Gotta wonder about a new model for these substacks.
I read Common Sense, Matt Taibbi, and Glen Greenwald.
Although I would not necessarily suggest that you form a single "magazine" type thing with them, I would like to suggest that some version of a bundle be available from substack, perhaps with shared revenue.
Gotta wonder about a new model for these substacks.
I read Common Sense, Matt Taibbi, and Glen Greenwald.
Although I would not necessarily suggest that you form a single "magazine" type thing with them, I would like to suggest that some version of a bundle be available from substack, perhaps with shared revenue.
So for example, I could purchase a bundle of 4 or 5 substacks under one heading at a discount and then each additional one might be some minimal cost.
I might also suggest that the University of Austin produce a substack that could be associated to some set of other substacks. The authors could be the various professors and perhaps students. The profits could be used to support the school.
BTW.....The University of Austin still needs swag to sell. Just my opinion.
AGREE. The "per substack" subscription model is bleeding me dry. It's like the "i cancelled cable TV to save money" yet now I'm somehow spending more money on each and every niche subscription as a result (Netflix, Hulu+/Disney+, Amazon Prime, HBO Max, etc).
It's almost like we need a "single subscription provider" (haha, like CABLE TV) and for news/opinion, a combined Substack subscription that gives at least tiered access to various blogs within.
I have thought that a lot.. “Is there one place I could get all my shows…” oh yeah. CABLE. We jumped ship back when streaming services were new, and it was actually saving us money. Now, we are all paying more than we began with. 😳
Also, I like how Medium allows you to “tip” a writer for a story or pub. That often gets a response from me when a particular entry has moved me or been insightful.
I would say let them compete in a friendly way. This will drive better innovation in their collective fight against the MSM. I would propose that there are joint efforts these new outlets can attempt where they team up for a portions of their content. But from my perspective, if they team up this early, they could be an easier target for MSM.
I appreciate the logic of your comment "Wrung Out Lemon," but as a long ago newspaper reporter and editor, I also understand that certain issues require a huge amount of research and shoe leather.
During my 15 year stint as a newspaper reporter I was blessed to have worked under one of America's outstanding managing editors.
Malcolm Stone was a refugee from the Philadelphia Inquirer, where his job as managing editor had became too high a burden for him and his family.
When he accepted the managing editor's job at the Bangor (Maine) Daily News in 1970, I was about a third of the way into my 15 years of working at the Daily News.
Shortly after Mal took over the editorial reins, he called me and several other reporters into his office for a come to Jesus talk. He asked for a show of hands by those of us willing to spend weeks or even months working on a single story. Yes, I was the only one ignorant enough to accept the challenge.
During my remaining time as a news reporter, Stone assigned me to several long term projects, the most memorable being a series of 25 stories dealing with the energy "crisis" of the mid 70s.
That project resulted in our small town newspaper receiving a second place award for national science and technology reporting.
The entire point of my comment is to explain how some issues are too complex for day to day, or even week to week reporting.
I had a team of talented editors and subject experts behind my work, and thus I understand how difficult it must be for a single reporter to accurately deal with complex issues.
Now long into my retirement years, I like the bundle concept as a way to reduce the cost of supporting the people who provide such good content for us on Substack.com
Thank you "Wrung Out" for the suggestions in your comment.
Why would a successful substack want to bundle with unsuccessful substacks?? This is a microcosm of the housing crisis in 2006 and derivatives that were used to support bad loans. It collapsed all housing finances.
I applaud the thought. But it is a rehash of a very non-competitive no-freedom model. I hope you see what I am saying.......
Totally agree. Like streaming services it's getting a little out of hand. Being able to get a "bundle" for a reasonable monthly price would be good (but that's Substack's issue of course).
I read the same three substackers. I might end my subscription for Taibbi and Greenwald because they are not publishing material on a regular basis. There have been a couple of 3 week periods where Greenwald has not published anything at all.
Do not disagree. BW is smart, she aggregates interesting writers under her substack and produces regular essays.
Problem that Greenwald and Taibbi have is that they are the sole producers of content. Anything happens to them or in their lives, such as with Greenwald, they are hosed.
Now, if Taibbi and Greenwald were to join forces or to publish under a bundle package with one or two or even 3 others, you limit the risk.
I think there is a place for something like a digital newspaper, essay magazine, where the consumer can select the contributing authors.
How that would be structured organizationally and financially is the trick. But is would distribute risk, albeit at the cost of distributing income.
