30% to Apple, 10% to Substack, 2.5% to Stripe... that's nearly half of the money readers are contributing to supporting creators /gone/. I am not a fan of this.
I agree. If this ever happens, I'm hoping there's an opt-out for creators.
One of the reasons I came to Substack it's only 10% and Amazon takes 30% of my book sales. It used to be that Amazon's algorithm helped boost my sales enough to justify the 30%, but now that I have to do my own advertising, I've gone direct.
There's no way I'd continue to use Substack if the cut hiked that high.
Charge an extra 30% for Apple users who pay through Apple pay. They are stupid enough to support the company behind this...make them pay. We are doing a similar thing with our new private networking service. We have to pay 30% affiliate fees for the traffic, 3% credit card fees and (potentially) 30% to Apple. That leaves nothing left for us and Apple places us at the bottom of search results, so the only people downloading our app from Apple (they make it so there is no other choice for iphone) are people sent by us and our affiliates. Paying 30% for credit card processing and hosting a download is way out of line and in the EU they said it was illegal to have this kind of monopoly.
I refuse to use more than a few apps on my iPhone - FB, Patreon, Substack - all viewed at home at the end of the day. I dropped the Dead Blluebird site when musk turned it into a cesspool so that's no loss now. ApplePay doesn't interest me, even before this move.
ApplePay doesn't interest me either. Why are small platforms, that start out being for the people and creators so interested in selling out? Could it be an insidious "GRAB" for control of media and creativity?
Let's just let the "big movers and shakers" dominate and therefore "censor information" and creativity as well.
The small platforms are struggling to make ends meet - large and powerful entities see their popularity, stomp up and fling a dumptruck of money on them, and demand to buy them. Exactly the same as large corporations make smaller companies an ‘offer they can’t refuse’ and buy them out.
tucker Carlson interviewed a guy who sells on Amazon, he is being left with 30% from what he makes! hahaha, as long as they see tourism doing great they will be taking money from everyone! greed has no limits
I'm up against this dilemma as I approach Amazon to carry my book, although I'm told I need to budget thousands of dollars for advertising on their ghetto, enshittified platform.
It's going well, but I'm doing the first in series free model and upselling for the next 7 books at low price. I'm advertising primarily on Facebook and then also doing listbuilding via the group contests for others in my genre.
But the immense difference of respect between "published book author" vs. "has a blog". (Maybe Substack is technically not a blog but I comment on them just like on blogs. I do not want email stuff.) Certainly the first one is a huge flex. I think I will edit my old blog into a self-published book so that I can drop on dates: "btw have you by any chance read my book?"
It is price gouging. Plan and simple. The more monopolies there are - they more than can "legally price fix". Leave platform and develop your own website with your followers
Yes, and that's what publix does. They roll up services in the local community and put small people out of business. It doesn't always work but most of the time it does. It's like tying the American people to an anchor and throwing the economy off the deep end. We are getting dragged down to the depths
This. Appropriate the content and remove the creator(middle man) while attempting to replicate their formula. Unfortunately, there is always someone who will pay for a Folex thereby perpetuating legalized theft. This all sounded good in my head.
I see.its a rough world out there. I feel bad for people and animals especially animals. I’m now feeding a ground hog who dug holes under my shed. It’s more fun living around animals then people.
I also think it's very high. Apple should be able to distinguish between creators and Netflix. 15% is fair, as Substack already takes 10%, and then there's 2.5% to Stripe. Of course, creators could add 20% to their monthly/yearly price plan but price is a sensitive point for people. Too high could price a creator out. So it makes everything feel like a numbers game, which is totally crap. Sharing technology that allows sales is great but making people 'pay through the nose' is a paradigm that only serves the Big Companies to get even richer. This is supposed to be the Age of Aquarius. I would like an opt out. Having secure payments is necessary but do subscribers really need 'one click' solutions, and what is the real price for content creators, in terms of money and in terms of stress? I'd like to Substack explain to Apple that 15% is already high for creators.
Writers and creators hold little power in the face of corporate and enterprise tech presently. It's a tragedy of our times. We can only put up or withdraw individually into the wasteland. In numbers our voices will be heard. See my main comment on this article above. I'm not aware of any presence of an "era of people owning platforms" from the article above, do such co-operatives exist?
I was thinking about starting a substack but l have to pay 26% in social charges so add that on to the 30%, 10% and 2.5% already taken and that leaves me with 32%. Really not worth it, hourly rate would be about 10% of minimum wage, be better off doing cleaning or washing dishes. How is that empowering creators? 😭🤣😭🤣😭
STRIPE is a scumbag operation... I don't even USE them, and they're pressuring me to give them information about my "business." I don't HAVE a business.
Exactly the issue I came on here to comment about. When one part of the chain starts charging a higher percentage, and trying to justify it, they neglect to take into consideration the fees charged by other necessary elements of the chain and create an imbalance. If I have to let over 45% of my revenue go just to getting paid (I still haven't paid my virtual admin, paid my taxes, in-house expenses, etc) then I will be forced to increase the rates I charge - leading to a vicious circle - I'd rather leave off and try building something on my own if I only receive 20-30% of the pie at a place like this.
That's if you have a website already. A lot of people here have only Substack as a platform to host their content. If you have to build a website to avoid 10% of Substack fees, it's not going to work, especially for authors with small followings.
I’d also love an alternative to Stripe and the idea to offer tips on a single post. I point my readers to Buy Me a Coffee for one-off tips but it’d be easier for them to stay within Substack.
You know what's likely to happen if Substack goes down this road?
People will find creative ways to continue connecting with their subscribers, but reroute the subscriptions support to places LKE Buy Me A Coffee, or Ko-Fi, and even using ThriveCart, and leave all their subscribers on free. Anywhere the fees will be less and we are in control, someone will figure a way.
@substack I suggest you take a hard look at this being a possible first and last nail in a coffin. You won many of us due to the 10% and Stripes minimal fee. We fled here to have freedom not only in word, but in the hopes of making a living at what we're doing.
This is a sign that we may be on the path back to less.
Absolutely agree. And the way the post is written with a sense of gentleness towards Apple, I’m curious as to if the Substack leaders knew things would inevitably come to this, but they just hoped we’d all stick around regardless?
What I don’t get is why we aren’t doing a better job at looking at this from Substacks perspective. What CAN they do? What are they WILLING to do, to take this platform forward, or will we, the users have to find alternatives?
Now, I have something to say that’ll tick a lot of folks off…that’s okay…
The MONEY isn’t the issue.
That can be solved & adapted to…but freedom to say what you want, to RUN YOUR SUBSTACK THE WAY YOU — THE CREATOR WANTS….that’s the KEY here. The ONLY key.
…the rest is only details and finding options.
Many have commented and said that complying to Apple means censorship. THAT is the main fear of mine.
…it should be yours.
That’s where contracts come into play. Apple wants something, then they bind themselves to get it. Yes, they are big and maybe they don’t care…YET.
But if we continue to grow, not just in SIZE…but in INFLUENCE with the word. Influence around the world. Saying things and swaying minds and hearts, that will get Apple’s attention.
It’ll get everyone’s attention.
That’s what got Substack the attention so far, isn’t it?
I believe this platform has far more leverage, even now, than most realize.
It's a good way to look at it, and that's a part I just don't fear.
My whole career, though not sparkly and explosive like many on this platform, I have made a living and raised a family on building relationships.
That's always the key, and there isn't a thing Apple, Google or anyone else can do to you, when you have a good relationship with someone and they WANT to be with you.
Using your example, that's what happened to my Wanted Hero progress on Google...the moment someone could buy the potion ahead of me, regardless of the thousands of hours, doing EXACTLY WHAT GOOGLE ASKED ME TO DO...it was over.
I refused to play.
So 90% of my business then became word of mouth. That's what I'm doing here on Substack. I don't advertise. Not because I cant, but I won't give these companies a single penny f I don't have to.
My relationships are stronger with my readers and customers, and they know exactly how to find me without asking Google.
I want absolutely nothing to do with PayPal. Not only did they overdraw my checking account without my permission (they were supposed to charge my credit card), but they have been handling payments for shipments of Fentanyl from China to America's streets, and for shipments of a device that turns a Glock into an automatic weapon, from China. They will steal up to $2500 of your money if they learn that you disagree with them politically, and their contract gives them permission to do so.
Fascinating! I guess I was one of the earlier victims, since this happened over a decade ago. It cost me $25. That was a dirt cheap lesson. It took a huge effort on my part to close my account. I will never go back. I had tried to get PayPal to make my credit card the default payment, but they absolutely refused to do so. Some companies allow payment with PayPal, but you have to have an account to use it. I don't do business with those companies. I tell them why. They have control over whether they set things up that way.
