The biggest problem for any Substack writer is being noticed. For every top-level writer getting an advance from Substack, or making a seven-figure salary from subscriptions, there must be dozens, if not hundreds of authors struggling to make it to 100 readers.
The article discusses some of the future innovations that will be seen in this space as other companies (Twitter, Facebook) try to build or acquire their own Substack clones/competitors as well as the innovations being formulated by writers and other creatives.
Substack wants it both ways: they have recently contracted (i.e. given money to) to LGBTQ+ writers in an effort to counter the recent kerfuffle about some of their other authors’ views and yet they want to remain a neutral platform.
What bothers me is that this all seems very familiar to anyone who was around at the beginning of social media. When sites like Livejournal and MySpace were first brought online, they were the kind of freewheeling, do anything place where people could write and create whatever they wanted. Then a few people started getting noticed and that brought book deals and t.v. shows and that started the gold rush. Soon after, platforms started a zero-sum war of trying to attract all the users, all the better to sell ads.
Advertising revenue or subscriber revenue, the writers and the platforms they use are beholden to the people providing the money.
Which means there is no such thing as neutrality. I think the longer Substack tries to maintain an impartial position, the more they stand to lose. Siloing feels inevitable and it seems like smart companies make it clear where they stand in order to build a solid core that then allows them to weather buyouts, corporate takeovers, and other large-scale economic factors that not even a whole stable of successful writers can shield against.
Anyway. This is long and I’m not sure how much sense I’m making so I’ll leave it there. Thanks for reading.
Since I did contract work for an entity that was part of the AOL/Yahoo/Huffington Post/and finally Verizon universe, I had to laugh somewhat knowingly at the line, "If Verizon buys Substack, God help everyone on it."
Re "The biggest problem for any Substack writer is being noticed." – I've drafted a post entitled "Notice Me, Substack!" (a play on the meme "Notice me, senpai!" from the anime world).
Re "Which means there is no such thing as neutrality." – I agree. Not taking a position is still, in context, taking a position. People, companies, etc. avoid taking a position at their peril, because, as you indicate, they'll end up following the money. I feel that Substack is *trying* to take a position, but should do more to make it clear. More specifically, I believe Substack should show in concrete ways that it's at least as much for small and mid-size newsletter publishers as for the "top-level" ones.
Scott, I thought it was pretty solid overall. Now I have a question for you. I have about 400 paid subscribers and another couple of hundred free ones. I am looking for similar POLITICAL subs who might be interested in exchanging mailing lists. I have plateaued and need to reach out more. If you have any suggestions after review so many subs I would appreciate it. Tnx.
I'm going to give this some thought. Perhaps I can find other political newsletter publishers who are likewise looking for more subscribers. Or perhaps I can provide information about political newsletters that you're not yet aware of. I imagine you know about many of the US politics newsletters in the "Politics" category of Substack Discover (https://reader.substack.com/discover). But I'll bet there are a lot more.
I think the key word in the article's title – "Why We’re Freaking Out About Substack" – is "We're." In my view, this article is aimed at people who write or might write for/in the New York Times. I feel that it might interest other people mainly insofar as they take an interest in the NewYorkTimeserati. (Personally, I'm mildly interested. I often read pieces in the NY Times, though more reporting than opinion.)
I suppose what I'm trying to say is that I'm interested in all writers and potential writers for Substack, not just the prominent ones. The views of prominent writers and traditional media about Substack are significant. But I feel that Substack is (or should be) about a significantly broader universe; prominent writers; writers seeking to become prominent; writers who aren't looking for a large audience; and so on. ("Writers" in this context is shorthand for any kind of content creator, including artists, podcasters, etc.)
... and I imagine that many readers are likewise interested in people who span the broad universe of writers. But I wonder how many readers are interested in Substack per se, or for that matter traditional media publications. (I am, because I'm writing this newsletter!)
I presume many readers are interested in the writers (prominent or otherwise) much more than the platform. And arguably that's the main point of Substack: to facilitate a direct relationship between writers and readers (and allow writers to write whatever they want and seek as many or few readers as they want).
Still, in my view, there's an important place in this world for The New York Times, as well as for Substack. A group of writers, editors, etc. could replicate something like The New York Times on Substack. But in any case, The New York Times or something like it can do things that a solo writer cannot, and vice versa.
I didn't think there was much new in the article, though it was an interesting read. Notable that Substack have given the Laverys Pro contracts, I think - a clear (maybe even cynical) attempt to counter the bad 'press' of recent weeks. It didn't really go into anything I'm actually interested in, like how to make your newsletter more discoverable, but then I don't think it was trying to!
I enjoyed it. It wasn't particularly deep, but it gave a nice overview.
