As Taylor Lorenz writes in the Times, social media helps talent capture relatively more commercial value today than what was possible in an earlier, distribution-constrained environment. This new reality means that media needs to offer more than just brand affiliation opportunities, particularly for successful personality-driven content.
Why?
Because the value of affiliation is incremental audience and attention, the currency on which media trades. So when brands give talent a platform—particularly relatively unknown talent—they 1) place an economic floor under said talent in the form of a salary and 2) effectively enter a long-term, competitive commercial relationship.
With respect to the latter, greater audience exposure can engender competing loyalties between the media brand as curator and talent as content creator. And as its popularity grows, talent may find that the opportunity cost of affiliation increases. For the most successful talent, the expected opportunity cost will eventually equal—or exceed—the value captured via their brand affiliation. When they reach this inflection point, talent may feel financially incentivized to go independent.
But should they?
It depends on the answer to the question, “Are audiences more loyal to talent's content, or to the media brand's curation efforts?" The answer will differ across talent and media. But it is this relative loyalty mix—this audience segmentation—that determines whether talent can feasibly capture more incremental value on its own.
In the Barstool example that Lorenz references, Barstool's negotiating position assumes that loyalty to the Barstool brand is stronger than loyalty to the "Call Her Daddy" podcast; the hosts' negotiating position necessitates that the opposite be true. In this case, we will only know the answer once the relationship is severed! That said, this example shows why an affiliation-centric model is not always sustainable for media brands or talent. In success, this zero-sum economic relationship increasingly places both parties' interests at odds. Said differently, commercial risk increases with success, particularly if audience loyalties are unclear. This issue is most acute for homegrown talent such as the "Call Her Daddy" hosts, for whom there is no established market price.
So what are potential solves for this relational issue?
For talent, de-risk the economic model. Full-time social influencers do this by ensuring that they're not beholden to a single platform or revenue stream. They may have a social media presence and a podcast; they may sell product placements on social channels and merchandise via Shopify. This talent is never at the whim of a single buyer or distribution channel.
For media brands, consider how you can continue to deliver incremental value as talent becomes more successful. The goal here is not to give away the farm, but rather to ensure that the opportunity cost of talent going independent is never greater than what you're delivering on a profitable basis. How? Revenue share agreements, cost avoidance schemes (i.e., managing production logistics), guaranteed payouts, or even—if circumstances justify—equity!
With respect to equity, I assume that journalistic talent such as Kara Swisher and Ezra Klein feel more tethered to Vox Media because they have ownership stakes in the company. And I doubt that we will see them go independent because independence is, in most cases, merely a means to a financial end. So, if both feel confident that they are capturing the relative value of their contributions at Vox, then the opportunity cost won't favor churn; it will favor continuity.
Lastly, it's worth noting that this economic dynamic extends beyond traditional media and is applicable to other industries—such as fitness or even Hollywood (see: Shonda Rhimes)—in which loyalty to personal brands and content creation, broadly defined, can realistically compete with distributors' curation efforts.