Ben Lee

I would say it depends. First off, I’m pretty proud of Stratechery’s record over the last couple of years. When it comes to the big companies I traditionally cover I think I’ve been pretty sharp, including sketching out their relative strengths/opportunities/risks in AI [1], calling out Apple’s strategy pre-Apple Intelligence announcement [2], made a comprehensive case that Meta was actually the best positioned [3] — and, of course, was basically the only person to strongly defend Meta when they were at their nadir [4]. I’ve also been on the Nvidia case for a long-time [5], explaining what their moat is and why it’s relevant long before they became the juggernaut they are today. I guess I do regret not forcefully making the case that they were going to go to the moon, but generally I think that if you read Stratechery regularly you are pretty well-positioned to capitalize on moments like that because I laid the groundwork at some point in the past. I would also note that I was basically the only commentator that thought that the DOJ might win their case against Google. [22] For AI, I think I grasped the power of generative content even before ChatGPT thanks to the emergence of image generation [6]. There are obviously details wrong, there, but there are other pre-ChatGPT articles about the AI impact on value chains [7] and distribution [8] that hold up very well. Then, post-GPT I wrote about what are effectively going to be agents early on [9], the returns to agency and its relationship to society [10], and, in what was one of my favorite articles, why I think that AI’s economic impact is best understood by going back to the 1970s and mainframes [11]. The correctness of these is obviously TBD, but it’s definitely fun to think about (more on this in a moment). I also think my work on chips has been both very good and has very much helped set the agenda. 2020 is more than the last couple of years, but “Chips and Geopolitics” has been both correct and very influential (and as you can see in that Article, is something I was writing about several years earlier as well, way before anyone was paying attention) [12]. I’ve followed that up with other relevant pieces like “Political Chips” [13] and “Chips and China” [14], all of which may seem obvious today in part because I helped drive the discussion. And, of course, there is Intel, where I have been right from the very beginning of Stratechery [15] and the beginning of the Gelsinger tenure [16]. I think, though, that last sentence also helps answer your question. When I started no one knew I was, which means that by definition I was on the cutting edge, and very relevant to people like you who are seeking that edge. Today I’m much more established, which means what I write is picked up immediately by executives, politicians (I know that I helped influence the Draghi report [17], for example), and the general conventional wisdom; at what point does helping establish conventional wisdom become indecipherable from being conventional wisdom, which isn’t very relevant to you? It’s a fair question, and I totally get where you’re coming from — it’s something I’ve had to grapple with myself. One change I have made the last few years is to be a lot more honest about the fact I’m much more connected than I used to be. I’ve mostly leveraged this through interviews, and it really jumped out to me last year [18] how many more public company executives I’ve talked to; Stratechery is obviously relevant to them, and I do think I’ve done a better job at getting interesting information from them (which is very hard — my early CEO interviews were not very good; I also think, contra one of your commentators, that you really have to listen to the whole thing and read between the lines to glean the most interesting takeaways, not just summarize). I do think the analyst interviews continue to be the best ones. I would highlight the work I’ve done with @eric_seufert, for example: if you followed us, you were way early on things like ATT — which, by the way, I called out as a big deal as soon as it was announced [19] (I’m very proud of my coverage of advertising generally, and know it has big impacts on companies in that ecosystem). I also started a dedicated interview series about AI pre-ChatGPT, [20] with the sense that everyone was missing what was a big deal. To go back to the original question, though, what I think you’re sensing is my perhaps shifting place on “The Idea Adoption Curve” [21]. If you want to be on the absolute cutting edge, you still have to be on X or in Discords, particularly with AI. That’s where the alpha is, at least in the short-term (I still think things like my enterprise AI piece are extremely relevant for the medium and long term); the larger and more established I have become, the more by default I end up pushed down that curve at bit, just because of the conventional wisdom-defining capability I noted above. That’s very good business to be clear — it’s more profitable to be a table-stakes publication than a secret advantage — but it’s less relevant if you’re looking for an edge, and frankly, a bit less fun. What I think it is is more influential. Another one of your commentators mentioned that my best stuff is on Sharp Tech, and that’s probably true — I’m really proud of what @andrewsharp and I are doing — and there is a temptation to just be a podcaster; it’s easy and I have enough money. Influence, though, still comes from writing, and I think any objective valuation is that that vector is increasing. Is it possible to be more influential and less relevant? Probably so, but that’s probably the inevitable path of any pundit. You can’t stay young forever, you can only embrace where you are, and that’s what I’m trying to do. Oh, one more thing: “emails building up” is definitely a churn driver; that’s why over half of my subscriber base has switched to listening to the Update via podcast. What is interesting is that I do think that has decreased the rate at which my stuff is shared and forwarded; I have less churn but less growth. I’m not sure if the trade-off is worth it, but you did put your finger on one of the tactical questions I think about. PS: Today of all days I'm also very proud of the fact that the only partisan issue I've taken a strong stand on through the years is being pro free speech; [23] there was a lot of pushback on that, including a pretty significant wave of cancellations in the COVID era. I think overall that counts as being prescient though. 1: stratechery.com/2023/ai-and-th… 2: stratechery.com/2024/apple-int… 3: stratechery.com/2024/metas-ai-…' 4: stratechery.com/2022/meta-myth… 5: stratechery.com/2021/nvidias-g… 6: stratechery.com/2022/dall-e-th… 7: stratechery.com/2022/the-ai-un… 8: stratechery.com/2022/instagram… 9: stratechery.com/2023/chatgpt-l… 10: stratechery.com/2024/mkbhds-fo… 11: stratechery.com/2024/enterpris… 12: stratechery.com/2020/chips-and… 13: stratechery.com/2020/chips-and… 14: stratechery.com/2022/chips-and… 15: stratechery.com/2013/the-intel… 16: stratechery.com/2021/intel-pro… 17: stratechery.com/2024/the-e-u-g… 18: stratechery.com/2024/the-2024-… 19: stratechery.com/2020/apple-and… 20: stratechery.com/2022/an-interv… 22: stratechery.com/2020/united-st… 23: stratechery.com/2019/tech-and-… 21: stratechery.com/2020/the-idea-…