Maybe of limited interest to Ted’s largely American readership, but if you want your heart warmed by confirmation that there is a paying readership for quality work it’s worth taking a cursory look at The Mill (Manchester), The Post (Liverpool) and The Tribune (Sheffield). The Mill was started as an attempt to prove that people will pay for thoughtful, long-form local journalism, as an antidote to the awful clickbait being churned out by the ton by the established Manchester paper. Operating on a shoestring, driven by a tiny number of fledgling journalists, it has become self-sustaining in just a couple of years and inspired sister papers in Liverpool and Sheffield, both growing their subscriber base at a rate of knots. They’re all on Substack, although with origins in email distribution I suspect many of their readers won’t even be aware of the platform other than as the name against their modest monthly payment.
I agree with some of the comments elsewhere that there are challenges here - cost, subscription fatigue, time to consume all the content you want to support but can’t get through. As a news, music and culture junkie I have to take a regular look at how the subscriptions I’ve built up with my heart have to be slimmed back down by my head. But I’m optimistic that this will shake down over time. Practically, people are likely to develop loyalty to just a few subscription bubbles - but that will still be a few more shades of opinion than the glory days of journalism when most folks got their views from one paper and one broadcaster.
Thanks as always for a thought-provoking piece Ted.
Substack needs to offer per-article pricing or "mini" subscriptions (with just a few paid articles included) for readers who have already maxed out their annual budget for paid subscriptions... @Substack what do you think?
Would it be possible for Substack to offer a certain number of subscriptions for flat rate? I would love to subscribe to more but I'm losing track of of my $5 here and $10 there.
I don't think so. We are returning to what worked for hundreds of years. Subscription fatigue didn't exist then and doesn't exist now. It just seems strange because The Experts were so so wrong.
Whether the payments are monthly or annual, the range and number of subscribed services are much more today, and can't be equated with 50 or 100 years ago.
An ordinary person, with an average income, might have two news or magazine digital subscriptions, three streaming services, bundled or unbundled mobile and internet services, at least one paid software subscription of some sort, a streaming music service, and who knows what other niche things that I'm not aware of, then add in four or five or six Substacks - we're already at 13 to 16 regular payments that are modern, not previously in people's budgets, because the markets for these optional consumption items didn't exist, except for newspapers and magazines, and purchasing music was discretionary, not regular or automatic, indeed, so was paying for news or a magazine, or specialist journals.
Hearted as it describes me middlin’ well. I have not yet come to grips with this. I mean, I spend a lot of money on food and rent, and subscriptions do not compare to those items. My self-questioning amounts to
1) do I really need to know and/or interact with this?
2) would my time be better spent taking a walk or a bike ride?
The decision making is a pain. With Substack, for example, if I subscribe to six newsletters, there's another six that are just as good, or another 60. And yeah, do I really need them, or should I buy 50 books instead.
The offer of a one time purchase or subscribe-to-10-articles for ££ is better than lifetime subscription turning on & off as management/secretary/financial advisor issues are a struggle for the brain of Catbert nevermind us (mere mortals). Often, I may buy the NatGeo magazine or the New Scientist for a few months then drift off to the online free-zone to recharge my non-investor, anti-Bitcoin mainstream bank acc. whilst paying homage to this Debtor Worship my Journalism degree introduced me to many moons ago.
People paid for writing before. They are doing so again. Yes, there will be amalgamations etc, and someone must and inevitably will come up with a per-article iTunes for writing, but the paid-for model is the clear future. The ad model is dead.
'Subscription fatigue' is group-think from the same people who, until recently, didn't believe in subscriptions. The same people who thought Buzzfeed was the future.
No, not group think, and nothing compelling about a piece that addresses only written digital content, an extremely limited and blinkered view of the wide array of subscriptions that are now of necessity or choice embedded in people's budgets.
Subscription fatigue doesn't mean there's a bubble, nor that anyone is predicting that it's about to burst. It's not a housing market, it's not a basic need, nor is there unlimited demand and limited supply. Subscription services have the exact opposite problem.
Yes, subscription is an old model. Getting a newspaper delivered every day was a subscription service, magazines were heavily into the annual subscription market. Only people who aren't thinking have suggested that subscriptions are some exotic new model, based on nothing more than the content being digital.
More important is the idea that the written word is special as far as subscriptions go, omitting a whole world of contemporary subscription services that contribute to actual subscription fatigue.
TV streaming, music streaming, mobile devices, internet access, online legacy news and magazines, of course, special interest or hobby subscriptions, upgraded YouTube access, software subscriptions, then start adding in individual newsletters, like Substack.
That might add up to 20 or more subscriptions, most of which are discretionary spending.
There's a real cumulative dollar cost, and a real cumulative time cost, and both have associated opportunity costs.
Of course people who have the disposable income and the time to consume will subscribe to more content, it's a trite argument Those people will also buy more cheese or shoes. And, the point is?
Even the well-off don't keep consuming more of the same thing, this is economics 101. There's a point beyond which they move their disposal income to other things.
These days, people place a higher premium on experiences, for example.
Or maybe they're looking at their bank account and realizing that their annual subscriptions add up to thousands of dollars, and contemplating which of those discretionary spends they can forego without noticing any loss of life enjoyment, and gaining time that could be used in more fulfilling ways, at nil cost.
I agree with you that the costs are too high when one is paying each writer individually, though I think the subscription model can work, and seems to me to be the best method, but not exactly in the way Substack does it.
In the past, a person subscribed to one newspaper, or one magazine, and read the work of many writers. I hope Substack can replicate that, by allowing readers to purchase a subscription that allows them to choose any 10 (or some other number) articles per week from any writer or writers they choose, with each of the writers getting 1/10th of the fee, less Substack’s fee.
I think another great move would be to allow people to act as curators. A curator would be much like the publisher of a magazine, who doesn’t write anything himself, but rather identifies writers who he deems worth reading, and collects articles into a regular publication. The curator would share a percentage of his subscription fees with his writers, who would also be selling their own individual subscriptions at the same time. This would be as if, say, Truman Capote had been able to sell subscriptions to a monthly magazine containing everything he wrote that month (his own Substack), while also being paid by the New Yorker each month to allow them to publish one of the articles from his own magazine (his article being included on a curator's Substack).
I had to think about this; at first blush the models sound exactly like legacy media and the dying aggregation digital media, which I appreciate isn't what you have in mind. The nuance is a fire line. Implementation would be complex. I'm thinking about the 20,000 or so publishers on Substack, compared with the few dozen, more or less, for a MSM or aggregation digital media offering. The number of permutations on Substack are too large for mental maths, and I'm being too lazy to ask ChatGPT.
Any move to micro payments would inevitably dilute the income of big stacks (although some earn so much, they probably wouldn't notice a difference), while rewarding smaller stacks with loose coins.
I understand the sentiment, though. I just can't get my head around the design and functional logistics, or the unintended consequences.
Recently on Notes, someone announced their new Substack, which is solely a Substack curation newsletter. Lots of positive comments, I'd guess lots of subscribers. I checked, and they have paid options available, which I thought was a bit galling, opportunistic. That's a paid subscription I could give to a writer, rather than to someone piggybacking off the work of Substack writers. (Of course, it's volitional to pay, I just didn't think pay should have been available.)
I only mention this as a matter of interest, and the relationship to your suggested model, whereby the writer would receive a payment for curations. Maybe Substack should prioritize that functionality.
Even curation isn't simple, because a good curation requires full access to every Substack, which is impossible, because a lot of paid stacks only offer a preview of their newsletter. Curation would exclude those stacks from the get-go, due to lack of information; you can't recommend that which you've not read. That would be one of many unintended consequences, curation would be weighted to newsletters with maximum open content.
I think we all wish we could afford to pay for, and had the time to read, a few dozen Substack newsletters. Alas, that's not plausible.
Other payment options, per your suggestions, or other ideas, warrant serious exploration and modelling, and testing and piloting,.