Agree about Paypal. I closed my account with them as soon as they started debanking organisations (eg Free Speech Union, Us for Them (campaigning for children during Covid)) for their opinions; after which they brought in the $2500 penalty clause. Keep well away.
I walked away from PayPal years before they started debanking. When I heard about it, I just said, "so they're one of THOSE companies!" and forgot about it. Just so everyone knows, eBay is owned by PayPal. I have only bought there a couple of times. One time I tried to buy, but the seller didn't accept American Express and I didn't have anything else. So I did without.
I only choose to pay with PayPal if I either have no ther choice, or I'm concerned about the validity of the seller because they always side with the buyer in a dispute. That last one is rare for me, but I got my mom on board with it, and she has had to use it a few times.
The reason why Substack doesn’t do this is because it undersells subscriptions. If people can pay $1 for a tip they won’t support at $50/year. But if the only option is $50/year they will support at that rate. They are trying to maximize writer income.
I don't subscribe to anything because I can't afford over probably $15/year. I guess I'm not in the target market of anyone here. Not a problem.
I had to nuke my old account and create a new one after finding too many holes in Substack's interface. Had a reader of my trial balloon Substack act 'a little too enthusiastic' about my responsiveness to their presence. The person started 'wildly flailing,' sending me direct messages and posting comments under article after article. Couldn't control the interaction through moderation or deletion of comments or my content.
In the end, I deleted my old Substack ID, but I am still getting posts from folks I subscribed to. This place doesn't feel ready for prime time - the content is good - the platform is too weak for even a hobby presence. Maybe I'm missing something?
This is exactly correct. A lot of writers seem always willing, eager even, to race towards the financial bottom. That's bad for all writers. If we believe our writing to have value, we must be willing to charge for it.
My question is this: how much of Apple's 30% price is justified by their superior product and how much is merely because they have so much market power that they can hold companies hostage?
They have a monopoly on hosting the app on their store, substack and other developers can not host their apps on alternative web sites. To add insult to injury, Apple requires using their payment solution, unless you sign a contract and track all sales and pay them their "vig" within 15 days. Yikes!
And I've had experience with their damn payment platform: Goldman Sachs. I dare you to try to get an honest refund. Took me six months of haggling and I immediately deleted my Apply wallet once the refund went through.
Personal preference can make a product seem superior - if it best suits your needs. But I say that as someone who buys used iPhones and uses them until they won't work anymore. I don't find Apple computers easier to use, just the phones.
It's amazing how people like you always want people to quiet down when they disagree with you. There's always something wrong with somebody else but never with you so of course everybody else has to go rest and quiet down if they don't agree with your nonsense. That's just a way of censoring those who disagree with you. Hey, thanks for the Shilling for Apple. Maybe your friend or cousin works for them or maybe you do.
That's a ridiculous statement. That's not even good English. I think you better go rest! Lol. You are what did me that night. I still say they are right, it is a rip off. Even if they do have Android on there. Maybe you work for Apple so you want to rip people off and charge them 30%. Maybe you're just a shill. Go rest. 🙄
Android has a lot of ways around paying the fees. Apple is a "company town". We've spent weeks trying to figure out a way around this. Best solutions appear to be to charge Apple users an extra 30% if they upgrade to premium through the app.
So did we. Others are on the hook for the tune of $70k for Stripes mistake. Ours wasn't so bad, but still involved Bangladesh and Stripes servers (not ours).
My problem didn't have to do with payment, but rather, after I was approved to receive payments, them demanding I give them information I consider confidential to prove I am human. I went round and round with them, then a supervisor apologized and told them to fix it, and they came back with, we can't fix it. The situation should never have developed in the first place. They have a bureaucracy, and someone was bullying me. Eventually I stopped hearing from them about their demand, and I got the next payment just fine. This wasn't a mistake. This was deliberate.
Did you read what I said elsewhere about PayPal? They overdrew my checking account instead of using my credit card as they were supposed to do. They started taking up to $2500 of people's money if they learned that people disagreed with them politically. Their contract allows them to do so. The pile of complaints against them on Better Business Bureau is unreal. They handled payments for shipments of Fentanyl from China to the American streets, and for the shipment and sale of a device that turns a Glock into an automatic weapon, also from China. They are all around evil, and I will never again have anything to do with them. I am trying to set up a collection of art to sell on one site, and the only way they pay artists is through PayPal. I have not provided any information for a PayPal account I no longer have nor will ever have again, so if I make a sale, it is going to be interesting. But I told them I would rather THEY KEEP MY MONEY than let it go through PayPal. There are LIMITS.
"Did you read what I said elsewhere about PayPal?"
Yes. And you are right. Peter Thiel is a criminal, like most billionaires. And I have not recommended PayPal, and they will never get my data for that reason. But I am not the nanny for adult people who like to use it, and I don't like monopolies like the Stripe monopoly on Substack and at many other places.
"They handled payments for shipments of Fentanyl from China to the American streets, and for the shipment and sale of a device that turns a Glock into an automatic weapon, also from China."
Have you ever asked Chase how much blood is on their hands? ALL bankers are thugs. And improving a Glock is nothing bad.
And if you believe Stripe is one degree different - dream on.
I hate Stripe!! Im losing nearly 20% which isnt sustainable. Its time people like substack etc started challenging these banks! Definitely no to Apple and substack should be supporting us not Apple
That’s a wonderful idea!!! So people don’t have to fully subscribe, but can “pay-per-view” like the iTunes model. I think that’s such a great idea and opportunity.
Some might do that, you're right. It depends how a writer manages their publication and sends out the message. People use those kind of titles already for a free article.
That one might write click-bait titles doesn’t mean that a reader has to buy that article. Everyone is aware of clickbait today. And there is a reason why usually there is a paywall after some part of an article is free; so that the reader will be able to check some of the piece first. Pay per article is a great idea, which helps especially the new authors to grow being forced to offer their work for free until they become popular.
Being forced is a figure of speech. Although, it is a fact that new authors are actually forced to do it; forced by the condition of being a new author.
It is very hard to grow without doing it, if not almost impossible. Why would someone spend money, in a committed way as a subscription is, in a person whose work they do not even know instead of spending that money safely in an author who is already established and thus expecting that they will get more value from them, even if it might not necessarily be true?
If you think about it, pay per article is a very useful for new authors to be discovered without having to offer valuable work for free.
No one is forcing anyone to do anything. A writer can choose to offer a paid tier or not--and they can do that on Day 1, or at any other point they choose. Readers also have the choice of supporting a specific writer or not. That's how the market works. This platform makes that easy with per-article free trials, monthly subscriptions, and more.
Yeah exactly! I don’t know how manageable that would be, with thousands of micro-transactions a day. But for writers it’s a great way to tempt people in to the idea of paying for your work with one-off specials. Then you can say “for just a little more you can subscribe for a whole month!”
I have been talking about the micro-payment concept for 15+ years. Some higher-level site that creators subscribe to. As small as bloggers and as large as the NYT. Then individuals like us sign-up and link our accounts or supply it monthly with a limit. Like a Starbucks card. Then instead of those annoying blockers that try to make you subscribe YET ANOTHER MONTHLY FEE — for something you may read once a month… INSTEAD of that… you (already logged in on your browser) just click and agree to pay 10 cents to read the full article.
I would do that a whole lot every month, instead of closing the window because I can’t subscribe to another $10 a month.
Someone always brings up a version of this it’s really just a lot of words to say you’re not willing to pay $5 to subscribe for one month. And that’s fine! Your money, your decision. But just be honest about it. If you don’t find value in supporting a particular writer, don’t. This model didn’t work at Post, and I don’t see it working here, either.
Absolutely WRONG. I am a creator. It isn’t an issue of not wanting to pay… it is an issue of only so many hours in a day. I cannot read enough articles in WaPo, NYT, Bulwark, multiple Substack authors… podcasts… paywalls. Ugh. I might love all these content developers, but I am not paying $10 a month (or more) to 50 creators whom I read only once or twice a week.
However… if I could pay 10 cents… or 25 cents… to read an article in the moment that doesn’t require me commit to $60 to $120 a year. I am all in.
Btw. A big part of the issue is that I DON’T KNOW if I would even want to pay this creator because maybe I just met them. I didn’t KNOW I would become a paying Bulwark member until I discovered that I liked several of their free podcasts. If I don’t get to read an article due to a paywall… then I never meet that creator. I never see that I am reading them again… again… I never get that chance to see I am a fan in the first place.
At that point, regular old economics takes over… why am I paying a quarter a day to this creator when I can join for $50 a year. Or whatever it might be. It is no different from being able to buy a box of Annie’s Mac and Cheese versus liking it so much that I go to the Big Box store to get a carton of it.
If I was not able to buy the single box… I would never know to buy the carton at the Big Box store.
If it's a matter if time, then congratulations--you face the same tough decisions every other online reader in the world does. If you're unwilling to make a small $5-6 dollar bet on someone whose work caught your eye, then that should tell you everything you need to know.
