Dang Mark, you’ve not only covered much of what I think of Substack as I approach my first anniversary in a month, but you’ve added a concept--the GoFundMe comparison--that may tip the scales in my mind against going paid. For me, all that talk about “going paid” but also the persistent quest to “grow, grow, grow” subscriber counts distracts from what I’m enjoying about Substack as a reader (the chance to experience the world through the unique voices of other writers) and as a writer (the opportunity to develop and share my own voice). I’ll undoubtedly go on about this in an anniversary post of my own, so I’ll cut it short with a thanks to you for your voice ... I always enjoy reading your ‘Stack. (And the very subtle weight of knowing that you’re in North Carolina prompted me to make my second pulled pork in a month with a nice vinegary sauce. My wife thinks I’m some kind of wizard.)
One thing that struck me as I was thinking about this post was the generosity and useful interactions among writers. Quite different from the kind of pointers that made Medium toxic to me ("I made four trillion dollars with my trick posts on Medium. You can too!"). Attention gets paid to craft. At least among the people I've seen. I'm sure there are 'stackers who are yearning for a badge of whatever color, many even for good reasons.
Sometimes the desired end warps the pathway, and that's something I've been concerned about.
That's my concern too, that if we get distracted by the desire for likes and badges and "engagement" we'll lose the focus on quality and community. So far, so good, however.
Lots of food for thought here, as always. Although I wish we lived in a different society, ours runs on capitalism. And Substack needs to be profitable to continue to offer a free platform to those of us who aren’t superstars with massive followings. I empathize with all these complaints. I guess I’m just happy to have come in before Substack goes c completely corporate. And I get that Substack might not always be a place where I want to publish my writing. For now, though, I’ve loved the pockets of genuine curiosity, artistry, & thought I’ve found here. And my favorite ‘stacks remain the more obscure ones.
Timing is everything, I agree. Substack is still probably experiencing the grace of the venture capitalists, and the company is probably still awaiting the tough conversation that begins with "Well, this has been fun, but we need to talk about some things...."
I wonder about the ways that pieces of writing end up having a different life outside of a 'stack. I know that my posts have been little experiments and scratchings that relate to bigger projects. As a matter of fact, I'll be using future posts to explore or share things that come up in my other projects. (Last week's piece on the "dark side" of glamour is a brief example.) I suspect that many Substack writers use similar tactics. The post is a little piece of work that fits into a larger jigsaw puzzle. The Substack publication schedule introduces an urgency and a discipline to stick to a writing project.
Substack is a transit point, for me at least. A fun one and worthwhile, but not the only destination.
Thanks for mentioning Rebecca Holden and myself, and our letters. (Thanks also for your email, which I will reply to asap). As for media empires, I was thinking, a few months ago, that to some extent maybe Substack subscriber growth is analogous to that old joke: What's the best way of amassing a small fortune? Start off with a large fortune. Could the word "fortune" be replaced by "subscriber base"? Not sour grapes or anything, but just an observation (which may not be objectively the case) but it seems to me that the people with thousands and thousands of subscribers already had a huge following somewhere, like a newspaper, before they moved over to Substack. I think for most of us growth is likely to be slow and, hopefully, steady.
Slow and steady sounds good to me. My subscriptions have gone that route. I'll tack a bit in the next month or so, just to move in a different direction. And I expect that some might bail. But maybe not, since my posts -- and yours, actually -- have been "eclectic." They're always performing a tack, sometimes a jibe.
A fellow I know and respect told me that it's harder to find readers with the kind of posts I've been doing. He said that it's easier to mount up a readership when, say, your topic is Carolina Panthers football inside stories.
I have always thought, and found, that having a niche topic area is far better in terms of growth. However, I'm here because I wanted an outlet for my writing that is about anything and everything. I think personal fulfilment is far better than having impressive stats. With any luck, we'll both discover that the two aren't mutually exclusive. So I intend to stick with eclectic, and I'm glad you are too!
Such a fascinating post, Mark, as was your e-mail (which I'm afraid I only got to this morning - what IS it about this time of year that turns my inbox into a thief of time?)!
