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…
Ask HN: Why did medium.com "fail"?
201–210 of 567 posts
Re: Ask HN: Why did medium.com "fail"?
#202Earlier 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.
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"?
#203Re: Ask HN: Why did medium.com "fail"?
#204Earlier 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…
Re: Ask HN: Why did medium.com "fail"?
#205The 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"?
#206I 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.
Re: Ask HN: Why did medium.com "fail"?
#207Earlier 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.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"?
#208I'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…
Re: Ask HN: Why did medium.com "fail"?
#209Earlier 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.
Re: Ask HN: Why did medium.com "fail"?
#210Earlier 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.
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.