>Substack’s main revenue source is that it keeps 10% of all revenue from paid subscriptions. That means they’re under constant pressure to increase the number of paid subscriptions, and the amount that people are paying for those subscriptions. Ghost, and most other newsletter platforms, charge volume-based usage fees. That means those platforms can let individual writers choose how and when to prompt readers to consider a paid subscription.
>It’s much easier to avoid the temptation to implement dark patterns if you have a sustainable business model in the first place.
I don't have a strong preference for Ghost vs. Substack, but I don't understand this reasoning. I'm not even sure which platform they're accusing of using dark patterns.
Both platforms are incentivized to earn revenue to fund the platform because a publishing platform can't survive if people aren't paying for it. I don't see why it's a dark pattern to make the funding a flat 10% of people who charge vs. allow platform publishers to do a freemium model.
Neither choice seems obviously more sustainable to me than the other.
>It’s much easier to avoid the temptation to implement dark patterns if you have a sustainable business model in the first place.
I don't have a strong preference for Ghost vs. Substack, but I don't understand this reasoning. I'm not even sure which platform they're accusing of using dark patterns.
Both platforms are incentivized to earn revenue to fund the platform because a publishing platform can't survive if people aren't paying for it. I don't see why it's a dark pattern to make the funding a flat 10% of people who charge vs. allow platform publishers to do a freemium model.
Neither choice seems obviously more sustainable to me than the other.