Sorry but $5/month is really a pretty big ask. I'd love to subscribe at $1/month or subscribe to a bundle of substacks that included you but substack needs to allow smaller subscriptions if it wants this ecosystem to really take off.
while I can still type, I will: I heartily agree; it is hard to choose among 50 or more sites at $50 or more a year - - especially since my SS check went DOWN this year. The year so far has not treated me kindly
People in this thread aren't considering the fact that EVERYBODY is using subscriptions and some of us feel nickel and dime'd to death. I know I do and I'm a writer. I also live on a fixed-income, so all of my subscriptions for this & that combined are a steep hill.
There is an option to allow people to pay less for articles. But we writers have to turn it on. I stared at that for a while and decided not to do it. Why? I don't want a bunch of $1 a month subs. $24 a year per person for the hard task of writing about various things. My writing makes me a target of sorts, so I don't want to cheapen my worth.
I understand both sides of the debate here, but I for one don't want a bundle deal. Those are for very wealthy corporations, creating bundles for their own products. Not trying to find like-minded writers to bundle with. Perhaps they're talking about Substack allowing this, not making writers do it. In that case, it would be fine. Take it to the decision-makers of Substack.
You can let people pay less if they pay by the year or whatever but the least you can charge a month is $5 (according to google and my substack interface but I could be missing something). That's likely because of issues with how credit cards work but they could just require you add money to your account in those multiples like apple.
Regarding bundling, I was imagining writers would have to opt in but substack would suggest the bundles. I was imagining you wouldn't even have to think about it just click a button to participate and substack uses it's information about user behavior to suggest package deals to users and then split up the revenue. No affiliation or acknowledgement just a way that users are offered a discount on some packages using the statistical info they have to ensure its increasing not cannibalizing revenue.
That may take some trust at first but the current system just is just too inefficient long term. It means that readers get much less for their payments and authors get less readership and money. Eventually if substack doesn't do it then other outlets will poach the best authors because they can both pay more and offer more views.
I mean nebula -- a large streaming platform with lots of really high production videos including exclusives from big name creators and no ads -- only charges users $5/month just like an individual substack yet one of those subscriptions gives me access to thousands of hours of new quality videos a day and the other a post every couple days. Yes, the later is also valuable but the difference in hours of creator effort I get access to illustrates how much value is lost to everyone by a la carte subscriptions.
This place already caters to certain kinds of writers. I don't like the idea at all. Hell, the world does that, and I like the idea of a semi-even playing field.
Peter, I said what I said. It does no good to argue this point with me. If I don't like it, I don't like it. That should be okay. I'm not explaining much more so you can try to rip it apart, and you're trying to be right when that's not the point, man. Lower your prices then and agree to disagree like a mature adult & take it to Substack like I said in the beginning. Okay? They're the ones to implement YOUR plan if they choose. They're already taking a good percentage of our revenue. In answer to your question, both.
I disagree with $6.00/ mo being a big ask, probably because there are millions of Americans willing to spend $6 a DAY on a cup of coffee. Mainstream Media is becoming extremely unreliable, so we all need to support Chris and other SubStack authors to do the research & trusted work - which we all need to rely on. The ecosystem outside SubStack is looking very untrustworthy and scary to me. Pay if you can & don’t pay if you can’t, seems reasonable to me. In solidarity with SubStacks & Law Dork.
Economically this is a solved problem. It's why cable has channel bundles. You put together a ton of content and then let people buy the bundle and everyone wins because ppl will pay more to get more content so there is a bigger pot for the creators to split [1].
It's just ineffecient and wasteful to have to purchase access individually. It's not just better for consumers it increases creator revenue too.
1: For a small example suppose that 50 people value creator X at $5/month and Y at $2/month and 50 people value Y at $5/month and X at $2/month. Individually X and Y both set their price at $5/month because 5*50=250 is more than 2*100 and they both get 50 subscribers. Now they get together and offer a bundle at $7/month to read both. That's a good deal for all 100 people so X and Y split 700 dollars and get 350 more than the 250 before and everyone is better off.
Peter - Are you comparing Individual Substack Writers to Cable Corporations like Xfinity (ie people vs corporations)?
You talk about $5/ month being a Big Ask & Substack having “some problem” & about “bundling content” so everyone wins. We win - already, since so much Content offered by Substack creators - has No Paywall (ie some content is free to everyone). Many people come to Substack to Share or to Learn, and the most popular Creators are well monetized by their individual Paid Subscriber fans, who voluntarily chose to financially support their creative and intellectual work.
It seems to me that the trouble you are having is with making the ethical decision to financially support Substack Creators with a Paid Subscription - if & only when you want more Access - to their work. One is not entitled to a discount, simply because your capitalist argument could benefit you as a Consumer, while at the same time it harms Creators who are being asked to lower the value of their work.
