For me it's partly about money but it's also partly about hassle. There are other sites that I subscribe to where I get content from multiple authors for one annual subscription fee. And the fact is that the subscriptions on substack are too expensive on an individual basis. It seems that groups of writers should find a way to pool their subscriptions. This could be done by splitting profits based on proportional readership.
I agree. Also, micro-payments would be a great - perhaps revolutionary - innovation. I've actually come up with a business plan that would introduce "NIckel Reads." I'm looking for a multi-millionaire with "the Right Stuff" to fund this idea. I probably won't find him or her, so I think I'm just going to outline my idea on my Substack site - Throw out another "Message in a Bottle" idea.
Oct 9, 2023·edited Oct 9, 2023Liked by Bill Rice, Jr.
Totally agree. I have brought this up with the Substack bosses with zero effect. Unfortunately, I hate to tell you, they are woke, live in San Francisco, and make a lot of money from pseudo-government Substacks that push jab propaganda and left-leaning opinions.
I do not know their revenue sources but 'we' have been digitally corralled away from the big revenue sources for the company. I have been banned from posting on the official Substack Substack because they keep the narrative tightly controlled - likely due to donors looking on and fear of upsetting their cash cows. Banter and off-topic commentary is not allowed.
Unfortunately, Bill's excellent idea of 'nickel clicks' will likely never happen because it will allow contrary opinions to flourish outside the digital containment zone.
Your post makes me more likely to go ahead and publish a series of articles where I outline "Nickel Reads." You've already identified the main reason this might be a very hard sale and I probably won't get the right people to fund this start-up operation - it would allow readers and writers to go AROUND the "gatekeepers of the news." It would threaten all the established "authorized narratives." Protecting the false narratives protects the Status Quo. So anything that might threaten this will somehow be defeated.
It would be interesting to see how many people actually read the articles these big substackers produce. They have 'solid ticks' and push out propaganda but how many REAL people actually read the articles? My suspicion is not very many. At least, not as many as their subscriber number would suggest.
You can make a guess by counting the "likes" and "Reader Comments" different articles generate. My observation is the "Covid skeptic" writers have far more reader "engagement" than the Substackers who are echoing the authorized narratives.
This said, your suspicions resonate a tad with me as well.
If one Substack reader can help three Substack authors with a financial committment of just $18 month, that adds up in a hury ... if just 7 out of 100 current free subscribers due the same thing.
If half the free subscribers would spend just $6/month, that would be a game-changer IMO.
The rich - or most successful - probably are more likely to become richer and more successful. But I don't begrudge them this. The best-known Substackers on "our team" have worked their fannies off to get where they are.
For me it's that I don't use that much content, not all seems credible at least yet), it requires a "subscription" that doesn't allow me to do the paying- I detest autopay! Then, there are so many with content of the day, but who do I choose? It's cumbersome.
I have considered that this question of payment would cone up (I'm a single, older woman, recovering from an accident that left me unable to walk for over a year. After that 2008 crisis, divorce, going back to school and now have 30 grand in that debt- I'm broke, probably for life.
I have thought about if there was a way to "drop some coins or a buck in the jar" after reading good content. Maybe having a type of card on substack that allows one to pay off of it...if the hackets don't rob ya.
I skimmed this because I am tired, been driving most of the day, cooking dinner and just life. I went to a meet and greet today I talked to many women younger than I am and we talked about media. I am shocked that most people did not know what substack is or was. I explained as best I could, so a fair amount of aren’t in the loop. This also goes for the guys who try and help me out with my computer. Maybe they are overwhelmed with everything else.
That's good news and bad news about Substack. The Bad News is most people still don't seem to know what Substack is. But the Good News is ... Most people don't know yet what Substack is. This means there is a ton of room for growth. More people every day do learn about this platform. And many who stay become very engaged.
I bet in two years Substack will have 70 million subscribers/readers world-wide. Even if just 3 or 4 percent are paid, 4 percent of 35 million would be 1.4 million new paid subscribers. If I get my fair share of those 1.4 million, I'll benefit.
I think of this often and it has both good and bad connotations - have you taken notice how the commentary is beyond superlative and sometimes even more informative (varying perspectives and links) than the post itself?
