Such a fun and inspiring read! I’ve personally bought/pre-ordered at least four books recently thanks to Substack newsletters reminding me to do so.
I must admit that I usually have to see pub/pre-order notices at least 3-4 times before I remember to actually order the book, so consistently mentioning the book is important! I think Virginia Sole-Smith was particularly excellent at this. It kept feeling like, oh yeah, I need to do that, until I actually did.
I think I’ve been especially swayed by people being interviewed in other Substacks, and I love when authors include some tidbits about their books, like pictures and stories about their inspiration.
I agree with what you are saying and I think repetition is absolutely essential. I listen to some podcasts, where the host will mention a particular product they are selling, for example a book, maybe twice in the same podcast, so after a few episodes per day and listening everyday for weeks I have heard the same pitch something like 100s of times. Also radio commercials, repetitive over and over but seems to be the key to success to breaking past all of the 'Noise' in today's world.
That's one interesting part about it, You think it would get old after the first 50 times, but after awhile it just becomes part of the landscape of the podcast...interestingly enough. Also there was a radio station that I used to listen to for like 12 hours per day, eventually it got to the point where I looked forward to certain commercials just based upon how the owner / DJ said the commercials. Which then made listening to his regular show even more interesting. Funny how things like that work...anyways! I subscribed to your Substack, looking forward to reading your writing!
dear publishers: I'm sure you're reading this going 'yea! I'd love to scoop up the next hot comedic wunderkid (is it kid or kind) who writes about being a lil immigrant from Ukraine in america and then becoming a dad and intergenerational karma and and everything else and wow let me just say- it me. my open rates are sometimes over 100% and people do comment a lot on my posts we even had one person say they'd stopped walking cuz they were sad but then they read my posts and started to walk a bunch so I mean wow if that ain't success then what is??! plz do reach out asap as I am walking to the big apple right now to set up some meetings in person with both simon and schuster (separately)
I got the exactly same feeling, Mason! I thought self-promotion was something only to celebrities and discovered it concerns everyone after I launched my first book.
Yeah, it's such a bigger part of the "job" than I ever anticipated, and it also takes a lot more skill/finesse to do well than I think most people realize.
Rather than direct book sales, I’ve been using Substack to offer my novels to my members to download at their convenience. It’s something of a real time experiment, but seems to be working so far...
Fabulous round up with so many incredible, practical notes and examples. Launching a book is HARD and takes everything from an author, for months leading up to and post launch--thank you for giving us a platform to reach and connect with our most dedicated audiences!!
Thank you for this post! I am a new substack writer, closing in on my first month on the platform, but I gotta say I love it. Incredible community of writers and always something interesting to read. I am also working on a book and I am glad to have this platform to connect with my growing audience, and these tips are very helpful as I move towards completion and publishing of my future memoirs of the same name as my Substack.
I'll admit that I'd love to get a book deal off the back of Why Aren't I Writing, my newsletter about writer's block. I'm doing well on open rates and just have another 59,700 subscriber to go before I can boast a big enough audience. 😂
The whole premise of your “advice” is built upon the assumption of a larger audience built in for people who have book sales from. You just assume that people have paid subscribers to provide a discount to.
None of your examples are from complete unknowns. They’re all established writers who are already making money from Substack.
I am a complete unknown, and I used almost all of the methods here to help sell my fiction book. I have a small audience (less than 500 subscribers) and I don't have a paid option. Around a dozen purchases came through Substack, and the rest were family, friends, co-workers and the result of recommendations from those individuals. No author is an overnight success.
This platform will never make or break an author. Platforms don't do that. Good writing and industry expertise do that. If you think the reason these authors are making any money selling their books is simply because they're already known, then you need to ask yourself why their known. Go do everything they do first, then write a book, and you'll feel differently.
I never claimed that they weren’t good writers. But industry expertise is part of what I take issue with. I’ve followed “industry expertise” for years and it never really worked. I’ve also improved as a writer for years and I get pretty much universal praise for my writing.
People make the claim that “good writing rises to the top” but in reality the people who say that often are doing that while being featured in the New York Times after a chance meeting at a random event. Or because they have spent thousands of dollars on advertising. The idea that this is an organic process and that people who succeed are doing it purely because they’re good is a fictional claim.
How many terrible books or movies or TV shows got made over decades? They didn’t manage that by being good writers.
I agree completely that there are a number of good writers that never make it, while there are others that aren't as talented, but through some stroke of luck make it big. However, those chance meetings, side introductions and insider connections aren't really that lucky. There are so many combinations of factors that are indicators of success that the only common denominator is perseverance. Those successful authors still have to put themselves out there in some capacity, and while for a time they experience success, to continue on a forward trajectory they have to keep trying.
