I also wouldn’t mind paying a very small fee for a particular article instead of subscribing. Not a replacement for subscriptions - just an a la carte option on the menu. There’s a lot of mental weight that goes along with so many things requiring a subscription and once in a while I just want to purchase one thing, not the thing indefinitely.
I've heard this a few times... I wonder if Substack could implement this. Would the writers have to agree to be part of the bundle option? I would think so.
I think this article was asking "why are we in a subscription era?" or rather "why aren't things free - or freemium?" but wouldn't a better question be (and I write this as someone who has just started here on Sustack with a small audience some of whom upgraded to pay, and as someone with several of my own subscriptions in real life)... are people happy to subscribe to services which make life better and easier, that entertain and meet specific needs and wants... i find the answer is yes.
There is a question inside about dog food, I subscribed at one point to a dog food service, it was great i didnt have to remember to get wet and dry food every month... it was individual to my dog and grain free.. it was reasonable price so why not. but then the quality went off during covid so I left the subscription and now have to pick it up we go, it costs more! I want my subscription back but its about quality. I think the same goes for any subscription, if you are quality and consistent people will subscribe.
I hesitate to mention this, but what about the possibility that writing is simply more like professional sports than writers on Substack would like to admit? Just like the number of people that currently make a living playing basketball is under a thousand, it may be that the market for writers is really small. Historically this was definitely true, considering that some of the world's best writers lived in near poverty and often had to support themselves with other occupations. It may turn out that while many people enjoy writing as a hobby, the brutal truth is that there are only a tiny number whose work is something people are willing to pay for. I think in the case of the NYT, we definitely see the Pareto principle at work: I e. 20% of their writers are responsible for pulling in 80% of the paying subscribers.
I like to see it as Big League and Little League. The top writers and everything that surrounds them are equivalent to hypermarkets but at the other end of the scale you can have an individual running a small business operation that may be enough for their purposes and lifestyle. Not everyone needs the big bucks and fame. I just think we need better systems that connect the small fish with their 1000 fans. Substack is the closest thing I've come across to achieve that.
Nailed. When we began to buy into "anybody" can write, we devalued all writers, including those with training, skill, and something of interest to say. A shame, but there it is.
Re: "the current trend of Substackification an extremely expensive way of consuming journalism." --
True, but there are side benefits. If you subscribe to NYT, you're just a number, one of 11 million. If you're one of an up-and-coming SS writer's 1,000 subscribers, you may exchange enough comments with them that they'll know your name. Substack authors may also give subscribers special access (comments, chats, or AMA sessions).
Nathan, your point here is exactly why I love being here on SS. It’s incredible to participate in the literary community up close, rather than at a distance or vicariously, and certainly contributes to the inspiration I find for my content, as well as encouragement to keep going as a writer.
All true and something that people tend to forget. A lot of the action these days is about direct engagement with the author and their subscribers and the cross pollination that happens with related authors and followers.
In the 1980s, the closest a fan could get to a literary or media hero was sending a letter to their publisher, which might be read by staff. Now, if you engage in an interesting, positive way with the author on Substack, you might be able to send a few DMs and chat. For interesting, well-behaved fans, this is an opportunity to directly communicate ideas or ask for advice.
My 2 cents. The size of the pie is huge, 8 billion growing and starving for every dimension of entertainment, enlightenment, titillation, honest content
Interesting piece, @Nick Cohen. I think another lesson people here on Substack can learn from is the world of podcasting. I have a podcast I’ve been hosting for almost 14 years, back when there were on-going debates over whether podcasting had a future (and the sister debate over podcasting vs video-casting … Yeah, that was a thing).
While I never started my podcast to become a source of income, I nonetheless landed a few sponsorship deals that allowed me to treat my wife to a nice summer vacation trip. And there were reports coming out about the burgeoning advertising market in the podcasting space and people were saying soon people could make a living by podcasting.