With curation, the curator doesn't need a subscription or access to every Substack. Think of it more like a traditional publication. You run Caz Monthly. You like what I write, so you ask me to either write an article for, or share one of my private posts with, you each month, to be shared in Caz Monthly. In exchange, you give me $x or x% of my subscription. As a curator, your skill is identifying great writers, much like a Harold Ross. Once a month you publish your Substack, and subscribers know that they'll get 10 great articles.
As a reader, I'll pay a higher monthly fee to get your one Substack per month, and I know that you keep some of it, and the writers keep some. If I discover a writer I especially enjoy, perhaps I'll subscribe to his Substack as well. This is akin to someone reading the New Yorker, enjoying whatever Truman Capote writes, then going out and buying his books.
I don't think this dilutes anyone's income. I doubt anyone who is willing to pay for a subscription to a writer, and receive 10 or so articles from him per month, will cancel if they subscribe to Caz Weekly, where they get but one from him per month.
I see it as a chance for a writer to expand his audience, and make additional revenue. If you are a great curator and get let's say 20,000 paid subscriptions, at $10 per month, even if you keep 50%, and Substack takes 10%, that's still $8,000 each to the 10 writers you include, on top of whatever they make from their own subscribers.
The ad model subsidized journalism for generations. Nearly the entire burden is on the consumer now and access to quality journalism is more expensive than it has ever been, making it a product for the relatively wealthy. It's high cost monthly subscriptions or nothing - no single copy equivalent.
Written content and music content aren't the only categories of subscription services, and others are less discretionary, more essential, like a mobile or an internet connection, the former are more easily sacrificed than the latter if people are budgeting.
Thanks for the link, I'll be interested to read more about the alternative point of view.
And, sad to say, clickbaiting GUARDIAN items still tend to be better than much of what I see from other supposedly responsible and respectable news outlets in English.
Ah! It did seem a bit hard on GRAUNIAD, again given most other options in its field. Thanks for clarification (MEN [hm.] has no profile I'm aware of in the States.)
I see so many links to the random rubbish that the MEN churns out, that I wonder whether it can still credibly call itself a Manchester newspaper. Or even a newspaper!
The "glory days of journalism," at least on this side of the pond, had at least two competing dailies in even most mid-sized towns, and three competing TV stations (affiliates of the then-three national networks, ABC, CBS and NBC). Even in Dayton, Ohio, where I grew up, we had the morning Journal Herald and the evening Daily News. And back then, op-ed editors felt it was their professional and civic duty to present as wide a range of opinions as possible.
I don't see any single point online today where you can get that same breadth of thought - nearly every place, including Substack (where I publish), is silo-ing up into pods of the like-minded offering the comfort of unanimity.
How can Substack be sustained when there are so many writers publishing newsletters on it's site? Few people can afford to subscribe to everyone that they read. I just got an email from a friend, and he's publishing his latest novel on Substack in weekly installments. He is a successful writer and will probably do ok, but how many writers can Substack readers support? I guess we'll find out.
Agreed. Substack desperately needs to put together some type of package option. Getting so many separate small bills each month is exasperating. An annual subscription is OK for some writers, but I’ve already been burned by purchasing an annual subscription to someone who simply ceased publishing, at least on Substack.
Big thumbs up for this. I’m fine with a fluctuating monthly bill, but I’d really like it to be just one! Seems to be one of the harder things for the ‘decent people pay for content’ platforms to figure out, Mixcloud, Bandcamp and Steady all have similar issues.
I buy yearly. Of course I make my own coffee, and cook most meals. I'm older. I left Twitter and joined Substack. I left WaPo, NYT, for real journalism. When I seen Musk carrying the sink into Twitter, I left that day. Noise from the ignorant and Wealthy, I hope are behind me.
Honest Q: Why is it exasperating? I just use the same card/account for all of mine & only pay one bill a month.
And I can understand why you'd be wary about annual subscriptions, but IMO, they're better for both the reader & writer. They're often the cheaper option for readers, and the writer can focus more on the work and less on chasing new revenue. I won't speak for Ted here, but in my case, that's exactly why mine is priced the way it is.
Hi Kevin - I take your point, but account management would be easier for the reader if Substack mastered fractional payments when you subscribe and kept all your subscriptions on the same (monthly or annual) anniversary and in a single statement/email. It’s not a massive headache, but all my subs are on different days of the month. If they were consolidated, I suspect it would also make them ‘stickier’; I’m guessing a single payment notification per month is less likely to prompt ‘I haven’t read that one for ages, maybe I’ll let it go’.
I agree with you about annual subs, but I guess it’s normal/reasonable reader behaviour to at least start with monthly before committing to annual. Better than them sticking with free!
Also, on Spotify, Artists have no mean to build a relationship with their audience... no mean to contact them or them to write to you, you don't even know who they are.
And it could be a game changer, it's cooler when you know the artist and even go to drinks to his apartment vs just seeing him from afar in the middle of 200k people
To your initial point, it’s not fair to say the Spotify wiped out the music industry. It is fair to say that it massively reduced the potential profit margins for most recorded music.
I agree that your statement is more precise. I guess I wanted to express that it must have affected the music industry in a way I don't like. Maybe the average spending in music per perdón and the revenue for regular artists has decreased ?
Yes, on average artists make far less on streaming. For many performing musicians, they could sell CD’s at shows and double their incomes. Streaming really doesn’t work that way...
Sorry, I made a mistake. Substack doesn’t pay for output, but pays for subscriptions. Spotify doesn’t allow that feature either. Wanted to correct myself.
there’s a substantial difference. On Spotify, an artist is payed a minute royalty based on the number of times a track is paid (.06 cents per play, I think). Of that commonly, the record label takes at least half and in wealthier countries that streams are worth more than in less wealthy ones.
There isn’t an option on spotify to directly pay an artist $10 directly for their output. if there were, the margins for the artist would be exponentially better.
I agree that Spotify (and other streaming) is rough for artists, but at an industry level streaming has brought the recorded music business to profitability overall and out of the tailspin of free downloads. Certainly not all good, but not all bad either.
Substack will be fine -- lots of writers means more money for them -- but not every writer will thrive here, and readers have to choose where to spend their money. I don't think that's a bad thing.
I actually like that I can't afford to subscribe to everyone because it forces me to slow down and be more intentional in choosing the writers who deliver high enough quality to merit a subscription. I've noticed that as my content consumption increases, I actually learn and apply less, even when it's excellent writing. The brain can only absorb so much.
Like the long tail theory, this paradigm imo rewards first and foremost writers applying themselves to topics widely regarded as “relevant” or who have already well-established brands. I might discover a new writer in a regularly published compendium like the New Yorker, but it seems unlikely I’ll stumble on an author new to me occupying a silo here, unless through word of mouth or the writer’s own promotional efforts (largely on other platforms or in other media)..
You should check out Substack Notes—where you will get lots of discussion of Substack (and other) articles which are much more than just the "writer's own promotional efforts." Notes is a vibrant community of writers and readers that isn't as stratified and narrow as reviews in The New Yorker. I'm learning about independent new voices in journalism every day there.
Will take a look. I’m already trying to handle an overwhelming media diet, while contributing myself and participating in previously established writers communities (Jazz Journalists Assoc and the Off Campus Writers Workshop, foremost of late), besides personal contacts. I admire your explorations, Ted, but paying for three subs is already, what, $150? — and here I am trying to write a Substack, offering free content to build towards what? An audience that will eventually be paying, if I provide frequent new content of a high level, in competition with already established Substack writers. I dunno, Color me skeptical.
If a writer has even 1000 subscribers and makes .25 per, that”s $250 for an article. I don’t consider that unfair. At scale micropayments could be far less.
I suspect what will happen is the ever growing division of the audience into micro-demographics. Instead of 5 big publications with ten million readers each - the Substack equivalent could be 50000 writers with 1000 subscribers each, or 5000 writers with 10000 subscribers, etc etc.
