This week, Accenture Song acquired the creative agency Whalar for more than half a billion dollars—more than Publicis had paid for Influential two years ago. Two days later, CAA and TPG announced a $250 million fund dedicated to acquiring stakes in designer companies. In the space of a week, private equity has put a price tag on an asset that fashion houses already possessed in the nineteenth century, only to lose it without even realizing it.
What Vine Taught a Generation
In 2015, when Twitter shut down Vine, about 70% of the creators who depended on it saw their work come to a halt overnight. The figure comes from a professional who was working at Twitter at the time and closely monitored these accounts: she describes a shockwave that continues to shape the way the industry thinks about dependence on platforms. Eleven years later, this risk has become the top criterion for buyers. A consulting firm specializing in the sale of creator-owned businesses, she says, receives calls every week from creators who would like to buy back a suspended YouTube channel—some of which, she notes, never come back, even when offered $1 million in exchange.
No fashion house has ever needed an algorithm to know who its clientele was. The master tailor’s address book, the guestbook at the private mansion, the handwritten list of guests invited to a private fitting: a form of ownership over the relationship that owed nothing to a third party. This ownership has eroded over the past decade, as fashion houses have entrusted their communication with their clientele to platforms they do not own—platforms over which they have no control regarding algorithms, terms of access, or long-term viability.
A lesson from a world we thought had no memory
Paradoxically, it is the creative ecosystem—long perceived as the antithesis of wealth management discretion—that today voices the sharpest criticism of this delegation. A manager of creator partnerships at a major communications consulting firm reports that a recent internal study found that 70% of people trust only those they perceive as sharing their values or lifestyle—a figure that, in her view, explains why brands are gradually shifting away from mass outreach toward tight-knit communities, sometimes built around simple WhatsApp groups with just a few hundred members.
In the publishing industry, the trend is just as clear. At a journalism conference attended by editorial directors from major American publishing houses, several indicated that they are now looking for authors with a paid newsletter rather than a large social media following—the latter, they say, no longer translates into commercial or editorial value.
Details. On Substack, the threshold for classifying a project as a sustainable commercial success is 100 paying subscribers—not 100,000. At this level, it is retention—not acquisition—that drives value: a complete reversal of the advertising paradigm that has been built over the past fifteen years on reach rather than loyalty.
Range doesn’t lie, but it’s no longer enough
It would be inaccurate to pit reach against ownership. Platforms provide a level of visibility that no address book—no matter how extensive—can match, and this visibility remains the prerequisite for anyone who is not yet part of the community. The point is not that we should give up on reach, but that it is no longer enough to guarantee marketable value: in the film industry, two movies directed by YouTube creators surpassed the box office earnings of a Star Wars release in the same week this spring—one produced for $750,000, which has now grossed over $200 million worldwide. What made this shift possible was not the size of the audience, but the fact that the creators in question held full ownership, including the rights, and could therefore negotiate on equal footing with studios accustomed to investing $200 million in the hope—with no guarantee—that an audience would show up.
This is precisely what the luxury sector has long possessed without needing to articulate it: a clientele that doesn’t need to be won over, because it already belongs to the brand. The question raised by the financial week that has just passed is not whether this asset has value—CAA and TPG have just answered that with $250 million. The question is which—luxury or private equity—will be the first to take stock of it.
Cette publication est également disponible en :
