And again, I’ll point out that Substack is the worst subscription “deal” of all. $6 to $10 per month PER single subscription. They refuse to offer aggregate subscriptions at a reasonable price so I’m forced to pay for just one or two (not this would, which I would include if it were in an aggregate of like 5 subscriptions for $10 monthly.)
100% agree. While I think Substack has very high quality reporting and writing, a lower priced annual Substack subscription is $60. The NYT is $52, it's daily, and there's a lot more content. Plus, many Substack writers have gotten more aggressive about increasing their rates.
I like the aggregate idea. Right now I pay for 6 subscriptions and rotate them. Wish I could support more.
Where do you pay $52 for the NYT? A month? A year? I am paying $28/month (a big and unannounced recent increase) without The Athletic, the family plan, Wordle, Wirecutter etc. which they are constantly in your face to "upgrade" to. They have become a "platform," and are acting like all the others. They are like also Apple in that it's been a LONG time since they were struggling just to survive.
The Substack collection of writers is competing with The Atlantic and The New Yorker and others for high quality content. Give Ted credit: I know of nobody else on Substack who comes up with high quality stuff like he does every couple days.
The fact is we are flooded with writing, video, music etc like never before. There is no way we can keep up with this tsunami of information.
I used to be in the newspaper industry, and this was their downfall: they could not compete with free and ubiquitous.
The internet and and all the rest of digital technology have changed our world, and not always for the better, so we will have to relearn how to be citizens, and start to look out for our own interests, which are not at all identical to the billionaires and the digital lords who would rule over us.
My own cable provider, Frontier, just got acquired by Verizon. Within days there was a ten dollar a month rate increase. The Frontier CEO exited with a golden parachute worth around $50,000,000, and immediately walked into another cable job with a $20 million signing bonus. This is how business is done in America today.
Luckily, at least the Nation's Management in DC has really got a handle on that whole world situation. Yeah, I am referring to That Guy, and his Associates. And yeah I am being sarcastic.
People: the time to revolt has come.
It's been done before, too. Just ask the people of Boston about that.
FWIW I have never subscribed to Amazon Prime, Spotify, Netflix, etc. and have never wasted my time on Facebook, Instagram, or other social media. They are not needed at all. You can do without them; it is so easy. In fact, it is so much better. We cut the old "cable" cord, but got caught in a whole spider's web of new entanglements. This is not OK!
And it’s the same for Netflix, Apple, , etc.: yes, they charge a lot and I hate having so many subscriptions, but relatively speaking, there is a lot of content on those platforms.
Amen! I cannot afford $80 a year multiplied by an endless amount, and there are writers I would like to support but my budget is not endless. I have longed for an aggregate subscription provided I am able to designate the writers who get equal portions of the amount I pay. Your five subs for $10 per month is terrific, provided I pick the writers.
Henry, I’ve brought it up in some of Ted’s posts and elsewhere, and sent something to Substack (no response.) Maybe we need more people pressuring them to do this.
The problem is this, Many of us are already "subscription poor". Yes, $6 a month is not huge by itself, but when everyone establishes a paywall, fewer and fewer people can afford to participate. I do appreciate your method of allowing comments by non-subscribers, this is more than most people allow on SubStack. I'm already paying $1500 or more every year for various subscriptions, I cannot justify or afford any more, no matter how good the content is. It really sucks, particularly when I must say "no" to a good creator.
I may be only ONE in a hundred or a thousand who can just PULL THE PLUG, but that is what I have done. No more TV subscription, no more movie subscriptions, no social media subscriptions at all. Can I still live or survive without them? How is it that humanity survived and thrived for thousands of years without them too? I buy books. I drink good coffee. I rest a lot.
Hell yeah! I canceled my internet and bought a HDMI to lighting cable adapter for my TV and watch YouTube or whatever for 25 dollars a month. I don’t watch much TV though…
This is good advice. However, I have simply learned how to "live without" most of these services altogether. I no longer watch TV. I prefer to have more money to donate to vital causes...
First of all, I want to thank you for keeping your subscription price civil. It means I can afford to read your work (I don’t like the word “content”).
