Would You Pay To Read This Blog?

 I mentioned in a couple of blog entries that former Forbes movie critic Scott Mendelson started a Substack and I subscribed to it.  Like a drug dealer he gave you the first few articles for free...then the paywall went up.  To which I shrugged and said, "Yeah, I'm not paying to read your blog entries."

This is one of those new problems to consider.  Besides dozens (hundreds?) of streaming channels now, you also have Patreons, Substacks, Youtube channels, Instagrams, TikToks, and whatever other stuff.  Some of it like Patreon and Substack are already monetized and others might be as well; I just don't use them enough to know.  Musk is already experimenting with charging for Twitter X.  As I'm sure more and more of these get monetized, I wonder how people will decide what content they want to pay for and what content they don't want to pay for.

A lot of it will probably come down to WHO is offering the content.  Celebrities obviously have fame on their side, so the gossip hungry might pay to see more of their lives.  "Influencers" also have fame, albeit perhaps less so.  Someone like Mendelson at least has perceived expertise versus someone like me.  But what about the rest of us?  

I read some other blogs--when the authors actually bother to blog something.  And most of them I find enjoyable.  But if they put up a paywall and asked for $5/month, I'd scoff and say, "Yeah, right.  I'm not paying to read your blog entries."

A lot of it is that I'm poor but also from an older generation where web pages and then blogs and then social media were free.  Now you're coming along and asking me to pay for what I was getting free before?  Check your roll, dude.

I can't imagine anyone paying to read a blog like this.  I mean, people barely read it when it's free, why would they pay for it?  I think eventually a lot of people will try the paywall route only to find it's a figurative brick wall and they'll go SPLAT like Wil E Coyote.  But those who are famous or who are perceived to be experts at something will probably survive.  Unfortunately that means less content for those of us who can't/won't pay for it.

The problem with newspaper paywalls is it makes it even easier for people to turn to fake news that's largely free.  In a similar fashion, when all the reputable experts hide behind paywalls, it leaves people to go down skeevy blind alleys of fake news and conspiracy theories.  And that's unfortunate--sometimes even dangerous.  If the only news and content people have access to is from whackos, what do you think is going to happen to the people viewing it?

So it would be good if not all real content hid behind paywalls to make it only for the rich to access.  If you remember, the Internet was literally created for the free exchange of information between universities and such.  Since the early 90s people have had to pay to access the Internet as a whole, but now we're seeing more and more sites/apps charging for access to their content on top of paying for an Internet connection.  Like with streaming there will probably be a saturation point where consumers just have enough of this nickel-and-diming.

At the same time, if I thought someone would pay to read this, would I start charging?  In a heartbeat!  It's all about the Benjamins, baby!