Appreciate being able to leave a comment. I have no idea if I am typical, I am one of the many seniors, a tribe whose income has become tested. I can’t afford any news subscriptions. So I have turned to Substack to help. I feel that with the advent of paywalls, access to reliable news has evolved away from the group of people called poor. Leaving them to unreliable but accessible sources like Fox. I have been very grateful to access Substack’s intelligent analysis. When health forced me to move near family in a red state. Was very lonely until I found a semblance of tribe on Substack. I had no idea how much money some were making. But have been grateful for the access, despite my inability to support. I hope a way can be found to keep people like me. I think MAGA thrives on an illiterate poor, in this way keeping a vibrant access point to something with intelligent analysis seems important. let me add that after many cuts to my resources: and a real struggle to get food. $1.00 would be a challenge for me. I know it’s hard to believe but it is my reality and that of others too.
Agree and hopefully you enjoy substack to the extend you are able.
Paywalls are problematic, in my considered opinion.
Most people around the world and throughout history have been perfectly happy with taking up collections, voluntary contributions, or busking as a means to patronize creative work they enjoy. These methods offer the consumer an opportunity to sample the product in some way, and decide to contribute, or not.
By contrast, paywalls for periodic commentary or editorial journalism, by default assume a captive, partisan and or class homogenous audience that is effectively paying for the priveledge of consuming a writers thoughts indefinitely.
What commentator, journalist, creator, entertainer exists that is so interesting, or capable of analyzing publicly available current events in a way so far superior to my own capability, that I would pay indefinitely for the opportunity to read and politely engage with?
There are always those that out of generosity, FOMO, pressure or habit will engage in a subscription model for written content. But subscription models have not stabilized the magazine or newspaper industry. The model, to my knowledge, doesn't work dependably as a revenue generation scheme when used as the “exclusive” mode of accessing any news content, which is literally the reason why the FOX and CNN networks use advertising as their primary revenue stream.
Scientific journals, pass models for book stores, even video games and movies all offer subscription models with a variety of products on offer as part of that subscription. I could be wrong, but I can't even think of a music subscription or rental model for a singular artist.
Perhaps the reason is also related to the effect paywalls have on the quality and nature of the product. For written communication or journalism, constraining yourself to a single author would require, I would think, an incredible amount of faith abd deferential respect for that authors periodic insights being of a consistent high quality, unique and substantively superior to alternatives. That creative work would need to be uniquely valuable to “each” l individual consumer. That's a lot to ask.
As well, content generated to please a select audience, invariably get formulaic and partisan even on television networks, why would reasonably intelligent, minimally sophisticated informed people pay for a single author’s regurgitation or spin on current events?
Obviously some people make it worse. I will reserve further commentary on the nature if the audiences attracted, but I do have an honest question. For those that subscribe, what is the value proposition I am missing?
In novel writing, similarly to a musical performer busking, you purchase novels or contribute to performances after you have sampled the creative effort. In most cases you hear and then contribute based on the performance in the music example. Novel writing is a better analog, but you still tend to read a sample or rely on an authors preceding work or reputation to recommended you to an upcoming novel, but that is still an iterative purchase, not a subscription. In neither case do those models ask listeners or readers to pay in perpetuity for the priveledge.
I automatically block any writer that locks their comments or only oaywall gated content. Its a personal turnoff and “to me” signals either crass commercialism, myopic focus or a desire by audience or author for a partisan echo chamber, and most offensively, fear or disinterest in feedback. None are qualities I seek out in a person I would read or follow.
To be fair, I'm assuming by "like Fox" you are including CNN, MSNBC, etc. I haven't seen what I'd consider objective news on a national level in decades.
Sadly, I'm afraid our options today are local news (which at least reports local events without all the "entertainment value" tacked on) or independent outlets (e.g., on Substack) who may be writing for their very lives. And with outrage being the coin of the realm these days, it's hard to know who to trust.
