In older terms, the other platforms are billboards. Substack is a GUILD in the fullest sense, protecting the skills of masters and trying to train apprentices.
That's a brilliant analogy, if it's true. I've always thought a true guild would be the way to go for writers--a safe place, a place where writers could learn and build and teach our trade, where we could gather as peers and talk through our stresses and successes.
It could work if we could just leave the marketing and the shilling out of it. Is that even possible?
I debated between substack and medium for a bit. I just didn’t think much of the writing I’d seen via Medium though I’m sure this varies and some people are on both. So happy I landed here.
The problem with Medium is the writers can’t monetize their own writings and directly see who is reading their stuff. Substack, so far, leaves the keys to the car in the hands of the writers.
It isn't necessary to assume bad faith to be cautious about Facebook and X. It may well be accurate that Musk intends to build his own Substack-like product for X. He's so tone-deaf with people that he doesn't understand that alienating them in the meantime is a bad idea.
Meanwhile, the fundamental premise of Facebook, for a consumer like me, is that they get to decide what is shown to me. Not me. No deal.
I for one will cheer the demise of the "silo" that doesn't ever want its' "eyeballs"- to look outside its confines, and demands content producers pay up for access to them. I hope it all withers and fades away.
I left most advert-flogging media behind and I am much happier as a result. Commenced with television when it went off the public's airwaves and onto cable. You remember the deal? Pay for this new cable thing and you won't have to sit thru the commercials? Watch only what you want to watch? They did not mention "Oh by the way, we're lying thru our dagger-sharp teeth, and oh by the way #2: your subscription $$ will go mostly to programmers such as Fox News and worse. Oh, and those 350 channels you pay for? Yeah, you're not gonna watch 'em even if you paid for 'em, sucker."
I've never had cable. It came very late to Australia and is too expensive. Now I watch streamers and choose what to watch. I've trained my algorithm somewhat.
Writers do ideas, which, as we all know, are dangerous to the status quo. That the left has become the right in my lifetime proves two things: 1) anything can happen anytime, and 2) a lifetime isn't very long. I enjoy your takes on the music (and the biz), thanks for your contributions.
Hear, hear. I've deleted all social media and gone "all in" on Substack. Keeping up "out there" just didn't make sense for me, anymore. I didn't want to play that game, mostly because it had gone so mainstream that it no longer felt interesting to me.
Conversely, here on SS, there's a life to this community that's hard to explain. As you said, Ted, it comes down to values. All communities need a code of conduct, a certain set of ethics on how we agree to comport ourselves while we interact with each other. This goes beyond mere terms of service and gets down to the understood exchange of value we are all participating in.
Blogging was like this back in the early-ish days (2006-2012). We were all trying to help each other figure out a thing no one fully understood at the time. It was fun and interesting, and every few months, there was new technology or techniques to play with.
Most readers of blogs, especially early on, were bloggers themselves. Same with podcasts and podcasters. I get the same kind of vibe on Substack. There is a certain kind of respect one writer gives another that readers don't always know how to give.
For example, Ted, I can see the tremendous amount time, energy, and thought you put into your publication. It is an impressive amount of excellent output. I tip my hat to you and watch what you're doing carefully, because you've got a lot figured out—namely, I think, that it's an all experiment and the goal is to keep playing. At least, that's my takeaway.
Anyway, can we get along? Maybe. I think what writers need more than media is community. This goes back to the days of the Inklings, Bloomsbury Group, and so on. Creators need safe places where they can work out their craft and figure out what to make next. I like that this is place where I can do just that.
I appreciate the time and energy and thought you put into this comment! :) I would just like to suggest one thing -- I’m not sure writers are looking for “safe” spaces. A little risk is part of the fun, and part of what makes it possible to create or discover something new. I think writers are just looking for SPACES. Full stop. Spaces where we can share and interact and appreciate one another. Maybe call them “third spaces” or digital versions of “third spaces” (fourth spaces?) but not safe specifically beyond the typically expected level of any civil society not under colonial extraction or totalitarianism, or at war. :)
Yes, I think that's true. And I realize the term "safe space" has been coopted recently to mean something more like "place where I do not feel challenged." That's not what I mean or meant by the term. We just need an area to fail and fall and try again and know we are not completely alone. I like the concept of third spaces. That's a cool term and great way to think about it.