I have a couple of thoughts:
The biggest problem for any Substack writer is being noticed. For every top-level writer getting an advance from Substack, or making a seven-figure salary from subscriptions, there must be dozens, if not hundreds of authors struggling to make it to 100 readers.
The article discusses some of the future innovations that will be seen in this space as other companies (Twitter, Facebook) try to build or acquire their own Substack clones/competitors as well as the innovations being formulated by writers and other creatives.
Substack wants it both ways: they have recently contracted (i.e. given money to) to LGBTQ+ writers in an effort to counter the recent kerfuffle about some of their other authors’ views and yet they want to remain a neutral platform.
What bothers me is that this all seems very familiar to anyone who was around at the beginning of social media. When sites like Livejournal and MySpace were first brought online, they were the kind of freewheeling, do anything place where people could write and create whatever they wanted. Then a few people started getting noticed and that brought book deals and t.v. shows and that started the gold rush. Soon after, platforms started a zero-sum war of trying to attract all the users, all the better to sell ads.
Advertising revenue or subscriber revenue, the writers and the platforms they use are beholden to the people providing the money.
Which means there is no such thing as neutrality. I think the longer Substack tries to maintain an impartial position, the more they stand to lose. Siloing feels inevitable and it seems like smart companies make it clear where they stand in order to build a solid core that then allows them to weather buyouts, corporate takeovers, and other large-scale economic factors that not even a whole stable of successful writers can shield against.
Anyway. This is long and I’m not sure how much sense I’m making so I’ll leave it there. Thanks for reading.
Just to add that Boing Boing's Rob Beschizza has some cogent thoughts on the same article: https://boingboing.net/2021/04/12/substack-ghost-and-the-revenge-of-the-bloggers.html?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=substack-ghost-and-the-revenge-of-the-bloggers
Since I did contract work for an entity that was part of the AOL/Yahoo/Huffington Post/and finally Verizon universe, I had to laugh somewhat knowingly at the line, "If Verizon buys Substack, God help everyone on it."
Re "The biggest problem for any Substack writer is being noticed." – I've drafted a post entitled "Notice Me, Substack!" (a play on the meme "Notice me, senpai!" from the anime world).
Re "Which means there is no such thing as neutrality." – I agree. Not taking a position is still, in context, taking a position. People, companies, etc. avoid taking a position at their peril, because, as you indicate, they'll end up following the money. I feel that Substack is *trying* to take a position, but should do more to make it clear. More specifically, I believe Substack should show in concrete ways that it's at least as much for small and mid-size newsletter publishers as for the "top-level" ones.
Scott, I thought it was pretty solid overall. Now I have a question for you. I have about 400 paid subscribers and another couple of hundred free ones. I am looking for similar POLITICAL subs who might be interested in exchanging mailing lists. I have plateaued and need to reach out more. If you have any suggestions after review so many subs I would appreciate it. Tnx.
I'm going to give this some thought. Perhaps I can find other political newsletter publishers who are likewise looking for more subscribers. Or perhaps I can provide information about political newsletters that you're not yet aware of. I imagine you know about many of the US politics newsletters in the "Politics" category of Substack Discover (https://reader.substack.com/discover). But I'll bet there are a lot more.
I think the key word in the article's title – "Why We’re Freaking Out About Substack" – is "We're." In my view, this article is aimed at people who write or might write for/in the New York Times. I feel that it might interest other people mainly insofar as they take an interest in the NewYorkTimeserati. (Personally, I'm mildly interested. I often read pieces in the NY Times, though more reporting than opinion.)
I suppose what I'm trying to say is that I'm interested in all writers and potential writers for Substack, not just the prominent ones. The views of prominent writers and traditional media about Substack are significant. But I feel that Substack is (or should be) about a significantly broader universe; prominent writers; writers seeking to become prominent; writers who aren't looking for a large audience; and so on. ("Writers" in this context is shorthand for any kind of content creator, including artists, podcasters, etc.)
... and I imagine that many readers are likewise interested in people who span the broad universe of writers. But I wonder how many readers are interested in Substack per se, or for that matter traditional media publications. (I am, because I'm writing this newsletter!)
I presume many readers are interested in the writers (prominent or otherwise) much more than the platform. And arguably that's the main point of Substack: to facilitate a direct relationship between writers and readers (and allow writers to write whatever they want and seek as many or few readers as they want).
Still, in my view, there's an important place in this world for The New York Times, as well as for Substack. A group of writers, editors, etc. could replicate something like The New York Times on Substack. But in any case, The New York Times or something like it can do things that a solo writer cannot, and vice versa.
I didn't think there was much new in the article, though it was an interesting read. Notable that Substack have given the Laverys Pro contracts, I think - a clear (maybe even cynical) attempt to counter the bad 'press' of recent weeks. It didn't really go into anything I'm actually interested in, like how to make your newsletter more discoverable, but then I don't think it was trying to!