No. Why are you so rigid on this? If it were $5 maybe. But it isn’t. It is $5 every month. And not just that $5. It is $5 x 20 for all the other creators you like. SO now we’re talking $200 a month. That is almost a car payment. Add to that the monthly fees of cable, and probably about 2-5 other “channels” like HBO, Netflix, Disney, etc.
Then there is the economy of forgetting you even subscribed to some of these creators. Now I am paying $5 a month for something I am not even using. 12 months later I remember and cancel $60 into it.
Why is this different than music? I could buy a single 30 years ago. Now I can even pay $1 to own a digital file. No artist makes you buy an album. The only reason you had to buy records for some songs 30 years ago was because they couldn’t afford to make singles of every track.
I can see one movie. I don’t have to subscribe to Paramount Pictures (although they do have a channel too).
I also think it is better for the creator. Instead of having to convince someone to make a commitment. You can now just get your article read by perhaps 10x to 20x more people. After a while some percentage of those people may become subscribers. In the meantime you are collecting tons more of smaller payments that may potentially exceed what you are making on subscribers depending on your platform exposure.
For some of us, $5 is still a lot of money to drop on something that might suck. Ten cents to a quarter would be fine just to read an article. You’d probably clean up with the volume sales. Options, baby.
In all seriousness, we should just return to having our own sites and RSS feeds. Too many middle men as it is.
You can subscribe for one month. A recurring payment isn’t mandatory. That gives you anywhere from 28-31 days to read anything/everything you’d want, and then you get to decide to either keep going or unsubscribe.
Some people actually unsubscribe immediately—This is a very common way people avoid recurring charges on their card. At worst, you’re out $5 (or whatever a writer may charge). That doesn’t even touch on things like offers for a “teaser” article, rewards for referrals, or comps.
As for Netflix, Hulu, etc. Those are choices each of us have to make for ourselves. Same with a car payemnt for that matter. But if one can afford a Starbucks visit, they can certainly afford to take a small bet on a creator.
What Thomas says is that he does want to pay for the things he finds valuable. What he doesn’t want to do is to pay extra for those things, in order to receive more things (the rest of an author’s work) that he might not find valuable. It’s really about providing flexibility.
It's never about "flexibility." It's about trying to pay less than what a creator is charging. We've been conditioned to think everything online is free. That's not how it works here.
Again, it's his money; he can do as he sees fit with it. What he doesn't get to do is put downward pressure on everyone else in the name of "flexibility."
If I see a magazine on the stand with something I really want to read, I buy the issue. I don't whip a dime at the vendor and rip the article out.
Well, I can speak for myself. Both as a reader and as an author, I would like to have and offer the option to pay and charge per article. I just like this flexibility, what can I say? In case you thought otherwise, most of us who ask for a pay-per-article feature do not ask to make it mandatory (that would not be flexible). If an author does not want to offer some of their pieces individually, they obviously don't have to do it.
But I must say that even if the case was about trying to paying less than what a creator (the seller, in this case) is charging, I don't see anything wrong with that. The creator can take this information and use it accordingly. This is how a market works.
I think it’s an interesting debate. Like the magazine on the stand, not everyone likes the idea of a subscription commitment for a year but still wants to pick up an issue now and again.
As long as the pricing is tiered so that it’s better value for the reader to plump for a subscription (one article for £3, £6 for a month, a year for £60 as a crude example), then that seems similar to (if not modernising) a real life magazine scenario.
Potential to entice casual readers who can’t commit to subscribe to every service and publication they read but want to read what you have to say. Seems like low hanging fruit to me.
Right. That pricing tier exists now. The difference is that instead of paying, say, £6 for a single issue at the stand, they can pay £6 (one time) for a month, have access to everything in that writer's catalogue, and then either be done with it, or continue the subscription.
Granted — this idea only works if there is a Paypal-like platform that everyone can all subscribe to. The toughest part is enough of the major players need to be on there to pull everyone else in. Ideally, the major players would create this thing together. Get everyone together on the side of journalism, reporting, writing… the overall message could be unity or creatives over surviving the corporate whateveryoucallit.
To simplify things, let people purchase tokens for micropayments in $20 increments, web only, and let creators specify a per post price, with Substack retaining their 10% to cover administration. When the tokens run out users must buy another batch. Apple has to allow this (due to other lawsuit decisions), and creators have another option to monetize their posts.
The reason why Substack doesn't do this is that it erodes subscriptions. If someone can pay $1 per article they will do that rather than pay $50/year. It's not very sustainable for the writer. But writers can always discount their subscription prices if they don't mind the lower pay.
I think 30% is greedy and insane. Of course I love the convenience of Apple Pay as a user (and I have it as an option on my sites where I sell my books along with Google Pay)... but if I'm buying something online or on my phone and that's NOT an option, I'm still going to go through the hassle of a traditional checkout probably 95% of the time--unless it was something that doesn't seem to justify that herculean effort, which means I must not have wanted it that badly.
So to give up THIRTY PERCENT of all sales to preserve a potential 2% loss seems like a bad deal for creators, frankly. Further, if I were buying something with AP and there was a notice that the seller/creator was losing 30% to Apple, I would ABSOLUTELY use another payment form.
I don't think the issue is with Apple Pay, which has to compete fairly with other payment processors and therefore charges similar fees. The issue is with the app store, which is a walled garden. It's only apps that actually sit on Apple's app store that are hit with the 30% tax.
Substack is one of the best ways for creators to earn money. It's unique and was one of the first to do what it does. Because of this, Substack doesn’t really need other companies like Apple or Stripe. It might be a good idea for Substack to start using its own blockchain, making it even more independent and innovative.
That's quite a claim. I haven't seen any evidence of Substack being that easy to command and control. If you have, I would be interested in hearing more about that. Thanks.
THINK about it. Apple is huge and powerful. Guaranteed if Substack signs a contract with them (an adhesion contract) there will be some kind of clause that will give Apple the authority to censor Substack. And even if there is no such clause, most of us realize that Apple will censor anyway. Maybe I'm wrong, but I wouldn't want to take a chance. If Substack wants to maintain its independence, then it must remain independent. A service like Stripe has never been accused of censorship. It may be a problem for many, and there need to be alternatives, but I sure wouldn't look to the powerful who want to rule the world for that. Substack will remain hard to control only as long as it stays away from companies like that. Do you think I am wrong? What is your reasoning?
One more thing: Apple wants to charge 30%. As long as it refuses to give in, I think my point is proven. Apple doesn't need Substack. Apple is free to impose any condition it wants.
It is obvious that you have little to no knowledge about Substack. The shadowbanning on Notes is dramatic. Together with the censorship done over Stripe it is in the end the same as Fuckbook, Twitter and everything else. Because closing your Stripe account finishes — for the most — their Substack existence. It is more subtle than Zuckerberg does, but the result is the same.
Allowing readers to give a one-time donation would be superb! Many subscribers might enjoy one particular piece, but do not want to commit to a regular subscription. They might also want to give a higher amount than the monthly price, but without committing to an annual sub. Would be wonderful if you could make this happen as I know that many creators would appreciate this feature :)
You can do that now; subscribe for a month and then unsubscribe (if you wish). For a few dollars you get access to everything, and can then decide if you want to continue supporting the writer.
Agreed. It would be ridiculous to charge pennies for an article and have to do that with every article. The subscription is already reasonable at a few dollars a month. That is until Apple wants their cut... ;-)
Apple has absolutely nothing to do with my productive efforts, so why on Earth do they deserve 15-30% OF said-effort? That company has been financially raking recording artists over-the-coals since they got into the music business, and I see no reason why we should allow them to do it to us.
Appreciate your efforts, but at 30% + 10% + Stripe fees? That's nearly half the total take-home; what's the point, at that point? It would also be especially crippling for smaller creators, in my opinion.
A 'Buy Me A Coffee' tip-jar-like option - directly through Substack - would be nice, however. Just a thought...
I think the existence of wallets such as Google Pay, Paypal, Amazon Pay, and even Shopify and Stripe, make Apple Pay unnecessary to accept. And I would push back for sure.
If so, brilliant! Agreements should be put in place that are fair to all parties (including Apple). It's their app store, and they have a right to demand a fee. But it should be in compliance with laws/regulations.
Perhaps but as we can see from other recent posts, Substack is "all in" on the app, having recently spent a good deal of effort to make it more usable for publishing as well as reading. Clearly they view the app as critical, and it seems extremely unlikely they would just drop it. And removing it from Apple's App Store, in the context of Substack's primary audience of users, would be akin to dropping the app entirely.