Of course, what is more likely to happen over time is a Doomberg type model: a publishing company with a staff and brand, hence the ability to expand out of the above "micro" model into a more traditional publishing brand.
As the grandson of the owners/publishers/editors of a weekly newspaper, I applaud Ted's analysis. Two additional comments, the second one being one I'd love to hear Ted's response to:
1) To give the 10,000-foot perspective on things, when you base your economic model on clicks, you slide down a very steep slope to an inevitable end. And that end is the basest desires, and you debase your organization and the very concept of journalism itself.
When a meteorologist at The Weather Channel spoke to our student meteorology group at the University of Georgia about 15 years ago, bragging about how they were chasing after viewers with entertainment content instead of weather coverage, I couldn't take it anymore. I went up to him after the talk and said,
"Mike, if you want more viewers, you know what you should do? Nudity. Call it Full Frontal Weather."
He stared at me uncomprehendingly. Basing your model on clicks means that, in the end, your newspaper becomes a variant on a porn site. Because the data show that nothing gets more clicks than porn. But that's where you will end up, or as close to it as the laws will permit.
For example, our dying local paper's website has a user-contributed photos section. The most popular photos by far are from sorority rush. And it's probably not because the young women's parents and friends are going to that site. We know what the demographics of that site are.
2) Many years ago, David Simon of "The Wire" fame, and before that the Baltimore Sun, wrote a perceptive piece in the Washington Post about what we were losing as newspapers died. His cogent point: when you speak truth to power, power will try to shut you up via legal pressure. And that is when you absolutely need an organization behind you with the stature and the means to push back publicly and also legally. In other words, media back in the day and now *must* have two of the three of "lawyers, guns, and money" to do real journalism.
So my question regarding the Substack model of journalism is this: what happens when you, the writer, manage to say something incendiary-and-true enough that you raise the ire of important players in our society? They are going to come after you with everything they've got. What do *you* got to fight back with, that a citizen blogger doesn't have? Because citizen bloggers can and do get shut down by the powers-that-be. One that I know of, a former newspaper journalist, ended up getting beaten up and put in jail. (I guess he needed all 3 of "lawyers, guns, and money.")
How does the Substack model defend against intimidation and legal muzzles? Because if it's no better than the citizen blogger model, then it's still crucially deficient vs. the old model of a large newspaper with considerable resources and a crackerjack legal team.
I hope that it is better, but I worry it's not. Sincerely asking, because I fear for our nation as our newspapers die a mostly farcical death.
I worked at [international] newspaper for just over a decade... and while I understand the sentiment behind this, part of me wonders just how much we're actually losing. I can't speak for all publications, but... in the final few years I was there I started noticing a lot of "narrative pushing" that was really just straight-up lying [via unnamed sources, framing techniques that our reporters never really employed before (and had an "activist" stink about them, almost as if we had been infiltrated), etc.. it was weird].
The entire experience made me wonder if it was part of the "click-chasing pornification" you mentioned, or if "speaking truth to power" had simply been a distracting performance and marketing technique rolled into one all along... and I was finally just starting to notice it.
I hear your concerns, but there is still truth, and there's certainly power, and speaking truth still matters. I learned this in a searing way.
Here's a very specific example of what's being lost:
I served on the local school board from 2017 through 2020. Our local paper was already not very good when we moved here in 2001, and by 2017 the K-12 school coverage was on the plate of one reporter who also covered the big research university in our town, and much else. He faithfully attended our tedious school board meetings, but when things got contentious and there were multiple, very different sides to stories, he just didn't have the bandwidth to get to the bottom of it. The free alt-weekly in town had a news editor who was a former local-paper journalist, and his instincts were better, but he had multiple duties too, infrequently came to board meetings and left early when he did. This wasn't good for the reporting when certain board members made sure that key votes were taken near the very end of 3-to-4-hour meetings.
The media that really drove the festering situation, which ultimately led to an accreditation agency investigation and a lot of trouble for the school board, the superintendent, and the community, were not the local paper or the alt-weekly.
Instead, it was a social media page focused on the school district that had everyone talking, run by people with their own agendas. And other social media pages that seemed to be coordinated and run by a relative of one of the main players in the complicated political posturings going on among and around the board members.
It was a shitshow. At one meeting, the social media frenzy was stirred up so much that we board members had to be escorted out of the building by law enforcement!
There was no impartial and insightful reporting from that social media site. The local traditional media were too underpowered to be a counterbalance. The local people who voted for me who cared about the situation, were too busy to attend the meetings (because everyone works a lot more than 40 hours a week) and also didn't have the guidance of fully informed regular journalistic account (the local paper had dwindled to Wed-Sun only). And so the public was always about two jumps behind the machinations going on behind the scenes, always in need of catching up.
The agenda that was pushed forward, more or less successfully, came from retired persons with no children in the school district but a tight church network, who had the time on their hands and the passion to go after those they branded enemies--perhaps most prominently, me.
I had a hellish experience on the school board, as did those who agreed with me and not with the retired-persons agenda, and we all got off the school board as quickly as we could. I will never consider serving in elected office for the rest of my life after that. The biggest losers were probably the children in the school district, because decisions that were being made about their education at the top level got entangled with the latest postings on the social media site.
This is how the loss of local journalism leads to the rotting of the social institutions of America. I did what I could to set the record straight, particularly when being attacked. I published more than one op-ed in the alt-weekly laying out exactly what I saw going on, for example with a very unusual property deal for new offices for the central administration that involved a building that was too small, not up to code, and too expensive. If the journalists couldn't report it and the social media were mass confusion, I tried to lay it out for all to see. But of course that didn't really work, either.
It was very prescient of the founders of the nation to stipulate "freedom of the press" in the First Amendment, not just freedom of speech. The United States in 2023 is an example of what happens when the press is ensnared by economic and political forces that diminish it. Freedom of speech goes only so far in ensuring democracy.
Thanks for listening. I don't disagree with you and, had I not been battered on the school board, I might have agreed with some of the equivalency of audience-pandering and crusading journalism. I just can't, though, not after what I saw and experienced first-hand.
I began reading one writer on Substack. In addition, I read comments. Once engaged, the subscription became an intelligent discussion board. There are thoughtful ideas presented.I have learned from the writer and the comments. I feel a part of something more creative, more hopeful, whether I comment or just read. I am looking for integrity and authenticity. Money can not buy it.
Engagement is key.
There is crowdsourcing in the event of a lawsuit. “Many hands make light work”. There are a couple of ways one can interpret that thought.
Since techie marketing people were the ones who started Buzzfeed, Upworthy and all of these other misbegotten contraptions that existed only to pay their founders through an IPO, it is no surprise that none of them could come up with anything but stupid copycat gimmicks and failed. All of them are scam companies. Run, of course, by stupid greedy people. Who also all love the AI concept for obvious reasons. And techie rags like Fast Company exist only as the hype Wurlitzer since, of course, they’re also a pig at the trough. Ironic that the tech monopolies are the only companies policing this pathetic sector of the economy. But those 2500 dead newspapers are never coming back.
Thank you for this. I've been wondering how to wrap my head around all the changes swirling around us in the world of journalism. You're absolutely right about subscriptions.
I subscribe to many newspapers and magazines, and prefer getting my information from actual writers. As always, your writing is at once logical, succinct, and eloquent.
A quick reaction…. I think this analysis gets a “yeah but…” I completely agree that click chasing is a fool’s game, and that subscription-driven journalism is much more sustainable. But when do consumers (a) reach saturation - subscribing to too many channels such that they can’t afford or can’t read all of them, and (b) find themselves happy enough in their chosen echo chamber that they have no motivation to seek other input? I don’t know what the ultimate good answer is, but I don’t think it’s hundreds (thousands?) of Substack writers competing for a large, but finite, universe of cash-paying eyeballs. No, I have never tweeted; thanks but no thanks for the opportunity to seek likes, clicks and whatever other noise comes with sharing to Notes.
