The Future of Media is at War: Macroculture vs. Microculture
Power dynamics and creator success stories are factors of the so-called "war" taking place as we shift from an era of traditional media to new media.
When you're ready to relax, do you reach for the remote to catch up on your favorite Netflix series, or do you opt for your laptop to watch the latest upload from your favorite YouTuber?
While answers may vary, it seems the latter choice is becoming increasingly popular. In fact, 62 percent of internet users in the United States access YouTube daily, and there are 2.7 billion monthly active YouTube users worldwide.
What does this signify? We are shifting from a world of macroculture to an era of microculture.
NOTE: This piece is inspired by Ted Gioia’s article “In 2024, the Tension Between Macroculture and Microculture Will Turn into War,” published in his newsletter, “The Honest Broker.” In this three-part article, we will break down the fall of macroculture, the rise of microculture and highlight creator success stories. Throughout the piece, we will touch on points Gioia brought to light, so be sure to check out his article!
Part One: The Fall of Macroculture
First, let’s break this concept down. The broad definition of macroculture is when a society shares the same norms, beliefs and values. Picture legacy media, or the traditional media landscape comprising print, film, music, television and radio - that's your classic macroculture playground. But how does this relate to our shared norms?
Well, before the era of YouTube and influencers, large companies were in full control of these forms of legacy media to provide consumers with TV shows, news articles and radio broadcasts. With scheduled programming and a limited array of options, everyone was essentially on the same cultural wavelength, tuning into the same shows and singing along to the same tunes. In theory, macroculture can be described as a monoculture.
“The same monoculture controlled every other creative idiom. Six major studios dominated the film business. And just as Hollywood controlled movies, New York set the rules in publishing. Everything from Broadway musicals to comic books was similarly concentrated and centralized,” Ted Gioia stated in his newsletter, “The Honest Broker.”
Now, let's fast forward to the dawn of microculture, which means having your own norms that deviate from the mainstream. In terms of media, microculture manifests through content creators who produce their own videos, music or art, and distribute it across alternative platforms.
While this doesn’t sound like a problem, it has stirred quite a buzz in the media landscape, sparking what some might dub a "war" between the two cultures.
Reflecting on my own childhood, I remember eagerly waiting to tune in to shows like “Wizards of Waverly Place” and “The Suite Life of Zack and Cody” when they aired on cable. Then the next day at school, my friends and I would discuss every detail. Fast forward to today, and I can’t tell you what shows my friends are currently watching. However, I could easily list some names of YouTubers and influencers they follow. Does this shift pose a threat to major streaming services? It’s a possibility.
Part Two: The Rise of Microculture
The rise of microculture doesn’t directly reflect the growth of platforms as a whole, such as YouTube, but rather the growth of creators on those platforms. Let’s take a look at an example from “The Honest Broker,” who shared the following graph in a recent article comparing YouTube ads to Netflix Revenue.
No, macroculture has not “fallen” yet, but it's becoming increasingly evident that microculture creators are on the rise and poised to surpass large companies. Moreover, the recent wave of layoffs in legacy media, coupled with protests in Hollywood, paint a clear picture of decline as companies struggle financially to stay afloat.
What legacy media companies may have overlooked is that these layoffs could fuel competition. By letting go creative talents who contribute to storytelling, music and film, they are only encouraging them to take their talent to alternative platforms. Don’t be surprised when they become microculture creators, filming their own videos for YouTube or writing their own blogs on Substack.
It’s no secret that the fall of macroculture and the rise of microculture are intertwined, but looking deeper into the matter, macroculture may be falling because of its failure to recognize and learn from the more modern approaches of microculture.
As pointed out by Gioia in “The Honest Broker,” legacy media companies often recruit talent from within their own ranks, or perhaps from similar legacy media outlets. While it’s understandable they want talent with experience and a prestigious professional background, there's a missed opportunity to learn from individuals who have mastered microculture. These are the individuals who understand how to cultivate and engage audiences in the realm of new media.
Think about it, where would these companies stand without creators?
YouTube and Facebook are prime examples. If these platforms didn’t have creators, who would be posting all of the photo and video content? Who would attract audiences to their platforms?
Macroculture thrives off of microculture. The only concern is how long it will take until the creators are favored. Hence, the “war” between traditional and new media.
