As in, what if a newsletter, a digital one, were to only live in the recipient’s inbox, instead of also exsiting as a perpetual feed online?
Years ago (like, 5-10 years ago), this was the norm. “Of course newsletters are for the inbox,” people might have said.
But then at some point, which I can’t pinpoint, newsletters began to be shared as online feeds (same as any blog or any website in general), and that became the new norm. People started saying “Why not have both? Why not have your newsletter be an email list and a blog?” I specifically remember finding such articles and being disappointed, because I was like…
I like blogging, but I’m not going to send every single random blog post to people’s inboxes if I can help it, and I see the value of newsletters (inbox visitation rights are a powerful thing), but if newsletters are no different from blogs, then… what’s the point of having both?
This question had no answer for literal years. I kept thinking about different content or different publishing frequencies.
But now I’m thinking–maybe what I’ll like is having a newsletter that “goes away” instead of leading a perpetual existence as an online feed. Basically, this blog will be a blog. It is a feed. You can subscribe via RSS feed and all that.
Meanwhile, my newsletter could be… digital letters. Unless you received it when the letter was sent, you won’t ever receive it. (Or unless someone forwards you my earlier emails. But that can happen with physical letters too. Who knows what all those people are doing with the physical letters you sent to them!)
An alternative hybrid method might be having a feed, but locking it behind a login. So, once you subscribe, you can login and access everything behind a wall (not necessarily a paywall, but a wall nonetheless). Past letters included. If you unsubscribe, you will lose access–past, present, future, everything.
This could be useful if I wanted to have a newsletter community. Many newsletter tools now come with features that allow commenting, liking, and so on.