When I tell people that I manage community gardens, many ask me if people steal stuff that’s grown there. Yes, sometimes they do. Theft understandably discourages and angers gardeners. Keeping a productive garden requires work. Gardeners bend and/or get down on their hands and knees in hot, dirty conditions. While some of us mind that less than do others, all gardeners go at least a little out of their way to get to the gardens and devote time to planting, watering and weeding their garden spaces.
Your point is understandable but I don't love this metaphor. I find it incoherent.
Offering something for free- because you are emotionally satisfied by exerting societal influence through the wide spread of your ideas, or simply to be generous- is different from having something stolen from you.
Allowing those who can't or won't pay for a subscription to read articles doesn't deprive others from reading them.
Your real conflict here seems to be with VALUE, specifically the value YOU extract from the maintenance of your Substack garden. What I suspect is happening is that you're conflicted, or no longer satisfied, with the non-monetary value of your garden, and suspect (rightfully) that offering it for free, past the tipping point that economists ostensibly get degrees to try to see accurately, will discourage readers who might pay for it from bothering to do so, and you'd like to extract more monetary value from your work.
That's fine. But it's different from being robbed of something of communal value. I just feel like there's room here to be more honest with yourself about your motivations.
The two situations both center on the dysfunctional and unrealistic expectation that others owe them free stuff.
Do musicians allow some people to walk into concert venues for free if others have already bought tickets? That's kind of the suggestion here, i.e., that the band was going to play anyway, so why not let everyone else in for free?.
If people like my posts, they should be willing to pay as much for four stories as they pay for one latte. (I'm guessing about price here b/c I don't drink lattes). If they don't think what I have done for the past few years isn't worth as much as a latte, they should buy another latte.
I don't need subscription money to live. I live simply, and always will. But my writing is truer than much of/all the content provided by paid/bought media. Thus, as a matter of basic equity and signaling to the market, I deserve compensation.
And as I previously noted, if all Substack writers posted free, there would be no Substack.
I'm grateful for other Stack writers and I support their work with dollars. I don't feel they owe me anything.
The assumption is always that everyone goes out every day drinking lattes. From my perspective, that’s an occasion to get together with my daughters and hang out. It happens occasionally, not daily. If I paid for every Substack author I read, I wouldn’t eat. That doesn’t mean that I don’t glean much information from what each author has to say. Look at it this way, if Paul Revere had shouted “the redcoats are coming!! to only his paid readers, it wouldn’t have been much of a revolution.
I do see your point, they are the same and different. I enjoy reading what you write, and hope it’s not actually stealing, because I don’t steal. The latte is really about spending time with my daughters because I prefer my own coffee. If the coffee shop wouldn’t mind, I would take in my own!
I understand that. And if the latte is more important to you, you should definitely buy the latte. And enjoy it.
But I think most people would admit that they spend $5 on a lot of stuff each month. It's not much these days. We support what we believe in. I believe that Coronamania was a scam.
Life should allow us more freedom to choose how we spend our limiter resources. Unfortunately, these days we are required by law to support all kinds of objectionable stuff. I could write at great length about examples.
Your analogy illustrates a situation where there is high, but non-monetary, value in widely disseminating content. Revere's motivation to organize a civil defense was of higher value to him in that moment than to be financially compensated for the effort.
This is ultimately a matter of Mark's value structure for his work, which is always going to be a deeply personal thing.
THIS: “If I paid for every Substack author I read, I wouldn’t eat.” Please consider what other have done: have a “tip jar”, appeal to readers daily or at regular intervals to donate/make a contribution, offer readers subscriber-only pieces...etc.
It's not my style to beg. I'm a take it or leave it person.
Those who want to support me can come up with $5 for a few months, esp. after all that I've written. It's not much money these days. And I've spent many hundreds of hours writing these.
I get it. I also read many of the other comments including yours. I have a choice to make, and I applaud you for standing firm. Thanks for all you have written.
I lost my job at the start of Covid and am struggling to find another. I won’t get into detail but I love lattes. $5 a month is nothing. What seems to be the issue is not placing value on another’s time and heart. The woman picking the flowers failed to understand (or chose not to) the hard work and heart that went into planning and planting them. There is the analogy.
Your work and beliefs are worth more to me each month than caffeine in a cup could ever be.
You are certainly correct that no one is owed free stuff, and that value should be fairly compensated. I admit to a certain amount of skepticism when I've been told that someone literally cannot afford a $5 Substack subscription. I suspect what is actually going on is that the person has a LOT of Substack subscriptions, which in aggregate are more discretionary income than they should be spending, and are limiting themselves from spending more, and find it socially awkward to state that your offering isn't worth more to them than not subscribing to something else.
I simply disagree with the framing of the situation as theft or selfishness. You're allowed to value your work however you choose, and I think it's right for you to do so.
I didn't mind your initial comment, or the follow-up. The Qs were fair.
And I don't need the money. I live simply and always will. It's about value and signaling the market. Some pro athletes have huge contracts but want to be paid more b/c some guys who aren't as good as them are paid better. I feel that my stuff is better than what people get on TV and in the newspapers. Thus, I should get paid something.
As someone who has spent ~$3,000/year for 3 years on ~40 SubStack subscriptions, I want to chime in that what keeps me from spending even more is simply the time investment.*
I also find that the pricing a bit high for many people - and from what I understand Substack has set minimums, right? You can’t offer a year sub for $10 bucks?
Personally I wish I could pay a flat $100/month to read whatever I want, comment on whatever I want, and Substack distributes money based on my content interaction like Spotify. Maybe some day.
* unfortunately our family essentially “struck by lighting” right after Easter so pausing all paid subs and not picking up anymore, or you’d be among the 40. Love your pieces Mark.
Why do you assume everybody can afford even one latte? I don’t buy latte’s at all. Trying to live on less then $1,500 dollars a month Social Security doesn’t allow for luxuries like that. I’m lucky if I can even afford regular coffee to make at home.
Sadly, it is likely a considerable number of people, with myself among them. Before the lockdown I was doing okay, but along with a few other setbacks I have not recovered. Yesterday I read a report that the number of people behind on their car payments is at an all time high. Inflation has hit a lot of people pretty hard.
Mark , so nice to meet you . Sorry my visit was short , we were on our way to visit my aunt who was just placed in a nursing home and had hot food for her in the car. Birnns Candy is our family tradition to stop there ! Hope you enjoyed the treats ! See u soon and will give you the heads up next time !🌞🤗
Jun 1, 2023·edited Jun 1, 2023Liked by Mark Oshinskie
The big-picture question is whether Substack is going to be sustainable and serves as the one significant counter to the captured "mainstream" press. This won't happen if Substack authors can't make a decent income. Some people are writing on Substack just because they enjoy writing and they don't need the income. But plenty of other valuable voices - doing real research and reporting and offering important and original commentary - do need a minimal income. I'm in this group.