You can also feel the authenticity that these are not bots. I'm retired, live alone and spend my life reading. I can honestly say I derive the very best social interaction from the readers!
I hate to even say this for fear of jinxing it - but thank God the scum hasn't infiltrated Substack yet and hopefully never will. Thankfully they also don't have the attention span to read most of the posts. Or even know how to read. That's what sets Substack so far apart from everything thing else! I agree most don't know about it but there's a huge reason why! So let's not encourage them!!!
Oct 9, 2023·edited Oct 9, 2023Liked by Bill Rice, Jr.
Too late BJ there are skum about, but thing is any forum worth its salt has member who detect the skum and make efforts to delete said.
Is scum spelled "scum" or can it be spelled "skum"?
End of the day, scum (skum) will be revealed and then ain't it time for better ideas to prevail. I think so and I think this will be from the ground up and I hope SubStack doesn't lose sight of its founding principles and this hope is not made lightly being I put hard earned currency into it and truly - can I trade my angel investment in SubStack or not - it is liquid or is it frozen? I'm curious about that, but mainly I support good uncensored communication and if it don't happen at SubStack at the end of the day, then elsewhere it will I reckon.
I’m retired, so on a limited budget. I do pay for some Substack subscriptions and will reevaluate at year-end which ones I will continue to support and then move to support others but I can’t afford to support all those that I follow.
I subcribe to about 10 paid items, and that is it. Some are more, some less, but on a limited income, that is all I can do. I think most people are like that. It would be easier if Substack were like Epoch Times, where you have multiple writers combined in one payment, but I guess that is impossible. I think Medium works like that, too. (I left Medium when they went woke)
I din't know until this week (from an email from one of my new paid subscribers) that Medium is where you first started to publish your essays. And then you moved to Substack ... and the rest is history (ha!)
As I've written before, if there was "fairness" or "justice" in the world, you'd be one of the best-known columnists in the world by now. Every big newspaper would be wanting to publish your articles. I'm pretty sure none of them have reached out to you with such a proposal ... which is another "tell" about our captured establishment media.
I was following a handful of people especially a somewhat weird one called Clem, and when he had to dance around his word as to not be banned, I decided to leave the platform as a whole. The only other interesting person sent personalized emails, so I miss nothing! And all the good ones are on Substack now.
I kind of expect this to happen on Substack some time soon. I hope I am wrong.
I read the tech press and many are mostly [eg The Verge, Engadget] somehow connected with the narrative. Even their commenters are on board! I was banned from the Verge for joking about a pharma-sponsored article, even before this current madness. Now they have a slow drip of 'medical' stuff that isn't tech related at all. Medium once had some entertaining writers who seemed to change over night into vax-narrative echo people.
I am NOT aware of any Substack authors (who think like I do) who are generating "far higher than 4-percent paid support." Who are they? Can you give me one or two examples?
People don't want to pay for writing by those that "think like" you do. Plenty of people will consume your content. And forward it around the echo chamber. But reach into their pockets for $5/month ...?
It must be the WEF and the trans and all of the depopulation. And definitely woke something or other.
So far, the evidence is undeniable that approximately 97 percent of Substack's critical-thinking audience (those who reject the faux Covid narratives) are still unwilling to pay for any content ... for whatever reason.
Even if I might not like this "truth," this is still a big and important "take-away" IMO.
If I observed that correctly, most readers here are signed up with a nickname. I’m sure they want to stay anonymous for various reasons. They may not want their employer, friends, family, etc. to find out that they are here on substack. As we know from other substack writers, one can get cancelled, destroyed financially and cyber bullied for the most harmless comments or actions these days. All it takes is one of the establishment’s minions to spot you and then send the wild mob after you to destroy you and your freedom loving nature.
There is also a fair chance that one day substack may experience a data breach and all subscriber’s names and addresses will be posted online.
I think more people would subscribe to your and others substacks and would be happy to pay, if there would be a 100% anonymous way, so a subscriber’s identity could never be exposed.
Interesting points. I've written about one way Censorship has already worked dramatically - so many people now "self censor" - because they are afraid of what you outlined happening.
These fears are not paranoia or far-fetched either. They are legit.
