Jul 11, 2023Liked by Todd Beeton, Amelia Mavis Christnot
I think Substack itself is the model for how independent journalism can flourish. The main problem is the pricing structure.--the need to pay for each individual substacker. I have already gone way over budget on supporting substackers I like (including The Big Picture and Popular Information); as new interesting ones come to my attention I will read but can't afford to subscribe. Perhaps an ASCAP model would work better? Say a "ticket" for X dollars that would let you subscribe to Y substackers (with the funds shared) --and various tiers giving you more Y for more X. The substacker would get less per person but quite likely a lot more people--who would then do a whole lot of recommending to friends.
A number of writers publish all content free and allow comments from all. I don’t know if there's a way to search for them, but if there isn't there should be.
And comments on Substack notes are generally open to all as well.
On thing I am trying to say is that I'd be willing to voluntarily pay $10/year to those who don't require pay to comment if in turn, when and if they turn to the paid model, I still could keep that $10/year right. Sort of hedging a bet that the site will get popular enough to support a pay model. And supporting them in the meantime.
I pay for Jay Kuo and George's, and next will probably subscribe to Joyce Vance's. The real benefit of most of the paid subscriptions is participating in the conversation after the post. Right now, it is enough for me to read them, I just don't have the time to actively participate with every single one. I happen to enjoy Jay's and George's community the most, and have met may friends (both virtual and actual) through them.
I highly recommend Joyce Vance - her chicken posts offer some relief and levity after the heavier news of the day or week. Humor and fun are as important as becoming educated and better informed about not just the current events but also the significance and consequences of some of these events from a legal and historical perspective.
Well yes, the ability to comment is one of the things that has pushed me to destroy my budget. I'm retired, so I do have the time, and have been in interesting discussions with a variety of people on most of them. In fact, troll-less discussions, because trolls ain't gonna pay. I was heavy into Quora till the trolls drove me out.
Possibly another way to vary the choice costs could be to have a "lower tier" level of comment only, skipping whatever other bonus content a paid subscription involves. I follow several people at the "pledge please" level who still allow everyone to comment. I'd happily pay a smaller amount--say $10 year--to those where I do enjoy the interplay of comments--but there's no option to either pay or pledge such amount.
Part of the problem is that some sites provide, with a subscription, a whole lot of bonus content I'm interested in. And some provide a whole lot of bonus content I am NOT interested in--podcasts, in particular. I don't like the podcast format. And some provide almost no bonus content. But the pricing for either is fixed if you want to comment on most pages. A non political version of having to pay for Fox with your cable subscription--whoever sets prices ought to contemplate how well THAT model has worked out.
I cannot stand podcasts; it goes back to time issues. I'm sure I'm interested in the heart of the discussion, but can't spend 30 mins. or an hour tuned in when much of the lead in is chatter. Value for Money (or VFM), as my UK friends say. That's what I appreciate about the Substack model, as much as my fingers complain about typing my reply. I also subscribe to a number of posters there that I love to read, but don't want to engage in discussion.
I do like the model that allows, for a smaller contribution, the ability to comment. Because I see quite a bit of those on social security or otherwise fixed incomes reply to a poster's appeal, maybe a "Senior" subscription that allows posting for a reduced fee? Income is income, after all, so maybe George and Jay can push that model?
It is interesting to compare the subscription models some of the posters put out, and their pricing. For me, a good case in point is Heather Cox Richardson. As a historical researcher who has spent innumerable hours studying the Reconstruction era, I don't need to comment on her posts, though I find her "Letters" a good daily read. So there is no VFM (value for money) to pay to comment on her page. Thom Hartmann is another, I value some of his stuff, but the constant appeals to support content is borderline annoying and only saved by the delete button.
Yes. I figured that if I read all the podcasts provided by Substack I would spend over 8 hours a day doing so. I read fast and am good at skimming, so that's way preferable. It's also why I skip stories that are all video unless I want to see the particular thing they are talking about---usually some clip of someone saying something stupid. Just visual "reporting" does nothing for me. I don't watch TV news at all. If someone posts a link on a subject that leads to a video presentation, I just google the topic and SOMEONE will have posted a written version of the facts I want to know.
For HCR: I read but don't subscribe because half my facebook friends post her columns and that gives me loads of ways to comment. Sometimes I wish I could directly, particularly to praise something. But yep: retirement income has its limits.
I hate the iOS app for Substack, particularly the inability to fix typos. So I tend to use the computer and keyboard. Even though I got a C in typing back in the day, the ability to edit, afterwards or on the fly, lets me work pretty fast.
Group podcasts remind me of late night dorm confabs, but me with my mouth sewn shut.
I'm all for some subscription model that allows for something like that. As of now, I will rotate who I pay for yearly subscriptions since I can't sign up for continual subscriptions to all of them. I appreciate that I can read the free versions of all of them even though I would prefer to be able to support all of the ones I read.
I discovered Substack less than a year ago, so no ability to rotate. So a lot of people I have discovered since I ran out of budget I will admire but can't support.
At this point it seems like a lot of the big reveal stories today get published by independent press like ProPublica, The Intercept, The Void, The Lever and The Guardian who are independently funded. What do you think of the NYT getting rid of their sports division. Do you have any thoughts on why they are doing that, when sports leads to easy advertising dollars?
