I just subscribed but missed the sale. It’s still a bargain for such good writing.
I first read Claire’s substack when Casey Handmer was invited with “long live the sun”. I work at Topsoe (Denmark), a company that prides itself on wanting to help the energy transition aka decarbonising the world. But that post was more inspirational than anything I’ve heard from colleagues in the know.
I’ve been coming for more when I realised you’re the genius that’s so well informed that you can find the best content and generate more.
Fair enough, but you might recollect that in my earlier critique of her insufferable TDS, so long as Claire posts comments strongly critical of her positions/analyses, I'll stay on-board as paying subscriber. My more recent remarks in this thread noted that there's a respectful tolerance level of some part of her audience that might eventually be surpassed at risk of her business model.
If you're not comfortable with how much income this is generating, raise the subscription price. Don't lower it. The quality of your writing places you among the very best; charge accordingly.
Sorry to hear the CG business model isn't working well enough, Claire. News and opinion writing looks like a tough market these days. Even those who are prepared to write whatever an audience thinks it wants to hear don't necessarily do it easy. I suspect most of us who've hung around a while do so at least in part because you don't do that - you do your research, you apply critical thinking, and you give us a useful synthesis and viewpoint, which is disappointingly rare.
I had a look at the marriage thing, but I'm very bad with application processes, and that one looks way too complicated. Besides, Aus residency visas are hard to get, and rural Tasmania is a long way from Paris.
Sad to read all this. Can’t imagine that appeasing far-right, T…p- and Musk-adoring snow-flakes would‘ve turned out a viable business model, though. Not in the long run. They would‘ve turned away eventually anyway.
You should not have to marry a rich guy for money.
Simply approach one and tell him he should support you — no strings attached— because you are a far better person than he will ever be.
If this doesn’t work you and your three legged cat can move into my spare bedroom. I am married but that arrangement is in effect only every other Wednesday. I live several thousand miles from Paris but you can’t have everything
If you agreed with me on everything, why would I subscribe.?
I subscribe because you present new views of issue I hadn't been exposed to or thought about or views I disagree with in a persuasive way.
I mostly disagree with you about Musk, but you and others have persuaded me that Vivek is not ready for prime time. I both agree and disagree with you on Trump, but that's ok, there are plenty of aspects to agree and disagree about.
I value that you have a perspective different than mine and can write articulately about your views.
If others cannot see the value in that, I am at a loss as to what to do.
If the public is so polarized that individuals cut off a valuable source of information because there is one expressed viewpoint on the site they can't stand to be exposed to, our civil society is not in a good place.
There is more out there to read than one has time for, even in retirement, so that is a factor. Choices have to be made about what one values. I've made mine. This subscription is of great value.
Founding memberships cost $300/year vs $80 for the annual membership. (The $300 appears discretionary, as it is changeable.) The benefits that accrue to a Founding subscriber are the same as an Annual subscription except for this one item...
"Commission a report. If it's in our purview, we'll do it."
I have a screen capture that is helpful; alas, I see no method to upload it here.
Yes, you change or upgrade your subscription status on Substack...
* If already a subscriber, the easiest path is to select the tab in the top right corner of your display, "Upgrade to founding." (I work on an iMac with its rectangular display so the tab's position for you might vary depending on your monitor.)
* If not already a subscriber, select any one of the many tabs throughout the text that proclaim "Subscribe" and, once on the linked subscription page, select "Founding" status.
Too clever by half? We feel your pain, but I'd hazard that far more of your long-term subscriber base leans favorable towards Elon, Vivek, and He Who Shall Not Be Named... than do those who share your bitter tears unreservedly. You're running a business, Claire, and if you outrage your clients/customers beyond their thresh hold of respectful tolerance for opposing views, they'll pull the plug. You have heard of Dylan Mulvaney? Not that any of us around here ever drank Bud Light
Counterpoint: I recently subscribed in no small part because of the vivific evisceration of the smarmy Ramaswamy - and yes that sentence was a lot but I had fun writing it.
Encouraging someone to sacrifice their intellectual honesty on the altar of pleasing the wrong crowd is quite the look.
Audience capture is the cause of villainy in most of the YouTube pundit crowd. You can give the people what they want, but you've got to give up on the truth as you see it in return.
I don't know that deleting egregious header pix like that one a coupla days ago of Trump guzzling "disinfecting" Clorox from the bottle, hardy har har, is necessarily a giant step towards audience capture villainy, rather than it is a modicum of respect for the range of your audience's toleration for being de facto dissed and insulted!
I just subscribed but missed the sale. It’s still a bargain for such good writing.
I first read Claire’s substack when Casey Handmer was invited with “long live the sun”. I work at Topsoe (Denmark), a company that prides itself on wanting to help the energy transition aka decarbonising the world. But that post was more inspirational than anything I’ve heard from colleagues in the know.
