If the company you work for REALLY does behave like that, you SHOULD DEFINITELY advertise it. Companies like this must be acknowledged and celebrated. The owner must be a really good person.
Not sure if he is a good person or not. There may be multiple reasons for doing something BUT what matter s is that anyway it is a transparent honest product. If some one wants to look for it, it is called cookpad. Probably not the best but it works and although the subscription does not look super promising it works.
I think that big issue there might just be that infinite reoccurring payments for cooking app is just not something reasonable for most people to set up. People likely prefer to not have a cooking app over paying regularly for it and it is actually reasonable decision.
That's the challenge. But at the same time, it costs like 1 usd/month if you get a holiday promotion and maybe 2/mon if full price. I know subscriptions and to the end of the month but there is no ad, no tracking, no personal stuff sold anywhere...
Advertising is a facade industry for companies who tracks and sell your data. They gather info wether you have healthy habits, if you watch adult stuff, if drive well or if you need money and then sell that data for someone who will use to personalize prices to extract as much from you as they can.
Find sites that let you pay for content then I guess? Very few sites are charity sites, and need money to keep the lights on unless it’s just a passion site for the owners and they don’t care to be a community service. I don’t blame people trying to make some money for (many times) obviously hard work and curation of a site.
Unfortunately people love to complain about ads, but rarely actually get their wallets out when an alternative payment method is presented. Case in point: the frequent archive.org links to get around paywalls.
Piracy is a service problem. A paywall literally says “you might like this but pay me first to see what it is.” Substack has a “let me read it first” button and I’ve never seen an archive link to that even though there are plenty of private articles.
The concept of gift links exists, but these websites footaxe themselves by limiting their most viral content —- ostensibly the best and cheapest marketing they could get, down the drain.
Substack's "let me read it first" is just a way to close the subscription popup, it has nothing to do with reading otherwise paywalled content.
The thing is, having had some of my own content "go viral" before - it's not worth much. Most people will read it for a minute and move on. A tiny percentage will subscribe and an even tinier percentage will give you any money. So from the point of view of a creator, it makes a ton of sense to put up paywalls on things – but only once you've already gotten a bit of an audience and distribution method figured out.
> Substack's "let me read it first" is just a way to close the subscription popup, it has nothing to do with reading otherwise paywalled content.
It has everything to do with telegraphed intention of not having content be gratis. The fact that you cannot even mentally keep the idea of subscription gates in the same bucket as paywalls says a lot.
