Behold! We believe that many of the subscription substackers will find a solution in conglomeration. One interesting author for $5/month is a careful consideration, especially given the vast number of interesting authors on Substack. $10/month for a combination of 4 - 8 interesting authors is an easier buy, and we would expect it would significantly increase the number of subscribers, representing significant increase in revenue for all of the authors in the conglomerate.
Substack would be wise to pursue functionality to make such a conglomeration easier.
Reminder, for comparison: a digital subscription to the NYT can be had for ~$4.30/month
Excellent examination of the media state we’re in, Nick.
I’ve no idea how we manage it going forward, other than by resisting subscription for anything inessential. And for me, most, but not all, online media content, is, essentially, non-essential.
Of course, if I want to make a living out of my scribbling, which I do, but am not delusional about, then managing (monetisation) of that will be very hard, if not impossible.
I don’t pay, for the time being, at any rate, for any subscriptions here; I’m new to the site, and I want to to look around and see how it works, and find whether I would read enough stuff on here to justify payment for it. But that could, and probably will, change in the future. For I, too, have gotten very comfortable with the idea, and previously, the reality, of the free internet. And changing that habit will be painful.
But for me, the acid test always comes down to the quality: if it’s good enough to consume, and provides a nourishment and satisfaction of sorts, then it’s worth the price of payment.
Which, given the ‘free’ internet is awash with absolute dross, and, actually, toxic crap at that, is pretty hard to discern what’s worth paying for and what’s not. But, I suppose, capitalism was ever thus, no?
I've read both of your articles on this topic. Every monetization strategy is probably a reasonable one to leverage at some point on this journey for all aspiring content...what do we call ourselves now? Anyway, it's just a matter of which one is the most effective for encouraging growth and attention in the present stage of the evolution of digital media.
I'm not immune to the subscription creep, and I'm probably around the $200 mark myself. It's terrifying to think that this "frog in the pot" effect is slowly getting us towards being <medium> rare.
Behold! We believe that many of the subscription substackers will find a solution in conglomeration. One interesting author for $5/month is a careful consideration, especially given the vast number of interesting authors on Substack. $10/month for a combination of 4 - 8 interesting authors is an easier buy, and we would expect it would significantly increase the number of subscribers, representing significant increase in revenue for all of the authors in the conglomerate.
Substack would be wise to pursue functionality to make such a conglomeration easier.
Reminder, for comparison: a digital subscription to the NYT can be had for ~$4.30/month
Agree, +1 for pooled media. Some smart new media outfits are doing that already based on Substack - like manchestermill.co.uk
oh, god
Excellent examination of the media state we’re in, Nick.
I’ve no idea how we manage it going forward, other than by resisting subscription for anything inessential. And for me, most, but not all, online media content, is, essentially, non-essential.
Of course, if I want to make a living out of my scribbling, which I do, but am not delusional about, then managing (monetisation) of that will be very hard, if not impossible.
I don’t pay, for the time being, at any rate, for any subscriptions here; I’m new to the site, and I want to to look around and see how it works, and find whether I would read enough stuff on here to justify payment for it. But that could, and probably will, change in the future. For I, too, have gotten very comfortable with the idea, and previously, the reality, of the free internet. And changing that habit will be painful.
But for me, the acid test always comes down to the quality: if it’s good enough to consume, and provides a nourishment and satisfaction of sorts, then it’s worth the price of payment.
Which, given the ‘free’ internet is awash with absolute dross, and, actually, toxic crap at that, is pretty hard to discern what’s worth paying for and what’s not. But, I suppose, capitalism was ever thus, no?
I've read both of your articles on this topic. Every monetization strategy is probably a reasonable one to leverage at some point on this journey for all aspiring content...what do we call ourselves now? Anyway, it's just a matter of which one is the most effective for encouraging growth and attention in the present stage of the evolution of digital media.
I'm not immune to the subscription creep, and I'm probably around the $200 mark myself. It's terrifying to think that this "frog in the pot" effect is slowly getting us towards being <medium> rare.
Very good insight 😌. Can i translate part of this article into Spanish with links to you and a description of your newsletter?