Brian, though Andrew makes some important points below (hi, Andrew! :), you are correct about the perseverance factor as being *one part* of the picture. Have you read the book 'Don't Trust Your Gut'? It looks at data across a variety of areas of life, including success as a creator. Being prolific (part of perseverance) is a top factor for success. You might also enjoy this article https://www.writtenwordmedia.com/100k-author/ which speaks, too, of the issue of being prolific. Regarding Andrew's comment, I do find it to be especially dangerous and demoralizing for writers to think that simply *trying harder* across any platform at all is a key to success. It takes savvy. Insight. And, often, money to succeed.
To paraphrase someone, “Everyone believes in luck, right up until they succeed, then it was all their doing.”
The idea that persistence pays off is another fictional thing people tell themselves to justify the fact that they aren’t succeeding. Or that they don’t get paid.
Substack’s CEO just sent out a Note about the “Pay It Forward economy”.
The “pay it forward” economy is just the latest version of the “exposure economy” that people in the creative economy use to pretend that paying people has to be earned.
When you go to a job in retail or at a factory, you don’t hear anyone saying “do the job for 10 years for free and then we’ll consider paying you”. No one would accept that. Your landlord doesn’t believe in being paid in “pay it forward dollars”. Your grocery store doesn’t accept “pay it forward dollars”.
But somehow writers are expected to be paid in “exposure dollars” or “pay it forward dollars”.
The “pay it forward economy” is just the latest euphemism for the “exposure economy” where everyone in the creative field is expected to do free work “for the exposure”. It’s part of what the Writers Guild of America is striking against. The idea that they shouldn’t be paid for their work because they haven’t “earned it yet”. They need to do thousands of hours of free work in order to justify people who make millions of dollars paying them the bare minimum wage in 10 years.
You have 3 examples out of something like 20 people and you’re using this as “evidence” that Substack is helping people succeed and make money. It’s a marketing message you’re sending out in order to justify the thousands of writers on the platform who are providing traffic to your service while making zero dollars over years. Some of whom are probably going to become homeless trying to succeed on Substack. Your paycheque is dependent on the thousands of writers who make nothing from Substack driving traffic to your platform so that the small number of people who have institutional support and discretionary income to promote themselves and make millions of dollars.
Andrew, I've been thinking about the "thousands of writers on the platform who are providing traffic," and considering that it might be a fair exchange. Websites that writers set up for themselves can take considerable $ to keep going (plus a fair amount of technical knowledge and maintenance—especially if a writer wants to set up paywalls), while Substacks take no $ to set up or maintain. Both scenarios require hard work (writing capital), but the Substack ones... well, if they make no $ in return, at least there was no $ outlay to get started or to maintain.
You're assuming that writing takes no effort. Many writers don't have a consistent schedule but others do. I have had weekly new content from February 2021 to pretty much the end of this year so far. The claim that because the website takes "effort" and writing doesn't actually take "effort" assumes a value for one kind of effort and not for another.
To use a similar argument that I used replying elsewhere in this thread. You would never have a grocery store worker and tell them "Work here for 10 years for free and if we like you, in 2033 we'll consider paying you. Not retroactively to today but only going forward from 2033 and only if other people want you to keep writing will we pay you."
The assumption that the grocery store worker is providing value but the writer isn't providing value is inherently devaluing writing and the product of writing. Why would it make sense to completely dismiss writing as having value?
Hmm. I'm wondering where the impression that writing takes no effort arose from in what I was thinking about? Writing is such a deep effort, on so many levels. Websiting... well, that's effort that takes away from writing time. Some days I wake up and can't believe my new good luck in having a place like Substack where I don't have to pay a dime to collect Substacks like notebooks (the way I like to collect and manage websites :). And some of the Substacks even pay. Not tons of $ by any means, but something that exceeds the model I was using before, where I had to not only pay for the websites (which I still do) but also to pay Mailchimp to handle my lists, and it was hard to break even.
I think maybe we are agreed that writing is valuable. That it should earn. :)
(Re: the grocery store idea: the workers aren't making the products, yes? The writer makes the product. Products sometimes are given away as leads. Which a writer can do, too. I'm thinking here specifically about authors and books. It's a proven method.)
Now, I've looked at your profile again. You are a screenwriter! There's so much going on there right now that's a really big deal. Are you in on the strike?
