I keep hearing people say that media is “the next big thing” in venture capital.
Even though I run a media company focused entirely on venture capital … I’m skeptical.
You see, the idea that VCs can use content to build an edge isn’t new.
- Fred Wilson was blogging at AVC in the mid-2000s.
- Brad Feld was demystifying term sheets and startup boards
- And Mark Suster built a massive following at Both Sides of the Table
This is the content I grew up on.
So when I hear media is “the next big thing” in VC, my first reaction is: we’ve been here before.
But I’ll admit something has changed.
The early blogging VCs were running solo operations and publishing across a couple of channels. Now VCs and their firms are building legitimate media companies that publish daily, across multiple channels and formats. And the frequency and channel breadth are supercharged by AI-powered software.
Where is the opportunity in VC media today?
Pursuing a large, generalized audience is not a winning recipe in 2026. It’s about building a right-sized audience that’s meaningful within whatever sector or type of founder you’re trying to invest in.
For example:
Jason Lemkin built SaaStr into the definitive content and community destination for B2B SaaS founders and funders, which then led to the SaaStr Fund.
Sophie Purdom launched Planeteer Capital, leveraging the media property she had built as the catalyst.
And I partnered up with a leading creator to launch an investment syndicate focused on creator economy companies.
But what about 20VC, which is arguably a firm built atop a large, generalized startup and VC audience? Harry poured ~5 years of relentless work into the media *before* the 20VC Fund emerged. And now he has the scale, funding, and tools to 10X what he’s already built.
That’s why in 2026 and beyond, you’re going to have a better shot at this whole media-with-VC-fund thing if you aim to be the “20VC of X,” instead of the next 20VC.
Honest Self-Assessment
People have told me for years that we should start a fund. And on the surface, it makes sense. We have reach. We have relationships. A lot of founders and VCs and LPs follow our work. Folks seem to like us.
But here’s the issue. Could I win allocation over Jason Lemkin in a SaaS deal? Over Sophie Purdom in climate tech?
I don’t think so.
Because reach != right to win. Distribution isn’t differentiation. And “founders will pick us because they like our content” isn’t an investment thesis.
No, we’re not starting a venture fund.
We’re doing something related … but different.
We’ll be making a major announcement about it soon.
