if I were to build something like Substack, I would provide a way to create my own magazine by paying $10/month for <N> different substack offerings, instead of paying for them individually at $4US or whatever. Because, as you say, $4US or $7CA for each individual substack adds up pretty quickly, and puts a lot of expectations on the author(s).
Absent a "build your own magazine" option for us (the customers), I would suggest you reach out to your peers and see if you can create a combined substack that does something similar to Dispatch or Bulwark, where lots of authors contribute, to spread out the burden a little
But back to your original question: yes, $2US would be a much easier decision, since it doesn't add up as quickly
I've thought of "bundling" with other writers. But I feel that I have a fairly clearly defined space... which no one else shares. But if anyone has any suggestions, I'm all ears.
I wasn't aware that Substack had a $7 CAD minimum monthly subscription cost. You are also correct that people are going to hit a max number of such subscriptions.
(You know what cost me that same amount? My subs to the NY Times, Times of London, the Globe and Mail, etc. all of which are now discounted as they don't want subscribers to leave.)
The only way around this I can see if you bundled several low output Substack writers into a single $7 subscription service, to increase the value of the subscription, and you folks split the money. (Like The Line does.)
Anyway, thanks for raising this. You should consider bundling yourself with 2 or 3 other writers with similarly high quality outputs.
That’s exactly why I had to limit my subscription to two writers sadly. Bundling together is a good option. And yes, for $2. I’d be able to subscribe up more writers.
Re Substack pricing: If the subscription price were lower I’d subscribe to more. At $7/ mth (& many charge more) it’s unrealistic for me to do subscribe widely. We’re essentially paying for what can be analogized to newspaper columns. It’s appox $8 a month for a digital Globe subscription. 7 Substack subscriptions would run me approx $49 a month. So while there are some other subs I’d like I stick with the excellent Mr Gardner’s.
My favorite Dennis Hopper story is from the nineties, when he revived his career as a go-to villain in blockbusters like Speed (which holds up extremely well) and Waterworld (which is way better - and did much better at the box office - than its reputation). And, um, the infamous cyberpunk Super Mario Bros. movie with Bob Hoskins.
Hopper said his son asked him why he agreed to be in that film, and he answered, "son, I made that movie so you could have shoes on your feet."
The kid responded, "dad, I don't need shoes *that* badly."
I like the idea of a $2/month subscription, or better yet, a tip jar where readers can contribute a few dollars on a one-time or monthly basis as a way of saying "Keep up the good work!"
I don't feel comfortable charging for my Substack in its current form. I would need to regularly post my own original fiction for that. But if there was some low-cost, no-strings-attached option, that might prove helpful. And there are other publications that I'd be happy to tip from time to time.
For me, limit as important as price is just bandwidth in terms of available time and attention -- I already subscribe to more newspapers and magazines than I realistically am capable of reading (not to mention the long list of novels I’m embarrassed I haven’t read yet, and so on). So there’s an important sense in which, if I value an author’s work enough to be a paid subscriber, it’s probably worth the 7$/month for me, and if I « only » value it 2$/month, I probably don’t value it enough to be a priority to read over all the other things and so I might as well not subscribe. (I realize this might be a different calculation on a tighter budget, all else being equal -- and it would be different if I could quit my job to read everything!)
Very true. Our tools have made the generation of "content" -- the undifferentiated nature of the term being an important indicator of how much thought goes into it -- absurdly easy. Economic incentives then push us toward churning out more and more "content." We're drowning in it. And most is instantly forgotten dross. In this attention economy, the most valuable thing one person can give another is undivided attention over a substantial period of time. Which is why I'm always more grateful when people take the time to read my books than I am when they buy them. (Although I will always be grateful for the latter!)
Marc, I agree with you. The limiting factor for me is capacity to read what I am already subscribed to. So a lower subscription price would not be an incentive to add more writers. Perhaps I should drop my Economist subscription. Whew, a lot to cover in a week!
There are about 10 writers I'd love to subscribe to (and more I'd love to explore at least - my writer selections tend to be of one type), but I can't afford that. At $2 a month, I don't know if I would subscribe to all of them, but I definitely would subscribe to more. Also I would probably try out something new. Yeah, I would totally go for a lower price or a 'magazine' style option where I could pick a bunch of writers and then swap one or two in and out on a monthly basis.
In addition to the bundling idea, Substack should trial a monthly subscription that allows you to buy a certain number of posts per period from anyone.
P.S. I am subscribed to a well-known Canadian writer on here for $5 a month. No idea how he swung that.
if I were to build something like Substack, I would provide a way to create my own magazine by paying $10/month for <N> different substack offerings, instead of paying for them individually at $4US or whatever. Because, as you say, $4US or $7CA for each individual substack adds up pretty quickly, and puts a lot of expectations on the author(s).
