Is trust devouring the traffic economy?

On the way to the Shanghai World Artificial Intelligence Conference (WAIC), bored, I listened to an interview. The time isn't too recent: May 3, 2024.

The guest is Erik Torenberg, a well - known entrepreneur and venture capitalist in Silicon Valley. He has worked on community products, founded a media company, and later got into investing. In the overseas circle, he's quite an insightful person.

He talked about many topics in the interview, such as:

In the era of information explosion, is the media still valuable? When starting a business, is technology more important, or is it more important to have someone who can attract users? Why are people increasingly losing trust in traditional institutions like the government and the media, and how is technology gradually changing culture and lifestyle?

He also talked about how new media companies can survive on their own and even build a complete business model. It's very interesting. Because many of his views are still relevant today.

1

He started by presenting a counter - intuitive view: The value of the media is being seriously underestimated. How is it underestimated? First, the media is not a tool for "transmitting information," but an infrastructure for "connecting value."

Erik pointed out that many people's understanding of the media still remains at the stage of a "communication tool." In fact, the real value of the media lies in "connection," connecting professionals with the public, knowledge with business opportunities, and trust with action.

He believes that the role of the media in modern society is more like a "data asset" and a "reputation generator." For example, a high - quality podcast not only conveys information but also helps listeners build their understanding and judgment in a certain field and even influences their consumption decisions.

Second, content is becoming cheaper, while attention and trust are becoming more expensive.

Erik mentioned a very crucial observation:

"Now, the marginal cost of content is almost zero. However, the scarcity of attention is increasing."

This statement may sound a bit abstract, but we experience it every day.

You can use AI to write an article about "how AI is changing business" at almost no cost. However, the cost of getting others to click, read, believe, and take action is getting higher and higher.

This is what Erik calls the "attention economy." The content itself is no longer valuable. What really matters is whether you can make people "stop," "listen," and "believe what you say."

And this process is where the real value of the media lies. The transformation of the media's value means a transformation in content creation and the role of the audience. Erik proposed a very interesting concept: "audience partners."

Yes, third, idea partners.

He said: In entrepreneurship, we are used to finding technical partners, people who can help you bring your product to the market. They recognize your ideas and viewpoints. They can not only help you build a brand and accumulate trust but also directly help you find your first batch of users, customers, and even investors.

The Turpentine company he founded is a hybrid of "media + investment." They produce podcasts, write industry reports, and operate communities, and at the same time, they invest in early - stage startups.

Through media content, they have not only built a reputation in the technology and entrepreneurship circles but also helped the startups they invested in gain early exposure and user growth.

Erik also observed that the source of trust has changed between traditional media and new media.

Traditional media relies on the authority of institutions like The New York Times and The Economist and wins trust through long - accumulated credibility. New media relies on "transparency" and "direct interaction."

Now, the media has taken another step forward, relying on human interaction. "People are more willing to trust a real person with a stance and viewpoints rather than an institution that tries to maintain 'detached neutrality.'"

For example, Harry Stebbings, the host of a podcast, has built a group of loyal listeners through continuous high - quality venture capital interviews. They not only listen to the content but also invest, start businesses, or even find jobs based on the podcast's recommendations.

This kind of "trust" is difficult for traditional media to replicate because it comes from "people" rather than institutions.

Therefore, the real value of the media is underestimated. Because most people still view the media from the perspective of "content" and don't realize that it has evolved into an "infrastructure of trust" in modern society.

The media should be a tool for building professional knowledge, establish user relationships, influence consumption decisions, and promote social consensus.

2

Since the media is so important, what role should it play in entrepreneurship? A content tool? A brand - building method? Or a partner?

Erik Torenberg mentioned a very impactful view in the interview:

It's getting easier to make products, but it's getting harder to acquire users. No matter how good your product is, if no one knows about it or uses it, it's as if it doesn't exist. The first step in entrepreneurship is also undergoing a fundamental change.

He proposed a new framework: In entrepreneurship, you need two partners: one who can make the product and one who can bring in users.

We are all familiar with the role of technical partners: they can write code, understand products, and have technical barriers, which are the core competitiveness of early - stage startups. Without them, you can't make a product.

This was absolutely true in the past, especially in the early days of technology entrepreneurship. Whoever could make something that others couldn't would win.