If you do the numbers, you will see that Substack isn’t even close to saturation. Less than 1% of the potential market pays for subscriptions here. That’s tiny, almost nothing. By my measure, this platform is at a very early stage in its story. I’ve run the numbers, and that’s how I see it. If others have analyzed this with different results, I’d be curious to see what they’ve come up with.
Compare the five to eight dollars a month for each author you'd like to read to a subscription to Apple tv. Netflix subscriptions cable TV subscriptions, magazine subscriptions all of those could shift around to support whoever can put out the content. There's a shit ton of wealth in this world and it's a good thing some of it's going towards people who give a damn about what they write and who know a thing or two
As far as I know, which might not be current, Substack has around 17,000 newsletters, and growing, and 20 million readers, of whom about 10 percent are paid subscribers, at the aggregate. That conversation rate drops to zero or a few percent for smaller newsletters.
Newsletters usually flog some dubious goods or services as part of its model, which is fine if the writing is good. Successful newsletters seem to be those with strong personalities publishing them, which commands subscriber loyalty. E.g. Substack didn't "make" Seymour Hersh; his decades of intrepid journalism earns him paid subscriptions to the platform.
A lot of categories on Substack. I'm mostly following fiction, and a few general or hot topic stacks, they're mostly selling me a paid subscription, or sometimes they have books.
So it depends where your interests sit.
I've found the hide function really useful on Notes, for publishers just spruiking or topics of no interest to me at this time.
Perspective from a consumer: my hope is that there is no finite number of readers. Focus on the work of writing with integrity. Practicing this will create a shift that will surpass all current expectations of an “end result”. One has to have faith in oneself. There is always a test. Stay focused on process.... and pay attention to future audiences. Make sure they can think critically, and read.
I hope more Substackers will introduce more differentiated levels of pricing. I currently have 6-8 annual Substack subscriptions of about $60 each and can't afford to add more.
BUT I'd love to be able to buy individual articles for $1 each, or buy a "mini" subscription of $10 per year that includes only a few of the paid articles, or something like that. I currently subscribe to 50-60 Substacks on the free tier, and would like to be able to pay them something without fully committing to a paid subscription.
The problem with subscription-based models, though, is the can grotesquely distort the content, as Matt Taibbi and Glenn Greenwald have amply ldemonstrated. Yes, the NYT has grow its digital subscription base, but it's largely people who want to hear what they already believe. And when the Times veers from that narrative (i.e., publishing an op-ed by a Republican senator), they get so much pushback from their subscribers ("That is NOT what we wanted to read.") that they end up firing good journalists to placate their activist subscription base.
So it is no panacea, that's for sure.
Now, that doesn't mean that is the only model for building a subscription-based publication business.
If you are upfront that your writing is a certain way, that you are going to write what you believe to be true or factual, and folks can take it or leave it, it may work. That seems to be more of the Wall Street Journal approach, and they're doing even better than the NYT.
But in and of itself, just going from an advertising revenue model to a subscription revenue model is no guarantee of quality or sustainability.
Interesting you seem to think the Twitter Files, which reports internal emails and texts in the offenders *own words*, are grotesque distortions. Or perhaps you haven't bothered to actually read that reporting and assume since the NYTimes ignores it it must not be newsworthy. That's absurd.
What I was referring to was the outstanding reporting Taibbi and Greenwald have done, before the Twitter files, in showing how a reliance on a subscriber model is causing places like the NYT, WaPo and more to ever narrow the range of ideas that are considered acceptable - because threats of cancelled subscriptions terrify them. (Taylor Lorenz, who confuses voyeurism with journalism, admitted as much while at the NYT, telling her followers that tweeting threats to cancel a subscription DID work in altering news coverage). Taibbi and Greenwald themselves seem rather impervious to subscriber threats, if their own comments sections are any indication. Sorry if that wasn't clear.
What are you even babbling about? At no.point do I even mention the Twitter files. But, yes, if the NYT ignores them (and I no longer read what has essentially become pr for the ruling class, so will take your word for it), it rather makes .my point that the Times is so afraid of any loss of subscribers that it is distorting its coverage.
I try to write quality, honest content. I'll keep writing and hope to get exposure. Without the exposure my writing (even if it's good) will remain hidden but I'll keep writing. Substack is a model I believe in.
For the most part, I am very happy to see this shift. However, it exacerbates a society-wide problem: The truth is behind paywalls, and rampant misinformation is free. That divides our society against itself and contributes to the rise of everything from anti-vaxers to insurrectionists. What model can solve that problem?
This is exactly what I knew I wanted to read but didn't know what to call it. Finally, a way for readers to see it writ LARGE for all to digest and process. I feel so relieved to know that so many readers are wanting good writing and know the difference between feeding the mind and soul and "slopping the pigs" with CLICKS.
What these companies failed to realize is that their content just wasn't that good... and I know I'm on the wrong site to be making such a comment, but: this writer's strike? Yeah... sorry, folks.. your content just isn't that good. TV/Movies have been embarrassing for decades at this point.
I haven't haven't owned a TV or paid for cable since 2002. I was a very early "cable-cutter", but I was also an early adopter of streaming services... and not a single one of them could hold my attention for more than a month before I cancelled (even tried again several years later..nah). You would have to PAY ME to consume the garbage being put out by Hollywood and all the people propping them up.
AI can take their jobs for all I care. Maybe they should learn to.... IDK, write differently... like, instructions for a computer to follow, or something.... I'm sure you clever folks can come up with a better way of putting it.. but, yeah should learn to do that instead.
There's a bunch of substacks I'm interested in but they all cost $7 a month. It's not a do-able amount of money for me. I appreciate the goal to make a living wage or pay bills for the writer, but I'm not going to pay $70 to subscribe to 10 substacks. I'd probably pay $30 to subscribe to 10. It's sort of the same with Patreons...there is a guitar player I like who sets his lowest tier at $10 and provides very little for that. Prices go up rapidly after that.
I appreciate that there is inflation all around us but one thing that hasn't inflated is my wages as a nurse (they've been pretty static in the last decade). I have less free money now than I had in the past.
I'd really love if patreon and substack content makers thought through how much they were charging vs how much money their subscribers might actually have available. I have a suspicion they would make more money and have many more subscribers if they charged less.
You know this is spot on based upon how viciously the old media goes after these “lone wolf” Indy journalists like Matt Taibis of the world. First, they get rebucketed by the competition that use their bully pulpet to, we’ll, bully the courageous new breed. Then the petty jealous little mean teen girls come with knives out for the carcass. But alas, it’s too late.
I for one can’t wait for these bought and paid for clowns to meet their maker.
Maybe of limited interest to Ted’s largely American readership, but if you want your heart warmed by confirmation that there is a paying readership for quality work it’s worth taking a cursory look at The Mill (Manchester), The Post (Liverpool) and The Tribune (Sheffield). The Mill was started as an attempt to prove that people will pay for thoughtful, long-form local journalism, as an antidote to the awful clickbait being churned out by the ton by the established Manchester paper. Operating on a shoestring, driven by a tiny number of fledgling journalists, it has become self-sustaining in just a couple of years and inspired sister papers in Liverpool and Sheffield, both growing their subscriber base at a rate of knots. They’re all on Substack, although with origins in email distribution I suspect many of their readers won’t even be aware of the platform other than as the name against their modest monthly payment.
I agree with some of the comments elsewhere that there are challenges here - cost, subscription fatigue, time to consume all the content you want to support but can’t get through. As a news, music and culture junkie I have to take a regular look at how the subscriptions I’ve built up with my heart have to be slimmed back down by my head. But I’m optimistic that this will shake down over time. Practically, people are likely to develop loyalty to just a few subscription bubbles - but that will still be a few more shades of opinion than the glory days of journalism when most folks got their views from one paper and one broadcaster.
Thanks as always for a thought-provoking piece Ted.
