As someone who is passionate about both personal style/slow fashion and ethics in tech and educating people on the true cost of relying on “free” tech platforms, it is SO refreshing to see this discussion enter the fashion space by a founder of a tech platform herself! Many executives of these huge companies want us to believe that their model is the only way to run an innovative tech business and we need to fight this narrative HARD by proving that there is a better way! I fully believe that tech platforms can be designed in a way that truly benefits us instead of subtly preying on us. Huge kudos to you for writing this! 🫶
Thank you! 🥹 I couldn’t agree more. We’ve been conditioned to see “free” as good, but it always comes with hidden costs: to our attention and the quality of the products themselves. I really believe there’s a healthier model for both users AND founders, so I’m so glad this conversation is starting to spread.
The reason a lot of execs do ads is because conversion rates drop significantly when you go paid app so your revenue goes down and much lower profits you end up with a tinier P&L. For a scaled business, that just doesn't work - nobody would make the rational choice to blow up their P&L, the exec career would be ruined.
But a start up can build a niche loyal audience that wants to pay; still there's a ton of competition.
I think the issue is most people don't want to pay for apps, so it leaves app creators in a tough spot.
This was so eye-opening, Devon. Thank you! I’m realizing now that one of the many things I love about Indyx is that it’s “quiet”— it’s just me nerding out in my wardrobe, with no noise or pop ups or chatbots or influencer videos on autoplay. I can dip into others’ wardrobes for inspiration, but all of it is just… peaceful. Still. Like an anthology on a shelf in a library, or a cozy book nook. It’s different from the rest and because of this I will happily keep paying my membership!
Ok, but for real: I would pay a subscription fee for a Pinterest that was like OG Pinterest. My feed, curated by me, consisting of the beautiful images curated by other people with similar or enviable aesthetics. My feed was beautiful! And then the ads came. And the algorithm changed so that I was seeing the same thing I searched for once 10,000 more times. I've wanted to get off Pinterest but there's honestly nothing else like it, unfortunately. And hosting all of those images must be mind-bogglingly expensive, so I get why they've spammed us with ads, as you note in your post. I imagine that no one can make an OG Pinterest to compete because of how much it would cost, and because they'd be slapped with a lawsuit about it, I'm sure. But oh, what it was and never will be again. Such a bummer.
There are some Pinterest competitors slowly starting out (RibbonLinks, Sparkiyo) but none are the same, IMHO. A lot more people seem to want to jump ship/leave Pinterest now due to the OpenAI rumor but there's nothing comparable to what it used to be, at least not yet.
YES - why Pinterest sucks now is also why Youtube sucks now and why Instagram sucks now - all feel like they've become primarily ad channels, to the point where the core product is degraded (ex. I'm almost always served ads in Pinterest that are barely related to my search terms, so they just clog my results with irrelevant junk instead of complementing it).
I'm seeing parallels between how these content platforms are evolving and how magazines evolved and set themselves up for disruption in the 2000s-2010s. Vehicles for inspiration or getting a good, curated take on something are becoming soulless, mass-market vehicles for ads. Magazines lost their audience and relevance to influencers when platforms like blogspot and wordpress made it low-cost and easy to publish and distribute editorial content.
With AI, it'll be easier than ever to create new platforms overnight with image-recognition and relevance algorithms to rival Pinterest's (for very cheap!). Or, I could see people just using AI agents and customized prompts, or AI search engines to replace what Pinterest does.
Either way, Pinterest needs to tighten their standards for user experience IMO before people catch on to their search technology and image catalogue no longer being that differentiated.
As the owner of a small brand, I started getting almost daily emails from a Pinterest representative about setting up my ad account starting last year. I ended up blocking him haha
Ok I realize this may not have been the point of this post BUT I was energized thinking about the way both Indyx and (interestingly) Substack work. In both cases, there is a paywall with benefits/content behind it that allow for the companies to survive but there is an uphill battle to climb reminding people that FREE is never, actually FREE. It's a sad reminder that we have to advocate for the value of something.
