Should Regional Tech Media Shoulder the Blame for Southeast Asia’s Startup Bubble?
If you’ve ever marveled at the meteoric rise (and fall) of Southeast Asia’s startup scene, let’s give credit where it’s due: the regional tech media. The same industry that once functioned as a megaphone for every overhyped funding round, every founder’s LinkedIn monologue about “changing the world,” and every VC’s poetic musings about “synergies” and “scalability.” These unsung heroes pumped the ecosystem with the kind of boundless optimism typically found in a motivational poster hanging in a failing startup’s breakroom.
They cheered the unicorns, crushed dissenting voices, and anointed themselves the scribes of the next Silicon Valley. Except, turns out you can’t just manifest a thriving tech ecosystem through sheer press coverage alone. And now that the whole thing resembles a crumbling tower, everyone is scrambling to pretend they saw it coming.
But wait! What’s that sound? Is it the collective gasp of the regional tech media as they frantically rewrite the narrative? “Who, us? We were just reporting the news!” they say, now trying to don the cloak of investigative journalism. Convenient. Let’s explore this pivot from hype machine to watchdog and ask a painfully obvious question: were they complicit in the very mess they now so righteously critique?
From Spotlight to Gaslight: How the Media Curated Reality
The golden age of the Southeast Asian startup scene, where dissenters were treated like party crashers at an exclusive yacht club. If you had the audacity to question the ecosystem’s constant parade of overhyped announcements, you were met with a polite smile and an unspoken “Bless your heart.” The regional tech media drowned skepticism in a sea of giddy headlines like:
“Startup X Raises $50 Million to Revolutionize Something You’ll Forget About in Six Months.”
Coverage was utopian, a love letter to unchecked ambition. Founders could burn through cash and you wouldn’t hear a peep about it. Layoffs? Restructurings? Overstretched unit economics? Not on the media’s watch! If there was a dumpster fire in a startup’s accounting department, you’d be too busy reading puff pieces about their office culture to notice.
But let’s be fair: who could blame the journalists? Startups were throwing champagne-soaked networking events, VCs were whispering sweet (and exclusive) nothings, and press releases practically wrote themselves. Why question the narrative when the perks were so plentiful? Besides, rocking the boat was for skeptics and killjoys, and not for those enjoying free hors d'oeuvres at founder mixers.
In hindsight, it was a masterclass in gaslighting. Critics weren’t just ignored; they were made to feel like outliers, doom-mongers ruining an otherwise perfect success story. Now, as the house of cards topples, the media’s past reluctance to question the ecosystem looks less like oversight and more like complicity. But who can resist the allure of unicorn cupcakes and champagne? It’s hard to type out hard-hitting critiques with one hand on a mimosa.
Vanity Metrics and Other Lies We Told Ourselves
For years, the Southeast Asian tech media worshipped at the altar of vanity metrics with a devotion that would make cult leaders blush. Funding raised? Divine. User growth? Sacred. Expansion announcements? Pure gospel. The coverage was so enthusiastic you’d think every press release came with a confetti cannon.
It didn’t matter that these numbers were shallow. No one stopped to ask if the shiny metrics had any substance behind them. The headlines read “Startup Y Hits $1 Billion Valuation!” but conveniently left out the small print: “…because investors decided to play Monopoly with real money, not because the business made sense.” Customer acquisition costs could be skyrocketing, churn rates could be through the roof, but hey, the Series D was fully subscribed. What’s not to love?
Profitability, retention rates, and other unsexy but meaningful metrics just weren’t headline material. Who wants to read about a startup’s slow, steady grind toward sustainability when they could salivate over the latest unicorn with a valuation shinier than its business model?
The media wasn’t just complicit; it was an eager participant in the hype loop. Startups cranked out bombastic figures, media outlets amplified them, and everyone basked in the glow of mutual adoration. It was the perfect circle until the bubble burst and those glorified numbers turned out to be unreliable.
Meanwhile, the startups that dared to focus on fundamentals like customer retention, sensible growth, and actual success, were ignored. But who could blame the media? Vanity metrics were the candy of the ecosystem. Why serve broccoli when the audience was demanding chocolate fountains?