I’ve been coming for more when I realised you’re the genius that’s so well informed that you can find the best content and generate more.
You're so kind. Thank you so much.
You're hilarious.
Fair enough, but you might recollect that in my earlier critique of her insufferable TDS, so long as Claire posts comments strongly critical of her positions/analyses, I'll stay on-board as paying subscriber. My more recent remarks in this thread noted that there's a respectful tolerance level of some part of her audience that might eventually be surpassed at risk of her business model.
If you're not comfortable with how much income this is generating, raise the subscription price. Don't lower it. The quality of your writing places you among the very best; charge accordingly.
Sorry to hear the CG business model isn't working well enough, Claire. News and opinion writing looks like a tough market these days. Even those who are prepared to write whatever an audience thinks it wants to hear don't necessarily do it easy. I suspect most of us who've hung around a while do so at least in part because you don't do that - you do your research, you apply critical thinking, and you give us a useful synthesis and viewpoint, which is disappointingly rare.
I had a look at the marriage thing, but I'm very bad with application processes, and that one looks way too complicated. Besides, Aus residency visas are hard to get, and rural Tasmania is a long way from Paris.
Sad to read all this. Can’t imagine that appeasing far-right, T…p- and Musk-adoring snow-flakes would‘ve turned out a viable business model, though. Not in the long run. They would‘ve turned away eventually anyway.
You are a miracle of nature.
You should not have to marry a rich guy for money.
Simply approach one and tell him he should support you — no strings attached— because you are a far better person than he will ever be.
If this doesn’t work you and your three legged cat can move into my spare bedroom. I am married but that arrangement is in effect only every other Wednesday. I live several thousand miles from Paris but you can’t have everything
You’re crazy.
If you agreed with me on everything, why would I subscribe.?
I subscribe because you present new views of issue I hadn't been exposed to or thought about or views I disagree with in a persuasive way.
I mostly disagree with you about Musk, but you and others have persuaded me that Vivek is not ready for prime time. I both agree and disagree with you on Trump, but that's ok, there are plenty of aspects to agree and disagree about.
I value that you have a perspective different than mine and can write articulately about your views.
If others cannot see the value in that, I am at a loss as to what to do.
If the public is so polarized that individuals cut off a valuable source of information because there is one expressed viewpoint on the site they can't stand to be exposed to, our civil society is not in a good place.
There is more out there to read than one has time for, even in retirement, so that is a factor. Choices have to be made about what one values. I've made mine. This subscription is of great value.
What is a “founding member?”
Hi, WigWag,
Founding memberships cost $300/year vs $80 for the annual membership. (The $300 appears discretionary, as it is changeable.) The benefits that accrue to a Founding subscriber are the same as an Annual subscription except for this one item...
"Commission a report. If it's in our purview, we'll do it."
I have a screen capture that is helpful; alas, I see no method to upload it here.
Do you sign up for it through Substack?
Yes, you change or upgrade your subscription status on Substack...
* If already a subscriber, the easiest path is to select the tab in the top right corner of your display, "Upgrade to founding." (I work on an iMac with its rectangular display so the tab's position for you might vary depending on your monitor.)
* If not already a subscriber, select any one of the many tabs throughout the text that proclaim "Subscribe" and, once on the linked subscription page, select "Founding" status.
THANK YOU.
Too clever by half? We feel your pain, but I'd hazard that far more of your long-term subscriber base leans favorable towards Elon, Vivek, and He Who Shall Not Be Named... than do those who share your bitter tears unreservedly. You're running a business, Claire, and if you outrage your clients/customers beyond their thresh hold of respectful tolerance for opposing views, they'll pull the plug. You have heard of Dylan Mulvaney? Not that any of us around here ever drank Bud Light
Counterpoint: I recently subscribed in no small part because of the vivific evisceration of the smarmy Ramaswamy - and yes that sentence was a lot but I had fun writing it.
Encouraging someone to sacrifice their intellectual honesty on the altar of pleasing the wrong crowd is quite the look.
Audience capture is the cause of villainy in most of the YouTube pundit crowd. You can give the people what they want, but you've got to give up on the truth as you see it in return.
Exactly.
I don't know that deleting egregious header pix like that one a coupla days ago of Trump guzzling "disinfecting" Clorox from the bottle, hardy har har, is necessarily a giant step towards audience capture villainy, rather than it is a modicum of respect for the range of your audience's toleration for being de facto dissed and insulted!
On a serious note.
Keeping my fingers crossed.
We need thinkers in the public forum.
Woman At A Rally: Governor, every thinking person will be voting for you.
Adlai Stevenson: Madam, that's not enough. I need a majority.
And at McDonald's, you would eat well; none of that foo-foo French stuff.
My CPA gave up hope on my financial future years ago. But he knows to keep his mouth shut because he gets a check every year.