Threads now lets creators add up to 5 links to profiles, track clicks
Instagram Threads is taking on Linktree and other 'link-in-bio' solutions by introducing a way for creators to use their Threads profile to share links to their other interests and online presences. At launch, the feature will support adding up to five links to a bio, which can connect visitors to the creator's blog, newsletter, website, or other social profiles, for example. In addition, creators will be able to access new tools to see how well those links perform.
The Meta-owned social app, which now has over 350 million monthly active users, is positioning the feature as an alternative to its competitor X.
However, Threads' ability to point users to a host of other social and web profiles from links easily accessed from within a creator's bio is something that could eat into the business of services like Linktree, Beacons, Linkin.bio, Koji, and others that offer tools that allow creators to build a landing page for multiple links. These services initially emerged because social media apps only offered one place to add a URL to a bio, and creators needed a way to direct their fans to everything else they published online, including their posts on other social networks as well as their own websites or storefronts.
With the update, Threads will provide creators with insights that allow them to see how many people have visited the links in their profile as well as any links shared in their posts.
The company explained that the idea is to make Threads a place where creators can grow their reach, even if that means helping creators promote a presence that's outside Meta's app.
In addition, Meta says it will soon launch a weekly recap feature for Insights that offers a summarized snapshot of the past week, including a week-over-week comparison of the number of posts they've shared, total views, new follower counts, and replies on their posts. These recaps will also include other personalized tips to help creators learn how to better engage their community.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Business Insider
43 minutes ago
- Business Insider
Emily Sundberg got laid off at Meta. Now her Feed Me is a thriving one-person media business.
There are lots of Emily Sundbergs in New York City — striving young people who show up intent on making a name for themselves in media, finance, or fashion. But there's only one actual Emily Sundberg, who has turned that ethos into a one-person media company: Her Feed Me newsletter has become an increasingly popular read for people who want to know what people with money and ambition are spending their money on — and who also want to know about the businesses that cater to those people. Sundberg started her Substack when she had a full-time job in business marketing at Meta — which she described as "basically being, 'You're a small business in Miami. You should use Instagram ads.'" Then she lost her gig during a 2022 layoff round, and eventually turned Feed Me into her full-time thing. Now she's doing well enough that she says she can easily shrug off offers from investors. Earlier this year, The New York Times pegged her subscription revenue at least $400,000 a year, and it's likely well above that now; she also says ads — which she sells herself — contribute about a third of her revenue. I talked to Sundberg in a recent edition of my Channels podcast about her origin story, her ambitions to launch new stuff, and the balance between being the face of her company and keeping parts of her life private. The following is an edited excerpt of our conversation: Peter Kafka: When you started FeedMe, you were also consulting and working on other projects. Were you thinking that the newsletter would just be one of those projects, or were you always hoping to turn it into a full-time business? Emily Sundberg: The data I was receiving from Substack was so positive. The growth was crazier than anything I'd ever worked on before. And I was also green-lighting all of my ideas — and other places that I was working for weren't green-lighting my ideas. It was a lesson in trusting myself, and my gut and intuition, and making something in a white space that didn't exist. So I was like: "OK, I'm onto something. I'm trusting myself. I'm gonna lean into this." How did you think about making yourself the face/brand/main character of your work? At the beginning of my newsletter, I did have a selfie on it every day. I'm not sure if selfies were popular on LinkedIn at the time, so I do think that I got an initial bump in traffic. Because people were like, "She's talking about the credit restructuring of Rent the Runway, and she's a young woman, and there's anime hearts around this selfie of her. What is going on?" I think that helped at the beginning. And then, a year ago, I did a proper branding of the letter. The selfies went away. I had too many weird interactions in the city. That can be a double-edged sword, right? You've attained some sort of status/celebrity notoriety. On the other hand, you have creeps coming up in the street. I'm really happy that I stopped doing the photos. But it's funny — as I'm doing the ad sales now, I'm noticing business brands are like "Are we treating you like a New York Magazine, or are we treating you like an influencer? Are we doing a photo shoot with you? Or just a big banner ad at the top of your newsletter?" And I've noticed that I'm not as comfortable smiling for a photo shoot. I don't want to do that. I don't want to show people my house or my closet or my life like that. Why not? A very wise person in this industry, who's quite public, once told me: "Once you turn certain levers on, you can't turn them back off." That doesn't mean you never turn them on — but you should be strategic about when you do. And I don't need to right now. Everything's working. I don't need to give more of my personal life. But I've never met you before, and I know a bit about you, because there are profiles and stories about you. I know where you got married. It seems like you've kind of dialed in exactly how much of yourself you want to show and not show. Are you doing those calculations all the time? Like: This can go up on Instagram, but this one is too