The Substack problem is far greater than you explain. Success has ruined Substack. There are far too many valuable feeds, each requesting a separate subscription. That's an unsustainable model. If I were a Substack regular author, I'd connect with other authors who share a general philosophy and create a new site featuring all of you and a single subscription price. I'd also provide some editorial direction, e.g., don't all write about the same topic on the same day! If this concept feels familiar, I'm suggesting a digital version of a daily newspaper. And, yes, I would accept, even encourage, advertising in addition to subscriptions to compensate the authors for their efforts. My two-bits worth. Your mileage may vary.
If I had more energy, I’d create it myself using the Ghost open source code.
Anyway, the problems you identify existed before I began my Substack.I was still able to at least get free subscriptions. But now, even that has perished. So something has changed.
My version of the problem is that there are far too many valuable authors writing too frequently on Substack. Example: I only need one competent person to explain Supreme Court rulings. I subscribed to far too many people whose work I enjoy reading and can no longer afford all those subs. Because of the way Substack operates, I had to let ALL of those subs expire. If I renewed just one, then my credit card would be charged for all of them. Not a good business model!
You can manage each subscription separately, but you have to go into that Sub to do it. But I get your point, absolutely.
If I were to create something like this, and who knows, maybe in another six months or a year I’ll be up to it, I’d do as your suggest and create something like a journal (magazine, whatever you want to call it).
The only thing that would scare me off is that there’s probably a good business reason this has never really been tried.
Although it can be argued that this is the Medium model, except in that case, the monthly fee doesn’t go to a set known set of writers, but thousands of them who are paid by numbers of views.
Great concept and an interesting collection of smart people. My personal interest is in having a factual explanation of the news without the b.s. Example: Paul Krugman does a superb job of explaining what's happening in the economy and why it matters. (I admit to greatly missing both the New York Times and the Washington Post when they featured real journalists delivering the news without [much] bias.)
It’s a waste if all you can do on Substack is read a pundit, instead of our sages being involved in conversations to take their ideas and run with them. That’s the advance from old media, where Letters to the Editor were such a minimum way of engaging, but it’s new wine in old bottles here on Substack.
Thanks. I’ve thought about putting together something using the Ghost platform’s open source code, but I don’t quite have the energy for something like that yet (still in recovery mode from my Nov ‘24 stroke, so my “work” days aren’t as long as they used to be).
Writer/commentators and such who use the term Breaking all the time just prove they've never worked in actual news in an actual newsroom, be that a newspaper, news radio or TV news. I feel the same. Breaking is what described their credibility - broken.
The last time I worked in a newsroom was for my college paper, when breaking news was when the student paper photographer snapped a photo of a student government treasurer’s car on fire because he owed a little money for some weed. THAT was breaking news, lol.
"The original promise of Substack, or so I once thought, was that it was a refuge for original thought, not for refugees from corporate media. "
Try not charging for the pain of not being noticed by the powers that be at Substack. And do notice that all the main streamers are broadcasting, so all we can do is ingest them and talk to each other. The beauty of Substack, that I left Constant Contact for, was that what I think could get discussed. That way we can advance the action and aren't just pipsqueaks agreeing with "ain't it awful" about what is going on.
My bent is for action we can take, and I'm crawling around Substack looking for allies like you, to create us into a force. How about having a say to my latest?
Speaking with the mind of God
Marianne Williamson could guide us to save humanity
I follow the NPR model. I don’t charge for anything. I rely on the generous contributions of my supporters, as they say in public radio, etc.
Except for my novels and fiction. But even in regards to my fiction short story collection, every story in my anthology is available for free here on Substack.
Thanks, Charles. And I didn’t include that in the anthology! It was intended as a series, but I haven’t gotten around to writing more of them. I’m glad you liked that one.
I am a tiny tiny writer w just a few free subscribers. But I have decided to give notes the boot. It is not worth my time to write them or to read them. Most of them are just too much foolishness anyway. Making this decision has been one of the most freeing things I have ever done. No one ever read my notes anyway. Even though they were serious and always linked to science topics that I posted about. And where do people get the energy and the time to do videos and chats? I’d rather be walking my dog any day.
The Substack problem is far greater than you explain. Success has ruined Substack. There are far too many valuable feeds, each requesting a separate subscription. That's an unsustainable model. If I were a Substack regular author, I'd connect with other authors who share a general philosophy and create a new site featuring all of you and a single subscription price. I'd also provide some editorial direction, e.g., don't all write about the same topic on the same day! If this concept feels familiar, I'm suggesting a digital version of a daily newspaper. And, yes, I would accept, even encourage, advertising in addition to subscriptions to compensate the authors for their efforts. My two-bits worth. Your mileage may vary.
