Live data from Hacker News

Ask HN: Why did medium.com "fail"?

news.ycombinator.com

201–210 of 567 posts

Re: Ask HN: Why did medium.com "fail"?

#201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The NYTimes does it. And that's the thing think we got wrong: the pay off for what is behind the paywall has to be higher.

There is a huge difference between the NYTimes and Medium. For readers, the content on Medium is fungible: if it goes away today, it's easily replaceable by the 100 other user driven sites like it. I'm not saying that the content on Medium is bad, but it's easily replaceable. The NYTimes provides a level of journalism that is not easily replaceable by letting a bunch of random people blog. That's why their subscripti…

The best of Medium is better than the best of the NYTimes and isn’t fungible at all. That’s not refuting what you see. To get those gems you see too many me too articles. You are right.

Re: Ask HN: Why did medium.com "fail"?

#202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That implies that NYTimes is thriving after their inclusion of paywall. It's not. It's on the same path as medium and slowly over time other venues of information are (stealthily) eating its lunch. There will be a 'Why did nytimes.com "fail"?' HN post in a few years from now.

The NYTimes digital subscription is doing north of $800M/year. That’s successful in my book.

Is that the inclusive of the games? I used to pay them for access to the crosswords (they really are the best, but couldn't care less about their "journalism"), and as far as I knew that's under the same umbrella.

Of course, that was before I found out that canceling requires talking to an AOL-like retention droid rather than just clicking a button, and that's when they stopped getting my money permanently.

Re: Ask HN: Why did medium.com "fail"?

#204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The NYTimes digital subscription is doing north of $800M/year. That’s successful in my book.

I heard AOL was doing great in revenue too. It won't happen over night, of course there will be a temporary boost in revenue when one decides to force everyone that visits the site to pay. How much of that is from existing NYTimes subscribers, marketing tactics (eg. wordle), shady subscription offer deals, forgotten subscriptions, and lack of suitable competition. Over time though that withers and once that withering…

The New York Times's paywall is more than a decade old at this point.

Re: Ask HN: Why did medium.com "fail"?

#205
"Why don't I use Medium?" is the question I asked from this, as I actually use HN as my chosen outlet for material that comes from a short lifetime in what I'd call "semi-pro" level writing. That is, I'd be writing professionally, but really, why?

The appeal of Substack is the appeal of good writing, and in particular, its necessary ingredient, conflict. What Substack offered, and Medium didn't have, was a bet on edginess that guaranteed them high quality writing, and to attract high quality writers. What I used Medium for was basically as long form LinkedIn, where that necessary essence of good writing is the one thing the platform is designed to dull. On LinkedIn, you have to look like everyone else, but with some slight variation and nothing remarkable or unconventional. To be a writer, you need to blow peoples fucking minds. This means taking risks, challenging conventions, knowing all the rules and then breaking them in the right order to produce something beautiful. To me, Medium is blandness as a service. Its entire brand is an expression of its quality, medium. Their market niche is to be the Olive Garden of content but without all the spiciness.

Taking risk in writing means I'm risking all the future money I am making on the platform, and the potetntial scandal-cost against finding other work because of the reputational hit of being booted. Together they mean I can't add the necessary degree of conflict to my writing that will edify an audience. The other thing about writing nobody tells you is that the world forgives you when you win and you can say anything you want when you are riding high, but if you lose publicly because of some insane political situation, you don't eat lunch in this global town again.

The genius of the substack launch was offering security to writers via their open political policy, which enabled great writers to take risks. Their work turned the platform into a desirable and elite brand, and the policy of openness guaranteed the platform would never stop writers from doing the one thing they have to do to live, which is writing. They gave writers a home and the artists turned it into a neighbourhood.

Christopher Hitchens, Hunter S. Thompson, Gore Vidal, George Plimpton, Camille Paglia, H. L. Mencken, Michel Houellebec, Glen Greenwald or really anyone's name I remember for being a great writer - does not survive on Medium. Hell, Matt Taibbi doesn't survive on Medium. It's content for people who buy celebrity scented candles.

