I've been enjoying your cold pitch series. And I found your analysis of the mythical morning show and why you enjoy it so much very compelling. But I did wonder whether you guys, as super fans, support this creative work financially. Are you paid subscribers of any of the stuff that they do?
I don't mean that as a snarky question at all. I've just been wondering lately how creatives whose business model involve getting people to pay them directly for their content act as consumers of other people's content.
For example, I'd love to do a poll of people with paid substack newsletters to find out how much each author spends each month (in absolute terms or as a percentage of take-home) on other people's substack newsletters.
Yes! We do actually. I cut it from this piece, but we had talked about how and why we are members of the Mythical Society. I also pay for several podcasts (the Michael Hobbes extended universe, Overthink, and 5-4) and 6 or 8 Substacks.
This is definitely a topic of conversation here on Substack (on Notes). For example, some folks talk about "spreading the love" and paying for a premium subscription for say, 3 months, before canceling and moving that money to another Substack they love for a few months. I can also say that there are several "check mark" Substackers who are premium subscribers of What Works, so I think there's a pretty widespread practice here of walking the walk!
Maybe part our decision to subscribe to a newsletter is the desire to make true the fact that people DO pay for good work. If I am willing to pay for someone’s craft, it increases my optimism that someone else will pay for mine.
I sometimes wonder whether substack is like a neighborhood yard sale where lots of goods and a amounts of cash change hands but everyone ends up with the same amount of stuff and cash as they started with! LOL
Ya know, something else that just popped into my mind—which might not be germane, but I think it's worth mentioning—is that all GMM viewers support the show financially because it runs YouTube ads, and YouTube shares revenue with creators.
Obviously that probably amounts to fractions of a penny per viewer, but at the scale they operate at it's considerable revenue.
Like I said, I don't know that that speaks to your question/interest, Monica. But I do think it's another path...
Oh definitely. I assumed there was some indirect monetization by way of YouTube ads or something. Which, as you say, is really only meaningful when you reach a scale that few of us reach.
And it's usually not something the viewer can opt in/out of. Seeing what people will tolerate in order to access your content is a little different than seeing who will choose to support you through a subscription or donation.
I'm less interested (these days, anyway) in the business model angle and more interested in how and why people engage in these more direct (and optional) exchanges of value.
And speaking of exchanges of value, thanks for a good conversation!
Ha! That is ALSO part of the conversation here! But ya know, from an economic perspective, that's not such a bad thing even if it were true. We get so focused on growing the surplus when enabling the flow would be more sustainable!
I've been enjoying your cold pitch series. And I found your analysis of the mythical morning show and why you enjoy it so much very compelling. But I did wonder whether you guys, as super fans, support this creative work financially. Are you paid subscribers of any of the stuff that they do?
I don't mean that as a snarky question at all. I've just been wondering lately how creatives whose business model involve getting people to pay them directly for their content act as consumers of other people's content.
For example, I'd love to do a poll of people with paid substack newsletters to find out how much each author spends each month (in absolute terms or as a percentage of take-home) on other people's substack newsletters.
Yes! We do actually. I cut it from this piece, but we had talked about how and why we are members of the Mythical Society. I also pay for several podcasts (the Michael Hobbes extended universe, Overthink, and 5-4) and 6 or 8 Substacks.
This is definitely a topic of conversation here on Substack (on Notes). For example, some folks talk about "spreading the love" and paying for a premium subscription for say, 3 months, before canceling and moving that money to another Substack they love for a few months. I can also say that there are several "check mark" Substackers who are premium subscribers of What Works, so I think there's a pretty widespread practice here of walking the walk!
Maybe part our decision to subscribe to a newsletter is the desire to make true the fact that people DO pay for good work. If I am willing to pay for someone’s craft, it increases my optimism that someone else will pay for mine.
I sometimes wonder whether substack is like a neighborhood yard sale where lots of goods and a amounts of cash change hands but everyone ends up with the same amount of stuff and cash as they started with! LOL
Ya know, something else that just popped into my mind—which might not be germane, but I think it's worth mentioning—is that all GMM viewers support the show financially because it runs YouTube ads, and YouTube shares revenue with creators.
Obviously that probably amounts to fractions of a penny per viewer, but at the scale they operate at it's considerable revenue.
Like I said, I don't know that that speaks to your question/interest, Monica. But I do think it's another path...
Oh definitely. I assumed there was some indirect monetization by way of YouTube ads or something. Which, as you say, is really only meaningful when you reach a scale that few of us reach.
And it's usually not something the viewer can opt in/out of. Seeing what people will tolerate in order to access your content is a little different than seeing who will choose to support you through a subscription or donation.
I'm less interested (these days, anyway) in the business model angle and more interested in how and why people engage in these more direct (and optional) exchanges of value.
And speaking of exchanges of value, thanks for a good conversation!
Ha! That is ALSO part of the conversation here! But ya know, from an economic perspective, that's not such a bad thing even if it were true. We get so focused on growing the surplus when enabling the flow would be more sustainable!