Yep, well summed up, Scott. I could imagine some sort of Apple News type scheme,, where people pay a flat monthly rate for access to everything on Substack. Also it'd be great if people could just pay for individual posts, something I often find myself wanting to do. I think it's quite clear by now that Substack only provides, and only ever will provide, a living wage to a very small subset of its writers. It does provide other benefits though—a way to get out important information you couldn't otherwise get published, a way to stay in the minds of readers of your books, etc.
No, no, no no! You can’t cover thousands of authors with a monthly fee. There’s no way to calibrate such a fee. The only system that makes sense is a virtual “wallet” into which I can deposit as much or little as I like. Authors can still offer subscriptions. Groups of authors can join together to form virtual magazines organized by topic and offer joint subscriptions. But most importantly authors can individually price articles however they like. Instead of having to commit to an onerous subscription for a single article I’d like to read, I’d have the option to pay $0.50 or $3.00 or $30.00 (whatever the author thinks it’s worth) to read that article. A wallet permits other flexible pricing strategies as well. Substack’s current model is singularly awful as it forces us to subscribe to authors in which we have passing interest, or else forego them entirely. I miss out on the article and they get $0.
If Substack cannot fix this they must die and be replaced by a proper marketplace.
The all-you-can-read-model already exists; it's what Medium does, and makes for a ton of downward pressure on writers, the same way Spotify does for musicians. In exchange the reader gets a feed full of subpar writing and people fighting to be a signal in the noise.
Of course there are. I would pay for some kind of bundle, but I can't afford to support hundreds of newsletters. I read what I can. I skim a lot and I try and promote things, but I don't even try and charge for a sub. Support me by buying my books.
This is really it. We can find deeper answers, sure. But for me it’s simple. There are at least five creators I genuinely desire to support and I actually ache that I cannot support their tremendous work. That’s five subscriptions I would happily pay for if I had money. My sister works for Shipt. It’s the same. People are not using those services to order groceries as often. People are without extra right now.
I agree. I've been solidly growing my subscriber to over 4k in about 4 years, but with only 132 paid subscribers (give or take on any given week), it's never going to turn into a full time income, no matter how many freebies and incentives I offer. I suspect, like many other social media platforms, there was a golden age to join (about 6 years ago) and anyone expecting any sort of genuine return on investment now is wasting their time.
I joined five years ago. I think at that stage there was also another prize on offer for unknown writers; the chance to be read by a large audience for the first time. At the moment not even my free list is growing much!
I think part of the conversation needs to include the influx of large media companies and celebrity newsletters. They’re coming in with resources most independent writers could never match—teams, marketing, existing audiences. That’s not inherently bad, but we should ask: are they growing the paid readership ecosystem, or are they absorbing attention and dollars that might otherwise support smaller writers?
"or are they absorbing attention and dollars that might otherwise support smaller writers?"
This.
I'm recalling a previous website I worked for, where the three owners were and are still very famous. Everything gravitated towards them, there were content creators that were making great content, I've even made money mimicking one of the three in question with copywriting work for a videogame company (they couldn't afford the star, but they could afford me, the owner of that company thought I wrote just like one of the three stars in question, never mind our writing styles really weren't that similar).
But yeah, whenever the three put in an appearance, the rest of the site practically shut down while the nitwits in the peanut gallery fought over who would be able to be noticed first, it was like the rest of us didn't exist.
And here on Substandardstack, $8 to gain access to someone famous is a freaking bargain, regardless of what they're submitting here. One actress I'm aware of just posts very low IQ content that's also very vague, it's almost as if they're just sort of siphoning off the top with paid subscriptions because other people think they can get access to her. Hell, even John Cleese has a paid-only setup here.
And then we demonise the little guy who dares to use AI to edit or polish, in the hope of holding the eye a few seconds longer, when all the time the big names work goes through a dozen eyes and hands and is polished to perfection. Possibly even outsourced completely.