But then the pandemic happened … And suddenly everyone had a podcast. Didn’t really bother me because I realized many didn’t have a game plan of what they wanted to achieve. It was just like those people baking sourdough - it was just something for people to do.
The real end of independents getting sponsorship deals came when celebrities started to take over the podcasting space. Sure, podcasting gets millions of dollars in ad revenue, but that’s going to all these celebrities.
So can people monetize their Substacks to make a decent earning? Maybe for now.
But if there’s nothing to say a similar fate won’t happen here that has happened to podcasting the more Substack grows in popularity.
Just my two cents as I write more about leadership. And if you’re interested in my writings, check out my very first Substack which I published this week:
I'd say in the past two-three years, that's pretty much the only type of sponsorship offers I got. But the problem with these is they know they're very niche-y and so, the sponsorship offering is much lower. Sure, for the ones I accepted it was a nice, unexpected revenue bump, but nothing really significant. Also because these offers are more niche-specific, you end up turning many down because they don't match with your audience/target audience. These sponsors are just looking to get into the podcast space, but don't have the $$ to fund large campaigns.
And here's another thing to note about these niche brand deals - unless you're doing a current affairs podcast, where no one is going to listen to it after a few days - these small sponsorship deals give the sponsor a better deal than the podcaster. Why? Because after you've run their copy on x-number agreed upon episodes, those ads are still running for them ... but you're not getting paid for it. It's like residuals for TV shows. After the first few airings, most actors don't get a dime. But the studios are still raking in the $$.
Sure, you could always go back and edit those episodes to remove the mention of these ads - but that's time you should be spending on creating new content. So after a point, it's not just about the $$, it's about does the product/service meet the needs of your audience and is the payout worth it even if two years later, people listen to that episode and hear that ad, but you're not getting paid for those listens.
Honestly, I think this is just the reality for any digital platform - you're going to see a few people who cracked the code and are making $$$$, a few more who can replicate and put their own twist that gives them a small piece of that $ pie, and the rest who are scrambling trying to find where the crumbs are. That's why you need to do it more to build your brand independent of the platform so if the platform attracts A-listers like podcasting has - or it runs into governmental laws like TikTok, you can easily pivot and continue to grow our brand audience.
Hope this inspires more than deflates as I think the act of creation in the age of AI is so critical to defining what this next digital age will be.
All that stuff is commoditized in the new auction of our various arts. Substack is Malraux’s Salon without Walls, the book rack at the supermarket. A haven for writers and ideas.
My group is daily market punditry and of that ilk we are the keepers day by day of a history that without us would be forever lost. lol. We’re not Gertrude stein and Hemingway chatting into the we hours at Les Deux Maggots but damn close to it. Our problem is simply an error on your graph. It is fukng incredibly hard to get published but incredibly easy to find readers on substack. Most writers use pods as a way to connect with new subs. There’s no money in it. And as for the oldest professional it’s the most enduring (if not endearing) for a reason. Great article! Thanks for writing…
This is super interesting Nick! Just subscribed to your newsletter, looks right up my street re the topics you cover. A lot of this feels really true. I've noticed after 6 years of podcasting that there's been a noticeable decline in energy/resources/spend - and happens to most industries eventually as you say. But I feel like Substack is only just getting started, especially in the UK. I don't think it's an apples-apples thing comparing a Substack subscription to The Times. Substack isn't really about paying for journalism (that's just one part of it) - you're paying for the access/thoughts/writing/content from a fave writer which feels really different to paying for a newspaper. The product feels very different to me. But like you say, we can't pay for everything so ultimately we'll have to choose at some point, which is interesting in itself i.e. what people will value more and what that means for big companies.
Thanks for reading, and I appreciate your thoughts here.
I am very much for making journalism – both from the production and consumption ends – more sustainable, and I do think that Sustack offers an interesting new mechanic here. It's why I write on it, I guess. I'm just conscious that while it's financially beneficial to the top 1-5% of writers (at a guess) compared to their opportunities in "traditional" media, it's approaching the point of being unsustainable for audiences. Like you say, they will have to decide what they value.
