Interesting, Al. Although I’m not quite sure that Medium is not a zero-sum game. Let me think out loud:

Whether Medium is a zero-sum game or not depends on the number of subscribers who do not write (i.e. are readers only). Let’s take an extreme example. Imagine in all of Medium there’s only one subscriber and he happens to be both a reader and a writer. That single Medium user pays $5 and that’s all he can ever earn.

Now imagine a second subscriber joins. He also writes. The Medium pot is now $10 per month. If the first writer earns those $10, this means there are zero dollars left for the second writer.

The same logic applies if even more subscribers join who all write. As long as all subscribers write, it’s a zero sum game.

Now, let’s continue with our example: the excellent work of the first writer entices a third user to subscribe. This user, contrary to the first two, only reads. The pot is now $15 per month for two writers. Assume the first writer rakes in $13. That leaves $2 for the second writer. In this case the excellent work of the first writer has benefitted the second writer. Result? As long as there are subscribers who don’t write, it’s a non-zero-sum game for the writers.

However, new writers can only benefit from new reader subscribers if the new readers’ share doesn’t all go to the established writers. This is only true if the Matthew effect (the rich get richer), is not too extreme. Otherwise, we have the situation that can be found in many poor countries: a filthy rich 1% and 99% of people who are under the poverty line.

Since there will presumably always be some subscribers who don’t write, Medium is indeed not zero-sum. But whether new writers can make a living, depends on the strength of the Mathew effect.

Thanks for inspiring those thoughts, Al.