James Huang is Heading to Substack

[litcrazy]

I agree. This feels like it could really appeal.

Originally Posted by LegendRider

It's ironic that there are so many good Substacks available - on all sorts of subjects - that I don't pay for any. It's almost analysis-paralysis.

I'd love a MoviePass style monthly subscription that would allow me to read X number of articles across all Substacks for a reasonable fee each month.

[NHAero]

Originally Posted by litcrazy

I agree. This feels like it could really appeal.

Same here

[jimoots]

Originally Posted by LegendRider

It's ironic that there are so many good Substacks available - on all sorts of subjects - that I don't pay for any. It's almost analysis-paralysis.

I'd love a MoviePass style monthly subscription that would allow me to read X number of articles across all Substacks for a reasonable fee each month.

I get the sentiment, am in a similar position and I'm sure others are. Probably half a dozen substacks that I have an interest in. That ends up being a considerable sum if I was to subscribe to all of them.

The tension is on the other side, I guess, in that Substack's promise or USP for the writer is that it will allow them to make a living from their writing.

As the reader it's tempting to say who cares, I just want to read an article here or there and not pay $50-150 annually to do so.

And that's not an unreasonable position to take. Even if you accept content is not free, the way that Substack has fragmented/super-niched content kind of drives the price up further than what we previously paid in pre-digital world when we did pay for content. The counter is that content now is better (by virtue of being more relevant) and more frequent, but I get the view.

But the unintended consequence is you kind of end up turning the platform into a gig platform, rather than giving the writer security to write what they really want to write, you start incentivising in the same way that traditional media is with clickbaity headlines and short form content that's designed to get a view (and payment from the platform).

[benadrian]

Originally Posted by jimoots

And that's not an unreasonable position to take. Even if you accept content is not free, the way that Substack has fragmented/super-niched content kind of drives the price up further than what we previously paid in pre-digital world when we did pay for content.

It's a dynamic place for sure, and it's kind of mirroring what's happening with streaming TV. We still have DirecTV at my house, which allows us to sign in and stream a lot of stuff. Still, I know a lot of people who have cancelled their cable/satellite package. Then they subscribe to a bunch of services and end up paying just as much. The difference is that they get to hit the targets that they want.

I tend to platform surf with Disney, Apple, Peacock, Paramount, etc. When there's something I want to see, I'll subscribe for and then cancel the next day. For the cost of renting 2-3 movies back in the 90s, the service stays on for that whole month. I watch stuff, and usually fizzle out. I don't even realize it's been shut off until a month or two later. But the result is that I might subscribe to something like Paramount for 4 months out of the year, I see my Star Treks and a movie or two, I feel the deal is fair, and I don't feel the annoyance of getting a monthly bill even when I'm not watching much.

I can see how the month to month thing might be disruptive for the small players, though. But the auto-renewing is one of my least favorite features. If I saw a cool article, I'd happily pay $5 for a month to read that and a few more things, but only if I didn't have to go to some deep menu diving to unsubscribe. When time runs out, I'd just prefer to lose access. Then, I'll see a preview for something a few weeks or months later and I'll pay the 30 day piper.