I think all of these platforms have their peaks and troughs, their exits and their entrances. It's hard to predict where something might be going, and even harder to determine the 'why' behind so many operational decisions that are made behind the scenes.
There are hugely popular writers whose words aren't ones I want to read - not their fault - maybe it's a style thing, maybe I prefer to read a 9-minute post rather than a 19-minute one, or maybe their genre just doesn't gel with me - and there are some Substackers with not many subscribers at all with whom I'd love to sit down and have a cup of tea because they and their words are, well, just my cup of tea.
When I started on Substack I viewed it as a place to put my words where they might come across some people to read them. I had no idea about the community aspect of the platform - the comments, the collaboration, the discussions and, actually, the hand-holding. There are arrows on the Substack flowchart that I'm not interested in following - I'm not going paid, I'm not 'Chatting' - but I value that those options are on offer, because it means a wide range of writers and their diverse needs are catered for.
Thanks so much for the mention, Mark! Much appreciated. Terry and I are enjoying our correspondence!
... de gustibus non disputandum est. A phrase that has two interpretations, too!
I've toyed with the thought of chatting, but I'm a little afraid of time-suckage. Also, I'm not really crazy about becoming One of Those People who is prompting Substack to send out yet another email to subscribers saying, something like "Mark R DeLong has started a chat...." I wonder how to turn that off?
Agree with all the comments before mine, as well as yours, Mark. I’ve been lucky/resolute thus far to ignore the persistent pushes from the platform to have me hold out a hat to the few folks. And your point re: different definitions of success is spot on. My success = enjoying getting back into a hobby, sharpening skills a bit, and chatting with a lot of fine folks.
Cheers to the end of the semester! I’m submitting my grades today, then finding the right red that goes with that 😅
Got my grades in, too. That is a sorry way to end a semester, but I guess it's just one of those things that we have to do. The thing that grates me a little about the Substack marketing is its persistent focus on rather narrow views of success -- the "going paid" trope and what sometimes looks like adoration and reverence for the Big People of Substack. I do get it -- and Jillian is right about capitalism being the way this works. Substack needs revenue to flourish and supply us little ones the outlines of services.
Marketing tactics display many things as they push and seduce toward the ends they have in mind. Substack has the ability to imagine writerly successes that don't necessarily trasnlate into paid subscribers. There are stories here, too, that endear and inspire. (And, I'd say, make Substack's corporate success more probable.) From what I see, the marketing team has a single script they follow. There are many others, and I hope they see them.
Thank you for the kind words! I’m so glad you noticed the absurdity of Substack’s post. They’re designing tools for something like 1% of users while the rest of us still don’t have the ability to direct post across various social media platforms. I’d sure love to have thousands of paid subscribers, but I’m not sure that’s really in the cards.
Lots of food for thought here, as always. Although I wish we lived in a different society, ours runs on capitalism. And Substack needs to be profitable to continue to offer a free platform to those of us who aren’t superstars with massive followings. I empathize with all these complaints. I guess I’m just happy to have come in before Substack goes c completely corporate. And I get that Substack might not always be a place where I want to publish my writing. For now, though, I’ve loved the pockets of genuine curiosity, artistry, & thought I’ve found here. And my favorite ‘stacks remain the more obscure ones.
No writer needs Substack, in that the tools it provides are neither exceptionally strong or unique, and Substack is unlikely to do anything for you. As my own scrawlings demonstrate, anyone can get on and publish anything on any schedule.
That means most of what you read is not going to be particularly good, interesting, or well-written, and that mediocrity makes the great stuff hard to find.
Substack doesn't care, and if one of us manages to create something viral or successful, Substack reaps more benefit from it than we are likely to. It's a numbers game for them -- put a thousand toddlers on a basketball court and have them throw balls at the basket. Most of them will miss, but it costs almost nothing, and if they somehow get one in, Substack wins!
Substack has made some bets, hiring some selected writers to create things which are presumably higher quality than typical users. I am sure both the pay and prestige are substantially less than what print magazines used to offer.
