A few days ago I noticed that this feature was live on Glenn Greenwald's newsletter.1 The section is called Outside Voices. In Greenwald's case, the section gets a separate subdomain. For a typical publisher, it seems the section will be a subdirectory of the newsletter's domain / subdomain.
Personally, if I were to create one or more sections, I'm not sure whether I'd prefer a separate subdomain like Greenwald has, or just everything under the Sub Pub umbrella. In any case, I'm not sure I want sections at all!
What do you think about newsletter sections? Do you think they’d benefit – or confuse – you and your subscribers / readers? Do you think you'll create a section or two for your newsletter?
I vaguely recall a similar feature on other “Substack Pro” newsletters. However, I had thought the feature related to the bundling of several newsletters, rather than sections within one newsletter.
Looking at the Greenwald example I find it confusing. But that may have to do with how he is just throwing it up there and hoping folks can figure it out. For something like a podcast, where it's a noticeably different environment when you land on the page, that could work. But in general, I'd rather not dilute my core SS base and most likely won't be using this feature.
On the one hand, I think that my readers might enjoy hearing from another voice from time to time.
On the other hand, I am a subscriber to Greenwald, and when those 'outside voices' started landing in my email box, I wasn't too pleased. They aren't Greenwald, and not what I'm looking for when reading his newsletter.
My niche is extremely tight. I think then that the question is, are my paying subscribers voting with their money because they want to read interesting things about my niche, or because they want to read about my niche from me, and in my voice.
Further complicating this in my mind is what Frederick W. mentions. Dilution.
In the very long history of my niche, we have had members who can write interesting enough things to create a following and make an impact.
We have also had leaders holding high office within it who have made an impact through their leadership.
What we have had only in the rarest of occasions is someone who both holds high office, and has a following for their written work. That small handful of people have made a truly outsized impact.
What I wonder then is, if I brought in additional voices, as Greenwald has done, do I dilute my own potential impact? I fear that I likely do. If I do that, then I fear that my newsletter becomes nothing more than a well moderated Facebook group, and things like that, at least in my niche, have zero impact. They might be fun, but do they add enough value that anyone would be willing to support them financially?
I don't really have a problem with Sections per se, but I do have a wishlist of other features that I would have liked to have seen rolled out before this one. I mean, this is very much in keeping with Substack's push to be the new face of journalism but I'm not sure that's a good thing.
Thanks for pointing me to a specific example. I am eager to check it out asap, but want to see how it works IRL before I jump in with both feet.
Looking at the Greenwald example I find it confusing. But that may have to do with how he is just throwing it up there and hoping folks can figure it out. For something like a podcast, where it's a noticeably different environment when you land on the page, that could work. But in general, I'd rather not dilute my core SS base and most likely won't be using this feature.
I find this an interesting dilemma.
On the one hand, I think that my readers might enjoy hearing from another voice from time to time.
On the other hand, I am a subscriber to Greenwald, and when those 'outside voices' started landing in my email box, I wasn't too pleased. They aren't Greenwald, and not what I'm looking for when reading his newsletter.
My niche is extremely tight. I think then that the question is, are my paying subscribers voting with their money because they want to read interesting things about my niche, or because they want to read about my niche from me, and in my voice.
Further complicating this in my mind is what Frederick W. mentions. Dilution.
In the very long history of my niche, we have had members who can write interesting enough things to create a following and make an impact.
We have also had leaders holding high office within it who have made an impact through their leadership.
What we have had only in the rarest of occasions is someone who both holds high office, and has a following for their written work. That small handful of people have made a truly outsized impact.
What I wonder then is, if I brought in additional voices, as Greenwald has done, do I dilute my own potential impact? I fear that I likely do. If I do that, then I fear that my newsletter becomes nothing more than a well moderated Facebook group, and things like that, at least in my niche, have zero impact. They might be fun, but do they add enough value that anyone would be willing to support them financially?
I don't really have a problem with Sections per se, but I do have a wishlist of other features that I would have liked to have seen rolled out before this one. I mean, this is very much in keeping with Substack's push to be the new face of journalism but I'm not sure that's a good thing.