I’m a bit off schedule, because of the pandemic (though only indirectly).
If you have responded to or are interested in my call for interviews, I might – or might not – have questions ready by Tuesday. Likewise, I might – or might not – post again this week.1
The interesting part!
A subscriber who shall remain nameless (but whom I thank for the feedback!) suggested a paid spreadsheet listing Substack newsletters by genre, with links to each newsletter and each author's Twitter account.
As you might infer from my posts listing new newsletters, I’ve mused about this sort of idea before. Directories with Substack newsletters don’t appear to be current or comprehensive – and don’t list social media accounts. The search engine Stacksearch includes some Twitter accounts, though I’ve located newsletters and Twitter accounts that aren’t found there.
My question to you is: Would you benefit from a paid subscription to a reasonably current and comprehensive spreadsheet/database of categorized Substack newsletters and their associated authors and social media accounts?
Gathering and updating information on thousands of newsletters would be a daunting task.
I don’t think I could automate the process.
So I need to know whether it would be worthwhile for you and me.
Is this valuable enough to you (and other writers and readers)? Is it more valuable than other coverage of Substack?
I want to do whatever is most helpful to you. So please let me know in a comment or by email.
The finalized version of my post “49 New Newsletters” was supposed to be emailed to subscribers on Sunday. But Substack experienced an outage, which apparently canceled the email. In any event, you can view the post on the web.
I think this would be beneficial. It is difficult to find newsletters devoted to film, TV, and media coverage, as these aren't even really tags/categories on Substack. So, something like this would be quite helpful, I think. Naturally, I also want my own newsletter (textualvariations.substack.com) to appear in such a database. This, I believe, would help me get more subscribers.
I would definitely benefit from it. Another idea - not sure if you'd have any interest in it - is to do more editorial-type content where you'd highlight a certain Substack or do a review. Because like anything that's easily started by anyone, the amount of time and effort and skill put into different Substacks varies widely. Sorting through them is a job in and of itself - and often a not particularly rewarding one.
Some better means of discovery outside leaning on Substacks top lists or a search engine - particularly for ones that are newish and promising - must be possible.
I've done a couple of posts highlighting particular newsletters. But even with one newsletter, especially an active one with fairly long posts that has published for a while, it would take significant time to do a proper review. Also I might not be especially qualified to review newsletters on certain topics – not as much as readers who are interested in and somewhat knowledgeable about the topic.
I feel it's better to let the newsletter publishers make their pitch via an interview. From the interview answers, readers should get a good idea about the newsletter, publisher, and writing style. Then they can check it out for themselves if intrigued.
As for discoverability... I just envisioned a wiki or a review site where people could leave a rating and brief review of any newsletter. I don't have experience running such a site – but it seems like it should be possible. A problem, as on other sites that invite public participation, would be trolls and other people behaving badly. Also, it might be difficult to get enough people to participate. Still, I wonder if this could work... Or maybe I could suggest the idea to Substack – though I'm guessing Substack would be reluctant to run a site in which some newsletters got negative reviews.
I think this would be beneficial. It is difficult to find newsletters devoted to film, TV, and media coverage, as these aren't even really tags/categories on Substack. So, something like this would be quite helpful, I think. Naturally, I also want my own newsletter (textualvariations.substack.com) to appear in such a database. This, I believe, would help me get more subscribers.
I would definitely benefit from it. Another idea - not sure if you'd have any interest in it - is to do more editorial-type content where you'd highlight a certain Substack or do a review. Because like anything that's easily started by anyone, the amount of time and effort and skill put into different Substacks varies widely. Sorting through them is a job in and of itself - and often a not particularly rewarding one.
Some better means of discovery outside leaning on Substacks top lists or a search engine - particularly for ones that are newish and promising - must be possible.
I've done a couple of posts highlighting particular newsletters. But even with one newsletter, especially an active one with fairly long posts that has published for a while, it would take significant time to do a proper review. Also I might not be especially qualified to review newsletters on certain topics – not as much as readers who are interested in and somewhat knowledgeable about the topic.
I feel it's better to let the newsletter publishers make their pitch via an interview. From the interview answers, readers should get a good idea about the newsletter, publisher, and writing style. Then they can check it out for themselves if intrigued.
As for discoverability... I just envisioned a wiki or a review site where people could leave a rating and brief review of any newsletter. I don't have experience running such a site – but it seems like it should be possible. A problem, as on other sites that invite public participation, would be trolls and other people behaving badly. Also, it might be difficult to get enough people to participate. Still, I wonder if this could work... Or maybe I could suggest the idea to Substack – though I'm guessing Substack would be reluctant to run a site in which some newsletters got negative reviews.