Once more you put your finger on the crucial point: the dominant social media magnates want one thing more than anything else: control. They steal “content” and throttle access. They promote what is good for their business, not what is good. Sadly, they reflect the hollowed out culture we now see generally predominating in our world.
It's really a quite simple concept. When you refuse to pay for content and make your money from advertising, you have to keep the eyeballs on your site/app. The content needs to be sufficiently interesting to keep you there long enough for the ads. Or you keep scrolling looking for sufficiently interesting content. They rely on the subset of the population who enjoys cat videos and music that all sounds the same.
Agreed. Though that subset of the population may sadly be the majority of the population. But, it doesn’t mean that pandering to those folks is the only business model that thrives!
I am thankful for this platform; introduced to it by a friend who our peer group has considered a grade above, figuratively & literally, in many ways. Personally admitting to being more of a student of the bar vs. the Bard (while at U of Iowa). Being on here with what I feel are extremely intelligent folks who do not attack someone like a scorned Hexenbiest (been waiting so long to use that!!). Thank you for the forum and look forward to communication that helps retain my faith that all is truly not lost...yet.
One in four posts on Instagram are paid ads, two out of four are influencer ads and one out of four is the squirrel I follow. I barely look at it anymore (except to catch up on the squirrel). Facebook is worse. I have not seen any friend's post on Facebook in ages. It's all just groups, pages, suggested reels. It's where my brain goes to die. I am grateful to Substack in ways I never imagined. It's like life has returned.
This is on the record so here goes. When I entered the realm of Substack as a journalist battling a chronic, incurable illness I had high hopes for it being different from Twitter and other social media. As Notes launched you could say there was this sort of 1990s coffeehouse vibe, an avenue in which writers collaborated with artists of other ways--and perhaps other or greater means. The means part of my message is important, however, for what I discovered in a very short time is the very reason I fell disheartened by social media. There was 1 percent controlling not only the majority of the paid subscribers on the platform--there was also a sort of unwillingness to help other artists who may be new and/or down on their luck. Instead of truly being that beacon of hope for journalists, when journalism surely could have used that kick in the rear to produce great writing, select writers were too busy supporting those they already knew and trusted--rather than helping those in need. Some even proclaimed they were coaching on the platform, but as far as I'm aware the definition of being a coach is taking someone to a place they can't get to by themselves. Again, I was hopeful that this platform was going to not be a money-grubbing, self-centered service that writers and artists of all shape and size can benefit from. But I found that the best recourse for me was to dot com my newsletter and let my own ethics and values shape my personal journey going forward rather than call out certain individuals for acts I found were unethical and reminded me of the very lunch table during high school that they were proclaiming was different.
I get all that, I just question whether playing into Zuckerberg's evil empire is worth it? Clearly for some people it is. For me the price was too high.
Fair enough. I left a few "friends" behind. At the time I let everyone know that if they wanted to stay in touch to contact me via email. I've had one super close friendship across the Pacific Ocean with a person I've never met since then. It's good, I like it. The rest I either know in real life or don't really miss.
Also, I’m not so sure of Substack as a platform or at least as a fit for me. I’ve noticed significant experts in different fields who publish regularly and for some time, and don’t have any subscriber base at all. As a musician that worries me.
When every writer is self-promoting on Twitter, they all get drowned out and lost in the crowd.
Same thing could happen to Substack. Following 100 writers? Who's got time for that? Do writers with a decent following get free access, or are you paying a grand a month for that?
Same thing will happen to Substack. We're drowning in content, and much more needs to be written about that. (So we can drown faster? haha). I know Ted has written about the sheer volume of songs out there, no doubt far worse because you no longer need a record label or an expensive recording studio.
Baskin-Robbins may be great, well they were before we got the premium brands with more cream like Haagen-Dazs and Ben & Jerry's. But nobody can eat 31 flavors at once. Myself, I don't eat the stuff at all. Sugar's actually poison.