The bulk of my subs have always come in through the odd free post that has gained traction. It works well—something that appeals broadly to the people within the general niche I’m in (literature, alt. education). Despite having over 5k subs, I have maybe 35 paid subscribers. My offerings are there, but I do think people are so fatigued by subscriptions that it makes it difficult to justify, especially if they are already subscribed to someone in the same sphere.
I’m a PhD student, so I can’t really find an additional traditional part or full-time job: my schedule is too difficult to navigate, so I depend upon fellowships, internships, and TA positions. However, TA positions are competitive and shrinking. I think this platform works well if you make it work for your niche. I know I could run a series of courses (traditional semester-style) on literature and have that be an offer for paid subscribers, but I just can’t justify the time spent right now when I know subs have burnout.
So the question becomes: are more and more people going to leave the platform, thus making it less oversaturated for paid subscribers? Or is it just going to remain the same, where pretty much everyone has a handful of paid subscribers and this works more like a side-hustle than a way to make “job” money? Substack needs to shift their focus toward handling the current model, because it just doesn’t seem sustainable unless you already have a huge audience willing to give you money.
For a single writer, $8 per month is too much for the average person to commit to more than a couple. If it was set at $1, I’d do it much more frequently. If there were some groupings that made sense, $8 is more reasonable. There is a very limited number of $8 subscriptions I can afford, though, so the groupings need to be good.
I agree. And also I’d pay a dollar to take a paywall off a single article if I could. Sometimes I don’t want to subscribe to some people and would rather just read a couple pieces. I feel like more optionality would be better.
Especially some writers who write in depth content but they only publish a couple times a month. There’s some other ones that I follow that have good philosophy posts but I don’t want to continually subscribe to it, I only want to read a post that catches my interest.
This article fails to mention that $8 was not the baseline even a year ago. I joined as a writer 2 years ago exactly and the baseline/default subscription fee was $5/month then. I'm still scared to raise my monthly price to $8 even though every new writer is there. I also see plenty of new writers joining the platform and quickly becoming bestsellers, for what it's worth.
The trouble with Substack is that you're like a dog on the back of a meat truck. Everywhere you turn there are content creators worth supporting, but no one has that kind of money and then decision fatigue sets in and you wander off to a platform where you pay $15 a month for universal access and hope that the creators whose work you read or watch are adequately paid.
The music industry went through that a while ago where instead of paying for each individual artist (buying a CD or going to a concert) one pays to a streaming platform that pushes quickly and cheaply created crap but then you get used to it and the real talented musicians have to abandon their craft if they want to earn a living and have to work as movers or waiters or whatever. That's why music since the 90s sucks and nowadays only rich heirs like Taylor Swift can earn a living as an "artist". That's what's coming for writers in the era of self publishing and social media.
Excellent analysis and the group model is sound. Writers like me (former journalist and aspiring author) will never earn paid subscribers, but it's a great place to try out ideas, produce short stories and generally just write stuff to keep our prose sharp, while creating a documented journal about our lives that might, some day, be studied by future writers, should something we create go viral and elevate our status exactly like we dream of.
I dislike the AI detector introduction. As I've pointed out, AI has a severe tendency to flag writers who produce compelling content, simply because thier writing is so tight, while letting the garbage content pass through as legit. I think the whole AI checker is a bad idea and is going to backfire.
I'm already cutting back and losing interest in substack, especially since Notes feels like Twitter for intellectuals, which I pointed out on my first day here 9 months ago. How many notes a day can I read that tell me to 'keep my head up' and retain a positive spirit, along with endless quotes from famous (mostly dead) authors about the perils of choosing to be an author? I came here to chat about writing, not to receive a nonstop barrage of pep talks in the form of witty one-liners and quotes every time I open the app.
