"Theoretically at some point we grow up." I agree. I did the politics thing at the coal face up on the Hill for 30 years. I've just had a hip replacement and am now thinking about working at the local Home Hardware here in the Glebe. Sounds pretty good to me. Though your tease sounds interesting, too. I know people.
Keep up the great work, Paul. Happy to be a supporter. My partner and I look forward to all your work and most often, it gives me a smile.
What a great “progress” report Paul! Congratulations and thumbs up to the new ideas and plans in gestation! Love the lines you come up with - in this instance “winning is easy; thoughtful government is hard”. I appreciate that reading you is not about following the daily/hourly news cycle; I can do that elsewhere. Reading and listening here lets me think deeper, be more curious, and make my own connection and conclusions. The focus on public administration is particularly useful (and rare). Looking forward to that possible gathering and raising a glass to long form and independent journalism.
After 7 decades I’m a firm believer in “you get what you pay for”. This is one of the few examples where we actually get more than we pay for. Keep up the great work!
You are among the best political commentators in the country...perhaps the very best, because your include select cultural and scientific developments. That was my reason for buying Macleans for years, and it fully warrants the subscription, now. So, I am happy to see that growing numbers of other Canadians are reaching the same conclusion.
Fully agree Paul. For a couple of years you were the only reason I kept up my subscription to Macleans, before they changed the covers (rebranded?) and I couldn't stomach it any more.
J'apprécie la clarté d'esprit et l'analyse fine des enjeux dans vos chroniques, les tournures de phrases et l'habileté à faire le pont entre les deux solitudes.
Les textes qui touchent à autre chose que la politique amènent une fraîcheur au contenu.
J'avoue ne pas être un amateur de podcasts, parce que je suis moins distrait quand je lis : l'écoute me demande plus de concentration.
Congrats on this achievement. I am a very very happy paying customer and am getting more value than your subscription fee. Your work is stellar! All the best in the future!
OK! Congratulations are in order, especially if you do the (hypothetical) math: 18,994 subscribers @ $50/year = $949,700 ÷ 170 = $5,586.47 per post. Nice business model that would make most precariously employed, buck-a-word journalists faint. However, describing your readers as "shareholders" is an understandably giddy but unfortunate choice of words. I am no more a "shareholder" than I am to any similar service to which I subscribe—unless I am to receive a financial dividend. By the way, I paid $5.65 for the privilege of posting this comment. You're welcome.
Nestor, I respectfully have to note that you cannot read!
Okay, perhaps that wasn't respectful, but please note that what Mr. W. said was, "At this writing I have 18,994 total subscribers. That number has grown 66% since the beginning of 2023. Most of those subscribers don’t pay..."
That means that, at most, there are 9,496 paid subscriptions and, given that Mr. W. said, "most of those subscribers don't pay..." I infer that perhaps only 30% (my arbitrary number) are paying, folks. If my number is correct (an absurd thought, really) then his revenue would be 5,698 x $50 = $ 284,900, a far smaller number than your $949,700.
Mr. W. appears to have replaced his former income quite nicely (huzzah!) and is now at the point that he can pay his ongoing expenses (something that was uncertain for him for quite some time, I am sure) and, as he noted, he is now contemplating hiring staff, something that he noted in the column. You can be quite certain that, even in this stripped down business model, he has a considerable amount of expenses that are not obvious to you and me.
My point in being so pedantic is that (as a retired small business person), there are a lot of costs associated with running a small business and it simply is not realistic for an outside observer (you or me, for example) to assume that a dollar of revenue means a dollar of profit. That thought process lies the way of envy, which is also the home of Liberal and (in particular) NDP supporters. I apologize for my slur against some political supporters but, while there are many of you that are quite knowledgeable and understand these things, there are ever so many that see the surface and only the surface.