30% is insane and I think only younger people see this as a normal cost of doing business in the digital age. These are MONOPOLIES and should be broken up. They are anti-capitalist and if they were owned by The State everyone would be freaking out over socialism or communism but because they are American consumer companies they get a free pass. My industry (I own hotels) is now getting financially sabotaged by the monopoly called Expedia. Which buys up all it's competitors (see Luxottica, Google, Ticketmaster, et al!) and takes whatever chunk pf money it wants. Independent hotels now lose almost 20% of GROSS revenue to credit card companies amd Expedia for basically electronic transactions that cost a tiny fraction of a penny to them. It's outrageous and just funneling the little guys hard work into the pockets of a few people who are now richer than many countries.
same with delivery guys who traditionally worked for restaurants. these ubereats companies and the uber/lyft explosion,all of it,hurts everyone everywhere,except the ceo's of these and other tech bro co. so sad.
The unfortunate thing is the fact that so many of us also have retirements and savings tied up in bundled investments of various sorts - my least favourite (at least at present) being REITs.
I have a sense that this article - asking for comments and feedback regarding Apple - is a bit of a smoke screen. Either a deal has already been done or fees are about to increase, and this article was a way of easing people into it. I truly hope I'm wrong because I love this space but I'm sensing changes (like the one suggested here) are geared toward fast paced consuming and clickable headlines (like a newspaper and social media posts), which is the opposite direction of what Substack is about and why so many of us are here - for the slower pace and genuine connection with our readers and subscribers - yes?
I agree. The feel of Substack has changed a lot—it’s becoming just like everywhere else, instead of staying true to what made it great in the first place.
The long-form anti-instant "social media" feel of Substack means that there is a different sort of person here. This is also why, I believe, we have a better quality of subscribers and content makers. There is a community that forms when new Stackers start writing, and so it's an organic process to grow. That takes time. It is hard, mostly unpaid work to invest in that as a creator. Please don't degrade the whole underpinning of Substack by going for "quick and easy." Go for slow and steady, more control, and as one person posted, if people really want to purchase something, they'll even haul out a card out and punch in the numbers! So really, just let's slow. Down.
Additionally, the whole point of Substack, imo, is about writing. Writing! Yet, we still have very few writers' tools to use. The poetry block won't adjust to "custom" type (for which there is a dearth of choices) and ends up looking daft. We cannot center lines of text or adjust vertical spacing. There are no choices for colored text or minimal design tools. The block quotation is so misused in a desperate attempt to add some touch of variety or offset a section, that it no longer signals, you know, quoted material! That bothers me a lot from an attribution standpoint. If one has to resort to footnotes, one is limited to certain styles, like Chicago. I mean, come on. Give writers tools to write! No one cares about even faster, even easier, even quicker ways to pay. Lower the fees. Slow down. Don't become another has-been platform.
Well said! Absolutely agree. The writers and readers here are a different sort of person from the instant-gratification culture of social media and news.
Please do invest more in writer and artist tools, and forget this VERY BAD IDEA!!
Clap, clap! I love having the audio, but I end up having to use Canva as a work-around to make things look the way a few more writerly formatting tools within Substack would help conform to literary style guides.
When I wanted to format something, I ended up doing outside Substack and dropping it in as a jpeg. Very unsatisfactory as a process and not very beautiful as an end result, but for the point I wanted to make, it worked. For poets and experimental writers Substack is subpar.
I think they see it as a more essayistic/journalistic platform, where all you need is bold, italic, underline and to be able to drop in pictures. To be fair, that's most of my stuff, but I have a few pieces of fiction that, as long as the formatting is as basic as it is, will never appear here.
I’m not a fan of in app purchases especially for online content because the control of the subscription then rests with Apple and to cancel or troubleshoot I have to go through a convoluted process with Apple not ‘Substack’.
Another person said this earlier up the comments chain and I asked what their evidence is for thinking that Substack would cave to that. I am earnest here: why would you think Substack would allow that? Thanks.
I hope this means that Substack will insist Apple not be so ridiculous by asking 30% -- and reserving the right to not participate in the app if apple decides it knows what the rest of us should be saying and thinking.
Apple is greedy and I don't like the idea of them taking 30% of anything. Corporations are out-of-control with this and they'll use that as an excuse to ask for even more or not be transparent about what, why, when, where, etc. So no, I'm not up for Apple taking money for me to create things having nothing to do with them. Find another vendor that doesn't do that. I'm already paying more subscriptions than I'm getting from subscribers because I'm relatively new. Please don't.
30% to Apple, 10% to Substack, 2.5% to Stripe... that's nearly half of the money readers are contributing to supporting creators /gone/. I am not a fan of this.
I agree. If this ever happens, I'm hoping there's an opt-out for creators.
One of the reasons I came to Substack it's only 10% and Amazon takes 30% of my book sales. It used to be that Amazon's algorithm helped boost my sales enough to justify the 30%, but now that I have to do my own advertising, I've gone direct.
There's no way I'd continue to use Substack if the cut hiked that high.
Charge an extra 30% for Apple users who pay through Apple pay. They are stupid enough to support the company behind this...make them pay. We are doing a similar thing with our new private networking service. We have to pay 30% affiliate fees for the traffic, 3% credit card fees and (potentially) 30% to Apple. That leaves nothing left for us and Apple places us at the bottom of search results, so the only people downloading our app from Apple (they make it so there is no other choice for iphone) are people sent by us and our affiliates. Paying 30% for credit card processing and hosting a download is way out of line and in the EU they said it was illegal to have this kind of monopoly.
Agree, we are overpaying enough already.
Spot on
I have seen several language learning apps that just charge a 30% premium if the subscription goes through Apple. That would work.
I refuse to use more than a few apps on my iPhone - FB, Patreon, Substack - all viewed at home at the end of the day. I dropped the Dead Blluebird site when musk turned it into a cesspool so that's no loss now. ApplePay doesn't interest me, even before this move.
ApplePay doesn't interest me either. Why are small platforms, that start out being for the people and creators so interested in selling out? Could it be an insidious "GRAB" for control of media and creativity?
Let's just let the "big movers and shakers" dominate and therefore "censor information" and creativity as well.
The small platforms are struggling to make ends meet - large and powerful entities see their popularity, stomp up and fling a dumptruck of money on them, and demand to buy them. Exactly the same as large corporations make smaller companies an ‘offer they can’t refuse’ and buy them out.
tucker Carlson interviewed a guy who sells on Amazon, he is being left with 30% from what he makes! hahaha, as long as they see tourism doing great they will be taking money from everyone! greed has no limits
Christy, how is selling directly going?
I'm up against this dilemma as I approach Amazon to carry my book, although I'm told I need to budget thousands of dollars for advertising on their ghetto, enshittified platform.
It's going well, but I'm doing the first in series free model and upselling for the next 7 books at low price. I'm advertising primarily on Facebook and then also doing listbuilding via the group contests for others in my genre.
Thank you for that update. And best of luck to you. Sounds as though you have a solid plan in place, which is the first step towards satisfaction.
I'd consider AMAZON to be the "MAFIA" of the Internet Consumer World. You either pay them, or "die" !
But the immense difference of respect between "published book author" vs. "has a blog". (Maybe Substack is technically not a blog but I comment on them just like on blogs. I do not want email stuff.) Certainly the first one is a huge flex. I think I will edit my old blog into a self-published book so that I can drop on dates: "btw have you by any chance read my book?"
This made me laugh out loud. Not a great pick-up line, but definitely worth the laugh. And spot on. I'd read your book!
Similar to LOL?
It is price gouging. Plan and simple. The more monopolies there are - they more than can "legally price fix". Leave platform and develop your own website with your followers
Sell locally
Yes, but many communities are too small. A good website and move your clients over to it
Remember blogs?
That's why Substack came to be.
Blogs mostly died.
doesn't work well for disabled creators.
That's easier said than done...and that's what Apple, Stripe, are counting on.
Yes, and that's what publix does. They roll up services in the local community and put small people out of business. It doesn't always work but most of the time it does. It's like tying the American people to an anchor and throwing the economy off the deep end. We are getting dragged down to the depths
This. Appropriate the content and remove the creator(middle man) while attempting to replicate their formula. Unfortunately, there is always someone who will pay for a Folex thereby perpetuating legalized theft. This all sounded good in my head.
If this happens, I'll go back to my own website and newsletter. The greed is getting out of control.
In the end it consumes itself and everyone loses even the big corporations.
Starting porting to wordpress, just in case. Enough is enough.
Anyone can post comments for free. No one needs to buy my writing. I make money the old fashion way: I ride my horse into town and rob banks. (Wink)
Thank you for the humor 🤣
Just bumping this. Also, now consider a career change (also wink)
I see.its a rough world out there. I feel bad for people and animals especially animals. I’m now feeding a ground hog who dug holes under my shed. It’s more fun living around animals then people.