Oct 9, 2023·edited Oct 9, 2023Liked by Bill Rice, Jr.
The problem with Substack is entirely the SUBSCRIPTION model itself.
Subscriptions are a continuous drain on money, and so everyone rightly avoids signing up for subscriptions whenever possible.
A better model would be for Substack to let people put $20 in an account from which they can choose to pay 10 cents or 25 cents to read the rest of a post, or as a tip for a very good free post.
I'm with you, Patrick. Stay tuned for my next Big Idea. I don't know if Substack's founders will like this one. It's a work-around or "Plan B" in case Substack doesn't help enough writers.
I favour the slush fund model too. There are plenty of one off articles I'd pay 25 or 50¢ for. But I'm not going to pay for a subscription.
The most successful seem to be people offering most for free with occasional pay only articles for the faithful. So those guys succeed because people want to pay.
I also have little faith substack will last. I know the owners are pretty woke, so perhaps it has a limited future.
Ron Unz should clone his site and set something up. His comments tech is good.
My "revolutionary" business idea would allow you to buy the articles that interest you for only a nickel a click. You'd deposit, say, $10 into an account every months or so. Every time you purchased an article (alacarte style), your pre-paid account would be debited a nickel. You'd get 200 stories of high interest to you every month.
From the writers' perspective, if they wrote a story that went viral or semi viral, they'd make enough money from this one effort to support them financially for many months.
I've run the numbers. I think I could have made a lot more money in one year from this platform than from Substack.
I do think it would be a much better model. It can also just sit alongside regular subscriptions too. I am sure most of us who support writers also discover interesting pieces we'd pay for.
Bill: Your math is a little off. 3000 x $40,000 = $120,000,000. not 1,200,000,000. according to my calculator.
That technical point aside, if you want to boost your number of paid subscribers then the best way is to be able to provide something that people value more than what they pay for your substack subscription. I am not sure what substack will allow in the way of advertising however here are some ideas.
Offer a better discount beyond what other people could get for vitamins and supplements.
Offer an ebook with a collection of the valuable tips and formulas to overcome vaccine side effects (cancer, cardiac arrest, etc.) Remember to build in liability immunity.
Write a book about early spread of Covid and offer for sale.
I am sure if you brainstorm you will come up with some more ideas.
Thanks, Fred. I bet I "checked my math" on this four times and still got it wrong! However, the main point (I think) is still right. The main point is that my initiative would support 3,000+ journalists at $40,000/year. Here's the corrected math:
560,000 new paid subscribers x $18/month = $10,080,000/month
Note: 560,000 new subscribers would be made possible by boosting the paid ratio from 3 percent to 10 percent.
$10,080,000/month x 12 months = $120,960,000/year (not $1.2 billion).
$120,960,000 divided by $40,000/year = 3,024 journalist that could gross $40K/year
Checking my math (again): 3,024 journalists x $40,000/year = $120,960,000
$120.9 million in “new money” would support 3,024 journalists who grossed $40,000/year.
I fixed this in the article.
Also, it's Southern Living magazine. There's also a Southern Homes & Garden. I conflated the two magazines that my Mom used to get!
Substack writers sustain me, they are a lifeline and reinforces my belief that the majority of people are really good people. If the Covid hoax did not happen, I would have never known what amazing integrity and unbending courage people have.
A writer I like very much and want to support wrote an intriguing headline concerning a subject of interest to me. I had to subscribe to read the whole thing and did.
The problem: His subs are $70/year, Ouch.
I pay yearly, which may be a mistake because I've since read one more, just one more, article by this writer. This means my cost per article was/is $35.
A not-so-easy solution is to read more of his articles. The problem? My time is limited. Time spent reading his articles is time not spent reading, say, Bill Rice's excellent contributions.
Readers' time (to read) and money (to spend) is not unlimited.
REPEAT: Readers' time (to read) and money (to spend) is not unlimited.
I proposed once before -- and will continue to propose -- considering a system of "tokens". Substack readers could purchase, say, a stack of ten, twenty (or more) tokens worth, say, $3 to $5 each. representing, hypothetically, a one-time purchase of $30 to $50 or $60 to $100. Whatever.
Readers could then "spend" their tokens with different Substackers. Note to Substack folks: The technology exists to make this quite workable.
