4 ms·
Perhaps I'm missing something, but what is fundamentally different, technically or business model-wise from, say Medium? Is it just that substack is grabbing a
by rvieira 6y ago
Perhaps I'm missing something, but what is fundamentally different, technically or business model-wise from, say Medium?
Is it just that substack is grabbing a bigger mind share?
- kar1181 6y agoI don't know but I've paid for a couple substacks in the past few months, I've not paid for a newspaper in 20 years. It's like getting someone to cook just for you - hyper targeted content. A newspaper is like a buffet, and these days a not very nutritious one.
- rvieira 6y agoSure, I understand the appeal (and I even use substack, but just free tiers tbf). Just trying to understand why is traditional media scared of substack and, apparently, not scared of other similar sevices.
- Dirlewanger 6y agoThey go into this in the article. Substack is actively trying to poach people for their platform. NYT, already being bereft of journalistic integrity, doesn't like this because it ruins their image even more.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- DC1350 6y agoOn Medium you pay for access to all premium content with a single subscription and the writers get paid a portion of that based on their reader count. On substack you subscribe to individuals and they get your entire sub payment (minus fees).
- stuff4ben 6y agoWhich probably means the writers get paid more but is more expensive for the consumer. As Medium seems to be dying out, this is probably a more viable business model. I'd expect Medium to pivot to this eventually.
- rst 6y agoMedium actually has tried at least twice to exercise traditional editorial functions, with branded publication "sections" including multiple writers -- the second such experiment just ended the same way as the first, with formerly high-profile hires losing jobs. Aside from that, the obvious difference is better execution. That matters.