As I wrote to Chris in my paid-subscription cancellation, I think Substack’s (and everyone else’s) all-you-can-eat pricing model is flawed because it doesn’t cater to the casual consumer. Imagine not being able to walk into a restaurant to pay for and eat a meal; instead you have to pay $900 a month for a restaurant pass allowing you to eat as much as you want, as many times as you want, in any restaurant in the program. Not so great for the casual diner, huh? What I’m looking for - and I’ve written this to Apple and the Wall Street Journal so far with more to come - is a base tier for $1 a month plus usage and/or time on the site; a middle tier tor say $3 with some usage included; then the AYCE model we have today for say $6. THEN the billing software would assess my usage each month and bill me the LOWEST tier’s price for me for that month. And yes, I support Chris’ and Tom’s idea to bundle some Substack providers at a discount!
I’d add that this “all-you-can-eat pricing model problem” goes back to cable bundles in the 1980s going forward : you paid $50 a month for 80 channels, 76 of which you had no interest in. I understand why they do this (billing is easier, revenue is reliable; the popular stuff and the unpopular stuff gets amortized together), but this consumer who WANTS to pay media creators like Chris and Tom stands in protest
I understand where you are coming from, @Phil rineheart. Chris, I enjoyed listening to this and can see our devolvement with corporate media. We have watched less and less over the last few years, while increasing our intake of news from independent journalists and media. It took us awhile to actually start paying for subscriptions as we wanted to choose the ones we most enjoyed.Truthfully, yours was the first one! I am not sure how bundling would work but intrigued by Phil’s suggestion as the bundles may not be the ones we choose. Unless it is something like pick 2 from column A, 3 from column B, etc.. The other issue besides the money aspect is time, at least for us. If the content is a podcast or your Substack videos, I can listen while doing things. As well,as others that we may choose. When it is written, I am reading and only reading. We have other things going on and just don’t have the time to devote to reading all that we want. I also don’t want to be listening to content all day long. So, it’s trying to find that sweet spot of consuming media in a new way. There is an endless supply of opportunities now and feel it’s a learning curve for everyone. We are embracing it, just trying to figure out how to work it to our advantage.
I have been wondering about the same since the election -- some sort of co-ops of independent news. I follow several people on substack -- think would be cool at least mini teams, and some can focus on specific areas. Some daily updates, but also some can focus on details.. some divide and conquer.
As I wrote to Chris in my paid-subscription cancellation, I think Substack’s (and everyone else’s) all-you-can-eat pricing model is flawed because it doesn’t cater to the casual consumer. Imagine not being able to walk into a restaurant to pay for and eat a meal; instead you have to pay $900 a month for a restaurant pass allowing you to eat as much as you want, as many times as you want, in any restaurant in the program. Not so great for the casual diner, huh? What I’m looking for - and I’ve written this to Apple and the Wall Street Journal so far with more to come - is a base tier for $1 a month plus usage and/or time on the site; a middle tier tor say $3 with some usage included; then the AYCE model we have today for say $6. THEN the billing software would assess my usage each month and bill me the LOWEST tier’s price for me for that month. And yes, I support Chris’ and Tom’s idea to bundle some Substack providers at a discount!
I’d add that this “all-you-can-eat pricing model problem” goes back to cable bundles in the 1980s going forward : you paid $50 a month for 80 channels, 76 of which you had no interest in. I understand why they do this (billing is easier, revenue is reliable; the popular stuff and the unpopular stuff gets amortized together), but this consumer who WANTS to pay media creators like Chris and Tom stands in protest
I understand where you are coming from, @Phil rineheart. Chris, I enjoyed listening to this and can see our devolvement with corporate media. We have watched less and less over the last few years, while increasing our intake of news from independent journalists and media. It took us awhile to actually start paying for subscriptions as we wanted to choose the ones we most enjoyed.Truthfully, yours was the first one! I am not sure how bundling would work but intrigued by Phil’s suggestion as the bundles may not be the ones we choose. Unless it is something like pick 2 from column A, 3 from column B, etc.. The other issue besides the money aspect is time, at least for us. If the content is a podcast or your Substack videos, I can listen while doing things. As well,as others that we may choose. When it is written, I am reading and only reading. We have other things going on and just don’t have the time to devote to reading all that we want. I also don’t want to be listening to content all day long. So, it’s trying to find that sweet spot of consuming media in a new way. There is an endless supply of opportunities now and feel it’s a learning curve for everyone. We are embracing it, just trying to figure out how to work it to our advantage.
I have been wondering about the same since the election -- some sort of co-ops of independent news. I follow several people on substack -- think would be cool at least mini teams, and some can focus on specific areas. Some daily updates, but also some can focus on details.. some divide and conquer.