Today the NYTimes wrote an article about Substack. While it's a compliment to remain top of mind for the paper of record, the piece contains a lot of hearsay, cherrypicking, and personal opinion presented as fact.
Here, I offer an alternate framing and excavate the buried lede:
Here, I offer an alternate framing and excavate the buried lede:
First, it's important to understand that The Times is covering a company they consider a competitor.
The fact that they themselves are one of Substack's "rivals" is not mentioned until the very end of the article. With that dynamic made clear, the article's framing makes sense.
The fact that they themselves are one of Substack's "rivals" is not mentioned until the very end of the article. With that dynamic made clear, the article's framing makes sense.
Here is the buried lede, which you have to dig to find.
Subscription growth: more than 20X within the past couple yrs
Team growth: 9X in the same period (we shared but they didn't see fit to print)
Product growth: just YTD we've shipped an app (4.9⭐️), podcasting, and much more
Subscription growth: more than 20X within the past couple yrs
Team growth: 9X in the same period (we shared but they didn't see fit to print)
Product growth: just YTD we've shipped an app (4.9⭐️), podcasting, and much more
The best way to understand Substack is through the difference it has made for writers, like in this excerpt.
Distracting from that are the article's many insinuations and opinions that might be mistaken for objective reporting.
Here are just three things to be aware of...
Distracting from that are the article's many insinuations and opinions that might be mistaken for objective reporting.
Here are just three things to be aware of...
1. When a writer says she left Substack because we don't censor enough content, the article should note that the service she now uses doesn't have any moderation at all. The description of her complaint about "white men" also ignores the contributions of women and minorities.
2. The framing of "Substack now faces challenges!" is totally true, but a bit silly in its framing. We've always faced challenges. Compared to when the founders were building the whole thing by themselves and had to persuade writers Substack was real...things are looking bright.
3. The article uses the word "exodus." That's catchy but not accurate. Just like at the Times or anywhere else, some people stay, some go, some new ones arrive. Since new writers starting Substacks greatly outnumber those leaving, that's not an exodus but an influx.
As the article notes, Substack has a lot of writers and readers who know the platform quite well. So here's just a small sampling of people whose experiences with Substack presents a different perspective from the one put forth by the Times.
https://twitter.com/novelleist/status/1514269144874684434(check out the whole thread)
Wow that took off. While you’re here check out my soundcloud:
substack.com/jobs
substack.com/jobs
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