I am also one of those people who doesn’t have endless funds for thousands of subscriptions and regularly goes through and prunes.
But I also have several other inexpensive or free Substack subscriptions by authors who are very generous with their offerings - at least one of whom I found through you.
Just don't subscribe to anything. Sorry Ted. However, if writers, artists, and digital creators gave me a teaser, then the option to consume the rest of the video/audio/article for a $1-$5, I'd spend a lot more on these things. I want to support people, but I dont want recurring charges to forget about. Especially when Im paying people for something Im not using/consuming because I prioritize and prefer the real world.
Thanks for the reminder. I just canceled the Netflix membership I’ve had since 2013 and specified “too expensive” as the reason. I am going to keep YouTube Premium because I consume more YouTube content than any other platform and it’s worth it to avoid the ads even now.
What I’ve done for years is bounce around from one free or reduced-rate trial to another. By the time the trial is up, you’re usually bored with their selection anyway. And by the time you’re eligible for another trial, there’s new stuff to watch. The only drawback is the services are starting to make the free trials the ad-supported version.
So these guys showed up in our lives and said “Ive got something really good for you and by the way it’s free.” And we grew accustomed to the idea that we deserved it. We chalked it up to “ well I guess I’m the product…” or maybe we didn’t think about it, but I’ll tell you what, you can only sell so much data and talk about economies of scale before it becomes clear that no matter how much you scale sooner or later if you’re going to pay billions to build libraries of content, the people who consume the content will have to pay for it.
I am not an apologist for the streaming services. I made my living in the movie business for many years as a hired hand. But if you want to watch fantasies every night, you gotta pay to watch fantasies every night.
We can argue about the price, but we can’t argue about that reality. As long as the people who make and deliver your content want to keep on paying their rent consumers will have to pay for it. Me, I turn them on and off like the lights. If I’m not in the room why would I leave them on?
It's really depressing to me how platforms like Amazon Prime Etc include advertising now and I have to pay to remove the advertising! I remember way back when I thought it was so refreshing not to have to deal with the commercials from regular tv, but now it's on streaming! Amazing. How much is too much??
Each year, two weeks before our annual "all-access" digital NYT sub is about to end — no auto-renewal! — I go online and cancel the sub...within minutes an email response arrives offering us to maintain the "discounted rate" of $4/mo if we re-up, which of course we do. This has worked for the past three renewal cycles, and saves us $21/mo. over the rack rate.
Not sure when the Times Subscription Dept. will catch on, but maybe they don't care. We'll take the W.
When my Internet contract ended, I did not renew it because it went up to $80 a month -who needs Internet when your phone bill covers that! I just use my phone for checking email texting and watching a few videos. I just saved $960 a year!!
Ted, I just re-up’ed with the Honest Broker. Worth every penny. I subscribe to nothing else except iTunes. I endure the ads on YouTube because I will pay a small streaming fee, but not an exorbitant one to avaricious vampires posing as content providers. Thank you for what you do, Ted.
I used to have Netflix, Prime, HBO, Skyshowtime (that’s Paramount in Europe), and Disney+. Now I rotate between two, watch stuff for a month or two and cancel.
This subscription nonsense also applies to magazines. I tried to renew my subscription to Consumer Reports, only to find out one has to agree to an endless subscription via auto-renewal. Want just one year? Two years? Not allowed. Yes, you can cancel the auto-renewal right after signing up, but who wants to deal with this hassle. You might expect this from an organization that doesn't respect their consumers, but I was very surprised to see Consumer Reports, of all people, engaging in this practice. I chose not to renew. Guess I'll just have to read it at my local library.
And again, I’ll point out that Substack is the worst subscription “deal” of all. $6 to $10 per month PER single subscription. They refuse to offer aggregate subscriptions at a reasonable price so I’m forced to pay for just one or two (not this would, which I would include if it were in an aggregate of like 5 subscriptions for $10 monthly.)
100% agree. While I think Substack has very high quality reporting and writing, a lower priced annual Substack subscription is $60. The NYT is $52, it's daily, and there's a lot more content. Plus, many Substack writers have gotten more aggressive about increasing their rates.
I like the aggregate idea. Right now I pay for 6 subscriptions and rotate them. Wish I could support more.