When favorites are discovered, readers may decide to subscribe inasmuch as they're "spending" plenty of tokens with that particular writer.
I'd love to know what you and some of your readers think about this idea.
For the record, I'm a Bill Rice paid subscribers ;-).
It's a great idea, which makes one wonder why this hasn't been introduced yet. I'll tell you why: Because it would take control of the narrative away from the Power that Be or the "Gatekeepers of the News" and give it directly to the writers and the readers.
Comments like this make me more excited about rolling out my "Nickel Reads" micro-payment business idea. Maybe Substack authors or readers could pull our money and come up with enough capital to start this. I think it would take about $10 million. If you got a million people who put up $10, you got it!
Personally I would love any type of 'Stack tip system, even though the content itself is free. The idea of a "Stack Wallet" where you could unlock specific articles for like $1....that could be a nice boon for the paywalled Stacks.......
Bill, even before getting to your numbers and calculations, I was already thinking about a new business model, 🙂 because I agree with you that Substack’s business model is bad. What if the subscription for all Substack writers was only $6? How many people do you think would subscribe? A million? Two million? I was thinking about Fox Nation model (I have unsubscribed when they fired Tucker)… That is exactly how much they used to charge… I hate that everything is on the apps nowadays (Except for making babies—they don’t have an app for that! Not yet, anyway…😂), but I have to admit that it is convenient. Substack app: You log in, and you have access to as many writers material as you want, and no more free subscription, period. $6000000 a month (Assuming a million people would subscribe, and I think they will)… Not bad, I think… Maybe, it will take time to get to a million subscribers, but I think it is not impossible…
Speaking for myself, I have 3 children, have worked since I was 16, and still live paycheck to paycheck. I read Substack to learn and grow, but in our current situation I cannot afford to donate to Substack. Hopefully some day I will be able to afford to give back.
That's understandable. You help by commenting and sharing articles. Many of my now paid subscribers kicked the tires on this newsletter for many months before hitting one of the subscribe buttons.
There is another 'fear' which needs to be considered in our 'high surveillance' environment. Every subscription list is a digital list and identifies individuals who support a degree of dissidence. Just a simple change in the law and such lists can be made available to any authority. In the UK many were shocked that a division of the army were compiling lists of persons who spoke against lockdowns and to me this is very worrying. Ofcom, essentially a censoring organisation for the government, are now set to take control of the internet under the so-called 'Online Safety Bill' and currently pressurising tech companies to give them 'backdoors' enabling them to spy on encrypted messaging putting many vulnerable people at risk. All, of course, under the banner of 'for the good of the people'. Maybe I'm being paranoid but many I've spoken to share similar concerns.
Oct 8, 2023·edited Oct 8, 2023Liked by Bill Rice, Jr.
Fear explains so much, but ain't it time for fear to be diminished?
Of course, I reckon it takes fearless ones to do that...well then.
Be fearless.
Be like a Jack Russel bitch willing and ready to attack a German Shepard or a Pit Bull...to be fearless means you are willing to face the consequences of any response and if you are fearless then you must be determined and if your fearlessness is based upon a solid foundation of principle resolute, then God Bless You I reckon. If you are fearless, then death concerns you not a whit cause your principle strong and resolute is which you stand upon and you will die for it if need be....die fearlessly in defense of merit.
Fearless ones standing strong on principle are tenacious to the end.
For me it's partly about money but it's also partly about hassle. There are other sites that I subscribe to where I get content from multiple authors for one annual subscription fee. And the fact is that the subscriptions on substack are too expensive on an individual basis. It seems that groups of writers should find a way to pool their subscriptions. This could be done by splitting profits based on proportional readership.
I agree. Also, micro-payments would be a great - perhaps revolutionary - innovation. I've actually come up with a business plan that would introduce "NIckel Reads." I'm looking for a multi-millionaire with "the Right Stuff" to fund this idea. I probably won't find him or her, so I think I'm just going to outline my idea on my Substack site - Throw out another "Message in a Bottle" idea.
Totally agree. I have brought this up with the Substack bosses with zero effect. Unfortunately, I hate to tell you, they are woke, live in San Francisco, and make a lot of money from pseudo-government Substacks that push jab propaganda and left-leaning opinions.