One of Substack's challenges here is they want to be "for everyone", which also means they are for no one. They do not have an editorial voice, standard of quality, or point of view. That means it's up to the reader to stumble across writing of interest on a regular basis. YouTube has similar problems, and you can see the evolutionary pressure of those problems producing monstrous, deformed content that "succeeds".
This goes back to some of our discussions about "Artists" versus "entertainers" or people trying to make a living from doing something. Platforms like Substack place pressure on people to identify "successful content" and repeat that formula. That can lead people down some dark paths as they follow engagement.
The New Yorker remains my gold standard for regular publications. The quality of the writing is superb, and guided by experienced, real editorial hands and minds. Even if the subject matter of the articles doesn't immediately grab me, it is always a pleasure to read well-crafted sentences which exist for more than just encouraging people to "please read my next article."
Personally, I don't want a "media empire". I don't want massive but shallow connection with "everyone". My creative work is for a small audience, but I believe that kind of focus means it will have more resonance and meaning, and I am not stuck in the trap of trying to please or connect with an empire-sized audience.
I find Substack's prompts about constant engagement somewhat annoying. Based on my experiences in the modern music business, none of that stuff is going to work for most writers anyhow. The audience starts tuning out the badgering. Everyone wants "better" content, not just "more", particularly if that more is made without care or intent.
Perhaps I am underselling the value of my writing, or the writing of others here, and I should just be more ambitious. But I think the real challenge is getting people to pay attention to our work, to care, to engage, not just to pay for the work.
Dang Mark, you’ve not only covered much of what I think of Substack as I approach my first anniversary in a month, but you’ve added a concept--the GoFundMe comparison--that may tip the scales in my mind against going paid. For me, all that talk about “going paid” but also the persistent quest to “grow, grow, grow” subscriber counts distracts from what I’m enjoying about Substack as a reader (the chance to experience the world through the unique voices of other writers) and as a writer (the opportunity to develop and share my own voice). I’ll undoubtedly go on about this in an anniversary post of my own, so I’ll cut it short with a thanks to you for your voice ... I always enjoy reading your ‘Stack. (And the very subtle weight of knowing that you’re in North Carolina prompted me to make my second pulled pork in a month with a nice vinegary sauce. My wife thinks I’m some kind of wizard.)
Vinegar-base is known to be magical.
One thing that struck me as I was thinking about this post was the generosity and useful interactions among writers. Quite different from the kind of pointers that made Medium toxic to me ("I made four trillion dollars with my trick posts on Medium. You can too!"). Attention gets paid to craft. At least among the people I've seen. I'm sure there are 'stackers who are yearning for a badge of whatever color, many even for good reasons.
Sometimes the desired end warps the pathway, and that's something I've been concerned about.
That's my concern too, that if we get distracted by the desire for likes and badges and "engagement" we'll lose the focus on quality and community. So far, so good, however.
Lots of food for thought here, as always. Although I wish we lived in a different society, ours runs on capitalism. And Substack needs to be profitable to continue to offer a free platform to those of us who aren’t superstars with massive followings. I empathize with all these complaints. I guess I’m just happy to have come in before Substack goes c completely corporate. And I get that Substack might not always be a place where I want to publish my writing. For now, though, I’ve loved the pockets of genuine curiosity, artistry, & thought I’ve found here. And my favorite ‘stacks remain the more obscure ones.
Timing is everything, I agree. Substack is still probably experiencing the grace of the venture capitalists, and the company is probably still awaiting the tough conversation that begins with "Well, this has been fun, but we need to talk about some things...."
I wonder about the ways that pieces of writing end up having a different life outside of a 'stack. I know that my posts have been little experiments and scratchings that relate to bigger projects. As a matter of fact, I'll be using future posts to explore or share things that come up in my other projects. (Last week's piece on the "dark side" of glamour is a brief example.) I suspect that many Substack writers use similar tactics. The post is a little piece of work that fits into a larger jigsaw puzzle. The Substack publication schedule introduces an urgency and a discipline to stick to a writing project.
Substack is a transit point, for me at least. A fun one and worthwhile, but not the only destination.