You nailed it! I only discovered Substack a year ago. Already I pay way more in subscriptions than I can rationally or economically justify. Some subscriptions are to support new writers whose work I admire and career I encourage who I suspect really need the income. Other paid subscriptions are to established professional journalists who left legacy media or were forced out who, I suspect, are much wealthier than I, but whose work is so polished and who have access to so many important newspapers I feel guilty reading or watching their work for free. Same for a couple of notable tenured college professors who I'm sure are knocking down six figured salaries with benefits plus book royalties and speakers and consultant fees. Yet each subscription is more than I'm paying for either my WaPo or NYT electronic subscription that give me access to scores of writers. This is not sustainable. Eventually Trump is going to discover the platform anyway and come after writers with lawsuits. Without the protection of corporate legal departments, I wonder how you will be able to defend yourselves.
Scott, thank you for this excellent and honest analysis! Appreciate your transparency. I am a reader with a full time job from home (which gives me the luxury to read 3-4 articles per day, along with a few YouTube videos (on a slow day at work). I am an economist so when I first joined Substack I was thinking about the business model and how would a free-lance writer earn enough to sustain a living, the math didn't add up. You are now confirming what I suspected all along. From a reader's perspective, you are right, I cannot afford to pay a subscription to every individual writer on this platform that I like, so I chose to support the ones with smaller following. The big shots will be just fine. There's also Medium where I pay a subscription to the platform and then it pushes sometimes random articles that then I regret wasting time reading. That's the other "bulk" option. Neither of these is sustainable by itself so I don't know, maybe a hybrid? It would be great if there was one pace which worked for both writers and readers but with the "for profit" venture capital backed system we are currently suffering under, I am not seeing it materialize anytime soon.
…being able to remove the follower option would be amazing…it also kills your ability to be discovered if you have unengaged followers (who should be deleted regardless)…
“If you’re not paying for something you’re the product, not the customer.”
I‘m not seeing the decline in my own Substack, but I heard it from other writers as well. I view Substack as part of my ecosystem and don’t really follow the revenue that much. But I also really enjoy writing for writing sake.
Wishing you good luck with a hopefully soon coming upward trajectory again!
That and the introduction of Notes, along with the Substack obsession with inviting 'famous' people has burned the goalposts to the ground. The vibe on this thing has already altered for the worse; people are disheartened.
I'm wondering if Patreon is going to be any better than Substack in the long-run. They're all competing against this torrent of free 'content' (oooh I dislike that term), and having to add more and more features. And then they end up being the thing they're trying to find a solution for. As you've said here. So yeah, here we are 😅
It might just be me, but I find the UX (as a reader) on Patreon to be awful. On a desktop it's...fine. The app much less so. A couple of writers I really enjoy have moved there; it's bad enough that I will likely unsubscribe.
I really dislike Patreon. I don't find it user friendly. I moved all my subscriptions over to YT or Substack. If you are only on Patreon I just can't support that platform.
Well, you’re most likely to not be my reader, then. I don’t do video, period, and I won’t do fiction on Substack any more. I suppose my free website would be too much trouble for you as well. No loss.
Wow, that's really a great way to talk down to someone for expressing an opinion about a platform. I did not say anything about you personally. I only expressed my dislike of Patreon. I believe creators should be on multiple platforms. That way consumers can support content on their preferred platform.
Appreciate being able to leave a comment. I have no idea if I am typical, I am one of the many seniors, a tribe whose income has become tested. I can’t afford any news subscriptions. So I have turned to Substack to help. I feel that with the advent of paywalls, access to reliable news has evolved away from the group of people called poor. Leaving them to unreliable but accessible sources like Fox. I have been very grateful to access Substack’s intelligent analysis. When health forced me to move near family in a red state. Was very lonely until I found a semblance of tribe on Substack. I had no idea how much money some were making. But have been grateful for the access, despite my inability to support. I hope a way can be found to keep people like me. I think MAGA thrives on an illiterate poor, in this way keeping a vibrant access point to something with intelligent analysis seems important. let me add that after many cuts to my resources: and a real struggle to get food. $1.00 would be a challenge for me. I know it’s hard to believe but it is my reality and that of others too.
Agree and hopefully you enjoy substack to the extend you are able.