I do not know their revenue sources but 'we' have been digitally corralled away from the big revenue sources for the company. I have been banned from posting on the official Substack Substack because they keep the narrative tightly controlled - likely due to donors looking on and fear of upsetting their cash cows. Banter and off-topic commentary is not allowed.
Unfortunately, Bill's excellent idea of 'nickel clicks' will likely never happen because it will allow contrary opinions to flourish outside the digital containment zone.
Your post makes me more likely to go ahead and publish a series of articles where I outline "Nickel Reads." You've already identified the main reason this might be a very hard sale and I probably won't get the right people to fund this start-up operation - it would allow readers and writers to go AROUND the "gatekeepers of the news." It would threaten all the established "authorized narratives." Protecting the false narratives protects the Status Quo. So anything that might threaten this will somehow be defeated.
It would be interesting to see how many people actually read the articles these big substackers produce. They have 'solid ticks' and push out propaganda but how many REAL people actually read the articles? My suspicion is not very many. At least, not as many as their subscriber number would suggest.
You can make a guess by counting the "likes" and "Reader Comments" different articles generate. My observation is the "Covid skeptic" writers have far more reader "engagement" than the Substackers who are echoing the authorized narratives.
This said, your suspicions resonate a tad with me as well.
Most of them have paid subscriber only comments.
Exactly. My husband's news budget is $5.40AUD/week. And... that means three substack authors a month for me.
That's all it would take to make a huge difference. Many hands make little work!
? It only makes a difference for three authors.
If one Substack reader can help three Substack authors with a financial committment of just $18 month, that adds up in a hury ... if just 7 out of 100 current free subscribers due the same thing.
If half the free subscribers would spend just $6/month, that would be a game-changer IMO.
But maybe all the money goes to the highest-rated writers (I know mine does). I don't even bother asking for subscriptions.
The rich - or most successful - probably are more likely to become richer and more successful. But I don't begrudge them this. The best-known Substackers on "our team" have worked their fannies off to get where they are.
For me it's that I don't use that much content, not all seems credible at least yet), it requires a "subscription" that doesn't allow me to do the paying- I detest autopay! Then, there are so many with content of the day, but who do I choose? It's cumbersome.
I have considered that this question of payment would cone up (I'm a single, older woman, recovering from an accident that left me unable to walk for over a year. After that 2008 crisis, divorce, going back to school and now have 30 grand in that debt- I'm broke, probably for life.
I have thought about if there was a way to "drop some coins or a buck in the jar" after reading good content. Maybe having a type of card on substack that allows one to pay off of it...if the hackets don't rob ya.
I skimmed this because I am tired, been driving most of the day, cooking dinner and just life. I went to a meet and greet today I talked to many women younger than I am and we talked about media. I am shocked that most people did not know what substack is or was. I explained as best I could, so a fair amount of aren’t in the loop. This also goes for the guys who try and help me out with my computer. Maybe they are overwhelmed with everything else.
That's good news and bad news about Substack. The Bad News is most people still don't seem to know what Substack is. But the Good News is ... Most people don't know yet what Substack is. This means there is a ton of room for growth. More people every day do learn about this platform. And many who stay become very engaged.
I bet in two years Substack will have 70 million subscribers/readers world-wide. Even if just 3 or 4 percent are paid, 4 percent of 35 million would be 1.4 million new paid subscribers. If I get my fair share of those 1.4 million, I'll benefit.
I think of this often and it has both good and bad connotations - have you taken notice how the commentary is beyond superlative and sometimes even more informative (varying perspectives and links) than the post itself?
You can also feel the authenticity that these are not bots. I'm retired, live alone and spend my life reading. I can honestly say I derive the very best social interaction from the readers!
I hate to even say this for fear of jinxing it - but thank God the scum hasn't infiltrated Substack yet and hopefully never will. Thankfully they also don't have the attention span to read most of the posts. Or even know how to read. That's what sets Substack so far apart from everything thing else! I agree most don't know about it but there's a huge reason why! So let's not encourage them!!!
Good points! Yes, our readers seem to be "normal" people ... and smart.