Some people are criticizing me because I subscribe to a lot of Substacks. So let me say that (1) It's healthy to build a genuine sense of community at Substack, and subscribing is the key way that happens; (2) Substack allows both free and paid subscriptions, so cost considerations or a person's budget never prevent anyone from subscribing; (3) Even if I don't have time to read everything, subscribing is still a sign of respect, commitment, and support—and those are good things; (4) The subscription model is the best method I've seen for supporting freelancers, and I want it to flourish—so subscribing ensures that my actions reflect my values; (5) I've noticed that the practice of writers subscribing to other writers has created a friendlier and less toxic atmosphere here than on social media, and that benefits everybody.
I couldn't agree more with this. I subscribe to 50 writers at the moment and it is a sign of respect and support, even if it takes me a while to read every article. (I set up a filter in Gmail so they all skip the inbox and go into a folder until I've made the time.) I love your work Ted and appreciate your voice. As a newer music pub still trying to grow, I've found a beautiful community of fellow music lovers who make the time to support and amplify the work of others. You just don't get that on any other platform.
Thanks for the Gmail idea! I’ve been trying to figure out if there was a way to get substack to not send me emails to things I subscribe to because they just clog up my box and I want to check my feed through my substack inbox only. This workaround will maybe make mass deletion easier.
Thanks for clearing that up. One hundred paid subscriptions at @ $5/mo would come into some real money. I received notifications from Substack that some folks had subscribed to me. A was a bit confused at how to respond: if it was protocol to reciprocate, and had to be at a paid subscription, I would be eating up my modest SS check fairly quickly. I have learned something from this post. Thank you.
I would have paid subscriptions from some of my reads, but I simply cannot afford it at this time. As it is, my handful (literally) of paid subscribers are merely friends who want to support my effort. I still haven't broke the 100 mark of free subscribers after a year on Substack, so I suppose that just means my writing is crap and/ or nobody is interested in traditional sonnetry or my take on some songs. I have very little in the way of feedback either. This is all aside from the last 2 months of inactivity due to personal issues that affect my ability to pay. I even posted a poll about my paid subscription rate and I received not one answer.
I do that. I've mentioned and linked Ted and others. I still can't shake the feeling that either A: My writing's crap or B: Interest in traditional poetry is non existent (or both).
You may not have time to read "everything," but the amount you manage to read, along with all of your other endeavors is too much for my limited mental bandwidth to comprehend. And many thanks for doing all of that; you manage to be amazingly successful with writing the that are interesting.
Writing is about text, perhaps with supporting images. Any digital equivalent must take its cue from traditional print, books and newspapers. The conventions are long established. I think Substack does a decent job of that. Clutter free pages and minimal design.
Twitter and other social media sites are about capture using trickery. I know I am overstating it, but that is basically it. That is also why they dislike people clicking outside via links; this is entirely consistent with their goals. They used to call it stickiness. I think of it as entrapment, which is ultimately self-defeating.
Substack seems to be about being a decent reading experience, and that makes all the difference.
In older terms, the other platforms are billboards. Substack is a GUILD in the fullest sense, protecting the skills of masters and trying to train apprentices.
I love this analogy. We should write a charter and keep our accounts in florins and such things
This is an apt and inspiring analogy! The generally warm nature of the platform makes it easy to learn from each other and feedback feels genuine.
That's a brilliant analogy, if it's true. I've always thought a true guild would be the way to go for writers--a safe place, a place where writers could learn and build and teach our trade, where we could gather as peers and talk through our stresses and successes.
It could work if we could just leave the marketing and the shilling out of it. Is that even possible?
So far, Substack is the site that fulfills the promise that Medium failed to fulfill. I hope it continues with the ethos you espouse, Sir.
I debated between substack and medium for a bit. I just didn’t think much of the writing I’d seen via Medium though I’m sure this varies and some people are on both. So happy I landed here.
The problem with Medium is the writers can’t monetize their own writings and directly see who is reading their stuff. Substack, so far, leaves the keys to the car in the hands of the writers.
While I don’t remember the exact details of what my research fetched up, this was definitely one of the reasons I chose Substack over Medium.
Exactly. Their business model creates a lot of downward pressure for writers.
It isn't necessary to assume bad faith to be cautious about Facebook and X. It may well be accurate that Musk intends to build his own Substack-like product for X. He's so tone-deaf with people that he doesn't understand that alienating them in the meantime is a bad idea.
