I strongly disagree with your (I know intended as humorous) statement: " (You’d think the writing would be better, right? Sorry!)."
My problem with your solution is that, at such point that I may become able to make a significant financial contribution to journalism, how am I to decide which journalist to support? You would definitely be on my short list, but do I then cross my fingers hoping someone else will finance my other favorite writers? This is something I have been struggling with ever since I started reading Substack posts. I do not have unlimited funds to sign up for paid subscriptions (let alone five figure largess). I have been hoping someone will come up with some sort of system whereby we, the readers, could create bundles of posts to subscribe to at a single yearly price. I don't know if this would pencil out to provide you (or any other single writer) with a higher and more consistent revenue stream, but perhaps it could be a win/win.
In the meantime, I am grateful every time I find one of your posts in my inbox, am happy to be a paid subscriber, and you will be on the top of my list when my ship comes in ;).
Thanks Jane— big picture reality is that no one person can support everyone. I just want to foster the basic idea that we all should think about paying for the stuff we read, and the more widely the idea gets established the more people it will support.
It's definitely turning into a dilemma. Lots of people (maybe 25 that I like and surely well more who write great stuff) deserve $50 to $100 from me on Substack but I can only give it to some of you, sadly. $200 or $250 now gets me 3 writers when it used to get me a whole ton of good writers because those writers all worked for the same publication. I think they called it a newspaper or something. We should test that model out :-)
"I strongly disagree with your (I know intended as humorous) statement: " (You’d think the writing would be better, right? Sorry!)."
Came here to say the same thing...It was in fact the QUALITY of his writing that got me to sign up. And it wasn't even a labor issue article. It was a piece over at 'In These Times' about the insufferable cancel culture whinefest at Harpers.
So it was LITERALLY the quality that caught my eye BEFORE I was away of the focus of his writing
Certainly there is 'as good' out there, but better? nah
Just a note to say that I wouldn't mind seeing the type of advertising you mention, although ads from the Teamsters these days might make me giggle. But I understand that you don't want, now, to spend limited time on managing advertisers. If you change your mind about it, maybe think of it as time that you might spend promoting a book? Those interviews and bookstore visits take time, but it's an investment in getting your work supported. (I understand that that's different from an outside advertiser, where some conflict with reporting may present itself.) As always, I'm a happy subscriber. Thank you for your words and your work, and thanks go to your anonymous benefactor. They're good people, whoever they are.
Thank you, Mr. Nolan, for your stand against advertising-supported reportage. Wouldn't it be ironic if the much pilloried blogosphere turned out to be the best place to go for reality-based political analysis? Maybe there is hope for US journalism after all...
This hits the core of the problem. Patronage is a temporary reprieve, not a business model.
When we rely on the benevolence of billionaires or the specific whims of foundations, we aren't building a civic utility. We are just building a dependent class. It is the "Ferrari" approach to journalism. It’s shiny and expensive, but it's entirely reliant on someone else’s garage.
We don't need more saviors. We need to pour more concrete.
The real strategy has to be moving away from the "One Big Check" model and toward a professionalized, decentralized infrastructure funded by the people it actually serves. If we can't design systems that survive without begging for permission from a patron, we haven't actually solved the crisis. We’ve just delayed the collapse.
Yes. I think public funding for journalism is the systemic solution, but there is no near term prospect for it nationally so we're all trying to make our way through.
Thoughtful piece. I have had the same question as the subtitle of this article for a while. I subscribe to as many Substacks, magazines, and newspapers as I can, but I can’t afford a year’s subscription to every source I might want to read an article or two from. I’ve always wished I could pay à la carte for a single article from a source I don’t subscribe to, like a local newspaper a few states away or a particular industry’s trade journal, or an activist for a niche cause. It would be nice if there were some kind of consortium you could buy, say, 10 credits from at a time, and then spend a credit on each single article. Maybe an article from a source that costs $20/month could cost $6. I don’t know if different owners would be willing to work together like this or if there would be antitrust concerns, but I wish it could work.