This said, it's tough for Substack readers to support every writer they enjoy. The ones who are able to do this are making a bigger difference than they might realize.
Per my key metrics, I just need 1-in-50 of my current "free" subscribers to become "paid" subscribers. An annual subscription at my site is just $40/year, which is just $3.30/month. I write at least 12 stories a month, so this is about 25 cents a story. For that, you get about 7 minutes of reading/per story. Plus, you can make and read any comment you want in the Reader Comments section for "added value!"
I also think the Establishment/Deep State crowd fears Substack and wants it to disappear as a threat to their narratives. I think these leaders have made a calculation they can wait out many of the Substackers, who will give up if they can't make, say, $35,000/year.
I think if just 25 percent of Substack reader could budget $10 to $80/month on Substack subscriptions, Substack could finish off the "gatekeepers of the news." Subscribers can also spread their monthly subs around. That is, spend $5 one month with me (then cancel the Bill Rice subscription) and spend the same $5 next month with Mark.
I also think some kind of micro-payment idea could be a game-changer. I'd love it if I got a nickel for some of my stories that were read by 20,000 people (that would be $1,000 from just one story).
I changed my mind and decided to take the chance that I could continue to come up with a new idea each week. I'm not sure I can sustain this interval. But I feel that I gave away so much material for so long that I would consider subscriptions a form of "back pay." And when that garden incident happened, I said, "I'm done with giving stuff away Doing so is not self-respecting."
And like you and I both know and say, if you don't pay people, you can't expect them to stay on task. And then you get the majority model: those who are paid by Pharma, et al., tell endless lies.
As I keep telling you, don't sell yourself short when it comes to future topics to write about. They are everywhere. And they all aren't about Covid. I mean, do you have any thoughts on central bank digital currency, the Green New Deal, Joe Biden being re-elected and what that will mean to America, woke culture, crony fascism, censorship, etc. Heck, motherhood, friendships, good books ... I know you do .... and I for one want to read them.
This is actually an important topic. Is Substack going to survive, grow and prosper ... and perchance make a difference?
I've read some of your posts at the BI writers' group. Those aren't all about Covid.
If you think about it, readers become fans of specific writers. They like their writing and are interested in what they have to say about any topic. Remember the old "syndicated columnists" we used to read in newspapers. We were interested in the writer's thoughts. We didn't know what they were going to write about that day.
I don't know if it's working or not, but with my Substack I'm really marketing "Bill Rice's Thoughts" or Bill Rice's Unique Writing Style ... not just another Covid topic. Or: That's where I want to get to. Hopefully, one day many people will read anything and everything I write about .... because I wrote it.
I haven't investigated the underlying economic model of Substack or most other digital sources. I vaguely understand that there is some sort of micropayment for each YouTube view, but haven't looked there either.
There is a book, "The Age of Surveillance Capitalism", Shoshana Zuboff, 2019, which describes the power of the "free" digital information which we provide with our use of digital media and "smart" devices. "If you aren't the customer, you are the product."
I pay for The Epoch Times and Jessica Rose, Eugyppius, El Gato Malo, and BPR on Substack. I appreciate the columns which allow comments from non-paid readers (I despise the term "followers", I think it comes from Twitter), and understand the writers who only accept comments from paid readers (eg RWMalone) as they see that they need to constrain the volume of opinions. The commentary on Substack, some Wordpress columns, and SeekingAlpha is often as useful as the original article- I treat the discourse as equivalent to a graduate seminar, but recall that these were best with a dozen or so participants. There are some very helpful technical Substacks- Hidden Complexity, HervK102, Rounding the Earth, Metatron, WMCResearch, AMidWesternDoctor, and many others which I read as time allows, and again, the commentary is as helpful as the articles for a dilettante! I even make infrequent observations on BRJr's Newsletter! There lies the dilemma- limited time, limited expertise, constrained finances, and not smart enough and too lazy to be a polymath. I support Mark Oshinskie's approach- if we had to pay $400/hr for his legal opinions they would be well worth the cost.
Our children's chickens were harvested by mink and raccoons from a not adequately varmint-proofed cage, but I do appreciate the raccoon who sleeps in one of our fir trees a few days per month.
I appreciate and understand how you feel. Substack is now one of my main resources for news and opinion, unfortunately the cost adds up quickly - imagine reading a newspaper and having to pay each reporter you read $5 per month. My pensioners budget only allows me to subscribe to around $20 per month so I have to be judicious in my selection for paid content. I have flexed over the past year once or twice depending on world events and my interests at the time. Totally understand your position and regret this will (at least for now) limit my views of your content to the free publications. Thank you for your hard work, I know it doesn't pay the bills but we do appreciate you even if we can't all afford a subscription. I look forward to your free offerings.
same here. Several substackers are on the waiting list. When I quit someone I subscribe to another, but with 8 subscriptions running I have to stop there. Unfortunately enough, several will have to wait.
Jun 1, 2023·edited Jun 1, 2023Liked by Mark Oshinskie
The free subscriber as flower taker: It's an analogy, one of many possible. It could be that for you to start leaving essays behind a paywall makes the most sense. I don't pass judgement on that. Certainly I am a fan of your writing and, as a writer myself, I sincerely appreciate the time and effort it takes to craft such thoughtful essays as you do.
I do pay for some Substack subscriptions, but not as "Transcriber B." That's my policy, I think it's best given my aims here, and I'm sticking with it.
Whatever you decide, know that you have my warmest wishes.
I've devoted many hundreds of hours of work to researching and writing these. Until last week, I did it all for free. And Substack provided a platform for free. It's not realistic to expect people to indefinitely write/provide platform for free. That's the socialist model and I doubt many of my readers are socialists or broke.
Jun 1, 2023·edited Jun 2, 2023Liked by Mark Oshinskie
Hi Mark, Good wishes to you, may you enjoy many subscribers. Your excellent work certainly deserves a substantial paying audience. I have appreciated your essays more than you know.
I would add though-- and I make this remark for the general readership here, and as a writer, not as an activist transcriber-- that there are other models for offering free writing that are not necessarily socialist. The prime example of that is when the writer's aim is to sell books and workshops. For that the writer would aim to maximize newsletter signups-- that is to say, assemble as large an audience as possible that will be interested in purchasing the books & etc. When this is the case, a paywall on the blog may, possibly-- for some writers-- prove to ultimately depress total income.
Another model of course would be writing that is free but backed by paid advertising.
Yet another: busking (taking tips).
There are many ways to skin the capitalist cat. And I will grant, selling subscriptions to Substack newsletters is a very promising option for many writers.
