I’m one of those who keeps the best stuff behind a Substack paywall. Each week, I offer an exclusive 5-9 min video and practical tips and strategies to my paying readers. And yet, I understand how expensive it can get to subscribe to all your favorite writers. I’m not sure what the solution is. Add ads? Yet I hate having to scroll through blog articles crammed full of them. Like you I give so much away free — a weekly podcast, frequent shorts and reels, and weekly scheduled live stream. So I’m not sure what the answer is.
I know this was a rhetorical question/post, but I think it's completely reasonable to ask people to pay for our work. Even just reading your comment here, it's clear that you're spending a lot of time each week putting stuff together for people.
Great post, so informative. I have a few thoughts and I have to say, I generally agree with you. (Full disclosure: my newsletter is free and I'm going to keep it that away.)
I have zero problems with paywalls. It should go without saying that writers need to make a living, etc, etc. Hearing about those hacks is, in a way surprising, but then I guess when you think about it, it's not. People are good at finding ways round paywalls (confession: I'd NEVER do this on Substack, but I have done it through Instapaper with the FT, Economist, etc).
I posted something about this recently and this is what befuddles me - some writers only allow comments from paid subscribers. Again, that's totally fine - but what I don't understand are the writers who have paywalled their comments and on almost all there posts are ZERO comments! It's like they don't want comments.
One final thing - I don't want to do any shameless promotion here and hijack these comments, but I did post about this earlier this week. I won't link to it, it's easy to find if you'd care to hear my two cents/pence.
There is a simple answer. I have paid subscribers, but they get the same content as free. And people upgrade because they support my writing. And from what I can tell, my paid to free ratio is higher than average. I also offer a Buy Me A Coffee link for one time smaller donations. It generates more than you’d think. Believe me, after writing professionally for 43 years, I believe in getting paid. If the writing and message stands out, people will pay.
I love this reply, Martin. It makes me happy to know your paid to free ratio is high. For a lot of people, it's abysmally low. Might need to check out that buy me a coffee link. I never thought those did anything but peanuts. But how would I know if I don't try it and see.
I regularly have people buy me more than one coffee and have had as many as twenty (at $5 a pop) more than once. And people include encouraging comments which is a nice boost. Not getting rich, not even close, but every little bit helps! As for the free to paid ratio, it’s very anecdotal and based on what I occasionally see when others post their numbers. Mine is currently 6.5%.
That’s a really good ratio. I do the same as you, everything is free, people can pay if they want to support me, or they can buy me coffees too. Or they can not do that, it’s a free country. I think my ratio of paying subscribers right now is around 1%.
I keep running into BMAC on sites I love (including the Chiefs fan who posts professional-grade highlight videos on YouTube). And I keep buying coffees! It's really the best Substack hack because it's legal. It's the "and" that circumvents the "either-or" of paywalling.
I'm retired, living on social security. I can't afford more than one paid TV platform. Money is tight and it seems like the whole world is nickeling and diming us to death. But I'm also a Substack writer and I understand the lure of paid subscriptions. What was making me crazy was to have the paywall appear a paragraph or two into a post, just as it was getting interesting. That's not right. Put it at the top or at the end. Making me pay to read the rest of a story is deceitful. Now I always check for the "preview" tag before I try to read anything. And I don't charge people to read mine. Editing out the mid-post paywall was too much of a hassle.
I came here to say this. Writers and artists should be paid for their work. If a newsletter makes a statement at the top that says this work is part of a paid subscription, I might read it anyway because I like the writer's style or subject matter. But reading about six or seven paragraphs of an interesting piece and getting cut off is a waste of my time.
Oh, that’s interesting. For my paid articles I put the paywall in two thirds of the way down. I thought I was providing more value, not annoying people. Something to think about.
Hm. I'd rather make money with my free newsletter by selling digital products.
Or garner a huge following and get sponsorships from huge brands.
And if having a paywall is so important, let it be something that complements the free stuff and very beneficial to the readers.