The reason no one wants to pay for tech products is the fact that every single one is a recurring fee, monthly or yearly. When tech products (software) first came on the market, they were one-time purchases. You'd set the price based on the development and marketing costs, and if your product was good enough, word of mouth or marketing would attract enough new users to eventually cover those costs, along with ongoing costs like server space (usually less necessary back then)
Of course, paying $100 or more once always has been and always will be more palatable than paying the same amount every year, for the rest of your life. It's why people like me cancel Netflix in favor of $2 movie rentals from YouTube, and it's why people pay with their attention. Our current digital ecosystem simply *cannot* be supported by subscriptions, as the vast majority of users cannot afford a subscription for every single website they use. (We use too many!)
And where does that land us? All of the low-income people's news and a healthy dose of cheap Chinese products coming from Facebook, offset by some out-of-touch New Yorker buying $20 bars of soap or moisturizers that claim eternal youth for $100 or something.
There's a lot of good stuff here! I think there was solid reason (beyond just “greed”) for tech to move away from one-time purchase. That model worked beautifully back when software lived entirely on a single machine (think Windows 98 or a standalone PC game). The end user handled all the ongoing costs (storage, power, etc.) and the developer just needed to cover...development. But - as you acknowledge! - once products became hyper-connected on the internet, you're not just selling software anymore. You’re maintaining an active service with heavy, continuous storage, server, and data needs. The one-time purchase model just can’t account for that magnitude of ongoing cost. Hence: subscriptions. Or ads. Two choices.
I totally get the "I can't afford a subscription for every website I visit in a month" angle. But I think it's a bit of a false premise to say that the problem is about the subscription vs. one-time purchase model.
I think the core tension is that we've gotten very accustomed to accessing an absolute SHITLOAD of digital services, all the time. We access bits and pieces of more software than we ever dreamed we'd individually purchase and install on our little desktop computers. But like...to the point where we *also* complain endlessly about how brainrotted we are? We're all "too online" and too overloaded with notification pings and AI slop. I can't help but think these things are connected.
I know this might not be a very popular question, but: would it actually be better if we were forced to be more intentional about the digital services we use? If everyone wasn't expected to be everywhere, all the time? What if we used fewer digital products, but got way more from them?
Taking the Pinterest example: those who truly loved OG Pinterest and actively want it as part of their everyday life would pay for an annual subscription. Those who have a temporary use (say, a kitchen renovation!) might upgrade to paid for just a few months. There'd very likely be a free version with limited functionality (designed to upsell into the paid product) that would work just fine for the dabblers. But it wouldn't be addictive. It wouldn't be a "free" endless scroll. We wouldn't feel compelled to be there if we didn't find it useful.
I don't expect that there's going to be some massive lift-and-shift from ad-supported to user-supported models. All I'm asking is that we start to recognize that free has a cost. That the business models we support with our eyeballs have implications that we may really not like! And maybe to stop leaving 1-star app reviews for Indyx because "it isn't free". Optimistic, I know. But what else are thinkpieces for if not to test the edges a little?
I think some people feel a little bit jaded because even plenty of software that *could* or does run on just the end-users’ machine and storage now charges a monthly subscription. A one time cost is way easier to justify for something you only use one or two days a month than a recurring monthly payment.
There is software where I’m running a lesser open source version on my own machine(s) / server where I would love to do a one time payment for the better version, but the only way to get the better version is to pay up every month in perpetuity.
(What I’m also saying is I’d love an indyx desktop app, but I get that mobile captures way more users these days)
Haha, we did comment similar things at the same time! I do agree, we'd all benefit from far, far less of these types of things in our lives. Heck, once substack adds ads, I expect to stop visiting the website and just read my most favored subscriptions in my email. It'll be good for my productivity, honestly.