Substack needs to offer per-article pricing or "mini" subscriptions (with just a few paid articles included) for readers who have already maxed out their annual budget for paid subscriptions... @Substack what do you think?
Oh yes. Perfect intermediate step in helping someone decide whether they want to subscribe or not.
Would it be possible for Substack to offer a certain number of subscriptions for flat rate? I would love to subscribe to more but I'm losing track of of my $5 here and $10 there.
Albeit the freebie (fewer posts per time-unit) versions serve this purpose as well, I would think.
Yes! You should edit your comment with @Substack with your suggestion. It’s excellent.
Thank you -- done!
Yes! The digital version of the newsstand/browser market.
Subscription fatigue is real, as is the time economy!
I don't think so. We are returning to what worked for hundreds of years. Subscription fatigue didn't exist then and doesn't exist now. It just seems strange because The Experts were so so wrong.
Whether the payments are monthly or annual, the range and number of subscribed services are much more today, and can't be equated with 50 or 100 years ago.
An ordinary person, with an average income, might have two news or magazine digital subscriptions, three streaming services, bundled or unbundled mobile and internet services, at least one paid software subscription of some sort, a streaming music service, and who knows what other niche things that I'm not aware of, then add in four or five or six Substacks - we're already at 13 to 16 regular payments that are modern, not previously in people's budgets, because the markets for these optional consumption items didn't exist, except for newspapers and magazines, and purchasing music was discretionary, not regular or automatic, indeed, so was paying for news or a magazine, or specialist journals.
Add it all up.
Hearted as it describes me middlin’ well. I have not yet come to grips with this. I mean, I spend a lot of money on food and rent, and subscriptions do not compare to those items. My self-questioning amounts to
1) do I really need to know and/or interact with this?
2) would my time be better spent taking a walk or a bike ride?
I spose we all sort it out eventually.
Yes, although the costs are still cumulative.
The decision making is a pain. With Substack, for example, if I subscribe to six newsletters, there's another six that are just as good, or another 60. And yeah, do I really need them, or should I buy 50 books instead.
The offer of a one time purchase or subscribe-to-10-articles for ££ is better than lifetime subscription turning on & off as management/secretary/financial advisor issues are a struggle for the brain of Catbert nevermind us (mere mortals). Often, I may buy the NatGeo magazine or the New Scientist for a few months then drift off to the online free-zone to recharge my non-investor, anti-Bitcoin mainstream bank acc. whilst paying homage to this Debtor Worship my Journalism degree introduced me to many moons ago.
People paid for writing before. They are doing so again. Yes, there will be amalgamations etc, and someone must and inevitably will come up with a per-article iTunes for writing, but the paid-for model is the clear future. The ad model is dead.
'Subscription fatigue' is group-think from the same people who, until recently, didn't believe in subscriptions. The same people who thought Buzzfeed was the future.
A great article on this: https://simonowens.substack.com/p/subscription-fatigue-isnt-really
No, not group think, and nothing compelling about a piece that addresses only written digital content, an extremely limited and blinkered view of the wide array of subscriptions that are now of necessity or choice embedded in people's budgets.
Subscription fatigue doesn't mean there's a bubble, nor that anyone is predicting that it's about to burst. It's not a housing market, it's not a basic need, nor is there unlimited demand and limited supply. Subscription services have the exact opposite problem.
Yes, subscription is an old model. Getting a newspaper delivered every day was a subscription service, magazines were heavily into the annual subscription market. Only people who aren't thinking have suggested that subscriptions are some exotic new model, based on nothing more than the content being digital.
More important is the idea that the written word is special as far as subscriptions go, omitting a whole world of contemporary subscription services that contribute to actual subscription fatigue.
TV streaming, music streaming, mobile devices, internet access, online legacy news and magazines, of course, special interest or hobby subscriptions, upgraded YouTube access, software subscriptions, then start adding in individual newsletters, like Substack.
That might add up to 20 or more subscriptions, most of which are discretionary spending.
There's a real cumulative dollar cost, and a real cumulative time cost, and both have associated opportunity costs.
Of course people who have the disposable income and the time to consume will subscribe to more content, it's a trite argument Those people will also buy more cheese or shoes. And, the point is?
Even the well-off don't keep consuming more of the same thing, this is economics 101. There's a point beyond which they move their disposal income to other things.
These days, people place a higher premium on experiences, for example.
Or maybe they're looking at their bank account and realizing that their annual subscriptions add up to thousands of dollars, and contemplating which of those discretionary spends they can forego without noticing any loss of life enjoyment, and gaining time that could be used in more fulfilling ways, at nil cost.
I agree with you that the costs are too high when one is paying each writer individually, though I think the subscription model can work, and seems to me to be the best method, but not exactly in the way Substack does it.
In the past, a person subscribed to one newspaper, or one magazine, and read the work of many writers. I hope Substack can replicate that, by allowing readers to purchase a subscription that allows them to choose any 10 (or some other number) articles per week from any writer or writers they choose, with each of the writers getting 1/10th of the fee, less Substack’s fee.
I think another great move would be to allow people to act as curators. A curator would be much like the publisher of a magazine, who doesn’t write anything himself, but rather identifies writers who he deems worth reading, and collects articles into a regular publication. The curator would share a percentage of his subscription fees with his writers, who would also be selling their own individual subscriptions at the same time. This would be as if, say, Truman Capote had been able to sell subscriptions to a monthly magazine containing everything he wrote that month (his own Substack), while also being paid by the New Yorker each month to allow them to publish one of the articles from his own magazine (his article being included on a curator's Substack).
I had to think about this; at first blush the models sound exactly like legacy media and the dying aggregation digital media, which I appreciate isn't what you have in mind. The nuance is a fire line. Implementation would be complex. I'm thinking about the 20,000 or so publishers on Substack, compared with the few dozen, more or less, for a MSM or aggregation digital media offering. The number of permutations on Substack are too large for mental maths, and I'm being too lazy to ask ChatGPT.
Any move to micro payments would inevitably dilute the income of big stacks (although some earn so much, they probably wouldn't notice a difference), while rewarding smaller stacks with loose coins.
I understand the sentiment, though. I just can't get my head around the design and functional logistics, or the unintended consequences.
Recently on Notes, someone announced their new Substack, which is solely a Substack curation newsletter. Lots of positive comments, I'd guess lots of subscribers. I checked, and they have paid options available, which I thought was a bit galling, opportunistic. That's a paid subscription I could give to a writer, rather than to someone piggybacking off the work of Substack writers. (Of course, it's volitional to pay, I just didn't think pay should have been available.)
I only mention this as a matter of interest, and the relationship to your suggested model, whereby the writer would receive a payment for curations. Maybe Substack should prioritize that functionality.
Even curation isn't simple, because a good curation requires full access to every Substack, which is impossible, because a lot of paid stacks only offer a preview of their newsletter. Curation would exclude those stacks from the get-go, due to lack of information; you can't recommend that which you've not read. That would be one of many unintended consequences, curation would be weighted to newsletters with maximum open content.
I think we all wish we could afford to pay for, and had the time to read, a few dozen Substack newsletters. Alas, that's not plausible.
Other payment options, per your suggestions, or other ideas, warrant serious exploration and modelling, and testing and piloting,.
With curation, the curator doesn't need a subscription or access to every Substack. Think of it more like a traditional publication. You run Caz Monthly. You like what I write, so you ask me to either write an article for, or share one of my private posts with, you each month, to be shared in Caz Monthly. In exchange, you give me $x or x% of my subscription. As a curator, your skill is identifying great writers, much like a Harold Ross. Once a month you publish your Substack, and subscribers know that they'll get 10 great articles.
As a reader, I'll pay a higher monthly fee to get your one Substack per month, and I know that you keep some of it, and the writers keep some. If I discover a writer I especially enjoy, perhaps I'll subscribe to his Substack as well. This is akin to someone reading the New Yorker, enjoying whatever Truman Capote writes, then going out and buying his books.