No, I have my issues with the writers strike too and not part of the union. I call myself a screenwriter because I’ve written screenplays, none of which have been produced.
But I put together the idea that you’re looking at writing as less valuable from your comments about how you have to pay for a website. That the Substack platform allows you to not have to pay for a website. That this somehow justifies Substack profiting off the thousands of writers who make no money and drives traffic to their website.
There was a recent conversation with the “Godfather of AI” who talked about this in part regarding the artificial intelligence question but had the issue with it before. We are prioritizing the platform over the people using the platform. We did it with Google, YouTube, Facebook, Twitter and now Substack.
Substack claims to be “about the writers” but instead they’re doing what Google, Facebook, YouTube and other platforms are doing. It’s just got a nicer shine on it because how it is presenting itself.
People are currently striking by the WGA because they are being exploited by giant corporations just like big tech. Which Substack is also doing. Disney and other major studios are creating “mini-rooms” and trying to cut writers out of the process of writing through using AI. This is exactly the same thing with Substack.
So if I understand correctly, your thesis is that Substack profits off unknown, never-going-to-make-it writers who drive traffic to the site. Can you say a little more about how this profit from non-earning writers comes to be? (Substack runs no ads, like WordPress, Facebook, Twitter, YouTube; they charge no annual hosting fees like Bluehost, Hostgator, WP Engine; they charge no monthly fees like Mailchimp and Constant Contact—so the profit model is ... ?)
Also, to move it to a more action-oriented conversation, I would be intrigued to hear maybe 3-5 very specific fixes Substack could engage in to handle this concern.
It’s fairly straightforward. If a company “isn’t charging you for their product, then the product is you.”
Driving traffic to the website increases its standing in search engines, which increases the amount of times it comes up in searches, causing people to use it more.
The vast majority of people who Substack promotes as “successes on Substack” are people who are already successful elsewhere. People who either worked for or were featured in a legacy media outlet like the New York Times or Washington Post or wherever. If not that, they have a university degree in the topic at hand, often they are professors in the field at a university or college or were historically. They already have successful careers, they come to Substack and, surprise surprise they are successful at Substack because they can call up their friends at the New York Times and be featured in it about their Substack which drives large amounts of money their way.
Then Substack features them in their “official Substack newsletter” which everyone on the platform is defaulted to receive. Which drives more money to the already successful people. And Substack promotes them as “successful on Substack”.
How this relates to the thousands of writers is that these people come to Substack, drive traffic to the website but don’t pay any money to any of the smaller people. But they receive the official Substack newsletter promoting the person who doesn’t need their help making money and they say “Well Substack is endorsing them, I will give this person money but continue not to pay the person who introduced me to the website in general.”
Substack is running ads. It’s running ads for itself through its official Substack newsletter and it uses the newsletter to make itself more money from bigger people who don’t need their help while leaving the smaller people out of the benefits.
You ever hear of the phrase “sponsored content”? It’s an advertisement for a product disguised as a news article. The “official Substack newsletter” is sponsored content.
Out of the probably 20 writers they featured in this article we’re commenting on, 3 of the people are people without an established audience. That means like 17 people in the article didn’t need their help. But they promote the idea that those 3 people who were successful before being featured is “evidence” that they help writers who don’t have an established audience.
There’s a South Park line about this with regards to talent agencies:
“We‘ll help you make money. You just do all the singing, get yourself the jobs, do all the work and we’ll handle the rest.”
That’s what Substack is currently doing. They’re the talent agency expecting everyone else to do all the work and they do “the rest”.
One of the slogans they keep putting out is that the greatest indicator of trustworthiness is the willingness to pay for something. By that logic? Gambling establishments, tobacco companies, and pharmaceutical companies are the most trustworthy people in the world. Do you trust a tobacco company to tell you the truth about their products?
The best thing that Substack can do is feature people before they become successful in their official Substack newsletter. They claim to focus on quality of writing rather than quantity of followers or money. But their actions don’t back up this claim. So start doing that and they will be doing themselves a favour.
Part of the problem with promoting people who are already successful on the platform is that these people can take their audiences elsewhere and make just as much money, if not more without Substack. Glenn Greenwald recently did that with his move from Substack to Locals.
But if Substack creates a group of writers who were successful on Substack first rather than being successful somewhere else and coming here, they aren’t going to see as many people move away from the platform. Which is better for Substack’s long term viability.