Paywalls are problematic, in my considered opinion.
Most people around the world and throughout history have been perfectly happy with taking up collections, voluntary contributions, or busking as a means to patronize creative work they enjoy. These methods offer the consumer an opportunity to sample the product in some way, and decide to contribute, or not.
By contrast, paywalls for periodic commentary or editorial journalism, by default assume a captive, partisan and or class homogenous audience that is effectively paying for the priveledge of consuming a writers thoughts indefinitely.
What commentator, journalist, creator, entertainer exists that is so interesting, or capable of analyzing publicly available current events in a way so far superior to my own capability, that I would pay indefinitely for the opportunity to read and politely engage with?
There are always those that out of generosity, FOMO, pressure or habit will engage in a subscription model for written content. But subscription models have not stabilized the magazine or newspaper industry. The model, to my knowledge, doesn't work dependably as a revenue generation scheme when used as the “exclusive” mode of accessing any news content, which is literally the reason why the FOX and CNN networks use advertising as their primary revenue stream.
Scientific journals, pass models for book stores, even video games and movies all offer subscription models with a variety of products on offer as part of that subscription. I could be wrong, but I can't even think of a music subscription or rental model for a singular artist.
Perhaps the reason is also related to the effect paywalls have on the quality and nature of the product. For written communication or journalism, constraining yourself to a single author would require, I would think, an incredible amount of faith abd deferential respect for that authors periodic insights being of a consistent high quality, unique and substantively superior to alternatives. That creative work would need to be uniquely valuable to “each” l individual consumer. That's a lot to ask.
As well, content generated to please a select audience, invariably get formulaic and partisan even on television networks, why would reasonably intelligent, minimally sophisticated informed people pay for a single author’s regurgitation or spin on current events?
Obviously some people make it worse. I will reserve further commentary on the nature if the audiences attracted, but I do have an honest question. For those that subscribe, what is the value proposition I am missing?
In novel writing, similarly to a musical performer busking, you purchase novels or contribute to performances after you have sampled the creative effort. In most cases you hear and then contribute based on the performance in the music example. Novel writing is a better analog, but you still tend to read a sample or rely on an authors preceding work or reputation to recommended you to an upcoming novel, but that is still an iterative purchase, not a subscription. In neither case do those models ask listeners or readers to pay in perpetuity for the priveledge.
I automatically block any writer that locks their comments or only oaywall gated content. Its a personal turnoff and “to me” signals either crass commercialism, myopic focus or a desire by audience or author for a partisan echo chamber, and most offensively, fear or disinterest in feedback. None are qualities I seek out in a person I would read or follow.
To be fair, I'm assuming by "like Fox" you are including CNN, MSNBC, etc. I haven't seen what I'd consider objective news on a national level in decades.
Sadly, I'm afraid our options today are local news (which at least reports local events without all the "entertainment value" tacked on) or independent outlets (e.g., on Substack) who may be writing for their very lives. And with outrage being the coin of the realm these days, it's hard to know who to trust.
💯💯💯💯💯🌷
🎯
Yep, well summed up, Scott. I could imagine some sort of Apple News type scheme,, where people pay a flat monthly rate for access to everything on Substack. Also it'd be great if people could just pay for individual posts, something I often find myself wanting to do. I think it's quite clear by now that Substack only provides, and only ever will provide, a living wage to a very small subset of its writers. It does provide other benefits though—a way to get out important information you couldn't otherwise get published, a way to stay in the minds of readers of your books, etc.
No, no, no no! You can’t cover thousands of authors with a monthly fee. There’s no way to calibrate such a fee. The only system that makes sense is a virtual “wallet” into which I can deposit as much or little as I like. Authors can still offer subscriptions. Groups of authors can join together to form virtual magazines organized by topic and offer joint subscriptions. But most importantly authors can individually price articles however they like. Instead of having to commit to an onerous subscription for a single article I’d like to read, I’d have the option to pay $0.50 or $3.00 or $30.00 (whatever the author thinks it’s worth) to read that article. A wallet permits other flexible pricing strategies as well. Substack’s current model is singularly awful as it forces us to subscribe to authors in which we have passing interest, or else forego them entirely. I miss out on the article and they get $0.
