0:00
/

Why the money is chasing the microphone - #0107, Omri Hurwitz

Omri Hurwitz returns to discuss why investors are backing podcasts, and what building my own publication has taught me about audiences, independence, and trust.

Building The Spiro Circle has made me think differently about what gives a media business its value. When Omri Hurwitz returned to the show, we discussed a reversal I find fascinating: how institutions that once dismissed podcasting are now investing heavily in it.

Major media companies and investors are buying themselves into the studio. Traditional outlets are embracing the format on their own shows, trying to compete for the eyes of millions who tune in each week to hear their favorite podcaster.

I asked him what this trend tells us, and why a form of media that was disregarded is suddenly worth real money.

His answer was a chain of three links, and I haven’t heard it put more simply. “It’s eyeballs, podcasts, brand capital, [then] institutional capital.” If Alex Cooper’s podcast is bigger than a CNN segment, then brands would want to advertise on Alex Cooper’s podcast. And once the brands are there, “then institutionals would want to buy equity or something inside that podcast,” he explained.

In his view, it’s audience first, then advertisers, then owners. And if that’s the order, it means the audience isn’t a byproduct of the deal. It’s the asset.

One major deal of this kind was Spotify’s reported $200 million licensing deal for The Joe Rogan Experience, renewed in 2024 and again in 2026, each at an estimated $250 million. In April, OpenAI acquired the daily tech show TBPN, which will report to its chief global affairs officer. Meanwhile in Europe, ETN, a TBPN-style daily show, raised a $1.6 million seed round and moved to a five-day-a-week schedule.

Companies, brands, and investors are following the same logic: find the room where people already show up, then buy in.

The audience is the asset

What caught my attention more than the valuations was what he said about creators. “They can monetize with brands. They can monetize with institutions. They can monetize directly to subscribers.” Three doors, and you can walk through any of them, or all three. It certainly gave me some good ideas as I continue to grow my show, The Spiro Circle, beyond an essay newsletter into a podcast and conference publication.

And it made me consider the type of audience I’m cultivating: Techies interested in Israel, cyber, or geopolitics. Omri suggested that if you want to live on subscribers, you need to go broad; if an audience is niche, subscribers may not pay the bills, but institutions may agree to fund the venture.

You don’t need a million people. You need the right few who care about the thing you cover.

I’m biased here, because it’s why I did what I did. After five years at a traditional newsroom, I wanted room to explore a broader range of stories and develop my own editorial voice. Building The Spiro Circle has given me that opportunity, alongside the reporting I continue to do for other publications. Many journalists are following the same route.

Omri’s enthusiasm for the possibilities facing independent creators resonated with me. “You have so many options today to be a creator,” he said, and I think he’s right.

Investment brings responsibility

But here’s where I want to be careful, and where I pushed back against Omri’s argument a bit. More doors means more people who can pay you, so long as your audience is aware of who is covering the cost. I am quick to disclose if my show is produced with the help of collaborators like Forbes, or if there is any perceived conflict of interest among guests, businesses, and myself.

For a lot of the time, subscribers provide the funding - but when that bleeds into brands, sponsorships, or investors, then owners mean someone eventually has an interest in what gets said. For millions of people listening to Joe Rogan before an election, or watching a tech show funded by the makers of ChatGPT, it can become difficult to identify the difference between journalism, PR, and marketing.

Share The Spiro Circle

My view is that audiences should be able to distinguish independent reporting, sponsored work, and commercial partnerships. Relevant payments and ownership interests should be visible, and the boundaries around editorial control should be clear. A disclosure gives readers information they need; the work itself must still earn their trust.

Omri predicts that media ownership will become a decisive advantage for PR firms. He has built his own business around that model, which gives him both experience of it and a financial stake in its success.

For me, the opportunity comes with a responsibility. I want to build a publication that people value enough to support, and that partners see a reason to back. Its credibility will depend on clear disclosures, editorial independence, and a willingness to correct mistakes.

The audience may be what attracts the investment. Its trust is what I need to keep earning.

[PREVIEW: Why legacy media wants a seat in the podcast studio]

Discussion about this video

User's avatar

Ready for more?