I like this explanation. :) It has always seemed disingenuous to me to say that someone built their big [name of platform] from nothing, when in fact they have other platforms (life platforms being the most overlooked; like the writer who wrote the book on being an ordinary guy who got a million followers "just like that," when he actually had quite a large number of life connections in Hollywood and with corporate clients before trying his million-dollar-follower experiment :)
So, to define "before they become successful," what would that look like? (10 free subscribers? 100? 500? No paid subscribers. 2 paid subscribers? 20 paid subscribers?) And, how would Substack find and vet these people easily. (Ease would be important, I'd think. As would vetting.)
If Substack were my business, I might use the same model it appears they are using (kind of an 80/20 model), but perhaps it's the messaging that's going awry here. Being honest about using an 80/20 model would be just fine as far as I'm concerned. A business needs a model and a strategy to succeed, after all. :) What kind of model would you use, if it were your business?
That’s something the people in charge would have to figure out but I think quality and consistency would be a solid first start. They claim to prefer quality over quantity, so they must have some mechanism for evaluating that.
But I have seen people post about having 5,000 free subscribers and no paid subscribers. Obviously something is wrong with their strategy. Assuming that someone has actually turned on paid subscriptions. Substack could help with that by highlighting the person.
Another person in this article thread talked about being a success on the platform despite not having a paid option available for people. Someone like that probably doesn’t need the money because they haven’t turned it on.
A while back Substack highlighted a Substacker in their official newsletter who started a Substack literally the same month I did. The same year too. We had a nearly identical schedule in terms of posting weekly. Yet they had a large number of paid subscribers, which I don’t have, and much more free subscribers than me. The difference? They had a large number of Twitter followers and a budget to pay for social media marketing.
That’s a major difference. I could’ve used Substack’s help, this person didn’t.
I’m not necessarily saying that I deserve to be highlighted. But just as an illustrative example of how to determine what the criteria could be.
True. She interviewed me for Collected Rejections a year ago when she’d just come back from hiatus. She had great, consistent content and has much deserved recognition.
How much of a social media presence did they have prior to coming to Substack? Did they have institutional support previously like a PHD or MD? Were they a professor? Did they have a column in other publications?
Hello Substack! Thanks so very much for including Beyond in this wonderful newsletter! I love interviewing Substack authors. I've already interviewed quite a few in addition to Rebecca Makkai, including Emma Gannon, Cheryl Strayed, Katherine May with more to come! Next up: Maggie Smith.
Love this! It’s such a great blueprint from beginning to end and really offers an alternative to traditional publishers. We can build here and have a platform to launch our work directly with the people who support us most. Definite bookmark for the book of poetry I’m secretly compiling. 🤫
Last week I made a decorative divider (in Canva) that will link to my books (on my website). It hasn't gone in a post yet, but I'm curious to see if it drives any sales. It feels like a subtle way to remind people that I have books. My next book comes out in 2024, and I'm looking forward to promoting it on my Substack and seeing how that goes.
Yeah, that's what I was thinking, that maybe new subscribers don't know what my books are. I had a fairly large graphic with all my book covers that I stuck on the bottom of some posts, but it was a lot. I'll probably play around a bit making different dividers and see what works the best.
That’s a good idea! I made a header on canva for my other publication here COMPANY OF TWO and it had space for 6 photos in frames which was a lovely way to introduce the project. Do you use canva? I just think it’s such a gift for sorting stuff from your vision onto the page?! 💡
My plan has always been to finish my book, then find a publisher, but substack is making me seriously consider it as an alternative plan, where I can either :
-be better situated to get my book published because I can show them I have an audience
Or
-publish it through substack and sell it directly to subscribers
Either way, I'm going to keep investing in growing my substack as a way of reaching people, writing, doing journalism, and possibly making a living. If that path can eventually lead to me getting my book(s) published, that would be a win win.
I’d love to see a book from Dante Papier – deardante.com is the funniest page I’ve found on Substack.
Many thanks, fan.
Or https://substack.com/profile/21725659-lavey-lovell?utm_source=substack_profile
😁
I love Dante 😂
This post was so timely and helpful! Im launching pre-orders for my book next week!
I know the feeling. I actually have a post coming out later today mentioning the beginning of writing my book in more detail.
Congratulations!!!!
Congratulations!!!
Thank you so much!!
Such a fun and inspiring read! I’ve personally bought/pre-ordered at least four books recently thanks to Substack newsletters reminding me to do so.
I must admit that I usually have to see pub/pre-order notices at least 3-4 times before I remember to actually order the book, so consistently mentioning the book is important! I think Virginia Sole-Smith was particularly excellent at this. It kept feeling like, oh yeah, I need to do that, until I actually did.
