4 ms·
The problem is the reader world is bifurcating. It is no longer viable to write "for the middle" of the audience. The two profitable price-quality points are:
by sixtypoundhound 7y ago
The problem is the reader world is bifurcating. It is no longer viable to write "for the middle" of the audience.
The two profitable price-quality points are:
- Cheap content for the masses (lowest common denominator, ad supported)
- Deep content for the vested (at a high price point)
"The middle" graces you with:
- High cost to produce (research, depth, diction)
- Limited audience
- Zero willingness to pay
A writer demanding the world take them seriously is the last step on the way down.... performance begets entitlement, not the reverse. There are critical writers in the business world: those who write landing pages, build core content, drive desirable activity. They are often very well paid and - in the event they aren't - are frequently positioned to go out on their own as an independent publisher. It's the ones that write what in retrospect was the filler who tend to complain....
- BookPost 7y agoBook Post here. Thanks for giving us some thought! Agree, $45 subscription is a lift. Upside: Overhead is low & I don’t need a mass readership to make it work. The New York Review of Books and the New Yorker were built on an “aspirational” audience of people not necessarily seriously into books but wanting to keep up with culture in an approachable/manageable way. Would love to have enough readers to charge less. Isn’t there something between business reporting and “filler” that is a social good? Like, just because teachers don’t have the market leverage to earn millions, doesn’t mean we don’t want their salaries set at a level that attracts qualified people and makes the profession sustainable...