I think users would probably enjoy a subscription change, (In the long run they'd feel better -- we'd all be pissed about it in the moment) but the companies absolutely would NOT! Many would die (And I'd be fine with that! I actually wouldn't pay for pinterest)
Another point is that most companies that can get away with the subscriptions will eventually do BOTH (I have faith Indyx won't, but think of how Netflix has evolved over the years)
Similar to your point about Pinterest, I do actually sometimes get subscriptions for a month or so to do particular things. I used Canva for a month while I built a website once. If I ever feel truly "stuck" with my wardrobe, I'll probably buy a month of Indyx and do some social styling. (I'm not an insider all the time, sorry!)
Totally loved the piece and your comments, keep up the good thinking!
The subscription model PAIRED with how hard it is to cancel SO MANY of the subscriptions is a real hurdle for platforms to overcome in order to get consumers to pay for use rather than the ad supported model. We've all been burned at one point or another.
100% agree with this. It would make the entire landscape feel a lot friendlier and more appealing if we could more easily "trade" in and out of which digital services we were using (and paying for) at any given time.
Further note, If all of our tech that we use, realistically, cannot be supported financially by those who use it, then our current model is truly unsustainable (that's true, and it is).
I could not afford to pay for Indyx, Substack, Instagram, YouTube, Gmail, Google, News subscriptions, Pinterest, Discord, Spotify, etc.
That is a very slim tech profile to have, and while some of these could continue to exist supported by users (Indyx, for example, works because the majority of users are millennial women, especially childless and in HCOL areas -- it's a product that is affordable for its key userbase and is very useful to them) the vast majority aren't just supported by the fact that we buy things from ads--they're supported by the fact that brands are willing to *gamble* on those ads.
VCs and random companies are pumping more into the advertising ecosystem than we could reasonably replace with subscription models because they're willing to eat losses, and because the potential to hit big numbers on these platforms are drawing them in, even if they're not making a profit.
At any given time, someone is taking a loss to build brand recognition, and therefore, people are likely paying less via ad purchases than they would be charged monthly to keep a company at comparable profit margins.
All of this to say, the attention economy, while vile, is truly the only way to sustain things like social media, which actually don't provide enough value to most users to be worth paying for. If I had to pay to use all of the items above, it'd probably be whatever is needed for work and either Spotify or YouTube (I pay for Spotify currently, but if there was truly no free version of either, YouTube would be the smarter choice). It'd probably be great for me to get off of most other things, TBH, but a LOT of tech brands would die under this model.
It looks like we traded comments here...I was writing my reply when you posted this! Funnily enough, it sounds like we both got to a similar conclusion: our current digital ecosystem is highly subsidized and in many ways unsustainable.
The relief of spending time in my Indyx and not being marketed or sold at is worth every cent of the subscription cost. Even Substack can feel like a black hole of links that require mental effort not to click on (which I am often lacking)!
At the app level (not the internet), is the compromise a free ad-supported experience, then a user-focused, user-funded one? I suspect not, because an app that optimises for a user versus the advertiser is probably a completely different app. I pay for YouTube because I hate the ads. I probably pay for 10% of the apps I use. Fundamentally, though, the YouTube business model shapes the content available, I guess!
Maybe this discussion is exactly like the dilemma of paying the full cost of clothes and having fewer for longer, vs owning many more poor quality clothes. We have anchored to the price of clothing at a level that locks us into an unhelpful cycle...
Exactly! It seems like an easy solution, but it's actually quite challenging to be ad-supported for "free" with a user-supported premium option. You invest in building *completely* different technology to make each a "good" experience, and so practically you can really only be good at one or the other.
It's why Pinterest is good at serving ads, but they are only JUST NOW barely introducing what seems like basic, obvious user-driven features like collages. In reverse: you might have a really good paid product, but the ad-supported version is complete trash with flashy, obnoxious, poorly-targeted banner ads.
Loved this!! Such a concise and clear explanation of what’s going on. I would totally pay a small subscription fee to not have Pinterest ads.