I also think it's very high. Apple should be able to distinguish between creators and Netflix. 15% is fair, as Substack already takes 10%, and then there's 2.5% to Stripe. Of course, creators could add 20% to their monthly/yearly price plan but price is a sensitive point for people. Too high could price a creator out. So it makes everything feel like a numbers game, which is totally crap. Sharing technology that allows sales is great but making people 'pay through the nose' is a paradigm that only serves the Big Companies to get even richer. This is supposed to be the Age of Aquarius. I would like an opt out. Having secure payments is necessary but do subscribers really need 'one click' solutions, and what is the real price for content creators, in terms of money and in terms of stress? I'd like to Substack explain to Apple that 15% is already high for creators.
15% too high
Writers and creators hold little power in the face of corporate and enterprise tech presently. It's a tragedy of our times. We can only put up or withdraw individually into the wasteland. In numbers our voices will be heard. See my main comment on this article above. I'm not aware of any presence of an "era of people owning platforms" from the article above, do such co-operatives exist?
I was thinking about starting a substack but l have to pay 26% in social charges so add that on to the 30%, 10% and 2.5% already taken and that leaves me with 32%. Really not worth it, hourly rate would be about 10% of minimum wage, be better off doing cleaning or washing dishes. How is that empowering creators? 😭🤣😭🤣😭
help me out here: what are "social charges" in this context?
STRIPE is a scumbag operation... I don't even USE them, and they're pressuring me to give them information about my "business." I don't HAVE a business.
Exactly the issue I came on here to comment about. When one part of the chain starts charging a higher percentage, and trying to justify it, they neglect to take into consideration the fees charged by other necessary elements of the chain and create an imbalance. If I have to let over 45% of my revenue go just to getting paid (I still haven't paid my virtual admin, paid my taxes, in-house expenses, etc) then I will be forced to increase the rates I charge - leading to a vicious circle - I'd rather leave off and try building something on my own if I only receive 20-30% of the pie at a place like this.
Watch out substack, they are out to get you!
Don't forget Uncle Sam!
Right, this isn't going to work going forward.
Agree
You could redirect your free subscribers to your website for your offer. Unless it’s a paid monthly membership which might not be smart.
One should redirect free Substack subscribers to their site and cut out Substack's 10%.
That's if you have a website already. A lot of people here have only Substack as a platform to host their content. If you have to build a website to avoid 10% of Substack fees, it's not going to work, especially for authors with small followings.
People are innovative, they always manage to find ways around control agendas.
Exactly.
Twitch takes 50% and youtube 45% 🤷♂️
Why does Apple need to take 30%? People already pay thousands of dollars for the stupid iPhone. Apple stealing money off the top is just greed.
I'd like it if Substack had alternatives to Stripe.
I’d also love an alternative to Stripe and the idea to offer tips on a single post. I point my readers to Buy Me a Coffee for one-off tips but it’d be easier for them to stay within Substack.
You know what's likely to happen if Substack goes down this road?
People will find creative ways to continue connecting with their subscribers, but reroute the subscriptions support to places LKE Buy Me A Coffee, or Ko-Fi, and even using ThriveCart, and leave all their subscribers on free. Anywhere the fees will be less and we are in control, someone will figure a way.
@substack I suggest you take a hard look at this being a possible first and last nail in a coffin. You won many of us due to the 10% and Stripes minimal fee. We fled here to have freedom not only in word, but in the hopes of making a living at what we're doing.
This is a sign that we may be on the path back to less.
Absolutely agree. And the way the post is written with a sense of gentleness towards Apple, I’m curious as to if the Substack leaders knew things would inevitably come to this, but they just hoped we’d all stick around regardless?
What I don’t get is why we aren’t doing a better job at looking at this from Substacks perspective. What CAN they do? What are they WILLING to do, to take this platform forward, or will we, the users have to find alternatives?
Now, I have something to say that’ll tick a lot of folks off…that’s okay…
The MONEY isn’t the issue.
That can be solved & adapted to…but freedom to say what you want, to RUN YOUR SUBSTACK THE WAY YOU — THE CREATOR WANTS….that’s the KEY here. The ONLY key.
…the rest is only details and finding options.
Many have commented and said that complying to Apple means censorship. THAT is the main fear of mine.
…it should be yours.
That’s where contracts come into play. Apple wants something, then they bind themselves to get it. Yes, they are big and maybe they don’t care…YET.
But if we continue to grow, not just in SIZE…but in INFLUENCE with the word. Influence around the world. Saying things and swaying minds and hearts, that will get Apple’s attention.
It’ll get everyone’s attention.
That’s what got Substack the attention so far, isn’t it?
I believe this platform has far more leverage, even now, than most realize.
Just sayin’.
I mentioned this previously. As a former app developer, I found Apple (The App Store) did not have to censor you, they just buried you.
If you happen to go to that sort of platform to find something specific, your screen is flooded with ads for new and glitzy offerings.
We simply don't fit into that sort of venue. It's like the difference between the NY City Public Library and a Big Box Store.
That is a fantastic point, Mardi.
It's a good way to look at it, and that's a part I just don't fear.
My whole career, though not sparkly and explosive like many on this platform, I have made a living and raised a family on building relationships.
That's always the key, and there isn't a thing Apple, Google or anyone else can do to you, when you have a good relationship with someone and they WANT to be with you.
Using your example, that's what happened to my Wanted Hero progress on Google...the moment someone could buy the potion ahead of me, regardless of the thousands of hours, doing EXACTLY WHAT GOOGLE ASKED ME TO DO...it was over.
I refused to play.
So 90% of my business then became word of mouth. That's what I'm doing here on Substack. I don't advertise. Not because I cant, but I won't give these companies a single penny f I don't have to.
My relationships are stronger with my readers and customers, and they know exactly how to find me without asking Google.
Help yourself, More solutions coming: https://open.substack.com/pub/s101k/p/build-your-own-paypal-payment-links-for-substack?r=8mqdm&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=true
PayPal gives you a free payment button. Works well, used to use it when I had websites
I want absolutely nothing to do with PayPal. Not only did they overdraw my checking account without my permission (they were supposed to charge my credit card), but they have been handling payments for shipments of Fentanyl from China to America's streets, and for shipments of a device that turns a Glock into an automatic weapon, from China. They will steal up to $2500 of your money if they learn that you disagree with them politically, and their contract gives them permission to do so.
My bank specifically warned me NOT to link a credit card or bank account to PayPal.
The banks are seeing their involvement in less than optimal and less than safe operations.
Fascinating! I guess I was one of the earlier victims, since this happened over a decade ago. It cost me $25. That was a dirt cheap lesson. It took a huge effort on my part to close my account. I will never go back. I had tried to get PayPal to make my credit card the default payment, but they absolutely refused to do so. Some companies allow payment with PayPal, but you have to have an account to use it. I don't do business with those companies. I tell them why. They have control over whether they set things up that way.
I'm shocked. I have never had an issue like that.. Shocking.
Thanks for your reply
You're welcome. Glad to let people know.
Agree about Paypal. I closed my account with them as soon as they started debanking organisations (eg Free Speech Union, Us for Them (campaigning for children during Covid)) for their opinions; after which they brought in the $2500 penalty clause. Keep well away.
I walked away from PayPal years before they started debanking. When I heard about it, I just said, "so they're one of THOSE companies!" and forgot about it. Just so everyone knows, eBay is owned by PayPal. I have only bought there a couple of times. One time I tried to buy, but the seller didn't accept American Express and I didn't have anything else. So I did without.
I've also recently decided to move away from paypal and you've nudged me to delay no longer!
Glad to read! PayPal needs to go the way of the dinosaur!
A lot of people, including a lot of my subscribers (including me) will have ABSolutely nothing to do with Paypal, ever again.
I only choose to pay with PayPal if I either have no ther choice, or I'm concerned about the validity of the seller because they always side with the buyer in a dispute. That last one is rare for me, but I got my mom on board with it, and she has had to use it a few times.
The reason why Substack doesn’t do this is because it undersells subscriptions. If people can pay $1 for a tip they won’t support at $50/year. But if the only option is $50/year they will support at that rate. They are trying to maximize writer income.
I don't subscribe to anything because I can't afford over probably $15/year. I guess I'm not in the target market of anyone here. Not a problem.
I had to nuke my old account and create a new one after finding too many holes in Substack's interface. Had a reader of my trial balloon Substack act 'a little too enthusiastic' about my responsiveness to their presence. The person started 'wildly flailing,' sending me direct messages and posting comments under article after article. Couldn't control the interaction through moderation or deletion of comments or my content.
In the end, I deleted my old Substack ID, but I am still getting posts from folks I subscribed to. This place doesn't feel ready for prime time - the content is good - the platform is too weak for even a hobby presence. Maybe I'm missing something?
This is exactly correct. A lot of writers seem always willing, eager even, to race towards the financial bottom. That's bad for all writers. If we believe our writing to have value, we must be willing to charge for it.