I don't think this dilutes anyone's income. I doubt anyone who is willing to pay for a subscription to a writer, and receive 10 or so articles from him per month, will cancel if they subscribe to Caz Weekly, where they get but one from him per month.
I see it as a chance for a writer to expand his audience, and make additional revenue. If you are a great curator and get let's say 20,000 paid subscriptions, at $10 per month, even if you keep 50%, and Substack takes 10%, that's still $8,000 each to the 10 writers you include, on top of whatever they make from their own subscribers.
The ad model subsidized journalism for generations. Nearly the entire burden is on the consumer now and access to quality journalism is more expensive than it has ever been, making it a product for the relatively wealthy. It's high cost monthly subscriptions or nothing - no single copy equivalent.
Written content and music content aren't the only categories of subscription services, and others are less discretionary, more essential, like a mobile or an internet connection, the former are more easily sacrificed than the latter if people are budgeting.
Thanks for the link, I'll be interested to read more about the alternative point of view.
And, sad to say, clickbaiting GUARDIAN items still tend to be better than much of what I see from other supposedly responsible and respectable news outlets in English.
Ah! It did seem a bit hard on GRAUNIAD, again given most other options in its field. Thanks for clarification (MEN [hm.] has no profile I'm aware of in the States.)
Oh, totally agree. For the avoidance of doubt, my reference was to the (awful) Manchester Evening News, not the born-in-Manchester Guardian :)
Oh god yes.
I see so many links to the random rubbish that the MEN churns out, that I wonder whether it can still credibly call itself a Manchester newspaper. Or even a newspaper!
It can’t. It’s just a bunch of underpaid youngsters who are incentivised by volume ☹️
The "glory days of journalism," at least on this side of the pond, had at least two competing dailies in even most mid-sized towns, and three competing TV stations (affiliates of the then-three national networks, ABC, CBS and NBC). Even in Dayton, Ohio, where I grew up, we had the morning Journal Herald and the evening Daily News. And back then, op-ed editors felt it was their professional and civic duty to present as wide a range of opinions as possible.
I don't see any single point online today where you can get that same breadth of thought - nearly every place, including Substack (where I publish), is silo-ing up into pods of the like-minded offering the comfort of unanimity.
How can Substack be sustained when there are so many writers publishing newsletters on it's site? Few people can afford to subscribe to everyone that they read. I just got an email from a friend, and he's publishing his latest novel on Substack in weekly installments. He is a successful writer and will probably do ok, but how many writers can Substack readers support? I guess we'll find out.
Agreed. Substack desperately needs to put together some type of package option. Getting so many separate small bills each month is exasperating. An annual subscription is OK for some writers, but I’ve already been burned by purchasing an annual subscription to someone who simply ceased publishing, at least on Substack.
Big thumbs up for this. I’m fine with a fluctuating monthly bill, but I’d really like it to be just one! Seems to be one of the harder things for the ‘decent people pay for content’ platforms to figure out, Mixcloud, Bandcamp and Steady all have similar issues.
I buy yearly. Of course I make my own coffee, and cook most meals. I'm older. I left Twitter and joined Substack. I left WaPo, NYT, for real journalism. When I seen Musk carrying the sink into Twitter, I left that day. Noise from the ignorant and Wealthy, I hope are behind me.
Ignorance is not bliss. Carry On.
Let's be honest; Twitler was far worse than T(w)itter.
Honest Q: Why is it exasperating? I just use the same card/account for all of mine & only pay one bill a month.
And I can understand why you'd be wary about annual subscriptions, but IMO, they're better for both the reader & writer. They're often the cheaper option for readers, and the writer can focus more on the work and less on chasing new revenue. I won't speak for Ted here, but in my case, that's exactly why mine is priced the way it is.
Hi Kevin - I take your point, but account management would be easier for the reader if Substack mastered fractional payments when you subscribe and kept all your subscriptions on the same (monthly or annual) anniversary and in a single statement/email. It’s not a massive headache, but all my subs are on different days of the month. If they were consolidated, I suspect it would also make them ‘stickier’; I’m guessing a single payment notification per month is less likely to prompt ‘I haven’t read that one for ages, maybe I’ll let it go’.
I agree with you about annual subs, but I guess it’s normal/reasonable reader behaviour to at least start with monthly before committing to annual. Better than them sticking with free!
What's the difference between this package, and spotify's business model, that wiped the music industry?
Just like FB and Google destroyed Billboard ads.
Also, on Spotify, Artists have no mean to build a relationship with their audience... no mean to contact them or them to write to you, you don't even know who they are.
And it could be a game changer, it's cooler when you know the artist and even go to drinks to his apartment vs just seeing him from afar in the middle of 200k people
Right!
Thats such a important characteristic!
To your initial point, it’s not fair to say the Spotify wiped out the music industry. It is fair to say that it massively reduced the potential profit margins for most recorded music.
I agree that your statement is more precise. I guess I wanted to express that it must have affected the music industry in a way I don't like. Maybe the average spending in music per perdón and the revenue for regular artists has decreased ?
No evidence though
Yes, on average artists make far less on streaming. For many performing musicians, they could sell CD’s at shows and double their incomes. Streaming really doesn’t work that way...
I thought it was craigslist…
Sorry, I made a mistake. Substack doesn’t pay for output, but pays for subscriptions. Spotify doesn’t allow that feature either. Wanted to correct myself.
there’s a substantial difference. On Spotify, an artist is payed a minute royalty based on the number of times a track is paid (.06 cents per play, I think). Of that commonly, the record label takes at least half and in wealthier countries that streams are worth more than in less wealthy ones.
There isn’t an option on spotify to directly pay an artist $10 directly for their output. if there were, the margins for the artist would be exponentially better.
I agree that Spotify (and other streaming) is rough for artists, but at an industry level streaming has brought the recorded music business to profitability overall and out of the tailspin of free downloads. Certainly not all good, but not all bad either.
Thanks for the clarification!!
This really teaches me
By downpricing the market
By downpricing the market
Substack will be fine -- lots of writers means more money for them -- but not every writer will thrive here, and readers have to choose where to spend their money. I don't think that's a bad thing.
I actually like that I can't afford to subscribe to everyone because it forces me to slow down and be more intentional in choosing the writers who deliver high enough quality to merit a subscription. I've noticed that as my content consumption increases, I actually learn and apply less, even when it's excellent writing. The brain can only absorb so much.
Like the long tail theory, this paradigm imo rewards first and foremost writers applying themselves to topics widely regarded as “relevant” or who have already well-established brands. I might discover a new writer in a regularly published compendium like the New Yorker, but it seems unlikely I’ll stumble on an author new to me occupying a silo here, unless through word of mouth or the writer’s own promotional efforts (largely on other platforms or in other media)..
You should check out Substack Notes—where you will get lots of discussion of Substack (and other) articles which are much more than just the "writer's own promotional efforts." Notes is a vibrant community of writers and readers that isn't as stratified and narrow as reviews in The New Yorker. I'm learning about independent new voices in journalism every day there.
Will take a look. I’m already trying to handle an overwhelming media diet, while contributing myself and participating in previously established writers communities (Jazz Journalists Assoc and the Off Campus Writers Workshop, foremost of late), besides personal contacts. I admire your explorations, Ted, but paying for three subs is already, what, $150? — and here I am trying to write a Substack, offering free content to build towards what? An audience that will eventually be paying, if I provide frequent new content of a high level, in competition with already established Substack writers. I dunno, Color me skeptical.
That's a good point. My finances, or lack there of, provide the discipline to keep me from subscribing.
“Micropayments”
If a writer has even 1000 subscribers and makes .25 per, that”s $250 for an article. I don’t consider that unfair. At scale micropayments could be far less.
Even subs at $6/mo add up quickly.
Having 1000 PAID subscribers is pretty rare. 1000 free subscribers is more common.