Too late BJ there are skum about, but thing is any forum worth its salt has member who detect the skum and make efforts to delete said.
Is scum spelled "scum" or can it be spelled "skum"?
End of the day, scum (skum) will be revealed and then ain't it time for better ideas to prevail. I think so and I think this will be from the ground up and I hope SubStack doesn't lose sight of its founding principles and this hope is not made lightly being I put hard earned currency into it and truly - can I trade my angel investment in SubStack or not - it is liquid or is it frozen? I'm curious about that, but mainly I support good uncensored communication and if it don't happen at SubStack at the end of the day, then elsewhere it will I reckon.
Have a handful of subs + Greenwald, threw a few hundy at the “investment”, and have the same hope.
So many people ask me "What's that?" when I tell them what I'm up to these days......
I’m retired, so on a limited budget. I do pay for some Substack subscriptions and will reevaluate at year-end which ones I will continue to support and then move to support others but I can’t afford to support all those that I follow.
I subcribe to about 10 paid items, and that is it. Some are more, some less, but on a limited income, that is all I can do. I think most people are like that. It would be easier if Substack were like Epoch Times, where you have multiple writers combined in one payment, but I guess that is impossible. I think Medium works like that, too. (I left Medium when they went woke)
Ten paid items is above and beyond - especially for someone on a limited income. Thank you!
Medium sux. They canceled me for telling the truth about the shots.
I din't know until this week (from an email from one of my new paid subscribers) that Medium is where you first started to publish your essays. And then you moved to Substack ... and the rest is history (ha!)
As I've written before, if there was "fairness" or "justice" in the world, you'd be one of the best-known columnists in the world by now. Every big newspaper would be wanting to publish your articles. I'm pretty sure none of them have reached out to you with such a proposal ... which is another "tell" about our captured establishment media.
I was following a handful of people especially a somewhat weird one called Clem, and when he had to dance around his word as to not be banned, I decided to leave the platform as a whole. The only other interesting person sent personalized emails, so I miss nothing! And all the good ones are on Substack now.
I kind of expect this to happen on Substack some time soon. I hope I am wrong.
I read the tech press and many are mostly [eg The Verge, Engadget] somehow connected with the narrative. Even their commenters are on board! I was banned from the Verge for joking about a pharma-sponsored article, even before this current madness. Now they have a slow drip of 'medical' stuff that isn't tech related at all. Medium once had some entertaining writers who seemed to change over night into vax-narrative echo people.
Bidenflation is a huge contributor.
No kidding. I picked a bad time to become a paid subscriber newsletter writer!
Sure. Blame Brandon for people's unwillingness to pay for your content. Makes sense.
There are Substack writers with far higher (than 4%) paid audiences. And I'm sure that you know that there are writers being paid well by Substack.
I am NOT aware of any Substack authors (who think like I do) who are generating "far higher than 4-percent paid support." Who are they? Can you give me one or two examples?
People don't want to pay for writing by those that "think like" you do. Plenty of people will consume your content. And forward it around the echo chamber. But reach into their pockets for $5/month ...?
It must be the WEF and the trans and all of the depopulation. And definitely woke something or other.
So far, the evidence is undeniable that approximately 97 percent of Substack's critical-thinking audience (those who reject the faux Covid narratives) are still unwilling to pay for any content ... for whatever reason.
Even if I might not like this "truth," this is still a big and important "take-away" IMO.
So that says a lot about your "critical thinkers," how they value your content, and their priorities; A Starbucks coffee or ...
I think with “fear” you are onto something.
If I observed that correctly, most readers here are signed up with a nickname. I’m sure they want to stay anonymous for various reasons. They may not want their employer, friends, family, etc. to find out that they are here on substack. As we know from other substack writers, one can get cancelled, destroyed financially and cyber bullied for the most harmless comments or actions these days. All it takes is one of the establishment’s minions to spot you and then send the wild mob after you to destroy you and your freedom loving nature.
There is also a fair chance that one day substack may experience a data breach and all subscriber’s names and addresses will be posted online.
I think more people would subscribe to your and others substacks and would be happy to pay, if there would be a 100% anonymous way, so a subscriber’s identity could never be exposed.
Interesting points. I've written about one way Censorship has already worked dramatically - so many people now "self censor" - because they are afraid of what you outlined happening.
