Maybe beside the point, but my question is: why do certain Substack writers feel compelled to promote and/or defend Substack in the first place — especially Substack as a company? I've read some posts that read like borderline sponcon by otherwise reputable writers. I can understand first amendment arguments, etc. But it gets a little weird when the argument turns to how awesome and innovative the Substack C-suite is...even more so when writers are encouraging people to buy Substack stock options... (to be clear, not accusing Sam of falling into this category; I don't actually know).
Hi Jordan, speaking for myself, I don’t have any relationship with Substack Co and don’t benefit in any way from speaking favorably of the platform. I do need to distinguish between Substack the company and Substack the platform. Personally, I happen to like the company. They’ve built a fabulous product and they’ve made some difficult decisions that, on the whole, I agree with. But when I write about this, I’m really just writing about the platform - which is a kind of Blogging Central that’s rapidly turning into something different - more like the Writers’ Archipelago. Substack Corporate set this up and deserves a lot of credit, but even if something were to happen to Substack Co - if they run into business problems, or if something like the sale to Musk had gone through - the model that Substack represents would still be a very powerful new force, and I think a force for good.
I’m obviously late here, but none of the three arguments touched on what I think might be the most central here: the paywall. The difference between substack and legacy media is that, with legacy media, you pay anywhere from $1-20/month or so, and get content that is edited, fact checked, reviewed, and may give you a new perspective or voice you wouldn’t have otherwise chosen or looked at. For most substacks, you essentially pay $5-10/month for one person’s blog or glorified diary. This is not the case for ALL substacks of course (Ken Klippenstein, for example, is one of the few journalists who I think is *genuinely* publishing more risqué pieces here than when he was at a legacy pub), but I have often snorted a little extra air when I saw an already pretty massive writer with a cult following join substack and say they can “finally write what they couldn’t before.” Pardon me, but I think places like The Cut and Buzzfeed and even the NYT have published things WAY more adventurous than what some substackers put out. The difference is, they no longer have metrics to meet, editors to deal with, or pushback; it’s simply easier for them to monetize, and they know they have a big enough following that they’ll make more money here.
The other item that I think is important to consider is that very few writers are actually successful on substack; i’ve read that something like 5% of creators make any money. It’s hardly the beacon of democracy Sam seems to imply that it is. People don’t come in here and become massive from their big brains. They start as influencers or big writers (formed by the very institutions Sam seems so opposed to!!) and then come here to make more money. Think of some of the big names on Substack - Anne Helen Petersen, Bari Weiss, Hunter Harris, Lee Fang, Ken Klippenstein, Rayne Fisher Quann - this whole list, and I’d wager most other big writers on the platform, came from legacy media (save for Heather Cox Richardson, who only came from Exeter and Harvard/Harvard/Harvard). They cut their teeth and got mentorship and guidance and good editing from legacy media. They learned how to write headlines and draft compelling prose from legacy media. And then they turned to the platform that would pay them more - a fair choice in this capitalist hellscape! But let’s not pretend it’s purely noble and democratic, please.
As an early blog reader, I find SK more convincing. The originals often featured established journalists like Mickey Kaus or Andrew Sullivan. No fees nor comments. Few were “literary”. You could email the author directly but I never did. Slate was an early online Mag with diverse takes on culture, lit & public affairs. When Microsoft $ washed in, it was curated into a small corner. The new, New Republic followed. As BR observed, magazines can expose a reader to ideas and opinions hard to sort at SS . When that happens, I am grateful for curation and might subscribe. That rarely happens and IMO curation is an unreliable filter at best and at worst reflect editorial preoccupations. Substack offers efficient search engine for new voices to sample at low cost with diverse commenters. Magazines are doable there & I would be glad to see more.
Very amused that I now have to leave Substack to read the rest of the convo. Well played, The Point.
Maybe beside the point, but my question is: why do certain Substack writers feel compelled to promote and/or defend Substack in the first place — especially Substack as a company? I've read some posts that read like borderline sponcon by otherwise reputable writers. I can understand first amendment arguments, etc. But it gets a little weird when the argument turns to how awesome and innovative the Substack C-suite is...even more so when writers are encouraging people to buy Substack stock options... (to be clear, not accusing Sam of falling into this category; I don't actually know).
Hi Jordan, speaking for myself, I don’t have any relationship with Substack Co and don’t benefit in any way from speaking favorably of the platform. I do need to distinguish between Substack the company and Substack the platform. Personally, I happen to like the company. They’ve built a fabulous product and they’ve made some difficult decisions that, on the whole, I agree with. But when I write about this, I’m really just writing about the platform - which is a kind of Blogging Central that’s rapidly turning into something different - more like the Writers’ Archipelago. Substack Corporate set this up and deserves a lot of credit, but even if something were to happen to Substack Co - if they run into business problems, or if something like the sale to Musk had gone through - the model that Substack represents would still be a very powerful new force, and I think a force for good.
Good to know, thanks for the response.
I’m obviously late here, but none of the three arguments touched on what I think might be the most central here: the paywall. The difference between substack and legacy media is that, with legacy media, you pay anywhere from $1-20/month or so, and get content that is edited, fact checked, reviewed, and may give you a new perspective or voice you wouldn’t have otherwise chosen or looked at. For most substacks, you essentially pay $5-10/month for one person’s blog or glorified diary. This is not the case for ALL substacks of course (Ken Klippenstein, for example, is one of the few journalists who I think is *genuinely* publishing more risqué pieces here than when he was at a legacy pub), but I have often snorted a little extra air when I saw an already pretty massive writer with a cult following join substack and say they can “finally write what they couldn’t before.” Pardon me, but I think places like The Cut and Buzzfeed and even the NYT have published things WAY more adventurous than what some substackers put out. The difference is, they no longer have metrics to meet, editors to deal with, or pushback; it’s simply easier for them to monetize, and they know they have a big enough following that they’ll make more money here.
The other item that I think is important to consider is that very few writers are actually successful on substack; i’ve read that something like 5% of creators make any money. It’s hardly the beacon of democracy Sam seems to imply that it is. People don’t come in here and become massive from their big brains. They start as influencers or big writers (formed by the very institutions Sam seems so opposed to!!) and then come here to make more money. Think of some of the big names on Substack - Anne Helen Petersen, Bari Weiss, Hunter Harris, Lee Fang, Ken Klippenstein, Rayne Fisher Quann - this whole list, and I’d wager most other big writers on the platform, came from legacy media (save for Heather Cox Richardson, who only came from Exeter and Harvard/Harvard/Harvard). They cut their teeth and got mentorship and guidance and good editing from legacy media. They learned how to write headlines and draft compelling prose from legacy media. And then they turned to the platform that would pay them more - a fair choice in this capitalist hellscape! But let’s not pretend it’s purely noble and democratic, please.
As an early blog reader, I find SK more convincing. The originals often featured established journalists like Mickey Kaus or Andrew Sullivan. No fees nor comments. Few were “literary”. You could email the author directly but I never did. Slate was an early online Mag with diverse takes on culture, lit & public affairs. When Microsoft $ washed in, it was curated into a small corner. The new, New Republic followed. As BR observed, magazines can expose a reader to ideas and opinions hard to sort at SS . When that happens, I am grateful for curation and might subscribe. That rarely happens and IMO curation is an unreliable filter at best and at worst reflect editorial preoccupations. Substack offers efficient search engine for new voices to sample at low cost with diverse commenters. Magazines are doable there & I would be glad to see more.