Like having a cohort that helps the paid members with a problem, or a weekly call were they can talk and interact. Or even a very engaged community that's exclusive to paid members.
Then readers won't see the subscription as a big deal, because they get something very valuable and different from the "free content."
No easy answers to the Substack paywall. After two weeks, my archives go to paid content. I usually have 4-5 pieces that are free. If people like my work, then they might pay to read it.
If there isn’t a free “sample” of content, I get mad, too! How am I supposed to know if I WANT to read this Substack?! I can’t get enough free content to decide whether to fork over my $. That’s why free content is crucial.
I personally would love to offer a pay per article option. Since I am writing on a subject that people can't get off a google search (sex research), my readers are academics who want that one article only.
What that women described about paying for a subscription and then moving on to the next - I have TONS of those chew and screw paid subscribers. They come in for a month, read everything behind my paywall, cancel, and then they repeat the process in a few months. If you think about it, it is a smart way to read without paying monthly. I don't take it personally. I just view those people as not supporting my research.
I'm curious, Carlyn. Given the ton of research you do, I'm curious what you'd charge for one article. Also, you could, you know. Could put them on Gumroad and add a buy link at the bottom. Because people don't need to go to a Gumroad store to buy. They offer pop up checkout with just a link. So you could put "buy this standalone" and let people pay for one article.
oh I have never heard of Gumroad. Thanks for the tip! I am so bad at this marketing stuff. I would probably charge $5 per article. I have been struggling on Substack lately. I keep losing paid subscribers. So many celebrities on here now. It's so hard to compete.
Glad I mentioned it. Yeah, they let you build a cart but you don't have to. They also have buy links. So you could totally put a link at the bottom that says buy this article for $5. When people click it pops up a checkout so they can pay you. Plus you can set it to go to your bank so you don't have money sitting in another place. Just click the link and poof, straight into your bank acct.
This is why Substack needs a drip feed option, so that new paying subscribers get the content gradually sent to them rather than binge-access-all and leave. This would also be a helpful feature for releasing content that needs reading (or learning) in a certain order. If enough stackers made a feature request, they might implement it.
The numbers make it difficult for an individual to make good choices. I read about 15-20 authors somewhat regularly, and authors I follow to some extent overlap with who I follow on Medium. On top of that there are literally dozens of subjects I find interesting. But to borrow an analogy from the music industry: I heard some great singles taken from very average albums. In other words, I do not enjoy absolutely everything these authors post. If I took a $5 monthly subscription for let’s say 30 authors (20 I follow plus some on certain topics) it would cost me $150 a month and this would be on top of my daily newspaper ($51/month) subscription and books. Apart from the time needed to read all of it, it would also be too expensive.
Full disclosure: All my Substack content is free but that is because I do not expect anyone to be willing to pay every month for my sketchy production. I wouldn’t either.
What's funny is the people who upgraded to paid for my newsletter, half are writers themselves. A shame as people could put the paid subscription on their work expense report. It's tax-deductible that way.
As for the people who want to pay per article, from the reader's standpoint it's understandable like buying a single issue of Rolling Stone at the grocery store. But from the producer's point of view that's like a cashier getting paid only for the few minutes someone is at the checkout register, and no pay for the time between ringing up customers.
I put a lot of time into each newsletter and I built proprietary software to build each one. One person said to me my life is easy because getting jobs building software is easy. That hurt. I put effort into things and no, if getting those jobs were easy, the pay would be low.
Many academics who work at universities full time open every newsletter I publish going back a few years & don't upgrade to paid.
Great point, AJ! I write off the ones I pay for that are in the same space as mine.
I know a lot of the writers on here have been at it longer than me, and I'm surprised more aren't treating as a business (separate bank account, etc.), even if they don't want it to *be* a business (if that makes sense).