Saying that though, I already pay for a Prime membership (GROSS but I’ve purchased too many seasons of paw patrol and Daniel tiger through my prime account to close it) and they STILL launched ads two years ago.
I'm so glad you enjoyed. And, thanks for being my push to finally write this one!
Are we talking ads on Prime Video? Well, if we're being generous to Amazon, we could argue that Amazon has kept adding more and more value to Prime. It launched in 2005 at $79 annually JUST for 2-day shipping. Now it's $139 (basically in line with inflation over the same period) for a whole mess of stuff, including video. Whether YOU actually value all of that stuff is another question, haha. But they've added it all in, which does increase their costs. Amazon gives the option to those who want it to go ad-free on video for an extra $2.99/mo, so we can probably assume that's about how much they're making per user on video ads. But Amazon made the calculation that subscribers who watch video would tolerate ads on video way better than a further increase to the subscription price for everyone (which I think is correct).
If we're being ungenerous to Amazon, they have near-monopolistic power at this point, which allows them to do whatever they want. So you think paying a membership AND watching ads on video is unfair. What are you going to do about it?
If anyone has not heard Cory Doctorow’s term “enshittification” it’s basically what Devon has laid out: Subsidize something while they hook us, and then gradually shift the incentives and benefits so that the thing is far worse than it was.
This is fascinating and I so appreciate your candor here. I use YouTube enough that I actually pay for premium to avoid the ads.
I think my biggest pain point with Pinterest is that their ads are so poor and irrelevant despite how much data they have. Pinterest would be great for targeted ads!
At the same time, their value prop has now declined so much that I don’t feel paying is justified. It’s become an image search engine just like Google.
Great explanation, Devon. I appreciate it as both a fashion lover and a software product person. Eatyourbooks.com is another freemium product that I pay for and it's ALSO trying to help people use more of what they have, in my case a bookcase full of cookbooks.
I could probably say that I don't "mind" the ads all *that* much either! At the end of the day, I still use Pinterest myself, though more as a home base for saving things I find elsewhere rather than scrolling in-app.
It's not that the things you're shown on Pinterest can't also be inspiring. To me, it's more about acknowledging the cost of what you're NOT shown.
Most of what you see on Pinterest is necessarily filtered through the lens of "what is Piata most likely to buy?", even if you never end up buying those things. But imagine how much richer Pinterest would be if the algorithm were instead solely focused on "what would Piata find most useful or inspiring?". Those two things might sometimes overlap...but definitely not always.
FREE is very rarely free. I loved this Devon, and you already know I’m an Indyx super fan but i want to emphasize like many others have that the experience you get using Indyx is so delightful because it’s ad free! Thank you for making it!
If the product is free I’m automatically side-eyeing it. I know I’m the product. I’ll pay for a good, ad-free experience as evidenced by how much I pay for Netflix and other streamers. If there is an ad free option I’m all in on it. I’d pay for ad-free Pinterest/Instagram/TikTok/etc. but they sadly, don’t give me that option.
I’m happily paying for INDYX because it meets my needs. Without trying to hijack my attention. Sure I still shop because I like it, but I don’t buy stuff for the sake of buying stuff. I know it will fill a closet gap or be really fun to wear year after year.
As someone who is passionate about both personal style/slow fashion and ethics in tech and educating people on the true cost of relying on “free” tech platforms, it is SO refreshing to see this discussion enter the fashion space by a founder of a tech platform herself! Many executives of these huge companies want us to believe that their model is the only way to run an innovative tech business and we need to fight this narrative HARD by proving that there is a better way! I fully believe that tech platforms can be designed in a way that truly benefits us instead of subtly preying on us. Huge kudos to you for writing this! 🫶
Thank you! 🥹 I couldn’t agree more. We’ve been conditioned to see “free” as good, but it always comes with hidden costs: to our attention and the quality of the products themselves. I really believe there’s a healthier model for both users AND founders, so I’m so glad this conversation is starting to spread.