If Substack cannot fix this they must die and be replaced by a proper marketplace.
Substack is currently on its deathbed. Literally.
The all-you-can-read-model already exists; it's what Medium does, and makes for a ton of downward pressure on writers, the same way Spotify does for musicians. In exchange the reader gets a feed full of subpar writing and people fighting to be a signal in the noise.
You can always do the “buy me a coffee” option to show appreciation for an individual post!
That does not equal to the real knowledge people are creating here.
Are we sure it isn't just because people have less and less disposable income? Correlation is not causation.
I think that is definitely part of it. But there are also structural problems of the business model itself.
Of course there are. I would pay for some kind of bundle, but I can't afford to support hundreds of newsletters. I read what I can. I skim a lot and I try and promote things, but I don't even try and charge for a sub. Support me by buying my books.
This is really it. We can find deeper answers, sure. But for me it’s simple. There are at least five creators I genuinely desire to support and I actually ache that I cannot support their tremendous work. That’s five subscriptions I would happily pay for if I had money. My sister works for Shipt. It’s the same. People are not using those services to order groceries as often. People are without extra right now.
That too and substack literally trained people to get everything for free and not paying real expertise.
I agree. I've been solidly growing my subscriber to over 4k in about 4 years, but with only 132 paid subscribers (give or take on any given week), it's never going to turn into a full time income, no matter how many freebies and incentives I offer. I suspect, like many other social media platforms, there was a golden age to join (about 6 years ago) and anyone expecting any sort of genuine return on investment now is wasting their time.
I joined five years ago. I think at that stage there was also another prize on offer for unknown writers; the chance to be read by a large audience for the first time. At the moment not even my free list is growing much!
Oops and there goes another two! I guess someone thinks $9k/annum for a 20 hour week is too much money!
…or someone is struggling to buy groceries. I’m sure it’s not personal.
I think part of the conversation needs to include the influx of large media companies and celebrity newsletters. They’re coming in with resources most independent writers could never match—teams, marketing, existing audiences. That’s not inherently bad, but we should ask: are they growing the paid readership ecosystem, or are they absorbing attention and dollars that might otherwise support smaller writers?
"or are they absorbing attention and dollars that might otherwise support smaller writers?"
This.
I'm recalling a previous website I worked for, where the three owners were and are still very famous. Everything gravitated towards them, there were content creators that were making great content, I've even made money mimicking one of the three in question with copywriting work for a videogame company (they couldn't afford the star, but they could afford me, the owner of that company thought I wrote just like one of the three stars in question, never mind our writing styles really weren't that similar).
But yeah, whenever the three put in an appearance, the rest of the site practically shut down while the nitwits in the peanut gallery fought over who would be able to be noticed first, it was like the rest of us didn't exist.
And here on Substandardstack, $8 to gain access to someone famous is a freaking bargain, regardless of what they're submitting here. One actress I'm aware of just posts very low IQ content that's also very vague, it's almost as if they're just sort of siphoning off the top with paid subscriptions because other people think they can get access to her. Hell, even John Cleese has a paid-only setup here.
I’m a nobody and I made a pledge that for every 15 paid subscribers I become a paid subscriber to another independent writer.
And then we demonise the little guy who dares to use AI to edit or polish, in the hope of holding the eye a few seconds longer, when all the time the big names work goes through a dozen eyes and hands and is polished to perfection. Possibly even outsourced completely.
I broach this topic a bit in this essay: https://megfloss.substack.com/p/the-commons-we-keep?r=3vtvi&utm_medium=ios
Completely agree!
Substack is using content to its benefit and packing it as a "look how much traffic our platform is generating" to investors = more funding.