Excuse Glennie and his husband who have been real busy on the Lula communist party reelection campaign in Brazil, and posting pro Russian, anti anti -Putin zingers on twitter. Bari respects her paid subscibers, that's why she posts at least 2-3 x a week.
Agreed, $400+ in Substacks isn’t sustainable for most people long-term. CS is a non-negotiable for me, but I’ve found myself considering purging some of the smaller guys who don’t post a ton because of the overall investment.
I know this is a new business model and I’m here for a while. Just thinking thoughts.
Always mistakes. I forgot to mention another Way percentages of revenues might wanna be distributed. Got this from time I posted on medium.com. Authors may agree that the *time spent* by a subscriber could determine how much an article was worth. That way people who were more engaged would pay more. Unfortunately for some, people engaged in commenting would pay more. Seems fair to me, and probably to the Authors as well. BUt that's just me.
Thank You and Jen. Both of You have some great ideas. I don't wanna throw a damper on them. But I've given this subject some thought.
What You both are asking for is for *Substack* to take less money for what they do, because they get paid a percentage of what the Authors make. The discount would, obviously, be *great* for the Authors and Subscribers, but for Substack? (They make nothing on (what I guess is) the majority of Substacks that are free.)
Plus, You're asking for a major change in the *programming* code that forms the Substack platform. And if this site is like most-a them, the code they're working with is A Big Ball of Mud. IOW, not so easy to change as One would like. "One" being the Authors and the Subscribers.
Plus, it would require an act of faith on the part of the Authors. A number of them would hafta decide on what percentage of the revenues would be allocated per word, and what percentage would be allocated based on the strength of the Author's following.
Agreement when it comes to money, practically speaking, being easier said than done. *This* would be the biggest hurdle, actually.
And then, if the Authors had any conscience, and a sense that they were in large part "lucky" to be in the place they've arrived at, they would *give away* a percentage of their revenues to sponser up-and-coming Authors, right? Mebbe *not* right, because that's just me.
eh, JT, I think Substack could profitably offer a "bundled" model as well as support its authors. The "per stack" subscription model is limiting. Lots of great voices to hear, but yo, there's a limit to where I have well exceeded a monthly WaPo or NYTimes subscription (that also features "voices") to read maybe one or two "interesting" articles across.
You could be right. And mebbe the Authors would go along with taking less of a cut. Say.. If there was a buy four get one free offer or something. Mebbe.
Yeah, that's always the gamble in biz. They *may* gain more subscribers. Or they may drum up business for other Substacks while not gaining much at all for themselves, other than less money per subscriber.
Who knows? The Author, to best of their ability. (And Substack of course, who is the big loser.)
No way bundle payments to Bari with anti American, supporter of Putin, Maduro, Fidel Castro, Boonie Sandas, Chicomm apologist until yesterday, Gays for Palestine, post Jewish Leftist, the Intercept wasnt radical chic enough so i left... Glenn Greenwald? They have zero in common except they are both anti woke.
goodnesss.. the horror.. you might have to read and support opposing voices? lol
This was literally the model of the community and national newspapers. You get some op-ed you agree with, some you don't. It's healthy. Reading in a bubble of only sources you agree with a-priori is not.
Yes, the more viewpoints the merrier. As long as the point is argued logically and without insults, I'll read most anything that comes long. Doesn't matter if I agree; the view is what's important.
You would pick and choose which providers would be in your bundle. If you don't want to read about "Boonie Sandas," you wouldn't have to. You'd pay X dollars for a bundle and pick the ones you want.
I'd weight "both are non MSM journalists" pretty heavily. Do you only want to listen to people you agree with? I'd venture that is what Bari is working so hard to combat.
What you're talking about is something like a basic cable fee. But I think that some of the Substack writers have more expenses than others, write more than others,
Podcasts and the like. It would have to be pro-rated. Bari for example is doing other things, traveling for interviews, editing, and I think the page is more news oriented then some others, so I don't know how that would work out.
I do not disagree, that is why I would suggest that a lot of thought would need to go into the how of it.
Obviously not all writers are of equal worth either in terms of reading or to a business. Not all writers can or want to produce the same amount of material as others. Thats fine, there are a lot of businesses that work that way. Any NFL team has 80 different salaries and different salaries for the same position. Its not impossible to figure out.
But there is an argument to be made for either pre-selected bundles negotiated between the producers and for ala carte bundles negotiated between producers and substack.
