Musings: Subscriptions

I have been thinking a lot about subscriptions in my non-Regency life, a ubiquitous part of modern life, at least entertainment access and some work products. Which inevitably gets me thinking about 19th century parallels.

Subscriptions weren’t new to the Regency era, in fact subscription based publishing had been around since at least the late 16th century. Subscriptions were by in large used for specialty subjects that would not appeal to mass audiences, and the subscribers would sometimes be credited in the front of the book for helping its publication (The crowd-funded book: an eighteenth-century revival | History Workshop). Subscription publishing really took off in the 18th century, and would have been very familiar to Regency audiences.

There were other industries using the subscription model, like trading, insurance, music, assemblies, theatre, and the lecture circuit. Circulating libraries were largely subscription based. Even charity and education used the subscription model (The surprising early history of the subscription model)

As with today, subscriptions were on-demand economies (Everything Has Changed: The Rise of the Subscription and On-Demand Economies | SAP Emarsys) that seek to capture the support and loyalty of their target market. And sometimes profit from consumer apathy. Maybe that is cynical, but why else I have seen a lot of advertising for companies that will find all your subscriptions and cancel them for you with one easy click?

The subscribers of the Regency were largely wealthy, upper-class people and the subscriptions followed their leisure habits. Some might belong to all the best Rooms or venues, others may support concerts, and others may have liked the scientific lectures and publications. There was an incredible amount of privilege inherent in subscriptions, implying disposal income.

However, this model was used broadly, even for provincial cities and towns. With my research for Masquerade Balls in Regency Britain I found many venues and retail locations diversify income streams by offering entertainments on a subscription basis. I also learned how whenever an impressario or manager tried to deviate too much from the subscription model, they found it difficult to stay afloat.

I see sometimes modern theatres and others offering VIP or season tickets, along the same lines, always comfortably out of reach for my income and interest. And there is a cultural fascination with people who hold season tickets to sports teams or theatre; a prestige of exclusivity that feels so very Regency! The season subscription to Almack’s, for instance, was artificially inflated in the 18th century to 10 shillings – a princely sum. Not all Regency subscriptions were so exclusive, but it invariably added up.

Today, there are a variety of other subscriptions that are not only within reach but required for access: streaming services including music, subscriptions for computer software (I heard hardware like computers may be going this way), for goods (dog food, health care products, clothing, luxury items), and services (annual maintenance, personal care, etc). And along with that is a rising frustration that we don’t “own” anything anymore.

But yet the subscriptions persist. I have been thinking a lot about the new “vertical” films that are rolling out on apps with a subscription for “episode” model kind of like an old serial story. I wonder if they will change the streaming model again, where we pay per episode in addition to watching ads across all platforms. Some think we are headed back to cable as a model, locked into a monopoly paying a high monthly cost and still, of course, having to watch ads.

There is a personal side to subscriptions, too, that comes into play. Specialty publications in the Regency were able to be produced (and we can still access today) because subscribers were willing to support publication. This more positive element can help smaller creators, independent thinkers, and niche topics.

I have given a lot of thought to subscriptions with this site to help offset the costs, which have ballooned a lot over the last five or so years. I have been lucky, through the generosity of sponsors and readers who sent me “a cup of tea” to keep Regency Reader mostly in the black the last few years, in addition to the digital downloads I developed to also support the site. I used to get some income from Amazon links for books I reviewed, but that margin has been shrinking to almost nothing in the last year.

I spent a whole year giving up weekends and morning and evenings to research and write Masquerade Balls in Regency Britain. My advance was small, but I know it will be a challenge to earn out. Yet I am proud of providing good information, hard research, and occasionally some editorializing (like this article) to topics I spend a lot of time thinking about. I understand how hard it is to part with our hard earned money, especially in an environment where it feels like death by a thousand cuts (or subscriptions).

I share this other side because I think about the musicians who do get a cut, maybe even sometimes better than a physical cd, when we play on a streaming service. Film and tv is slightly messier, but maybe new challengers in these spaces will continue to push the envelope. I think subscriptions do help independent journalists and thinkers keep going. And when you pick up a book by an indie author, you are supporting all their efforts — not only with writing, but also marketing.

And while I can’t afford the large third space subscriptions, I might do it for some of the small business that, like me, struggle to balance creativity and independence with the bottom line.

The one thing I can identify in looking at Regency subscriptions, is that people often “voted” with their money, and a decline in subscriptions often was the death knell for businesses. I see parallels in modern life, too.

I think with the wealth gap in the Regency, the vast majority of people did not have access to subscription entertainments. Some of this would change with the increasing success of the middle class. But I also think that the subscription model also experienced a decline — although I haven’t researched it enough to say that with certainty. I do wonder if the subscription model is a symptom of wealth inequality in a way we haven’t considered.

In looking at Regency masquerades, I argued most people would not be able to afford the admittance fees plus the added cost of costumes, etc. As a result, impressarios often had to hire talent to show up in costume and perform, because many of the paid customers were there to be entertained, not entertain. I think this is a lesson worth considering with modern life. I wonder if subscriptions continue to shrink the world, as so many budget to survive, so that only the wealthy can participate. And how much fun is it, really, to be in such a small echo chamber? If masquerades are any example, culture has always benefitted from a large, diverse audience.

I welcome comments, because I think this is a topic worth dialoguing about. And as always, I thank you for your indulgence. Back to our regularly scheduled content at our normal interval (every even day of the month).

The Origin Of The Subscription Model