Podcasting professionals have been struggling with this as well, for years. Adam Curry and John C. Dvorak decided over a decade ago to stick with the "value for value" system; which is their way of describing the exact philosophy you're employing. It's working well enough to keep them pumping out 2, 3 hour episodes per week!
Thanks for this! I never have really jumped into podcasts for whatever reason, so haven't listened to many at all. I imagine that the monetization question would be quite the same as here though. I'm pleased to know that the model has worked for podcasters, that bodes well for newsletters too I imagine.
With much contemplation I only paywall my Magic videos and instant access to my my radio spots. And of course archives. I am not fond of the big orange Paywall notification offered by sub stack. On my paid publications IEP’s my non-paid readers into the announcements so it’s not such a shock.
It's a tough thing to figure out the right course to take when Substack itself is so new and has so many people flocking to it. In time I think we'll all figure out what works best for our individual publications.
I don't think that people object to paywalls that are expected to be there. It's the tricky ones, like where a long essay is read and then a comment can't be left, or a long essay where only the conclusion at the end is paywalled that I think make people upset.
Paywalling the archives is interesting, and something I've seriously considered doing. It might prove to be a really effective model. I think it would be viewed by readers as a upfront and fair way of doing things, and it would capture those true fans who have the income needed to subscribe.
This is the only paid model that makes sense to me for the “small” writer (and remember, I’m the guy who wrote “Why I’m Not Going Paid on Substack” (https://tompendergast.substack.com/p/why-im-not-going-paid). Otherwise you’re just playing games with people, making them frustrated.
I read your post when it was first published (and again this morning) certainly your thoughts on the subject helped inform my own thinking. I think that the Free Love Hippy model can work, over on my 'main' newsletter roughly 5% of my subscribers have chosen to go paid, despite the fact that I am pretty much paywall free.
I think the most important thing is to find a model that seems fair and honest. Keeping the work free to all and asking for what is essentially donations to support it seems fair and honest to me. Keeping the work locked up and asking for people to pay in order to support it seems fair and honest to me as well. But a hybrid model, locking away engagement, dropping occasional paywalls well into an essay, things of that sort seem unfair to the reader and I think as a result will be found to be counterproductive.
Podcasting professionals have been struggling with this as well, for years. Adam Curry and John C. Dvorak decided over a decade ago to stick with the "value for value" system; which is their way of describing the exact philosophy you're employing. It's working well enough to keep them pumping out 2, 3 hour episodes per week!
Thanks for this! I never have really jumped into podcasts for whatever reason, so haven't listened to many at all. I imagine that the monetization question would be quite the same as here though. I'm pleased to know that the model has worked for podcasters, that bodes well for newsletters too I imagine.
With much contemplation I only paywall my Magic videos and instant access to my my radio spots. And of course archives. I am not fond of the big orange Paywall notification offered by sub stack. On my paid publications IEP’s my non-paid readers into the announcements so it’s not such a shock.
It's a tough thing to figure out the right course to take when Substack itself is so new and has so many people flocking to it. In time I think we'll all figure out what works best for our individual publications.
I don't think that people object to paywalls that are expected to be there. It's the tricky ones, like where a long essay is read and then a comment can't be left, or a long essay where only the conclusion at the end is paywalled that I think make people upset.
Paywalling the archives is interesting, and something I've seriously considered doing. It might prove to be a really effective model. I think it would be viewed by readers as a upfront and fair way of doing things, and it would capture those true fans who have the income needed to subscribe.
This is the only paid model that makes sense to me for the “small” writer (and remember, I’m the guy who wrote “Why I’m Not Going Paid on Substack” (https://tompendergast.substack.com/p/why-im-not-going-paid). Otherwise you’re just playing games with people, making them frustrated.
I read your post when it was first published (and again this morning) certainly your thoughts on the subject helped inform my own thinking. I think that the Free Love Hippy model can work, over on my 'main' newsletter roughly 5% of my subscribers have chosen to go paid, despite the fact that I am pretty much paywall free.
I think the most important thing is to find a model that seems fair and honest. Keeping the work free to all and asking for what is essentially donations to support it seems fair and honest to me. Keeping the work locked up and asking for people to pay in order to support it seems fair and honest to me as well. But a hybrid model, locking away engagement, dropping occasional paywalls well into an essay, things of that sort seem unfair to the reader and I think as a result will be found to be counterproductive.
We’re in complete agreement. If I ever turn on paid subscriptions (which I haven’t ruled out), I’ll follow your path exactly.