Absent a "build your own magazine" option for us (the customers), I would suggest you reach out to your peers and see if you can create a combined substack that does something similar to Dispatch or Bulwark, where lots of authors contribute, to spread out the burden a little
But back to your original question: yes, $2US would be a much easier decision, since it doesn't add up as quickly
I've thought of "bundling" with other writers. But I feel that I have a fairly clearly defined space... which no one else shares. But if anyone has any suggestions, I'm all ears.
Good point. I would support paying for multiple authors under one subscription($2-3 per writer)
I wasn't aware that Substack had a $7 CAD minimum monthly subscription cost. You are also correct that people are going to hit a max number of such subscriptions.
(You know what cost me that same amount? My subs to the NY Times, Times of London, the Globe and Mail, etc. all of which are now discounted as they don't want subscribers to leave.)
The only way around this I can see if you bundled several low output Substack writers into a single $7 subscription service, to increase the value of the subscription, and you folks split the money. (Like The Line does.)
Anyway, thanks for raising this. You should consider bundling yourself with 2 or 3 other writers with similarly high quality outputs.
That’s exactly why I had to limit my subscription to two writers sadly. Bundling together is a good option. And yes, for $2. I’d be able to subscribe up more writers.
Re Substack pricing: If the subscription price were lower I’d subscribe to more. At $7/ mth (& many charge more) it’s unrealistic for me to do subscribe widely. We’re essentially paying for what can be analogized to newspaper columns. It’s appox $8 a month for a digital Globe subscription. 7 Substack subscriptions would run me approx $49 a month. So while there are some other subs I’d like I stick with the excellent Mr Gardner’s.
My favorite Dennis Hopper story is from the nineties, when he revived his career as a go-to villain in blockbusters like Speed (which holds up extremely well) and Waterworld (which is way better - and did much better at the box office - than its reputation). And, um, the infamous cyberpunk Super Mario Bros. movie with Bob Hoskins.
Hopper said his son asked him why he agreed to be in that film, and he answered, "son, I made that movie so you could have shoes on your feet."
The kid responded, "dad, I don't need shoes *that* badly."
I like the idea of a $2/month subscription, or better yet, a tip jar where readers can contribute a few dollars on a one-time or monthly basis as a way of saying "Keep up the good work!"
I don't feel comfortable charging for my Substack in its current form. I would need to regularly post my own original fiction for that. But if there was some low-cost, no-strings-attached option, that might prove helpful. And there are other publications that I'd be happy to tip from time to time.
For me, limit as important as price is just bandwidth in terms of available time and attention -- I already subscribe to more newspapers and magazines than I realistically am capable of reading (not to mention the long list of novels I’m embarrassed I haven’t read yet, and so on). So there’s an important sense in which, if I value an author’s work enough to be a paid subscriber, it’s probably worth the 7$/month for me, and if I « only » value it 2$/month, I probably don’t value it enough to be a priority to read over all the other things and so I might as well not subscribe. (I realize this might be a different calculation on a tighter budget, all else being equal -- and it would be different if I could quit my job to read everything!)
Very true. Our tools have made the generation of "content" -- the undifferentiated nature of the term being an important indicator of how much thought goes into it -- absurdly easy. Economic incentives then push us toward churning out more and more "content." We're drowning in it. And most is instantly forgotten dross. In this attention economy, the most valuable thing one person can give another is undivided attention over a substantial period of time. Which is why I'm always more grateful when people take the time to read my books than I am when they buy them. (Although I will always be grateful for the latter!)
Marc, I agree with you. The limiting factor for me is capacity to read what I am already subscribed to. So a lower subscription price would not be an incentive to add more writers. Perhaps I should drop my Economist subscription. Whew, a lot to cover in a week!
There are about 10 writers I'd love to subscribe to (and more I'd love to explore at least - my writer selections tend to be of one type), but I can't afford that. At $2 a month, I don't know if I would subscribe to all of them, but I definitely would subscribe to more. Also I would probably try out something new. Yeah, I would totally go for a lower price or a 'magazine' style option where I could pick a bunch of writers and then swap one or two in and out on a monthly basis.
Preordered How Big Things Get Done. I have a theory that we have too many Bob Oppenheimers, not enough Leslie Groves.
Dan, I for one, am happy (well, sullen but accepting?) to pay your "reasonable" fee.
In addition to the bundling idea, Substack should trial a monthly subscription that allows you to buy a certain number of posts per period from anyone.
P.S. I am subscribed to a well-known Canadian writer on here for $5 a month. No idea how he swung that.