Threads had a rough start. The hype-to-disappointment arc was almost comically predictable—record-breaking signups followed by a mass exodus when people realized the app wasn’t quite ready.

But something’s changed. Over the past few months, I’ve noticed Threads becoming genuinely useful, especially for news and media content. The daily active user numbers have stabilized. The algorithm has improved. And crucially, Meta has started actively courting publishers.

If you wrote Threads off as another Twitter-killer that failed to kill Twitter, it might be worth a second look. Here’s what I’ve learned from media companies who are making it work.

The Current State of Threads

Let’s establish baseline reality. Threads has somewhere between 150-200 million monthly active users, depending on whose numbers you believe. That’s smaller than Twitter/X (around 350-400 million) but growing, while X appears to be declining in most markets.

More importantly for publishers, engagement rates on Threads tend to be higher than comparable X content. This might be survivorship bias—the people still active on Threads are more engaged by definition—but the practical effect is real. Posts get seen.

The audience skews younger and slightly more female than X. It’s less politically polarized, at least for now. And unlike X, links to external content aren’t systematically suppressed.

These characteristics make Threads attractive for publishers who found X increasingly hostile to their content.

What’s Working for Media Companies

After talking to social editors at a half-dozen Australian and international outlets, patterns emerge:

Breaking news performs exceptionally well. The text-first format is perfect for quick news alerts, and the algorithm seems to boost timely content. Publishers who’ve automated posting of breaking news see consistently strong engagement.

Thread (the multi-post format) allows for depth. Unlike X’s increasingly cramped character limits, Threads lets you unfold a story across multiple connected posts. This works well for explainers, analysis, and investigative findings.

Personality matters more than brand. Posts from individual journalists routinely outperform posts from publisher accounts. The ABC’s Threads strategy increasingly features named reporters rather than the institutional brand.

Conversation happens. Unlike some platforms where publisher posts disappear into the void, Threads actually generates back-and-forth dialogue. Readers ask questions, share experiences, push back. This is what social media promised to be before it got ruined by algorithms optimizing for outrage.

What Doesn’t Work

Some approaches I’ve seen misfire:

Pure traffic-driving rarely succeeds. If your only Threads strategy is posting headlines with links, you’ll struggle. The platform rewards content that works natively. Include context, pull quotes, or commentary that makes the post worth reading even if someone doesn’t click through.

Algorithmic optimization is premature. I’ve seen social teams obsess over posting times and engagement tactics as if Threads’ algorithm is well-understood. It isn’t. Meta changes things constantly, and the platform is still evolving. Produce good content consistently; optimize later.

Ignoring the comment section is a mistake. Threads algorithmically boosts posts that generate meaningful replies. Posts where the publisher never responds do worse over time. If you can’t dedicate resources to conversation, consider whether the platform is right for you.

Building a Threads Strategy

Here’s how I’d approach Threads if I were launching a media company’s presence today:

Start with individual voices. Identify three to five journalists or editors whose beats and personalities fit the platform. Give them autonomy to experiment. Personal accounts tend to outperform brand accounts, and this approach reduces risk if Threads falters.

Establish a breaking news workflow. Threads is increasingly where people go for real-time information. Your breaking news should appear there quickly. If you have automation that posts to X, extend it to Threads.

Invest in native content creation. At least some of your Threads content should be created specifically for the platform—not just repurposed headlines. This might mean quick takes from journalists, behind-the-scenes glimpses, or thread-format explainers.

Engage with your community. Reply to comments. Quote-post interesting discussions. Build relationships with active users in your beat area. This is time-intensive but differentiates serious Threads efforts from half-hearted cross-posting.

Track metrics that matter. Follower counts are vanity metrics. Focus on engagement rates, click-throughs (if driving traffic), and qualitative feedback. Are you reaching new audiences? Are conversations valuable?

The X Question

Every conversation about Threads inevitably involves X. Should publishers abandon X for Threads? Stay on both? Double down on X as competitors leave?

My view: maintain presence on both, but shift incremental investment toward Threads.

X still matters. Politicians, journalists, and industry insiders still use it. Breaking news still surfaces there. But the trajectory concerns me—increasing hostility to publishers, declining reach, brand safety issues, and an owner who seems to actively dislike mainstream media.

Threads isn’t a complete X replacement. The audiences don’t perfectly overlap. But it’s the closest thing we have, and Meta’s historical treatment of publishers (imperfect as it’s been) is more predictable than what’s happening at X.

The worst outcome would be total dependence on either platform. Diversification is the strategy.

Looking Ahead

I expect Threads to continue growing, albeit unevenly. Meta has the resources and motivation to make it work. They’ve learned from Instagram that gradual improvement beats flashy launches.

Features I’m watching for: better search functionality (currently weak), more sophisticated creator tools, and clearer monetization paths. Meta has hinted at all of these.

The risk is Meta’s attention span. If Threads remains a strategic priority, it could become genuinely important. If Meta gets distracted by the next shiny object, Threads could stagnate.

For publishers, the advice is the same as always: build audiences you control, treat social platforms as distribution channels rather than destinations, and stay flexible.

Threads is worth your attention. It’s not worth your dependence.