Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Angela Pertusini's avatar

I'm torn by this. I really love that you give us a free newsletter each week - and I love the newsletter itself. In a world where everything can be monetised, it's great that you have chosen only to share what you find interesting, curious or thought-provoking rather than charge for it directly. It gives the Bluestocking a level of authenticity.

Clearly producing the newsletter week-in, week-out takes time which you could be using to earn actual money, rather than just applause from spoddy liberals. My worry wouldn't be paying so much as it might change the way you go about putting the newsletter together - and I'm aware that this sounds like the worst sort of dissembling - would there be more of an effort to chase likes? Are there subjects (I bet there bloody are, who am I kidding?) which would bring in more subscribers? Would subscribers feel they have more ownership of the newsletter and start pressuring you to include certain stuff (maybe they do that already)?

In short: yes, I'd be prepared to pay. But I'd also be ready to spring on every linked story that didn't interest me and probably every typo as a sign that the Bluestocking wasn't as good as it was back in the day.

Expand full comment
Jill Tipping's avatar

I just subscribed to the Atlantic ($60) because I’ve been interested 4+ times in clicking through to articles you share (mostly by you). That felt like a worthwhile next step. I love your newsletter and would now pay for it but if you have to pay right from the start would I have learned that? I think Ian Leslie’s approach of the top bit for free and the part below the fold for subscribers could be a good model for you. Gives you multiple and cumulative opportunities to entice to paid. Similarly David liebovitz where I have recently moved from free to paid (to listen to a cheese tasting podcast!)

Expand full comment
26 more comments...

No posts