Just as every other professional does.
Exactly!
Nonsense.
Read this: https://open.substack.com/pub/s101k/p/build-your-own-paypal-payment-links-for-substack?r=8mqdm&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=true
This!
Amen, Lauren, amen...
🧡🧡
My question is this: how much of Apple's 30% price is justified by their superior product and how much is merely because they have so much market power that they can hold companies hostage?
They have a monopoly on hosting the app on their store, substack and other developers can not host their apps on alternative web sites. To add insult to injury, Apple requires using their payment solution, unless you sign a contract and track all sales and pay them their "vig" within 15 days. Yikes!
And I've had experience with their damn payment platform: Goldman Sachs. I dare you to try to get an honest refund. Took me six months of haggling and I immediately deleted my Apply wallet once the refund went through.
Apple has been charged with breaking EU Competition law with its App Store policy. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/24/technology/apple-european-union-competition-law.html
Which superior product?
Personal preference can make a product seem superior - if it best suits your needs. But I say that as someone who buys used iPhones and uses them until they won't work anymore. I don't find Apple computers easier to use, just the phones.
I’m also curious where that 30% goes, and why is it not an issue with Android or other phones? Do those have a Substack app as well?
People with Android phones have an in app substack. So calm down!
I don't think that's the point. I believe if you read between the lines, something is a foot. Otherwise why would Substack even bring up the topic.
I did think this article was about them testing the waters to screw the users
💯💯💯
What's afoot is Apple is grabbing 30%, for what amount to hosting a file on a server and processing a credit card. It's outrageous!!!
You calm down! They are right!
Why doesn't Substack allow us to mute people as we read comments? All I get is a 'report' option - and it's not you I want to mute, Tom Tom.
I just deleted all your comments, looking for attention. You too go and rest!
It's amazing how people like you always want people to quiet down when they disagree with you. There's always something wrong with somebody else but never with you so of course everybody else has to go rest and quiet down if they don't agree with your nonsense. That's just a way of censoring those who disagree with you. Hey, thanks for the Shilling for Apple. Maybe your friend or cousin works for them or maybe you do.
Hahahahahahahahaha thanks for shilling for Apple.
That's a ridiculous statement. That's not even good English. I think you better go rest! Lol. You are what did me that night. I still say they are right, it is a rip off. Even if they do have Android on there. Maybe you work for Apple so you want to rip people off and charge them 30%. Maybe you're just a shill. Go rest. 🙄
Android has a lot of ways around paying the fees. Apple is a "company town". We've spent weeks trying to figure out a way around this. Best solutions appear to be to charge Apple users an extra 30% if they upgrade to premium through the app.
Ooh I get it now
I had a real nightmare experience with Stripe. Fortunately, it seems to be resolved, but they didn't bother to tell me.
So did we. Others are on the hook for the tune of $70k for Stripes mistake. Ours wasn't so bad, but still involved Bangladesh and Stripes servers (not ours).
My problem didn't have to do with payment, but rather, after I was approved to receive payments, them demanding I give them information I consider confidential to prove I am human. I went round and round with them, then a supervisor apologized and told them to fix it, and they came back with, we can't fix it. The situation should never have developed in the first place. They have a bureaucracy, and someone was bullying me. Eventually I stopped hearing from them about their demand, and I got the next payment just fine. This wasn't a mistake. This was deliberate.
Stripe is a pile of shit. Therefore I have developed alternatives: https://open.substack.com/pub/s101k/p/build-your-own-paypal-payment-links-for-substack?r=8mqdm&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=true
Did you read what I said elsewhere about PayPal? They overdrew my checking account instead of using my credit card as they were supposed to do. They started taking up to $2500 of people's money if they learned that people disagreed with them politically. Their contract allows them to do so. The pile of complaints against them on Better Business Bureau is unreal. They handled payments for shipments of Fentanyl from China to the American streets, and for the shipment and sale of a device that turns a Glock into an automatic weapon, also from China. They are all around evil, and I will never again have anything to do with them. I am trying to set up a collection of art to sell on one site, and the only way they pay artists is through PayPal. I have not provided any information for a PayPal account I no longer have nor will ever have again, so if I make a sale, it is going to be interesting. But I told them I would rather THEY KEEP MY MONEY than let it go through PayPal. There are LIMITS.
"Did you read what I said elsewhere about PayPal?"
Yes. And you are right. Peter Thiel is a criminal, like most billionaires. And I have not recommended PayPal, and they will never get my data for that reason. But I am not the nanny for adult people who like to use it, and I don't like monopolies like the Stripe monopoly on Substack and at many other places.
"They handled payments for shipments of Fentanyl from China to the American streets, and for the shipment and sale of a device that turns a Glock into an automatic weapon, also from China."
Have you ever asked Chase how much blood is on their hands? ALL bankers are thugs. And improving a Glock is nothing bad.
And if you believe Stripe is one degree different - dream on.
Why? Because they (think they) can.
Agreed.
https://open.substack.com/pub/s101k/p/build-your-own-paypal-payment-links-for-substack?r=8mqdm&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=true
Listen to MMaster. He has a point. My bank has warned me NOT to link any account or card to PayPal.
I hate Stripe!! Im losing nearly 20% which isnt sustainable. Its time people like substack etc started challenging these banks! Definitely no to Apple and substack should be supporting us not Apple
Apple is profoundly greedy
Paying for a single article, in app, would be great!
That’s a wonderful idea!!! So people don’t have to fully subscribe, but can “pay-per-view” like the iTunes model. I think that’s such a great idea and opportunity.
No, it isn't. It will encourage the authors to write click-bathe titles and it will harm the long term income.
Some might do that, you're right. It depends how a writer manages their publication and sends out the message. People use those kind of titles already for a free article.
That one might write click-bait titles doesn’t mean that a reader has to buy that article. Everyone is aware of clickbait today. And there is a reason why usually there is a paywall after some part of an article is free; so that the reader will be able to check some of the piece first. Pay per article is a great idea, which helps especially the new authors to grow being forced to offer their work for free until they become popular.
No one is being "forced" to offer any of their work for free.
Being forced is a figure of speech. Although, it is a fact that new authors are actually forced to do it; forced by the condition of being a new author.
It is very hard to grow without doing it, if not almost impossible. Why would someone spend money, in a committed way as a subscription is, in a person whose work they do not even know instead of spending that money safely in an author who is already established and thus expecting that they will get more value from them, even if it might not necessarily be true?
If you think about it, pay per article is a very useful for new authors to be discovered without having to offer valuable work for free.
No one is forcing anyone to do anything. A writer can choose to offer a paid tier or not--and they can do that on Day 1, or at any other point they choose. Readers also have the choice of supporting a specific writer or not. That's how the market works. This platform makes that easy with per-article free trials, monthly subscriptions, and more.
Site is full of those titles.
And die. Like blogs.
It’s cyclical.
Yeah exactly! I don’t know how manageable that would be, with thousands of micro-transactions a day. But for writers it’s a great way to tempt people in to the idea of paying for your work with one-off specials. Then you can say “for just a little more you can subscribe for a whole month!”
Similar option already exists. You can open for free a paid post "curtsy from Substack" I think it was called something like this.
They have a free post option in your settings.
This concept already exists as “paid tiers” giving content access commensurate with a monthly fee.
I have been talking about the micro-payment concept for 15+ years. Some higher-level site that creators subscribe to. As small as bloggers and as large as the NYT. Then individuals like us sign-up and link our accounts or supply it monthly with a limit. Like a Starbucks card. Then instead of those annoying blockers that try to make you subscribe YET ANOTHER MONTHLY FEE — for something you may read once a month… INSTEAD of that… you (already logged in on your browser) just click and agree to pay 10 cents to read the full article.
I would do that a whole lot every month, instead of closing the window because I can’t subscribe to another $10 a month.
Someone always brings up a version of this it’s really just a lot of words to say you’re not willing to pay $5 to subscribe for one month. And that’s fine! Your money, your decision. But just be honest about it. If you don’t find value in supporting a particular writer, don’t. This model didn’t work at Post, and I don’t see it working here, either.
Absolutely WRONG. I am a creator. It isn’t an issue of not wanting to pay… it is an issue of only so many hours in a day. I cannot read enough articles in WaPo, NYT, Bulwark, multiple Substack authors… podcasts… paywalls. Ugh. I might love all these content developers, but I am not paying $10 a month (or more) to 50 creators whom I read only once or twice a week.
However… if I could pay 10 cents… or 25 cents… to read an article in the moment that doesn’t require me commit to $60 to $120 a year. I am all in.
Btw. A big part of the issue is that I DON’T KNOW if I would even want to pay this creator because maybe I just met them. I didn’t KNOW I would become a paying Bulwark member until I discovered that I liked several of their free podcasts. If I don’t get to read an article due to a paywall… then I never meet that creator. I never see that I am reading them again… again… I never get that chance to see I am a fan in the first place.