I only get annoyed when it's not clearly marked as gated. Other than that, writers gotta eat! I'm working to use my newsletter here as your basic content marketing lead gen to buy, ah, me for services, so no current plans on turning on a paywall. Probably will eventually as I add more value.
As for folks who cry and whine about paywalls, grow the hell up. Or do your job for me for free an hour or two a week. Damn.
I can see the frustration in paid reader's experiences. Is there only one way to set up a paid newsletter? Like offer your newsletter for free but advertise a paid substack supplemental newsletter?
No previews, just write a blurb in your free version with a link that clearly describes what the paid supplemental will be about and how it enhances the free newsletter with shortcuts, or tricks not mentioned in your free version. It's completely soft-sell, people can ignore it or pay and get the deeper dive into your subject.
This way you won't have to give a preview and smack people with the "Ah, Ah, Ahhhhh ---- you can't read the rest of this unless you pay me!" no subtlety there at all. No opportunity to soft-sell your paid information.
Thanks, Linda, for this thoughtful post. I agree that writers should be paid, but I would also like to know what I'm reading before I invest my time. I would be one who would most definitely appreciate a "hey this is a paid subscriber post" before spending my time reading a partial work. Your work is always open and honest, which is truly appreciated.
The beauty of Substack is that the reader decides what, who, when and how much they are willing to pay for a writer's content, within the confines of the writers subscription parameters. I completely understand the reader who subscribes and then reads the archives and then unsubscribes - I do something similar with my streaming - I pay, but when I feel I've watched all the content I'm interested in, I cancel and go to another service. I don't know why anyone would be offended by a similar practice on Substack, at least the reader coughed up some actual funds for the writer and contributed. And of course, if the writer was continually producing new content that the reader valued, they might not ever cancel as they would never be read out.
WhiIe I would loathe a pay-per-article option, I wish Substack would offer a tip/Ko-fi type button of their own where Substack would get their standard cut on one time contributions. Plus, although the tip is a one time input, there's nothing to prevent someone giving multiple tips to a single author of the amount and timing of their choice.
My content is free, but I would definitely set up a tip/donate button if it was offered.
Awhile ago, Substack came out and said (paraphrasing) that they wouldn't add a tip button because it tends to mean less people opting for paid subscriptions. The idea that people would leave multiple tips is a good one- but most people would leave one once, and then be down with it.
I understand the reasoning but I disagree with it and it has to do with how writers write.
A subscription implies predictable output from the writer on a regular basis of somewhat consistent quality. There are many writers who qualify for that description and I can see people saying, I don't want to miss anything this person puts out and subscribing. But there are lots of other writers who seem to write, but not consistently or whose content varies between stuff you love and stuff you say mmm, okay to. You like them, but somehow they don't rise to subscription level based on your somewhat limited budget, but you'd still like to toss out a concrete symbol of your regard for a particular post - hence a tip.
I don't think a tip decreases the chance for a subscription for a writer who meets an individuals criteria, but enhances payment opportunities for a writer who does not. I think more money would be spent on more writers with a tipping option. Plus, it would still be under a writer's control to offer it or not offer it and stick to subscriptions only. I don't see the harm in making it a choice that less established or consistent writers would likely deploy.
Fair point on writer consistency, and we agree 100% on that. If anyone wants to monetize, managing/meeting reader expectations is job 1.
And you may be correct about tips working for someone that only posts occasionally, or has an irregular schedule. But for newsletters that publish consistently, it's been shown to be regressive.
Sounds like the issue is really not about getting paid for the person you mention. I am a writer too, but I make my Substack free to all because I know most people whom I know that would read it cannot afford to give a donation. I am African American and queer and I have made the choice that anyone can view my stuff free but that also anyone can choose to donate. It's an ethos I guess.
But back to the reader you mention. I think the issue is that most people -- rightfully -- see it as a bait and switch when you first allow them to read and then say, okay, if you want to read further then subscribe. That is out of the New York Times playbook.
Honestly, it's a human reaction to say "Whoa! Why did they let me read it first and then after the tease ask me to pay."