So, to summarize: Go Paul, Go! Go, Paul, Go! I hope that you do get to 20,000 PAID subscriptions for I know that, in addition to allowing you a nice income, you will plow much of that filthy lucre right back into the business of informing we, the great unwashed.
Ahh, Ken. People who live in glass houses, and all that.
Had YOU read my remarks, you would have seen that I prefaced the math with "hypothetical" and made a reference to a "business model." At no time did I suggest that Mr. Wells capitalizes so extravagantly on his work—yet.
I don't want to waste more pixels (uh-oh, I hear a digital lecture coming...) but your petty insinuations, useless pedantry and sophomoric "slurs" about my business acumen or political leanings say far more about your biases than they could ever do about mine.
And by the way, might I suggest that you quietly consult a business primer to boost your own knowledge about "shareholders."
Congratulations, Paul, and thanks for writing things that make us think and re-think. $50 to read you twice a week all year round isn't just a bargain, it feels like we're stealing from you.
I believe I was one of your first paid subscribers. Always look forward to your point of view as well as your take on a variety of interests. Don’t always agree of course but I consider you one of sound voices in Canadian journalism. I am glad the endeavour is working for you.
Congratulations on your well deserved success. Your products are balanced, intelligent, and interesting. I’ll be a subscriber as long as you keep doing it.
Keep writing what you want and not what you think we want. We get enough of that everywhere else. I like seeing stories about Canadian things (news, the arts, etc) that I otherwise would probably not find on my own. It's great!
Very happy to know this is going well for you. I do look forward to whatever next you choose to write.
I have to say I completely disagree with the opinion that jazz is noise masquerading as art. I think Duke Ellington would also disagree, Duke Ellington Suites. 🌟
My grandson is in France at SciencesPo, he sent me your recent Quebec /Legault/tuition article. Thank heavens he’s plugged in !!
The mental image of you crowd surfing is worth at least fifty bucks.
This seems like a good way of making independent journalism pay. It must give you an incredible feeling of freedom.
"Theoretically at some point we grow up." I agree. I did the politics thing at the coal face up on the Hill for 30 years. I've just had a hip replacement and am now thinking about working at the local Home Hardware here in the Glebe. Sounds pretty good to me. Though your tease sounds interesting, too. I know people.
Keep up the great work, Paul. Happy to be a supporter. My partner and I look forward to all your work and most often, it gives me a smile.
What a great “progress” report Paul! Congratulations and thumbs up to the new ideas and plans in gestation! Love the lines you come up with - in this instance “winning is easy; thoughtful government is hard”. I appreciate that reading you is not about following the daily/hourly news cycle; I can do that elsewhere. Reading and listening here lets me think deeper, be more curious, and make my own connection and conclusions. The focus on public administration is particularly useful (and rare). Looking forward to that possible gathering and raising a glass to long form and independent journalism.
After 7 decades I’m a firm believer in “you get what you pay for”. This is one of the few examples where we actually get more than we pay for. Keep up the great work!
You are among the best political commentators in the country...perhaps the very best, because your include select cultural and scientific developments. That was my reason for buying Macleans for years, and it fully warrants the subscription, now. So, I am happy to see that growing numbers of other Canadians are reaching the same conclusion.
Fully agree Paul. For a couple of years you were the only reason I kept up my subscription to Macleans, before they changed the covers (rebranded?) and I couldn't stomach it any more.
Félicitations et bonne continuité!
J'apprécie la clarté d'esprit et l'analyse fine des enjeux dans vos chroniques, les tournures de phrases et l'habileté à faire le pont entre les deux solitudes.
Les textes qui touchent à autre chose que la politique amènent une fraîcheur au contenu.
J'avoue ne pas être un amateur de podcasts, parce que je suis moins distrait quand je lis : l'écoute me demande plus de concentration.
Excellent newsletter, very well presented. And, as a bonus, no BS. Much appreciated.
Congrats on this achievement. I am a very very happy paying customer and am getting more value than your subscription fee. Your work is stellar! All the best in the future!