I think I’ve been especially swayed by people being interviewed in other Substacks, and I love when authors include some tidbits about their books, like pictures and stories about their inspiration.
I agree with what you are saying and I think repetition is absolutely essential. I listen to some podcasts, where the host will mention a particular product they are selling, for example a book, maybe twice in the same podcast, so after a few episodes per day and listening everyday for weeks I have heard the same pitch something like 100s of times. Also radio commercials, repetitive over and over but seems to be the key to success to breaking past all of the 'Noise' in today's world.
Yes! And honestly, if I’m there digesting their content, I’m really not annoyed that they’re trying to share more with me!
That's one interesting part about it, You think it would get old after the first 50 times, but after awhile it just becomes part of the landscape of the podcast...interestingly enough. Also there was a radio station that I used to listen to for like 12 hours per day, eventually it got to the point where I looked forward to certain commercials just based upon how the owner / DJ said the commercials. Which then made listening to his regular show even more interesting. Funny how things like that work...anyways! I subscribed to your Substack, looking forward to reading your writing!
Yeah same!
I am launching a book next January.
This will be really useful
👍
dear publishers: I'm sure you're reading this going 'yea! I'd love to scoop up the next hot comedic wunderkid (is it kid or kind) who writes about being a lil immigrant from Ukraine in america and then becoming a dad and intergenerational karma and and everything else and wow let me just say- it me. my open rates are sometimes over 100% and people do comment a lot on my posts we even had one person say they'd stopped walking cuz they were sad but then they read my posts and started to walk a bunch so I mean wow if that ain't success then what is??! plz do reach out asap as I am walking to the big apple right now to set up some meetings in person with both simon and schuster (separately)
I'm not sure what I just read but I loved it!
I'm rooting for you!
Lol. I really hope you are able to find one here. It'll make such an awesome headline someday. Good luck!
As someone who has always felt terrible at self-promotion, I'm delighted to see my janky homemade footer graphic featured here—thanks!
I got the exactly same feeling, Mason! I thought self-promotion was something only to celebrities and discovered it concerns everyone after I launched my first book.
Yeah, it's such a bigger part of the "job" than I ever anticipated, and it also takes a lot more skill/finesse to do well than I think most people realize.
Rather than direct book sales, I’ve been using Substack to offer my novels to my members to download at their convenience. It’s something of a real time experiment, but seems to be working so far...
https://joelbowman.substack.com/p/a-novel-idea
Nice 👍
Fabulous round up with so many incredible, practical notes and examples. Launching a book is HARD and takes everything from an author, for months leading up to and post launch--thank you for giving us a platform to reach and connect with our most dedicated audiences!!
❤️❤️👍
Thank you for this post! I am a new substack writer, closing in on my first month on the platform, but I gotta say I love it. Incredible community of writers and always something interesting to read. I am also working on a book and I am glad to have this platform to connect with my growing audience, and these tips are very helpful as I move towards completion and publishing of my future memoirs of the same name as my Substack.
Welcome
Welcome. Yeah: it’s fantastic here 👍
This is a useful post, thanks!
I'll admit that I'd love to get a book deal off the back of Why Aren't I Writing, my newsletter about writer's block. I'm doing well on open rates and just have another 59,700 subscriber to go before I can boast a big enough audience. 😂
Isn't that the dream :P
Yes, yes it is!
The whole premise of your “advice” is built upon the assumption of a larger audience built in for people who have book sales from. You just assume that people have paid subscribers to provide a discount to.
None of your examples are from complete unknowns. They’re all established writers who are already making money from Substack.
I am a complete unknown, and I used almost all of the methods here to help sell my fiction book. I have a small audience (less than 500 subscribers) and I don't have a paid option. Around a dozen purchases came through Substack, and the rest were family, friends, co-workers and the result of recommendations from those individuals. No author is an overnight success.
This platform will never make or break an author. Platforms don't do that. Good writing and industry expertise do that. If you think the reason these authors are making any money selling their books is simply because they're already known, then you need to ask yourself why their known. Go do everything they do first, then write a book, and you'll feel differently.
I never claimed that they weren’t good writers. But industry expertise is part of what I take issue with. I’ve followed “industry expertise” for years and it never really worked. I’ve also improved as a writer for years and I get pretty much universal praise for my writing.
People make the claim that “good writing rises to the top” but in reality the people who say that often are doing that while being featured in the New York Times after a chance meeting at a random event. Or because they have spent thousands of dollars on advertising. The idea that this is an organic process and that people who succeed are doing it purely because they’re good is a fictional claim.