As for Substack providing the platform for free, anyone who contributes in any way (as writer and/or as reader) is contributing to the overall value of the Substack network-- Substack isn't running a charity, after all-- so as one who does not sell subscriptions I don't consider myself a total free-rider here. I'm not saying that what I do (as TB) would necessarily be the right thing for others, however.
But my goal is not dollar maximization. I am talking about basic respect for labor and the willingness to pay for that which you value, even though some may have an irrational bias against doing so.
By the way, I've busked in the Boston subway stations. And I routinely give money to buskers.
But to me, writing is not busking. Many thousands of people read my posts each week. Nearly all of the subway riders just passed by.
Hi and thank you for writing and sharing some good articles free! I've looked at the oncoming expectation for purchasinig all materials, but it adds up pretty quickly to pay $5 monthly for even 2 people and I already subscribe to places that will be unaffordable as a retiree already! So unfortunately if you stop giving articles for free, I won't be able to hear what you have to say. Again thank you for sharing some free.
You're welcome, Deb. I was, and am, happy to have been able to reach out to people in a time of need.
And I don't even need subscription money to live. I simply believe that what I post is far truer than plenty of "news" that people pay for and that, therefore, as a matter of equity, I should be compensated.
Do not feel bad for being paid for your work. After all the WaPo is not free either, or the NYT. Some newspapers give you a limited number of free articles and then there is a paywall, usually it is about 5. May be there is a possibility to do that? I do not like the way some give you one paragraph and then put the paywall because then you cannot judge the whole article. But if you can read 3 or 5 you can form an idea of the writer and whether you like it or not.
As this will be my last post here, I can say that once something IS offered for free, and then the person changes their mind, that is a very different thing than theft. If you insisted on paid subs out of the gate, I simply would have never been here, because I cannot afford it. Its been great to read your work, thanks.
Jun 1, 2023·edited Jun 1, 2023Liked by Mark Oshinskie
Mark, I spend a lot more for a subscription to my daily lefty woke garbage newspaper which I read mainly for local news and sports.
I wrote some opinion pieces about nonpolitical items that were published. However, my last few efforts failed to make print because I criticized NATO, Biden, Zelensky, and the globalist war in Ukraine, the fist raising / bullhorn methodologies employed by the “Tennessee 3” and urged people to give RFK Jr a fresh look outside the antivaxx construct.
Unsurprisingly there is no room or tolerance for pieces that run counter to the mainstream (BS) narrative in that infuriating rag. Yet it is perceived as “gospel” by locals since there are few if any alternative print voices.
I asked a few locals if they’d heard of Substack, and they got excited thinking it might be a new sandwich place.
I didn't consider reading what is freely offered as theft. It was put out for free after all. And unlike the flowers reading an article won't prevent others from enjoying it later. I support your right to charge for whatever content you wish in the future, however. Good luck. If I weren't on limited income I might subscribe.
I'm not trying to change your mind. I would only point out that pro musicians don't allow people to enter concerts for free if there are empty seats because "they were going to play the show anyway."
But a musician should charge admission at the gate instead of suddenly getting angry at not having been handed money by the audience he first offered free concerts to. Nothing kept you from setting up a payment system for all your posts from the beginning. Or if you had simply set up a payment system at this point without the insults that would have been great too.
I compared readers to thieves because both have a sense of entitlement about others working for free.
This is simple. If you want to support my work and Substack, subscribe. If not, don't. Consider the sustainability/secondary effects of the entitlement mindset. Live with these consequences.
That's an interesting point. I don't see that money necessarily proves the worth. Air is free but I love it more than any other substack post on this planet. I love books I read from the library--and I never paid anything for the privilege of reading them. Confess, Mark. Do you not feel valued by all the praise your unpaid subscribers have given to you on this substack post? Or do you tell them: Your praise is meaningless without financial remuneration. I am amazed that I seem to be discovering you right now. I subscribed, paid money (because I could afford it)--and then never read anything you previously wrote because I had so many subscriptions I couldn't afford to read them all. How does my money celebrate your worth? I think many of your unpaid subscribers appreciate you far more than I do. Although I'll try to read a few more articles before my subscription lapses.
Yes, air is valuable. But people don't work many hours to make air, as I do to write what I write. And libraries cost plenty of tax dollars every year.
Sure, I have appreciated the positive comments and, far more than that, hearing that I accompanied people through this period was uplifting. That was what it was, and money can't change that.
And the money I make on Substack is not life-changing. (Nor do I want to change my life; I live simply). It's just that people should be willing to pay for what they say they love and believe in; namely, me and Substack. And after 100 free posts,, $5/month in this day and age is quite modest.
Do people have a chance to read one post for free before they subscribe? How can we know if we think your writing is worth it if we have to pay to play (or read, in this case)?
I graduated from Juilliard. Some of us would attend concerts for free. We would wait until intermission and mingle with those returning to the concert. Also, there was sometimes standing room for free for some concerts. It's not the pro musicians (content providers) who throw people out of the concert. It's usually the concert hall staff. Many pro musicians provide free concerts or free performances along with their paid gigs. It's this "all or none" mentality that really seems crazy to me. I see a lot of posts here from people who adore your writing, respect your editorial gifts, and yet can't afford to subscribe to more than one or two (if that) substack authors. I still believe that the correct approach is make some posts free--and put others or even most behind a pay wall. Because if you don't give free samples--how will people know you are worth buying? I never buy a book from an unknown author if I can't browse before buying.
Yo go, Mark! This ‘stack is yours. You created it, you are it’s content. You BUILT it. Take it where you take it. I am quite sure your readers will go with you.
I am speaking from the heart and not trying to offend, but I was very put off by this article and will try to explain why. I have been reading your articles for free because YOU put them out there for free. People pass by and look at your flowers for free, because YOU put them out there for people to enjoy for free. I'm sure a tremendous amount of effort goes into your writing and your flowers, but you made the unilateral decision to put in that effort and to offer them for people to enjoy for free. So why now do you assume that people don't value what you offer (or even worse - that they are comparable to thieves) if they don't pay for something that you willingly offer for free? If you don't want to give away your time and effort for free anymore then just don't. If you don't feel valued unless you receive money for your efforts, then make payment a requirement for the things you create. I understand that giving too much of yourself away can sometimes lead to feelings of being unappreciated or unvalued. I have experienced similar feelings many times in my life. I do appreciate your writing and was not trying to devalue you or steal from you by reading your articles for free. But placing the blame for your frustrations outside of yourself and lashing out at your "free" subscribers will probably not be productive or helpful. A look inward will often help one find the true source of one's own feelings and may even lead to self-accountability. Best of luck to you.
First, I like it when people admire the flowers. I hate it when they steal them.
Second, where is the lashing out? Man, are people emotionally soft. All I said was that those who don't subscribe are comparable to thieves in that they have a sense of entitlement to free stuff. And that a failure to support writers they "love" leaves only the bought hacks to present "news" to them.