Meanwhile, the fundamental premise of Facebook, for a consumer like me, is that they get to decide what is shown to me. Not me. No deal.
I for one will cheer the demise of the "silo" that doesn't ever want its' "eyeballs"- to look outside its confines, and demands content producers pay up for access to them. I hope it all withers and fades away.
haha, "not me. no deal" that's excellent. that exact fact dawned on me one day once I had a peek into the machine.
Yes, it's like Facebook et al. are the free to air tv and substack is streaming. No ads, I decide what I want to watch.
I left most advert-flogging media behind and I am much happier as a result. Commenced with television when it went off the public's airwaves and onto cable. You remember the deal? Pay for this new cable thing and you won't have to sit thru the commercials? Watch only what you want to watch? They did not mention "Oh by the way, we're lying thru our dagger-sharp teeth, and oh by the way #2: your subscription $$ will go mostly to programmers such as Fox News and worse. Oh, and those 350 channels you pay for? Yeah, you're not gonna watch 'em even if you paid for 'em, sucker."
My last tv left the house in the 90's.
I've never had cable. It came very late to Australia and is too expensive. Now I watch streamers and choose what to watch. I've trained my algorithm somewhat.
Writers do ideas, which, as we all know, are dangerous to the status quo. That the left has become the right in my lifetime proves two things: 1) anything can happen anytime, and 2) a lifetime isn't very long. I enjoy your takes on the music (and the biz), thanks for your contributions.
Yes, social media is designed to cheat journalists, writers and authors out of making a living.
Equally scary is how it hurts its users, particularly adolescent girls.
Hear, hear. I've deleted all social media and gone "all in" on Substack. Keeping up "out there" just didn't make sense for me, anymore. I didn't want to play that game, mostly because it had gone so mainstream that it no longer felt interesting to me.
Conversely, here on SS, there's a life to this community that's hard to explain. As you said, Ted, it comes down to values. All communities need a code of conduct, a certain set of ethics on how we agree to comport ourselves while we interact with each other. This goes beyond mere terms of service and gets down to the understood exchange of value we are all participating in.
Blogging was like this back in the early-ish days (2006-2012). We were all trying to help each other figure out a thing no one fully understood at the time. It was fun and interesting, and every few months, there was new technology or techniques to play with.
Most readers of blogs, especially early on, were bloggers themselves. Same with podcasts and podcasters. I get the same kind of vibe on Substack. There is a certain kind of respect one writer gives another that readers don't always know how to give.
For example, Ted, I can see the tremendous amount time, energy, and thought you put into your publication. It is an impressive amount of excellent output. I tip my hat to you and watch what you're doing carefully, because you've got a lot figured out—namely, I think, that it's an all experiment and the goal is to keep playing. At least, that's my takeaway.
Anyway, can we get along? Maybe. I think what writers need more than media is community. This goes back to the days of the Inklings, Bloomsbury Group, and so on. Creators need safe places where they can work out their craft and figure out what to make next. I like that this is place where I can do just that.
I appreciate the time and energy and thought you put into this comment! :) I would just like to suggest one thing -- I’m not sure writers are looking for “safe” spaces. A little risk is part of the fun, and part of what makes it possible to create or discover something new. I think writers are just looking for SPACES. Full stop. Spaces where we can share and interact and appreciate one another. Maybe call them “third spaces” or digital versions of “third spaces” (fourth spaces?) but not safe specifically beyond the typically expected level of any civil society not under colonial extraction or totalitarianism, or at war. :)
Yes, I think that's true. And I realize the term "safe space" has been coopted recently to mean something more like "place where I do not feel challenged." That's not what I mean or meant by the term. We just need an area to fail and fall and try again and know we are not completely alone. I like the concept of third spaces. That's a cool term and great way to think about it.
Inklings et alia -- back to the days when human to human communication was expected not the current factionalized infotainment.
Once more you put your finger on the crucial point: the dominant social media magnates want one thing more than anything else: control. They steal “content” and throttle access. They promote what is good for their business, not what is good. Sadly, they reflect the hollowed out culture we now see generally predominating in our world.