As to the idea that Substack subscribers are paying for more than just journalism, that's definitely true – I'm just not sure it's a good thing. Again, we could look at an industry – streaming video – that's a half-decade or so ahead in this cycle. The task of being both broadcaster, community manager and individualised mentor/therapist/idol to subscribers has taken a huge toll. I think mental health issues, like burnout, the erosion of privacy and work/life balance in the streaming community are all good reasons to keep a firm, clear line between creator and audience. But I definitely agree that the current systems encourage familiarity and, as you say, access. Personally, I prefer journalism to have slightly more distance from its consumers.
I made a decent living with a very niche personal website at $25 per yr subscription. Thousands of subs all over the world. This was from 2016 to 2022. Then the costs involved with all the subscription-based tools, apps, and software needed to do a website, plus the amount of work made it not so fun.
I've gotten lost in the world of comments on this post... such interesting perspectives. I have a fear of Substack getting incredibly large, making it harder and harder to be successful here. I won't put all of my eggs into the 'Substack' basket, but I will continue to utterly enjoy reading the vast and beautiful words from so many souls here on the platform. I have found friends here - that is so valuable. I don't think it will be enough to make a living, but maybe help pay for weekend getaways, and maybe some groceries. More valuable would be knowing that we have helped one person with our words.
It sounds like it is just beginning. Non-digital industries like automotive with Tesla’s software updates, BMW, furniture with rental models, and I think the increase in AI related subscriptions etc., are increasingly adopting subscription strategies. Hybridization is also looking like it’s increasing with free use with premium upgrades, the resurgence of pay-per-use models
The only constant is change, many of us subscribe to products for their ethos and I think that will grow, people are getting smarter with their money but those who have the privilege will choose how they spend to include creative arts, artists artisans etc. a coffee a month or less is a good investment for entertainment and knowing it is making a difference to artists and small businesses
Thank you for verbalizing, with citations, something that's been brewing in my mind for a while. I suspect the next thing will be even weirder than the 'podcast economy'.
Coming from the B2C apps startup world, I’ve noticed that when fundraising, the first thing investors ask for is recurring revenue. However, achieving recurring revenue is incredibly challenging—if not impossible—without a subscription model. This investor-driven focus on recurring revenue has pushed many startups toward adopting subscription-based monetization, whether it’s the best fit for their product or not.
The challenge for the New York Times, and which is the challenge for Substack, is establishing a mass market rationale for paying for content.
The failure of the New York Times -- and the failure of all corporate media -- is in establishing a mass market rationale.
Print media never depended on subscriptions, and many of not most community newspapers offered their subscriptions for free. Print media traditionally gets the vast majority of it's revenue from advertising.
Broadcast media likewise lived on advertising revenue.
The Internet upended those mass market paradigms, because the Internet is not actually a broadcast phenomenon. It is a unicast phenomenon, which is to say the copy of the content delivered to your device is available only on your device.
That is structurally different from print media, where anyone can pick up a copy of a newspaper and read it, or broadcast media, where anyone can receive a particular media broadcast on a particular e of lectromagnetic frequency.
Culturally, there is an aversion to advertising on your device, while there is tolerance for it within print and broadcast media. I suspect this is because our devices are exclusive to us in ways that newspapers are not.
Despite this, online media access is still approached largely as if it were a broadcast rather than unicast phenomenon. That is a cognitive dissonance and is therefore almost certainly unsustainable.
Someone must eventually pay the costs of producing content. If subscribers are not the revenue (i.e., cost recovery) model of the future, then it must be that something such as advertising will be.
I like the idea of buying a Substack bundle of x subscription slots
I also wouldn’t mind paying a very small fee for a particular article instead of subscribing. Not a replacement for subscriptions - just an a la carte option on the menu. There’s a lot of mental weight that goes along with so many things requiring a subscription and once in a while I just want to purchase one thing, not the thing indefinitely.
I've heard this a few times... I wonder if Substack could implement this. Would the writers have to agree to be part of the bundle option? I would think so.
