Revenge of the generalists*

Some things to know about:

That’s a lot. I wrote today in a member’s piece how we’re entering an age where the market rewards idiosyncratic approaches layered atop expertise.

I used to fall back on the admonition that it is always better to be narrow and deep, whether as a brand or as an individual. Generalists have suffered mightily in the Great Realignment, while niche specialists have fared far better. 

Now, I suspect the pendulum has swung too far. It’s time to rethink what it is to be a generalist because the world will actually need more of them, both brands and individuals, only of a different type. Specialization is no longer enough, not in volatile environments defined by interconnectedness. This will affect how media organizations are built and staffed.

Newsletters and podcasts have done so well during the media apocalypse in part because the best ones go beyond a narrow focus. When people are prioritized over institutions, and authenticity is the coin of the realm, the brands that are created are going to be more varied, because people are more varied, not to mention contradictory.

Feed Me has gotten a lot of buzz lately, and it’s a prime example of a publication that is hard to categorize. That is what makes it interesting. It’s about marketing, business, finance, culture, money, greed, envy, all of it. And the author Emily Sundberg’s own experiences and interests. These kinds of brands are messy, mix topics, and evolve over time.

Paul Krugman’s Substack is far more interesting than Paul Krugman the NYT columnist. Autonomy matters. Krugman got rapped on the knuckles by Times editors for revisiting topics. This is a critical feature, not a bug. Where the media business is going is conversational. It’s trying to connect dots to arrive at some semblance of The Truth. Presenting a neatly packaged, bulletproof argument a single time is an anachronism. Smart people change their minds over time based on new facts and further consideration.

Nate Silver is more pugnacious and willing to mix in his takes across sports and gambling. Ben Thompson complements his core business strategy analysis with NBA talk and Chinese affairs. Derek Thompson’s Plain English is refreshing in how many topics it covers. In this light, sure, Stephen A. Smith as political analyst. Can’t hurt. 

The key here is people who have an expertise complemented with a broader perspective. Remarkably, it could turn out that a liberal arts orientation beats learning to code, particularly as AI commoditizes many forms of narrow expertise.

Personal brands are granted permission to be idiosyncratic, while institutional brands are expected to remain within defined lanes. If ESPN, as a brand, were to launch a political vertical, it would face a huge credibility hurdle. But Stephen A. can plausibly pull it off because the audience sees him as a person, not a monolith.

What’s emerging is less a revival generalism where a brand is thinly and equally smeared across many topics, but one where expertise and focus is complemented with perspective across multiple areas. The world is more complicated and interconnected than it has ever been. You can’t really focus on the media business without focusing on the tech business, politics and culture. Kamala was onto something with the bit about existing in a context. 

Institutional brands will adapt, although it is easier when they are built around personalities. Look at the fluidity Barstool has managed as it roams from sports to finance to politics.

There will continue to be value in connecting the dots and occupying key intersection points. Take Semafor and Puck. Semafor is looking to connect the dots on a global level. I don’t know if it’s yet gotten there – it’s a big world, to be fair – but that’s a worthy differentiation. Puck’s focus is the intertwined cultural and political power centers, even if it still needs to find the Matt Belloni of Big Tech. You can’t cover power centers credibly and miss on tech.

The new media companies that emerge – and they will emerge – will be built leaner and require doing more with less. The reality of small organizations is you need people who can flex across several areas. You generally accept that they will do three or four part-time jobs until you get to the point where you can break into departments and bring in specialists.

Thanks to AI tools and changing economics, people who can be specialists in an area but also flex across other areas will be in demand. This is also a new type of generalist. I firmly believe that we’ll have a few massive companies and far more smaller companies, especially in the media business. That means needing five-tool players who can get things done across several vectors rather than taking a narrow view of their role. It’s better to be a multi-hyphenate in this world.

I saw this over the years in my career. Magazine writers who wouldn’t write web stories. Or reporters who didn’t write headlines because that’s the copy editor’s job. Thankfully, I only got mild pushback when I told reporters they also needed to figure out their story art and sometimes man the Twitter account. 

The reality is the market will more highly value those who can stretch beyond one area – and have a willingness to do so. AI tools are maturing to the point where people don’t need to be trained specialists to create sites, apps, videos and more. 

Thanks for reading and subscribing. Send me your feedback by hitting reply.