Substack/Ghost/etc are a pretty straightforward tradeoff.
Institutions bring advantages and disadvantages. For writers with large, loyal audiences, you make less money than if you directly monetize your audience, but you get more audience, resources, editing, legal help, etc.
Institutions bring advantages and disadvantages. For writers with large, loyal audiences, you make less money than if you directly monetize your audience, but you get more audience, resources, editing, legal help, etc.
I think the focus on top incomes has obscured a lot of this.
I could make more money going to Substack. But the New York Times offers audience reach I could never get otherwise. They're read by people who'd never think of subscribing to my newsletter. That’s worth a lot to me!
I could make more money going to Substack. But the New York Times offers audience reach I could never get otherwise. They're read by people who'd never think of subscribing to my newsletter. That’s worth a lot to me!
But institutions also have disadvantages.
Bureaucracy, pressure to be on the news, time it takes to publish, bad management, divergence between your voice and the institutional voice, etc.
If those really bug you, and you can make more on your own, going indie is great.
Bureaucracy, pressure to be on the news, time it takes to publish, bad management, divergence between your voice and the institutional voice, etc.
If those really bug you, and you can make more on your own, going indie is great.
That’s one reason I’m glad to see things like Substack and Ghost becoming popular. There’s a lot of great work, and a lot of great people, that big institutions don’t support, or try to homogenize. The more types of work that can thrive, the better.
But I’m very skeptical of this scenario.
A lot of journalists are doing this because they want to reach people with their journalism. So long as institutions can help them do that at really large scale, I doubt there’ll be an exodus.
A lot of journalists are doing this because they want to reach people with their journalism. So long as institutions can help them do that at really large scale, I doubt there’ll be an exodus.
https://twitter.com/WillOremus/status/1381613186563063809
It's not an accident that round 7,000 of this discourse was kicked off by a @benyt piece in the Times. That piece wouldn't have been such a focal point if he'd sent it out as a newsletter.
What's that worth to Ben? I dunno, but something. nytimes.com/2021/04/11/bus…
What's that worth to Ben? I dunno, but something. nytimes.com/2021/04/11/bus…
There's lots of different types of journalists and writers doing lots of different kinds of work. A more diverse funding ecosystem is good. Institutions are great for some people. Going independents is great for others. Nobody needs to freak out.
I'll be interested to see how much Substack (or any of the others) ultimately end up supporting reporters as opposed to primarily take writers.
Nothing wrong with takes, I write lots of them, but that's easier to do on your own than reporting on a diverse set of subjects.
Nothing wrong with takes, I write lots of them, but that's easier to do on your own than reporting on a diverse set of subjects.
My real worry about Substack is it's expensive, and I suspect it competes with traditional news subscriptions in people's budgets. On the margin, people moving their news dollars towards takes and away from reporting isn't great. But maybe it won't play out that way.
Anyway, if you've read this far, and you want a Substack to subscribe to, I just subscribed to @cwarzel's and so should you: warzel.substack.com/p/welcome-to-g…
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
