5 ms·

Twitch/youtube/patreon subscription model is the future. Why subscribe to several newspapers (where you don't care for 90% of the content), if you could subscr

by ajuc 8y ago

Twitch/youtube/patreon subscription model is the future. Why subscribe to several newspapers (where you don't care for 90% of the content), if you could subscribe to the exact 13 authors that write about stuff you like, and never miss any of their articles, and never need to look through 30 pages of crap to find that? I'm seeing a lot of business models that would never work without twitch - a guy that's streaming pen&paper RPG sessions. He's not even streaming in English, but in Polish (much smaller audience). And he earns very good money (it helps he's awesome at storytelling :) ). Another guy earns a living by streaming his commentary on interesting starcraft matches. Another streams coding his game (but he's not doing it full-time). The best thing is - if the community is in the sweet spot (like 100-1000 people) - you can interact with the people in chat, and it's not fake interaction like on TV or in radio - when you write something you know the "celebrity" will read it and likely respond to it. It makes the audience much more engaged than with traditional media. Every niche hobby is now a marketable skill if you have a little charisma and a lot of time. There should be something like that, but for text.

nottorp 8y ago
However, this way you hit the ceiling for how much people can afford for subscriptions. You get the rabid fans but no one else. Too much fragmentation IMO. I'd like a service (perhaps Patreon can do it) that asks "how much do you want to pay monthly?" and "who do you want to support?" and then distributes your $10, or $100, or $1000, whatever you can afford, to everyone in your list. It will end up as pennies from each subscriber, but it will encourage more subscribers so hopefully it can even out or even produce more money.
Vinnl 8y ago
> Every niche hobby is now a marketable skill if you have a little charisma and can properly speak English. It's really hard to find a niche audience when you speak Dutch, but retaining one's charisma while speaking a non-native language is really difficult as well.
- ajuc 8y ago
  That's what I thought too, but all my examples were doing it in Polish, which has only about 2 times more speakers than Dutch.
  - Vinnl 8y ago
    Oh, huh - I missed that reading your comment the first time. That's cool then, I guess.
das_keyboard 8y ago
>> Why subscribe to several newspapers (where you don't care for 90% of the content), if you could subscribe to the exact 13 authors that write about stuff you like, and never miss any of their articles, and never need to look through 30 pages of crap to find that? By doing this with news people tend to create their own echo chambers and I don't know if this is a good thing. Especially with news I try to read different sources and opinions about a topic before I can form my own view.
- ajuc 8y ago
  Yes, that's a valid concern, but expecting people to subscribe to newspapers they disagree with is IMHO too much. I may occasionally buy a newspaper I disagree with. I won't subscribe to it. Especially when polarization of the society is so strong that half of that press is actively insulting the supporters of "the other side". For example - I've read a few issues of "Do Rzeczy" - pro-government press in Poland that my father subscribes to. I've learnt that I'm a traitor, a communist, a thief, and a deviant, because I disagree with the government and participate in demonstrations. I have very little desire to read such news on a daily basis and even less to pay for it. I'm more likely to read articles by Łukasz Warzecha (who is also writing for that newspaper, but at least usually doesn't insult his political enemies, and tries to stop the more absurd witch hunts they do), than to read the whole thing on a regular basis. So, in my opinion - in this case the twitch subscription model is better, too. There is a niche for "less polarizing disagreement" and authors could build their personal brands basing on that (just like some build theirs by being the most controversial ones). There's the issue of discoverability, but news aggregators solve this better, than traditional press.
johannes1234321 8y ago
> Why subscribe to several newspapers (where you don't care for 90% of the content), if you could subscribe to the exact 13 authors that write about stuff you like, and never miss any of their articles, and never need to look through 30 pages of crap to find that? Because looking through 30 pages confronts me with topics and perspectives I wouldn't have selected otherwise. Which enhances my perception. A well written op-ed to which I disagree is among the best things a paper can deliver as it challenges my view.
- Jolter 8y ago
  I certainly agree that it's beneficial to the consumer, but... I subscribe to the local paper which shares my political view, and I only read one of the opposing papers whenever I get a chance. I appreciate the same aspects as you do, it just doesn't seem likely I'll spend actual money subscribing to the other paper, when that would in fact be equal to financing a political movement I disagree with. I bet others feel the same. What GP writes about, though, reads more like the future of entertainment, not news. I don't see the harm in that, as long as there are ways to get recommended other stuff than what you watch every day. One side effect of this narrowing of channels is, I seem to have fewer and fewer cultural references in common with my more senior colleagues who still watch broadcast TV. Them: Did you watch the game last night? Me: Do you mean CS GO Katowice qualifiers or the big DOTA tournament?
  - johannes1234321 8y ago
    > I only read one of the opposing papers whenever I get a chance. A point to this is that a "good" paper also publishes op-eds from "the other side" And sometimes those are really well written, really trying to convince you instead of just preaching the choir. The thing I saw often pre-Internet was that people had a local paper, a national paper and maybe a weekly magazine/paper. I myself currently am subscribed (as in paying, my RSS Reader has lots more) a local epaper and a national weekly printed paper. The later is nice (except I often disagree with many views stated) as it lives outside the fast breaking news cycle of the inline world and by being paper I really look through it (unless I spend too much time elsewhere ...) page by page instead of quickly scrolling through my RSS feed or quickly scanning over news sites. > What GP writes about, though, reads more like the future of entertainment, not news. Yes, the amount of ways to spend leisure time increased a lot. The amount of media one can consume is incredible, which leads to ... > , I seem to have fewer and fewer cultural references in common with my more senior colleagues who still watch broadcast TV. ... less of a common experience. The big TV events, the big news, ... it becomes all a more unique experience. Even with TV shows "everybody" watches: In the morning, after an episode of some show was released there is this one guy in the office "oh please don't spoil, I haven't watched that episode, yet" in the past there was this guy "oh damn, I missed it, please tell me what happens, so I can follow along next week"
pvg 8y ago
Why subscribe to several newspapers Because a great deal of journalism is not just a matter of individual authors. You can't report from Aleppo or commission polls or or spend months investigating something complicated as a hobby.
- icebraining 8y ago
  What does being an individual author have to do with doing it as a hobby? Why can't you report from Aleppo as long as you get the money to pay your salary and expenses? A better example might be something that requires a large team, like analyzing large amounts of data, but the ICIJ shows you don't need journalists to be employed by a single organization to be able to collaborate.
  - pvg 8y ago
    What does being an individual author have to do with doing it as a hobby? The comment I'm replying to talks about ways to make money with your hobby online. Why can't you report from Aleppo as long as you get the money to pay your salary and expenses? It's a warzone.
    - ajuc 8y ago
      > The comment I'm replying to talks about ways to make money with your hobby online. That was an example. > It's a warzone People still live there. English-speaking people too.
      - pvg 8y ago
        That was an example. Sure. It's an example that doesn't apply to journalism well which is why there are such things as newspapers one subscribes to. People still live there. English-speaking people too. Indubitably. The work of visiting journalists in crisis zones would be impossible without their help, often at tremendous personal risk. But that just makes the notion that journalism can be replaced by individuals armed with a keyboard and a patreon account more, not less preposterous.

