finance and legal, I'm sure. [39:49] >> Look, [39:50] you know, I I remember my mom growing [39:52] up, she always said, "There's always [39:54] room at the top." All right? And that [39:55] was good advice. Like, if you can be at [39:58] the best of what you're doing, there's [39:59] always going to be room for you. [40:01] Yeah, moms have the best. [40:02] >> [laughter] [40:02] >> That's so good. [40:04] >> Um so, for us, you know, journalists who [40:06] really excel, I think they'll always [40:08] have a home. [40:10] Um [40:11] you know, in terms of software [40:13] engineers, you know, we we [40:16] we brought in a new of product and [40:17] technology [40:18] >> Mhm. [40:19] >> really fortuitously in December. And [40:21] December was [40:22] really you guys covered this [40:23] >> Yeah. [40:23] >> very well. [40:24] >> Age of moment. [40:25] >> a step function change. [40:26] >> Yep. [40:27] >> And so when he started, you know, I I [40:30] told him, "You need to question [40:32] everything we do." [40:32] >> Mhm. [40:33] >> Start with a blank sheet of paper, [40:35] rethink everything that we're doing, how [40:37] we do it, and how we can use AI. And the [40:39] first thing he did is he started some [40:41] small pilots, three or four people on a [40:43] team [40:45] eliminating certain roles that that [40:47] would have been on a much bigger team [40:49] >> Mhm. [40:49] >> to create new products. And uh we he ran [40:52] the pilot six or eight weeks and like [40:54] there was enough information already [40:56] where we said, "Okay, let's go make big [40:57] changes now." And so [40:59] we just, you know, last month made big [41:01] changes in that in that org really [41:03] centered around how we use AI at the [41:06] core of not our content, but how we [41:08] develop technology and products. [41:10] >> Mhm. [41:10] >> So, you know, the the result of that is [41:12] there there were whole departments that [41:14] we no longer needed. Like we used to [41:17] have a you might be a team of 10 or 12 [41:19] people on a big project. When you have [41:21] that big of a team, you need a technical [41:23] project manager. [41:24] >> Mhm. [41:24] >> You need QA engineers, you need, you [41:26] know, product analysts, and all these [41:28] other things. [41:29] Well, we just redesigned it and said, [41:31] "Actually, you have a product manager [41:33] and they're going to be the product [41:34] analyst also. [41:36] >> Mhm. [41:36] >> Uh maybe there's a designer and there's [41:38] an engineer and we're going to have AI [41:40] create [41:41] the software and also do the QA of it. [41:44] And so these teams that were 10 or 12 [41:46] people became three or four people [41:48] and they moved at three times the speed. [41:50] >> Mhm. [41:51] >> Um so, what does that mean if you're [41:53] software engineer? It means there's [41:54] going to be fewer jobs here in treatment [41:56] without a doubt. [41:57] >> Mhm. [41:57] >> Fewer jobs. [41:59] For now, [42:00] but [42:01] like if you're [42:03] a product manager, [42:04] you can do things that you could never [42:06] do before because you could actually [42:07] create the code yourself [42:08] >> Yeah. [42:09] >> using AI. [42:10] >> Well, yeah, and and Condé Nast is a [42:11] unique company because you guys don't [42:13] sell technology, you sell content, and [42:15] so you want to make [42:18] great technology to serve the content, [42:20] but it's not the core. That's not the [42:22] thing that you sell, whereas [42:24] um yeah, [clears throat] we we've [42:25] noticed something is that we basically [42:26] we hired a full-time software engineer [42:30] early in the company, Tyler, sitting [42:32] over there. [42:33] Um and we're uh [42:35] we're the kind of employer that never [42:36] would have hired a software engineer [42:38] historically because it for a small [42:41] podcast at the time, why would you Why [42:43] would [42:43] >> Build software. [42:44] >> Yeah, why would you build custom [42:45] software? And so there's job creation [42:47] happening by companies that [42:49] never made sense to hire software [42:51] engineers, but now they can. [42:52] >> Mhm. [42:52] >> Cool. [42:53] >> How are you thinking about I I imagine [42:54] that [42:55] uh at almost all of the publications, [42:58] there's essentially no AI doing writing [43:00] or or creative