He knew that juros trying to dig up dirt on him would pay to see if there’s anything bad there & its super funny that he’s made money off from ppi trying to get dirt on him.
The core of this strategy is deceptively simple: establish a subscription-based platform—such as a Substack newsletter—with exorbitant fees, for instance, $1,000 per month or $10,000 annually, while providing little to no actual content. The premise hinges on the anticipation that journalists, competitors, or other interested parties, eager to uncover potential controversies or insider information, will subscribe to access the purportedly exclusive material. In reality, these subscribers find an absence of content, realizing they have paid solely to satisfy their curiosity.
A notable example of this approach involves a young operative associated with the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), a controversial initiative led by Elon Musk under the Trump administration. This individual, distinct from the infamous “Big Balls,” launched a Substack publication titled “Why DOGE: Why I Gave Up a Seven-Figure Salary to Save America.” The subscription was priced at $1,000 per month, yet subscribers discovered that the newsletter contained no content. The operative’s intention was to exploit the investigative efforts of journalists and critics, effectively monetizing their attempts to unearth incriminating information. This maneuver not only generated income but also served as a satirical commentary on the media’s relentless pursuit of scandal.
This strategy taps into several psychological phenomena:
- Curiosity and the Information Gap: Humans have an inherent desire to resolve uncertainties. By suggesting the existence of exclusive or sensitive information behind a paywall, creators stimulate a compulsion to bridge the knowledge gap, prompting subscriptions.
- FOMO (Fear of Missing Out): The high subscription cost implies valuable content, fostering a fear among potential subscribers—particularly journalists and competitors—that they might miss critical insights or breaking news.
- Reverse Psychology: By offering an expensive subscription with no content, creators play on the assumption that such a bold move must conceal something significant, thereby enticing investigative parties to pay for access.
Ethical Considerations
While this approach showcases ingenuity, it raises ethical questions:
- Transparency: Deliberately charging for non-existent content can be perceived as deceptive, potentially damaging the creator’s reputation and eroding trust with their audience.
- Exploitation: Monetizing the investigative efforts of journalists, who play a crucial role in holding individuals and institutions accountable, might be viewed as undermining the integrity of the press.
- Legal Implications: Depending on jurisdiction, there may be legal ramifications associated with charging for content that is not delivered as advertised, potentially leading to fraud allegations.
Broader Implications in Digital Media
This tactic reflects a broader trend in digital media where creators experiment with unconventional monetization strategies:
- Subscription Fatigue: As consumers face an increasing number of subscription services, some creators resort to sensational or provocative methods to capture attention and justify premium pricing.
- Creator Autonomy: Platforms like Substack empower individuals to control their content and revenue streams, enabling experimental approaches that challenge traditional media norms.
Media Dynamics: By turning the tables on investigative journalists, creators highlight the symbiotic yet adversarial relationship between media figures and public personalities, prompting discussions about privacy, consent, and the ethics of journalism.
The practice of establishing high-cost, content-free subscription platforms to capitalize on the curiosity of investigative parties exemplifies a provocative intersection of entrepreneurship, psychology, and media critique. While financially lucrative and intellectually stimulating, it necessitates careful consideration of ethical boundaries and long-term reputational impacts. As digital media continues to evolve, such strategies underscore the innovative—and sometimes contentious—methods creators employ to navigate and monetize the complex landscape of information and attention economies.