If that's what you want to support, that's your choice. All I was saying was that I don't want to work on behalf of those with a sense of entitlement. And if you think that, after 100 posts, $5/month is too much to pay, you have no sense of reciprocity and a strong sense of entitlement. That's fine. I'm not angry. I just won't write for you anymore.
If I may offer a comment on this line of reasoning, I would humbly suggest that many who read your works without subscribing do so not out of any sense of entitlement, but only of pure gratitude.
You may not agree with my comments, but that doesn't make them unfair. It's my opinion. I was trying to offer some perspective because you seem blind to your part in the many negative reactions to this article. If you wanted people to support you with paid subscriptions at this point, you could have just asked nicely. I really don't understand your approach of insulting the people who read your Substack. Isn't that what you want people to do - read your writing? And then you continue slinging the insults in response to many of the comments here from your subscribers who take the time to give you feedback - even telling a man that maybe he should get rid of one of his dogs. Sounds like you're the one who is emotionally soft. I hope you're just having a bad day and can turn things around. You clearly stated, "I just won't write for you anymore." Well, I guess I just won't read for you anymore. You mentioned not feeling appreciated. See how it goes when your readers don't feel appreciated either. A long look in the mirror will go a long way. All you had to do was ask nicely.
I gave people an option. If they don't want to support me, fine. It's funny, though. Thousands of people read my stuff week after week. They must think it's worthwhile.
Some resented me because, even after reading 100+ posts for free, they have a sense of entitlement to an endless flow of material. How dare I require payment for my work, as a restaurant does for a meal or a story requires to buy a shirt? Etc.
My goal is not dollar maximization. Ultimately, not much money is involved on either end of the transaction. I am focused on basic respect for labor and the willingness to pay for that which you value, even though some may have an irrational bias against doing so.
I like myself and many others do, too. People who know me tell me I'm very grounded and calm. Your lecture is silly.
Go back and read what I wrote and tell me specifically what I said that was so objectionable.
And then think about how you feel about working many hundreds of hours for free and how Substack will exist with so many entitled readers.
I love your writings & have always looked forward to the next to come! It is understandable & absolutely your right to decide to share your content w/ only paid subscribers going forward, but I think it’s kind of unfair to say that free articles from the past 3 years (to the present date) is stealing & kind of an insult to your readers who love, very much appreciate & follow your work.
I didn't say that reading two-plus years of content was stealing. I offered over 100 posts without asking anyone for a dime. Those posts were gifts, offered with no expectation of payment. I was happy to accompany people through this scam.
I didn't even say that being unwilling to pay for content going forward was stealing.
I did say that it was unrealistic to expect both Substack and me to continue to provide, for free, something that clearly has enough value to people that they come back and read it week after week. I also said that, by failing to support voices like mine, readers were effectively ceding the public space to Pharma and a very corrupt media and government.
I won't apologize for what I wrote. What I say about people supporting what they say they believe in affects the larger society far more strongly than it affects me. We're not talking about much money here. I can easily live without the modest amounts of subscription funds.
I'm talking about supporting that which has value.
Does this mean that the flower garden will also become pay-per-view?
For surely at least as many here have been edified and inspired by the beauty of your writing and thinking as have those passers-by who paused initially in wonderment and gratitude to view your flower gardens, and some of whom have been inspired by your work to plant gardens and ideas of their own.
It would be a great loss to the community of ideas if your works were only to be read by the few.
Thanks, Martyn. LOL on the PPV. Also very poetic and a well-developed metaphor.
There's an easy solution. Tell Mark O. and Substack how much you like his stuff/Substack's platform--by subscribing for a few months. Cut a few corners somewhere to come up with what is very minor money these days.
I live on a very limited income, support 4 dogs (and their vet), and an entitled spouse, who pays for nothing. Lose spouse, lose everything (including my beloved dogs), because they are a narcissist and will be dragging everything out as my punishment for being alive.
I was going to say to give one of the dogs away. Not because I want the money. But if one is living that close to the financial edge, some changes should be made.
It truly seems that you are conflicted on this issue. I don't know what the answer is. I'm OK with you requiring a subscription or not. You have a talent and you work hard to deliver something of value to people. Plus, everyone needs money to live in this world. It is understandable that you accept the money from subscriptions. It is also understandable that you require readers to have a subscription.
Generally, there are no requirements to pay to listen to the services of a pastor. I don't recall Christ passing around the collection plate prior to miracles or sermons.
You are competing with quite a few Covid commentators on substack that do provide their work for free. I suggest you take stock and review the marketplace.
If there is an overabundance of a goods the price drops.
I have paid for substack commentary on covid. Do I need to purchase more? Maybe maybe not.
If you hide your work behind a paywall, I and others will no longer have chance to make that decision someday.
Think about Google.
If they charged for their service when they first deployed it, no one would have used it.
It took them a number of years to develop it and a following.
It's not easy and I understand the effort it takes to write and post content on this platform.
Whatever you decide, best of everything in all your endeavors!
And you clearly imply that I'm disregarding Scripture when I point out that an independent media needs to be supported.
After over 100 posts, readers have a clear sense of whether they like what I do or not. To suggest that you're still evaluating my stuff is disingenuous and probably belied by the number of my stories that you've read.
If you can find writing better than mine, buy it. I would.
That’s an interesting choice of quote. It does not suggest that one’s candle should be lit for any and all, but simply for the benefit of those in the house. Perhaps the paywall defines the bounds of that house.
At the same time, if Mark places that candle in the public square, then none benefiting from it’s light there should be considered candlelight thieves unless they shield that light from the rest of us.
Shine your light, Mark, where it may burn brightest!
Your point is understandable but I don't love this metaphor. I find it incoherent.
Offering something for free- because you are emotionally satisfied by exerting societal influence through the wide spread of your ideas, or simply to be generous- is different from having something stolen from you.
Allowing those who can't or won't pay for a subscription to read articles doesn't deprive others from reading them.
Your real conflict here seems to be with VALUE, specifically the value YOU extract from the maintenance of your Substack garden. What I suspect is happening is that you're conflicted, or no longer satisfied, with the non-monetary value of your garden, and suspect (rightfully) that offering it for free, past the tipping point that economists ostensibly get degrees to try to see accurately, will discourage readers who might pay for it from bothering to do so, and you'd like to extract more monetary value from your work.
That's fine. But it's different from being robbed of something of communal value. I just feel like there's room here to be more honest with yourself about your motivations.
The two situations both center on the dysfunctional and unrealistic expectation that others owe them free stuff.
Do musicians allow some people to walk into concert venues for free if others have already bought tickets? That's kind of the suggestion here, i.e., that the band was going to play anyway, so why not let everyone else in for free?.