Anyone asked why people are not paid a flat fee for everything they write? Because that would bankrupt Substack.
The point of the matter is very simple - free content = traffic = no pay for people writing = more investment for substack. Easy money right?!
The bulk of my subs have always come in through the odd free post that has gained traction. It works well—something that appeals broadly to the people within the general niche I’m in (literature, alt. education). Despite having over 5k subs, I have maybe 35 paid subscribers. My offerings are there, but I do think people are so fatigued by subscriptions that it makes it difficult to justify, especially if they are already subscribed to someone in the same sphere.
I’m a PhD student, so I can’t really find an additional traditional part or full-time job: my schedule is too difficult to navigate, so I depend upon fellowships, internships, and TA positions. However, TA positions are competitive and shrinking. I think this platform works well if you make it work for your niche. I know I could run a series of courses (traditional semester-style) on literature and have that be an offer for paid subscribers, but I just can’t justify the time spent right now when I know subs have burnout.
So the question becomes: are more and more people going to leave the platform, thus making it less oversaturated for paid subscribers? Or is it just going to remain the same, where pretty much everyone has a handful of paid subscribers and this works more like a side-hustle than a way to make “job” money? Substack needs to shift their focus toward handling the current model, because it just doesn’t seem sustainable unless you already have a huge audience willing to give you money.
If I could access any individual post for $1, I would probably waste a lot of money on this site!
For a single writer, $8 per month is too much for the average person to commit to more than a couple. If it was set at $1, I’d do it much more frequently. If there were some groupings that made sense, $8 is more reasonable. There is a very limited number of $8 subscriptions I can afford, though, so the groupings need to be good.
I agree. And also I’d pay a dollar to take a paywall off a single article if I could. Sometimes I don’t want to subscribe to some people and would rather just read a couple pieces. I feel like more optionality would be better.
Especially some writers who write in depth content but they only publish a couple times a month. There’s some other ones that I follow that have good philosophy posts but I don’t want to continually subscribe to it, I only want to read a post that catches my interest.
I think these might be what are called “drops” on Patreon.
This article fails to mention that $8 was not the baseline even a year ago. I joined as a writer 2 years ago exactly and the baseline/default subscription fee was $5/month then. I'm still scared to raise my monthly price to $8 even though every new writer is there. I also see plenty of new writers joining the platform and quickly becoming bestsellers, for what it's worth.
The trouble with Substack is that you're like a dog on the back of a meat truck. Everywhere you turn there are content creators worth supporting, but no one has that kind of money and then decision fatigue sets in and you wander off to a platform where you pay $15 a month for universal access and hope that the creators whose work you read or watch are adequately paid.
The music industry went through that a while ago where instead of paying for each individual artist (buying a CD or going to a concert) one pays to a streaming platform that pushes quickly and cheaply created crap but then you get used to it and the real talented musicians have to abandon their craft if they want to earn a living and have to work as movers or waiters or whatever. That's why music since the 90s sucks and nowadays only rich heirs like Taylor Swift can earn a living as an "artist". That's what's coming for writers in the era of self publishing and social media.
Well my newsletter exists to prove this line of thinking wrong, but I followed the argument up until "that's why music since the 90s sucks"
The were no streaming platforms in 1990s and 2000s too. The reasons for decline of music are different.
Excellent analysis and the group model is sound. Writers like me (former journalist and aspiring author) will never earn paid subscribers, but it's a great place to try out ideas, produce short stories and generally just write stuff to keep our prose sharp, while creating a documented journal about our lives that might, some day, be studied by future writers, should something we create go viral and elevate our status exactly like we dream of.
I dislike the AI detector introduction. As I've pointed out, AI has a severe tendency to flag writers who produce compelling content, simply because thier writing is so tight, while letting the garbage content pass through as legit. I think the whole AI checker is a bad idea and is going to backfire.