Yes, would have to be an opt-in solution
I think this article was asking "why are we in a subscription era?" or rather "why aren't things free - or freemium?" but wouldn't a better question be (and I write this as someone who has just started here on Sustack with a small audience some of whom upgraded to pay, and as someone with several of my own subscriptions in real life)... are people happy to subscribe to services which make life better and easier, that entertain and meet specific needs and wants... i find the answer is yes.
There is a question inside about dog food, I subscribed at one point to a dog food service, it was great i didnt have to remember to get wet and dry food every month... it was individual to my dog and grain free.. it was reasonable price so why not. but then the quality went off during covid so I left the subscription and now have to pick it up we go, it costs more! I want my subscription back but its about quality. I think the same goes for any subscription, if you are quality and consistent people will subscribe.
I hesitate to mention this, but what about the possibility that writing is simply more like professional sports than writers on Substack would like to admit? Just like the number of people that currently make a living playing basketball is under a thousand, it may be that the market for writers is really small. Historically this was definitely true, considering that some of the world's best writers lived in near poverty and often had to support themselves with other occupations. It may turn out that while many people enjoy writing as a hobby, the brutal truth is that there are only a tiny number whose work is something people are willing to pay for. I think in the case of the NYT, we definitely see the Pareto principle at work: I e. 20% of their writers are responsible for pulling in 80% of the paying subscribers.
I like to see it as Big League and Little League. The top writers and everything that surrounds them are equivalent to hypermarkets but at the other end of the scale you can have an individual running a small business operation that may be enough for their purposes and lifestyle. Not everyone needs the big bucks and fame. I just think we need better systems that connect the small fish with their 1000 fans. Substack is the closest thing I've come across to achieve that.
Nailed. When we began to buy into "anybody" can write, we devalued all writers, including those with training, skill, and something of interest to say. A shame, but there it is.
Re: "the current trend of Substackification an extremely expensive way of consuming journalism." --
True, but there are side benefits. If you subscribe to NYT, you're just a number, one of 11 million. If you're one of an up-and-coming SS writer's 1,000 subscribers, you may exchange enough comments with them that they'll know your name. Substack authors may also give subscribers special access (comments, chats, or AMA sessions).
Nathan, your point here is exactly why I love being here on SS. It’s incredible to participate in the literary community up close, rather than at a distance or vicariously, and certainly contributes to the inspiration I find for my content, as well as encouragement to keep going as a writer.
Beautifully said!
Thanks, Melissa!
All true and something that people tend to forget. A lot of the action these days is about direct engagement with the author and their subscribers and the cross pollination that happens with related authors and followers.
In the 1980s, the closest a fan could get to a literary or media hero was sending a letter to their publisher, which might be read by staff. Now, if you engage in an interesting, positive way with the author on Substack, you might be able to send a few DMs and chat. For interesting, well-behaved fans, this is an opportunity to directly communicate ideas or ask for advice.
My 2 cents. The size of the pie is huge, 8 billion growing and starving for every dimension of entertainment, enlightenment, titillation, honest content
Interesting piece, @Nick Cohen. I think another lesson people here on Substack can learn from is the world of podcasting. I have a podcast I’ve been hosting for almost 14 years, back when there were on-going debates over whether podcasting had a future (and the sister debate over podcasting vs video-casting … Yeah, that was a thing).
While I never started my podcast to become a source of income, I nonetheless landed a few sponsorship deals that allowed me to treat my wife to a nice summer vacation trip. And there were reports coming out about the burgeoning advertising market in the podcasting space and people were saying soon people could make a living by podcasting.
But then the pandemic happened … And suddenly everyone had a podcast. Didn’t really bother me because I realized many didn’t have a game plan of what they wanted to achieve. It was just like those people baking sourdough - it was just something for people to do.
The real end of independents getting sponsorship deals came when celebrities started to take over the podcasting space. Sure, podcasting gets millions of dollars in ad revenue, but that’s going to all these celebrities.