I don't now if one can set how Substack reacts with one's subscribers, but If I did allow pay subscribers I would simply let them know from the outset that this is an article that only paid subscribers can read.
Look at it this way. Folks would rather be told up front that they can't read an article than clicking on an article that they can at first read and then all of a sudden they cannot.
Really, that's just human nature.
I was raised that the arts cannot be separate from the politic of capitalism. I don't exaggerate when I say all my cousins, nieces/nephews/siblings have artistic talent. None of them force people pay to listen to their music, or buy their art. Always, they can choose to donate or not. It's just an ethos, my forefathers and foremothers (parents and grandparents) imparted to us.
We make our choices as artists.
My view is that my art belongs to the world and should be free since most of it tries to engage folks in activism and knowledge that should be accessed for free According to The World of Tony....LOL... ;-)
Some make their living as writers and should charge others for their work.
But, if you do, just be up front with your readers on every article.
Don't allow them to start reading and then tell them they have to pay. Just say it up front. Treat them in the way you would expect to be treated. It's the old Golden Rule.
If you would get perturbed when you go to a site, and are at first allowed to read something but then as you just start enjoying it, you are told to keep reading pay up, then chances are others will be upset too.
If you wouldn't get perturbed, just remember everyone responds to being blocked or told no differently. No two people will react the same. All reactions are valid in my book.
I like your perspective, Tony. As an artist there's often this internal conflict between creating something you would like others to read, see, touch and so on, and wanting to be appreciated in your art, and acknowledged. Often this takes the form of a donation, or buying a print - something that allows the art to continue. After 45 years in business that ethos has crept into my DNA and I see many things as transactional. This is not always correct and I realize this. But free is a tricky word for me if I'm being honest. If I write a poem and some people comment and say they love it or it made them laugh -cry-pass out, then that is a payment of sorts. If they say nothing at all, I'm sometimes left wondering - well, shoot, anyone out there who liked this, please raise their hand? Anyway, good perspective, cheers.
Thanks for the kudos, Joe. I think I can also afford to not charge folks because I have been lucky to be in an admin position that pays my day to day bills. Also, I am gay and married and have no children, so my expenses are less than most folks with kids. Also, I think social media has changed things. I have to admit that I wish I could have had a paid career in writing, but I am 60 and being paid to write 30 years ago meant being part of a system where you had access to people who knew people. Social media has made it a bit easier to build an audience and to actually earn a living, or at least an income that helps one makes ends meet. Cheers to you too!
This is the main thing, IM (never H)O that Medium has over Substack. I can't possibly subscribe to all the writers I would love to support on Substack. But I can pay my monthly membership to Medium (and yes, I'm also a Medium Friend who ponies up the additional $100) and read all I can manage to and further support those writers with my engagement.
That's the rub; Medium sees writers as the way to keep people on the platform (and as paying members). Substack sees writers as individual proprietors, with the platform being the plumbing to get your content to my inbox. They physics are different.
Indeed. Each has their advantages. Substack seems to work best for those who have built very large platforms, like Heather Cox Richardson (whose work I never miss!). Not that one's better than the other -- as you say, they're different business models. Still, I like the access I have at Medium for my single subscription.
No paywalls for me- not fair. If someone subscribes to me, they're getting everything I write, like it or not.
I think it's more preference than fair or not fair, don't you? It's not unfair that some people charge for their writing.
I understand that, but I don't want to ruin the fun of writing by turning it completely into a business proposition, which is what paywalls do.
Awesome
I’m one of those who keeps the best stuff behind a Substack paywall. Each week, I offer an exclusive 5-9 min video and practical tips and strategies to my paying readers. And yet, I understand how expensive it can get to subscribe to all your favorite writers. I’m not sure what the solution is. Add ads? Yet I hate having to scroll through blog articles crammed full of them. Like you I give so much away free — a weekly podcast, frequent shorts and reels, and weekly scheduled live stream. So I’m not sure what the answer is.
