Not in the media industry but like most a media consumer, so I guess that makes me an expert.
It seems obvious that media is personality-driven, after all writers put their name on their work (most workers don't).
I disagree that there are no principles in media, certainly opportunism is always in play. With the ongoing collapse/consolidation in the media industry, not surprising that opportunism has grown to such an obvious degree.
The Substack phenomena is a kind of revolt against media bundling. I subscribe to Comcast, and I get close to unlimited channels, of which I watch about 10. I cannot unbundle this (Congress tried a few years ago to stop the practice, but of course it went nowhere). The NY Times is another bundle, of which I read 0, so I do not subscribe. Does not mean there aren’t good articles occasionally, but there is too much shit to wade through and overall quality is going down fast.
BTW, it is difficult (if not impossible) to bundle high quality content, instead the approach is to take a lot of crap, add a few gems. Monopoly doesn't hurt either. Result is quantity over quality. Not bad if the consumer has excess time on their hands, but most of us no longer have the luxury.
What Substack represents is an anti-bundle - you pay for what you want, and don't pay for what you don't. What a concept. My guess (complete speculation) is that the media companies (NY Times included) are looking at this as a way to capture high value seeking consumers. I would not be surprised to see the Times try some kind of Substack clone business model. This is what I think scares the crap out of the Times staff (most of whom are mediocre thinkers and writers).
Keep on criticizing the media. They deserve it and it pisses them off. As far as being popular, the rules are changing, and you've made some good choices.
Lot to unpack in this post.
Not in the media industry but like most a media consumer, so I guess that makes me an expert.
It seems obvious that media is personality-driven, after all writers put their name on their work (most workers don't).
I disagree that there are no principles in media, certainly opportunism is always in play. With the ongoing collapse/consolidation in the media industry, not surprising that opportunism has grown to such an obvious degree.
The Substack phenomena is a kind of revolt against media bundling. I subscribe to Comcast, and I get close to unlimited channels, of which I watch about 10. I cannot unbundle this (Congress tried a few years ago to stop the practice, but of course it went nowhere). The NY Times is another bundle, of which I read 0, so I do not subscribe. Does not mean there aren’t good articles occasionally, but there is too much shit to wade through and overall quality is going down fast.
BTW, it is difficult (if not impossible) to bundle high quality content, instead the approach is to take a lot of crap, add a few gems. Monopoly doesn't hurt either. Result is quantity over quality. Not bad if the consumer has excess time on their hands, but most of us no longer have the luxury.
What Substack represents is an anti-bundle - you pay for what you want, and don't pay for what you don't. What a concept. My guess (complete speculation) is that the media companies (NY Times included) are looking at this as a way to capture high value seeking consumers. I would not be surprised to see the Times try some kind of Substack clone business model. This is what I think scares the crap out of the Times staff (most of whom are mediocre thinkers and writers).
Keep on criticizing the media. They deserve it and it pisses them off. As far as being popular, the rules are changing, and you've made some good choices.