Seems fair to me. I'm not in the writing business and didn't know there was a "scale" for articles.
By ‘at scale’ I mean large numbers, so someone with a million subscribers could get paid well charging only pennies. 😄
OK. Being a musician, "at scale" has a different meaning. 🙄
I suspect what will happen is the ever growing division of the audience into micro-demographics. Instead of 5 big publications with ten million readers each - the Substack equivalent could be 50000 writers with 1000 subscribers each, or 5000 writers with 10000 subscribers, etc etc.
Of course, what is more likely to happen over time is a Doomberg type model: a publishing company with a staff and brand, hence the ability to expand out of the above "micro" model into a more traditional publishing brand.
Just like everything, it seems to have exploded. Mostly a good thing , but also much bad with the over saturation of "writing" It is just all TOO much
As the grandson of the owners/publishers/editors of a weekly newspaper, I applaud Ted's analysis. Two additional comments, the second one being one I'd love to hear Ted's response to:
1) To give the 10,000-foot perspective on things, when you base your economic model on clicks, you slide down a very steep slope to an inevitable end. And that end is the basest desires, and you debase your organization and the very concept of journalism itself.
When a meteorologist at The Weather Channel spoke to our student meteorology group at the University of Georgia about 15 years ago, bragging about how they were chasing after viewers with entertainment content instead of weather coverage, I couldn't take it anymore. I went up to him after the talk and said,
"Mike, if you want more viewers, you know what you should do? Nudity. Call it Full Frontal Weather."
He stared at me uncomprehendingly. Basing your model on clicks means that, in the end, your newspaper becomes a variant on a porn site. Because the data show that nothing gets more clicks than porn. But that's where you will end up, or as close to it as the laws will permit.
For example, our dying local paper's website has a user-contributed photos section. The most popular photos by far are from sorority rush. And it's probably not because the young women's parents and friends are going to that site. We know what the demographics of that site are.
2) Many years ago, David Simon of "The Wire" fame, and before that the Baltimore Sun, wrote a perceptive piece in the Washington Post about what we were losing as newspapers died. His cogent point: when you speak truth to power, power will try to shut you up via legal pressure. And that is when you absolutely need an organization behind you with the stature and the means to push back publicly and also legally. In other words, media back in the day and now *must* have two of the three of "lawyers, guns, and money" to do real journalism.
So my question regarding the Substack model of journalism is this: what happens when you, the writer, manage to say something incendiary-and-true enough that you raise the ire of important players in our society? They are going to come after you with everything they've got. What do *you* got to fight back with, that a citizen blogger doesn't have? Because citizen bloggers can and do get shut down by the powers-that-be. One that I know of, a former newspaper journalist, ended up getting beaten up and put in jail. (I guess he needed all 3 of "lawyers, guns, and money.")
How does the Substack model defend against intimidation and legal muzzles? Because if it's no better than the citizen blogger model, then it's still crucially deficient vs. the old model of a large newspaper with considerable resources and a crackerjack legal team.
I hope that it is better, but I worry it's not. Sincerely asking, because I fear for our nation as our newspapers die a mostly farcical death.
"...what we were losing as newspapers died"
I worked at [international] newspaper for just over a decade... and while I understand the sentiment behind this, part of me wonders just how much we're actually losing. I can't speak for all publications, but... in the final few years I was there I started noticing a lot of "narrative pushing" that was really just straight-up lying [via unnamed sources, framing techniques that our reporters never really employed before (and had an "activist" stink about them, almost as if we had been infiltrated), etc.. it was weird].
The entire experience made me wonder if it was part of the "click-chasing pornification" you mentioned, or if "speaking truth to power" had simply been a distracting performance and marketing technique rolled into one all along... and I was finally just starting to notice it.
I hear your concerns, but there is still truth, and there's certainly power, and speaking truth still matters. I learned this in a searing way.
Here's a very specific example of what's being lost:
I served on the local school board from 2017 through 2020. Our local paper was already not very good when we moved here in 2001, and by 2017 the K-12 school coverage was on the plate of one reporter who also covered the big research university in our town, and much else. He faithfully attended our tedious school board meetings, but when things got contentious and there were multiple, very different sides to stories, he just didn't have the bandwidth to get to the bottom of it. The free alt-weekly in town had a news editor who was a former local-paper journalist, and his instincts were better, but he had multiple duties too, infrequently came to board meetings and left early when he did. This wasn't good for the reporting when certain board members made sure that key votes were taken near the very end of 3-to-4-hour meetings.
The media that really drove the festering situation, which ultimately led to an accreditation agency investigation and a lot of trouble for the school board, the superintendent, and the community, were not the local paper or the alt-weekly.
Instead, it was a social media page focused on the school district that had everyone talking, run by people with their own agendas. And other social media pages that seemed to be coordinated and run by a relative of one of the main players in the complicated political posturings going on among and around the board members.
It was a shitshow. At one meeting, the social media frenzy was stirred up so much that we board members had to be escorted out of the building by law enforcement!
There was no impartial and insightful reporting from that social media site. The local traditional media were too underpowered to be a counterbalance. The local people who voted for me who cared about the situation, were too busy to attend the meetings (because everyone works a lot more than 40 hours a week) and also didn't have the guidance of fully informed regular journalistic account (the local paper had dwindled to Wed-Sun only). And so the public was always about two jumps behind the machinations going on behind the scenes, always in need of catching up.
The agenda that was pushed forward, more or less successfully, came from retired persons with no children in the school district but a tight church network, who had the time on their hands and the passion to go after those they branded enemies--perhaps most prominently, me.
I had a hellish experience on the school board, as did those who agreed with me and not with the retired-persons agenda, and we all got off the school board as quickly as we could. I will never consider serving in elected office for the rest of my life after that. The biggest losers were probably the children in the school district, because decisions that were being made about their education at the top level got entangled with the latest postings on the social media site.
This is how the loss of local journalism leads to the rotting of the social institutions of America. I did what I could to set the record straight, particularly when being attacked. I published more than one op-ed in the alt-weekly laying out exactly what I saw going on, for example with a very unusual property deal for new offices for the central administration that involved a building that was too small, not up to code, and too expensive. If the journalists couldn't report it and the social media were mass confusion, I tried to lay it out for all to see. But of course that didn't really work, either.
It was very prescient of the founders of the nation to stipulate "freedom of the press" in the First Amendment, not just freedom of speech. The United States in 2023 is an example of what happens when the press is ensnared by economic and political forces that diminish it. Freedom of speech goes only so far in ensuring democracy.
Thanks for listening. I don't disagree with you and, had I not been battered on the school board, I might have agreed with some of the equivalency of audience-pandering and crusading journalism. I just can't, though, not after what I saw and experienced first-hand.
Thank you for your candor.
I began reading one writer on Substack. In addition, I read comments. Once engaged, the subscription became an intelligent discussion board. There are thoughtful ideas presented.I have learned from the writer and the comments. I feel a part of something more creative, more hopeful, whether I comment or just read. I am looking for integrity and authenticity. Money can not buy it.
Engagement is key.
There is crowdsourcing in the event of a lawsuit. “Many hands make light work”. There are a couple of ways one can interpret that thought.
Since techie marketing people were the ones who started Buzzfeed, Upworthy and all of these other misbegotten contraptions that existed only to pay their founders through an IPO, it is no surprise that none of them could come up with anything but stupid copycat gimmicks and failed. All of them are scam companies. Run, of course, by stupid greedy people. Who also all love the AI concept for obvious reasons. And techie rags like Fast Company exist only as the hype Wurlitzer since, of course, they’re also a pig at the trough. Ironic that the tech monopolies are the only companies policing this pathetic sector of the economy. But those 2500 dead newspapers are never coming back.
Most of the 2500 were bought up and paid for repeaters of the Gannett lying propaganda network so good riddance
So local newspapers and the Gannett chain are propaganda. Thanks. Got it
Thank you for this. I've been wondering how to wrap my head around all the changes swirling around us in the world of journalism. You're absolutely right about subscriptions.