Google, 2004: "Don't be evil".
Google, these days: "Eh, what's a little evil between captains of industry and their authoritarian co-sponsors?"
Rinse, repeat.
It's really a quite simple concept. When you refuse to pay for content and make your money from advertising, you have to keep the eyeballs on your site/app. The content needs to be sufficiently interesting to keep you there long enough for the ads. Or you keep scrolling looking for sufficiently interesting content. They rely on the subset of the population who enjoys cat videos and music that all sounds the same.
Agreed. Though that subset of the population may sadly be the majority of the population. But, it doesn’t mean that pandering to those folks is the only business model that thrives!
I am thankful for this platform; introduced to it by a friend who our peer group has considered a grade above, figuratively & literally, in many ways. Personally admitting to being more of a student of the bar vs. the Bard (while at U of Iowa). Being on here with what I feel are extremely intelligent folks who do not attack someone like a scorned Hexenbiest (been waiting so long to use that!!). Thank you for the forum and look forward to communication that helps retain my faith that all is truly not lost...yet.
I DON'T use Twitter, never have, never will.
There you go. Same here
I use Substack about 100x more than I use actual social media at this point!
One in four posts on Instagram are paid ads, two out of four are influencer ads and one out of four is the squirrel I follow. I barely look at it anymore (except to catch up on the squirrel). Facebook is worse. I have not seen any friend's post on Facebook in ages. It's all just groups, pages, suggested reels. It's where my brain goes to die. I am grateful to Substack in ways I never imagined. It's like life has returned.
This is on the record so here goes. When I entered the realm of Substack as a journalist battling a chronic, incurable illness I had high hopes for it being different from Twitter and other social media. As Notes launched you could say there was this sort of 1990s coffeehouse vibe, an avenue in which writers collaborated with artists of other ways--and perhaps other or greater means. The means part of my message is important, however, for what I discovered in a very short time is the very reason I fell disheartened by social media. There was 1 percent controlling not only the majority of the paid subscribers on the platform--there was also a sort of unwillingness to help other artists who may be new and/or down on their luck. Instead of truly being that beacon of hope for journalists, when journalism surely could have used that kick in the rear to produce great writing, select writers were too busy supporting those they already knew and trusted--rather than helping those in need. Some even proclaimed they were coaching on the platform, but as far as I'm aware the definition of being a coach is taking someone to a place they can't get to by themselves. Again, I was hopeful that this platform was going to not be a money-grubbing, self-centered service that writers and artists of all shape and size can benefit from. But I found that the best recourse for me was to dot com my newsletter and let my own ethics and values shape my personal journey going forward rather than call out certain individuals for acts I found were unethical and reminded me of the very lunch table during high school that they were proclaiming was different.
Oof.
Will check your link.
Thanks.
Not only does social media want you to contribute your content for free, it also wants exclusive rights to monetize and otherwise use that content.
As a result, I am very likely never going to use Twitter or Meta for promoting any of my creative pursuits. They are vampires
I left FB in 2015 because it was so bad. From what I've read it's 1000 times worse now. How are people still on there at all?
I use Facebook to advertise my music events. It is good for that, and also for special interest groups.
Hi Christopher. Not to harsh your choice, but I for one would never even open a facebook link. Just refuse. Any other way I could find you?
Hello Bern, Well I am on Instagram. ha ha. another Zuck thing. .
I get all that, I just question whether playing into Zuckerberg's evil empire is worth it? Clearly for some people it is. For me the price was too high.
The only reason I’m still there is because of a few special interest groups.
Fair enough. I left a few "friends" behind. At the time I let everyone know that if they wanted to stay in touch to contact me via email. I've had one super close friendship across the Pacific Ocean with a person I've never met since then. It's good, I like it. The rest I either know in real life or don't really miss.
Also, I’m not so sure of Substack as a platform or at least as a fit for me. I’ve noticed significant experts in different fields who publish regularly and for some time, and don’t have any subscriber base at all. As a musician that worries me.
What kind of music do you play?
Oh, I dunno. I guess old-man trip-hop electronica basically describes it. Thank you for asking
https://youtu.be/JAmvqnGOj4I
When every writer is self-promoting on Twitter, they all get drowned out and lost in the crowd.