The other model is nonprofit / public media. Say, beef up NPR and its smaller stations again. My local NPR station is at least as good as our legacy newspapers.
Paywalls mean that your message doesn't get out, and limiting the ability to comment to paid subscribers is like Citizens United for Substack. I don't know what the answer is, but those ways of dealing with readers just irk me. Having said that, I pay for many more Substacks than I should, just because I want to help. But at some point I'll have to cut back or find another source of income in my old age.
Something I noticed when I looked at which publications I've chosen to become a paid subscriber to - almost all of them never paywall, and the few who do use it rarely or as a time-delay (the content becomes freely available later). I wonder what that breakdown looks like for other folks.
Will continue to support all the journalism in your line that I can with subscriptions, book purchases (have distributed 10 copies of The Hammer so far), t-shirts / merchandise - have been a paid subscriber to Counterpunch.org for nearly 20 years, helping keep them alive and ad-free (aside from links for their books and contributers works). I am not sure we will see a return to better mainstream media and reporting and writing in our lives unless the billionaires are eliminated (they do seem intent on self-immolation and provoking the return of pitchforks and guillotines). Keep at it, dammit.
What this country desperately needs is a trustworthy outlet with scale.
Need one but I’ve given up all hope for one.
As for what one person can do, the classic example was IF Stone after he was blacklisted. Obviously, newsletters and to a lesser degree blogs are the new versions of that but, you know, again, scale.
Would it be an option to hire someone (or a service) to manage ad buys, assuming of course the cost of hiring that person/service < the additional revenue brought in through ads?
I agree with most of what you have written here.
I strongly disagree with your (I know intended as humorous) statement: " (You’d think the writing would be better, right? Sorry!)."
My problem with your solution is that, at such point that I may become able to make a significant financial contribution to journalism, how am I to decide which journalist to support? You would definitely be on my short list, but do I then cross my fingers hoping someone else will finance my other favorite writers? This is something I have been struggling with ever since I started reading Substack posts. I do not have unlimited funds to sign up for paid subscriptions (let alone five figure largess). I have been hoping someone will come up with some sort of system whereby we, the readers, could create bundles of posts to subscribe to at a single yearly price. I don't know if this would pencil out to provide you (or any other single writer) with a higher and more consistent revenue stream, but perhaps it could be a win/win.
In the meantime, I am grateful every time I find one of your posts in my inbox, am happy to be a paid subscriber, and you will be on the top of my list when my ship comes in ;).
Thanks Jane— big picture reality is that no one person can support everyone. I just want to foster the basic idea that we all should think about paying for the stuff we read, and the more widely the idea gets established the more people it will support.
It's definitely turning into a dilemma. Lots of people (maybe 25 that I like and surely well more who write great stuff) deserve $50 to $100 from me on Substack but I can only give it to some of you, sadly. $200 or $250 now gets me 3 writers when it used to get me a whole ton of good writers because those writers all worked for the same publication. I think they called it a newspaper or something. We should test that model out :-)
"whereby we, the readers, could create bundles of posts to subscribe to at a single yearly price."
Great idea
"I strongly disagree with your (I know intended as humorous) statement: " (You’d think the writing would be better, right? Sorry!)."
Came here to say the same thing...It was in fact the QUALITY of his writing that got me to sign up. And it wasn't even a labor issue article. It was a piece over at 'In These Times' about the insufferable cancel culture whinefest at Harpers.
So it was LITERALLY the quality that caught my eye BEFORE I was away of the focus of his writing
Certainly there is 'as good' out there, but better? nah
Just a note to say that I wouldn't mind seeing the type of advertising you mention, although ads from the Teamsters these days might make me giggle. But I understand that you don't want, now, to spend limited time on managing advertisers. If you change your mind about it, maybe think of it as time that you might spend promoting a book? Those interviews and bookstore visits take time, but it's an investment in getting your work supported. (I understand that that's different from an outside advertiser, where some conflict with reporting may present itself.) As always, I'm a happy subscriber. Thank you for your words and your work, and thanks go to your anonymous benefactor. They're good people, whoever they are.
