Sullivan goes indy

He's got guts. I'll give him that.

Andrew Sullivan is moving from the Daily Beast to an independent, reader-subscription basis--one free of advertising (although Sullivan concedes that "it would be imprudent for us to rule out all advertising right now for ever").

A word of warning, Mr. Sullivan, even though you haven't raised the issue as a reason for your advertising independence: Corporate advertising, I am convinced, is the best shield for editorial independence.

I know that isn't a popular or accepted view (especially on the flowery, goo-goo left), but it's a cold-blooded fact that virtually all corporations are ruthlessly, delightfully pragmatic. They don't give a Club-for-Growth shit what your editorial-political views are; just bring in those readers, they'll gladly take 'em all, be they to the left, the right, or in the middle. In the broad sweep of things, you can't really hurt a corporation's feelings or insult its intelligence or in almost any way outrage it to the point of potential business-self-denial. Corporations merely want to see the money, which comes from numbers--and lots of them.

Not so, of course, with a dedicated-to-the-left-or-right readership, which naturally is the preponderance of what political blogging draws. Thus, Mr. Sullivan, accustom yourself now to the wording of the inevitable emails: "Cancel my subscription! you goddamn fascist!" or "you goddamn communist!" or "you goddamn, infuriating ... whatever!" (Actually, they're interchangeable.) With no subscription base, no problem. With a subscription base, big problem.

Just know that with every strong opinion you write, you'll be risking half of your readership, and therefore, potentially, half of your subscription base. And when finances get tight, the temptation to retract one's opinionated claws might become irresistible. In short, you may find that corporate-free editorializing is far more tyrannical than being free from corporations might seem.

At any rate, best of luck to you, Mr. Sullivan. 

Comments

[shsavage]

"In the broad sweep of things, you can't really hurt a corporation's feelings or insult its intelligence..."

Unless you're talking about News Corp...

[JTL]

While I don't always agree with him, I only found this blog because of Sullivan linking to you several times. It will be interesting to see how he does.

[Peter G]

Once upon time talk radio was dominated by left wing voices, as any sufficiently aged insomniac can tell you. That was what sold advertising then. I recommend once again the essay by D F Wallace titled The Host. http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2005/04/host/303812/

[Turgidson]

Considering how innumerate Sullivan repeatedly shows himself to be when discussing economics or the federal budget, I hope he hired a good accountant to game out whether there is money to be made in this venture.

But if anyone has the right audience and profile to succeed in this, it's probably him.

[Josh]

I'll second the comment that said it was only through Sullivan that I found PM. I'm grateful to him for that, though I haven't been back to his site since he wet his pants after the first debate and then shamefacedly stood by his pissed-pants right up to election day, as though his hissy fit somehow had an impact on liberal thinking and the president's strategy. What a baby he is - eternally apologetic and yet constantly defiant. Or maybe he's just a Brit.

Anyway, what he has is, the world's fanciest and best (and best-staffed) blog. That's overkill and he's giving away far more created value than any other blog on the planet. But would you pay for what he (and his staff) produce? Well...

The best high school baseball player I ever saw was also the worst MLB player I ever saw. When it was free, he was a joy to watch; when I had to pay to see him - among a peer group that was largely better at everything than he was - it wasn't worth the price of the ticket.

[M Smith]

Bye-bye, Andrew.