FWIW, Yglesias probably cost himself me as a subscriber by being too prolific. I subscribed to his substack for about a year (and liked it), but started to feel like I'd kind of heard what he had to say. Reading around 200 (short) essays from someone is a good way to know their opinions pretty well!
FWIW, Yglesias probably cost himself me as a subscriber by being too prolific. I subscribed to his substack for about a year (and liked it), but started to feel like I'd kind of heard what he had to say. Reading around 200 (short) essays from someone is a good way to know their opinions pretty well!
I feel like if he had done three essays a week instead of five, I might still be subscribed. I still like his basic approach, just, it feels like a retread of what I've already seen now.
I might be an outlier. And I think Read's larger point stands: posting regularly is a huge asset. One per week is less powerful than five per week, and four per month on no real schedule is less powerful than one per week.
I don't know if you're an outlier, but for every post Yglesias is writing he's probably bringing in more new subscribers than he is losing people like you, so it always makes more sense for him to post. Now, as you say, it probably makes his publication less useful or engaging on the whole for existing subscribers, but as long as he's not alienating them more quickly than he is finding new readers, he doesn't need to worry about it.
This also describes me but I figure we’re outliers. Not like we have refined taste or anything but we have *limited* taste which reaches satiation.
I’m not going to pretend I remember any particular word Yglesias wrote and I was too smart to stick around. I just sort got the gist, formed my ideas about it, and moved on.
The strategy for readers who read all of his content is to get them to start commenting and then they build community in the comments and they don't want to unsubscribe because they lose those social connections.
FWIW, Yglesias probably cost himself me as a subscriber by being too prolific. I subscribed to his substack for about a year (and liked it), but started to feel like I'd kind of heard what he had to say. Reading around 200 (short) essays from someone is a good way to know their opinions pretty well!
I feel like if he had done three essays a week instead of five, I might still be subscribed. I still like his basic approach, just, it feels like a retread of what I've already seen now.
I might be an outlier. And I think Read's larger point stands: posting regularly is a huge asset. One per week is less powerful than five per week, and four per month on no real schedule is less powerful than one per week.
I don't know if you're an outlier, but for every post Yglesias is writing he's probably bringing in more new subscribers than he is losing people like you, so it always makes more sense for him to post. Now, as you say, it probably makes his publication less useful or engaging on the whole for existing subscribers, but as long as he's not alienating them more quickly than he is finding new readers, he doesn't need to worry about it.
This also describes me but I figure we’re outliers. Not like we have refined taste or anything but we have *limited* taste which reaches satiation.
I’m not going to pretend I remember any particular word Yglesias wrote and I was too smart to stick around. I just sort got the gist, formed my ideas about it, and moved on.
The strategy for readers who read all of his content is to get them to start commenting and then they build community in the comments and they don't want to unsubscribe because they lose those social connections.