I'm with you -- no answers. But I'm sure going to look and see what I can learn from the people making a living on words here. :)
I know this was a rhetorical question/post, but I think it's completely reasonable to ask people to pay for our work. Even just reading your comment here, it's clear that you're spending a lot of time each week putting stuff together for people.
Great post, so informative. I have a few thoughts and I have to say, I generally agree with you. (Full disclosure: my newsletter is free and I'm going to keep it that away.)
I have zero problems with paywalls. It should go without saying that writers need to make a living, etc, etc. Hearing about those hacks is, in a way surprising, but then I guess when you think about it, it's not. People are good at finding ways round paywalls (confession: I'd NEVER do this on Substack, but I have done it through Instapaper with the FT, Economist, etc).
I posted something about this recently and this is what befuddles me - some writers only allow comments from paid subscribers. Again, that's totally fine - but what I don't understand are the writers who have paywalled their comments and on almost all there posts are ZERO comments! It's like they don't want comments.
One final thing - I don't want to do any shameless promotion here and hijack these comments, but I did post about this earlier this week. I won't link to it, it's easy to find if you'd care to hear my two cents/pence.
Substack automatically paywalls the ability to leave a comment.
Oh that's interesting. I didn't realize that. Learning as we go... lol
It’s a setting you can change when you’re publishing your posts. You have to change it each time.
That’s what I thought. You have to adjust the setting each time.
Yes, paid posts only allow paid subscribers to comment. You can't change that at this point.
There are a lot horrible commenters on Substack. Restricting the comments keeps them out. I just wrote about that.
There is a simple answer. I have paid subscribers, but they get the same content as free. And people upgrade because they support my writing. And from what I can tell, my paid to free ratio is higher than average. I also offer a Buy Me A Coffee link for one time smaller donations. It generates more than you’d think. Believe me, after writing professionally for 43 years, I believe in getting paid. If the writing and message stands out, people will pay.
I love this reply, Martin. It makes me happy to know your paid to free ratio is high. For a lot of people, it's abysmally low. Might need to check out that buy me a coffee link. I never thought those did anything but peanuts. But how would I know if I don't try it and see.
I regularly have people buy me more than one coffee and have had as many as twenty (at $5 a pop) more than once. And people include encouraging comments which is a nice boost. Not getting rich, not even close, but every little bit helps! As for the free to paid ratio, it’s very anecdotal and based on what I occasionally see when others post their numbers. Mine is currently 6.5%.
That’s a really good ratio. I do the same as you, everything is free, people can pay if they want to support me, or they can buy me coffees too. Or they can not do that, it’s a free country. I think my ratio of paying subscribers right now is around 1%.
Someone just gave me a $250 tip!
I've just heard about this idea, and I like it lot! Thanks for sharing your experience.
Great idea re buy me a coffee. Think I’ll give it a try.
I keep running into BMAC on sites I love (including the Chiefs fan who posts professional-grade highlight videos on YouTube). And I keep buying coffees! It's really the best Substack hack because it's legal. It's the "and" that circumvents the "either-or" of paywalling.
I like the ‘buy me a coffee or drop me a tip’ options. And I use them.
I'm retired, living on social security. I can't afford more than one paid TV platform. Money is tight and it seems like the whole world is nickeling and diming us to death. But I'm also a Substack writer and I understand the lure of paid subscriptions. What was making me crazy was to have the paywall appear a paragraph or two into a post, just as it was getting interesting. That's not right. Put it at the top or at the end. Making me pay to read the rest of a story is deceitful. Now I always check for the "preview" tag before I try to read anything. And I don't charge people to read mine. Editing out the mid-post paywall was too much of a hassle.
I came here to say this. Writers and artists should be paid for their work. If a newsletter makes a statement at the top that says this work is part of a paid subscription, I might read it anyway because I like the writer's style or subject matter. But reading about six or seven paragraphs of an interesting piece and getting cut off is a waste of my time.