How nice would it be to be able to just pick a Bari approved bundle of 3 substacks?
OR
To be able to select say...5, out of a list of say 30 substacks, to create a custom bundle. You can pay the ala carte price per or you get say, 15% off if you purchase all 5 and 20% off the next one. I mean the math has to be done, the analysis has to be done, deals negotiated, but the theory of it is right I think. If Substacking is gonna be the replacement for MSM then it needs to be affordable for people to assemble a collection of substacks that cover the breadth of news and opinion that one would normally expect from a MSM newspaper or news magazine such as what Newsweek and Time used to be. The difference is that in the model I propose, you would select the authors and pay accordingly, not have them all pre-selected for you by a publisher.
Maybe I want Common Sense & Matt Taibbi, then maybe I want a finance substack and sports substack and then I want one that is dedicated to my region.
Cable TV is pro-rated. HBO costs more than any other channel because it is more popular. So, the analogy with the cable TV s valid. When years ago I subscribed to the NYT, I was able to read Glenn Greenwald, Alex Berenson and hundreds of others for one price. Now I have to pay for each substack separately. BW is wonderful by inviting interesting prominent guest writers. Others mostly just write themselves, so the price, obviously, has to be in proportion to their expenses. I agree with others that subscribing to many individual substacks is becoming burdensome and unsustainable. I hope an idea of updating the subscription and payment structure has already been considered by Bari and the rest of substackers. With that being said, we are very grateful that CS came into existence. It gave our lives a ray of hope.
Gotta wonder about a new model for these substacks.
I read Common Sense, Matt Taibbi, and Glen Greenwald.
Although I would not necessarily suggest that you form a single "magazine" type thing with them, I would like to suggest that some version of a bundle be available from substack, perhaps with shared revenue.
So for example, I could purchase a bundle of 4 or 5 substacks under one heading at a discount and then each additional one might be some minimal cost.
I might also suggest that the University of Austin produce a substack that could be associated to some set of other substacks. The authors could be the various professors and perhaps students. The profits could be used to support the school.
BTW.....The University of Austin still needs swag to sell. Just my opinion.
Good idea! There are a lot of people I'd like to subscribe to, but it does add up...
AGREE. The "per substack" subscription model is bleeding me dry. It's like the "i cancelled cable TV to save money" yet now I'm somehow spending more money on each and every niche subscription as a result (Netflix, Hulu+/Disney+, Amazon Prime, HBO Max, etc).
It's almost like we need a "single subscription provider" (haha, like CABLE TV) and for news/opinion, a combined Substack subscription that gives at least tiered access to various blogs within.
I have thought that a lot.. “Is there one place I could get all my shows…” oh yeah. CABLE. We jumped ship back when streaming services were new, and it was actually saving us money. Now, we are all paying more than we began with. 😳
"funny" how that worked out ;P
Bundling is such a great idea!!!
Also, I like how Medium allows you to “tip” a writer for a story or pub. That often gets a response from me when a particular entry has moved me or been insightful.
I would say let them compete in a friendly way. This will drive better innovation in their collective fight against the MSM. I would propose that there are joint efforts these new outlets can attempt where they team up for a portions of their content. But from my perspective, if they team up this early, they could be an easier target for MSM.
Love this idea!
Agree. CS is the only subscription I pay for. If i could buy a bundle, there would be several more.
I also subscribe to Taibbi and Greenwald, would love to see anything that produces collaboration with these two and UATX.
Thanks and keep up the great work, it is so important.
I appreciate the logic of your comment "Wrung Out Lemon," but as a long ago newspaper reporter and editor, I also understand that certain issues require a huge amount of research and shoe leather.
During my 15 year stint as a newspaper reporter I was blessed to have worked under one of America's outstanding managing editors.
Malcolm Stone was a refugee from the Philadelphia Inquirer, where his job as managing editor had became too high a burden for him and his family.
When he accepted the managing editor's job at the Bangor (Maine) Daily News in 1970, I was about a third of the way into my 15 years of working at the Daily News.
Shortly after Mal took over the editorial reins, he called me and several other reporters into his office for a come to Jesus talk. He asked for a show of hands by those of us willing to spend weeks or even months working on a single story. Yes, I was the only one ignorant enough to accept the challenge.
During my remaining time as a news reporter, Stone assigned me to several long term projects, the most memorable being a series of 25 stories dealing with the energy "crisis" of the mid 70s.