How many terrible books or movies or TV shows got made over decades? They didn’t manage that by being good writers.
I agree completely that there are a number of good writers that never make it, while there are others that aren't as talented, but through some stroke of luck make it big. However, those chance meetings, side introductions and insider connections aren't really that lucky. There are so many combinations of factors that are indicators of success that the only common denominator is perseverance. Those successful authors still have to put themselves out there in some capacity, and while for a time they experience success, to continue on a forward trajectory they have to keep trying.
Brian, though Andrew makes some important points below (hi, Andrew! :), you are correct about the perseverance factor as being *one part* of the picture. Have you read the book 'Don't Trust Your Gut'? It looks at data across a variety of areas of life, including success as a creator. Being prolific (part of perseverance) is a top factor for success. You might also enjoy this article https://www.writtenwordmedia.com/100k-author/ which speaks, too, of the issue of being prolific. Regarding Andrew's comment, I do find it to be especially dangerous and demoralizing for writers to think that simply *trying harder* across any platform at all is a key to success. It takes savvy. Insight. And, often, money to succeed.
To paraphrase someone, “Everyone believes in luck, right up until they succeed, then it was all their doing.”
The idea that persistence pays off is another fictional thing people tell themselves to justify the fact that they aren’t succeeding. Or that they don’t get paid.
Substack’s CEO just sent out a Note about the “Pay It Forward economy”.
https://substack.com/profile/3567-hamish-mckenzie/note/c-15904673
The “pay it forward” economy is just the latest version of the “exposure economy” that people in the creative economy use to pretend that paying people has to be earned.
When you go to a job in retail or at a factory, you don’t hear anyone saying “do the job for 10 years for free and then we’ll consider paying you”. No one would accept that. Your landlord doesn’t believe in being paid in “pay it forward dollars”. Your grocery store doesn’t accept “pay it forward dollars”.
But somehow writers are expected to be paid in “exposure dollars” or “pay it forward dollars”.
(Caroline Chambers is a great example mentioned here! Valorie Clark, Lerato have also grown a lot via Substack primarily)
Your CEO just sent out a Note about the “Pay It Forward economy”.
https://substack.com/profile/3567-hamish-mckenzie/note/c-15904673
The “pay it forward economy” is just the latest euphemism for the “exposure economy” where everyone in the creative field is expected to do free work “for the exposure”. It’s part of what the Writers Guild of America is striking against. The idea that they shouldn’t be paid for their work because they haven’t “earned it yet”. They need to do thousands of hours of free work in order to justify people who make millions of dollars paying them the bare minimum wage in 10 years.
You have 3 examples out of something like 20 people and you’re using this as “evidence” that Substack is helping people succeed and make money. It’s a marketing message you’re sending out in order to justify the thousands of writers on the platform who are providing traffic to your service while making zero dollars over years. Some of whom are probably going to become homeless trying to succeed on Substack. Your paycheque is dependent on the thousands of writers who make nothing from Substack driving traffic to your platform so that the small number of people who have institutional support and discretionary income to promote themselves and make millions of dollars.
Andrew, I've been thinking about the "thousands of writers on the platform who are providing traffic," and considering that it might be a fair exchange. Websites that writers set up for themselves can take considerable $ to keep going (plus a fair amount of technical knowledge and maintenance—especially if a writer wants to set up paywalls), while Substacks take no $ to set up or maintain. Both scenarios require hard work (writing capital), but the Substack ones... well, if they make no $ in return, at least there was no $ outlay to get started or to maintain.
Thoughts?
You're assuming that writing takes no effort. Many writers don't have a consistent schedule but others do. I have had weekly new content from February 2021 to pretty much the end of this year so far. The claim that because the website takes "effort" and writing doesn't actually take "effort" assumes a value for one kind of effort and not for another.
To use a similar argument that I used replying elsewhere in this thread. You would never have a grocery store worker and tell them "Work here for 10 years for free and if we like you, in 2033 we'll consider paying you. Not retroactively to today but only going forward from 2033 and only if other people want you to keep writing will we pay you."
The assumption that the grocery store worker is providing value but the writer isn't providing value is inherently devaluing writing and the product of writing. Why would it make sense to completely dismiss writing as having value?
Hmm. I'm wondering where the impression that writing takes no effort arose from in what I was thinking about? Writing is such a deep effort, on so many levels. Websiting... well, that's effort that takes away from writing time. Some days I wake up and can't believe my new good luck in having a place like Substack where I don't have to pay a dime to collect Substacks like notebooks (the way I like to collect and manage websites :). And some of the Substacks even pay. Not tons of $ by any means, but something that exceeds the model I was using before, where I had to not only pay for the websites (which I still do) but also to pay Mailchimp to handle my lists, and it was hard to break even.