I'm already cutting back and losing interest in substack, especially since Notes feels like Twitter for intellectuals, which I pointed out on my first day here 9 months ago. How many notes a day can I read that tell me to 'keep my head up' and retain a positive spirit, along with endless quotes from famous (mostly dead) authors about the perils of choosing to be an author? I came here to chat about writing, not to receive a nonstop barrage of pep talks in the form of witty one-liners and quotes every time I open the app.
Good piece. I enjoyed the analysis!
You nailed it! I only discovered Substack a year ago. Already I pay way more in subscriptions than I can rationally or economically justify. Some subscriptions are to support new writers whose work I admire and career I encourage who I suspect really need the income. Other paid subscriptions are to established professional journalists who left legacy media or were forced out who, I suspect, are much wealthier than I, but whose work is so polished and who have access to so many important newspapers I feel guilty reading or watching their work for free. Same for a couple of notable tenured college professors who I'm sure are knocking down six figured salaries with benefits plus book royalties and speakers and consultant fees. Yet each subscription is more than I'm paying for either my WaPo or NYT electronic subscription that give me access to scores of writers. This is not sustainable. Eventually Trump is going to discover the platform anyway and come after writers with lawsuits. Without the protection of corporate legal departments, I wonder how you will be able to defend yourselves.
Damned Autocorrect again! Obviously I meant "newsmakers" not "newspapers."
Scott, thank you for this excellent and honest analysis! Appreciate your transparency. I am a reader with a full time job from home (which gives me the luxury to read 3-4 articles per day, along with a few YouTube videos (on a slow day at work). I am an economist so when I first joined Substack I was thinking about the business model and how would a free-lance writer earn enough to sustain a living, the math didn't add up. You are now confirming what I suspected all along. From a reader's perspective, you are right, I cannot afford to pay a subscription to every individual writer on this platform that I like, so I chose to support the ones with smaller following. The big shots will be just fine. There's also Medium where I pay a subscription to the platform and then it pushes sometimes random articles that then I regret wasting time reading. That's the other "bulk" option. Neither of these is sustainable by itself so I don't know, maybe a hybrid? It would be great if there was one pace which worked for both writers and readers but with the "for profit" venture capital backed system we are currently suffering under, I am not seeing it materialize anytime soon.
…being able to remove the follower option would be amazing…it also kills your ability to be discovered if you have unengaged followers (who should be deleted regardless)…
Love to read this sentence:
“If you’re not paying for something you’re the product, not the customer.”
I‘m not seeing the decline in my own Substack, but I heard it from other writers as well. I view Substack as part of my ecosystem and don’t really follow the revenue that much. But I also really enjoy writing for writing sake.
Wishing you good luck with a hopefully soon coming upward trajectory again!
That and the introduction of Notes, along with the Substack obsession with inviting 'famous' people has burned the goalposts to the ground. The vibe on this thing has already altered for the worse; people are disheartened.
I'm wondering if Patreon is going to be any better than Substack in the long-run. They're all competing against this torrent of free 'content' (oooh I dislike that term), and having to add more and more features. And then they end up being the thing they're trying to find a solution for. As you've said here. So yeah, here we are 😅
It might just be me, but I find the UX (as a reader) on Patreon to be awful. On a desktop it's...fine. The app much less so. A couple of writers I really enjoy have moved there; it's bad enough that I will likely unsubscribe.
Patreon allows less-expensive tiers than what I’m seeing on Substack, though.
I really dislike Patreon. I don't find it user friendly. I moved all my subscriptions over to YT or Substack. If you are only on Patreon I just can't support that platform.
I'm glad you said something! Honestly, I was wondering if I was the only one who finds the Patreon UX clunky.
Well, you’re most likely to not be my reader, then. I don’t do video, period, and I won’t do fiction on Substack any more. I suppose my free website would be too much trouble for you as well. No loss.
Wow, that's really a great way to talk down to someone for expressing an opinion about a platform. I did not say anything about you personally. I only expressed my dislike of Patreon. I believe creators should be on multiple platforms. That way consumers can support content on their preferred platform.