4 ms·

Lots of answers point to the user experience of Medium becoming worse. This misses the bigger picture: the economics of free blog hosting don't work. V1 of Med

by reso 4y ago

Lots of answers point to the user experience of Medium becoming worse. This misses the bigger picture: the economics of free blog hosting don't work. V1 of Medium was great because they weren't concerned with monetization. The product was built fully in the interests of the user. Once the company grew, they saw that the bottom line was not sustainable, and so started adding features that would possibly increase revenue. These features were built in the company's interest, not the user's interest, so the user experience got worse. This isn't their fault, it's just a fact of business. People wouldn't pay enough to make the project worthwhile (either directly or indirectly in the form of ads/other monetization avenues). Maybe Substack has found a different model that genuinely does work, or maybe they will follow a similar trajectory to Medium.

JohnFen 4y ago
I think a big part of it is that users/readers understandably feel that a bait-and-switch has happened. Because it has. I really think the whole idea of "make it free at first, monetize later" is what's broken. If the intention is ultimately to have it generate revenue, the best thing to do is set up the revenue mechanism right from the start.
- dumpsterdiver 4y ago
  Agreed. Many people who have the means don't mind paying for things that bring them value, and they would much rather just pay for consistency than have that value eroded over time.
  - joegahona 4y ago
    Good example: The Information.
- Nifty3929 4y ago
  Well, they can start free, get 1M users, and then try to monetize. Or they can charge up front, get zero users, and then find something else to do with their time.
  - izacus 4y ago
    Or you know... bootstrap a non-predatory sustainable business. If anyone even knows how to do that in 2020s.
    - lmm 4y ago
      The problem is if you do that you get outcompeted by the VC-funded competitors who are happy to shovel money into a furnace for the first 1m+ users.
      - JohnFen 4y ago
        If you are competing with a bigger, better-funded fish, then the odds are very against you anyway as long as you're playing the same game as they are. Your real strength is to play a different game, one that leverages your unique strengths, not to meet them toe-to-toe in a game that leverages theirs. This can be done even if your product is in the same category as theirs. Exactly how to do that is highly dependent on you, so very individual (which is part of why it's so effective).
        lmm 4y ago
        It's more like, you're competing against another business on the same footing. Both of you have the option of taking VC investment, which comes with significant downside but will give you a bunch of money in the short term. If your thesis is that the better-funded competitor always wins then the answer is that you should always take the money; I'm not quite that pessimistic, but I do think this specific blitzscaling playbook is something to be aware of.
  - JohnFen 4y ago
    Or they can make the charging process and fees very clear, and give out free trials. Or, if the funding mechanism is to be ads, include them from day 1.
  - wvenable 4y ago
    Right. If they charge up front and get zero users then their business model is wrong.
joegahona 4y ago
I agree that UX complaints miss the bigger picture. Lots of the highest-traffic sites have terrible UX. Lots of people will put up with poor UX if it delivers the content/product they want. Poor UX does not help -- but it's not the main failing of Medium, in my opinion. Medium has been plagued with endless "pivots" -- not sure if it was wimpy yes-men who had to give in to every U-turn from the founder or if it was just fundamentally bad ideas. They also let the Substack idea pass them by, which can only be described as embarrassing. On the other hand, your point about Medium flailing away trying different features to add to the bottom line is poignant. Very few written-content publications have figured out monetization. There's always a tension between ads, which yuck up the experience, and paywalls, which hobble virality and penalize your most passionate users.

by reso 4y ago

JohnFen 4y ago

I think a big part of it is that users/readers understandably feel that a bait-and-switch has happened. Because it has. I really think the whole idea of "make it free at first, monetize later" is what's broken. If the intention is ultimately to have it generate revenue, the best thing to do is set up the revenue mechanism right from the start.

dumpsterdiver 4y ago
Agreed. Many people who have the means don't mind paying for things that bring them value, and they would much rather just pay for consistency than have that value eroded over time.
- joegahona 4y ago
  Good example: The Information.
Nifty3929 4y ago
Well, they can start free, get 1M users, and then try to monetize. Or they can charge up front, get zero users, and then find something else to do with their time.
- izacus 4y ago
  Or you know... bootstrap a non-predatory sustainable business. If anyone even knows how to do that in 2020s.
  - lmm 4y ago
    The problem is if you do that you get outcompeted by the VC-funded competitors who are happy to shovel money into a furnace for the first 1m+ users.
    - JohnFen 4y ago
      If you are competing with a bigger, better-funded fish, then the odds are very against you anyway as long as you're playing the same game as they are. Your real strength is to play a different game, one that leverages your unique strengths, not to meet them toe-to-toe in a game that leverages theirs. This can be done even if your product is in the same category as theirs. Exactly how to do that is highly dependent on you, so very individual (which is part of why it's so effective).
      - lmm 4y ago
        It's more like, you're competing against another business on the same footing. Both of you have the option of taking VC investment, which comes with significant downside but will give you a bunch of money in the short term. If your thesis is that the better-funded competitor always wins then the answer is that you should always take the money; I'm not quite that pessimistic, but I do think this specific blitzscaling playbook is something to be aware of.
- JohnFen 4y ago
  Or they can make the charging process and fees very clear, and give out free trials. Or, if the funding mechanism is to be ads, include them from day 1.
- wvenable 4y ago
  Right. If they charge up front and get zero users then their business model is wrong.

joegahona 4y ago

I agree that UX complaints miss the bigger picture. Lots of the highest-traffic sites have terrible UX. Lots of people will put up with poor UX if it delivers the content/product they want. Poor UX does not help -- but it's not the main failing of Medium, in my opinion. Medium has been plagued with endless "pivots" -- not sure if it was wimpy yes-men who had to give in to every U-turn from the founder or if it was just fundamentally bad ideas. They also let the Substack idea pass them by, which can only be described as embarrassing. On the other hand, your point about Medium flailing away trying different features to add to the bottom line is poignant. Very few written-content publications have figured out monetization. There's always a tension between ads, which yuck up the experience, and paywalls, which hobble virality and penalize your most passionate users.