The reason a lot of execs do ads is because conversion rates drop significantly when you go paid app so your revenue goes down and much lower profits you end up with a tinier P&L. For a scaled business, that just doesn't work - nobody would make the rational choice to blow up their P&L, the exec career would be ruined.
But a start up can build a niche loyal audience that wants to pay; still there's a ton of competition.
I think the issue is most people don't want to pay for apps, so it leaves app creators in a tough spot.
This was so eye-opening, Devon. Thank you! I’m realizing now that one of the many things I love about Indyx is that it’s “quiet”— it’s just me nerding out in my wardrobe, with no noise or pop ups or chatbots or influencer videos on autoplay. I can dip into others’ wardrobes for inspiration, but all of it is just… peaceful. Still. Like an anthology on a shelf in a library, or a cozy book nook. It’s different from the rest and because of this I will happily keep paying my membership!
Ok, but for real: I would pay a subscription fee for a Pinterest that was like OG Pinterest. My feed, curated by me, consisting of the beautiful images curated by other people with similar or enviable aesthetics. My feed was beautiful! And then the ads came. And the algorithm changed so that I was seeing the same thing I searched for once 10,000 more times. I've wanted to get off Pinterest but there's honestly nothing else like it, unfortunately. And hosting all of those images must be mind-bogglingly expensive, so I get why they've spammed us with ads, as you note in your post. I imagine that no one can make an OG Pinterest to compete because of how much it would cost, and because they'd be slapped with a lawsuit about it, I'm sure. But oh, what it was and never will be again. Such a bummer.
I very much think that someone else could build an OG Pinterest! If we were willing to pay for it, that is...
I miss it so much. I have boards from 2010. Sigh. I would definitely pay for it to go back to how it was. I mostly used it for interiors.
There are some Pinterest competitors slowly starting out (RibbonLinks, Sparkiyo) but none are the same, IMHO. A lot more people seem to want to jump ship/leave Pinterest now due to the OpenAI rumor but there's nothing comparable to what it used to be, at least not yet.
SAME! I would totally pay an annual subscription!
There are dozens of us! :) No, but seriously, I hope this gains traction. Would DEFINITELY pay for OG Pinterest.
YES - why Pinterest sucks now is also why Youtube sucks now and why Instagram sucks now - all feel like they've become primarily ad channels, to the point where the core product is degraded (ex. I'm almost always served ads in Pinterest that are barely related to my search terms, so they just clog my results with irrelevant junk instead of complementing it).
I'm seeing parallels between how these content platforms are evolving and how magazines evolved and set themselves up for disruption in the 2000s-2010s. Vehicles for inspiration or getting a good, curated take on something are becoming soulless, mass-market vehicles for ads. Magazines lost their audience and relevance to influencers when platforms like blogspot and wordpress made it low-cost and easy to publish and distribute editorial content.
With AI, it'll be easier than ever to create new platforms overnight with image-recognition and relevance algorithms to rival Pinterest's (for very cheap!). Or, I could see people just using AI agents and customized prompts, or AI search engines to replace what Pinterest does.
Either way, Pinterest needs to tighten their standards for user experience IMO before people catch on to their search technology and image catalogue no longer being that differentiated.
As the owner of a small brand, I started getting almost daily emails from a Pinterest representative about setting up my ad account starting last year. I ended up blocking him haha
Ok I realize this may not have been the point of this post BUT I was energized thinking about the way both Indyx and (interestingly) Substack work. In both cases, there is a paywall with benefits/content behind it that allow for the companies to survive but there is an uphill battle to climb reminding people that FREE is never, actually FREE. It's a sad reminder that we have to advocate for the value of something.
