5 ms·

I think Medium premium stories should be at least marked as such in the title. I also think it's quite absurd marking personal articles as 'pay to read'.

by nikivi 9y ago

caspervonb 9y ago
You can delete or block Medium cookies to reset the "3 monthly freebies" counter.
ccccccccccccc 9y ago
I chuckle a bit thinking of someone paying a monthly subscription to read "Hello World" articles
- caspervonb 9y ago
  But it's with bogo sort..! Anyhow the goal was to elicit a chuckle, so even if its not directly from the post I'll still count this as a success.
coldtea 9y ago
>I also think it's quite absurd marking personal articles as 'pay to read'. Well, it's not a news outlet. Most things on Medium is "personal articles". The whole idea is to have content authors get paid for their musings, rants, essays, etc.
- sanderjd 9y ago
  The reason we pay news outlets for content is for their editorial function: curating writers, picking and choosing worthwhile topics, polishing the output, etc. This editorial function has no implicit value, but neither does the content; the value is in the combination of strong content with good editorial technique. My sense is that Medium isn't doing this, that they are instead just charging for content, which completely misses the point.
  - coldtea 9y ago
    >The reason we pay news outlets for content is for their editorial function: curating writers, picking and choosing worthwhile topics, polishing the output, etc. This editorial function has no implicit value, but neither does the content; the value is in the combination of strong content with good editorial technique. I don't think that's explicitly and consciously the case. Today that everybody can publish on the web, such curation might be especially needed, and payed for (to remove the noise). But back in the day, we paid news outlets because that was how we got articles -- whether they were curated or not was a secondary concern. People couldn't just buy paper and bare printing costs, handle distribution deals etc and distribute their own articles. So if we wanted articles we had to buy them in newspaper/magazine form. Curation came with that -- not as an inherent demand. >My sense is that Medium isn't doing this, that they are instead just charging for content, which completely misses the point. Not really. The whole point of internet distrubution, what was hailed as revolutionary, was the ability to 'skip the gatekeeper', publish directly to everybody, and grow your own audience. Medium is still kind of a middleman, but they're not a gatekeeper, in the sense that the editor in chief of an old news outlet was. Their whole point is giving people direct access to any content writer they like. If someone doesn't care for one, they can read others. No curation necessary, not only because you can discover yourself which authors you like, but also because Medium has infinite space for articles -- not the 100-200 pages of a newspaper/magazine. It's the same deal with independent musicians selling their wares directly.
    - sanderjd 9y ago
      I feel like you said lots of stuff that is true but isn't a response to my point. You said that back in the day we paid for news because of scarcity due to the costs of printing and distribution. That's true, but I'm not talking about back in the day, I'm talking about now. The value in the business model now is in the combination of strong content and editorial. You're saying that Medium is a middle-man but not a gatekeeper. That seems true to me, but what I'm saying is: that model doesn't make much sense. The majority of value provided by content middle-men is in doing gatekeeping well. I'm very interested in direct-to-audience models for creators. But it isn't clear to me that that's what Medium is doing... Maybe it is, but it's not how I think about it (yet), so maybe they need to talk that up more.

I think Medium premium stories should be at least marked as such in the title. I also think it's quite absurd marking personal articles as 'pay to read'.

by nikivi 9y ago

I think Medium premium stories should be at least marked as such in the title. I also think it's quite absurd marking personal articles as 'pay to read'.

caspervonb 9y ago

You can delete or block Medium cookies to reset the "3 monthly freebies" counter.

ccccccccccccc 9y ago

I chuckle a bit thinking of someone paying a monthly subscription to read "Hello World" articles

caspervonb 9y ago
But it's with bogo sort..! Anyhow the goal was to elicit a chuckle, so even if its not directly from the post I'll still count this as a success.

coldtea 9y ago

>I also think it's quite absurd marking personal articles as 'pay to read'. Well, it's not a news outlet. Most things on Medium is "personal articles". The whole idea is to have content authors get paid for their musings, rants, essays, etc.

sanderjd 9y ago
The reason we pay news outlets for content is for their editorial function: curating writers, picking and choosing worthwhile topics, polishing the output, etc. This editorial function has no implicit value, but neither does the content; the value is in the combination of strong content with good editorial technique. My sense is that Medium isn't doing this, that they are instead just charging for content, which completely misses the point.
- coldtea 9y ago
  >The reason we pay news outlets for content is for their editorial function: curating writers, picking and choosing worthwhile topics, polishing the output, etc. This editorial function has no implicit value, but neither does the content; the value is in the combination of strong content with good editorial technique. I don't think that's explicitly and consciously the case. Today that everybody can publish on the web, such curation might be especially needed, and payed for (to remove the noise). But back in the day, we paid news outlets because that was how we got articles -- whether they were curated or not was a secondary concern. People couldn't just buy paper and bare printing costs, handle distribution deals etc and distribute their own articles. So if we wanted articles we had to buy them in newspaper/magazine form. Curation came with that -- not as an inherent demand. >My sense is that Medium isn't doing this, that they are instead just charging for content, which completely misses the point. Not really. The whole point of internet distrubution, what was hailed as revolutionary, was the ability to 'skip the gatekeeper', publish directly to everybody, and grow your own audience. Medium is still kind of a middleman, but they're not a gatekeeper, in the sense that the editor in chief of an old news outlet was. Their whole point is giving people direct access to any content writer they like. If someone doesn't care for one, they can read others. No curation necessary, not only because you can discover yourself which authors you like, but also because Medium has infinite space for articles -- not the 100-200 pages of a newspaper/magazine. It's the same deal with independent musicians selling their wares directly.
  - sanderjd 9y ago
    I feel like you said lots of stuff that is true but isn't a response to my point. You said that back in the day we paid for news because of scarcity due to the costs of printing and distribution. That's true, but I'm not talking about back in the day, I'm talking about now. The value in the business model now is in the combination of strong content and editorial. You're saying that Medium is a middle-man but not a gatekeeper. That seems true to me, but what I'm saying is: that model doesn't make much sense. The majority of value provided by content middle-men is in doing gatekeeping well. I'm very interested in direct-to-audience models for creators. But it isn't clear to me that that's what Medium is doing... Maybe it is, but it's not how I think about it (yet), so maybe they need to talk that up more.