For you to say it’s inefficient & wasteful for these Substack Creators to want to be paid - individually - for their own Work - well, I think that says more about you than the Creators, especially when at the same time you argue that “people will pay more for more content.” However, this very Statement of yours seems to not be true for yourself and the ideas you present. If the problem is about your personal economics, well many Substack Creators offer Scholarships and other solutions for this problem as well.
As an example, Journalists resigning in protest from the Washington Post and attempting to make a living without a Corporation syphoning off their earnings, shouldn’t be asked to discount their Individual work on Substack just to pay a new middleman. Personally, my solution just for myself (but offered here to share with others as a possible option for themselves) - is to Add a new Paid Subscription each month I can afford to, with my goal to have one (1) Annual Paid Subscription due each month - then after 1-year, I can decide at renewal time, whether I want to continue to financially support a particular Substack - OR - if I might prefer to financially support a different Creator for the next year. Let’s all try to make ethical decisions to pay people over corporations. Enjoying the conversation, thank you Peter.
Do you subscribe to any newspapers? Do you think you would still do so if you had to subscribe to individual journalists at $5/month? I suspect not. The deal works because they bundle their subscriptions into a single deal which makes it better off for everyone.
And no I don't think that the journalists at the times are unhappy because people pay for their work as part of a bundle not individually. I think they want to be paid and don't care if it is a la carte purchases.
The problem is that without bundling you only get money people who value your work at least a certain amount say $5/month. And yes I do value some substacks that much and subscibe but not this one -- I'm sure you make the same calculation for other substacks or you are very rich or don't find many substacks appealing. Bundling lets writers collect money from people who may value their work at only $1/month not $5 as well so they can get more money and if you want to support them it's a weird thing to object to.
I think I solved the problem. A ratfink got into my CPU and shorted its ability to let me type answers. I am glad this day is DONE. MLK must be turning over in his final resting place.
In the beginning of a major resistance movement, the how to path seems undefined, but, it is not. When no is no, the rhetoric should stop. United we stand. Resist in every corner of your life everyday everywhere. Trump and his dopes will soon be the proverbial slow boiled frogs.
Chris, if I *COULD*, I would become a paid subscriber. I live on SSI, SOLELY. I just CAN'T afford it. I love your work, and as long as I can remain a free subscribed, I will. Thank you for all you do!
Just became a paid subscriber! We will need your voice more than ever.
Thank you for keeping us informed ! I appreciate that I can read for free !
long-time follower just turned subscribe. thank you for keeping us informed!
Sorry but $5/month is really a pretty big ask. I'd love to subscribe at $1/month or subscribe to a bundle of substacks that included you but substack needs to allow smaller subscriptions if it wants this ecosystem to really take off.
while I can still type, I will: I heartily agree; it is hard to choose among 50 or more sites at $50 or more a year - - especially since my SS check went DOWN this year. The year so far has not treated me kindly
People in this thread aren't considering the fact that EVERYBODY is using subscriptions and some of us feel nickel and dime'd to death. I know I do and I'm a writer. I also live on a fixed-income, so all of my subscriptions for this & that combined are a steep hill.
There is an option to allow people to pay less for articles. But we writers have to turn it on. I stared at that for a while and decided not to do it. Why? I don't want a bunch of $1 a month subs. $24 a year per person for the hard task of writing about various things. My writing makes me a target of sorts, so I don't want to cheapen my worth.
I understand both sides of the debate here, but I for one don't want a bundle deal. Those are for very wealthy corporations, creating bundles for their own products. Not trying to find like-minded writers to bundle with. Perhaps they're talking about Substack allowing this, not making writers do it. In that case, it would be fine. Take it to the decision-makers of Substack.
You can let people pay less if they pay by the year or whatever but the least you can charge a month is $5 (according to google and my substack interface but I could be missing something). That's likely because of issues with how credit cards work but they could just require you add money to your account in those multiples like apple.
Regarding bundling, I was imagining writers would have to opt in but substack would suggest the bundles. I was imagining you wouldn't even have to think about it just click a button to participate and substack uses it's information about user behavior to suggest package deals to users and then split up the revenue. No affiliation or acknowledgement just a way that users are offered a discount on some packages using the statistical info they have to ensure its increasing not cannibalizing revenue.
That may take some trust at first but the current system just is just too inefficient long term. It means that readers get much less for their payments and authors get less readership and money. Eventually if substack doesn't do it then other outlets will poach the best authors because they can both pay more and offer more views.
I mean nebula -- a large streaming platform with lots of really high production videos including exclusives from big name creators and no ads -- only charges users $5/month just like an individual substack yet one of those subscriptions gives me access to thousands of hours of new quality videos a day and the other a post every couple days. Yes, the later is also valuable but the difference in hours of creator effort I get access to illustrates how much value is lost to everyone by a la carte subscriptions.
This place already caters to certain kinds of writers. I don't like the idea at all. Hell, the world does that, and I like the idea of a semi-even playing field.
Bundling or catering to a kind of writer is what you don't like? Bundling doesn't need to put similar authors together.
