8 Comments
Mar 18·edited Mar 18Liked by Amanda Natividad

Such a necessary, thoughtful post, Amanda.

I think the "publish less" applies to anything and everything under the "content sun."

It sounds so obvious, but when it's your brand, your publication, your personal voice, the feeling. is usually, "I'm not doing enough. If I kept sending out more words, more videos, more podcasts, more stuff, that would naturally translate to more readers, more viewers, more listeners, more revenue/leads/likes/shares."

But that just confuses the value that consistency produces with constancy.

Unless you have an audience of millions spread across the globe and an dozens of interests, they can absorb the flurry of 200 (maybe more) articles the NYT publishes daily. I'm sure if they thought it would increase revenues (relative to costs), they'd have the wherewith to publish a thousand-plus items a day. But even their roughly 10 million digital subscribers (and the 2 billion "uniques" they reported in 2022) have their limits.

When I started a digital news site within a software company focused on the ultra-niche area of location-based marketing and IoT devices years ago, I thought we had to have at least 6 to 10 items a day. But staff (including me!) forced me to cut that to one or two articles a day. Surprisingly (to me and the marketing team that oversaw it), traffic more than doubled.

But it shouldn't have been. A few years ago, The Guardian cut its weekly story production by *one third*... and traffic soared. Even local news outlets, The Post and Courier grew digital subscriptions by 250% when they cut the volume of output.

There's always a complaint that content is "commodified." It is if you churn it out like cans of beans. But if you view it as unique, smartly crafted articles, videos, podcasts, whathaveyou... the audience will recognize it as something worth their attention as well as their sign-up info.

Anyway, you're such an incisive, insightful writer, Amanda, as a devoted audience member of yours, I would say, "Publish more!" But I won't fault you for not changing your pace. Your dispatches aere worth waiting for, always.

Expand full comment
author

Really appreciate this, thank you! I also did not know the Guardian stat offhand, so thank you for the gift.

Expand full comment
Mar 18Liked by Amanda Natividad

I actually saved that stat and a few others from about 2 years ago when I was forced to make the argument for publishing less.

I'd like to say I was convincing; but really, it was the decline of search and social-based traffic and ad dollars that came with it, that made the point clearer than I could: all content needs to be treated as worth paying for, not just worth clicking on.

And you have always exemplified the idea of "paid content!" ;)

Expand full comment
Mar 18Liked by Amanda Natividad

100% this. I also just came back to my newsletter last week after a (happy!) 2-month break... and promptly changed its frequency from fortnightly to sporadic. there is, indeed, too much of everything---I don't need to add more to the pile :) but I look forward to your next one... whenever that might be!

Expand full comment
author

thanks, fio! :) and breaks are good.

Expand full comment

My online voice is too small to be recognized or taken seriously for saying the same thing but THANK YOU. Thank you for being the first voice of sanity. Nobody is an expert of hot, publishable takes every waking day of their lives and I miss thoughtful writing on the internet.

Expand full comment
author

The internet has enough hot, half-hashed takes. It doesn't need more from us. :)

Expand full comment
May 2·edited May 2

Ahh...this piece absolutely resonates with me -- but I just took a stab (yet again!) to be consistent in posting about things that matter to me (ignoring why anyone else should care about my opinions!)..good luck to me!

Expand full comment