Looking forward to the next Noted, Jillian!
Thanks for mentioning Rebecca Holden and myself, and our letters. (Thanks also for your email, which I will reply to asap). As for media empires, I was thinking, a few months ago, that to some extent maybe Substack subscriber growth is analogous to that old joke: What's the best way of amassing a small fortune? Start off with a large fortune. Could the word "fortune" be replaced by "subscriber base"? Not sour grapes or anything, but just an observation (which may not be objectively the case) but it seems to me that the people with thousands and thousands of subscribers already had a huge following somewhere, like a newspaper, before they moved over to Substack. I think for most of us growth is likely to be slow and, hopefully, steady.
Slow and steady sounds good to me. My subscriptions have gone that route. I'll tack a bit in the next month or so, just to move in a different direction. And I expect that some might bail. But maybe not, since my posts -- and yours, actually -- have been "eclectic." They're always performing a tack, sometimes a jibe.
A fellow I know and respect told me that it's harder to find readers with the kind of posts I've been doing. He said that it's easier to mount up a readership when, say, your topic is Carolina Panthers football inside stories.
I'll stick with eclectic. Hope you do, too!
I have always thought, and found, that having a niche topic area is far better in terms of growth. However, I'm here because I wanted an outlet for my writing that is about anything and everything. I think personal fulfilment is far better than having impressive stats. With any luck, we'll both discover that the two aren't mutually exclusive. So I intend to stick with eclectic, and I'm glad you are too!
Such a fascinating post, Mark, as was your e-mail (which I'm afraid I only got to this morning - what IS it about this time of year that turns my inbox into a thief of time?)!
I think all of these platforms have their peaks and troughs, their exits and their entrances. It's hard to predict where something might be going, and even harder to determine the 'why' behind so many operational decisions that are made behind the scenes.
There are hugely popular writers whose words aren't ones I want to read - not their fault - maybe it's a style thing, maybe I prefer to read a 9-minute post rather than a 19-minute one, or maybe their genre just doesn't gel with me - and there are some Substackers with not many subscribers at all with whom I'd love to sit down and have a cup of tea because they and their words are, well, just my cup of tea.
When I started on Substack I viewed it as a place to put my words where they might come across some people to read them. I had no idea about the community aspect of the platform - the comments, the collaboration, the discussions and, actually, the hand-holding. There are arrows on the Substack flowchart that I'm not interested in following - I'm not going paid, I'm not 'Chatting' - but I value that those options are on offer, because it means a wide range of writers and their diverse needs are catered for.
Thanks so much for the mention, Mark! Much appreciated. Terry and I are enjoying our correspondence!
... de gustibus non disputandum est. A phrase that has two interpretations, too!
I've toyed with the thought of chatting, but I'm a little afraid of time-suckage. Also, I'm not really crazy about becoming One of Those People who is prompting Substack to send out yet another email to subscribers saying, something like "Mark R DeLong has started a chat...." I wonder how to turn that off?
I know what you mean about that e-mail notification of chats being started, Mark! It's one of the things that's put me off, to be honest! 🤣
Agree with all the comments before mine, as well as yours, Mark. I’ve been lucky/resolute thus far to ignore the persistent pushes from the platform to have me hold out a hat to the few folks. And your point re: different definitions of success is spot on. My success = enjoying getting back into a hobby, sharpening skills a bit, and chatting with a lot of fine folks.
Cheers to the end of the semester! I’m submitting my grades today, then finding the right red that goes with that 😅
Got my grades in, too. That is a sorry way to end a semester, but I guess it's just one of those things that we have to do. The thing that grates me a little about the Substack marketing is its persistent focus on rather narrow views of success -- the "going paid" trope and what sometimes looks like adoration and reverence for the Big People of Substack. I do get it -- and Jillian is right about capitalism being the way this works. Substack needs revenue to flourish and supply us little ones the outlines of services.
