I hope Substack avoids the pitfalls that Medium seems to have made, and have one reason at least to be hopeful- Substack writers like myself, little guys (or gals) who don't bring in huge audience numbers but continue to provide regular content and remain true to their established brand, can bolster the image of what Substack is. I'm not a journalist, but I also never put myself out as one! Substack lets its contributors establish early on who they are, what kind of material they put together, and what they hope to accomplish. From there, it's on each of us to prove our mettle and work ethic.
Maybe I'll never generate Substack a dime in paid subscribers. That's entirely possible, since I'm trying for a 'Pay if you support my efforts' approach with readers. And maybe they'll eventually see me as dead weight as a result.
However, at least Substack is giving me the chance to try.
I think you've made important points here. Especially after the influx of new Substackers during the past year, the diversity of newsletters and publishers is extraordinary. Everyone can establish a brand, steadily create content, and build an audience. Even if the audience is relatively small and not lucrative, many publishers would be satisfied. A few people reading and responding to what you have to say can be gratifying! And the more publishers appeal to readers, the more readers will want to start their own newsletters.
Of course, some publishers want the large audience and/or significant income. A small percentage have a leg up in that they're already well-known, at least within a certain field, and can easily obtain an audience and income. (My gut feeling is that smaller publishers won't ever be dead weight at Substack, but instead just won't get as much attention as the kind of people who are offered Substack Pro. There are just too many small publishers to attend to individually.)
I suppose the situation is like the semi-mythical but also semi-real "American Dream." In America some people start with socioeconomic advantages. But many people, in theory, can make it big. And some do. In America, and on Substack, the dream will inspire some people. And some will be disappointed, while others keep trying.
Substack does seem more inviting to readers than Medium. I presume readers sense that the default on Substack is public, while the default on Medium is private. A Substack publisher can set up a fairly hard paywall as on Medium – but few publishers do.
Medium is a joke and a disaster and I hope it burns to the ground,
Substack is in no wise comparable to it. Medium wants to be a cross between a Youtube for writing, where writers get paid based on views (which depends in no small part on Medium's recommendation algorithm) and a traditional publication where writers get paid some arbitrary number based on the whims of the publisher.
Substack, as explained so masterfully by Ben Thompson (https://stratechery.com/2021/sovereign-writers-and-substack/) is about the sovereign writer establishing a personal relationship with readers and being in control of that relationship, with Substack being a largely hands-off intermediary akin to financial transaction company Stripe. It's about writers finding out for themselves what they are worth on the market, rather than accepting the crumbs from the Master's table.
As such, you can subscribe to a newsletter on Substack and never have a single interaction with or exposure to any other newsletter. Medium on the other hand made it impossible to avoid other writers and publications, most of which are complete trash. Even the home page couldn't be customized to only view what you subscribed to - Medium always includes a number of typically obnoxious articles in their "recommended" section at the top when you visit their site. What these recommendations are based on or how to alter or remove them is never shared.
I don't pay money to have more nonsense in my life. As was noted a million years ago by Schopenhauer, more important than what books to read is what books (and articles) not to read.
The answer to that is easy: anything published on Medium.
While I'm not quite so negative about Medium relative to Substack, I'm not far off. I do feel like Medium is essentially a giant sales pitch: give us money!; give the writers applause so they make money! (Or at least that was how Medium was when I read more articles there and tried writing a few.) Substack is more about the newsletter. There are still some unnerving elements of Substack: arguably favoritism towards big-name writers; competition for paid subscribers by smaller publishers (or does a rising tide raise all boats?). But, to put it bluntly, after several years Medium's time has come and gone. Its model isn't working. Substack is a work in progress and might succeed.
I appreciate Thompson's analogy for "Substack Pro" - which is of the book advance. Publishers compete with each other to offer big names large advance sums of money to sign with them all the time - and this is accepted, uncontroversial practice. But Substack wants to do the exact same thing, except with newsletters, and suddenly it's a big deal.
It would be nice if there were some mechanism by which new, promising writers could get an opportunity for some version of the above - in both book publishing and newsletters - but these are businesses. However much writers and artists might detest it, there is the bottom line, and smart, ethical businesses are going to attempt to find win-win scenarios - which Substack Pro has proven to be. They lowered the risk for successful writers switching over, and enabled them to find out what they are actually worth. And in doing so, the project normalized paying writers directly for their work. Which, unless you're a big publisher, is hard to argue is a bad thing.
Honestly, I don't see how the "controversy" is anything but a minor story of a few defections blown out of proportion by corporate media out of self-interest.
They're afraid - which they should be. For the first time in history, their monopoly is being challenged.