by ajuc 8y ago

nottorp 8y ago

However, this way you hit the ceiling for how much people can afford for subscriptions. You get the rabid fans but no one else. Too much fragmentation IMO. I'd like a service (perhaps Patreon can do it) that asks "how much do you want to pay monthly?" and "who do you want to support?" and then distributes your $10, or $100, or $1000, whatever you can afford, to everyone in your list. It will end up as pennies from each subscriber, but it will encourage more subscribers so hopefully it can even out or even produce more money.

Vinnl 8y ago

> Every niche hobby is now a marketable skill if you have a little charisma and can properly speak English. It's really hard to find a niche audience when you speak Dutch, but retaining one's charisma while speaking a non-native language is really difficult as well.

ajuc 8y ago
That's what I thought too, but all my examples were doing it in Polish, which has only about 2 times more speakers than Dutch.
- Vinnl 8y ago
  Oh, huh - I missed that reading your comment the first time. That's cool then, I guess.

das_keyboard 8y ago

>> Why subscribe to several newspapers (where you don't care for 90% of the content), if you could subscribe to the exact 13 authors that write about stuff you like, and never miss any of their articles, and never need to look through 30 pages of crap to find that? By doing this with news people tend to create their own echo chambers and I don't know if this is a good thing. Especially with news I try to read different sources and opinions about a topic before I can form my own view.