However, the technical threshold is dropping rapidly now. There are more and more open - source codes, AI tools, and low - code platforms. Ordinary people can also make high - quality products. Technology has become an infrastructure.

Now, the problem in entrepreneurship is no longer "whether you can make it" but "whether you can make people know about it, use it, and pay for it." So, who can solve this problem? Of course, it's the person who can help you find users.

Audience partners are those who can help you bring in the first batch of users, build brand awareness, and influence the market. They are the scarcest resource in your entrepreneurial process.

Erik gave a very typical example:

When he founded Turpentine, he didn't have a "technical partner," but he had an "audience partner" - himself.

He accumulated a large number of audiences in the technology and entrepreneurship circles through podcasting, writing articles, and operating communities. These people are not only listeners but also potential users, customers, investors, and even future employees.

He said: Every podcast I do promotes Turpentine's products and exposes the startups we invest in.

Of course, technical partners are not unimportant. It's just that now, technology can be outsourced, learned, or obtained through tools, but audiences, trust, brands, and influence are the most difficult resources to replicate.

If you have an audience partner who can bring in users, your product will have a market even before it is launched.

So, if you have a technical background, find someone who can bring in an audience. If you have a content or media background, find someone who can make a product. This is the golden combination today.

Turpentine started as a podcast company and later gradually developed into a hybrid of "media + community + investment." The entire path completely abandoned traffic monetization and moved towards trust monetization.

3

This path is good, but have you ever thought about why people are increasingly losing trust in traditional institutions? What's the difference between them and audience partners?

Erik Torenberg said in the interview that in the past, people trusted institutions because they had "professional barriers" and "entry thresholds." Institutions like the government, the media, universities, religions, and large companies were the ones we defaulted to as "authoritative."

For example:

You don't write news yourself, so you trust The New York Times. You don't do research yourself, so you trust universities. You don't understand policies, so you trust the government. But now, these barriers are disappearing.

Anyone can express their views online, and information can be freely spread. The "black - box" operations of institutions are being increasingly exposed.

Social media is like a magnifying glass, magnifying the incompetence and opacity of institutions in front of everyone. This has led to a result: People are no longer willing to trust institutions themselves and are more willing to trust specific individuals.

He further pointed out that another reason for the collapse of trust is:

Many traditional institutions no longer aim to serve users but to maintain their own survival.

That is, the motivation of institutions has changed. They are no longer for "solving problems" but for "continuing to exist."

For example:

The education system is getting more and more expensive, but the teaching quality hasn't improved. The medical system is getting more and more complex, but it's getting harder to see a doctor. These institutions were once the pillars of society, but now many people think they are "out of touch with reality," "slow to respond," and "inefficient."

He said: When an institution is no longer responsible to users but only to its internal structure, it loses the foundation of trust.

More importantly, Erik believes that the Internet has not only changed the way we obtain information but also changed our understanding of "trust."

In the past, we trusted an institution because it "seemed authoritative." Now, we trust a person because he "seems real." People are more willing to trust a real person with a stance and viewpoints.

The venture capital interviews hosted by Harry Stebbings are more persuasive than a news report. The self - narrative of an entrepreneur on Twitter is more touching than a company's financial report. An independent author on Substack can influence industry perception more than a traditional magazine.

This "transparent + direct" way of trust makes it increasingly difficult for traditional institutions to adapt. So, the essence of trust is the traceability of responsibility.

If something goes wrong and you know who to hold responsible, you are more likely to trust. If something goes wrong and no one knows who to hold responsible, you are less likely to trust.

The problem with traditional institutions is precisely "blurred responsibility." If there is an error in a news report, you don't know whether it's the editor, the reporter, or the chief editor's fault. If there is a problem with a company's product, you can't tell whether it's the CEO, the engineer, or the public relations team's mistake.

Individual creators are different:

If a podcast host says something wrong, you'll directly blame him. If an author makes a data error, you'll directly point it out. If a KOL recommends a bad product, you'll directly unfollow. This "traceable responsibility" mechanism makes it easier for individual creators to win trust.

Therefore, we are moving from an era of "institutional trust" to an era of "personal trust."

This doesn't mean that institutions are no longer important. Instead, institutions must learn to be as transparent as individuals, establish a traceable responsibility mechanism, and regain public trust. Otherwise, they will be increasingly marginalized.

The Internet has magnified these problems and made people turn to "more real, direct, and personal" sources of trust.