Where do you pay $52 for the NYT? A month? A year? I am paying $28/month (a big and unannounced recent increase) without The Athletic, the family plan, Wordle, Wirecutter etc. which they are constantly in your face to "upgrade" to. They have become a "platform," and are acting like all the others. They are like also Apple in that it's been a LONG time since they were struggling just to survive.
The Substack collection of writers is competing with The Atlantic and The New Yorker and others for high quality content. Give Ted credit: I know of nobody else on Substack who comes up with high quality stuff like he does every couple days.
The fact is we are flooded with writing, video, music etc like never before. There is no way we can keep up with this tsunami of information.
I used to be in the newspaper industry, and this was their downfall: they could not compete with free and ubiquitous.
The internet and and all the rest of digital technology have changed our world, and not always for the better, so we will have to relearn how to be citizens, and start to look out for our own interests, which are not at all identical to the billionaires and the digital lords who would rule over us.
My own cable provider, Frontier, just got acquired by Verizon. Within days there was a ten dollar a month rate increase. The Frontier CEO exited with a golden parachute worth around $50,000,000, and immediately walked into another cable job with a $20 million signing bonus. This is how business is done in America today.
Luckily, at least the Nation's Management in DC has really got a handle on that whole world situation. Yeah, I am referring to That Guy, and his Associates. And yeah I am being sarcastic.
People: the time to revolt has come.
It's been done before, too. Just ask the people of Boston about that.
FWIW I have never subscribed to Amazon Prime, Spotify, Netflix, etc. and have never wasted my time on Facebook, Instagram, or other social media. They are not needed at all. You can do without them; it is so easy. In fact, it is so much better. We cut the old "cable" cord, but got caught in a whole spider's web of new entanglements. This is not OK!
And it’s the same for Netflix, Apple, , etc.: yes, they charge a lot and I hate having so many subscriptions, but relatively speaking, there is a lot of content on those platforms.
Rotate mine as well
Amen! I cannot afford $80 a year multiplied by an endless amount, and there are writers I would like to support but my budget is not endless. I have longed for an aggregate subscription provided I am able to designate the writers who get equal portions of the amount I pay. Your five subs for $10 per month is terrific, provided I pick the writers.
I’ve never heard of the idea of aggregate subscription, that’s a hell of an idea.
You’d think some people might join forces and just do that themselves.
Henry, I’ve brought it up in some of Ted’s posts and elsewhere, and sent something to Substack (no response.) Maybe we need more people pressuring them to do this.
Netflix, Apple TV, etc are aggregate subscriptions, they just don't call them that.
That’s exactly right.
How is Netflix and aggregator? (Just asking, maybe I don’t understand)
In the sense that they aggregate lots of content from various production companies, along with their own.
Got it
The problem is this, Many of us are already "subscription poor". Yes, $6 a month is not huge by itself, but when everyone establishes a paywall, fewer and fewer people can afford to participate. I do appreciate your method of allowing comments by non-subscribers, this is more than most people allow on SubStack. I'm already paying $1500 or more every year for various subscriptions, I cannot justify or afford any more, no matter how good the content is. It really sucks, particularly when I must say "no" to a good creator.
I may be only ONE in a hundred or a thousand who can just PULL THE PLUG, but that is what I have done. No more TV subscription, no more movie subscriptions, no social media subscriptions at all. Can I still live or survive without them? How is it that humanity survived and thrived for thousands of years without them too? I buy books. I drink good coffee. I rest a lot.
Hell yeah! I canceled my internet and bought a HDMI to lighting cable adapter for my TV and watch YouTube or whatever for 25 dollars a month. I don’t watch much TV though…
This is good advice. However, I have simply learned how to "live without" most of these services altogether. I no longer watch TV. I prefer to have more money to donate to vital causes...
Yeah, the older I get the less of this stuff I seem to “need.”
I use a TV antenna.
First of all, I want to thank you for keeping your subscription price civil. It means I can afford to read your work (I don’t like the word “content”).
I am also one of those people who doesn’t have endless funds for thousands of subscriptions and regularly goes through and prunes.
