The three main problems I see with this proposal are:
1) Substack has skin in the game. They take a 10% cut. So they may change their algorithms to direct readers to content that makes them most money, not what readers might wish to discover.
2) Network effects will still push readers and money towards the big hitters. The long tail of unp…
The three main problems I see with this proposal are:
1) Substack has skin in the game. They take a 10% cut. So they may change their algorithms to direct readers to content that makes them most money, not what readers might wish to discover.
2) Network effects will still push readers and money towards the big hitters. The long tail of unpaid publishers will remain.
3) The overheads and fees for the 'internal' redistribution of subscriptions (plus any weightings - some popular authors will demand a premium) will drive subscriber prices upwards, no matter how much is split out. So readers will pay more for less.
Well, of course Substack has "skin in the game". So do newspapers. And they take a lot more than the 10% subscription I pay to a newspaper for my favourite writers or opinions. Plus the editor dispenses other views I don't like. I don't see the difference. But with Substack at least I don't miss the writers I like - unlike with newspapers, where the editor can spike columns.
The difference is a newspaper is the output from a sole publisher - even a sole proprietor with their own steer. Whereas Substack isn't. We're the publishers here. Millions of us. Producing just as many blogs, journals, magazines...
The three main problems I see with this proposal are:
1) Substack has skin in the game. They take a 10% cut. So they may change their algorithms to direct readers to content that makes them most money, not what readers might wish to discover.
2) Network effects will still push readers and money towards the big hitters. The long tail of unpaid publishers will remain.
3) The overheads and fees for the 'internal' redistribution of subscriptions (plus any weightings - some popular authors will demand a premium) will drive subscriber prices upwards, no matter how much is split out. So readers will pay more for less.
Well, of course Substack has "skin in the game". So do newspapers. And they take a lot more than the 10% subscription I pay to a newspaper for my favourite writers or opinions. Plus the editor dispenses other views I don't like. I don't see the difference. But with Substack at least I don't miss the writers I like - unlike with newspapers, where the editor can spike columns.
The difference is a newspaper is the output from a sole publisher - even a sole proprietor with their own steer. Whereas Substack isn't. We're the publishers here. Millions of us. Producing just as many blogs, journals, magazines...