[derektank]

Unless you're already a name brand (e.g. the NYT, a handful of very high profile columnists, etc.) you can't just assume people will know the value of your work. You have to demonstrate it in some way. Providing half your content for free while keeping half behind a paywall seems like a perfectly reasonable strategy to address this discoverability problem.

I can't speak to the broader effectiveness of this strategy, but I know that I have paid to see some of a writer's paywalled work after first being exposed to their free content.

[troyvit]

> You have to demonstrate it in some way. Providing half your content for free while keeping half behind a paywall seems like a perfectly reasonable strategy to address this discoverability problem.

I feel like 404media is doing a good job at that. They irritate me sometimes but they break a lot of great news with a tiny staff and have an indomitable social media presence (at least on bluesky) that really gets people talking about them. Don't get me wrong, I'll never pay for their work because I feel like they get a little user hostile sometimes[1], but people less curmudgeonly probably are subscribing.

[1] https://www.404media.co/we-dont-want-your-password-3/

[roughly]

> they break a lot of great news with a tiny staff <…> I'll never pay for their work because I feel like they get a little user hostile sometimes

Y’all choose the weirdest hills to die on.

[troyvit]

Eh, there's choosing a hill and there's voting with your wallet, and I'm doing the latter. Judging by the article I linked, if anybody's choosing a hill to die on it's 404.

[JumpCrisscross]

> Unless you're already a name brand (e.g. the NYT, a handful of very high profile columnists, etc.) you can't just assume people will know the value of your work

Sure. This problem is conserved across private enterprise.

> providing half your content for free while keeping half behind a paywall seems like a perfectly reasonable strategy to address this discoverability problem

The New York Times runs a 12% operating margin [1]. Giving away half their content without sacrificing quality would require incurring the same 88¢ of costs for 50¢ of revenue; it just doesn't work. Sales and marketing is usually a single-digit percent of revenue for a reason [2].

The partial-reveal strategy particularly fails for news because I can now decide which articles I'll run through the Internet Archive. If you paywall everything, that's too tedious.

[1] https://nytco-assets.nytimes.com/2024/11/Q324-Press-Release-...

[2] https://bfi.uchicago.edu/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/BFI_WP_2...

[gowld]

NYT literally gives away some content for free and charges for the rest.

NYT doesn't charge per article; they charge for tiers of access.

[JumpCrisscross]

> NYT literally gives away some content for free and charges for the rest

Yes. Not half.

[Drew_]

And not 0 either - meaning your numbers and thesis are wrong. The NYT is a successful publication using a "hybrid" model. In fact, basically every publication is.