At that point, regular old economics takes over… why am I paying a quarter a day to this creator when I can join for $50 a year. Or whatever it might be. It is no different from being able to buy a box of Annie’s Mac and Cheese versus liking it so much that I go to the Big Box store to get a carton of it.
If I was not able to buy the single box… I would never know to buy the carton at the Big Box store.
If it's a matter if time, then congratulations--you face the same tough decisions every other online reader in the world does. If you're unwilling to make a small $5-6 dollar bet on someone whose work caught your eye, then that should tell you everything you need to know.
No. Why are you so rigid on this? If it were $5 maybe. But it isn’t. It is $5 every month. And not just that $5. It is $5 x 20 for all the other creators you like. SO now we’re talking $200 a month. That is almost a car payment. Add to that the monthly fees of cable, and probably about 2-5 other “channels” like HBO, Netflix, Disney, etc.
Then there is the economy of forgetting you even subscribed to some of these creators. Now I am paying $5 a month for something I am not even using. 12 months later I remember and cancel $60 into it.
Why is this different than music? I could buy a single 30 years ago. Now I can even pay $1 to own a digital file. No artist makes you buy an album. The only reason you had to buy records for some songs 30 years ago was because they couldn’t afford to make singles of every track.
I can see one movie. I don’t have to subscribe to Paramount Pictures (although they do have a channel too).
I also think it is better for the creator. Instead of having to convince someone to make a commitment. You can now just get your article read by perhaps 10x to 20x more people. After a while some percentage of those people may become subscribers. In the meantime you are collecting tons more of smaller payments that may potentially exceed what you are making on subscribers depending on your platform exposure.
For some of us, $5 is still a lot of money to drop on something that might suck. Ten cents to a quarter would be fine just to read an article. You’d probably clean up with the volume sales. Options, baby.
In all seriousness, we should just return to having our own sites and RSS feeds. Too many middle men as it is.
You can subscribe for one month. A recurring payment isn’t mandatory. That gives you anywhere from 28-31 days to read anything/everything you’d want, and then you get to decide to either keep going or unsubscribe.
Some people actually unsubscribe immediately—This is a very common way people avoid recurring charges on their card. At worst, you’re out $5 (or whatever a writer may charge). That doesn’t even touch on things like offers for a “teaser” article, rewards for referrals, or comps.
As for Netflix, Hulu, etc. Those are choices each of us have to make for ourselves. Same with a car payemnt for that matter. But if one can afford a Starbucks visit, they can certainly afford to take a small bet on a creator.
What Thomas says is that he does want to pay for the things he finds valuable. What he doesn’t want to do is to pay extra for those things, in order to receive more things (the rest of an author’s work) that he might not find valuable. It’s really about providing flexibility.
It's never about "flexibility." It's about trying to pay less than what a creator is charging. We've been conditioned to think everything online is free. That's not how it works here.
Again, it's his money; he can do as he sees fit with it. What he doesn't get to do is put downward pressure on everyone else in the name of "flexibility."
If I see a magazine on the stand with something I really want to read, I buy the issue. I don't whip a dime at the vendor and rip the article out.
Well, I can speak for myself. Both as a reader and as an author, I would like to have and offer the option to pay and charge per article. I just like this flexibility, what can I say? In case you thought otherwise, most of us who ask for a pay-per-article feature do not ask to make it mandatory (that would not be flexible). If an author does not want to offer some of their pieces individually, they obviously don't have to do it.
But I must say that even if the case was about trying to paying less than what a creator (the seller, in this case) is charging, I don't see anything wrong with that. The creator can take this information and use it accordingly. This is how a market works.
I think it’s an interesting debate. Like the magazine on the stand, not everyone likes the idea of a subscription commitment for a year but still wants to pick up an issue now and again.
As long as the pricing is tiered so that it’s better value for the reader to plump for a subscription (one article for £3, £6 for a month, a year for £60 as a crude example), then that seems similar to (if not modernising) a real life magazine scenario.
Potential to entice casual readers who can’t commit to subscribe to every service and publication they read but want to read what you have to say. Seems like low hanging fruit to me.
Right. That pricing tier exists now. The difference is that instead of paying, say, £6 for a single issue at the stand, they can pay £6 (one time) for a month, have access to everything in that writer's catalogue, and then either be done with it, or continue the subscription.
Granted — this idea only works if there is a Paypal-like platform that everyone can all subscribe to. The toughest part is enough of the major players need to be on there to pull everyone else in. Ideally, the major players would create this thing together. Get everyone together on the side of journalism, reporting, writing… the overall message could be unity or creatives over surviving the corporate whateveryoucallit.
that sounds like such a fun idea!!!!
To simplify things, let people purchase tokens for micropayments in $20 increments, web only, and let creators specify a per post price, with Substack retaining their 10% to cover administration. When the tokens run out users must buy another batch. Apple has to allow this (due to other lawsuit decisions), and creators have another option to monetize their posts.
No.
The reason why Substack doesn't do this is that it erodes subscriptions. If someone can pay $1 per article they will do that rather than pay $50/year. It's not very sustainable for the writer. But writers can always discount their subscription prices if they don't mind the lower pay.
^This^
For those those of you that want an all-you-can-read model; it already exists. It's Medium.com
You can build it: https://open.substack.com/pub/s101k/p/build-your-own-paypal-payment-links-for-substack?r=8mqdm&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=true
Is there a Substack Creators Union? Does anyone know if there is a creator owned cooperative platform out there?
Oh good Lord....
Just call me John.
😂
.... like a special guild (hidden tax) to funnel more money through?... - glean every last drop of blood from us? Are we all commies now John?
I think 30% is greedy and insane. Of course I love the convenience of Apple Pay as a user (and I have it as an option on my sites where I sell my books along with Google Pay)... but if I'm buying something online or on my phone and that's NOT an option, I'm still going to go through the hassle of a traditional checkout probably 95% of the time--unless it was something that doesn't seem to justify that herculean effort, which means I must not have wanted it that badly.
So to give up THIRTY PERCENT of all sales to preserve a potential 2% loss seems like a bad deal for creators, frankly. Further, if I were buying something with AP and there was a notice that the seller/creator was losing 30% to Apple, I would ABSOLUTELY use another payment form.
FWIW. Thanks for sharing and asking!
To "earn" this fee, Apple is not supplying the traffic....Substack is and so are you, dear author!!
Do you think Apple would ever de-platform you ?
Nailed it
I don't think the issue is with Apple Pay, which has to compete fairly with other payment processors and therefore charges similar fees. The issue is with the app store, which is a walled garden. It's only apps that actually sit on Apple's app store that are hit with the 30% tax.
We can put such notice
^typo, 5% loss [SMH]
Presuming it’s an option, as a publisher I would opt out of any feature that requires giving up more than the current 10% fee.
Direct email is a pretty good option.
Indeed.
Same here!
Substack is one of the best ways for creators to earn money. It's unique and was one of the first to do what it does. Because of this, Substack doesn’t really need other companies like Apple or Stripe. It might be a good idea for Substack to start using its own blockchain, making it even more independent and innovative.
Think about it.
If Substack gets involved with Apple, it's only a matter of time before Apple censors Substack.
Stay away
Stsy swayuy
That's quite a claim. I haven't seen any evidence of Substack being that easy to command and control. If you have, I would be interested in hearing more about that. Thanks.
They certainly know how to bury your product so that even a careful search does not link to your creation.
Believe me, I know.
Absolutely. They also manipulate the newsletter delivery massively. They manipulate EVERYWHERE.
THINK about it. Apple is huge and powerful. Guaranteed if Substack signs a contract with them (an adhesion contract) there will be some kind of clause that will give Apple the authority to censor Substack. And even if there is no such clause, most of us realize that Apple will censor anyway. Maybe I'm wrong, but I wouldn't want to take a chance. If Substack wants to maintain its independence, then it must remain independent. A service like Stripe has never been accused of censorship. It may be a problem for many, and there need to be alternatives, but I sure wouldn't look to the powerful who want to rule the world for that. Substack will remain hard to control only as long as it stays away from companies like that. Do you think I am wrong? What is your reasoning?
One more thing: Apple wants to charge 30%. As long as it refuses to give in, I think my point is proven. Apple doesn't need Substack. Apple is free to impose any condition it wants.
Stripe no censorship? Educate yourself. Stripe is pure shit.
Since when has Stripe ever censored anyone on Substack? They haven't censored me.
It is obvious that you have little to no knowledge about Substack. The shadowbanning on Notes is dramatic. Together with the censorship done over Stripe it is in the end the same as Fuckbook, Twitter and everything else. Because closing your Stripe account finishes — for the most — their Substack existence. It is more subtle than Zuckerberg does, but the result is the same.
