3 ms·
Reading between the lines, Medium tried a model where they hired authors, paid them to create content, and sold subscriptions to this content, and it was very u
by Lazare 6y ago
Reading between the lines, Medium tried a model where they hired authors, paid them to create content, and sold subscriptions to this content, and it was very unprofitable. Worse, it was unprofitable in a difficult to fix way, because it's unclear which authors you can let go with a minimal impact on subscriptions. (And firing people from a paid team of writers is always going to have significant costs in terms of moral, productivity, etc.)
Substack seems to be trying a model where they will, in some cases, guarantee an author will receive a minimum amount of subscriptions for the first year, in exchange for a hefty cut of subscription revenue. I don't think we have information on how the program is doing on net, but in at least some high profile cases they've turned a profit on it. Also, even if the program is significantly loss making, it should be easy enough to shift to profitability; just scale down offering new contracts to people without large existing readerships.
The model is not enormously different at the twenty thousand feet level, but I think it has the potential to play out quite differently in practice nonetheless.
- muglug 6y ago> Also, even if the program is significantly loss making, it should be easy enough to shift to profitability; just scale down offering new contracts to people without large existing readerships. Yeah Substack's server costs are probably fairly low, so they could also probably lay off some engineers and coast for a while before a competitor gobbled up the market. I never understood why Medium tried to be the Netflix for words. To me it always made more sense for them to follow Vimeo's model (disclaimer – I work for Vimeo): create tools that paying customers use to help them showcase their work, tools that let them customise how it appears, and tools that let them monetise that content.