I'm rooting for this experiment and for the Daily Dish. I think it's ambitious, and I'm excited to see how it turns out.

But this post left me wondering two things:

1. What's so groundbreaking about moving to a subscription model? Publishing has been supported by subscriptions for centuries. Didn't the internet promise better options — and more of them — than just 'good will' donations?

2. What does it say about how our relationship with advertising is shifting that Andrew was so quick to drop ads in favor of fewer distractions and less oversight? Something tells me there's more at play here than that — there are plenty of ways to create a better "total reader experience."

1. There's nothing groundbreaking about subs, but neither is there anything groundbreaking about sponsored stories, native ads, banner ads, interstitials, and so on. They're all old ideas. I don't think salvation for paid journalism is going to come from a new monetization species that . I think it's going to come from brave people experimenting with a blend of subs and ads and this is cool and brave.

2. The Dish is mostly politics and culture -- not the easiest thing to advertise against. Also it costs money to pay a team to sell and size and market online ad units. Andrew's not a publisher, and I imagine he doesn't want to hire one. That leaves subscriptions.

Not groundbreaking but I can't think of too many folks who were as sought after by larger platforms after being independent to return to independence and then charge for access. We always hoped this would be the model, but very few can pull it off and make a full-time living.

I think it depends who you ask, when it comes to pay vs. ads model. For me, it depends what I'm paying for. I'd pay for Andrew because $19.99 a year is a good deal for what I think I get from him. I wouldn't pay it for just anyone. Most other sites I can deal with the ads in lieu of a subscription. Generally, I have no issue with dealing with ads but I think the traditional ad model is useless. I never click on ads anywhere. It's more a branding exercise.

1. Agree with Derek and Anthony that there's nothing groundbreaking, but to see an individual "go it alone" is definitely exciting and different. It also reaffirms something I wrote about for Nieman Lab: "It’s not about whom you work for — it’s about who you are and what you’ve built." Sullivan is the perfect example of someone who has built a media empire off his name--he doesn't need an organization behind him, and that's less common than a traditional subscription model at a magazine or newspaper where you're paying for access to many people--not just one.

2. Andrew is monetizing himself and access to his thoughts, analysis--as he should. He's an editorial guy, and I agree w Derek, probably has no real interest in building a sales team.

@callie I don't think I completely agree that "it's not about whom you work for" because I take pride in working for Reuters and I know you take pride in working for a company as great and groundbreaking as Vox Media. I wouldn't just work with any company if I wasn't going the indy route.

Not everyone can do what Andrew is doing, you really have to have created a lot of name-recognition around your work. It's like the problem a lot of independent musicians are having trying to make a living, while a band like Radiohead or someone like Louis CK can go and self-release an album or show on the Internet.

@Anthony -- No I totally agree. He's built his own empire through incredible hard work. That's my point--it's not groundbreaking but it's different and unique.

I'm glad this move has brought some optimism out, but I think it's important to view this in the light of "what would happen if a lot of writers/sites took this route." Sullivan is very close to the top of the pyramid, and I think there are many (like Anthony) who would consider paying $20/yr to read him.

But is anyone—even media junkies—going to juggle dozens of different yearly recurring subscriptions? I read a lot online, but I can't see opting for more than 3-4 paid premium services, and I've already got NYT and New Yorker in that category.

It's not just that Sullivan is huge—I would argue that he can only do this (effectively) if he's amongst the first, because I don't think a crowded marketplace will fly.

The combination of the payment model and the type of publishing group is potentially groundbreaking - if it works. Maybe like iTunes breaking the credit card micropayment problem in the 1990s. If it is an elegant and affordable mechanism then that will be interesting (the NYT took a couple of years an a lot of cash to crack it). Much more at issue is how much the Dish gets from being part of the broader public sphere rather than the subscription cul de sac. If they change the commercial premise, then I think they might also have to alter aspects of the product.
I am eager to see if he can gain subscribers for what the NYT conspicuously failed at; commentary and opinion. It feels like a naively optimistic enterprise to me.

@Aaron - Agree that there is going to be a limit for how many paid, premium subscriptions people will tolerate, especially if they each have different structures and payment cycles.

I often wonder for how long we'll be able to cherry pick numbers for "what *my* content is worth." For instance, the Dish is $19.99/year and Marco Arment's The Magazine is $1.99/month. Both are relatively random numbers. Will the market eventually set a price? (Apple Newsstand probably wants to help this along, but it hasn't really stuck — too early or just a bad idea?)

@Emily - "If they change the commercial premise, then I think they might also have to alter aspects of the product." What aspects of the product do you think he'll have to change?

@Aaron--do you mean just online paid subscriptions or print and online? I subscribe to print versions of NYT, The Atlantic, New York mag, New York Observer, Fitness, Shape, Cosmo, Us Weekly and People. (Not embarrassed! I love my celeb news!) I could definitely keep adding print subs and be happy with what I got in return. Do you think it makes a difference whether it's just online or print and online in terms of how people view the investment and ROI?

@cschweitz I think print and digital subscriptions habits are going to differ greatly. The choice with a print mag is binary: you get it or you get nothing. Yeah, you probably subscribe to more print mags than most, but I would guess that people will retain 2-3 print subs (I get NYT, New Yorker, Harper's).

The choice between whether to subscribe or not with DISH isn't an all/none choice, but rather a "upgrade if you use it a lot and want to be not annoyed by ads" choice. I think hardcore fans will see a value there—but how many things online are you a hardcore fan of? My guess is that if you take your own print list and apply the "get it with ads and annoyances OR pay" logic, you'd probably opt to not pay the the bottom of the list.

So, you'd maybe keep checking out the online equivalent of those bottom of your print list picks, but you wouldn't upgrade them. I think these walls are very good for those at the top of the pyramid (Newspapers: NYT, Mags: New Yorker, Blogs: Dish) but I doubt those in the middle of the list will gain traction.

@emily Worth noting that Sullivan isn't creating his payment platform from scratch. I'd be keen to know more about the system he's using - I poked around their site but hard to get past the promotional language to the meat of how it differentiates itself from other payment management/paywall meters.

While I know that Sullivan will accept payments and seek subscriptions throughout the year, I am intrigued by the upfront investment he's gotten. I'm a member of a community supported farm. I pay for my yearly share upfront each year (before April) so the farmer has all his working capital for the year ahead. This is sometimes the pitch you hear from end of year pledge drives on NPR as well.