Substack seems rather naive. This 'content' stuff shows it.
Off topic: But their actual business also has issues from most customer's perspectives. It doesn't scale if one has to subscribe to many columnists, not compared to a newspaper where I get all of these (plus more) together. If one columnist writes one article each week (there is …
Substack seems rather naive. This 'content' stuff shows it.
Off topic: But their actual business also has issues from most customer's perspectives. It doesn't scale if one has to subscribe to many columnists, not compared to a newspaper where I get all of these (plus more) together. If one columnist writes one article each week (there is no guarantee), and one pays $7 per month for that, each single column costs $1.75 to read. That is more expensive than an entire newspaper. It is like one has to subscribe to each individual journalist of a paper. So, this model works a bit, but as long as there are no affordable micropayments per column in the same range of about 1/40 of the cost of a newspaper, it is horrendously expensive and it will not scale as a business a people make decisions not so much on individual cases, but more on on patterns. The individual case here (if you're really interested in a single monetising writer) might be OK, the pattern (let's take out 10 subscriptions for 10 article writers) isn't. And people will (mostly?) decide to buy based on a pattern they see. Buying a very expensive lunch/latte as a rule is far too expensive, so the pattern is avoided by some. But doing that while on holiday or as a single separate treat is OK as it is not a pattern. Human intelligence is 90% 'speedy and efficient pattern execution'.
I think you're ultimately right about the business model, unless we assume a society with levels of wealth inequality where (a) a small subset can easily afford to subscribe to lots of solo writers (the patronage model) and (b) the writers who succeed all learn to cater to that small subset.
That's a bad society, and one that I don't believe would have much longevity. But it's very much the model of society that I suspect most of venture capital holds to be both real and just.
And the *actual* business model for the past few years has been (1) take a bunch of VC dollars, use it to subsidize writers, (2) hope that this leads to scale and brand popularity, (3) cross your fingers that additional revenue sources crop up later.
That was Medium's business model as well. It worked until it didn't. Writers, especially in the U.S., where journalism receives scant public funding and has been collapsing for decades, hop from platform to platform, absorbing that VC subsidy. That's not a *good* situation, by a long shot. But it often makes the best of a bad situation.
I am wondering if we have reached peak newsletter economy, where fatigue and the persistent drip-drip of $5, and $10 per month combine to put the brakes on.
I do know that I have far too many that I pay for (and to be clear, I WANT to help those writers) that while I can afford it, it does go far beyond the annual spend I make for The Atlantic, WaPo and NYT, where I get a LOT more for my money.
Plus writers begging other writers to become a paid subscribers is a snake eating its tail business model. It's notable how few - often none - newsletter writers pay for other newsletters, then bewail the challenge of converting free subscribers to paid subscribers. It's like an in joke that everyone refuses to acknowledge, no matter how many times its pointed out.
I would just add that Substack (or is it “the newsletter industry”) has fundamentally changed my reading and subscription patterns. Stalwarts for me like the New Yorker, Atlantic and New York now seem to have too much I don’t like, causing me not to subscribe consistently - whereas the wide choice of somewhat niche newsletter writers allows me to have a very high satisfaction ratio per article/dollar.
I guess one day the fun will be over. But this is a golden age for me.
I can understand that. What I like about edited journals is the added value of that editing. The selection. Apart from the time and energy involved finding the valuable stuff, selecting all of my own would increase the risk of me creating my own bubble even more than I already (as we all) do. Anyway, I would like to pay, but not when it's going to cost an unreasonable arm and a leg per 'story'.
The whole naive 'free speech absolutism' also turns me off, though. Do I want to support a platform like Substack or Twitter that contributes to the destruction of shared norms and values — i.e. society — by (a) making sure almost all of these values cannot/will not be 'enforced' (to harsh a word, but I know no better now) (b) being 'the place to be'? E.g. how is Twitter still around? It is around because it still has that almost unassailable position of being 'the place to be' (for instance because classic media use it as a source, has any Mastodon 'toot' ever been shown in a TV show as 'news'?) and not taking part is missing opportunities. But it is the ethical choice to make.
