You should constantly change your subscription messaging
Make your calls to action just as creative as any of the content you’re creating for your publication.
Welcome! I'm Simon Owens and this is my media newsletter. If you've received it, then you either subscribed or someone forwarded it to you. If you fit into the latter camp and want to subscribe, then you can click on this handy little button:
Let’s jump right into it…
You should constantly change up your subscription messaging
The American Press Institute tested out various messages aimed at getting readers to subscribe to a local news publication — messages that ranged from “We keep our leaders accountable. Support us today” to “Our community needs a watchdog. Support us today.” They then asked participants to gauge how likely they are to subscribe after seeing each message.
The first thing that jumped out to me when reviewing the results was how many news consumers are still reluctant to pay for news. For the best-performing message, 44% of respondents said they were unlikely to subscribe, while 35% said they were only “somewhat likely.” While subscription models have helped a lot of publishers dig themselves out of financial holes over the past few years, it’s still clear that the vast majority of internet users don’t really want to pay for news content.
So which messages performed best? These two:
“Financial support from those who can afford it makes our news and information available to those who can’t. Support us today.”
“People must know the facts for communities to thrive. Support us today.”
21% of respondents said the first made them “very likely” to subscribe, while the second clocked in at 18%. The worst-performing message (“Our community needs a watchdog. Support us today.”) moved only 11% into the “very likely” category.
What I wanted to know is how much overlap there was between all these messages. For instance, how many of the 21% who responded positively to the first message were among the 18% who were drawn to the second message? Is it possible that some respondents who were unlikely to subscribe after reading the first message were then converted after the second message?
One thing I’ve noticed with subscription publishers is that they become too complacent with a single call-to-action and essentially copy and paste that same message within their articles into perpetuity. Even if you tested out the message and determined it was the most effective, that doesn’t mean it will continue to perform well over time.
In other words, if a reader sees the same call to action three times in a row and doesn’t convert, then how likely are they to convert the fourth time they see it? By that point, they’ve probably taught themselves to ignore the message entirely, the same way that most internet users have been conditioned to ignore display advertising.
With my own newsletter, I’m constantly trying out new subscription messaging. In fact, no two messages are exactly the same. In one newsletter I might tout the premium content that readers get if they subscribe. In another, I’ll talk about all the free content they’re already receiving and attempt to guilt them into a subscription.
One anecdote I love to tell is about how Ira Glass forced public radio stations to syndicate This American Life by only agreeing to record fundraising spots for those who did so. Glass approached these spots with a single goal in mind: make them as creative as anything he produced for the show. His spots were so good that public radio stations would literally see all their phones light up mere moments after they aired.
So I would extend the same challenge to you: make your subscription messages just as creative as any of the content you’re creating for your publication. Tell funny anecdotes or weave in a personal narrative. Interview your subscribers and let them make the case for a membership. Just don’t settle for the bland “support our journalism” message that’s plastered across every news article.
Clubhouse's download numbers continue to underwhelm
Insider reports:
Downloads of buzzy audio chat app Clubhouse are continuing to nosedive among iPhone users, but its recent launch on Android phones has brought a surge of millions of new users to the service …
… In May, Clubhouse downloads on the iOS platform totalled 719,000 worldwide, down from 922,000 downloads in April, according to estimates by data firm Sensor Tower shared with Insider. That's less than 10% of Clubhouse's peak of 9.6 million global downloads in February.
The long-awaited introduction of Clubhouse's Android app in May however, roughly 14 months after the iOS version's launch, has opened the door to a much-needed flood of new users. The app saw roughly 3 million downloads on Android in May, Sensor Tower estimates.
A great takedown of the Personal Advice Industrial Complex
Ed Zitron wrote about the ubiquity of personal advice content and how it floods the internet with empty calories that do nothing to actually enrich or improve people’s lives:
These articles … are really not advice. Being told that Barack Obama talks to himself, or that Bill Gates reads books, or that “you need a positive daily routine” should not measurably change your world. They are the emptiest of meme calories, providing no actual value beyond extremely vague advice that will rarely if ever improve your life, and on some level exist as a part of your identity and a means to make others feel guilty. They are more aggressive in that they offer a panacea — you too can be successful, if you follow the advice of people who are successful -- to a problem (being successful) that is most of the time more of a case of luck and perseverance.
I’m consistently amazed at how much of this content the internet produces every day. It clogs the arteries of platforms like Medium, LinkedIn, and YouTube. Some publications — Inc, Harvard Business Review, Forbes — churn out hundreds of these articles a month. I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that it’s a multi-billion dollar business.
I get why the content creators love it: it’s cheap and easy to produce. Putting in the work to deliver actionable insights is hard. It’s much simpler to take a couple of generic bromides and repackage them under a clickbait headline and a few subheaders.
But why do people consume so much of this content? Why do they sit through yet another GaryV video where he repeats the same three or four pieces of advice he delivered in the previous 500 episodes? Surely we have better things to do.
Converting live audio into podcasts
I recently profiled a company that specializes in partnering with industry conferences to create podcast recordings of their panels and talks. The Verge reported on a collective that is employing a similar model, except with Clubhouse and Twitter Spaces broadcasts:
The group, which is being spearheaded by Techmeme Ride Home host Brian McCullough, will initially involve nine total contributors, including Alex Kantrowitz of the Big Technology newsletter and product designer Chris Messina. They’ll share a podcast feed where they can publish audio they’ve recorded live across various social audio platforms, like Clubhouse and Twitter Spaces, and that feed, which is already live but hasn’t been publicly announced, is called SpaceCasts. Anyone who participates can publish their live audio on the feed and profit from whatever ad sales are made.
This is a good idea. The great thing about live audio apps is they allow for audience participation. Listeners can raise their hands and ask questions or even contribute their own analysis. This component is missing from most podcasts today.
The downside of live audio is it’s incredibly difficult to get more than a few dozen people to attend any one broadcast. This collective solves that problem because it’s taking small, intimate broadcasts and then distributing them to a much larger audience that can listen on demand. It’s the best of both worlds.
One question I had while reading this is how they actually record the broadcasts, since neither Twitter nor Clubhouse currently have native recording functionality.
Have a great weekend!