How a16z Built a Media Empire by Refusing to Talk to Journalists

For a decade, Andreessen Horowitz was the darling of tech journalists. The firm threw intimate cocktail parties, gave exclusive quotes, and cultivated relationships with every major reporter in Silicon Valley.

Then, almost overnight, they stopped returning calls.

According to former Verge writer Casey Newton, "I'm leery of any company that thinks regularly talking to journalists is beneath them, and so I've been really disappointed by a16z's inward turn over the past couple years."

What happened? Marc Andreessen and Ben Horowitz made a deliberate choice: they decided to go direct.

In Marc's Own Words

In a recent interview, Marc Andreessen explained the philosophy directly:

"We've lived in this world for a while where content only comes from content companies. I think content is going to increasingly come from everybody. We actually hired a reporter at my venture capital firm. We're in the content business. And why do we need a reporter? We need a reporter because the stuff that we do is complicated and new. We think we develop a deep understanding, or at least we try very hard. And then we want to explain these things. And these things are complicated in a world moving fast. And so we're trying to take more responsibility for being able to articulate complex subjects to large audiences. The communications functions in many companies has been trying to get reporters to write the right things. I think increasingly it's direct communication."

That last line is the key: "I think increasingly it's direct communication."

The hidden third founder

Most people know a16z was founded by Marc Andreessen and Ben Horowitz. Fewer know about their "hidden founder."

"Margit is really a hidden founder of this firm," one startup founder told Newcomer. "The power dynamics there is Marc, Ben, and Margit."

Margit Wennmachers joined a16z in 2010 after representing and launching the firm in 2008. She built their communications strategy from scratch, and her influence helps explain why a16z thinks about media so differently than other venture firms.

From Charm Offensive to Media Empire

Benedict Evans, a16z's former in-house analyst, has mused that "a16z is a media company that monetizes through VC."

That's not hyperbole. According to reporting from Axios, a16z has built what can only be described as a media empire. They hired a large editorial team to cover stories about crypto, fintech, and emerging technology. They produce daily podcasts and newsletters. They syndicate content via Substack, YouTube, LinkedIn, and direct email.

The philosophy is simple: own your distribution.

a16z does not depend on media coverage of their announcements. They break news on their own blog and social feeds. The daily repetition, podcast and newsletter every weekday, is designed to algorithmically and habitually favor a16z content. It's an attempt to occupy share of mind continuously.

The CAA playbook

What most people miss about a16z's media strategy: it's not new. It's borrowed from Hollywood.

An important part of a16z's origin story is that they were founded to be "CAA for the tech industry." When Michael Ovitz founded Creative Artists Agency in 1975, Hollywood was completely controlled by a few dozen big entities who served as gatekeepers to the entertainment industry.

Ovitz built CAA to help creative actors and artists build franchises on their own terms. He forever changed how entertainment worked.

A half century later, a16z sees a similar transition happening in tech. The old guard of legacy capital, legacy media, and legacy distribution can now be sidestepped. Anyone can go viral and gain relevance.

Why They Turned Their Back on Traditional Media

The firm has largely stopped cooperating with the media, even off the record. Multiple technology reporters have confirmed this shift.

The reasoning, according to those close to the firm: they regard the press as ignorant and unfair. Instead of highlighting the many ways tech is changing lives, journalists fixate on negative stories.

It's better, then, to leave it to those who do understand, like the partners at a16z and their editorial team, to tell those stories directly.

You might disagree with this assessment. Many journalists certainly do. But you can't argue with the results.

The results

a16z's assets under management have grown from $2.7 billion in 2011 to over $42 billion today. Their podcast consistently ranks in the top business shows. Their newsletter reaches hundreds of thousands of subscribers. Their blog posts get shared millions of times.

More importantly, they control their narrative completely. When a16z announces a new fund or investment thesis, they don't need a journalist to validate it. They have their own distribution.

What This Means for Everyone Else

Think about it: if the most powerful venture firm in the world has decided that going direct is the only way to tell their story accurately, what does that mean for everyone else?

It means the companies that figure out how to communicate directly, whether through LinkedIn, newsletters, podcasts, or owned media, will have a massive advantage over those who don't.

It means the founders who can articulate their vision without an intermediary will attract better talent, close bigger deals, and build stronger brands.

It means the era of depending on journalists to tell your story is ending. Not because journalists are bad at their jobs, but because technology has made it possible to reach your audience directly.

What to take away

Marc Andreessen didn't build a media empire because he wanted to be a media mogul. He built it because he realized that in the modern world, the ability to communicate directly is a strategic asset.

Every company is a media company now. The only question is whether you're going to act like one.

For a similar perspective, read Lulu Cheng Meservey's case that storytelling is alpha. And if you're ready to start, here's how often you should be posting on LinkedIn.