I think Substack itself is the model for how independent journalism can flourish. The main problem is the pricing structure.--the need to pay for each individual substacker. I have already gone way over budget on supporting substackers I like (including The Big Picture and Popular Information); as new interesting ones come to my attention I will read but can't afford to subscribe. Perhaps an ASCAP model would work better? Say a "ticket" for X dollars that would let you subscribe to Y substackers (with the funds shared) --and various tiers giving you more Y for more X. The substacker would get less per person but quite likely a lot more people--who would then do a whole lot of recommending to friends.
A number of writers publish all content free and allow comments from all. I don’t know if there's a way to search for them, but if there isn't there should be.
And comments on Substack notes are generally open to all as well.
On thing I am trying to say is that I'd be willing to voluntarily pay $10/year to those who don't require pay to comment if in turn, when and if they turn to the paid model, I still could keep that $10/year right. Sort of hedging a bet that the site will get popular enough to support a pay model. And supporting them in the meantime.
I pay for Jay Kuo and George's, and next will probably subscribe to Joyce Vance's. The real benefit of most of the paid subscriptions is participating in the conversation after the post. Right now, it is enough for me to read them, I just don't have the time to actively participate with every single one. I happen to enjoy Jay's and George's community the most, and have met may friends (both virtual and actual) through them.
I highly recommend Joyce Vance - her chicken posts offer some relief and levity after the heavier news of the day or week. Humor and fun are as important as becoming educated and better informed about not just the current events but also the significance and consequences of some of these events from a legal and historical perspective.
Well yes, the ability to comment is one of the things that has pushed me to destroy my budget. I'm retired, so I do have the time, and have been in interesting discussions with a variety of people on most of them. In fact, troll-less discussions, because trolls ain't gonna pay. I was heavy into Quora till the trolls drove me out.
Possibly another way to vary the choice costs could be to have a "lower tier" level of comment only, skipping whatever other bonus content a paid subscription involves. I follow several people at the "pledge please" level who still allow everyone to comment. I'd happily pay a smaller amount--say $10 year--to those where I do enjoy the interplay of comments--but there's no option to either pay or pledge such amount.
Part of the problem is that some sites provide, with a subscription, a whole lot of bonus content I'm interested in. And some provide a whole lot of bonus content I am NOT interested in--podcasts, in particular. I don't like the podcast format. And some provide almost no bonus content. But the pricing for either is fixed if you want to comment on most pages. A non political version of having to pay for Fox with your cable subscription--whoever sets prices ought to contemplate how well THAT model has worked out.
I cannot stand podcasts; it goes back to time issues. I'm sure I'm interested in the heart of the discussion, but can't spend 30 mins. or an hour tuned in when much of the lead in is chatter. Value for Money (or VFM), as my UK friends say. That's what I appreciate about the Substack model, as much as my fingers complain about typing my reply. I also subscribe to a number of posters there that I love to read, but don't want to engage in discussion.
I do like the model that allows, for a smaller contribution, the ability to comment. Because I see quite a bit of those on social security or otherwise fixed incomes reply to a poster's appeal, maybe a "Senior" subscription that allows posting for a reduced fee? Income is income, after all, so maybe George and Jay can push that model?
It is interesting to compare the subscription models some of the posters put out, and their pricing. For me, a good case in point is Heather Cox Richardson. As a historical researcher who has spent innumerable hours studying the Reconstruction era, I don't need to comment on her posts, though I find her "Letters" a good daily read. So there is no VFM (value for money) to pay to comment on her page. Thom Hartmann is another, I value some of his stuff, but the constant appeals to support content is borderline annoying and only saved by the delete button.
Yes. I figured that if I read all the podcasts provided by Substack I would spend over 8 hours a day doing so. I read fast and am good at skimming, so that's way preferable. It's also why I skip stories that are all video unless I want to see the particular thing they are talking about---usually some clip of someone saying something stupid. Just visual "reporting" does nothing for me. I don't watch TV news at all. If someone posts a link on a subject that leads to a video presentation, I just google the topic and SOMEONE will have posted a written version of the facts I want to know.
For HCR: I read but don't subscribe because half my facebook friends post her columns and that gives me loads of ways to comment. Sometimes I wish I could directly, particularly to praise something. But yep: retirement income has its limits.
I hate the iOS app for Substack, particularly the inability to fix typos. So I tend to use the computer and keyboard. Even though I got a C in typing back in the day, the ability to edit, afterwards or on the fly, lets me work pretty fast.
Group podcasts remind me of late night dorm confabs, but me with my mouth sewn shut.
I'm all for some subscription model that allows for something like that. As of now, I will rotate who I pay for yearly subscriptions since I can't sign up for continual subscriptions to all of them. I appreciate that I can read the free versions of all of them even though I would prefer to be able to support all of the ones I read.
I discovered Substack less than a year ago, so no ability to rotate. So a lot of people I have discovered since I ran out of budget I will admire but can't support.
Judd’s Substack is always a great read. Totally trustworthy.
Agreed. Excellent original reporting. Accountability journalism at its best.
At this point it seems like a lot of the big reveal stories today get published by independent press like ProPublica, The Intercept, The Void, The Lever and The Guardian who are independently funded. What do you think of the NYT getting rid of their sports division. Do you have any thoughts on why they are doing that, when sports leads to easy advertising dollars?
Proud to be a subscriber to both of your Substacks!
Same here! So happy to see Judd featured here.