4

Since trust is shifting from institutions to individuals, what role does technology play in this? Is it repairing trust or exacerbating the trust crisis? Erik Torenberg said something in the interview that impressed me deeply:

Technology is redefining "reality."

This statement may sound a bit abstract, but if you think about it carefully, you'll find that our understanding of "reality" has long been reshaped by technology.

We get to know the world through screens instead of personal experiences. We express ourselves on social platforms instead of face - to - face communication. We build our identities, relationships, and even a sense of belonging in the virtual space.

Technology is becoming the underlying logic of culture, and in this process, a new type of role is emerging: reality entrepreneurs.

Reality entrepreneurs are a combination of "reality" and "entrepreneurs."

What is reality? From the printing press to radio, television, and the Internet, each technological revolution has redefined human understanding of "reality."

The printing press allowed "truth" to be recorded and spread. Radio and television allowed "reality" to be watched remotely. The Internet allows "reality" to be participated in, co - created, and even customized.

Today's reality is constructed by technology. The "reality" you see on Twitter is completely different from what you see on YouTube. The world you see in your WeChat Moments may be completely different from what you see in the news.

This is the reshaping of culture by technology: It not only changes what we "do" but also what we "believe."

So, what exactly do reality entrepreneurs do? Erik said that there is a group of people creating reality. These people use technology, content, communities, and brands to make people believe in a new lifestyle, values, and even worldviews.

For example:

Packy McCormick, through his Substack "Not Boring," constructed a narrative about "globalization, technology, and futurism," which influenced a large number of technology practitioners and investors.

Naval Ravikant redefined "wealth" and "happiness" through tweets, podcasts, and articles, which influenced countless entrepreneurs. Samaipha constructed a world of "decentralized identity" through NFTs, DAOs, and Web3, making people believe that "you can own your own digital identity and assets."

These are reality entrepreneurs. They sell a new sense of reality and reconstruct influence with meaning.

This kind of people usually have three core tools. On the technology side, they rely on social platforms and AI tools. On the content side, they use articles, podcasts, videos, and tweets to spread new "real - world cognitions." On the social side, they use Discord, Slack, email lists, and offline activities to maintain new "real - world groups."

The combination of these three reshapes people's perception of reality in the network.

Erik emphasized that reality entrepreneurs represent a new form of entrepreneurship and are not meant to replace traditional entrepreneurs.

Traditional entrepreneurs solve "real - world problems," such as how to transport goods more efficiently, how to provide medical services more cheaply, and how to deliver software more quickly.

Reality entrepreneurs solve "problems of reality itself," such as why we believe in certain values, why we choose a certain identity, and why we feel that we belong to a certain group.

Perhaps future entrepreneurs will not only solve real - world problems but also participate in shaping reality itself. Therefore, technology is reshaping culture, and "reality entrepreneurs" are the promoters of this change. This is what's happening.

5

Since technology is reshaping culture, what impact does it have on business? Is there a new business ecosystem that can simultaneously carry media, data, investment, and entrepreneurship?

Erik said: Turpentine started as a podcast company.

They produce high - quality interview content, focusing on technology, entrepreneurship, and cultural trends. They have in - depth conversations with entrepreneurs and investors, analyze emerging business models, and explore the growth path of "reality entrepreneurs."

This content is not only attractive but also, more importantly, it builds "professional trust." Listeners come with the intention of learning, thinking, and even investing.

Erik said:

"Every podcast we do promotes Turpentine's products and exposes the startups we invest in."

With the accumulation of media content, Turpentine has gradually built its own data assets. They not only know who is listening and who is reading the articles but also which topics are the most popular, which entrepreneurs are repeatedly mentioned, which companies are being followed by early - stage users, and which investors are active in the community.

The value of this data lies in that it is not grabbed from the public market and not based on click - through statistics. It is a trust signal formed based on "audience's active choice" and "continuous attention."

This allows them to discover opportunities earlier than traditional VCs and understand users better than traditional media.

With the trust built by the media and the insights from data accumulation, Turpentine started making early - stage investments. They invest in entrepreneurs they talked about in the podcasts, projects that are repeatedly discussed in the community, and business models that have been "pre - verified" by the listeners.

Erik said that this investment method has several unique advantages:

One, trust is established in advance. Entrepreneurs are "verified"