ajuc 8y ago
Yes, that's a valid concern, but expecting people to subscribe to newspapers they disagree with is IMHO too much. I may occasionally buy a newspaper I disagree with. I won't subscribe to it. Especially when polarization of the society is so strong that half of that press is actively insulting the supporters of "the other side". For example - I've read a few issues of "Do Rzeczy" - pro-government press in Poland that my father subscribes to. I've learnt that I'm a traitor, a communist, a thief, and a deviant, because I disagree with the government and participate in demonstrations. I have very little desire to read such news on a daily basis and even less to pay for it. I'm more likely to read articles by Łukasz Warzecha (who is also writing for that newspaper, but at least usually doesn't insult his political enemies, and tries to stop the more absurd witch hunts they do), than to read the whole thing on a regular basis. So, in my opinion - in this case the twitch subscription model is better, too. There is a niche for "less polarizing disagreement" and authors could build their personal brands basing on that (just like some build theirs by being the most controversial ones). There's the issue of discoverability, but news aggregators solve this better, than traditional press.

johannes1234321 8y ago

> Why subscribe to several newspapers (where you don't care for 90% of the content), if you could subscribe to the exact 13 authors that write about stuff you like, and never miss any of their articles, and never need to look through 30 pages of crap to find that? Because looking through 30 pages confronts me with topics and perspectives I wouldn't have selected otherwise. Which enhances my perception. A well written op-ed to which I disagree is among the best things a paper can deliver as it challenges my view.

Jolter 8y ago
I certainly agree that it's beneficial to the consumer, but... I subscribe to the local paper which shares my political view, and I only read one of the opposing papers whenever I get a chance. I appreciate the same aspects as you do, it just doesn't seem likely I'll spend actual money subscribing to the other paper, when that would in fact be equal to financing a political movement I disagree with. I bet others feel the same. What GP writes about, though, reads more like the future of entertainment, not news. I don't see the harm in that, as long as there are ways to get recommended other stuff than what you watch every day. One side effect of this narrowing of channels is, I seem to have fewer and fewer cultural references in common with my more senior colleagues who still watch broadcast TV. Them: Did you watch the game last night? Me: Do you mean CS GO Katowice qualifiers or the big DOTA tournament?
- johannes1234321 8y ago
  > I only read one of the opposing papers whenever I get a chance. A point to this is that a "good" paper also publishes op-eds from "the other side" And sometimes those are really well written, really trying to convince you instead of just preaching the choir. The thing I saw often pre-Internet was that people had a local paper, a national paper and maybe a weekly magazine/paper. I myself currently am subscribed (as in paying, my RSS Reader has lots more) a local epaper and a national weekly printed paper. The later is nice (except I often disagree with many views stated) as it lives outside the fast breaking news cycle of the inline world and by being paper I really look through it (unless I spend too much time elsewhere ...) page by page instead of quickly scrolling through my RSS feed or quickly scanning over news sites. > What GP writes about, though, reads more like the future of entertainment, not news. Yes, the amount of ways to spend leisure time increased a lot. The amount of media one can consume is incredible, which leads to ... > , I seem to have fewer and fewer cultural references in common with my more senior colleagues who still watch broadcast TV. ... less of a common experience. The big TV events, the big news, ... it becomes all a more unique experience. Even with TV shows "everybody" watches: In the morning, after an episode of some show was released there is this one guy in the office "oh please don't spoil, I haven't watched that episode, yet" in the past there was this guy "oh damn, I missed it, please tell me what happens, so I can follow along next week"

pvg 8y ago

Why subscribe to several newspapers Because a great deal of journalism is not just a matter of individual authors. You can't report from Aleppo or commission polls or or spend months investigating something complicated as a hobby.

icebraining 8y ago
What does being an individual author have to do with doing it as a hobby? Why can't you report from Aleppo as long as you get the money to pay your salary and expenses? A better example might be something that requires a large team, like analyzing large amounts of data, but the ICIJ shows you don't need journalists to be employed by a single organization to be able to collaborate.
- pvg 8y ago
  What does being an individual author have to do with doing it as a hobby? The comment I'm replying to talks about ways to make money with your hobby online. Why can't you report from Aleppo as long as you get the money to pay your salary and expenses? It's a warzone.
  - ajuc 8y ago
    > The comment I'm replying to talks about ways to make money with your hobby online. That was an example. > It's a warzone People still live there. English-speaking people too.
    - pvg 8y ago
      That was an example. Sure. It's an example that doesn't apply to journalism well which is why there are such things as newspapers one subscribes to. People still live there. English-speaking people too. Indubitably. The work of visiting journalists in crisis zones would be impossible without their help, often at tremendous personal risk. But that just makes the notion that journalism can be replaced by individuals armed with a keyboard and a patreon account more, not less preposterous.