In the article, the recent changes are described as "the latest pivot" and I think that, right there, nails the heart of the problem: for a company that is under a decade old, how many times have they pivoted? And while I understand that, here in the future, the internet is changing faster than ever, I think that a lack of clarity in their mission has defined Medium from the beginning. So, if there's a lesson to be learned from this by Substack, it's to stay on mission. I hope they can do so.
I haven't been able to keep track of Medium's pivots. It is relatively encouraging that Substack's concept has remained stable with apparent success to this point. Even if it were to pivot away from Substack Pro, that's not the core of what Substack is offering.
I have to be the contrarian on this thread. We all love Substack because we get to follow the writers we love. Medium is trying to move more toward that now, where readers follow the writers the love, only for one bundled fee (instead of individual newsletter fees). The publication model was always going to fail because it was modeled after traditional publishing models that have been on the decline for decades. It has taken a lot of experimentation to discover how readers are willing to pay for writing (and we are still in the midst of that now). Unfortunately, as we’ve learned, paying an author $1/word doesn’t guarantee a good story, and it doesn’t guarantee people will read it. What does, is if a writer has followers/a platform. (As The Verge notes, articles did well if people were into it on Facebook.) Substack offers writers a platform, but it doesn’t help writers attract more readers to that platform. Medium is trying to fill both gaps: On the readers side, allowing them to pay one, bundled fee for all the writers they love. On the writer’s side, allowing them to build a following for their writing by getting it in front of readers who might like it. Unfortunately, we are discovering this all in real-time and changes need to be made fast. After all, Ev has tried to create a platform where we could find and follow writers for years, and no one could have predicted that Twitter wouldn’t be used like that. I work in traditional publishing as an editor, have a Substack newsletter for my readers, and a Medium account to attract new readers to my Substack. It’s an imperfect model but until one platform can give writers discoverability and a way to monetize (and both Medium and Substack are actively working toward that) writers still need some kind of social platform to funnel into their paid platform. And we have to remember that readers who pay for writing are still a small set of early adopters (most of the time when someone is paying to read something it’s because they are at the airport and they want a magazine or a book). It’s still unknown whether paid newsletters will reach mass appeal and whether writers will be able to make a living from their readers. It will be interesting to see what we discover in the next year or so!
I hope Substack avoids the pitfalls that Medium seems to have made, and have one reason at least to be hopeful- Substack writers like myself, little guys (or gals) who don't bring in huge audience numbers but continue to provide regular content and remain true to their established brand, can bolster the image of what Substack is. I'm not a journalist, but I also never put myself out as one! Substack lets its contributors establish early on who they are, what kind of material they put together, and what they hope to accomplish. From there, it's on each of us to prove our mettle and work ethic.
Maybe I'll never generate Substack a dime in paid subscribers. That's entirely possible, since I'm trying for a 'Pay if you support my efforts' approach with readers. And maybe they'll eventually see me as dead weight as a result.
However, at least Substack is giving me the chance to try.
I think you've made important points here. Especially after the influx of new Substackers during the past year, the diversity of newsletters and publishers is extraordinary. Everyone can establish a brand, steadily create content, and build an audience. Even if the audience is relatively small and not lucrative, many publishers would be satisfied. A few people reading and responding to what you have to say can be gratifying! And the more publishers appeal to readers, the more readers will want to start their own newsletters.
Of course, some publishers want the large audience and/or significant income. A small percentage have a leg up in that they're already well-known, at least within a certain field, and can easily obtain an audience and income. (My gut feeling is that smaller publishers won't ever be dead weight at Substack, but instead just won't get as much attention as the kind of people who are offered Substack Pro. There are just too many small publishers to attend to individually.)
I suppose the situation is like the semi-mythical but also semi-real "American Dream." In America some people start with socioeconomic advantages. But many people, in theory, can make it big. And some do. In America, and on Substack, the dream will inspire some people. And some will be disappointed, while others keep trying.
Medium’s key shortcoming was the paywall. Thankfully Substack doesn’t follow that biz model.
Substack does seem more inviting to readers than Medium. I presume readers sense that the default on Substack is public, while the default on Medium is private. A Substack publisher can set up a fairly hard paywall as on Medium – but few publishers do.
Medium is a joke and a disaster and I hope it burns to the ground,
Substack is in no wise comparable to it. Medium wants to be a cross between a Youtube for writing, where writers get paid based on views (which depends in no small part on Medium's recommendation algorithm) and a traditional publication where writers get paid some arbitrary number based on the whims of the publisher.