personal. Or: I don't want you to know where I live. I mean, everybody knows I live in [Brooklyn's] South Slope because I say that a lot, and I have a favorite bar. But this is an interesting story: I did write about my wedding on my newsletter, which is probably the most personal thing I ever wrote on there. And it was the highest conversion from free to paid readers I'd ever seen. Ever. The wedding was almost paid for after that. It was crazy. This is a one-person operation. There's a lot of advantage to that: Every dollar you make, you get to keep. The flip side is: How do you scale that? Do you want to scale that? The scaling thing is top of mind. Also, I don't know if a newsroom is supposed to be one person. Sometimes I wish I had somebody to bounce these ideas off of more during the day, or even a legal team or an editor. I feel like the newsletter's in a good place. I would like to play around with audio. I've made a movie before, I've made a podcast before. I had a podcast about poker over COVID with my ex and his friend. It's pretty easy to make. Don't tell anyone! I understand how to do it. I understand how to edit video, I understand how to edit audio. So I think I'd like to play around with making a podcast this year. I'm interested in not being the face of that. I would like to produce a podcast with a host [that isn't] me. You don't want to be the face of that because of time, or because you don't want everything that comes out of Feed Me to be Emily Sundberg? The latter. I also don't think that's the best idea that I could put together: Me saying, "OK, you just read my newsletter and now we're gonna talk about it." Because the counter would be: You are the product. People want to hear from you, they want to see you, you are the thing. They don't want ancillary Emily stuff. They want Emily. Which I think is totally fair, but I actually think that I'm a better producer than a host. We'll see. Do you think that a year from now, this is still a one-person company? Or at some point, are you going to have to start hiring people full time? Substack does a lot, I will say. Things that I would normally be hiring for. Their team is super-helpful to me and the other top newsletters on that platform. Maybe a chief of staff/on-the-ground assistant kind of person could be helpful. But I like to keep my overhead low. It feels very doable right now. I'm sure people are always trying to invest in you, and telling you their capital and resources can help you grow. Not interested. There's a recurring conversation about Substacks and all these one-person companies, and whether it would make sense to bundle them. Are you interested in being part of a Substack bundle? Why? I don't need it. But I would be interested if there are writers on Substack and they were interested in being part of the Feed Me universe. I've talked about this with a few writers on Substack, so we'll see how that shakes out.
Forbes
an hour ago
- Forbes
Turnover Contagion: Why One Exit Becomes A Stampede
A campaigner from the Stop Trump Coalition, wearing a Mark Zuckerberg mask poses during a creative ... More action to demand higher taxation of Big Tech companies, including Meta, X and Amazon, outside Meta Offices in London, Tuesday, May 13, 2025. (AP Photo/Kirsty Wigglesworth) In a recent podcast, Sam Altman noted that despite Meta offering 100 million dollar signing bonuses to poach OpenAI's top talent, so far none of their best employees had left the organization. However, in the last two weeks, eight expert researchers have been recruited to Mark Zuckerberg's superintelligence unit at Meta. The poaching of talent not only risks the obvious brain drain associated with the loss of resources, it also risks signalling social cues and triggering biases that shape human behaviour. As perceptions become influenced by the salience of turnover, suddenly one new hire becomes three, and then three becomes FOMO on fire. What's unfolding isn't just about the broader employee headcount. Like the four-minute mile, when events disrupt the status quo, observers get an opportunity to replace what they are comfortable with what could be possible. This phenomenon stretches beyond the workplace and into our most intimate lives. Research shows that when one employee leaves a company, the people around them are significantly more likely to follow. But the same is true when one friend gets divorced. In both cases, we see the same underlying phenomenon: social contagion. Whether it's leaving a job or a marriage, quitting is rarely just about you. The Hidden Science Behind Turnover Contagion According to March and Simon's theory from Organizations, a book considered one of the most seminal publications in business and management and voted the seventh most influential management book of the 20th century, there are two factors that predict turnover: 1) how desirable it would be to leave the organization, which includes how satisfied they are with their job, and how committed they are to the firm; and 2) how difficult it would be to leave, or in practical terms, what the availability and quality of alternative employment looks like. Because humans are social animals, we look to others to make sense of our experience and in short, this means that turnover is contagious. Decades of organizational psychology research support the notion that employee turnover has a spillover effect such that turnover begets turnover. An HR Analytics firm recently found that when a team member voluntarily quits, studies show the remaining employees are 7% to 14% more likely to leave themselves. In smaller, tighter teams, the risk can double, particularly if the person who leaves is a high performer or a respected peer. In an article published in the Academy of Management, researchers collected data from 45 branches of a regional bank and 1,038 departments of a national hospitality firm to find that job embeddedness and job search behaviours of coworkers can influence 'voluntary turnover' over and above that explained by other individual and group-level factors. Furthermore, meta-analytic evidence suggests that when top performers leave, due to their influence on norms and expectations, their departure has a greater impact on turnover risk than low performers. Psychologists call this tendency to use social cues to guide our decisions 'social proof.' We tend to look to others when making uncertain choices. If someone we respect walks away from their job—and seems happier, richer, or more fulfilled on the other side—it doesn't just open a door, it changes the wallpaper in the room we're standing in because employee exits can also alter the emotional ecosystem. They redistribute workloads, shift social alliances, and often trigger introspection: 'Am I next?' or 'Am I happy here?'