> The logic is simple: an individual writer is always relatively niche. Niche means small audience. Small audience means you have to charge more per person to c

> The logic is simple: an individual writer is always relatively niche. Niche means small audience. Small audience means you have to charge more per person to cover your costs. I guess the question is does that model work? Rather than catering to a generalist audience focus on a niche and charge more to people who can't get that content anywhere else. Free content then plays to the more generalist audience and helps attract people who are more seriously interested in your niche. I started doing this with my substack, which is aimed at the relatively narrow niche of sequencing technologies (biotech). The information I provide, isn't really available elsewhere and requires an industry background, and significant research. This information can play into investment decisions, so I've priced it to reflect that (~$50/m). I don't have enough paid subscribers to justify the effort yet. But every paid subscriber provides some meaningful amount of money... I could see this working in other areas too. I'm not sure the niche even needs to be super small. For example, English language reporting on Japan is generally pretty bad. Could you find at least 200 people worldwide willing to pay $50/m for detailed well sourced reporting on Japan? It seems likely to me... It doesn't even matter if those 200 people republish your work in some form. They're paying privilege of getting that information first.