10 Comments
User's avatar
Charlie Martin's avatar

Selling advertising/sponsorships might be a good way to generate revenue from unpaid subscribers. You could limit concerns about bias towards advertisers by being transparent (share names and $ of advertisers) and following a policy that limits reliance on any one advertiser (something like “no advertiser or related group will account for more than 5% of annual revenue”).

Always interesting to read these updates and appreciate the transparency!

Expand full comment
Algo Mas's avatar

Were y'all thinking of moving Agenda HQ to the Sidewinder Ranch? Wowsers. You could get some AKC Chupacabras for Guard...Animals? I like the barn.

Expand full comment
Douglas J. Wolf's avatar

Couple of things. Every business loses 20% of its customers annually, no matter what you do. So, that is your baseline.

Yes, add a paywall in the daily send after the first several paragraphs so that free-riders will be frustrated and have to pay to get the entire newsletter. Do A\B testing on this to just the unpaid readership to determine the best messaging to convert.

Last, increase your sub price 5%.

Expand full comment
Douglas J. Wolf's avatar

Last, we are in the off-year cycle and the interest in political shenanigans is reduced de facto. Our GOP clubs meet monthly and the attendance is down 50% which happens when there are no elections looming.

Expand full comment
Algo Mas's avatar

50% is a decent start. The other 50% are dumb as rocks anyway.

Expand full comment
Hank Stephenson's avatar

Yeah it's always like -- if we can just survive the off-year summer, we'll be good.

Expand full comment
Scott S's avatar

Love the Agenda! I enjoy being a paid subscriber, and make it part of my daily reading. You do a very nice job covering important issues, and I wish you the best. But I've got to take issue with the bias you injected into your reporting of the copper mine land swap. There's just a bit of snarkiness in your description of the Trump Administration being blocked in its efforts to "take sacred property from the Apache". But, this issue and the lawsuits related to it have been going on for years. The Federal government's efforts to complete the swap was strongly supported by the Biden Administration due to its desire to secure domestic copper supplies for both security and especially its green energy initiatives. Your reporting makes this appear to be just another uncaring Trump Administration effort to take sacred property form the Apache. That might fit a narrative, but it's very misleading. I think that you can do better. Thanks for your time.

Expand full comment
Carole Tanner's avatar

Frankly, I don’t always agree with your editorial comments but that’s OK since I am looking for hard news which you deliver also. It’s important to hear both sides of a story.

All you folks who consistently read without paying should be ashamed of yourselves! It’s a form of stealing. Put up the paywall Hank!

Expand full comment
Stephanie Murray's avatar

thanks for the mention!

Expand full comment
Hank Stephenson's avatar

good piece! Wish i had thought of it

Expand full comment