So can people monetize their Substacks to make a decent earning? Maybe for now.
But if there’s nothing to say a similar fate won’t happen here that has happened to podcasting the more Substack grows in popularity.
Just my two cents as I write more about leadership. And if you’re interested in my writings, check out my very first Substack which I published this week:
there are no more micro sponsorship deals? niche brands?
I'd say in the past two-three years, that's pretty much the only type of sponsorship offers I got. But the problem with these is they know they're very niche-y and so, the sponsorship offering is much lower. Sure, for the ones I accepted it was a nice, unexpected revenue bump, but nothing really significant. Also because these offers are more niche-specific, you end up turning many down because they don't match with your audience/target audience. These sponsors are just looking to get into the podcast space, but don't have the $$ to fund large campaigns.
And here's another thing to note about these niche brand deals - unless you're doing a current affairs podcast, where no one is going to listen to it after a few days - these small sponsorship deals give the sponsor a better deal than the podcaster. Why? Because after you've run their copy on x-number agreed upon episodes, those ads are still running for them ... but you're not getting paid for it. It's like residuals for TV shows. After the first few airings, most actors don't get a dime. But the studios are still raking in the $$.
Sure, you could always go back and edit those episodes to remove the mention of these ads - but that's time you should be spending on creating new content. So after a point, it's not just about the $$, it's about does the product/service meet the needs of your audience and is the payout worth it even if two years later, people listen to that episode and hear that ad, but you're not getting paid for those listens.
Honestly, I think this is just the reality for any digital platform - you're going to see a few people who cracked the code and are making $$$$, a few more who can replicate and put their own twist that gives them a small piece of that $ pie, and the rest who are scrambling trying to find where the crumbs are. That's why you need to do it more to build your brand independent of the platform so if the platform attracts A-listers like podcasting has - or it runs into governmental laws like TikTok, you can easily pivot and continue to grow our brand audience.
Hope this inspires more than deflates as I think the act of creation in the age of AI is so critical to defining what this next digital age will be.
Thanks!!
My pleasure! Glad I could be of help. :)
Sorry the app is hard typing.
All that stuff is commoditized in the new auction of our various arts. Substack is Malraux’s Salon without Walls, the book rack at the supermarket. A haven for writers and ideas.
My group is daily market punditry and of that ilk we are the keepers day by day of a history that without us would be forever lost. lol. We’re not Gertrude stein and Hemingway chatting into the we hours at Les Deux Maggots but damn close to it. Our problem is simply an error on your graph. It is fukng incredibly hard to get published but incredibly easy to find readers on substack. Most writers use pods as a way to connect with new subs. There’s no money in it. And as for the oldest professional it’s the most enduring (if not endearing) for a reason. Great article! Thanks for writing…
This is super interesting Nick! Just subscribed to your newsletter, looks right up my street re the topics you cover. A lot of this feels really true. I've noticed after 6 years of podcasting that there's been a noticeable decline in energy/resources/spend - and happens to most industries eventually as you say. But I feel like Substack is only just getting started, especially in the UK. I don't think it's an apples-apples thing comparing a Substack subscription to The Times. Substack isn't really about paying for journalism (that's just one part of it) - you're paying for the access/thoughts/writing/content from a fave writer which feels really different to paying for a newspaper. The product feels very different to me. But like you say, we can't pay for everything so ultimately we'll have to choose at some point, which is interesting in itself i.e. what people will value more and what that means for big companies.
Thanks for reading, and I appreciate your thoughts here.
I am very much for making journalism – both from the production and consumption ends – more sustainable, and I do think that Sustack offers an interesting new mechanic here. It's why I write on it, I guess. I'm just conscious that while it's financially beneficial to the top 1-5% of writers (at a guess) compared to their opportunities in "traditional" media, it's approaching the point of being unsustainable for audiences. Like you say, they will have to decide what they value.
