I appreciate the emails from readers about my Substack post. I do not read the comments, so if you left something there, and actually want me to see it, email me! Then again, I suspect a fair share of comments are written with full knowledge that I will never see it. So be it.
After reflecting on the responses, I will offer some more or less tentative thoughts.
First, why did I write my post? I could have simply launched a Substack, as others have done, without any explanation. I have several reasons. At the highest level, writing helps me think things through. If I can't state my thesis in a coherent written form, then my thesis doesn't work. Moreover, once I write something down, I've committed myself to it. "Locked in" as they say. But on a deeper level, I feel a kinship with my readers, even though I don't know them. I am fully aware of how many people read my posts. Indeed, it is a strange sensation when I meet people in public who recognize me from the blog. Once I was in an Uber and the driver figured out who I was and told me he watched all of my YouTube videos. We chatted the entire ride about Supreme Court cases. I invited him to my lecture the next day sent him a copy of my most recent book. On the Fourth of July, I visited the National Constitution Center (where else would I go?) and a reader spotted me and asked for a selfie. We later corresponded about career advice. I owe this audience I've built some explanation before I change how content is delivered.
Second, another comment was that I should not be motivated by money. This is something of a sensitive point, but is worth addressing. I went straight from clerking to academia. Other than working as a summer associate, I never earned a paycheck in private practice. I never collected those cushy clerkship bonuses. Plus, as readers will recall, I resigned from a position last year, and with that resignation, a paycheck immediately vanished. I have not taken a vow of poverty, and am not seeking anyone's pity. I have a blessed life with an amazing career that I would not trade for anything. Still, virtually all academics who forego careers in legal practice have to find opportunities for outside income. Some teach additional classes, even as adjuncts at other law schools. Others do consulting or part-time litigation with law firms. I am fortunate to be on the speaking circuit, which pays generous honoraria. Still, as time passes, the toils of traveling across the country grow. Many academics do get paid for their writing. Law schools often will provide writing stipends, or bonuses for articles placed in top journals. Law review symposiums often provide honoraria for participation. And so on. My goal, at least, is to be transparent.
Third, a reader suggested that my influence might decrease if I initially posted my material behind a partial paywall. I've given this issue quite a bit of thought. Most of my posts are written for a general audience, and have very little impact. But my most impactful audiences are written for very specific audiences. I would wager that the specific audiences that impact policy are the sorts of people who would not mind paying a nominal fee each month. Moreover, a Substack would allow me to build an audience of people who may not otherwise visit the Volokh Conspiracy. One of the greatest virtues of this blog is that there are a wide range of authors who post on a wide range of topics. But some readers may not prefer this format with all those views. Indeed, I've heard that there is apparently a filter to remove all of the "Josh Blackman" posts on VC. An independent site would let me speak to readers who want to hear my views. Commenters who hate my work would feel no obligation to read at all. Again, I ran a solo blog for more than a decade on JoshBlackman.com. I'm sure most of those readers came over to the Volokh Conspiracy, but some may not have.
Fourth, a reader said a 24-hour delay was not long enough. If that was the only gap, he would see no reason to subscribe, and just postpone his reading for a day. One alternate idea I had would be to post all of the week's content on the Volokh Conspiracy on Friday afternoon, similar to how the Supreme Court used to post all of the oral argument for the week on Friday afternoon. This would let readers who are unable or unwilling to pay the fee to catch up with all of my work over the weekend. My observant readers could event print stuff out for non-electronic reading. This would also eliminate the administrative burden of trying to figure out when posts would run. I could condense everything into a "week in review" format.
Fifth, a longtime reader raised what I think is the biggest risk with creating a subscription model: I may be tempted, even subconsciously, to alter my work to attract a bigger audience. This concern is serious. Getting clicks can be addictive. Indeed, one of the reasons I have limited my part-time legal practice to pro or "low" bono work is so that I never feel obligated to take or keep a case I don't believe in. Relatedly, this model would create an incentive to always create new content. As things stand now, I can write five posts in a day and then nothing for two weeks. But if there is an expectation to release a newsletter each week, I would feel obligated to write a newsletter each week. I don't know that I have a solid response to this concern. I can say, "Well, if it doesn't work out, I'll go back to the old model." But I am aware that a dependency on a source of income is hard to break. (Again, see my resignation from Heritage.) The best response I can offer is that my nearly two decades of work has steeled me to always pursue the truth. Indeed, a name I came up with for a Subtack refelcts this mantra: "Unpopular Opinions: Always authentic. Often controversial. Never afraid."
I welcome more thoughts and comments. I continue to work through this idea.