If I had more energy, I’d create it myself using the Ghost open source code.
Anyway, the problems you identify existed before I began my Substack.I was still able to at least get free subscriptions. But now, even that has perished. So something has changed.
My version of the problem is that there are far too many valuable authors writing too frequently on Substack. Example: I only need one competent person to explain Supreme Court rulings. I subscribed to far too many people whose work I enjoy reading and can no longer afford all those subs. Because of the way Substack operates, I had to let ALL of those subs expire. If I renewed just one, then my credit card would be charged for all of them. Not a good business model!
You can manage each subscription separately, but you have to go into that Sub to do it. But I get your point, absolutely.
If I were to create something like this, and who knows, maybe in another six months or a year I’ll be up to it, I’d do as your suggest and create something like a journal (magazine, whatever you want to call it).
The only thing that would scare me off is that there’s probably a good business reason this has never really been tried.
Although it can be argued that this is the Medium model, except in that case, the monthly fee doesn’t go to a set known set of writers, but thousands of them who are paid by numbers of views.
Yes to you. Here's what I put out in lieu of Substack doing anything like this:
A Dream Team for our transformational challenge
Taking a step toward a new reality
https://suzannetaylor.substack.com/p/a-dream-team-for-our-transformational
Great concept and an interesting collection of smart people. My personal interest is in having a factual explanation of the news without the b.s. Example: Paul Krugman does a superb job of explaining what's happening in the economy and why it matters. (I admit to greatly missing both the New York Times and the Washington Post when they featured real journalists delivering the news without [much] bias.)
It’s a waste if all you can do on Substack is read a pundit, instead of our sages being involved in conversations to take their ideas and run with them. That’s the advance from old media, where Letters to the Editor were such a minimum way of engaging, but it’s new wine in old bottles here on Substack.
Thanks. I’ve thought about putting together something using the Ghost platform’s open source code, but I don’t quite have the energy for something like that yet (still in recovery mode from my Nov ‘24 stroke, so my “work” days aren’t as long as they used to be).
Writer/commentators and such who use the term Breaking all the time just prove they've never worked in actual news in an actual newsroom, be that a newspaper, news radio or TV news. I feel the same. Breaking is what described their credibility - broken.
The last time I worked in a newsroom was for my college paper, when breaking news was when the student paper photographer snapped a photo of a student government treasurer’s car on fire because he owed a little money for some weed. THAT was breaking news, lol.
This is a business. As far as I can tell Substack is not profitable.
This is a social media platform where writers are the product.
Sure, you own your content, just not the place where you publish.
That makes this a trailer park for writers. You might own your single wide, but not that pad it sits on.
You’re aware of who Substack’s investors are? Andreessen Horowitz, for starters. That alone should tell you a lot.
https://www.ruminato.com/p/why-you-may-need-to-leave-substack
"The original promise of Substack, or so I once thought, was that it was a refuge for original thought, not for refugees from corporate media. "
Try not charging for the pain of not being noticed by the powers that be at Substack. And do notice that all the main streamers are broadcasting, so all we can do is ingest them and talk to each other. The beauty of Substack, that I left Constant Contact for, was that what I think could get discussed. That way we can advance the action and aren't just pipsqueaks agreeing with "ain't it awful" about what is going on.
My bent is for action we can take, and I'm crawling around Substack looking for allies like you, to create us into a force. How about having a say to my latest?
Speaking with the mind of God
Marianne Williamson could guide us to save humanity
https://suzannetaylor.substack.com/p/speaking-with-the-mind-of-god
I follow the NPR model. I don’t charge for anything. I rely on the generous contributions of my supporters, as they say in public radio, etc.
Except for my novels and fiction. But even in regards to my fiction short story collection, every story in my anthology is available for free here on Substack.
I don't accept money at all, so no matter how original or valuable I might be, Substack pays no attention to me.
I'll always remember one of the first stories you wrote that I really enjoyed. It was the jogger in Atlanta and your character falling down the hill.
Thanks, Charles. And I didn’t include that in the anthology! It was intended as a series, but I haven’t gotten around to writing more of them. I’m glad you liked that one.
I think I'm a visual reader!
I am a tiny tiny writer w just a few free subscribers. But I have decided to give notes the boot. It is not worth my time to write them or to read them. Most of them are just too much foolishness anyway. Making this decision has been one of the most freeing things I have ever done. No one ever read my notes anyway. Even though they were serious and always linked to science topics that I posted about. And where do people get the energy and the time to do videos and chats? I’d rather be walking my dog any day.