As to the idea that Substack subscribers are paying for more than just journalism, that's definitely true – I'm just not sure it's a good thing. Again, we could look at an industry – streaming video – that's a half-decade or so ahead in this cycle. The task of being both broadcaster, community manager and individualised mentor/therapist/idol to subscribers has taken a huge toll. I think mental health issues, like burnout, the erosion of privacy and work/life balance in the streaming community are all good reasons to keep a firm, clear line between creator and audience. But I definitely agree that the current systems encourage familiarity and, as you say, access. Personally, I prefer journalism to have slightly more distance from its consumers.
1-5% of writers making money is fine as its a meritocracy.
50% of Notes is junk and it gets worse by the week
Maybe somewritesrs who are not making money could offer cheaper subscriptions if substack lets them.
Like $25 a year.
I made a decent living with a very niche personal website at $25 per yr subscription. Thousands of subs all over the world. This was from 2016 to 2022. Then the costs involved with all the subscription-based tools, apps, and software needed to do a website, plus the amount of work made it not so fun.
All very interesting things to ponder thanks! And thank goodness for the "pause" button Substack 😅
sadly, a huge number of readers see how many ways there are to pay (how many pubs) on Substack and so they elect not to pay ever.
I don’t know a bit what you’re talking about I just wanted to admire your graph.
I've gotten lost in the world of comments on this post... such interesting perspectives. I have a fear of Substack getting incredibly large, making it harder and harder to be successful here. I won't put all of my eggs into the 'Substack' basket, but I will continue to utterly enjoy reading the vast and beautiful words from so many souls here on the platform. I have found friends here - that is so valuable. I don't think it will be enough to make a living, but maybe help pay for weekend getaways, and maybe some groceries. More valuable would be knowing that we have helped one person with our words.
It sounds like it is just beginning. Non-digital industries like automotive with Tesla’s software updates, BMW, furniture with rental models, and I think the increase in AI related subscriptions etc., are increasingly adopting subscription strategies. Hybridization is also looking like it’s increasing with free use with premium upgrades, the resurgence of pay-per-use models
The only constant is change, many of us subscribe to products for their ethos and I think that will grow, people are getting smarter with their money but those who have the privilege will choose how they spend to include creative arts, artists artisans etc. a coffee a month or less is a good investment for entertainment and knowing it is making a difference to artists and small businesses
Thank you for verbalizing, with citations, something that's been brewing in my mind for a while. I suspect the next thing will be even weirder than the 'podcast economy'.
Coming from the B2C apps startup world, I’ve noticed that when fundraising, the first thing investors ask for is recurring revenue. However, achieving recurring revenue is incredibly challenging—if not impossible—without a subscription model. This investor-driven focus on recurring revenue has pushed many startups toward adopting subscription-based monetization, whether it’s the best fit for their product or not.
It's not.
The challenge for the New York Times, and which is the challenge for Substack, is establishing a mass market rationale for paying for content.
The failure of the New York Times -- and the failure of all corporate media -- is in establishing a mass market rationale.
Print media never depended on subscriptions, and many of not most community newspapers offered their subscriptions for free. Print media traditionally gets the vast majority of it's revenue from advertising.
Broadcast media likewise lived on advertising revenue.
The Internet upended those mass market paradigms, because the Internet is not actually a broadcast phenomenon. It is a unicast phenomenon, which is to say the copy of the content delivered to your device is available only on your device.
That is structurally different from print media, where anyone can pick up a copy of a newspaper and read it, or broadcast media, where anyone can receive a particular media broadcast on a particular e of lectromagnetic frequency.
Culturally, there is an aversion to advertising on your device, while there is tolerance for it within print and broadcast media. I suspect this is because our devices are exclusive to us in ways that newspapers are not.
Despite this, online media access is still approached largely as if it were a broadcast rather than unicast phenomenon. That is a cognitive dissonance and is therefore almost certainly unsustainable.
Someone must eventually pay the costs of producing content. If subscribers are not the revenue (i.e., cost recovery) model of the future, then it must be that something such as advertising will be.