[Re-posted and updated from earlier today]
The above graph is the state of play in our renewals drive so far in January. That towering peak on the far left is the amount of revenue we raised for the entire month of January of last year – beginning on January 2. The peak on the right is the amount of revenue we have raised so far in renewals and new subs since January 13 this year. The revenue last year was $516,500 for all of January. The revenue in January 2014 – with five days to go until February – is, as of this posting [at 3.40 pm], $471,000 [currently $475,000]. We still have to match February 2013’s $105,000 and most of March 2013’s $35,000 in the coming two months, but January was the huge mountain we had to climb first.
And the summit is in sight – we have five days to make that graph above exactly symmetrical. And what a statement that would make about the viability of reader-supported online journalism.
So if you haven’t gotten around to it yet, and still intend to renew, take a second to do it now. It’s real easy – only a couple of minutes of your time for a year’s worth of full Dish and Deep Dish access. And if you have put off [tinypass_offer text=”subscribing in the first place”], now would be the perfect time to help push us over the top. Subscribe for the first time [tinypass_offer text=”here”] – and help us make it.
To say we’re grateful for this vote of confidence and support would be an understatement. But apart from gratitude, the other thing we’re feeling is excitement: that this simple, basic business model is beginning to prove it can work. And if it can, then the possibilities of rebuilding intelligent journalism online just began to expand a little.
Can you get us to match last January by February 1 – and blaze a trail for new reader-supported online journalism? We’ll keep you posted with the progress, as we have so far, and will do as long as we are around.
Update from a reader, who isn’t so sure:
Thank you for validating my decision not to subscribe today. As I have written previously (and you have published at least once), I will not subscribe to an online publication that allows an editor to decide which reader opinions are worthy of being aired and which can be safely ignored. We had that model with print newspapers and it’s one of the reasons I was an early adopter of online news sources.
You wrote today that “victimology … began on the hard left, of course, in the 1990s” without a single citation or example. You wrote it as something that is self-evident. If you allowed comments I would have called you out on that on your own website, and I assume other readers would have to. You would, of course, still have had the option of addressing us or ignoring us, but it would all be transparent. Until you allow that transparency I won’t be subscribing to the Dish.
P.S. I’m sure you’ve thought of it already, but there is probably money to be made from enhanced “subscription plus” model that allows the subscriber to comment for a higher price.
As long-time readers know, the Dish has run multiple polls asking readers if they want to see an unmoderated comments section, and each time they have voted it down. As far as the reader’s “P.S.”, the Dish will never be pay-to-play. The only speech here is free. Another reader:
I just re-upped for another year with a $10 a month subscription. We get at least that much use of the site as a marital aid. Let me explain …
I began reading the Dish during the 2004 election cycle, and not long after convinced my husband that he should as well. We had been married 3 years at the time, and though we were both interested in politics and such, I am convinced that our shared readership has inspired numerous opportunities for us to connect on a more intimate level. We usually discuss some link or another during dinner every night. That inevitably leads to a deeper conversation in which we sometimes agree and sometimes disagree. Either way, we have shared some intense conversations about what we individually believe and why we believe it. We have shared a lot of laughs as well as some passionate discussions. Occasionally, the proverbial soap box got dusted off.
Either way, the conversation often morphs into a discussion about our childhood and early adult experiences that have turned us into the people that we are today in this marriage together. Couples pay thousands of dollars on therapy in order to try to bridge that understanding gap, and here you are offering it for the lowly price of $19.99!