Oh, that’s interesting. For my paid articles I put the paywall in two thirds of the way down. I thought I was providing more value, not annoying people. Something to think about.
Put it wherever you like just don't leave us hanging. ;-)
Hm. I'd rather make money with my free newsletter by selling digital products.
Or garner a huge following and get sponsorships from huge brands.
And if having a paywall is so important, let it be something that complements the free stuff and very beneficial to the readers.
Like having a cohort that helps the paid members with a problem, or a weekly call were they can talk and interact. Or even a very engaged community that's exclusive to paid members.
Then readers won't see the subscription as a big deal, because they get something very valuable and different from the "free content."
No easy answers to the Substack paywall. After two weeks, my archives go to paid content. I usually have 4-5 pieces that are free. If people like my work, then they might pay to read it.
If there isn’t a free “sample” of content, I get mad, too! How am I supposed to know if I WANT to read this Substack?! I can’t get enough free content to decide whether to fork over my $. That’s why free content is crucial.
I personally would love to offer a pay per article option. Since I am writing on a subject that people can't get off a google search (sex research), my readers are academics who want that one article only.
What that women described about paying for a subscription and then moving on to the next - I have TONS of those chew and screw paid subscribers. They come in for a month, read everything behind my paywall, cancel, and then they repeat the process in a few months. If you think about it, it is a smart way to read without paying monthly. I don't take it personally. I just view those people as not supporting my research.
I'm curious, Carlyn. Given the ton of research you do, I'm curious what you'd charge for one article. Also, you could, you know. Could put them on Gumroad and add a buy link at the bottom. Because people don't need to go to a Gumroad store to buy. They offer pop up checkout with just a link. So you could put "buy this standalone" and let people pay for one article.
That’s a great idea Linda. I didn’t k ow Gumroad did that.
It's a real cool feature. Like I mentioned to Carlyn below, they "do" offer a cart. But they also have buy links. Straight to your bank account. :)
oh I have never heard of Gumroad. Thanks for the tip! I am so bad at this marketing stuff. I would probably charge $5 per article. I have been struggling on Substack lately. I keep losing paid subscribers. So many celebrities on here now. It's so hard to compete.
Glad I mentioned it. Yeah, they let you build a cart but you don't have to. They also have buy links. So you could totally put a link at the bottom that says buy this article for $5. When people click it pops up a checkout so they can pay you. Plus you can set it to go to your bank so you don't have money sitting in another place. Just click the link and poof, straight into your bank acct.
This is why Substack needs a drip feed option, so that new paying subscribers get the content gradually sent to them rather than binge-access-all and leave. This would also be a helpful feature for releasing content that needs reading (or learning) in a certain order. If enough stackers made a feature request, they might implement it.
The numbers make it difficult for an individual to make good choices. I read about 15-20 authors somewhat regularly, and authors I follow to some extent overlap with who I follow on Medium. On top of that there are literally dozens of subjects I find interesting. But to borrow an analogy from the music industry: I heard some great singles taken from very average albums. In other words, I do not enjoy absolutely everything these authors post. If I took a $5 monthly subscription for let’s say 30 authors (20 I follow plus some on certain topics) it would cost me $150 a month and this would be on top of my daily newspaper ($51/month) subscription and books. Apart from the time needed to read all of it, it would also be too expensive.
Full disclosure: All my Substack content is free but that is because I do not expect anyone to be willing to pay every month for my sketchy production. I wouldn’t either.
Your last sentence made me laugh, Johnnie.
What's funny is the people who upgraded to paid for my newsletter, half are writers themselves. A shame as people could put the paid subscription on their work expense report. It's tax-deductible that way.
As for the people who want to pay per article, from the reader's standpoint it's understandable like buying a single issue of Rolling Stone at the grocery store. But from the producer's point of view that's like a cashier getting paid only for the few minutes someone is at the checkout register, and no pay for the time between ringing up customers.