If people like my posts, they should be willing to pay as much for four stories as they pay for one latte. (I'm guessing about price here b/c I don't drink lattes). If they don't think what I have done for the past few years isn't worth as much as a latte, they should buy another latte.
I don't need subscription money to live. I live simply, and always will. But my writing is truer than much of/all the content provided by paid/bought media. Thus, as a matter of basic equity and signaling to the market, I deserve compensation.
And as I previously noted, if all Substack writers posted free, there would be no Substack.
I'm grateful for other Stack writers and I support their work with dollars. I don't feel they owe me anything.
The assumption is always that everyone goes out every day drinking lattes. From my perspective, that’s an occasion to get together with my daughters and hang out. It happens occasionally, not daily. If I paid for every Substack author I read, I wouldn’t eat. That doesn’t mean that I don’t glean much information from what each author has to say. Look at it this way, if Paul Revere had shouted “the redcoats are coming!! to only his paid readers, it wouldn’t have been much of a revolution.
Four posts=one latte.
But if you value the latte more than four posts, I understand why you'd buy the latte. Freedom is important.
I do see your point, they are the same and different. I enjoy reading what you write, and hope it’s not actually stealing, because I don’t steal. The latte is really about spending time with my daughters because I prefer my own coffee. If the coffee shop wouldn’t mind, I would take in my own!
In essence, I’m agreeing with you, but it does really boil down to how to share my meager funds with all I appreciate.
I understand that. And if the latte is more important to you, you should definitely buy the latte. And enjoy it.
But I think most people would admit that they spend $5 on a lot of stuff each month. It's not much these days. We support what we believe in. I believe that Coronamania was a scam.
Life should allow us more freedom to choose how we spend our limiter resources. Unfortunately, these days we are required by law to support all kinds of objectionable stuff. I could write at great length about examples.
No, I don't assume that everyone drinks lattes every day. Though many do.
I said that I post four times/month and the cost of four posts is less than one latte.
It took Paul Revere ten minutes to do his ride.
I've been Paul Revere for three years. I've spent many hours/post and posted 100 free stories.
And I've done more vol work in my life than can be counted. More than Paul Revere.
Your analogy illustrates a situation where there is high, but non-monetary, value in widely disseminating content. Revere's motivation to organize a civil defense was of higher value to him in that moment than to be financially compensated for the effort.
This is ultimately a matter of Mark's value structure for his work, which is always going to be a deeply personal thing.
THIS: “If I paid for every Substack author I read, I wouldn’t eat.” Please consider what other have done: have a “tip jar”, appeal to readers daily or at regular intervals to donate/make a contribution, offer readers subscriber-only pieces...etc.
It's not my style to beg. I'm a take it or leave it person.
Those who want to support me can come up with $5 for a few months, esp. after all that I've written. It's not much money these days. And I've spent many hundreds of hours writing these.
I get it. I also read many of the other comments including yours. I have a choice to make, and I applaud you for standing firm. Thanks for all you have written.
I lost my job at the start of Covid and am struggling to find another. I won’t get into detail but I love lattes. $5 a month is nothing. What seems to be the issue is not placing value on another’s time and heart. The woman picking the flowers failed to understand (or chose not to) the hard work and heart that went into planning and planting them. There is the analogy.
Your work and beliefs are worth more to me each month than caffeine in a cup could ever be.
You are certainly correct that no one is owed free stuff, and that value should be fairly compensated. I admit to a certain amount of skepticism when I've been told that someone literally cannot afford a $5 Substack subscription. I suspect what is actually going on is that the person has a LOT of Substack subscriptions, which in aggregate are more discretionary income than they should be spending, and are limiting themselves from spending more, and find it socially awkward to state that your offering isn't worth more to them than not subscribing to something else.
I simply disagree with the framing of the situation as theft or selfishness. You're allowed to value your work however you choose, and I think it's right for you to do so.
I didn't mind your initial comment, or the follow-up. The Qs were fair.
And I don't need the money. I live simply and always will. It's about value and signaling the market. Some pro athletes have huge contracts but want to be paid more b/c some guys who aren't as good as them are paid better. I feel that my stuff is better than what people get on TV and in the newspapers. Thus, I should get paid something.
As someone who has spent ~$3,000/year for 3 years on ~40 SubStack subscriptions, I want to chime in that what keeps me from spending even more is simply the time investment.*
I also find that the pricing a bit high for many people - and from what I understand Substack has set minimums, right? You can’t offer a year sub for $10 bucks?
Personally I wish I could pay a flat $100/month to read whatever I want, comment on whatever I want, and Substack distributes money based on my content interaction like Spotify. Maybe some day.
* unfortunately our family essentially “struck by lighting” right after Easter so pausing all paid subs and not picking up anymore, or you’d be among the 40. Love your pieces Mark.
Thanks, Michael.
I hope you can regain your footing.
Why do you assume everybody can afford even one latte? I don’t buy latte’s at all. Trying to live on less then $1,500 dollars a month Social Security doesn’t allow for luxuries like that. I’m lucky if I can even afford regular coffee to make at home.
I strongly suspect that you're an exception among Substack readers.
If you own and can power up a computer, you can afford a cup of coffee.
Sadly, it is likely a considerable number of people, with myself among them. Before the lockdown I was doing okay, but along with a few other setbacks I have not recovered. Yesterday I read a report that the number of people behind on their car payments is at an all time high. Inflation has hit a lot of people pretty hard.
Mark , so nice to meet you . Sorry my visit was short , we were on our way to visit my aunt who was just placed in a nursing home and had hot food for her in the car. Birnns Candy is our family tradition to stop there ! Hope you enjoyed the treats ! See u soon and will give you the heads up next time !🌞🤗
Thanks so much for stopping. You made my day.
I look very much forward to being able to spend time with you. There's much to discuss. You can e-mail me at forecheck32 at g mail.
My brother took me past the gardens he thought you take care of ! Beautiful.💕
There's far more there than meets the eye. I wish I could have given you the full tour.
Thanks again for the chocolates. That was so generous of you.
The big-picture question is whether Substack is going to be sustainable and serves as the one significant counter to the captured "mainstream" press. This won't happen if Substack authors can't make a decent income. Some people are writing on Substack just because they enjoy writing and they don't need the income. But plenty of other valuable voices - doing real research and reporting and offering important and original commentary - do need a minimal income. I'm in this group.
This said, it's tough for Substack readers to support every writer they enjoy. The ones who are able to do this are making a bigger difference than they might realize.
Per my key metrics, I just need 1-in-50 of my current "free" subscribers to become "paid" subscribers. An annual subscription at my site is just $40/year, which is just $3.30/month. I write at least 12 stories a month, so this is about 25 cents a story. For that, you get about 7 minutes of reading/per story. Plus, you can make and read any comment you want in the Reader Comments section for "added value!"