Well done .. your opinions are well worth a read!
OK! Congratulations are in order, especially if you do the (hypothetical) math: 18,994 subscribers @ $50/year = $949,700 ÷ 170 = $5,586.47 per post. Nice business model that would make most precariously employed, buck-a-word journalists faint. However, describing your readers as "shareholders" is an understandably giddy but unfortunate choice of words. I am no more a "shareholder" than I am to any similar service to which I subscribe—unless I am to receive a financial dividend. By the way, I paid $5.65 for the privilege of posting this comment. You're welcome.
Nestor, I respectfully have to note that you cannot read!
Okay, perhaps that wasn't respectful, but please note that what Mr. W. said was, "At this writing I have 18,994 total subscribers. That number has grown 66% since the beginning of 2023. Most of those subscribers don’t pay..."
That means that, at most, there are 9,496 paid subscriptions and, given that Mr. W. said, "most of those subscribers don't pay..." I infer that perhaps only 30% (my arbitrary number) are paying, folks. If my number is correct (an absurd thought, really) then his revenue would be 5,698 x $50 = $ 284,900, a far smaller number than your $949,700.
Mr. W. appears to have replaced his former income quite nicely (huzzah!) and is now at the point that he can pay his ongoing expenses (something that was uncertain for him for quite some time, I am sure) and, as he noted, he is now contemplating hiring staff, something that he noted in the column. You can be quite certain that, even in this stripped down business model, he has a considerable amount of expenses that are not obvious to you and me.
My point in being so pedantic is that (as a retired small business person), there are a lot of costs associated with running a small business and it simply is not realistic for an outside observer (you or me, for example) to assume that a dollar of revenue means a dollar of profit. That thought process lies the way of envy, which is also the home of Liberal and (in particular) NDP supporters. I apologize for my slur against some political supporters but, while there are many of you that are quite knowledgeable and understand these things, there are ever so many that see the surface and only the surface.
So, to summarize: Go Paul, Go! Go, Paul, Go! I hope that you do get to 20,000 PAID subscriptions for I know that, in addition to allowing you a nice income, you will plow much of that filthy lucre right back into the business of informing we, the great unwashed.
Thank you, PW.
Ahh, Ken. People who live in glass houses, and all that.
Had YOU read my remarks, you would have seen that I prefaced the math with "hypothetical" and made a reference to a "business model." At no time did I suggest that Mr. Wells capitalizes so extravagantly on his work—yet.
I don't want to waste more pixels (uh-oh, I hear a digital lecture coming...) but your petty insinuations, useless pedantry and sophomoric "slurs" about my business acumen or political leanings say far more about your biases than they could ever do about mine.
And by the way, might I suggest that you quietly consult a business primer to boost your own knowledge about "shareholders."
Congratulations, Paul, and thanks for writing things that make us think and re-think. $50 to read you twice a week all year round isn't just a bargain, it feels like we're stealing from you.
I believe I was one of your first paid subscribers. Always look forward to your point of view as well as your take on a variety of interests. Don’t always agree of course but I consider you one of sound voices in Canadian journalism. I am glad the endeavour is working for you.
Congratulations on your well deserved success. Your products are balanced, intelligent, and interesting. I’ll be a subscriber as long as you keep doing it.
Keep writing what you want and not what you think we want. We get enough of that everywhere else. I like seeing stories about Canadian things (news, the arts, etc) that I otherwise would probably not find on my own. It's great!
“Every election produces winners. Not every election produces thoughtful government.“
Love these two sentences.
Very happy to know this is going well for you. I do look forward to whatever next you choose to write.
I have to say I completely disagree with the opinion that jazz is noise masquerading as art. I think Duke Ellington would also disagree, Duke Ellington Suites. 🌟
My grandson is in France at SciencesPo, he sent me your recent Quebec /Legault/tuition article. Thank heavens he’s plugged in !!
Thanks for what you do.