These fears are not paranoia or far-fetched either. They are legit.
The problem with Substack is entirely the SUBSCRIPTION model itself.
Subscriptions are a continuous drain on money, and so everyone rightly avoids signing up for subscriptions whenever possible.
A better model would be for Substack to let people put $20 in an account from which they can choose to pay 10 cents or 25 cents to read the rest of a post, or as a tip for a very good free post.
I'm with you, Patrick. Stay tuned for my next Big Idea. I don't know if Substack's founders will like this one. It's a work-around or "Plan B" in case Substack doesn't help enough writers.
I favour the slush fund model too. There are plenty of one off articles I'd pay 25 or 50¢ for. But I'm not going to pay for a subscription.
The most successful seem to be people offering most for free with occasional pay only articles for the faithful. So those guys succeed because people want to pay.
I also have little faith substack will last. I know the owners are pretty woke, so perhaps it has a limited future.
Ron Unz should clone his site and set something up. His comments tech is good.
My "revolutionary" business idea would allow you to buy the articles that interest you for only a nickel a click. You'd deposit, say, $10 into an account every months or so. Every time you purchased an article (alacarte style), your pre-paid account would be debited a nickel. You'd get 200 stories of high interest to you every month.
From the writers' perspective, if they wrote a story that went viral or semi viral, they'd make enough money from this one effort to support them financially for many months.
I've run the numbers. I think I could have made a lot more money in one year from this platform than from Substack.
I do think it would be a much better model. It can also just sit alongside regular subscriptions too. I am sure most of us who support writers also discover interesting pieces we'd pay for.
Should anything bad happen to Substack, I invite you to post on my own site, patrick.net.
I don't think anything bad will happen, but platforms tend to be all sunshine and rainbows on the way up, then the money men get involved.
True. Google went from "Don't be evil" to "Be Dr. Evil"
https://patrick.net/post/1282577/2015-07-07-google-is-evil
Bill: Your math is a little off. 3000 x $40,000 = $120,000,000. not 1,200,000,000. according to my calculator.
That technical point aside, if you want to boost your number of paid subscribers then the best way is to be able to provide something that people value more than what they pay for your substack subscription. I am not sure what substack will allow in the way of advertising however here are some ideas.
Offer a better discount beyond what other people could get for vitamins and supplements.
Offer an ebook with a collection of the valuable tips and formulas to overcome vaccine side effects (cancer, cardiac arrest, etc.) Remember to build in liability immunity.
Write a book about early spread of Covid and offer for sale.
I am sure if you brainstorm you will come up with some more ideas.
Thanks, Fred. I bet I "checked my math" on this four times and still got it wrong! However, the main point (I think) is still right. The main point is that my initiative would support 3,000+ journalists at $40,000/year. Here's the corrected math:
560,000 new paid subscribers x $18/month = $10,080,000/month
Note: 560,000 new subscribers would be made possible by boosting the paid ratio from 3 percent to 10 percent.
$10,080,000/month x 12 months = $120,960,000/year (not $1.2 billion).
$120,960,000 divided by $40,000/year = 3,024 journalist that could gross $40K/year
Checking my math (again): 3,024 journalists x $40,000/year = $120,960,000
$120.9 million in “new money” would support 3,024 journalists who grossed $40,000/year.
I fixed this in the article.
Also, it's Southern Living magazine. There's also a Southern Homes & Garden. I conflated the two magazines that my Mom used to get!
Substack writers sustain me, they are a lifeline and reinforces my belief that the majority of people are really good people. If the Covid hoax did not happen, I would have never known what amazing integrity and unbending courage people have.
A personal anecdote.
A writer I like very much and want to support wrote an intriguing headline concerning a subject of interest to me. I had to subscribe to read the whole thing and did.
The problem: His subs are $70/year, Ouch.
I pay yearly, which may be a mistake because I've since read one more, just one more, article by this writer. This means my cost per article was/is $35.
A not-so-easy solution is to read more of his articles. The problem? My time is limited. Time spent reading his articles is time not spent reading, say, Bill Rice's excellent contributions.
Readers' time (to read) and money (to spend) is not unlimited.