The “In-Crowd” Problem: Bias, Bias Everywhere
The startup “club” was a glitzy, exclusive clique where the admission price was connections, charisma, and the ability to sprinkle words like “synergy” and “scale” into every pitch. If you weren’t part of this ecosystem’s elite, your chances of media attention were about as slim as a solo entrepreneur bootstrapping a rocket company.
The media’s favorites were clear:
High-profile founders with a knack for self-promotion,
VCs with deep pockets and even deeper Rolodexes,
Startups in fashionable sectors like fintech or superapps.
Building a quiet but solid B2B supply chain solution in Vietnam? Sorry, no one wants to hear about your unsexy but functional product. But launch an AI-driven, blockchain-powered coffee subscription service? Front page, baby!
This fixation on the “cool kids” created a deeply distorted narrative. The media wasn’t reporting on the ecosystem; it was curating a highlight reel. Success wasn’t measured by actual impact but by who could throw the splashiest launch party or raise the most eye-popping funding round. Meanwhile, the real builders that focused on sustainability, innovation, and profit, were left to toil in obscurity.
Was the bias intentional? Probably not. It was more likely a case of the media wanting to showcase Southeast Asia as a glamorous contender in the global tech scene, a shiny new Silicon Valley East. And what better way to do that than by spotlighting the loudest voices and flashiest ventures? Substance took a back seat to style, and the cracks forming beneath the surface were conveniently ignored.
Now, as those cracks widen into chasms, the media’s past favoritism looks less like harmless enthusiasm and more like willful negligence. There’s a certain irony in watching the same media outlets scramble to cover the “forgotten” startups they once ignored. Better late than never, right?
The Inevitable Pivot: From Cheerleaders to Critics
The same regional tech media that once covered Southeast Asia’s startup scene with the enthusiasm of a child unwrapping presents on Christmas morning is now in full investigative mode.
Layoffs? They’re dissected with the precision of a forensic autopsy.
Unicorns? No longer mystical creatures to be revered, but overfed horses being led to slaughter.
Pesky critics, once brushed off as the tech ecosystem’s equivalent of conspiracy theorists? They’re now the stars of every op-ed and podcast.
This newfound journalistic integrity didn’t emerge from a collective moral awakening; it came from the audience flipping the script. Years of blind optimism and saccharine cheerleading left readers bloated and queasy, and they began craving something with bite. Cynicism is the new clickbait, and the media was all too happy to oblige. Nothing sells better than schadenfreude served with a side of “we told you so.”
Of course, the irony here is rich. These same outlets, once complicit in fanning the flames of hype, now position themselves as watchdogs of truth. It’s like the firefighter who shows up to a blaze with a hose in one hand and a lighter in the other, cheerfully announcing they’re here to save the day.
What’s more, this pivot is suspiciously well-timed. As the funding frenzy cools and startup drama becomes harder to ignore, the media conveniently swaps its pom-poms for magnifying glasses. It’s less of a moral reckoning and more of a savvy business move because if the ecosystem’s going down, they’re determined to be the ones narrating the fall. The house of cards may crumble, but someone’s got to sell tickets to the spectacle.
Should we hold the regional tech media accountable for the mess in Southeast Asia’s startup scene? Well, absolutely. Someone has to join the lineup of culpable characters, and the media fits the bill perfectly. While they weren’t the only players tossing confetti into the hype machine, their relentless cheerleading, blind eye to dissent, and obsession with vanity metrics helped paint a picture of success that was more fiction than fact. They weren’t just bystanders; they were the narrators of a fantasy epic with a less-than-happy ending.
But let’s not grab our torches and pitchforks just yet. This isn’t just about doling out blame; it’s about learning something from the fallout. The media wields enormous power in shaping perceptions, and with great power comes great responsibility (or, at least, the need to occasionally fact-check a press release). Going forward, let’s demand better. Let’s ask for reporting that rewards startups building meaningful, sustainable businesses, not just those with the loudest IPO announcements.
As for the media? Congrats on your shiny new realist hat. It’s a much better look. Just don’t break your arms patting yourselves on the back. You’re the ones who built the house of cards in the first place. Now, enjoy cleaning up the mess.