But I also have several other inexpensive or free Substack subscriptions by authors who are very generous with their offerings - at least one of whom I found through you.
It goes to show there is goodness in the world.
Loathe the subscription model's mass adoption. Nickel and diming everyone to death, and everyone forgets the subscriptions they pay for and dont use.
Once a year, turn off auto billing on your credit card for a month. You’ll quickly weed out those forgotten subscriptions.
Pro tip!
Just don't subscribe to anything. Sorry Ted. However, if writers, artists, and digital creators gave me a teaser, then the option to consume the rest of the video/audio/article for a $1-$5, I'd spend a lot more on these things. I want to support people, but I dont want recurring charges to forget about. Especially when Im paying people for something Im not using/consuming because I prioritize and prefer the real world.
I bypass most teasers.
Thanks for the reminder. I just canceled the Netflix membership I’ve had since 2013 and specified “too expensive” as the reason. I am going to keep YouTube Premium because I consume more YouTube content than any other platform and it’s worth it to avoid the ads even now.
What I’ve done for years is bounce around from one free or reduced-rate trial to another. By the time the trial is up, you’re usually bored with their selection anyway. And by the time you’re eligible for another trial, there’s new stuff to watch. The only drawback is the services are starting to make the free trials the ad-supported version.
So these guys showed up in our lives and said “Ive got something really good for you and by the way it’s free.” And we grew accustomed to the idea that we deserved it. We chalked it up to “ well I guess I’m the product…” or maybe we didn’t think about it, but I’ll tell you what, you can only sell so much data and talk about economies of scale before it becomes clear that no matter how much you scale sooner or later if you’re going to pay billions to build libraries of content, the people who consume the content will have to pay for it.
I am not an apologist for the streaming services. I made my living in the movie business for many years as a hired hand. But if you want to watch fantasies every night, you gotta pay to watch fantasies every night.
We can argue about the price, but we can’t argue about that reality. As long as the people who make and deliver your content want to keep on paying their rent consumers will have to pay for it. Me, I turn them on and off like the lights. If I’m not in the room why would I leave them on?
Technically you can go to the library and not pay a dime.
Great points Andy. Cheers.
It's really depressing to me how platforms like Amazon Prime Etc include advertising now and I have to pay to remove the advertising! I remember way back when I thought it was so refreshing not to have to deal with the commercials from regular tv, but now it's on streaming! Amazing. How much is too much??
I don’t pay a penny to Spotify. They can kiss my butt.
One thing that wasn't brought up is the recent rise of multiple subscriptions inside a subscription. YouTube and Amazon Prime are full of them now.
Each year, two weeks before our annual "all-access" digital NYT sub is about to end — no auto-renewal! — I go online and cancel the sub...within minutes an email response arrives offering us to maintain the "discounted rate" of $4/mo if we re-up, which of course we do. This has worked for the past three renewal cycles, and saves us $21/mo. over the rack rate.
Not sure when the Times Subscription Dept. will catch on, but maybe they don't care. We'll take the W.
When my Internet contract ended, I did not renew it because it went up to $80 a month -who needs Internet when your phone bill covers that! I just use my phone for checking email texting and watching a few videos. I just saved $960 a year!!
And cast to TV from phone. Roku has the Roku Channel which has decent “free”’stuff.
Ted, I just re-up’ed with the Honest Broker. Worth every penny. I subscribe to nothing else except iTunes. I endure the ads on YouTube because I will pay a small streaming fee, but not an exorbitant one to avaricious vampires posing as content providers. Thank you for what you do, Ted.
I used to have Netflix, Prime, HBO, Skyshowtime (that’s Paramount in Europe), and Disney+. Now I rotate between two, watch stuff for a month or two and cancel.
Good plan
This subscription nonsense also applies to magazines. I tried to renew my subscription to Consumer Reports, only to find out one has to agree to an endless subscription via auto-renewal. Want just one year? Two years? Not allowed. Yes, you can cancel the auto-renewal right after signing up, but who wants to deal with this hassle. You might expect this from an organization that doesn't respect their consumers, but I was very surprised to see Consumer Reports, of all people, engaging in this practice. I chose not to renew. Guess I'll just have to read it at my local library.