The reason no one wants to pay for tech products is the fact that every single one is a recurring fee, monthly or yearly. When tech products (software) first came on the market, they were one-time purchases. You'd set the price based on the development and marketing costs, and if your product was good enough, word of mouth or marketing would attract enough new users to eventually cover those costs, along with ongoing costs like server space (usually less necessary back then)
Of course, paying $100 or more once always has been and always will be more palatable than paying the same amount every year, for the rest of your life. It's why people like me cancel Netflix in favor of $2 movie rentals from YouTube, and it's why people pay with their attention. Our current digital ecosystem simply *cannot* be supported by subscriptions, as the vast majority of users cannot afford a subscription for every single website they use. (We use too many!)
And where does that land us? All of the low-income people's news and a healthy dose of cheap Chinese products coming from Facebook, offset by some out-of-touch New Yorker buying $20 bars of soap or moisturizers that claim eternal youth for $100 or something.
There's a lot of good stuff here! I think there was solid reason (beyond just “greed”) for tech to move away from one-time purchase. That model worked beautifully back when software lived entirely on a single machine (think Windows 98 or a standalone PC game). The end user handled all the ongoing costs (storage, power, etc.) and the developer just needed to cover...development. But - as you acknowledge! - once products became hyper-connected on the internet, you're not just selling software anymore. You’re maintaining an active service with heavy, continuous storage, server, and data needs. The one-time purchase model just can’t account for that magnitude of ongoing cost. Hence: subscriptions. Or ads. Two choices.
I totally get the "I can't afford a subscription for every website I visit in a month" angle. But I think it's a bit of a false premise to say that the problem is about the subscription vs. one-time purchase model.
I think the core tension is that we've gotten very accustomed to accessing an absolute SHITLOAD of digital services, all the time. We access bits and pieces of more software than we ever dreamed we'd individually purchase and install on our little desktop computers. But like...to the point where we *also* complain endlessly about how brainrotted we are? We're all "too online" and too overloaded with notification pings and AI slop. I can't help but think these things are connected.
I know this might not be a very popular question, but: would it actually be better if we were forced to be more intentional about the digital services we use? If everyone wasn't expected to be everywhere, all the time? What if we used fewer digital products, but got way more from them?
Taking the Pinterest example: those who truly loved OG Pinterest and actively want it as part of their everyday life would pay for an annual subscription. Those who have a temporary use (say, a kitchen renovation!) might upgrade to paid for just a few months. There'd very likely be a free version with limited functionality (designed to upsell into the paid product) that would work just fine for the dabblers. But it wouldn't be addictive. It wouldn't be a "free" endless scroll. We wouldn't feel compelled to be there if we didn't find it useful.
I don't expect that there's going to be some massive lift-and-shift from ad-supported to user-supported models. All I'm asking is that we start to recognize that free has a cost. That the business models we support with our eyeballs have implications that we may really not like! And maybe to stop leaving 1-star app reviews for Indyx because "it isn't free". Optimistic, I know. But what else are thinkpieces for if not to test the edges a little?
I think some people feel a little bit jaded because even plenty of software that *could* or does run on just the end-users’ machine and storage now charges a monthly subscription. A one time cost is way easier to justify for something you only use one or two days a month than a recurring monthly payment.
There is software where I’m running a lesser open source version on my own machine(s) / server where I would love to do a one time payment for the better version, but the only way to get the better version is to pay up every month in perpetuity.
(What I’m also saying is I’d love an indyx desktop app, but I get that mobile captures way more users these days)
Haha, we did comment similar things at the same time! I do agree, we'd all benefit from far, far less of these types of things in our lives. Heck, once substack adds ads, I expect to stop visiting the website and just read my most favored subscriptions in my email. It'll be good for my productivity, honestly.
I think users would probably enjoy a subscription change, (In the long run they'd feel better -- we'd all be pissed about it in the moment) but the companies absolutely would NOT! Many would die (And I'd be fine with that! I actually wouldn't pay for pinterest)
Another point is that most companies that can get away with the subscriptions will eventually do BOTH (I have faith Indyx won't, but think of how Netflix has evolved over the years)
Similar to your point about Pinterest, I do actually sometimes get subscriptions for a month or so to do particular things. I used Canva for a month while I built a website once. If I ever feel truly "stuck" with my wardrobe, I'll probably buy a month of Indyx and do some social styling. (I'm not an insider all the time, sorry!)