. McKinsey found that employees often leave in clusters where they will 'pull' 1 or 2 of their close coworkers with them within 6 months to a year. In a 2012 meta-analysis of over 300 studies on turnover published in the Journal of Management, the authors wrote: "Voluntary turnover spreads in an organization like a social virus. Coworkers' decisions to leave are consistently among the strongest predictors of one's own decision to quit - often stronger than job satisfaction or pay alone'. Divorce, By Association This same logic applies to romance. In 2013, researchers drew on a longitudinal data set from the long-running Framingham Heart Study to show that that divorce can spread between friends and that they extend to two degrees of separation in a network (i.e., your cousin's divorce and your cousin's friend's divorce can influence you). They found that your odds of getting divorced increase by 75% if a close friend gets divorced. Even a friend of a friend divorcing increases your risk by 33%. When someone in our circle decides to break the mold, it creates a psychological permission slip to challenge the status quo, which, based on the notion that 70% of change attempts fail, most people have an affinity for their comfort zone. Yet, when change is modelled by someone we know and love, it feels more possible—and less terrifying. Why This Matters More Than Ever In a post-pandemic world still reorganizing itself, in a race for technological power with AI re-inventing how we work, and in an increasingly precarious geopolitical context, being intentional about social influence and change matters. Social media and hybrid workplaces have made our environments even more porous such that contagion spreads faster—emotionally and professionally. The task for managers and employees alike is to think more carefully about what behaviour may need to be muted or amplified in order to send the optimal social cues out to the organization. On the receiving end, with all the noise around us, it's handy to have a conscious filter ready that helps discern what social signals you will permit to influence you choices. How to Separate The Wolf from The Pack If you're observing others around you change, professionally or personally, it's natural to feel curious. But not every signal needs to be followed. Here's how to stay intentional: Final Word A large body of evidence suggests we don't make big decisions in a vacuum. Whether it's a workplace resignation or a personal unraveling, our networks act like psychological mirrors. When one person finds the courage to change, the rest of us feel the edge of that mirror—and sometimes, we step through. When Zuckerberg picks off OpenAI's best and brightest, he's not just buying intelligence. He's catalyzing exodus by reshaping what it means to stay loyal, what opportunities feel out of reach, and who gets to reinvent themselves. Zuckerberg's poaching spree is just the high-stakes version of a much older human truth: transformation is easier to imagine when someone close has already blazed the trail. Before you run with the herd, take time to reacquaint yourself with your own self-determined will so that you can live and work with more authentic alignment.
Indianapolis Star
an hour ago
- Indianapolis Star
Starbucks fires off new red, white and blue Firework Frappuccino on July 1
Starbucks kicks off its Independence Day celebration on Tuesday, July 1 with a new beverage bearing a patriotic color scheme. The new Firework Frappuccino gets its red, white and blue coloring from a combination of the Starbucks Summer-Berry Refresher with coconut milk, poured over the refresher's raspberry-flavored pearls. The blended beverage is then topped with a swirl of strawberry purée and vanilla sweet cream cold foam. The Firework Frappuccino hits the menu for a limited time – just one week, ending Monday, July 7. Amanda Conaway, a Starbucks product manager who helped in the drink's creation, describes the drink as "a summer vacation in a cup" in a press release. "From the popping pearls to the creamy vanilla sweet cream, it's a vibrant, textured beverage inspired by the sights and sounds of summer." Starbucks: Coffehouse chain names global barista champion after latte art, blind tasting challenges The Firework Frappuccino is one of four new Frappuccino beverages Starbucks had previously announced were coming to its coffee shops in July. The other three drinks – Salted Caramel Mocha Strato Frappuccino, Strawberry Matcha Strato Frappuccino and Brown Sugar Strato Frappuccino – are expected later in the month. These new drink offerings come after Starbucks pulled several Frappuccinos and other drinks from its menu in March. The move to a simpler menu was part of CEO Brian Niccol's "Back to Starbucks" plan to revitalize the Seattle-based coffee chain in the U.S. The coffeehouse chain also as of June 24 said it would begin charging 80 cents for any additional combination of syrup or sauce to an unflavored beverage. However, if you add or substitute sauces or syrups to a preflavored beverage – such as adding vanilla syrup to a mocha – it remains free of charge. Starbucks got a jump on the season, making its summer menu available May 20. New on the menu is the Iced Horchata Oatmilk Shaken Espresso and a Strawberries & Cream Cake Pop. Back for the summer are the Summer-Berry Starbucks Refreshers, which in addition to the Summer-Berry Refresher includes a Summer-Berry Lemonade Refresher and the Summer Skies drink made with coconut milk. Contributing: Gabe Hauari and Bailey Schulz Mike Snider is a reporter on USA TODAY's Trending team. You can follow him on Threads, Bluesky, X and email him at mikegsnider & @ & @mikesnider & msnider@