I put a lot of time into each newsletter and I built proprietary software to build each one. One person said to me my life is easy because getting jobs building software is easy. That hurt. I put effort into things and no, if getting those jobs were easy, the pay would be low.
Many academics who work at universities full time open every newsletter I publish going back a few years & don't upgrade to paid.
Great point, AJ! I write off the ones I pay for that are in the same space as mine.
I know a lot of the writers on here have been at it longer than me, and I'm surprised more aren't treating as a business (separate bank account, etc.), even if they don't want it to *be* a business (if that makes sense).
I only get annoyed when it's not clearly marked as gated. Other than that, writers gotta eat! I'm working to use my newsletter here as your basic content marketing lead gen to buy, ah, me for services, so no current plans on turning on a paywall. Probably will eventually as I add more value.
As for folks who cry and whine about paywalls, grow the hell up. Or do your job for me for free an hour or two a week. Damn.
I can see the frustration in paid reader's experiences. Is there only one way to set up a paid newsletter? Like offer your newsletter for free but advertise a paid substack supplemental newsletter?
No previews, just write a blurb in your free version with a link that clearly describes what the paid supplemental will be about and how it enhances the free newsletter with shortcuts, or tricks not mentioned in your free version. It's completely soft-sell, people can ignore it or pay and get the deeper dive into your subject.
This way you won't have to give a preview and smack people with the "Ah, Ah, Ahhhhh ---- you can't read the rest of this unless you pay me!" no subtlety there at all. No opportunity to soft-sell your paid information.
Thanks, Linda, for this thoughtful post. I agree that writers should be paid, but I would also like to know what I'm reading before I invest my time. I would be one who would most definitely appreciate a "hey this is a paid subscriber post" before spending my time reading a partial work. Your work is always open and honest, which is truly appreciated.
The beauty of Substack is that the reader decides what, who, when and how much they are willing to pay for a writer's content, within the confines of the writers subscription parameters. I completely understand the reader who subscribes and then reads the archives and then unsubscribes - I do something similar with my streaming - I pay, but when I feel I've watched all the content I'm interested in, I cancel and go to another service. I don't know why anyone would be offended by a similar practice on Substack, at least the reader coughed up some actual funds for the writer and contributed. And of course, if the writer was continually producing new content that the reader valued, they might not ever cancel as they would never be read out.
WhiIe I would loathe a pay-per-article option, I wish Substack would offer a tip/Ko-fi type button of their own where Substack would get their standard cut on one time contributions. Plus, although the tip is a one time input, there's nothing to prevent someone giving multiple tips to a single author of the amount and timing of their choice.
My content is free, but I would definitely set up a tip/donate button if it was offered.
Awhile ago, Substack came out and said (paraphrasing) that they wouldn't add a tip button because it tends to mean less people opting for paid subscriptions. The idea that people would leave multiple tips is a good one- but most people would leave one once, and then be down with it.
I understand the reasoning but I disagree with it and it has to do with how writers write.
A subscription implies predictable output from the writer on a regular basis of somewhat consistent quality. There are many writers who qualify for that description and I can see people saying, I don't want to miss anything this person puts out and subscribing. But there are lots of other writers who seem to write, but not consistently or whose content varies between stuff you love and stuff you say mmm, okay to. You like them, but somehow they don't rise to subscription level based on your somewhat limited budget, but you'd still like to toss out a concrete symbol of your regard for a particular post - hence a tip.
I don't think a tip decreases the chance for a subscription for a writer who meets an individuals criteria, but enhances payment opportunities for a writer who does not. I think more money would be spent on more writers with a tipping option. Plus, it would still be under a writer's control to offer it or not offer it and stick to subscriptions only. I don't see the harm in making it a choice that less established or consistent writers would likely deploy.
Fair point on writer consistency, and we agree 100% on that. If anyone wants to monetize, managing/meeting reader expectations is job 1.