I subscribe to many newspapers and magazines, and prefer getting my information from actual writers. As always, your writing is at once logical, succinct, and eloquent.
A quick reaction…. I think this analysis gets a “yeah but…” I completely agree that click chasing is a fool’s game, and that subscription-driven journalism is much more sustainable. But when do consumers (a) reach saturation - subscribing to too many channels such that they can’t afford or can’t read all of them, and (b) find themselves happy enough in their chosen echo chamber that they have no motivation to seek other input? I don’t know what the ultimate good answer is, but I don’t think it’s hundreds (thousands?) of Substack writers competing for a large, but finite, universe of cash-paying eyeballs. No, I have never tweeted; thanks but no thanks for the opportunity to seek likes, clicks and whatever other noise comes with sharing to Notes.
If you do the numbers, you will see that Substack isn’t even close to saturation. Less than 1% of the potential market pays for subscriptions here. That’s tiny, almost nothing. By my measure, this platform is at a very early stage in its story. I’ve run the numbers, and that’s how I see it. If others have analyzed this with different results, I’d be curious to see what they’ve come up with.
Compare the five to eight dollars a month for each author you'd like to read to a subscription to Apple tv. Netflix subscriptions cable TV subscriptions, magazine subscriptions all of those could shift around to support whoever can put out the content. There's a shit ton of wealth in this world and it's a good thing some of it's going towards people who give a damn about what they write and who know a thing or two
As far as I know, which might not be current, Substack has around 17,000 newsletters, and growing, and 20 million readers, of whom about 10 percent are paid subscribers, at the aggregate. That conversation rate drops to zero or a few percent for smaller newsletters.
Newsletters usually flog some dubious goods or services as part of its model, which is fine if the writing is good. Successful newsletters seem to be those with strong personalities publishing them, which commands subscriber loyalty. E.g. Substack didn't "make" Seymour Hersh; his decades of intrepid journalism earns him paid subscriptions to the platform.
A lot of categories on Substack. I'm mostly following fiction, and a few general or hot topic stacks, they're mostly selling me a paid subscription, or sometimes they have books.
So it depends where your interests sit.
I've found the hide function really useful on Notes, for publishers just spruiking or topics of no interest to me at this time.
Perspective from a consumer: my hope is that there is no finite number of readers. Focus on the work of writing with integrity. Practicing this will create a shift that will surpass all current expectations of an “end result”. One has to have faith in oneself. There is always a test. Stay focused on process.... and pay attention to future audiences. Make sure they can think critically, and read.
I hope more Substackers will introduce more differentiated levels of pricing. I currently have 6-8 annual Substack subscriptions of about $60 each and can't afford to add more.
BUT I'd love to be able to buy individual articles for $1 each, or buy a "mini" subscription of $10 per year that includes only a few of the paid articles, or something like that. I currently subscribe to 50-60 Substacks on the free tier, and would like to be able to pay them something without fully committing to a paid subscription.
The problem with subscription-based models, though, is the can grotesquely distort the content, as Matt Taibbi and Glenn Greenwald have amply ldemonstrated. Yes, the NYT has grow its digital subscription base, but it's largely people who want to hear what they already believe. And when the Times veers from that narrative (i.e., publishing an op-ed by a Republican senator), they get so much pushback from their subscribers ("That is NOT what we wanted to read.") that they end up firing good journalists to placate their activist subscription base.
So it is no panacea, that's for sure.
Now, that doesn't mean that is the only model for building a subscription-based publication business.
If you are upfront that your writing is a certain way, that you are going to write what you believe to be true or factual, and folks can take it or leave it, it may work. That seems to be more of the Wall Street Journal approach, and they're doing even better than the NYT.
But in and of itself, just going from an advertising revenue model to a subscription revenue model is no guarantee of quality or sustainability.
Interesting you seem to think the Twitter Files, which reports internal emails and texts in the offenders *own words*, are grotesque distortions. Or perhaps you haven't bothered to actually read that reporting and assume since the NYTimes ignores it it must not be newsworthy. That's absurd.
What I was referring to was the outstanding reporting Taibbi and Greenwald have done, before the Twitter files, in showing how a reliance on a subscriber model is causing places like the NYT, WaPo and more to ever narrow the range of ideas that are considered acceptable - because threats of cancelled subscriptions terrify them. (Taylor Lorenz, who confuses voyeurism with journalism, admitted as much while at the NYT, telling her followers that tweeting threats to cancel a subscription DID work in altering news coverage). Taibbi and Greenwald themselves seem rather impervious to subscriber threats, if their own comments sections are any indication. Sorry if that wasn't clear.
What are you even babbling about? At no.point do I even mention the Twitter files. But, yes, if the NYT ignores them (and I no longer read what has essentially become pr for the ruling class, so will take your word for it), it rather makes .my point that the Times is so afraid of any loss of subscribers that it is distorting its coverage.
I try to write quality, honest content. I'll keep writing and hope to get exposure. Without the exposure my writing (even if it's good) will remain hidden but I'll keep writing. Substack is a model I believe in.
For the most part, I am very happy to see this shift. However, it exacerbates a society-wide problem: The truth is behind paywalls, and rampant misinformation is free. That divides our society against itself and contributes to the rise of everything from anti-vaxers to insurrectionists. What model can solve that problem?
This is exactly what I knew I wanted to read but didn't know what to call it. Finally, a way for readers to see it writ LARGE for all to digest and process. I feel so relieved to know that so many readers are wanting good writing and know the difference between feeding the mind and soul and "slopping the pigs" with CLICKS.
American Express gives away NYT annual subscriptions to credit card holders and I refuse to take one. My point is those numbers are false also.
What these companies failed to realize is that their content just wasn't that good... and I know I'm on the wrong site to be making such a comment, but: this writer's strike? Yeah... sorry, folks.. your content just isn't that good. TV/Movies have been embarrassing for decades at this point.
I haven't haven't owned a TV or paid for cable since 2002. I was a very early "cable-cutter", but I was also an early adopter of streaming services... and not a single one of them could hold my attention for more than a month before I cancelled (even tried again several years later..nah). You would have to PAY ME to consume the garbage being put out by Hollywood and all the people propping them up.
AI can take their jobs for all I care. Maybe they should learn to.... IDK, write differently... like, instructions for a computer to follow, or something.... I'm sure you clever folks can come up with a better way of putting it.. but, yeah should learn to do that instead.
There's a bunch of substacks I'm interested in but they all cost $7 a month. It's not a do-able amount of money for me. I appreciate the goal to make a living wage or pay bills for the writer, but I'm not going to pay $70 to subscribe to 10 substacks. I'd probably pay $30 to subscribe to 10. It's sort of the same with Patreons...there is a guitar player I like who sets his lowest tier at $10 and provides very little for that. Prices go up rapidly after that.
I appreciate that there is inflation all around us but one thing that hasn't inflated is my wages as a nurse (they've been pretty static in the last decade). I have less free money now than I had in the past.
I'd really love if patreon and substack content makers thought through how much they were charging vs how much money their subscribers might actually have available. I have a suspicion they would make more money and have many more subscribers if they charged less.
Yes! Great comment!
You know this is spot on based upon how viciously the old media goes after these “lone wolf” Indy journalists like Matt Taibis of the world. First, they get rebucketed by the competition that use their bully pulpet to, we’ll, bully the courageous new breed. Then the petty jealous little mean teen girls come with knives out for the carcass. But alas, it’s too late.
I for one can’t wait for these bought and paid for clowns to meet their maker.
Oh the irony of using GPT for self immolation.
Ted: "I was going to call this story the “tragedy of American journalism.” But when you dig into the details, it’s more a farce."
For those who feel deeply, life is a tragedy. For those who think deeply, life is a comedy.
Ha ha. (Used to be the other guy.)
Yes, a comedy of errors.