This is a really fascinating article, and it should be getting wider circulation. It's the kind of thing I just commented on Notes about -- there isn't much data from Substack to guide these choices. A sample size of 21 isn't nothing, but is it definitive?
I started paywalling content in January of this year, and I've seen some growth, but it's pretty slow. Paywalling my monthly podcast -- and offering a free preview of each episode -- has typically yielded 1 or 2 upgrades. I've seen some similar movement on other paywalled content, which makes me question the prevailing wisdom on Substack that most of the best content should be free. This week I tried something different: offering a full podcast interview for free while advertising a 20% discount. I've seen 1 upgrade in two days -- which may not be proof of anything.
This is also an essential point: "The messaging is also crucial. A lot of subscription publishers simply try to expose an audience to their paywalled content with the hope that at some point a reader will want to access an article badly enough to convert. The patronage model, on the other hand, requires communicating value and impact. A reader’s subscription dollars are explicitly tied to the creator’s ability to make a living from their work. I sometimes refer to this as “guilt” messaging."
I'm still a long way from making a living on Substack, but I'm a little skeptical that guilt messaging moves the needle. How many people get guilted frequently by NPR, but continue listening to public radio without ever donating? I guess they get enough donations to keep going, but they're dealing with a very large population of potential donors. I know that even writers with free subscribers north of 10,000 have trouble persuading folks to upgrade. So this remains an interesting -- but as yet mysterious -- conversation.
This is a really fascinating article, and it should be getting wider circulation. It's the kind of thing I just commented on Notes about -- there isn't much data from Substack to guide these choices. A sample size of 21 isn't nothing, but is it definitive?
I started paywalling content in January of this year, and I've seen some growth, but it's pretty slow. Paywalling my monthly podcast -- and offering a free preview of each episode -- has typically yielded 1 or 2 upgrades. I've seen some similar movement on other paywalled content, which makes me question the prevailing wisdom on Substack that most of the best content should be free. This week I tried something different: offering a full podcast interview for free while advertising a 20% discount. I've seen 1 upgrade in two days -- which may not be proof of anything.
This is also an essential point: "The messaging is also crucial. A lot of subscription publishers simply try to expose an audience to their paywalled content with the hope that at some point a reader will want to access an article badly enough to convert. The patronage model, on the other hand, requires communicating value and impact. A reader’s subscription dollars are explicitly tied to the creator’s ability to make a living from their work. I sometimes refer to this as “guilt” messaging."
I'm still a long way from making a living on Substack, but I'm a little skeptical that guilt messaging moves the needle. How many people get guilted frequently by NPR, but continue listening to public radio without ever donating? I guess they get enough donations to keep going, but they're dealing with a very large population of potential donors. I know that even writers with free subscribers north of 10,000 have trouble persuading folks to upgrade. So this remains an interesting -- but as yet mysterious -- conversation.