And you may be correct about tips working for someone that only posts occasionally, or has an irregular schedule. But for newsletters that publish consistently, it's been shown to be regressive.
Sounds like the issue is really not about getting paid for the person you mention. I am a writer too, but I make my Substack free to all because I know most people whom I know that would read it cannot afford to give a donation. I am African American and queer and I have made the choice that anyone can view my stuff free but that also anyone can choose to donate. It's an ethos I guess.
But back to the reader you mention. I think the issue is that most people -- rightfully -- see it as a bait and switch when you first allow them to read and then say, okay, if you want to read further then subscribe. That is out of the New York Times playbook.
Honestly, it's a human reaction to say "Whoa! Why did they let me read it first and then after the tease ask me to pay."
I don't now if one can set how Substack reacts with one's subscribers, but If I did allow pay subscribers I would simply let them know from the outset that this is an article that only paid subscribers can read.
Look at it this way. Folks would rather be told up front that they can't read an article than clicking on an article that they can at first read and then all of a sudden they cannot.
Really, that's just human nature.
I was raised that the arts cannot be separate from the politic of capitalism. I don't exaggerate when I say all my cousins, nieces/nephews/siblings have artistic talent. None of them force people pay to listen to their music, or buy their art. Always, they can choose to donate or not. It's just an ethos, my forefathers and foremothers (parents and grandparents) imparted to us.
We make our choices as artists.
My view is that my art belongs to the world and should be free since most of it tries to engage folks in activism and knowledge that should be accessed for free According to The World of Tony....LOL... ;-)
Some make their living as writers and should charge others for their work.
But, if you do, just be up front with your readers on every article.
Don't allow them to start reading and then tell them they have to pay. Just say it up front. Treat them in the way you would expect to be treated. It's the old Golden Rule.
If you would get perturbed when you go to a site, and are at first allowed to read something but then as you just start enjoying it, you are told to keep reading pay up, then chances are others will be upset too.
If you wouldn't get perturbed, just remember everyone responds to being blocked or told no differently. No two people will react the same. All reactions are valid in my book.
My thoughts exactly.
I like your perspective, Tony. As an artist there's often this internal conflict between creating something you would like others to read, see, touch and so on, and wanting to be appreciated in your art, and acknowledged. Often this takes the form of a donation, or buying a print - something that allows the art to continue. After 45 years in business that ethos has crept into my DNA and I see many things as transactional. This is not always correct and I realize this. But free is a tricky word for me if I'm being honest. If I write a poem and some people comment and say they love it or it made them laugh -cry-pass out, then that is a payment of sorts. If they say nothing at all, I'm sometimes left wondering - well, shoot, anyone out there who liked this, please raise their hand? Anyway, good perspective, cheers.
Thanks for the kudos, Joe. I think I can also afford to not charge folks because I have been lucky to be in an admin position that pays my day to day bills. Also, I am gay and married and have no children, so my expenses are less than most folks with kids. Also, I think social media has changed things. I have to admit that I wish I could have had a paid career in writing, but I am 60 and being paid to write 30 years ago meant being part of a system where you had access to people who knew people. Social media has made it a bit easier to build an audience and to actually earn a living, or at least an income that helps one makes ends meet. Cheers to you too!
This is the main thing, IM (never H)O that Medium has over Substack. I can't possibly subscribe to all the writers I would love to support on Substack. But I can pay my monthly membership to Medium (and yes, I'm also a Medium Friend who ponies up the additional $100) and read all I can manage to and further support those writers with my engagement.
That's the rub; Medium sees writers as the way to keep people on the platform (and as paying members). Substack sees writers as individual proprietors, with the platform being the plumbing to get your content to my inbox. They physics are different.
Indeed. Each has their advantages. Substack seems to work best for those who have built very large platforms, like Heather Cox Richardson (whose work I never miss!). Not that one's better than the other -- as you say, they're different business models. Still, I like the access I have at Medium for my single subscription.