# Why Medium failed to disrupt the media



## fm7 (Jan 6, 2017)

" Content can only be consistently good if its creators can make a living from it. It's an illusion that creating a platform and inviting everyone to it will eventually reveal enough free, or nearly free, pearls to make the platform's owners fabulously rich. "



> Ev Williams, the co-founder of Twitter, spent five years building Medium into one of the slickest publishing platforms on the web. Yet he found himself in traditional-publishing purgatory on Wednesday, cutting 50 employees and searching for a new business model. There could be no better proof that delivery methods matter little and content is king.





https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-01-05/why-medium-failed-to-disrupt-the-media


----------



## graeme (Jan 6, 2017)

How much money did the actual writers make from medium?


----------



## fm7 (Jan 8, 2017)

graeme said:


> How much money did the actual writers make from medium?





> In 2016, we made big investments in teams and technology aimed at attracting and migrating commercial publishers to Medium. And in order to get these publishers paid, we built out and started selling our first ad products. This strategy worked in terms of driving growth, as well as improving the volume and consistency of great content. Some of the web’s best publishers are now on Medium, and we’re happy to work with them every day. We also saw interest from many big brands and promising results from several content marketing campaigns on the platform.






> We believe people who write and share ideas should be rewarded on their ability to enlighten and inform, not simply their ability to attract a few seconds of attention. We believe there are millions of thinking people who want to deepen their understanding of the world and are dissatisfied with what they get from traditional news and their social feeds. We believe that a better system — one that serves people — is possible. In fact, it’s imperative.
> 
> 
> So, we are shifting our resources and attention to defining a new model for writers and creators to be rewarded, based on the value they’re creating for people.





https://blog.medium.com/renewing-mediums-focus-98f374a960be#.mfj24le7n


----------



## graeme (Jan 8, 2017)

So they only started working on paying the people who do the writing four years after launch, and they have only just started about the need to do something new and different. I think that explains their failure.


----------



## fm7 (Jan 8, 2017)

graeme said:


> So they only started working on paying the people who do the writing four years after launch, and they have only just started about the need to do something new and different. I think that explains their failure.



Like Youtube Red? 


Medium is a sort of blog. Anyone can post articles.


Bloomberg's point is  "Content can only be consistently good if its creators can make a living from it. It's an illusion that creating a platform and inviting everyone to it will eventually reveal enough free, or nearly free, pearls to make the platform's owners fabulously rich."


The same could be said about Youtube.


----------



## graeme (Jan 9, 2017)

I do not entirely agree with Bloomberg's point - there is lots of good content that does not really make people a living. From what I know midlist authors, for example, cannot live from writing even though really successful authors can get rich.


Where I do agree with them is that it is difficult to get rich on other people's content without paying them for it.

That said, I am wondering whether some things I write on my blog (which does not make any money) might do better on Medium (if I can get an audience). I am thinking of topics that either get reactions from people (politics and religion) or can attract a repeat audience (work related in particular). Worth trying, I suppose


----------



## graeme (Jan 9, 2017)

Re Youtube, as far as I know, you can make money off Youtube ads.


Also, a lot of people use Youtube to host video then them embed on their own sites. They make the money from their site, while Youtube gets the ad revenues in return for providing the video hosting service.


----------



## fm7 (Jan 18, 2017)

Facebook stops paying publishers to stream live video 



> That change in priorities seems to signal a shift away from “professionally” produced live video ... Facebook is still spending millions of dollars on a massive advertising campaign around Facebook Live, but that campaign is targeting regular users, not publishers or celebrities.



Why buy a cow when you can get milk for free?


----------