Totally loved the piece and your comments, keep up the good thinking!
The subscription model PAIRED with how hard it is to cancel SO MANY of the subscriptions is a real hurdle for platforms to overcome in order to get consumers to pay for use rather than the ad supported model. We've all been burned at one point or another.
100% agree with this. It would make the entire landscape feel a lot friendlier and more appealing if we could more easily "trade" in and out of which digital services we were using (and paying for) at any given time.
Further note, If all of our tech that we use, realistically, cannot be supported financially by those who use it, then our current model is truly unsustainable (that's true, and it is).
I could not afford to pay for Indyx, Substack, Instagram, YouTube, Gmail, Google, News subscriptions, Pinterest, Discord, Spotify, etc.
That is a very slim tech profile to have, and while some of these could continue to exist supported by users (Indyx, for example, works because the majority of users are millennial women, especially childless and in HCOL areas -- it's a product that is affordable for its key userbase and is very useful to them) the vast majority aren't just supported by the fact that we buy things from ads--they're supported by the fact that brands are willing to *gamble* on those ads.
VCs and random companies are pumping more into the advertising ecosystem than we could reasonably replace with subscription models because they're willing to eat losses, and because the potential to hit big numbers on these platforms are drawing them in, even if they're not making a profit.
At any given time, someone is taking a loss to build brand recognition, and therefore, people are likely paying less via ad purchases than they would be charged monthly to keep a company at comparable profit margins.
All of this to say, the attention economy, while vile, is truly the only way to sustain things like social media, which actually don't provide enough value to most users to be worth paying for. If I had to pay to use all of the items above, it'd probably be whatever is needed for work and either Spotify or YouTube (I pay for Spotify currently, but if there was truly no free version of either, YouTube would be the smarter choice). It'd probably be great for me to get off of most other things, TBH, but a LOT of tech brands would die under this model.
It looks like we traded comments here...I was writing my reply when you posted this! Funnily enough, it sounds like we both got to a similar conclusion: our current digital ecosystem is highly subsidized and in many ways unsustainable.
The relief of spending time in my Indyx and not being marketed or sold at is worth every cent of the subscription cost. Even Substack can feel like a black hole of links that require mental effort not to click on (which I am often lacking)!
At the app level (not the internet), is the compromise a free ad-supported experience, then a user-focused, user-funded one? I suspect not, because an app that optimises for a user versus the advertiser is probably a completely different app. I pay for YouTube because I hate the ads. I probably pay for 10% of the apps I use. Fundamentally, though, the YouTube business model shapes the content available, I guess!
Maybe this discussion is exactly like the dilemma of paying the full cost of clothes and having fewer for longer, vs owning many more poor quality clothes. We have anchored to the price of clothing at a level that locks us into an unhelpful cycle...
Exactly! It seems like an easy solution, but it's actually quite challenging to be ad-supported for "free" with a user-supported premium option. You invest in building *completely* different technology to make each a "good" experience, and so practically you can really only be good at one or the other.
It's why Pinterest is good at serving ads, but they are only JUST NOW barely introducing what seems like basic, obvious user-driven features like collages. In reverse: you might have a really good paid product, but the ad-supported version is complete trash with flashy, obnoxious, poorly-targeted banner ads.
Loved this!! Such a concise and clear explanation of what’s going on. I would totally pay a small subscription fee to not have Pinterest ads.
Saying that though, I already pay for a Prime membership (GROSS but I’ve purchased too many seasons of paw patrol and Daniel tiger through my prime account to close it) and they STILL launched ads two years ago.
What gives? Haha
I'm so glad you enjoyed. And, thanks for being my push to finally write this one!
