Tuesday, January 13, 2026

"Fifty people control the culture"

 

So says Ted Gioia, whom we've met in these pages before.  Here are a couple of excerpts from his long and interesting article.


After three decades of total connectivity, here’s where we stand:

  • Four movie studios still control Hollywood.
  • Four subscription platforms account for two-thirds of home movie streaming.
  • Three major record labels own most of the hit songs.
  • Five publishers account for 80% of the US book market.
  • Just one company controls 60% plus of the US audiobook business.
  • Etc. etc.

During this same period, print media collapsed—thousands of newspapers and magazines simply disappeared. Online media survived, but just two companies (Alphabet and Meta) now swallow up most of the ad revenues.

And here’s where it gets even worse. If an indie media outlet wants to attract some of this ad money, it needs to reach readers—but it relies on those same two companies for access. To compete with Google you need help from Google.

It’s a mystery to me why this is legal. But it is.

Google is already squeezing digital publishers like they’re mangoes at a Jamba Juice. Publishers have already lost 25% of their traffic from Google, and fear that number might soon reach 60%.

The concentration of power at Google is mind-blowing. It controls around 90% of search traffic. All that total connectivity we envisioned in the early days of the web is mostly reliant on this one company.

You can try to bypass it with apps. But guess what? Two companies control most of the app store business—and one of them is (again) Google.

Can you see what’s happened? Power in the digital world is even more concentrated than in the real world.

Just one company controls around 40% of online shopping. Two companies control two-thirds of US music streaming. The same is true elsewhere online. Because of network effects, no new entrant can compete effectively against the dominant incumbents.

If you take the CEOs of all these businesses—in movies, books, media, etc.—you could fit them in [a] single school bus, with seats left over.


There's more at the link, including more details on the "favored fifty" and how much they control.

That's a truly scary thought.  I knew that five companies controlled almost all TV networks, and a few giant publishers controlled "traditional" book publishing - but I hadn't realized how far that level of concentration had spread.

What it means, of course, is that if anyone wants to do anything that the "favored fifty" (or enough of them, at any rate) would rather not see succeed, they can throttle it to the point of strangulation without even raising a sweat.  If they don't publish it, nobody will be able to access it.  If they don't publicize it, nobody will know about it.  If it becomes any sort of a threat, they can buy it with their pocket change and simply shut it down.  The developer or author or owner won't be able to refuse their offer, because he/she/they will go broke if they don't.

A prime example may be seen in Minneapolis and Minnesota right now.  All the focus of the news media is on ICE's law enforcement activity there - ignoring the truly massive fraud investigations going on into multiple aspects of the state's government, which look likely to dwarf anything that's happened elsewhere.  (California, where investigations are just beginning, might take the crown there, but it's too early to tell yet.)  Most of the powers that be in the news and social media circles are shutting down anything that goes against the "party line".  (That's also why they're so eager to silence Elon Musk and X [formerly Twitter] - because he allows people to speak freely.  They daren't allow that on their platforms, and they're going to do their best to silence any that do.)

Can anything be done about this concentration of power and influence . . . or is it too late?  I fear the latter may be true, because the "favored fifty" can buy any unprincipled Congressional representative or Senator (which means a goodly proportion of them) and prevent restrictive laws from being passed.

Any solutions come to mind, dear readers?  If so, please share them with us in Comments.  (Please do not suggest actions that are criminal.  I won't allow this blog to turn into a bloodbath, theoretical or otherwise.)

Peter


8 comments:

Anonymous said...

20 years ago, Zuck was a nobody. Now he controls almost half of online ad revenue. Wow.

I think the lesson is that we're a community animal that does what everyone else does because we're hard-wired to enjoy other people. There's no way to stop conglomerations and megacorps, and no one wants to. It'd be like enforcing communism: it goes against our basic nature.
The evolutionary advantage this gives us is encouraging the next Vanderbilt or Astor or Zuck.

M said...

The problem comes from section 230 I think.

Bell was allowed a monopoly for telephony as a "common carrier", which meant it could not censor or block based on content.

Newspapers could edit what was published, but they could not get a monopoly.

The internet allowed content to be published, and viewed by anyone, including content that was illegal, and also content that was objectionable. Both copyrighted content and also obscenity.

People didn't like this ability and urged lawmakers to make it go away.

230 was a compromise as a result. It has been abused in a number of ways (false claims, etc.).

The concentration in streaming is due to subscriptions. How many subscriptions are you willing to pay for? There's room in that market for about one and a half streaming services, because that's about the number that people want to pay.

Books and audiobooks are similar. How many places does the average person (who reads) want to go to find a new one?

I don't have a solution, but this is how it happened.

Anonymous said...

History provides both the answers to your question and the pitfalls of doing so, and NOT doing so.

Billll said...

The ability to influence the government is the prize the government leaves at the top of the ladder of success. The ability to influence the government begins at the local level and becomes greater as you move up. Punishing the successful is how the government becomes more powerful and less accountable.

Anonymous said...

How about big AG and meatpacking?

Anonymous said...

Same as it ever was.

GE and Westinghouse. The "Big Three" automakers. AP and Reuters. Hollywood studio system. Carnegie.

Rothschilds and Borgias. The interlocking royal families of Europe.

The Catholic Church.
--------------
Amazon pretty much invented online shopping and ereaders, at least as an everyday thing, so their dominance isn't surprising, it's the reward for taking the risk. They gatekeep but Kindle Unlimited lets prolific genre writers make a living while trad publishing does everything it can to limit the number of books available. Would RPGlit or GamerLIT ever have arisen on trad publishing?

Youtube gatekeeps and ruthlessly toes the party line, but they also have enabled thousands of people to get paid to create content, content that millions of people prefer to the MSM offerings.

Facebook never made sense to me, why would you want to use a mini version of the WWW controlled by one company? It exists to farm its users for other companies, but it's only the most successful of dozens who tried.

-------------------
I agree that the culture is controlled by too few people. I just don't think it is anything new.

nick

boron said...

I find a have a problem agreeing.
I pay, for example, GoDaddy for, I don't know - what is it? space on their server? to publish a site; it happens to be cultural (Japanese) material, but I can just as easily purchase more space under a different name to publish a site of political material.
Thank G-d this is the United States of America where I can say/publish/sell online, without fear of reprisal, just about anything.
If you can spread by word-of-mouth what your site is about:
you've got it made: if you want to put in the time and effort.

Pablo said...

"All the focus of the news media is on ICE's law enforcement activity there - ignoring the truly massive fraud investigations going on into multiple aspects of the state's government, which look likely to dwarf anything that's happened elsewhere."

Bait and Switch. People see hearings on fraud and government wrong-doing every day. Nothing happens.
Whip up their emotions when a poet gets killed helping the poor and disadvantaged, well, now you got something.