That project resulted in our small town newspaper receiving a second place award for national science and technology reporting.
The entire point of my comment is to explain how some issues are too complex for day to day, or even week to week reporting.
I had a team of talented editors and subject experts behind my work, and thus I understand how difficult it must be for a single reporter to accurately deal with complex issues.
Now long into my retirement years, I like the bundle concept as a way to reduce the cost of supporting the people who provide such good content for us on Substack.com
Thank you "Wrung Out" for the suggestions in your comment.
Why would a successful substack want to bundle with unsuccessful substacks?? This is a microcosm of the housing crisis in 2006 and derivatives that were used to support bad loans. It collapsed all housing finances.
I applaud the thought. But it is a rehash of a very non-competitive no-freedom model. I hope you see what I am saying.......
Like the bundling idea for sure
Totally agree. Like streaming services it's getting a little out of hand. Being able to get a "bundle" for a reasonable monthly price would be good (but that's Substack's issue of course).
Been thinking of a bundle, myself, lad. Good show.!
I read the same three substackers. I might end my subscription for Taibbi and Greenwald because they are not publishing material on a regular basis. There have been a couple of 3 week periods where Greenwald has not published anything at all.
Do not disagree. BW is smart, she aggregates interesting writers under her substack and produces regular essays.
Problem that Greenwald and Taibbi have is that they are the sole producers of content. Anything happens to them or in their lives, such as with Greenwald, they are hosed.
Now, if Taibbi and Greenwald were to join forces or to publish under a bundle package with one or two or even 3 others, you limit the risk.
I think there is a place for something like a digital newspaper, essay magazine, where the consumer can select the contributing authors.
How that would be structured organizationally and financially is the trick. But is would distribute risk, albeit at the cost of distributing income.
Matt has regular contributors, a staff, and other writers. I don't know about GG.
Excuse Glennie and his husband who have been real busy on the Lula communist party reelection campaign in Brazil, and posting pro Russian, anti anti -Putin zingers on twitter. Bari respects her paid subscibers, that's why she posts at least 2-3 x a week.
Then you do you and don’t pay. Easy solutions mean no problems.
I think his husband is very ill at the moment.
His husband is really sick and hospitalized. He sent an explanation and will be extending subscriptions because of it.
I know. I read it. I sympathize.
Agreed, $400+ in Substacks isn’t sustainable for most people long-term. CS is a non-negotiable for me, but I’ve found myself considering purging some of the smaller guys who don’t post a ton because of the overall investment.
I know this is a new business model and I’m here for a while. Just thinking thoughts.
Yep. We need a bundled subscription option.
Always mistakes. I forgot to mention another Way percentages of revenues might wanna be distributed. Got this from time I posted on medium.com. Authors may agree that the *time spent* by a subscriber could determine how much an article was worth. That way people who were more engaged would pay more. Unfortunately for some, people engaged in commenting would pay more. Seems fair to me, and probably to the Authors as well. BUt that's just me.
Dear Wrung Out Lemon,
Thank You and Jen. Both of You have some great ideas. I don't wanna throw a damper on them. But I've given this subject some thought.
What You both are asking for is for *Substack* to take less money for what they do, because they get paid a percentage of what the Authors make. The discount would, obviously, be *great* for the Authors and Subscribers, but for Substack? (They make nothing on (what I guess is) the majority of Substacks that are free.)
Plus, You're asking for a major change in the *programming* code that forms the Substack platform. And if this site is like most-a them, the code they're working with is A Big Ball of Mud. IOW, not so easy to change as One would like. "One" being the Authors and the Subscribers.
Plus, it would require an act of faith on the part of the Authors. A number of them would hafta decide on what percentage of the revenues would be allocated per word, and what percentage would be allocated based on the strength of the Author's following.
Agreement when it comes to money, practically speaking, being easier said than done. *This* would be the biggest hurdle, actually.
And then, if the Authors had any conscience, and a sense that they were in large part "lucky" to be in the place they've arrived at, they would *give away* a percentage of their revenues to sponser up-and-coming Authors, right? Mebbe *not* right, because that's just me.
TYTY again, both-a Youse.
eh, JT, I think Substack could profitably offer a "bundled" model as well as support its authors. The "per stack" subscription model is limiting. Lots of great voices to hear, but yo, there's a limit to where I have well exceeded a monthly WaPo or NYTimes subscription (that also features "voices") to read maybe one or two "interesting" articles across.