REPEAT: Readers' time (to read) and money (to spend) is not unlimited.
I proposed once before -- and will continue to propose -- considering a system of "tokens". Substack readers could purchase, say, a stack of ten, twenty (or more) tokens worth, say, $3 to $5 each. representing, hypothetically, a one-time purchase of $30 to $50 or $60 to $100. Whatever.
Readers could then "spend" their tokens with different Substackers. Note to Substack folks: The technology exists to make this quite workable.
When favorites are discovered, readers may decide to subscribe inasmuch as they're "spending" plenty of tokens with that particular writer.
I'd love to know what you and some of your readers think about this idea.
For the record, I'm a Bill Rice paid subscribers ;-).
It's a great idea, which makes one wonder why this hasn't been introduced yet. I'll tell you why: Because it would take control of the narrative away from the Power that Be or the "Gatekeepers of the News" and give it directly to the writers and the readers.
Comments like this make me more excited about rolling out my "Nickel Reads" micro-payment business idea. Maybe Substack authors or readers could pull our money and come up with enough capital to start this. I think it would take about $10 million. If you got a million people who put up $10, you got it!
Personally I would love any type of 'Stack tip system, even though the content itself is free. The idea of a "Stack Wallet" where you could unlock specific articles for like $1....that could be a nice boon for the paywalled Stacks.......
SC see my comment above about why this will never happen. 'We' are in a digital gulag.
Bill, even before getting to your numbers and calculations, I was already thinking about a new business model, 🙂 because I agree with you that Substack’s business model is bad. What if the subscription for all Substack writers was only $6? How many people do you think would subscribe? A million? Two million? I was thinking about Fox Nation model (I have unsubscribed when they fired Tucker)… That is exactly how much they used to charge… I hate that everything is on the apps nowadays (Except for making babies—they don’t have an app for that! Not yet, anyway…😂), but I have to admit that it is convenient. Substack app: You log in, and you have access to as many writers material as you want, and no more free subscription, period. $6000000 a month (Assuming a million people would subscribe, and I think they will)… Not bad, I think… Maybe, it will take time to get to a million subscribers, but I think it is not impossible…
The money dad spent for the newspaper was eventually spent on cable tv and now internet and streaming services.
I was going to get into that point, but the story was already running long.
Cable TV went through the roof. Of course, people are now "cutting the chord" at record levels.
Speaking for myself, I have 3 children, have worked since I was 16, and still live paycheck to paycheck. I read Substack to learn and grow, but in our current situation I cannot afford to donate to Substack. Hopefully some day I will be able to afford to give back.
That's understandable. You help by commenting and sharing articles. Many of my now paid subscribers kicked the tires on this newsletter for many months before hitting one of the subscribe buttons.
There is another 'fear' which needs to be considered in our 'high surveillance' environment. Every subscription list is a digital list and identifies individuals who support a degree of dissidence. Just a simple change in the law and such lists can be made available to any authority. In the UK many were shocked that a division of the army were compiling lists of persons who spoke against lockdowns and to me this is very worrying. Ofcom, essentially a censoring organisation for the government, are now set to take control of the internet under the so-called 'Online Safety Bill' and currently pressurising tech companies to give them 'backdoors' enabling them to spy on encrypted messaging putting many vulnerable people at risk. All, of course, under the banner of 'for the good of the people'. Maybe I'm being paranoid but many I've spoken to share similar concerns.
Fear explains so much, but ain't it time for fear to be diminished?
Of course, I reckon it takes fearless ones to do that...well then.
Be fearless.
Be like a Jack Russel bitch willing and ready to attack a German Shepard or a Pit Bull...to be fearless means you are willing to face the consequences of any response and if you are fearless then you must be determined and if your fearlessness is based upon a solid foundation of principle resolute, then God Bless You I reckon. If you are fearless, then death concerns you not a whit cause your principle strong and resolute is which you stand upon and you will die for it if need be....die fearlessly in defense of merit.
Fearless ones standing strong on principle are tenacious to the end.
I try to support as many as I can, but they need to change payment options. Group together 3 authors for 10 a month. I can only support so
Many $5 a month subscriptions. But wouldn’t it be better to have a $10 once payment or grouped in? There are so many great stacks out there