I think maybe we are agreed that writing is valuable. That it should earn. :)
(Re: the grocery store idea: the workers aren't making the products, yes? The writer makes the product. Products sometimes are given away as leads. Which a writer can do, too. I'm thinking here specifically about authors and books. It's a proven method.)
Now, I've looked at your profile again. You are a screenwriter! There's so much going on there right now that's a really big deal. Are you in on the strike?
No, I have my issues with the writers strike too and not part of the union. I call myself a screenwriter because I’ve written screenplays, none of which have been produced.
But I put together the idea that you’re looking at writing as less valuable from your comments about how you have to pay for a website. That the Substack platform allows you to not have to pay for a website. That this somehow justifies Substack profiting off the thousands of writers who make no money and drives traffic to their website.
There was a recent conversation with the “Godfather of AI” who talked about this in part regarding the artificial intelligence question but had the issue with it before. We are prioritizing the platform over the people using the platform. We did it with Google, YouTube, Facebook, Twitter and now Substack.
Substack claims to be “about the writers” but instead they’re doing what Google, Facebook, YouTube and other platforms are doing. It’s just got a nicer shine on it because how it is presenting itself.
People are currently striking by the WGA because they are being exploited by giant corporations just like big tech. Which Substack is also doing. Disney and other major studios are creating “mini-rooms” and trying to cut writers out of the process of writing through using AI. This is exactly the same thing with Substack.
So if I understand correctly, your thesis is that Substack profits off unknown, never-going-to-make-it writers who drive traffic to the site. Can you say a little more about how this profit from non-earning writers comes to be? (Substack runs no ads, like WordPress, Facebook, Twitter, YouTube; they charge no annual hosting fees like Bluehost, Hostgator, WP Engine; they charge no monthly fees like Mailchimp and Constant Contact—so the profit model is ... ?)
Also, to move it to a more action-oriented conversation, I would be intrigued to hear maybe 3-5 very specific fixes Substack could engage in to handle this concern.
It’s fairly straightforward. If a company “isn’t charging you for their product, then the product is you.”
Driving traffic to the website increases its standing in search engines, which increases the amount of times it comes up in searches, causing people to use it more.
The vast majority of people who Substack promotes as “successes on Substack” are people who are already successful elsewhere. People who either worked for or were featured in a legacy media outlet like the New York Times or Washington Post or wherever. If not that, they have a university degree in the topic at hand, often they are professors in the field at a university or college or were historically. They already have successful careers, they come to Substack and, surprise surprise they are successful at Substack because they can call up their friends at the New York Times and be featured in it about their Substack which drives large amounts of money their way.
Then Substack features them in their “official Substack newsletter” which everyone on the platform is defaulted to receive. Which drives more money to the already successful people. And Substack promotes them as “successful on Substack”.
How this relates to the thousands of writers is that these people come to Substack, drive traffic to the website but don’t pay any money to any of the smaller people. But they receive the official Substack newsletter promoting the person who doesn’t need their help making money and they say “Well Substack is endorsing them, I will give this person money but continue not to pay the person who introduced me to the website in general.”
Substack is running ads. It’s running ads for itself through its official Substack newsletter and it uses the newsletter to make itself more money from bigger people who don’t need their help while leaving the smaller people out of the benefits.
You ever hear of the phrase “sponsored content”? It’s an advertisement for a product disguised as a news article. The “official Substack newsletter” is sponsored content.
Out of the probably 20 writers they featured in this article we’re commenting on, 3 of the people are people without an established audience. That means like 17 people in the article didn’t need their help. But they promote the idea that those 3 people who were successful before being featured is “evidence” that they help writers who don’t have an established audience.
There’s a South Park line about this with regards to talent agencies:
“We‘ll help you make money. You just do all the singing, get yourself the jobs, do all the work and we’ll handle the rest.”
That’s what Substack is currently doing. They’re the talent agency expecting everyone else to do all the work and they do “the rest”.
One of the slogans they keep putting out is that the greatest indicator of trustworthiness is the willingness to pay for something. By that logic? Gambling establishments, tobacco companies, and pharmaceutical companies are the most trustworthy people in the world. Do you trust a tobacco company to tell you the truth about their products?
The best thing that Substack can do is feature people before they become successful in their official Substack newsletter. They claim to focus on quality of writing rather than quantity of followers or money. But their actions don’t back up this claim. So start doing that and they will be doing themselves a favour.