I also think the Establishment/Deep State crowd fears Substack and wants it to disappear as a threat to their narratives. I think these leaders have made a calculation they can wait out many of the Substackers, who will give up if they can't make, say, $35,000/year.
I think if just 25 percent of Substack reader could budget $10 to $80/month on Substack subscriptions, Substack could finish off the "gatekeepers of the news." Subscribers can also spread their monthly subs around. That is, spend $5 one month with me (then cancel the Bill Rice subscription) and spend the same $5 next month with Mark.
I also think some kind of micro-payment idea could be a game-changer. I'd love it if I got a nickel for some of my stories that were read by 20,000 people (that would be $1,000 from just one story).
Well said, Bill.
I changed my mind and decided to take the chance that I could continue to come up with a new idea each week. I'm not sure I can sustain this interval. But I feel that I gave away so much material for so long that I would consider subscriptions a form of "back pay." And when that garden incident happened, I said, "I'm done with giving stuff away Doing so is not self-respecting."
And like you and I both know and say, if you don't pay people, you can't expect them to stay on task. And then you get the majority model: those who are paid by Pharma, et al., tell endless lies.
As I keep telling you, don't sell yourself short when it comes to future topics to write about. They are everywhere. And they all aren't about Covid. I mean, do you have any thoughts on central bank digital currency, the Green New Deal, Joe Biden being re-elected and what that will mean to America, woke culture, crony fascism, censorship, etc. Heck, motherhood, friendships, good books ... I know you do .... and I for one want to read them.
This is actually an important topic. Is Substack going to survive, grow and prosper ... and perchance make a difference?
You have that versatility. I'm not sure I do.
I've read some of your posts at the BI writers' group. Those aren't all about Covid.
If you think about it, readers become fans of specific writers. They like their writing and are interested in what they have to say about any topic. Remember the old "syndicated columnists" we used to read in newspapers. We were interested in the writer's thoughts. We didn't know what they were going to write about that day.
I don't know if it's working or not, but with my Substack I'm really marketing "Bill Rice's Thoughts" or Bill Rice's Unique Writing Style ... not just another Covid topic. Or: That's where I want to get to. Hopefully, one day many people will read anything and everything I write about .... because I wrote it.
And you are a lot better writer than me.
Don't sell your writing short, Bill. It's clear and thoughtful.
...and a penny for your thoughts (likes.)
I haven't investigated the underlying economic model of Substack or most other digital sources. I vaguely understand that there is some sort of micropayment for each YouTube view, but haven't looked there either.
There is a book, "The Age of Surveillance Capitalism", Shoshana Zuboff, 2019, which describes the power of the "free" digital information which we provide with our use of digital media and "smart" devices. "If you aren't the customer, you are the product."
I pay for The Epoch Times and Jessica Rose, Eugyppius, El Gato Malo, and BPR on Substack. I appreciate the columns which allow comments from non-paid readers (I despise the term "followers", I think it comes from Twitter), and understand the writers who only accept comments from paid readers (eg RWMalone) as they see that they need to constrain the volume of opinions. The commentary on Substack, some Wordpress columns, and SeekingAlpha is often as useful as the original article- I treat the discourse as equivalent to a graduate seminar, but recall that these were best with a dozen or so participants. There are some very helpful technical Substacks- Hidden Complexity, HervK102, Rounding the Earth, Metatron, WMCResearch, AMidWesternDoctor, and many others which I read as time allows, and again, the commentary is as helpful as the articles for a dilettante! I even make infrequent observations on BRJr's Newsletter! There lies the dilemma- limited time, limited expertise, constrained finances, and not smart enough and too lazy to be a polymath. I support Mark Oshinskie's approach- if we had to pay $400/hr for his legal opinions they would be well worth the cost.
Our children's chickens were harvested by mink and raccoons from a not adequately varmint-proofed cage, but I do appreciate the raccoon who sleeps in one of our fir trees a few days per month.
I love this. Post more often at Bill Rice Jr's Newsletter!
I appreciate and understand how you feel. Substack is now one of my main resources for news and opinion, unfortunately the cost adds up quickly - imagine reading a newspaper and having to pay each reporter you read $5 per month. My pensioners budget only allows me to subscribe to around $20 per month so I have to be judicious in my selection for paid content. I have flexed over the past year once or twice depending on world events and my interests at the time. Totally understand your position and regret this will (at least for now) limit my views of your content to the free publications. Thank you for your hard work, I know it doesn't pay the bills but we do appreciate you even if we can't all afford a subscription. I look forward to your free offerings.
same here. Several substackers are on the waiting list. When I quit someone I subscribe to another, but with 8 subscriptions running I have to stop there. Unfortunately enough, several will have to wait.
The free subscriber as flower taker: It's an analogy, one of many possible. It could be that for you to start leaving essays behind a paywall makes the most sense. I don't pass judgement on that. Certainly I am a fan of your writing and, as a writer myself, I sincerely appreciate the time and effort it takes to craft such thoughtful essays as you do.
I do pay for some Substack subscriptions, but not as "Transcriber B." That's my policy, I think it's best given my aims here, and I'm sticking with it.
Whatever you decide, know that you have my warmest wishes.
Thanks, TB.
I've devoted many hundreds of hours of work to researching and writing these. Until last week, I did it all for free. And Substack provided a platform for free. It's not realistic to expect people to indefinitely write/provide platform for free. That's the socialist model and I doubt many of my readers are socialists or broke.
Hi Mark, Good wishes to you, may you enjoy many subscribers. Your excellent work certainly deserves a substantial paying audience. I have appreciated your essays more than you know.
I would add though-- and I make this remark for the general readership here, and as a writer, not as an activist transcriber-- that there are other models for offering free writing that are not necessarily socialist. The prime example of that is when the writer's aim is to sell books and workshops. For that the writer would aim to maximize newsletter signups-- that is to say, assemble as large an audience as possible that will be interested in purchasing the books & etc. When this is the case, a paywall on the blog may, possibly-- for some writers-- prove to ultimately depress total income.
Another model of course would be writing that is free but backed by paid advertising.
Yet another: busking (taking tips).
There are many ways to skin the capitalist cat. And I will grant, selling subscriptions to Substack newsletters is a very promising option for many writers.
As for Substack providing the platform for free, anyone who contributes in any way (as writer and/or as reader) is contributing to the overall value of the Substack network-- Substack isn't running a charity, after all-- so as one who does not sell subscriptions I don't consider myself a total free-rider here. I'm not saying that what I do (as TB) would necessarily be the right thing for others, however.
Those are interesting ideas, TB.
But my goal is not dollar maximization. I am talking about basic respect for labor and the willingness to pay for that which you value, even though some may have an irrational bias against doing so.
By the way, I've busked in the Boston subway stations. And I routinely give money to buskers.