You could be right. And mebbe the Authors would go along with taking less of a cut. Say.. If there was a buy four get one free offer or something. Mebbe.
Right, but in exchange for that lesser cut they may gain more subscribers and come out better..
Yeah, that's always the gamble in biz. They *may* gain more subscribers. Or they may drum up business for other Substacks while not gaining much at all for themselves, other than less money per subscriber.
Who knows? The Author, to best of their ability. (And Substack of course, who is the big loser.)
No way bundle payments to Bari with anti American, supporter of Putin, Maduro, Fidel Castro, Boonie Sandas, Chicomm apologist until yesterday, Gays for Palestine, post Jewish Leftist, the Intercept wasnt radical chic enough so i left... Glenn Greenwald? They have zero in common except they are both anti woke.
goodnesss.. the horror.. you might have to read and support opposing voices? lol
This was literally the model of the community and national newspapers. You get some op-ed you agree with, some you don't. It's healthy. Reading in a bubble of only sources you agree with a-priori is not.
Yes, the more viewpoints the merrier. As long as the point is argued logically and without insults, I'll read most anything that comes long. Doesn't matter if I agree; the view is what's important.
100
You would pick and choose which providers would be in your bundle. If you don't want to read about "Boonie Sandas," you wouldn't have to. You'd pay X dollars for a bundle and pick the ones you want.
I'd weight "both are non MSM journalists" pretty heavily. Do you only want to listen to people you agree with? I'd venture that is what Bari is working so hard to combat.
You miss the point entirely. The point is that it would be nice to be able to purchase either ala carte selected bundles OR prepackaged bundles.
In essence, Bari could work with those she respects to create a prepackaged bundle OR I could create one from the various substacks I like.
What you're talking about is something like a basic cable fee. But I think that some of the Substack writers have more expenses than others, write more than others,
Podcasts and the like. It would have to be pro-rated. Bari for example is doing other things, traveling for interviews, editing, and I think the page is more news oriented then some others, so I don't know how that would work out.
I do not disagree, that is why I would suggest that a lot of thought would need to go into the how of it.
Obviously not all writers are of equal worth either in terms of reading or to a business. Not all writers can or want to produce the same amount of material as others. Thats fine, there are a lot of businesses that work that way. Any NFL team has 80 different salaries and different salaries for the same position. Its not impossible to figure out.
But there is an argument to be made for either pre-selected bundles negotiated between the producers and for ala carte bundles negotiated between producers and substack.
How nice would it be to be able to just pick a Bari approved bundle of 3 substacks?
OR
To be able to select say...5, out of a list of say 30 substacks, to create a custom bundle. You can pay the ala carte price per or you get say, 15% off if you purchase all 5 and 20% off the next one. I mean the math has to be done, the analysis has to be done, deals negotiated, but the theory of it is right I think. If Substacking is gonna be the replacement for MSM then it needs to be affordable for people to assemble a collection of substacks that cover the breadth of news and opinion that one would normally expect from a MSM newspaper or news magazine such as what Newsweek and Time used to be. The difference is that in the model I propose, you would select the authors and pay accordingly, not have them all pre-selected for you by a publisher.
Maybe I want Common Sense & Matt Taibbi, then maybe I want a finance substack and sports substack and then I want one that is dedicated to my region.
A bundle I can see. I would spring for a Bari/Matt Taibbi/Andrew Sullivan package.
"How nice would it be to be able to just pick a Bari approved bundle of 3 substacks?"
I don't need Bari to approve what substacks I want to support.
Daniel, it's simply an option for readers to group together substacks they do want at a discount. An option..nothing more.
Quantity discounting for subscribing to multiple substacks is fine (and is likely a good idea).
Having Bari formally approve/tell someone what group of substacks to subscribe to in order to receive a discount is a different situation entirely.
Cable TV is pro-rated. HBO costs more than any other channel because it is more popular. So, the analogy with the cable TV s valid. When years ago I subscribed to the NYT, I was able to read Glenn Greenwald, Alex Berenson and hundreds of others for one price. Now I have to pay for each substack separately. BW is wonderful by inviting interesting prominent guest writers. Others mostly just write themselves, so the price, obviously, has to be in proportion to their expenses. I agree with others that subscribing to many individual substacks is becoming burdensome and unsustainable. I hope an idea of updating the subscription and payment structure has already been considered by Bari and the rest of substackers. With that being said, we are very grateful that CS came into existence. It gave our lives a ray of hope.
Only in the minds of extremists.