You make some excellent points about how cost drives selectivity. Although I haven't given the whole "free internet" thing very much thought, two points come to mind right away:
1) Substack in particular seems guilty of overhyped its own product to writers. But at ~50-60 $ per subscription, the whole Substack ecosystem seems unsustainable. That's the price of a subscription to a print magazine, which would give you access to a dozen or so writers. I am not able to afford subscriptions to as many s
Substack writers as I would like to support. Perhaps the way forward is micropayments?
2) it is, perhaps, time for enterprising individuals to poach good writers from the free internet and hire them to write for the new generation of print magazines. The blogosphere is a good place to sharpen ones skills as a writer, but at a certain point it becomes time to graduate to the next level.
I agree with 1. insofar as I also am not able to support as many Substack writers as I'd like to. I'm not sure this makes the ecosystem unsustainable, however. What it does is force a sustainable level of reading and attention from me, the reader, or at least encourages it. I agree that at first the typical subscription cost seems steep, although I think this largely depends on what the actual product is (a subscription to, say, Pulp, Pip & Poetry is pretty different from an author who puts out one essay every few months and paywalls them, expecting to be supported). And I think some of my favorite Substack subscriptions actually stand up to the magazine comparison rather well. No ads, nothing I'm not interested in, and the added value that I am directly supporting an artist that I want to see succeed.
As for 2., yes I very much agree. I think a bunch of future Substacks will evolve from sole proprietorships to small squads of authors working together.
I think the key idea I'm trying on here is that even for free content, the subscription model is more healthy overall than the all-you-can-swallow eternity feed model. Or at least, it has been better for me.
Thanks for commenting sir, you always give us lots of substance to chew on!
I just finished Dragon Teeth by Michael Crichton, set out there in the 1870s, and my last road trip took me that way, so I'm extra-enthused with the depth of your analogy!
You make some excellent points about how cost drives selectivity. Although I haven't given the whole "free internet" thing very much thought, two points come to mind right away:
1) Substack in particular seems guilty of overhyped its own product to writers. But at ~50-60 $ per subscription, the whole Substack ecosystem seems unsustainable. That's the price of a subscription to a print magazine, which would give you access to a dozen or so writers. I am not able to afford subscriptions to as many s
Substack writers as I would like to support. Perhaps the way forward is micropayments?
2) it is, perhaps, time for enterprising individuals to poach good writers from the free internet and hire them to write for the new generation of print magazines. The blogosphere is a good place to sharpen ones skills as a writer, but at a certain point it becomes time to graduate to the next level.
I agree with 1. insofar as I also am not able to support as many Substack writers as I'd like to. I'm not sure this makes the ecosystem unsustainable, however. What it does is force a sustainable level of reading and attention from me, the reader, or at least encourages it. I agree that at first the typical subscription cost seems steep, although I think this largely depends on what the actual product is (a subscription to, say, Pulp, Pip & Poetry is pretty different from an author who puts out one essay every few months and paywalls them, expecting to be supported). And I think some of my favorite Substack subscriptions actually stand up to the magazine comparison rather well. No ads, nothing I'm not interested in, and the added value that I am directly supporting an artist that I want to see succeed.
As for 2., yes I very much agree. I think a bunch of future Substacks will evolve from sole proprietorships to small squads of authors working together.
I think the key idea I'm trying on here is that even for free content, the subscription model is more healthy overall than the all-you-can-swallow eternity feed model. Or at least, it has been better for me.
Thanks for commenting sir, you always give us lots of substance to chew on!
Bringing a little life to Deadwood, eh?
In cases that have successfully been out west, as it were, I agree. If you have a claim to sell and stories to tell, it might be speakeasy time.
I just finished Dragon Teeth by Michael Crichton, set out there in the 1870s, and my last road trip took me that way, so I'm extra-enthused with the depth of your analogy!