Same thing could happen to Substack. Following 100 writers? Who's got time for that? Do writers with a decent following get free access, or are you paying a grand a month for that?
Same thing will happen to Substack. We're drowning in content, and much more needs to be written about that. (So we can drown faster? haha). I know Ted has written about the sheer volume of songs out there, no doubt far worse because you no longer need a record label or an expensive recording studio.
Baskin-Robbins may be great, well they were before we got the premium brands with more cream like Haagen-Dazs and Ben & Jerry's. But nobody can eat 31 flavors at once. Myself, I don't eat the stuff at all. Sugar's actually poison.
Ted's writing is awfully tasty though.
Some people are criticizing me because I subscribe to a lot of Substacks. So let me say that (1) It's healthy to build a genuine sense of community at Substack, and subscribing is the key way that happens; (2) Substack allows both free and paid subscriptions, so cost considerations or a person's budget never prevent anyone from subscribing; (3) Even if I don't have time to read everything, subscribing is still a sign of respect, commitment, and support—and those are good things; (4) The subscription model is the best method I've seen for supporting freelancers, and I want it to flourish—so subscribing ensures that my actions reflect my values; (5) I've noticed that the practice of writers subscribing to other writers has created a friendlier and less toxic atmosphere here than on social media, and that benefits everybody.
I couldn't agree more with this. I subscribe to 50 writers at the moment and it is a sign of respect and support, even if it takes me a while to read every article. (I set up a filter in Gmail so they all skip the inbox and go into a folder until I've made the time.) I love your work Ted and appreciate your voice. As a newer music pub still trying to grow, I've found a beautiful community of fellow music lovers who make the time to support and amplify the work of others. You just don't get that on any other platform.
Thanks for the Gmail idea! I’ve been trying to figure out if there was a way to get substack to not send me emails to things I subscribe to because they just clog up my box and I want to check my feed through my substack inbox only. This workaround will maybe make mass deletion easier.
You can also set up RSS feeds for the ones you like to go to a reader like Feedly.
Thanks for that tip too, I usually don’t use readers but maybe that’s a good way to manage things.
Thanks for the gmail tip. Might give that a try, even with the paltry few i subscribe to.
Thanks for clearing that up. One hundred paid subscriptions at @ $5/mo would come into some real money. I received notifications from Substack that some folks had subscribed to me. A was a bit confused at how to respond: if it was protocol to reciprocate, and had to be at a paid subscription, I would be eating up my modest SS check fairly quickly. I have learned something from this post. Thank you.
I would have paid subscriptions from some of my reads, but I simply cannot afford it at this time. As it is, my handful (literally) of paid subscribers are merely friends who want to support my effort. I still haven't broke the 100 mark of free subscribers after a year on Substack, so I suppose that just means my writing is crap and/ or nobody is interested in traditional sonnetry or my take on some songs. I have very little in the way of feedback either. This is all aside from the last 2 months of inactivity due to personal issues that affect my ability to pay. I even posted a poll about my paid subscription rate and I received not one answer.
A lot of people are in that same boat. Sharing the work of writers you love is also a fantastic way to show your support.
I do that. I've mentioned and linked Ted and others. I still can't shake the feeling that either A: My writing's crap or B: Interest in traditional poetry is non existent (or both).
And I really wish one could edit their comments. I meant to say "affect my ability to post."
Huge +1 to every word of this.
Hear hear!
You may not have time to read "everything," but the amount you manage to read, along with all of your other endeavors is too much for my limited mental bandwidth to comprehend. And many thanks for doing all of that; you manage to be amazingly successful with writing the that are interesting.
Writing is about text, perhaps with supporting images. Any digital equivalent must take its cue from traditional print, books and newspapers. The conventions are long established. I think Substack does a decent job of that. Clutter free pages and minimal design.
Twitter and other social media sites are about capture using trickery. I know I am overstating it, but that is basically it. That is also why they dislike people clicking outside via links; this is entirely consistent with their goals. They used to call it stickiness. I think of it as entrapment, which is ultimately self-defeating.
Substack seems to be about being a decent reading experience, and that makes all the difference.
"Clutter free pages and minimal design."
This.