Allowing readers to give a one-time donation would be superb! Many subscribers might enjoy one particular piece, but do not want to commit to a regular subscription. They might also want to give a higher amount than the monthly price, but without committing to an annual sub. Would be wonderful if you could make this happen as I know that many creators would appreciate this feature :)
You can do that now; subscribe for a month and then unsubscribe (if you wish). For a few dollars you get access to everything, and can then decide if you want to continue supporting the writer.
Might be simple to add buttons for 1 month, 2 month etc up to a year. I like this idea
Agreed. It would be ridiculous to charge pennies for an article and have to do that with every article. The subscription is already reasonable at a few dollars a month. That is until Apple wants their cut... ;-)
Kinda like a "Super Thanks" on YouTube, which I occasionally do.
Here you find the solutions: https://open.substack.com/pub/s101k/p/build-your-own-paypal-payment-links-for-substack?r=8mqdm&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=true
Thanks Klaus - that was actually an interesting solution!
Yes! My readers have expressed a desire to do this as well.
I would love that!
I wholeheartedly agree Ruth 🙏🏾
Apple has absolutely nothing to do with my productive efforts, so why on Earth do they deserve 15-30% OF said-effort? That company has been financially raking recording artists over-the-coals since they got into the music business, and I see no reason why we should allow them to do it to us.
Appreciate your efforts, but at 30% + 10% + Stripe fees? That's nearly half the total take-home; what's the point, at that point? It would also be especially crippling for smaller creators, in my opinion.
A 'Buy Me A Coffee' tip-jar-like option - directly through Substack - would be nice, however. Just a thought...
Read SUBSTACK 101 KICKSTART! https://open.substack.com/pub/s101k/p/build-your-own-paypal-payment-links-for-substack?r=8mqdm&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=true
I already do this on some posts, just using a link or the custom button.
Just do it.
I already do, but I'd rather go directly through Substack than make people pay through a different site.
I agree. I'd also prefer this to be a self-contained platform.
...I guess we will see.
Agreed 100%!
It’s because Apple owns the platform. It’s their land and they are the dictator.
I think the existence of wallets such as Google Pay, Paypal, Amazon Pay, and even Shopify and Stripe, make Apple Pay unnecessary to accept. And I would push back for sure.
There is a risk that not accepting Apple Pay could limit Substack’s availability in the App Store. Or exclude it entirely.
Didn't the EU get involved for exactly this behaviour? This is anti-competition and unlawful.
If so, brilliant! Agreements should be put in place that are fair to all parties (including Apple). It's their app store, and they have a right to demand a fee. But it should be in compliance with laws/regulations.
I'm sure that's so, but perhaps most people use it in the browser anyway, and with the progressive web app, there is no need for the app store.
Perhaps but as we can see from other recent posts, Substack is "all in" on the app, having recently spent a good deal of effort to make it more usable for publishing as well as reading. Clearly they view the app as critical, and it seems extremely unlikely they would just drop it. And removing it from Apple's App Store, in the context of Substack's primary audience of users, would be akin to dropping the app entirely.
I hear that, but it depends on the target audience. Mine prefers the app (as do I).
also you find more people to read on the app..
Yes. And the app makes it easier to engage with posts.
The issue doesn't seem to be with Apple Pay, it's with in-app purchases for apps downloaded through the apple store.
30% is insane and I think only younger people see this as a normal cost of doing business in the digital age. These are MONOPOLIES and should be broken up. They are anti-capitalist and if they were owned by The State everyone would be freaking out over socialism or communism but because they are American consumer companies they get a free pass. My industry (I own hotels) is now getting financially sabotaged by the monopoly called Expedia. Which buys up all it's competitors (see Luxottica, Google, Ticketmaster, et al!) and takes whatever chunk pf money it wants. Independent hotels now lose almost 20% of GROSS revenue to credit card companies amd Expedia for basically electronic transactions that cost a tiny fraction of a penny to them. It's outrageous and just funneling the little guys hard work into the pockets of a few people who are now richer than many countries.
same with delivery guys who traditionally worked for restaurants. these ubereats companies and the uber/lyft explosion,all of it,hurts everyone everywhere,except the ceo's of these and other tech bro co. so sad.
Investors benefit while everyone else gets to pay for said gains in increasing disparities. Despairities.
And as we've learned, the vast majority or the stock market is owned by relatively few people/corporations.
The unfortunate thing is the fact that so many of us also have retirements and savings tied up in bundled investments of various sorts - my least favourite (at least at present) being REITs.
Amen, Brother. Amen, amen, aaaaaamen.
I have a sense that this article - asking for comments and feedback regarding Apple - is a bit of a smoke screen. Either a deal has already been done or fees are about to increase, and this article was a way of easing people into it. I truly hope I'm wrong because I love this space but I'm sensing changes (like the one suggested here) are geared toward fast paced consuming and clickable headlines (like a newspaper and social media posts), which is the opposite direction of what Substack is about and why so many of us are here - for the slower pace and genuine connection with our readers and subscribers - yes?
I agree. The feel of Substack has changed a lot—it’s becoming just like everywhere else, instead of staying true to what made it great in the first place.
So re Apple: I'm not a fan.
Agreed - this post was a little too slick and pseudo-humble for me. I don’t trust it at all.
I think you’re right!
Agree here.
The long-form anti-instant "social media" feel of Substack means that there is a different sort of person here. This is also why, I believe, we have a better quality of subscribers and content makers. There is a community that forms when new Stackers start writing, and so it's an organic process to grow. That takes time. It is hard, mostly unpaid work to invest in that as a creator. Please don't degrade the whole underpinning of Substack by going for "quick and easy." Go for slow and steady, more control, and as one person posted, if people really want to purchase something, they'll even haul out a card out and punch in the numbers! So really, just let's slow. Down.
Additionally, the whole point of Substack, imo, is about writing. Writing! Yet, we still have very few writers' tools to use. The poetry block won't adjust to "custom" type (for which there is a dearth of choices) and ends up looking daft. We cannot center lines of text or adjust vertical spacing. There are no choices for colored text or minimal design tools. The block quotation is so misused in a desperate attempt to add some touch of variety or offset a section, that it no longer signals, you know, quoted material! That bothers me a lot from an attribution standpoint. If one has to resort to footnotes, one is limited to certain styles, like Chicago. I mean, come on. Give writers tools to write! No one cares about even faster, even easier, even quicker ways to pay. Lower the fees. Slow down. Don't become another has-been platform.
Well said! Absolutely agree. The writers and readers here are a different sort of person from the instant-gratification culture of social media and news.
Please do invest more in writer and artist tools, and forget this VERY BAD IDEA!!
Clap, clap! I love having the audio, but I end up having to use Canva as a work-around to make things look the way a few more writerly formatting tools within Substack would help conform to literary style guides.
Hear hear!
When I wanted to format something, I ended up doing outside Substack and dropping it in as a jpeg. Very unsatisfactory as a process and not very beautiful as an end result, but for the point I wanted to make, it worked. For poets and experimental writers Substack is subpar.
Thanks for your tips. Another writer said she uses Canva. I agree that Substack is subpar for what it ostensibly was designed to do! How ironic.
I think they see it as a more essayistic/journalistic platform, where all you need is bold, italic, underline and to be able to drop in pictures. To be fair, that's most of my stuff, but I have a few pieces of fiction that, as long as the formatting is as basic as it is, will never appear here.
Sigh. I think you are right about that, but they need to grow—especially so that you can publish your fiction here!
Couldn’t agree more with this!
Offer an Apple opt-out … Substack works great … I’ll stick with them and opt out of “opportunities” with Apple … I don’t think they’re worth it …
I’m not a fan of in app purchases especially for online content because the control of the subscription then rests with Apple and to cancel or troubleshoot I have to go through a convoluted process with Apple not ‘Substack’.
OMG. Apple anything customer service is like the most horrible psychedelic experience dreamed up in hell.
Get in bed with Apple, censorship will be right around the corner.
It will be the death of Substack.
Another person said this earlier up the comments chain and I asked what their evidence is for thinking that Substack would cave to that. I am earnest here: why would you think Substack would allow that? Thanks.
Once a majority or even a minority of one's subscribers come through the app store, they have you.
They can pull your app from the store, unless you do as they say.
It's history !
it's a shakedown..
I hope this means that Substack will insist Apple not be so ridiculous by asking 30% -- and reserving the right to not participate in the app if apple decides it knows what the rest of us should be saying and thinking.
yuck
Apple is greedy and I don't like the idea of them taking 30% of anything. Corporations are out-of-control with this and they'll use that as an excuse to ask for even more or not be transparent about what, why, when, where, etc. So no, I'm not up for Apple taking money for me to create things having nothing to do with them. Find another vendor that doesn't do that. I'm already paying more subscriptions than I'm getting from subscribers because I'm relatively new. Please don't.