But to me, writing is not busking. Many thousands of people read my posts each week. Nearly all of the subway riders just passed by.
Hi and thank you for writing and sharing some good articles free! I've looked at the oncoming expectation for purchasinig all materials, but it adds up pretty quickly to pay $5 monthly for even 2 people and I already subscribe to places that will be unaffordable as a retiree already! So unfortunately if you stop giving articles for free, I won't be able to hear what you have to say. Again thank you for sharing some free.
Deb
You're welcome, Deb. I was, and am, happy to have been able to reach out to people in a time of need.
And I don't even need subscription money to live. I simply believe that what I post is far truer than plenty of "news" that people pay for and that, therefore, as a matter of equity, I should be compensated.
Do not feel bad for being paid for your work. After all the WaPo is not free either, or the NYT. Some newspapers give you a limited number of free articles and then there is a paywall, usually it is about 5. May be there is a possibility to do that? I do not like the way some give you one paragraph and then put the paywall because then you cannot judge the whole article. But if you can read 3 or 5 you can form an idea of the writer and whether you like it or not.
As this will be my last post here, I can say that once something IS offered for free, and then the person changes their mind, that is a very different thing than theft. If you insisted on paid subs out of the gate, I simply would have never been here, because I cannot afford it. Its been great to read your work, thanks.
Thanks for reading, Jacquelyn. See my response to Cindi below.
Mark, I spend a lot more for a subscription to my daily lefty woke garbage newspaper which I read mainly for local news and sports.
I wrote some opinion pieces about nonpolitical items that were published. However, my last few efforts failed to make print because I criticized NATO, Biden, Zelensky, and the globalist war in Ukraine, the fist raising / bullhorn methodologies employed by the “Tennessee 3” and urged people to give RFK Jr a fresh look outside the antivaxx construct.
Unsurprisingly there is no room or tolerance for pieces that run counter to the mainstream (BS) narrative in that infuriating rag. Yet it is perceived as “gospel” by locals since there are few if any alternative print voices.
I asked a few locals if they’d heard of Substack, and they got excited thinking it might be a new sandwich place.
I didn't consider reading what is freely offered as theft. It was put out for free after all. And unlike the flowers reading an article won't prevent others from enjoying it later. I support your right to charge for whatever content you wish in the future, however. Good luck. If I weren't on limited income I might subscribe.
The amount of work involved in each task and the taking for free are the common elements.
And if writers and Substack are paid nothing, they will both disappear.
It is your work and you have the right to charge for it. You always had that right.
I'm not trying to change your mind. I would only point out that pro musicians don't allow people to enter concerts for free if there are empty seats because "they were going to play the show anyway."
But a musician should charge admission at the gate instead of suddenly getting angry at not having been handed money by the audience he first offered free concerts to. Nothing kept you from setting up a payment system for all your posts from the beginning. Or if you had simply set up a payment system at this point without the insults that would have been great too.
Where's the insult? In the past, free. 100 posts.
Going forward, not free. Simple.
I thought it was the liberals who were excessively sensitive.
I must have misunderstood the analogy. You seemed to be comparing us to thieves. My bad.
I compared readers to thieves because both have a sense of entitlement about others working for free.
This is simple. If you want to support my work and Substack, subscribe. If not, don't. Consider the sustainability/secondary effects of the entitlement mindset. Live with these consequences.
Thou shalt not muzzle the ox which treads out the grain. Now we're even. Lol
To prove it wasn't about the money I've subscribed.
That's an interesting point. I don't see that money necessarily proves the worth. Air is free but I love it more than any other substack post on this planet. I love books I read from the library--and I never paid anything for the privilege of reading them. Confess, Mark. Do you not feel valued by all the praise your unpaid subscribers have given to you on this substack post? Or do you tell them: Your praise is meaningless without financial remuneration. I am amazed that I seem to be discovering you right now. I subscribed, paid money (because I could afford it)--and then never read anything you previously wrote because I had so many subscriptions I couldn't afford to read them all. How does my money celebrate your worth? I think many of your unpaid subscribers appreciate you far more than I do. Although I'll try to read a few more articles before my subscription lapses.
Yes, air is valuable. But people don't work many hours to make air, as I do to write what I write. And libraries cost plenty of tax dollars every year.
Sure, I have appreciated the positive comments and, far more than that, hearing that I accompanied people through this period was uplifting. That was what it was, and money can't change that.
And the money I make on Substack is not life-changing. (Nor do I want to change my life; I live simply). It's just that people should be willing to pay for what they say they love and believe in; namely, me and Substack. And after 100 free posts,, $5/month in this day and age is quite modest.
Do people have a chance to read one post for free before they subscribe? How can we know if we think your writing is worth it if we have to pay to play (or read, in this case)?
My stuff has been Substack-ed for over two years. People have had plenty of time to check it out.
I graduated from Juilliard. Some of us would attend concerts for free. We would wait until intermission and mingle with those returning to the concert. Also, there was sometimes standing room for free for some concerts. It's not the pro musicians (content providers) who throw people out of the concert. It's usually the concert hall staff. Many pro musicians provide free concerts or free performances along with their paid gigs. It's this "all or none" mentality that really seems crazy to me. I see a lot of posts here from people who adore your writing, respect your editorial gifts, and yet can't afford to subscribe to more than one or two (if that) substack authors. I still believe that the correct approach is make some posts free--and put others or even most behind a pay wall. Because if you don't give free samples--how will people know you are worth buying? I never buy a book from an unknown author if I can't browse before buying.
Yo go, Mark! This ‘stack is yours. You created it, you are it’s content. You BUILT it. Take it where you take it. I am quite sure your readers will go with you.
I am speaking from the heart and not trying to offend, but I was very put off by this article and will try to explain why. I have been reading your articles for free because YOU put them out there for free. People pass by and look at your flowers for free, because YOU put them out there for people to enjoy for free. I'm sure a tremendous amount of effort goes into your writing and your flowers, but you made the unilateral decision to put in that effort and to offer them for people to enjoy for free. So why now do you assume that people don't value what you offer (or even worse - that they are comparable to thieves) if they don't pay for something that you willingly offer for free? If you don't want to give away your time and effort for free anymore then just don't. If you don't feel valued unless you receive money for your efforts, then make payment a requirement for the things you create. I understand that giving too much of yourself away can sometimes lead to feelings of being unappreciated or unvalued. I have experienced similar feelings many times in my life. I do appreciate your writing and was not trying to devalue you or steal from you by reading your articles for free. But placing the blame for your frustrations outside of yourself and lashing out at your "free" subscribers will probably not be productive or helpful. A look inward will often help one find the true source of one's own feelings and may even lead to self-accountability. Best of luck to you.
Your comments are unfair.
First, I like it when people admire the flowers. I hate it when they steal them.