Are we talking ads on Prime Video? Well, if we're being generous to Amazon, we could argue that Amazon has kept adding more and more value to Prime. It launched in 2005 at $79 annually JUST for 2-day shipping. Now it's $139 (basically in line with inflation over the same period) for a whole mess of stuff, including video. Whether YOU actually value all of that stuff is another question, haha. But they've added it all in, which does increase their costs. Amazon gives the option to those who want it to go ad-free on video for an extra $2.99/mo, so we can probably assume that's about how much they're making per user on video ads. But Amazon made the calculation that subscribers who watch video would tolerate ads on video way better than a further increase to the subscription price for everyone (which I think is correct).
If we're being ungenerous to Amazon, they have near-monopolistic power at this point, which allows them to do whatever they want. So you think paying a membership AND watching ads on video is unfair. What are you going to do about it?
If anyone has not heard Cory Doctorow’s term “enshittification” it’s basically what Devon has laid out: Subsidize something while they hook us, and then gradually shift the incentives and benefits so that the thing is far worse than it was.
This is fascinating and I so appreciate your candor here. I use YouTube enough that I actually pay for premium to avoid the ads.
I think my biggest pain point with Pinterest is that their ads are so poor and irrelevant despite how much data they have. Pinterest would be great for targeted ads!
At the same time, their value prop has now declined so much that I don’t feel paying is justified. It’s become an image search engine just like Google.
exactly. if the ads are good, I don't mind them.
Great explanation, Devon. I appreciate it as both a fashion lover and a software product person. Eatyourbooks.com is another freemium product that I pay for and it's ALSO trying to help people use more of what they have, in my case a bookcase full of cookbooks.
Im surprised by the fact that Ads are coming to our beloved substack didn’t make an appearance here!
Oooh, are they!? I haven't (at least, knowingly...) seen that come across my Feed yet.
Apparently it’s in the works. TBD on details as of now.
Yeesh
Sadness
I do appreciate your model at Indyx. I will now more seriously consider subscribing as up till now I’ve only used the free facilities.
Your post makes sense.
However, I personally I don’t mind the advertising on Pinterest and it doesn’t draw me in to buy. I just use them as more ideas.
I love how I get a dopamine shot by pinning an outfit or images on Pinterest without spending a penny.
I could probably say that I don't "mind" the ads all *that* much either! At the end of the day, I still use Pinterest myself, though more as a home base for saving things I find elsewhere rather than scrolling in-app.
It's not that the things you're shown on Pinterest can't also be inspiring. To me, it's more about acknowledging the cost of what you're NOT shown.
Most of what you see on Pinterest is necessarily filtered through the lens of "what is Piata most likely to buy?", even if you never end up buying those things. But imagine how much richer Pinterest would be if the algorithm were instead solely focused on "what would Piata find most useful or inspiring?". Those two things might sometimes overlap...but definitely not always.
It’s important to consider the hidden cost so we know that we’re not necessarily getting the benefits for free.
The cost is a lack of freedom as a buyer. Instead, the focus is on what they want to sell us.
I can see how the Indyx model is refreshingly different and there’s a cost to this flexibility that needs to be met.
FREE is very rarely free. I loved this Devon, and you already know I’m an Indyx super fan but i want to emphasize like many others have that the experience you get using Indyx is so delightful because it’s ad free! Thank you for making it!
If the product is free I’m automatically side-eyeing it. I know I’m the product. I’ll pay for a good, ad-free experience as evidenced by how much I pay for Netflix and other streamers. If there is an ad free option I’m all in on it. I’d pay for ad-free Pinterest/Instagram/TikTok/etc. but they sadly, don’t give me that option.
I’m happily paying for INDYX because it meets my needs. Without trying to hijack my attention. Sure I still shop because I like it, but I don’t buy stuff for the sake of buying stuff. I know it will fill a closet gap or be really fun to wear year after year.