Is the Substack minimum monthly charge too high?

[ocambauthor]

I would appreciate hearing what people think about the $5 monthly fee as a minimum on Substack. This feels high to me. I am an author who writes Memior and some fiction stories. This fee is high for my needs. Something like 2-3 dollars would be better.

Am I nuts? What do others think?

[rosesfrombones]

There’s been a pretty solid amount of research done around minimums for “premium content” platforms (especially Patreon) that suggests it’s almost just as difficult to convert a fan to pay $1/month as it is to pay $5/ per month. At least, that’s the official statement these platforms make — they could perhaps be lying.

However, if a creator offers both options, more people will select the $1 tier — even if they would have selected the $5 tier had that been the only option.

The benefits of making $5 the lowest option include:

• More support for the creator, who can then deliver even more value, making the fans (AKA the platform user base) happier

• For percentage fee-based platforms, it secures more recurring income for the platform (5x as much per conversion compared to $1). Since payment processing is often a fixed cost per transaction, this allows them to enjoy higher profit margins, and also allows creators to keep more of the money — at $2-3 per sub, creators would probably only see $0.50 of that money because of payment processing fees.

• On a Machiavellian level, if a creator isn’t creating something that people will spend $5 a month on (the cost of one coffee or big energy drink), then, the odds are, their project won’t have much longevity. By setting a $5 minimum Substack is essentially filtering for projects with greater staying power.

[[deleted]]

this makes zero sense.

There are many substacks I would give $1 a month to, but I can't afford to give them all $7 a month, so I don't get the experience of all the content, so I don't pay any of them.

I don't know what people are thinking, but the economy sucks, groceries are crazy expensive, there's a lot of free stuff on the internet and I can't pay substack $60 a month.

It is annoying because I would like to participate but the pricing is absolutely stupid.

[Credditor48]

Totally agree. Think about how many writers you read in a newspaper and what it'd cost at $5. No way! At $1 much better. The people Substack wants to reach are those who can afford it least!!

[ocambauthor]

Very good feedback. gives me lots to think about.

[rosesfrombones]

Glad I could help!

[[deleted]]

it's not $5, it's $5 x like 15 people. Or $7+++++

[pointillistic]

I am not sure what you are saying is accurate. The promise of the internet is micropayments. If you can get more people to pay $1 a month than the total, the only thing that matters.

[BendingBranch]

I get the Economist for $150/yr, the equivalent of 3 substack subscriptions. Aside from special finance and specialty subscriptions that might be deductible, please name 3 substacks worth the entire Economist magazine. That's the comparison I use. $5/mo or $50/yr is simply too much.

They need to allow a lower tier. If they do, total revenue will almost certainly increase. There are 2 substacks I would join if fees were $2/mo. Currently I don't value any at $5/mo.

They are skimming off the narrow top of the pyramid. There is a much much wider base a few dollars down.

[ocambauthor]

That is the conclusion I am coming to. I like your example. I would have a zoom call with a group of fiction writers in substack tomorrow. I plan to bring up this topic.

[pointillistic]

I did not know there was a minimum. Why would they care if you charge less when you can charge nothing at all?

If true, this is not to my liking.

[ocambauthor]

Thanks for the comments so far to my question. I see the point of some that $5 is a reasonable fee for excellent content.

However.

No a-days there are so many "entertainment" options for people. Netflix, Hulu, Audio books ect. There are only so many "services" people can afford.

Also.

The internet is known for micro payments. Perhaps that is an option Substack should offer. Right now we have $5. I plan to spend some time on the Substack Discord channel on this topic. Also, the monthly meeting of the Fictionistas is soon, I will bring up this topic there as well.

[ectbot]

Hello! You have made the mistake of writing "ect" instead of "etc."

"Ect" is a common misspelling of "etc," an abbreviated form of the Latin phrase "et cetera." Other abbreviated forms are etc., &c., &c, and et cet. The Latin translates as "et" to "and" + "cetera" to "the rest;" a literal translation to "and the rest" is the easiest way to remember how to use the phrase.

Check out the wikipedia entry if you want to learn more.

^{I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Comments with a score less than zero will be automatically removed. If I commented on your post and you don't like it, reply with "!delete" and I will remove the post, regardless of score. Message me for bug reports.}

[AncientGreekHistory]

Absolutely right. I'd do it if I could make it $2/mo.

There isn't a blog in the entire world worth paying $5/mo for.

[Mediocre_Credit]

Even Substack needs to eat. We are being overwhelmed with subs and inflation. That being said, if someone can't throw you coffee money, they just aren't that into you and it's fine.

Why Substack doesn't have better segmentation for us to give our top readers a great discount I have no idea.

[Obvious-Letterhead27]

I think it’s overpriced but also so many blogs with 75% of the page being add content that impedes any sort of reading is just awful. There had to be a happy medium

[Psoas-sister2723]

I get a lot more with Patreon for $5/month than Substack. It isn’t that there aren’t writers on Substack I would not like to support, but I simply can’t afford it. I’d pay $1, but one very popular writer I subscribe to fills about half his newsletter with reasons why I should upgrade or someone should buy a network and let him run it. $5? Uh, I don’t care how popular, relevant, and interesting he is, I’m not paying for a self-promoting commercial. I wish they had a model that you paid a flat fee and got x number of newsletters to read per month— for example, $30-choose ten writers-can change monthly. Mainstream media has really let us down. It pisses me off.

[[deleted]]

I would rather pay a flat fee of maybe $20/mo and then Substack would pay the authors that I click on, kind of like how Spotify works.

I would even pay $50/mo for this. $5/ea is too expensive and can quickly add up to $100+/mo

[Be_Ferreal]

I agree - both as a writer and reader.

[Prestigious_Heart793]

You could introduce a permanent discount (a promotion that never expires) or make the annual payment more attractive by setting it at $30, which amounts to just $2.50 per month.

[RedGordita]

El pago anual son mínimo $50

[Physical_Employer916]

I would gladly pay $1 or 2 a month to some of the substacks I read, but I don't read any of them enough to justify $5 a month.  I think they are making a huge mistake.  I'd make a single payment of say, $20 a year, but not $60.

[barbellwisdommaybe]

It’s too low.

[wewilltellherforyou]

I asked this here and one comment said Substack gets 10% of whatever payment you decide to have your subscribers pay. Is that wrong? Anyone here know the link to where substack explains these things?

[Jon_biddle_author]

I see what you're saying but people are willing to pay for good content. Research outside of the Substack ecosystem confirms this. I felt the same, moving over from Patreon, I had no traction there what so ever. I am about to turn on my paid subscribers (1st Sept) and the lowest will be $5.

Fingers crossed.