The power dynamics between large companies that own platforms that foster microculture and the creators themselves are crucial to acknowledge. While these companies want creators to succeed enough to keep their platforms running, they have complete control over what content catches the algorithm, directly impacting performance metrics and, consequently, monetization opportunities for creators.
“Mark Zuckerberg needs creators, but won’t even let them put a live link on Instagram and limits their visibility on Facebook and Threads. Alphabet needs creators to keep YouTube thriving, but gives better search engine visibility to total garbage that pays for placement. Twitter also claims it wants to support independent journalists—but if you’re truly independent from Elon Musk, your links are brutally punished by the algorithm,” Gioia stated in “The Honest Broker”.
Microculture creators continue to thrive despite these obstacles, with some noteworthy examples, including MrBeast, PewDiePie and Emma Chamberlain.
Part Three: Creator Success Stories
Note that for these examples, we have selected creators with organic growth on platforms without athletic or acting experience, or other factors that would affect growth rates.
Sweeping the charts on both the highest paid influencers list and the Richest YouTubers list is Jimmy Donaldson, more famously known as MrBeast.
MrBeast has created a $54 million empire through entertaining YouTube videos, such as performing challenges or stunts, and his philanthropic efforts, giving away large sums of money. By doing this, he has accumulated 239 million subscribers on YouTube and 50 million followers on Instagram. While MrBeast’s predicted net worth is more than $100 million, his predicted salary is $3-5 million per month.
In fact, MrBeast was able to grow 100 million subscribers in less than a year, which is more subscribers than cable networks have accumulated in decades. According to Tech Report, cable TV subscribers dropped to 72 million in 2023, down more than 20 million since 2016. MrBeast’s success story surely defies odds, but shows that other creators can follow in his path over time.
PewDiePie, or Felix Arvid Ulf Kjellberg, is another successful creator with 111 million subscribers on YouTube and 21 million followers on Instagram. Known for his comedic videos and video game commentary, he is another great example of how showing personality and creating engaging content can help creators grow organically.
PewDiePie creates, edits and uploads his own videos, which he posts daily. He isn’t a writer, musician or artist, but he is fun, consistent and thinks out-of-the-box, which has helped him create a successful platform.
Emma Chamberlain is a more subtle example, but has turned her content into extreme fame nonetheless. Chamberlain began making YouTube videos about her life in high school, simply expressing her personality without challenges, games or stunts, and has grown to 12 million subscribers on YouTube and 15 million followers on Instagram. She is further proof that you don’t need a special talent or background to dominate the microculture. She has used her fame to host the annual Met Gala, collaborate with large fashion houses, such as Louis Vuitton, and create her own businesses, Chamberlain Coffee and the “Anything Goes” podcast.
When asked about the next generation of content creators by Fast Company, Emma Chamberlain responded, “What’s really exciting is there are truly no rules when you’re your own director, producer, editor, or even photographer… When you make things that you’re excited about, it might not be this explosive viral growth that we all dream of, but it’s how you build something that means something, that’s real and that has longevity. So valuing yourself as a human being who is creative just by being—don’t discount that and push that away to try to go viral.”
As we all know, going viral and hitting the algorithm is controlled by companies of macroculture, so don’t let that deter you from trying to build your own voice and platform.
With one last note, I would like to share a more relatable creator success story. As of February 2023, the highest earning email newsletter on Substack was “Letters from an American” with a predicted $5 million in earnings from subscriber revenue. This newsletter now has 1.3 million subscribers, and it is an example of how an ordinary person can create a successful Substack or platform for themself.
In my opinion, macroculture is still significant, but there's no denying the rapid advancement of microculture and the potential for success among creators within it. As shown in younger generations, there's a growing inclination toward microculture and consuming more personal, authentic content that fosters a sense of community.
Best,
Ariana for the Don’t Count Us Out Yet Team
The contrast between Macro and Micro is interesting in the ways you describe but I fear that Micro is hopeless tethered to the mass-market phenomenon. Does it take a million subscribers to thrive? What is the range of from hobby content creators to the stars? Where is the median? I ask because I have no idea and because I think that information and digital products cannot become the serious small business opportunity that it could and should be, one should be able to have X-thousand followers in the Lehigh Valley to become a local influencer. Otherwise, the Microculture becomes another mosh pit in the WWW's winner-take-all reward system