Thank you, Mr. Nolan, for your stand against advertising-supported reportage. Wouldn't it be ironic if the much pilloried blogosphere turned out to be the best place to go for reality-based political analysis? Maybe there is hope for US journalism after all...
This hits the core of the problem. Patronage is a temporary reprieve, not a business model.
When we rely on the benevolence of billionaires or the specific whims of foundations, we aren't building a civic utility. We are just building a dependent class. It is the "Ferrari" approach to journalism. It’s shiny and expensive, but it's entirely reliant on someone else’s garage.
We don't need more saviors. We need to pour more concrete.
The real strategy has to be moving away from the "One Big Check" model and toward a professionalized, decentralized infrastructure funded by the people it actually serves. If we can't design systems that survive without begging for permission from a patron, we haven't actually solved the crisis. We’ve just delayed the collapse.
Yes. I think public funding for journalism is the systemic solution, but there is no near term prospect for it nationally so we're all trying to make our way through.
https://www.hamiltonnolan.com/p/public-funding-of-journalism-is-the
Thoughtful piece. I have had the same question as the subtitle of this article for a while. I subscribe to as many Substacks, magazines, and newspapers as I can, but I can’t afford a year’s subscription to every source I might want to read an article or two from. I’ve always wished I could pay à la carte for a single article from a source I don’t subscribe to, like a local newspaper a few states away or a particular industry’s trade journal, or an activist for a niche cause. It would be nice if there were some kind of consortium you could buy, say, 10 credits from at a time, and then spend a credit on each single article. Maybe an article from a source that costs $20/month could cost $6. I don’t know if different owners would be willing to work together like this or if there would be antitrust concerns, but I wish it could work.
The other model is nonprofit / public media. Say, beef up NPR and its smaller stations again. My local NPR station is at least as good as our legacy newspapers.
Paywalls mean that your message doesn't get out, and limiting the ability to comment to paid subscribers is like Citizens United for Substack. I don't know what the answer is, but those ways of dealing with readers just irk me. Having said that, I pay for many more Substacks than I should, just because I want to help. But at some point I'll have to cut back or find another source of income in my old age.
Something I noticed when I looked at which publications I've chosen to become a paid subscriber to - almost all of them never paywall, and the few who do use it rarely or as a time-delay (the content becomes freely available later). I wonder what that breakdown looks like for other folks.
Every decently sized union should have an independent media strategy to build up a healthy reporting ecosystem.
Will continue to support all the journalism in your line that I can with subscriptions, book purchases (have distributed 10 copies of The Hammer so far), t-shirts / merchandise - have been a paid subscriber to Counterpunch.org for nearly 20 years, helping keep them alive and ad-free (aside from links for their books and contributers works). I am not sure we will see a return to better mainstream media and reporting and writing in our lives unless the billionaires are eliminated (they do seem intent on self-immolation and provoking the return of pitchforks and guillotines). Keep at it, dammit.
Kudos to following your journalistic heart, dear Hamilton.
We readers are faced with similar moral quandries, when weighing who advertises in publications we respect.
I subscribe, just made a contribution, wish I could do more, bro. I love what you're doing.
Appreciate it!
Yours was the first Substack that I became a paid subscriber to. Your work is worth more than your subscription rate.
I like this idea. Viewing journalism as essential infrastructure, more like roads and education and the law courts than like a business.
Former newspaper editor here. We kept an iron wall between editorial and advertising, but that’s seldom the case anymore.
I don’t want advertisers pressuring me, even indirectly.
Readers should support the work they value if they possibly can.
What this country desperately needs is a trustworthy outlet with scale.
Need one but I’ve given up all hope for one.
As for what one person can do, the classic example was IF Stone after he was blacklisted. Obviously, newsletters and to a lesser degree blogs are the new versions of that but, you know, again, scale.
Dilemmas like this make me wish I had money.
Would it be an option to hire someone (or a service) to manage ad buys, assuming of course the cost of hiring that person/service < the additional revenue brought in through ads?
One day potentially but I'd like to kick the can as long as possible.