Maybe they could launch a new site for experiemental ideas and provocative work, and some forums with rules that challenge twitter and reddit dominance. They can call it: medium.rare

Re: Ask HN: Why did medium.com "fail"?

#206
post #75

I used to host my blog on Medium because it was the easiest way to get a simple, attractive blog available with a minimum amount of work. Then they started adding various annoyances, which I'm sure they thought would help with financial goals, but it eliminated the "simple, attractive" part. As a reader, seeing that a link went to medium.com used to mean it was easy-to-read and text-focused, and afterwards, it meant…

Interestingly enough, Substack is heading down the same direction - when you get linked to an article, it now forces a full screen popup on you asking if you want to subscribe or just read.

companies have to make money at some point, it's not coincidence all these same types of sites do the same thing once they've burned through their VC money and have to make money. Hosting this type of stuff is a commodity service, it's why you constantly see a churn of people from each VC subsidized service

Re: Ask HN: Why did medium.com "fail"?

#207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That implies that NYTimes is thriving after their inclusion of paywall. It's not. It's on the same path as medium and slowly over time other venues of information are (stealthily) eating its lunch. There will be a 'Why did nytimes.com "fail"?' HN post in a few years from now.

The NYTimes digital subscription is doing north of $800M/year. That’s successful in my book.

Medium is not the NYT. They have a hundred years of reputation as one of the best newspapers in the world to build a subscription model from. People want them to survive.

Medium.com used to have a good reputation. But it never had anything like the NYT's and right now the only reputation you have is "hot garbage cash grab". Most people want your service to die. I know I did, before reading your responses here at least.

Sorry to be blunt, and I wish you luck in digging back out of that. But I would gently suggest that looking to the NYT as your shining success story is... Well I think there's a parable to match this but it escapes me now. Like an ant looking at an elephant maybe.

Re: Ask HN: Why did medium.com "fail"?

#208

I'm Medium's current CEO as of last July. I actually pay a lot of attention to this sentiment on Hacker News. For example, I've bookmarked and often share this recent HN poll where 88% of people here think there's a negative stigma to a medium article. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33223222 It's sad and entirely our fault. We didn't fail but we did lose our way. Here's how I see it: 1. Lost our way on recommen…

I have been conditioned to expect low-effort, surface level, self promotion fluff when I click on a Medium article. The site feels like if Quora and LinkedIn had a baby. I don't know, maybe it's just because I mainly stick to programming posts, and nobody decent is using medium for those anymore (you just can't customize the articles well enough, format code like you want to, have any degree of interactivity). This happened gradually, I didn't always have this association with the site...

Re: Ask HN: Why did medium.com "fail"?

#209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The NYTimes does it. And that's the thing think we got wrong: the pay off for what is behind the paywall has to be higher.

That implies that NYTimes is thriving after their inclusion of paywall. It's not. It's on the same path as medium and slowly over time other venues of information are (stealthily) eating its lunch. There will be a 'Why did nytimes.com "fail"?' HN post in a few years from now.

wrong. NYtimes revenue is growing after inclusion of a paywall. After initial years of decline at the start of the digital age, NYTimes finally have their revenue strategy right. It's actually the ad share of their revenue that is decreasing, while subscription is growing faster than ad share is decreasing. Print subscription is now stabilizing. So you are wrong, what the market has shown is that priced appropriately, people will pay for high quality content. Personally I am proof. I pay for both Nytimes, WaPo, and the athletic, and together they cost less than $20/mo

Re: Ask HN: Why did medium.com "fail"?

#210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is only one reason medium went down the hole and it's because it annoyed the fuck out of users by demanding sign up (and subscription) just to read content OTHERS had created on the platform. What the hell did they expect would happen? Medium did one thing and one thing well: a fast, easy, and free way to publish an article for the others to read. The value of that is immense. It has nothing to do with 1 and 2.…

The NYTimes does it. And that's the thing think we got wrong: the pay off for what is behind the paywall has to be higher.

I subscribe to the New York Times because I want to support the journalists who write for the New York Times. I don't want to pay some intermediary.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding where the money for Medium's paywall goes and you've actually been giving the vast majority of subscription revenue to the writers this whole time—but that wasn't obvious to me.

Post reply on HN