Substack, as explained so masterfully by Ben Thompson (https://stratechery.com/2021/sovereign-writers-and-substack/) is about the sovereign writer establishing a personal relationship with readers and being in control of that relationship, with Substack being a largely hands-off intermediary akin to financial transaction company Stripe. It's about writers finding out for themselves what they are worth on the market, rather than accepting the crumbs from the Master's table.
As such, you can subscribe to a newsletter on Substack and never have a single interaction with or exposure to any other newsletter. Medium on the other hand made it impossible to avoid other writers and publications, most of which are complete trash. Even the home page couldn't be customized to only view what you subscribed to - Medium always includes a number of typically obnoxious articles in their "recommended" section at the top when you visit their site. What these recommendations are based on or how to alter or remove them is never shared.
I don't pay money to have more nonsense in my life. As was noted a million years ago by Schopenhauer, more important than what books to read is what books (and articles) not to read.
The answer to that is easy: anything published on Medium.
While I'm not quite so negative about Medium relative to Substack, I'm not far off. I do feel like Medium is essentially a giant sales pitch: give us money!; give the writers applause so they make money! (Or at least that was how Medium was when I read more articles there and tried writing a few.) Substack is more about the newsletter. There are still some unnerving elements of Substack: arguably favoritism towards big-name writers; competition for paid subscribers by smaller publishers (or does a rising tide raise all boats?). But, to put it bluntly, after several years Medium's time has come and gone. Its model isn't working. Substack is a work in progress and might succeed.
I appreciate Thompson's analogy for "Substack Pro" - which is of the book advance. Publishers compete with each other to offer big names large advance sums of money to sign with them all the time - and this is accepted, uncontroversial practice. But Substack wants to do the exact same thing, except with newsletters, and suddenly it's a big deal.
It would be nice if there were some mechanism by which new, promising writers could get an opportunity for some version of the above - in both book publishing and newsletters - but these are businesses. However much writers and artists might detest it, there is the bottom line, and smart, ethical businesses are going to attempt to find win-win scenarios - which Substack Pro has proven to be. They lowered the risk for successful writers switching over, and enabled them to find out what they are actually worth. And in doing so, the project normalized paying writers directly for their work. Which, unless you're a big publisher, is hard to argue is a bad thing.
Honestly, I don't see how the "controversy" is anything but a minor story of a few defections blown out of proportion by corporate media out of self-interest.
They're afraid - which they should be. For the first time in history, their monopoly is being challenged.
In the article, the recent changes are described as "the latest pivot" and I think that, right there, nails the heart of the problem: for a company that is under a decade old, how many times have they pivoted? And while I understand that, here in the future, the internet is changing faster than ever, I think that a lack of clarity in their mission has defined Medium from the beginning. So, if there's a lesson to be learned from this by Substack, it's to stay on mission. I hope they can do so.
I haven't been able to keep track of Medium's pivots. It is relatively encouraging that Substack's concept has remained stable with apparent success to this point. Even if it were to pivot away from Substack Pro, that's not the core of what Substack is offering.
I have to be the contrarian on this thread. We all love Substack because we get to follow the writers we love. Medium is trying to move more toward that now, where readers follow the writers the love, only for one bundled fee (instead of individual newsletter fees). The publication model was always going to fail because it was modeled after traditional publishing models that have been on the decline for decades. It has taken a lot of experimentation to discover how readers are willing to pay for writing (and we are still in the midst of that now). Unfortunately, as we’ve learned, paying an author $1/word doesn’t guarantee a good story, and it doesn’t guarantee people will read it. What does, is if a writer has followers/a platform. (As The Verge notes, articles did well if people were into it on Facebook.) Substack offers writers a platform, but it doesn’t help writers attract more readers to that platform. Medium is trying to fill both gaps: On the readers side, allowing them to pay one, bundled fee for all the writers they love. On the writer’s side, allowing them to build a following for their writing by getting it in front of readers who might like it. Unfortunately, we are discovering this all in real-time and changes need to be made fast. After all, Ev has tried to create a platform where we could find and follow writers for years, and no one could have predicted that Twitter wouldn’t be used like that. I work in traditional publishing as an editor, have a Substack newsletter for my readers, and a Medium account to attract new readers to my Substack. It’s an imperfect model but until one platform can give writers discoverability and a way to monetize (and both Medium and Substack are actively working toward that) writers still need some kind of social platform to funnel into their paid platform. And we have to remember that readers who pay for writing are still a small set of early adopters (most of the time when someone is paying to read something it’s because they are at the airport and they want a magazine or a book). It’s still unknown whether paid newsletters will reach mass appeal and whether writers will be able to make a living from their readers. It will be interesting to see what we discover in the next year or so!