Part of the problem with promoting people who are already successful on the platform is that these people can take their audiences elsewhere and make just as much money, if not more without Substack. Glenn Greenwald recently did that with his move from Substack to Locals.
But if Substack creates a group of writers who were successful on Substack first rather than being successful somewhere else and coming here, they aren’t going to see as many people move away from the platform. Which is better for Substack’s long term viability.
I like this explanation. :) It has always seemed disingenuous to me to say that someone built their big [name of platform] from nothing, when in fact they have other platforms (life platforms being the most overlooked; like the writer who wrote the book on being an ordinary guy who got a million followers "just like that," when he actually had quite a large number of life connections in Hollywood and with corporate clients before trying his million-dollar-follower experiment :)
So, to define "before they become successful," what would that look like? (10 free subscribers? 100? 500? No paid subscribers. 2 paid subscribers? 20 paid subscribers?) And, how would Substack find and vet these people easily. (Ease would be important, I'd think. As would vetting.)
If Substack were my business, I might use the same model it appears they are using (kind of an 80/20 model), but perhaps it's the messaging that's going awry here. Being honest about using an 80/20 model would be just fine as far as I'm concerned. A business needs a model and a strategy to succeed, after all. :) What kind of model would you use, if it were your business?
That’s something the people in charge would have to figure out but I think quality and consistency would be a solid first start. They claim to prefer quality over quantity, so they must have some mechanism for evaluating that.
But I have seen people post about having 5,000 free subscribers and no paid subscribers. Obviously something is wrong with their strategy. Assuming that someone has actually turned on paid subscriptions. Substack could help with that by highlighting the person.
Another person in this article thread talked about being a success on the platform despite not having a paid option available for people. Someone like that probably doesn’t need the money because they haven’t turned it on.
A while back Substack highlighted a Substacker in their official newsletter who started a Substack literally the same month I did. The same year too. We had a nearly identical schedule in terms of posting weekly. Yet they had a large number of paid subscribers, which I don’t have, and much more free subscribers than me. The difference? They had a large number of Twitter followers and a budget to pay for social media marketing.
That’s a major difference. I could’ve used Substack’s help, this person didn’t.
I’m not necessarily saying that I deserve to be highlighted. But just as an illustrative example of how to determine what the criteria could be.
True. She interviewed me for Collected Rejections a year ago when she’d just come back from hiatus. She had great, consistent content and has much deserved recognition.
How much of a social media presence did they have prior to coming to Substack? Did they have institutional support previously like a PHD or MD? Were they a professor? Did they have a column in other publications?
Hello Substack! Thanks so very much for including Beyond in this wonderful newsletter! I love interviewing Substack authors. I've already interviewed quite a few in addition to Rebecca Makkai, including Emma Gannon, Cheryl Strayed, Katherine May with more to come! Next up: Maggie Smith.
Amazing!!
Love this! It’s such a great blueprint from beginning to end and really offers an alternative to traditional publishers. We can build here and have a platform to launch our work directly with the people who support us most. Definite bookmark for the book of poetry I’m secretly compiling. 🤫
Last week I made a decorative divider (in Canva) that will link to my books (on my website). It hasn't gone in a post yet, but I'm curious to see if it drives any sales. It feels like a subtle way to remind people that I have books. My next book comes out in 2024, and I'm looking forward to promoting it on my Substack and seeing how that goes.
This is such a brilliant idea Julie... especially with new folks joining all the time...
Yeah, that's what I was thinking, that maybe new subscribers don't know what my books are. I had a fairly large graphic with all my book covers that I stuck on the bottom of some posts, but it was a lot. I'll probably play around a bit making different dividers and see what works the best.
That’s a good idea! I made a header on canva for my other publication here COMPANY OF TWO and it had space for 6 photos in frames which was a lovely way to introduce the project. Do you use canva? I just think it’s such a gift for sorting stuff from your vision onto the page?! 💡
Just created purchase buttons for my book. Such a great idea that seems obvious to me now. Thanks for the advice!
My plan has always been to finish my book, then find a publisher, but substack is making me seriously consider it as an alternative plan, where I can either :
-be better situated to get my book published because I can show them I have an audience
Or
-publish it through substack and sell it directly to subscribers
Either way, I'm going to keep investing in growing my substack as a way of reaching people, writing, doing journalism, and possibly making a living. If that path can eventually lead to me getting my book(s) published, that would be a win win.
What experiences do others have to share?