Second, where is the lashing out? Man, are people emotionally soft. All I said was that those who don't subscribe are comparable to thieves in that they have a sense of entitlement to free stuff. And that a failure to support writers they "love" leaves only the bought hacks to present "news" to them.
If that's what you want to support, that's your choice. All I was saying was that I don't want to work on behalf of those with a sense of entitlement. And if you think that, after 100 posts, $5/month is too much to pay, you have no sense of reciprocity and a strong sense of entitlement. That's fine. I'm not angry. I just won't write for you anymore.
If I may offer a comment on this line of reasoning, I would humbly suggest that many who read your works without subscribing do so not out of any sense of entitlement, but only of pure gratitude.
You may not agree with my comments, but that doesn't make them unfair. It's my opinion. I was trying to offer some perspective because you seem blind to your part in the many negative reactions to this article. If you wanted people to support you with paid subscriptions at this point, you could have just asked nicely. I really don't understand your approach of insulting the people who read your Substack. Isn't that what you want people to do - read your writing? And then you continue slinging the insults in response to many of the comments here from your subscribers who take the time to give you feedback - even telling a man that maybe he should get rid of one of his dogs. Sounds like you're the one who is emotionally soft. I hope you're just having a bad day and can turn things around. You clearly stated, "I just won't write for you anymore." Well, I guess I just won't read for you anymore. You mentioned not feeling appreciated. See how it goes when your readers don't feel appreciated either. A long look in the mirror will go a long way. All you had to do was ask nicely.
I gave people an option. If they don't want to support me, fine. It's funny, though. Thousands of people read my stuff week after week. They must think it's worthwhile.
Some resented me because, even after reading 100+ posts for free, they have a sense of entitlement to an endless flow of material. How dare I require payment for my work, as a restaurant does for a meal or a story requires to buy a shirt? Etc.
My goal is not dollar maximization. Ultimately, not much money is involved on either end of the transaction. I am focused on basic respect for labor and the willingness to pay for that which you value, even though some may have an irrational bias against doing so.
I like myself and many others do, too. People who know me tell me I'm very grounded and calm. Your lecture is silly.
Go back and read what I wrote and tell me specifically what I said that was so objectionable.
And then think about how you feel about working many hundreds of hours for free and how Substack will exist with so many entitled readers.
Your talent for communication should be rewarded.
I love your writings & have always looked forward to the next to come! It is understandable & absolutely your right to decide to share your content w/ only paid subscribers going forward, but I think it’s kind of unfair to say that free articles from the past 3 years (to the present date) is stealing & kind of an insult to your readers who love, very much appreciate & follow your work.
I didn't say that reading two-plus years of content was stealing. I offered over 100 posts without asking anyone for a dime. Those posts were gifts, offered with no expectation of payment. I was happy to accompany people through this scam.
I didn't even say that being unwilling to pay for content going forward was stealing.
I did say that it was unrealistic to expect both Substack and me to continue to provide, for free, something that clearly has enough value to people that they come back and read it week after week. I also said that, by failing to support voices like mine, readers were effectively ceding the public space to Pharma and a very corrupt media and government.
I won't apologize for what I wrote. What I say about people supporting what they say they believe in affects the larger society far more strongly than it affects me. We're not talking about much money here. I can easily live without the modest amounts of subscription funds.
I'm talking about supporting that which has value.
I totally get your point, and I offered alternative suggestions in another comment.
Does this mean that the flower garden will also become pay-per-view?
For surely at least as many here have been edified and inspired by the beauty of your writing and thinking as have those passers-by who paused initially in wonderment and gratitude to view your flower gardens, and some of whom have been inspired by your work to plant gardens and ideas of their own.
It would be a great loss to the community of ideas if your works were only to be read by the few.
Thanks, Martyn. LOL on the PPV. Also very poetic and a well-developed metaphor.
There's an easy solution. Tell Mark O. and Substack how much you like his stuff/Substack's platform--by subscribing for a few months. Cut a few corners somewhere to come up with what is very minor money these days.
Sincerely yours,
Mark O., Inc., LLC
I live on a very limited income, support 4 dogs (and their vet), and an entitled spouse, who pays for nothing. Lose spouse, lose everything (including my beloved dogs), because they are a narcissist and will be dragging everything out as my punishment for being alive.
But, I'm "stealing" from you. Great!
No, you're not stealing.
If you value your vet, pay your vet. I'm pretty sure he bills at a much higher rate than I do.
Why is your name Bandit if you are not stealing? Just asking.
Some fine and much needed levity there!
And at the same time, I had the same Q.
I was going to say to give one of the dogs away. Not because I want the money. But if one is living that close to the financial edge, some changes should be made.
Tell that to Congress!
I do. They don't care.
I told them the lockdowns and the CARES Act were poor ideas, too.
It truly seems that you are conflicted on this issue. I don't know what the answer is. I'm OK with you requiring a subscription or not. You have a talent and you work hard to deliver something of value to people. Plus, everyone needs money to live in this world. It is understandable that you accept the money from subscriptions. It is also understandable that you require readers to have a subscription.
Luke 11:33
Neither do men light a candle,
and put it under a bushel,
but on a candlestick; and it giveth light unto all that are in the house.
It's your choice to hide your light behind a paid subscription wall.
Wow. Now I'm a bad Christian for asking you to support what you believe in.
Does your pastor work for free?
Bad Christian? Those are your words not mine.
Generally, there are no requirements to pay to listen to the services of a pastor. I don't recall Christ passing around the collection plate prior to miracles or sermons.
You are competing with quite a few Covid commentators on substack that do provide their work for free. I suggest you take stock and review the marketplace.
If there is an overabundance of a goods the price drops.
I have paid for substack commentary on covid. Do I need to purchase more? Maybe maybe not.
If you hide your work behind a paywall, I and others will no longer have chance to make that decision someday.
Think about Google.
If they charged for their service when they first deployed it, no one would have used it.
It took them a number of years to develop it and a following.
It's not easy and I understand the effort it takes to write and post content on this platform.
Whatever you decide, best of everything in all your endeavors!
But the pastor does get paid, right?
And you clearly imply that I'm disregarding Scripture when I point out that an independent media needs to be supported.
After over 100 posts, readers have a clear sense of whether they like what I do or not. To suggest that you're still evaluating my stuff is disingenuous and probably belied by the number of my stories that you've read.
If you can find writing better than mine, buy it. I would.
If I could find it.
That’s an interesting choice of quote. It does not suggest that one’s candle should be lit for any and all, but simply for the benefit of those in the house. Perhaps the paywall defines the bounds of that house.
At the same time, if Mark places that candle in the public square, then none benefiting from it’s light there should be considered candlelight thieves unless they shield that light from the rest of us.
Shine your light, Mark, where it may burn brightest!