We need to discuss Medium Monetization
Dear Mr. Ev Williams and Medium team,
We love Medium platform, we’re users! We think it’s of great importance the subject here discussed and with a bit of audacity, we may represent in behalf of everyone.
We are aware of how much the users and their experience is valued. Our assurance is that, it justify itself, until the last line within this letter.
In the last weeks, it was notable the Medium team moving forward to, to what it seems, find (or test) monetization strategies. However, we know nothing is set for the moment, but there is actions and efforts to it, in which analysis and tests will determine. This letter should be taken accountable into these strategies too.
The Medium is part of a new work and market tendency which do change our reality along its development. The intellectual job is slowly taking the stage and it’s expanding in possibilities compared to traditional ways of making a live.
In order to make clear what we mean, allow us to use another well-know company, as example, the Youtube. The Youtube has show to be a very strong power in transformation of subsistence. The video productions, views, channels, keeps growing day-by-day and, despite the great volume it represents, it’s still incipient. In Brazil, for example, there’s too little investment and perception to this new window with an entrepreneur action. It has been seen as a marketing strategy, but, compare to a optimum state, just a few take a real chance on Youtube as a business and a rentable way of living.
The purpose of mentioning Youtube is to reflect the Medium role and the new possibilities coming to be and can happen as a development of intellectual work in the internet, by new sets of monetization. They are very different type of companies, but the reference is for adopted logic, which is available for the most advanced companies of the 21th century (the Medium as the top ones), because this logic can’t absolutely have any owner.
The Medium in this potential context can become a growing shelter in the internet, such as Youtube has, but only if its development is well oriented. Its success depends by taking the same directions as Youtube’s (in some extent). The Youtube allows monetization to its user. The logic is, the more views, likes, subscribers, the more Youtube can make with ads and the user being the video maker gets his percentage on that. That is, the Youtube offers a free platform, and sell the production, the user mind about the production, and the profits are shared between the user and the Youtube. if the user’s profit is fair is not the point. The point is: the internet makes possible for those who have the tools to offer so that “the artist” can make use in his production. And in this example the “artist” term is very wide, he can teach or make anything, even teach how to fold a shirt.
The key aspect is that this is an unexplored field to companies do what Youtube did. The Medium works over this field. The writing as it happens here, reveals the same chain of possibilities of (earnings) as Youtube.
The (Journals, Magazines)/Collections could sell ads without compromising the esthetics as feared. Why not? Maybe, each (Journal/Magazine) can have its own embedded collective financing. The reader decides how much he’s paying to keep the production. The profit share can be mandatory, by views and reads. Whoever wants to get paid can activate the monetization just like in Youtube. The editors/owners of a magazine make a fair percentage of it for creating, maintaining, publishing and organizing the magazine, setting up by subjects, finding good writers, etc. And Medium also make its percentage for providing this structure and everything. All balanced for a fair percentage for everyone. Talking about other details would mostly make it an extensive letter, all of them can be solved.
This could also be more and more part of Medium’s proposal, setting up to be interesting to all parts leading to the best production experience possible (it could possibly become something like an incubator for business and projects). That would represent art of this work revolution too. I think it’s completely logic that writing to Medium might become exclusively some people’s job someday, just like there are countless youtubers who make their living out of it.
I’m sure that if we ask countless (hundreds of thousands) of Medium’s good writers if they’d like to just write to Medium to make their living, many, like us, would say: “Absolutely! and with pleasure!”.
While Medium does not take an action towards this, the risk is that other might to, even if they have a smaller structure. However it is, a thin and real possibility that separates of giants like Google. That’s why, it’s better to be always one step ahead. To be one step ahead is to “hire” the user, by allowing him to work with you. Google is giant because they did and do that. Because they understood the present logic and opened their doors to their best friend: their user (client).
We need to make an effort towards that, finding out ways to innovate in possibilities to monetize creations and creativity. For that we need to interact in an open way to bind, co-create and share experiences and knowledge without authorial concerns. Above all, to create a new knowledge, the result when we create a routine, better yet, real interactions, meetings and situations that makes it easy to keep rich and varied conversations. That also translates a company-user relationship.
In the beginning we said: to what it seems like (and it was kind of expected) the Medium team is going towards monetization efforts. But a contradiction and the main reason for this open letter is the attempt to warn and avoid Medium to not make its best efforts to monetization by assigning premium paid accounts. This possibility, is it comes to reality would far be close to Youtube logic. Maybe close to Facebook’s.
The Youtube makes its money generating flux. Facebook makes it by restraining it.
Assigning a premium paid account would be really sad! Coming out of a lover: Would screw it all up!
Unfortunately a few companies are taking its actions towards a pro-consumer ethics, the user being, simultaneously author and consumer at the same time. Unfortunately just a few companies understood that monetization on internet should always draw to gratuity (unless that’s totally impossible) and the Medium example is totally possible.
It let us think that maybe there’s a lack of communication with the users. A lack to open innovation. Open space for those who have something to say and help.
Giving up the gratuity today, won’t get Medium out of the market, not even reduce Medium’s profits. But it’s completely opposite to the tendency (and what can we guess what it might mean for tomorrow). It doesn’t represent a big threat today, mostly in short-term time (money and a lot of profits), but it might not come to reality, what could be great things if a better game was played, not restraining.
The internet, in its dynamics, make the social network happens (people’s relationships). There is a harmony when this dynamic is followed. There’s always conflict when a restraining method is attempted, restraining or suppress (for example, for example a paid subscription). It’s like expelling a portion of people of a world, a word that previously allowed free acceptance. It’s like saying out loud on a microphone, out of the blue: “from this day on, it’s not allowed [for example] unemployed among us”. Creating a new world that only allow those who have this secret key to a secret society.
I mean, in this case, for a lot of people it will just stay the same, mostly for those willing to pay. For so many others won’t make much or any sense, but it’s right a possibility to make people loyal (if it is even right to use this term), build rewarding innovation will be missed. It is like going against the future flow. If that happens, will open doors to other companies, as we said, focusing in best solutions left to be solved.
Using our other reference, the Facebook still doesn’t have a matching opponent. For how long? Maybe the question isn’t really if there will ever be a matching opponent or not, but the social effect it can or not achieve. Today the Youtube means a lot to many people. Many make their money on them and Google is truly admired for many for this more universal logic, shared logic. The Facebook, though many of us are always there (everyone is there), has being left out for many day-by-day, has caused many to desert the platform and hasn’t not being able to create a meaning relationship with their costumers like Google’s, as well like user numbers declining news, with the predictions that points up to 80% loss until 2017 (which we kind doubt).
Focusing in the users is building up a cooperative project with them, also bring social results and potentially takes it to a optimum state, as Youtube can relate. But the capability to transform and influence society through a project is also a choice which unfortunately today is still in opposite interest or the excessive dependence to the immediate question of profit making, or the need to rule out the risk that maybe exists by working with gratuity, for example, not having a structure to follow the full extent of growing users.
We, however believe, that Medium is prepared to deal with this growth, we are willing to help beginning by this letter, for that, we sign with our faith.
Respectfully,
Fabrício Castro, André Silva and
Lucas Domáradzkí — https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1693048246&fref=ts
Versão em Português da carta / Portuguese Version to this letter:
Texto original / Original text:
