Behold! You have discerned the primary problem with Substack's model precisely. #Substack needs to implement a mechanism by which several authors can pool their channels together to create a bundle, and allow subscriptions to the bundle, with payments being apportioned between the authors of the bundle in some reasonable manner (or perhaps more than one manner of apportionment)
With Substack I get to curate my own eclectic set of writers, which is great. Because of Substack's payment model I can only afford to pay a fraction of them, which is not great.
Ah, that sweet cheese of foreign sales! You deserve all of these good things.
As for Substack, here's my take: I think early adopters will do much better than anyone who starts up now, unless they're famous and very good at it. I subscribe to this one and a few others, at about $50 a year. I also pay for online access to good journalism. Maybe I'll spring for one of two more Substacks, but that's about it. Not because I'm cheap, but I already spend a lot of time reading and it would take a lot to hook me into another commitment. So congratulations for seizing the opportunity when it first arose.
Here's the idea that I tried to pitch to Substack via a Note, and of course heard nothing back.
Substack should allow people to pay for newsletters to which they subscribe FOR FREE.
Here's how it would work.
You, the reader, sign up to pay $x per month. 5 bucks, 10 bucks, 30 bucks, whatever. At the end of every month, you get a list of the substacks to which you have *unpaid* subscriptions, with little boxes next to each. You fill in the boxes with a rating for each substack -- say 0 to 10 -- for how much value you thought the free posts provided you this month. The system tallies your numbers, assigns a corresponding percentage to each substack, and sends them that percentage of your pledged money.
As an unpaid member of the substacks, you don't get to read the paywalled posts. But this encourages authors to un-paywall some of their posts -- to get paid for *not* restricting at least some of their best content.
Dan, you raise interesting questions about Substack's value in comparison to, say, a New Yorker subscription. I subscribe to both. But I like to think that Substack is creating a new media ecosystem, giving voice (and money) to writers who aren't likely to break regularly into the (shrinking), exclusive national/international traditional print or legacy media ecosystem. I get significant value from the 7 or so Substacks I pay for, spending about $45 a month. The value is far greater than for my metro newspaper, which has hiked its price to $25 a month. I also pay $20 a month for the NYT, $12 or so a month for the Wapo, $2.50 a month for the WSJ, and $50 a year for a local weekly newspaper. Granted, I may be an outlier, a (struggling) writer who values other writers about as much as food.
I absolutely do pay too much to Substack subscriptions, but most give me good value. Having said that, I admire the people who provide their writing free, like a wonderful epidemiologist I follow. I also subscribe to various pubs, but they don’t provide the in-depth coverage on things that interest me intensely like the war in Ukraine. I also enjoy interacting with other subscribers as @Jim Buie said, and have had some fun debates. Picked up a lot of books to read too on both Canadian and American politics. Next year I might have to cut down, I’m on a fixed income. Will definitely cancel most of my streaming platforms. Now THERE’S a scam!
Another value of Substack is the ability to connect with other readers in the comments who share one's interests. Can't do that in legacy media.
From a creator-writer's perspective, the 90% cut one gets from Substack is potentially better than the 10% or 15% cut one gets from book publishing. It's potentially easier to get 10,000 readers on Substack, 1,000 of whom pay $5 a month, than 10,000 readers who pay for a book in which the author receives $1 from each.
Granted, it currently takes long, hard work to build to a readership of $1,000 paying subscribers unless one has made a big name for oneself in legacy media.
Dan - you have hit the nail on the head re: Substack's model. There are a number of writers I would support but it adds up far too quickly so I simply don't. Hopefully they will figure out something! Thanks for the excellent work
Dan, as for your "statement against interest" well, I LIKE YOUR WORK and this is how I get it.
To be perfectly honest (a reasonable aspiration, don'tch think?) if I plan to buy your book(s), I might get that done or I might put if off until tomorrow, tomorrow, tomorrow, etc. and just not get it done. This way, I get some of your thinking and it does seem pretty impressive to my old brain. Emphasis on old, so tomorrow, tomorrow, tomorrow, etc. just might not get the book purchased.
I am not Scrooge McDuck (you and I date ourselves there!) but I am quite willing to pay for your subscription and a few others that are important to me.
On the other hand, are you WANTING we readers to not renew? I have to ask.
I agree that Substack needs to find better revenue models.
As for the reason I subscribe to a few Substack authors but am unwilling to pay for any legacy media subscriptions even at a fraction of the price, it's this: I have cured myself of Gell-Mann Amnesia Syndrome.
Behold! You have discerned the primary problem with Substack's model precisely. #Substack needs to implement a mechanism by which several authors can pool their channels together to create a bundle, and allow subscriptions to the bundle, with payments being apportioned between the authors of the bundle in some reasonable manner (or perhaps more than one manner of apportionment)
With Substack I get to curate my own eclectic set of writers, which is great. Because of Substack's payment model I can only afford to pay a fraction of them, which is not great.
Perfectly put. That’s the dilemma I parsimonious form.
Agree Dan. Another option is to bundle a group together …eg pick any 5 or 10 or 15 for x per month
Ah, that sweet cheese of foreign sales! You deserve all of these good things.
As for Substack, here's my take: I think early adopters will do much better than anyone who starts up now, unless they're famous and very good at it. I subscribe to this one and a few others, at about $50 a year. I also pay for online access to good journalism. Maybe I'll spring for one of two more Substacks, but that's about it. Not because I'm cheap, but I already spend a lot of time reading and it would take a lot to hook me into another commitment. So congratulations for seizing the opportunity when it first arose.
Here's the idea that I tried to pitch to Substack via a Note, and of course heard nothing back.
Substack should allow people to pay for newsletters to which they subscribe FOR FREE.
Here's how it would work.
You, the reader, sign up to pay $x per month. 5 bucks, 10 bucks, 30 bucks, whatever. At the end of every month, you get a list of the substacks to which you have *unpaid* subscriptions, with little boxes next to each. You fill in the boxes with a rating for each substack -- say 0 to 10 -- for how much value you thought the free posts provided you this month. The system tallies your numbers, assigns a corresponding percentage to each substack, and sends them that percentage of your pledged money.
As an unpaid member of the substacks, you don't get to read the paywalled posts. But this encourages authors to un-paywall some of their posts -- to get paid for *not* restricting at least some of their best content.
Dan, you raise interesting questions about Substack's value in comparison to, say, a New Yorker subscription. I subscribe to both. But I like to think that Substack is creating a new media ecosystem, giving voice (and money) to writers who aren't likely to break regularly into the (shrinking), exclusive national/international traditional print or legacy media ecosystem. I get significant value from the 7 or so Substacks I pay for, spending about $45 a month. The value is far greater than for my metro newspaper, which has hiked its price to $25 a month. I also pay $20 a month for the NYT, $12 or so a month for the Wapo, $2.50 a month for the WSJ, and $50 a year for a local weekly newspaper. Granted, I may be an outlier, a (struggling) writer who values other writers about as much as food.
I absolutely do pay too much to Substack subscriptions, but most give me good value. Having said that, I admire the people who provide their writing free, like a wonderful epidemiologist I follow. I also subscribe to various pubs, but they don’t provide the in-depth coverage on things that interest me intensely like the war in Ukraine. I also enjoy interacting with other subscribers as @Jim Buie said, and have had some fun debates. Picked up a lot of books to read too on both Canadian and American politics. Next year I might have to cut down, I’m on a fixed income. Will definitely cancel most of my streaming platforms. Now THERE’S a scam!
Another value of Substack is the ability to connect with other readers in the comments who share one's interests. Can't do that in legacy media.
From a creator-writer's perspective, the 90% cut one gets from Substack is potentially better than the 10% or 15% cut one gets from book publishing. It's potentially easier to get 10,000 readers on Substack, 1,000 of whom pay $5 a month, than 10,000 readers who pay for a book in which the author receives $1 from each.
Granted, it currently takes long, hard work to build to a readership of $1,000 paying subscribers unless one has made a big name for oneself in legacy media.
I’m subscribed to a very few Substack writers and None of the Legacy Publications.
For me, I prefer rewarding the solid writers and their work.
I’d rather avoid having to pay for the publications; many of them don’t give a rip about me or anyone like me.
“Thanks!”
Dan - you have hit the nail on the head re: Substack's model. There are a number of writers I would support but it adds up far too quickly so I simply don't. Hopefully they will figure out something! Thanks for the excellent work
Dan, as for your "statement against interest" well, I LIKE YOUR WORK and this is how I get it.
To be perfectly honest (a reasonable aspiration, don'tch think?) if I plan to buy your book(s), I might get that done or I might put if off until tomorrow, tomorrow, tomorrow, etc. and just not get it done. This way, I get some of your thinking and it does seem pretty impressive to my old brain. Emphasis on old, so tomorrow, tomorrow, tomorrow, etc. just might not get the book purchased.
I am not Scrooge McDuck (you and I date ourselves there!) but I am quite willing to pay for your subscription and a few others that are important to me.
On the other hand, are you WANTING we readers to not renew? I have to ask.
I agree that Substack needs to find better revenue models.
As for the reason I subscribe to a few Substack authors but am unwilling to pay for any legacy media subscriptions even at a fraction of the price, it's this: I have cured myself of Gell-Mann Amnesia Syndrome.
I am totally with you