It's interesting to think of this from the tesla standpoint. There was a kind of reverse situation where the shorters and idealogically opposed to evs or pro gas people had conspiracy theories going the other way. They were doing secret investigations and harassing some reporters who thought telsa was some big financial fake-out.

There were claims that tesla wasn't really selling cars (cause who would want one?), or they were all parked in some giant hidden parking lot, rusting away or something. They hired airplanes to take pictures of the factory. This somehow got some famous investors into it who were sure tesla was doomed. There was a whole belief system, weird twitter handles. There seemed to be coordinated publishing of information to try to sink the stock. I've never been close enough to a stock to see it happen before this.

And now it has turned around again - instead of too many shorters, their value is too high. Tesla's market value feels vastly too high, like 10x or more too much. The company should do pretty well but they won't be approaching half the world car market imho.

Really enjoy Levine's stuff, but had to unsub from his newsletter because they are too long for me to keep up with.

How is it too long? It's composed of multiple sections on different subjects. You don't have to read them all.

I 'snooze' them for later in the day/evening when I have more time to read them.

The other things I realized is that I should treat it like a magazine rather than a newsletter and read only the 'articles' that I'm interested in. I don't have to read the entire thing.

and here we witness the death of journalism

I guess we all have our limits? Just wish the newsletter was more concise with the opp to dig deeper...found that just reading a segment at times drags on and gets interrupted/ incomplete.

A better approach would be to either pull a single paragraph from the full length piece, a TLDR type summary conclusion of the broader thought and hyperlink that clip to the expanded/full content on Bloomberg's site. This would result in my stayed subscription to the (truncated) newsletter, a higher open rate, and actual visits to their website (which the newsletter does not drive IMO). Cheers!

I love long-form newsletters and prefer them to reading content on the web (no ads, instant load times, the personal touch of having it delivered in my mailbox, breaking out of the "one more click" dynamic when browsing the web, etc.) . I guess it's why people like Ben Thomson or Matt Levine write and distribute them - ultimately, because there's an audience for it. The former even makes a pretty penny with it, and I'm sure there are others.

Your claim about open rates is unsubstantiated because I wouldn't have ever subscribed if it was just a summary and a link to Bloomberg (which has a free article limit to boot, if I remember correctly). So between the two of us that's only n = 2 and I think neither of us has any clue what metrics for that newsletter might look like.

As a consumer, I am completely in agreement insofar as the benefits or receiving content via email medium vs. going on the web, esp. considering bloomberg does have a paywall at some point, autoplay ads, noise, etc. Comparatively, the user experience w/ email is unanimously better via email!

And of course, in this hypothetical, that same content would need be equally accessible/free on the site as in the email otherwise moot point to begin with.

But the publishers POV, this author in question creates really compelling content, so much so that as a consumer of it, I actually would sacrifice hopping to/reading on bloomberg.com if it meant a more palatable intro/summary initially via email. (And again assuming it's just as free).

Indeed the open rate claim is unsubstantiated, and we do not know what the metrics look like in any dimension. And maybe they even tested this out early on / upfront and evolved into what it is now? There has to be some data/science to it, because right now, the email appears to be hardly commercialized, so Bloomberg is not only missing out on the site traffic benefits, but also not optimizing email monetization? (A quick glance with adblock off shows now ads?)

Anecdotally (and maybe I am completely alone here) I am more inclined to click on a content link or open an email if I believe that there is a high probably of thoroughly reading what's inside. Take for FWIW, my own process of unsubscribing: I went from opening all/90%+ to opening less and less over the coming weeks because I knew I couldn't consume/get through enough/all and that felt defeating, futile, and proving impossible. So eventually, I stopped opening all together, stayed subbed for a few more weeks, but eventually unsubbed altogether when it came time for a monthly inbox pruning. No we both lost in this scenario, I can admit.

I am biased too, because in a previous life I built an email list with ~50% open rate and ~25% CTR (high for my field/industry) built upon this outbound link strategy, as I know others have to. Apparently there are multiple ways to go about it :)

(All that said I am surprised at all the downvoting...either Levine has a mob on here intolerant of any harmless critique or generally my parent comment wasn't relevant enough to the broader topic at hand? It would be helpful to hear feedback on why)