Substack seems rather naive. This 'content' stuff shows it.
Off topic: But their actual business also has issues from most customer's perspectives. It doesn't scale if one has to subscribe to many columnists, not compared to a newspaper where I get all of these (plus more) together. If one columnist writes one article each week (there is no guarantee), and one pays $7 per month for that, each single column costs $1.75 to read. That is more expensive than an entire newspaper. It is like one has to subscribe to each individual journalist of a paper. So, this model works a bit, but as long as there are no affordable micropayments per column in the same range of about 1/40 of the cost of a newspaper, it is horrendously expensive and it will not scale as a business a people make decisions not so much on individual cases, but more on on patterns. The individual case here (if you're really interested in a single monetising writer) might be OK, the pattern (let's take out 10 subscriptions for 10 article writers) isn't. And people will (mostly?) decide to buy based on a pattern they see. Buying a very expensive lunch/latte as a rule is far too expensive, so the pattern is avoided by some. But doing that while on holiday or as a single separate treat is OK as it is not a pattern. Human intelligence is 90% 'speedy and efficient pattern execution'.
I think you're ultimately right about the business model, unless we assume a society with levels of wealth inequality where (a) a small subset can easily afford to subscribe to lots of solo writers (the patronage model) and (b) the writers who succeed all learn to cater to that small subset.
That's a bad society, and one that I don't believe would have much longevity. But it's very much the model of society that I suspect most of venture capital holds to be both real and just.
And the *actual* business model for the past few years has been (1) take a bunch of VC dollars, use it to subsidize writers, (2) hope that this leads to scale and brand popularity, (3) cross your fingers that additional revenue sources crop up later.
That was Medium's business model as well. It worked until it didn't. Writers, especially in the U.S., where journalism receives scant public funding and has been collapsing for decades, hop from platform to platform, absorbing that VC subsidy. That's not a *good* situation, by a long shot. But it often makes the best of a bad situation.
Great comment.
I am wondering if we have reached peak newsletter economy, where fatigue and the persistent drip-drip of $5, and $10 per month combine to put the brakes on.
I do know that I have far too many that I pay for (and to be clear, I WANT to help those writers) that while I can afford it, it does go far beyond the annual spend I make for The Atlantic, WaPo and NYT, where I get a LOT more for my money.
Yep.
Plus writers begging other writers to become a paid subscribers is a snake eating its tail business model. It's notable how few - often none - newsletter writers pay for other newsletters, then bewail the challenge of converting free subscribers to paid subscribers. It's like an in joke that everyone refuses to acknowledge, no matter how many times its pointed out.
I would just add that Substack (or is it “the newsletter industry”) has fundamentally changed my reading and subscription patterns. Stalwarts for me like the New Yorker, Atlantic and New York now seem to have too much I don’t like, causing me not to subscribe consistently - whereas the wide choice of somewhat niche newsletter writers allows me to have a very high satisfaction ratio per article/dollar.
I guess one day the fun will be over. But this is a golden age for me.
I can understand that. What I like about edited journals is the added value of that editing. The selection. Apart from the time and energy involved finding the valuable stuff, selecting all of my own would increase the risk of me creating my own bubble even more than I already (as we all) do. Anyway, I would like to pay, but not when it's going to cost an unreasonable arm and a leg per 'story'.
The whole naive 'free speech absolutism' also turns me off, though. Do I want to support a platform like Substack or Twitter that contributes to the destruction of shared norms and values — i.e. society — by (a) making sure almost all of these values cannot/will not be 'enforced' (to harsh a word, but I know no better now) (b) being 'the place to be'? E.g. how is Twitter still around? It is around because it still has that almost unassailable position of being 'the place to be' (for instance because classic media use it as a source, has any Mastodon 'toot' ever been shown in a TV show as 'news'?) and not taking part is missing opportunities. But it is the ethical choice to make.