work, but uh how have you [43:03] had to confront anything on the [43:05] advertising side? Like I imagine if I [43:07] flip over the back of the New Yorker, [43:10] I'm sure I've seen a 3D render of a [43:12] watch at some point. [43:15] Will I be seeing a AI render of a watch? [43:18] >> Very uh [43:19] >> Does that matter? Does anyone care? [43:22] >> What you know, [43:24] last June, [43:25] >> Yeah. [43:26] >> there was an ad that was run in Vogue [43:28] print magazine. [43:30] And the ad used an AI-generated model. [43:33] >> That's right. [43:34] >> And it blew up. [43:35] >> Yeah. [43:36] >> But people [43:37] who were angry, they were angry a little [43:39] bit [43:40] >> at the advertiser? [43:41] >> Yeah. [43:41] >> They're mostly angry at Vogue. [43:42] >> Interesting. [43:43] >> And I loved it. I thought it was [43:44] fantastic because it reaffirmed what [43:48] I had hoped was going to be the case, [43:49] which is our audiences want [43:51] human-generated content. They want to [43:53] know what they're reading and seeing is [43:54] real and not AI-generated. [43:57] >> Interesting. [43:57] >> So to me, that was a really important [43:59] indicator of frankly our future, that [44:02] our future strategy about using AI in [44:04] many, many places to drive efficiency, [44:07] to reach audiences faster, speed up the [44:09] velocity of what we do. [44:12] All to enable us to invest more in [44:13] human-generated content. [44:15] But that was a really high-level [44:16] >> especially clothing is really [44:17] interesting. There's a slippery slope [44:20] where, let's say you generate, you know, [44:22] you have a real piece of clothing and [44:24] you say put this on this, you know, even [44:26] if it's a real model, but put this on [44:27] this model. And then what happens if [44:29] like, you know, you could just prompt it [44:31] and say make make it fit like slightly [44:33] different. It's like, well, then now [44:35] you're that's not the product that [44:36] you're selling. You're not selling a [44:37] product that doesn't really exist [44:39] anywhere. So there's certain [44:42] certain certain categories that I think [44:44] will [44:44] >> Yeah. [44:45] >> Um and just yeah, it'll be a brand [44:47] decision and I think um [44:48] ultimately that that is why [44:52] that is why I think uh [44:54] >> Yeah, lots of care. [44:55] >> will will endure because there will be [44:58] plenty that make the opposite decision. [45:00] We're going to lean into it, but there's [45:01] always there's always room at each end [45:04] of the barbell. [45:05] >> So lots of care with regard to AI [45:07] advertising. Zooming out, are our ads a [45:10] bug or a feature if I open up a copy of [45:13] Vogue? [45:14] >> Well, in a print magazine, it's [45:16] absolutely a feature. [45:17] >> I think so. [45:17] >> Yeah, without a doubt. [45:19] I think for for digital, it can be both. [45:22] You know, [45:24] programmatic display ads, [45:26] they may be more of a bug than a [45:27] feature. [45:27] >> Yeah. [45:28] >> But, you know, really high-quality [45:30] >> it's just it really it it's mostly the [45:33] visual disruption of like I'm reading [45:35] this like beautiful story. I actually [45:37] like it integrated in that sort of a [45:39] native ad from the publisher that was, [45:42] you know, considered, but anything that [45:44] becomes, you know, [45:45] display ads just the [45:47] >> So our biggest advertising category is [45:50] branded content. [45:51] >> Yeah. [45:51] >> And it's it's great because it it it it [45:54] leverages a big competitive advantage we [45:56] have. [45:57] Our brands, our audiences, but our [45:58] creativity. And so that's a that to me [46:01] is a is a really [46:03] great place to be in our business and to [46:06] see the growth of that every year. You [46:08] know, of course we have display ads, we [46:09] have print ads, some of which can be [46:11] branded content. Um a lot of video, [46:14] video ads. [46:15] >> Yeah. [46:15] >> Yeah. Anything else, Jody? [46:17] >> No, this is fantastic. Really glad we [46:19] made this work. [46:20] >> Uh we'll we'll wrap the show right now. [46:22] Uh leave us five stars on Apple Podcasts [46:24] and Spotify. Sign up for our newsletter [46:26] at tbpm.com and we will see you tomorrow [46:29] at 11:00 a.m. Pacific sharp. Goodbye.