Marketing tactics display many things as they push and seduce toward the ends they have in mind. Substack has the ability to imagine writerly successes that don't necessarily trasnlate into paid subscribers. There are stories here, too, that endear and inspire. (And, I'd say, make Substack's corporate success more probable.) From what I see, the marketing team has a single script they follow. There are many others, and I hope they see them.
“Nearly all Substackians aspire, even though the Substack company probably views most of the aspirational among us as a burden.”
I often feel like this when I comment in Office Hours or on their posts.
“There goes that little Holly Rabalais with the comments.”
“What’s she write about again?”
“Oh, just random everyday stuff like her son’s addiction and recovery, people peeing in her yard, and...God.”
Every week I have to remind myself why I’m here, and keep my data downloaded just in case I need to pack up my legos and go elsewhere.
Thank you for the kind words! I’m so glad you noticed the absurdity of Substack’s post. They’re designing tools for something like 1% of users while the rest of us still don’t have the ability to direct post across various social media platforms. I’d sure love to have thousands of paid subscribers, but I’m not sure that’s really in the cards.
And yes, I got like 5 new subscribers!
Make it six. I need to know more about coffee!
Oh, also you can thank my wife for the period. She wanted to make sure readers knew it was a declarative sentence and not anything more exciting.
Your wife is wise, and I bet headstrong and decisive. Something like my Bond Girl Bride.
And now 7. That’s me. Lucky #7. Teach me all the coffee things.
Lots of food for thought here, as always. Although I wish we lived in a different society, ours runs on capitalism. And Substack needs to be profitable to continue to offer a free platform to those of us who aren’t superstars with massive followings. I empathize with all these complaints. I guess I’m just happy to have come in before Substack goes c completely corporate. And I get that Substack might not always be a place where I want to publish my writing. For now, though, I’ve loved the pockets of genuine curiosity, artistry, & thought I’ve found here. And my favorite ‘stacks remain the more obscure ones.
No writer needs Substack, in that the tools it provides are neither exceptionally strong or unique, and Substack is unlikely to do anything for you. As my own scrawlings demonstrate, anyone can get on and publish anything on any schedule.
That means most of what you read is not going to be particularly good, interesting, or well-written, and that mediocrity makes the great stuff hard to find.
Substack doesn't care, and if one of us manages to create something viral or successful, Substack reaps more benefit from it than we are likely to. It's a numbers game for them -- put a thousand toddlers on a basketball court and have them throw balls at the basket. Most of them will miss, but it costs almost nothing, and if they somehow get one in, Substack wins!
Substack has made some bets, hiring some selected writers to create things which are presumably higher quality than typical users. I am sure both the pay and prestige are substantially less than what print magazines used to offer.
One of Substack's challenges here is they want to be "for everyone", which also means they are for no one. They do not have an editorial voice, standard of quality, or point of view. That means it's up to the reader to stumble across writing of interest on a regular basis. YouTube has similar problems, and you can see the evolutionary pressure of those problems producing monstrous, deformed content that "succeeds".
This goes back to some of our discussions about "Artists" versus "entertainers" or people trying to make a living from doing something. Platforms like Substack place pressure on people to identify "successful content" and repeat that formula. That can lead people down some dark paths as they follow engagement.
The New Yorker remains my gold standard for regular publications. The quality of the writing is superb, and guided by experienced, real editorial hands and minds. Even if the subject matter of the articles doesn't immediately grab me, it is always a pleasure to read well-crafted sentences which exist for more than just encouraging people to "please read my next article."
Personally, I don't want a "media empire". I don't want massive but shallow connection with "everyone". My creative work is for a small audience, but I believe that kind of focus means it will have more resonance and meaning, and I am not stuck in the trap of trying to please or connect with an empire-sized audience.
I find Substack's prompts about constant engagement somewhat annoying. Based on my experiences in the modern music business, none of that stuff is going to work for most writers anyhow. The audience starts tuning out the badgering. Everyone wants "better" content, not just "more", particularly if that more is made without care or intent.
Perhaps I am underselling the value of my writing, or the writing of others here, and I should just be more ambitious. But I think the real challenge is getting people to pay attention to our work, to care, to engage, not just to pay for the work.
Jump in, Yamil!