Peter, I said what I said. It does no good to argue this point with me. If I don't like it, I don't like it. That should be okay. I'm not explaining much more so you can try to rip it apart, and you're trying to be right when that's not the point, man. Lower your prices then and agree to disagree like a mature adult & take it to Substack like I said in the beginning. Okay? They're the ones to implement YOUR plan if they choose. They're already taking a good percentage of our revenue. In answer to your question, both.
It sounded like you were saying you didn't like catering to a kind of writer. Apparently while u were replying I edited it in case I was wrong.
Everyone likes and dislikes what they like so feel free to dislike it.
I disagree with $6.00/ mo being a big ask, probably because there are millions of Americans willing to spend $6 a DAY on a cup of coffee. Mainstream Media is becoming extremely unreliable, so we all need to support Chris and other SubStack authors to do the research & trusted work - which we all need to rely on. The ecosystem outside SubStack is looking very untrustworthy and scary to me. Pay if you can & don’t pay if you can’t, seems reasonable to me. In solidarity with SubStacks & Law Dork.
Economically this is a solved problem. It's why cable has channel bundles. You put together a ton of content and then let people buy the bundle and everyone wins because ppl will pay more to get more content so there is a bigger pot for the creators to split [1].
It's just ineffecient and wasteful to have to purchase access individually. It's not just better for consumers it increases creator revenue too.
1: For a small example suppose that 50 people value creator X at $5/month and Y at $2/month and 50 people value Y at $5/month and X at $2/month. Individually X and Y both set their price at $5/month because 5*50=250 is more than 2*100 and they both get 50 subscribers. Now they get together and offer a bundle at $7/month to read both. That's a good deal for all 100 people so X and Y split 700 dollars and get 350 more than the 250 before and everyone is better off.
Peter - Are you comparing Individual Substack Writers to Cable Corporations like Xfinity (ie people vs corporations)?
You talk about $5/ month being a Big Ask & Substack having “some problem” & about “bundling content” so everyone wins. We win - already, since so much Content offered by Substack creators - has No Paywall (ie some content is free to everyone). Many people come to Substack to Share or to Learn, and the most popular Creators are well monetized by their individual Paid Subscriber fans, who voluntarily chose to financially support their creative and intellectual work.
It seems to me that the trouble you are having is with making the ethical decision to financially support Substack Creators with a Paid Subscription - if & only when you want more Access - to their work. One is not entitled to a discount, simply because your capitalist argument could benefit you as a Consumer, while at the same time it harms Creators who are being asked to lower the value of their work.
For you to say it’s inefficient & wasteful for these Substack Creators to want to be paid - individually - for their own Work - well, I think that says more about you than the Creators, especially when at the same time you argue that “people will pay more for more content.” However, this very Statement of yours seems to not be true for yourself and the ideas you present. If the problem is about your personal economics, well many Substack Creators offer Scholarships and other solutions for this problem as well.
As an example, Journalists resigning in protest from the Washington Post and attempting to make a living without a Corporation syphoning off their earnings, shouldn’t be asked to discount their Individual work on Substack just to pay a new middleman. Personally, my solution just for myself (but offered here to share with others as a possible option for themselves) - is to Add a new Paid Subscription each month I can afford to, with my goal to have one (1) Annual Paid Subscription due each month - then after 1-year, I can decide at renewal time, whether I want to continue to financially support a particular Substack - OR - if I might prefer to financially support a different Creator for the next year. Let’s all try to make ethical decisions to pay people over corporations. Enjoying the conversation, thank you Peter.
Do you subscribe to any newspapers? Do you think you would still do so if you had to subscribe to individual journalists at $5/month? I suspect not. The deal works because they bundle their subscriptions into a single deal which makes it better off for everyone.
And no I don't think that the journalists at the times are unhappy because people pay for their work as part of a bundle not individually. I think they want to be paid and don't care if it is a la carte purchases.
The problem is that without bundling you only get money people who value your work at least a certain amount say $5/month. And yes I do value some substacks that much and subscibe but not this one -- I'm sure you make the same calculation for other substacks or you are very rich or don't find many substacks appealing. Bundling lets writers collect money from people who may value their work at only $1/month not $5 as well so they can get more money and if you want to support them it's a weird thing to object to.
I think I solved the problem. A ratfink got into my CPU and shorted its ability to let me type answers. I am glad this day is DONE. MLK must be turning over in his final resting place.
Thank you for keeping us informed ! I appreciate that I can read for free !
Thanks for doing such great work!
In the beginning of a major resistance movement, the how to path seems undefined, but, it is not. When no is no, the rhetoric should stop. United we stand. Resist in every corner of your life everyday everywhere. Trump and his dopes will soon be the proverbial slow boiled frogs.
Chris, if I *COULD*, I would become a paid subscriber. I live on SSI, SOLELY. I just CAN'T afford it. I love your work, and as long as I can remain a free subscribed, I will. Thank you for all you do!