I think Substack is still in a post 2020 media-embarrassing-itself-as-lockstep-ideological-cum-establishment-sycophants bubble. You can subscribe to top magazines or newspapers for less than it costs to get the much lower writing output of a single author. Not only is the value proposition low in terms of articles per dollar of subscription, but you're stuck with a single person's perspective. And authors are subject to audience capture.
Substack will eventually have to switch to a pay to read model, where you pay authors based on the articles you actually read. The failure to come up with a workable micropayments system has been the tech worlds biggest failure. It has led to the user being the product, with massive troves of data collected on us. It has also led to audience capture and ideological siloing, with newspapers reluctant to print articles that would upset their audiences (and their advertisers).
Substack has the potential to change this with so much written content published through one platform. I should be able to buy a 50 dollar subscription, which gives me access to say 30 articles from any authors I choose. I understand this reduces financial stability for authors, but I think it is inevitable once the excitement over being able to read heterodox takes wears off.
Where will you go to gain knowledge? To be entertained by writing? I agree with Arnold that newspapers have failed and are obsessed with signaling their social correctness at the expense of true journalism. Also, I agree that Twitter has devolved into shout fest of insults and any attempt to mirror Twitter will result in the same outcome.
My first choice for novel information, wisdom and entertainment is Tyler Cowen’s blog Marginal Revolution and Tyler’s podcast, Conversations with Tyler. My second choice is a three way tie between Substack, YouTube (select interviews and lectures) and a handful of podcasts. The problem with all three second place areas is that once someone publishes something profound they devolve into a state of mass production and lose most their creative spark. Thus, the consumer ends up drowning in weak works in the second tier and is only rewarded by investing lots of time filtering through the gush of postings to find a few new ideas.
The third area for a lifetime learning is the tertulia styled options like Arnold’s live discussions or the Catherine Project’s small groups discussions of classic writings. For me, these live interactions may have the most promise in a world overflowing with weak content.
You are right AK. Twitter is for system 1 and tends to polarize, Substack is for system 2 and makes you think. On Twitter you don't change your mind, on substack more probable. However, many writers see substack as a tool to write essays that are way too long. Personally I see it as a compendium of opinions I want to read in the evening after a day at work. So 1h max of good thinking.
Richard Hanania has a pretty big gulf between his substack and his twitter (perhaps you could just say the trolling level goes up between the two, but one seems to have some value and the other not so much).
According to his own testament twitter is the biggest source of new subscribers by a wide margin. People get pulled in by the 4chan level twitter hot takes and then some number of them filter into subscribers for his real work.
I’ve never had a twitter account of sent a tweet. I’ve only ever used it as a way to find new authors (like a link on a blog roll). You pull up Charles Murray’s twitter and the algorithm links you to Chris Rufo or whoever.
Nowadays I use the recommended sub stacks in the substack I already read far more often.
I moved my blog from my own domain to Substack because of a bunch of helpful features & discoverability. I love collaborating with other writers, and currently have 3 in the works. I think the Recommendations feature here does the bundling job that you're wanting. Indirect, but I think that's the way.
Possibly the mix of the two will save Notes. Notes is primed to focus more on content from newsletters. So that should give it a bit of a leg up on content quality and the nature of discussion. As long as Twitter still exists, the status value one can receive may be so much higher there that there will be little urge to spend resources gaining (comparatively) lower status hits on Notes.
Most writers on substance keep some stuff free and then have some paid stuff or extra premiums available only to paid subscribers. Simple enough model, but at the platform level, having some free stuff and some paid stuff also keeps you on the platform. I think substance would suffer of everything were paywalled, the free stuff drives traffic on the platform and helps anyone who asks for people to pay.
Arnold mentioned a few weeks back that if you use the platform you should pay for something (not necessarily his) and I started paying for one after this as it seems fair. Part of choosing who you pay for is a reflection of loyalty/politics beyond just what you get quality from.
I couldn't agree more, and I like both products. Twitter is a newswire. It's a great tool for discovery and top-of-funnel research. It takes time to manage and curate your feed, but generally that's the time spent using the product. On the downside, it's optimized for engagement (i.e. the slot machine effect) and is most definitely an ADD enablement tool. That people expect twitter to be free--or to provide free clout for competition--and blame Elon for "ruining the platform" (by asking people to pay), is just silly. Personally, I would charge more for the more followers you have, but that's just me.
Substack, otoh, cultivates the longform habit--the original vision of Google Reader is absolutely the way to go. The "medium-like" community recommendations features are nice, but the next product investment should be growth and engagement tools, like beehiv, and not "recreate the twitter firehose" (which will destroy the community effect). Ultimately, substack will likely have to serve ads to make a living--writers are doing it anyway with sponsored posts (e.g. Packy, Byrne, etc.) so I'm not sure what the hang up is.
I think Substack is still in a post 2020 media-embarrassing-itself-as-lockstep-ideological-cum-establishment-sycophants bubble. You can subscribe to top magazines or newspapers for less than it costs to get the much lower writing output of a single author. Not only is the value proposition low in terms of articles per dollar of subscription, but you're stuck with a single person's perspective. And authors are subject to audience capture.
Substack will eventually have to switch to a pay to read model, where you pay authors based on the articles you actually read. The failure to come up with a workable micropayments system has been the tech worlds biggest failure. It has led to the user being the product, with massive troves of data collected on us. It has also led to audience capture and ideological siloing, with newspapers reluctant to print articles that would upset their audiences (and their advertisers).
Substack has the potential to change this with so much written content published through one platform. I should be able to buy a 50 dollar subscription, which gives me access to say 30 articles from any authors I choose. I understand this reduces financial stability for authors, but I think it is inevitable once the excitement over being able to read heterodox takes wears off.
i bet you are right that it's the length that matters
Where will you go to gain knowledge? To be entertained by writing? I agree with Arnold that newspapers have failed and are obsessed with signaling their social correctness at the expense of true journalism. Also, I agree that Twitter has devolved into shout fest of insults and any attempt to mirror Twitter will result in the same outcome.
My first choice for novel information, wisdom and entertainment is Tyler Cowen’s blog Marginal Revolution and Tyler’s podcast, Conversations with Tyler. My second choice is a three way tie between Substack, YouTube (select interviews and lectures) and a handful of podcasts. The problem with all three second place areas is that once someone publishes something profound they devolve into a state of mass production and lose most their creative spark. Thus, the consumer ends up drowning in weak works in the second tier and is only rewarded by investing lots of time filtering through the gush of postings to find a few new ideas.
The third area for a lifetime learning is the tertulia styled options like Arnold’s live discussions or the Catherine Project’s small groups discussions of classic writings. For me, these live interactions may have the most promise in a world overflowing with weak content.
You are right AK. Twitter is for system 1 and tends to polarize, Substack is for system 2 and makes you think. On Twitter you don't change your mind, on substack more probable. However, many writers see substack as a tool to write essays that are way too long. Personally I see it as a compendium of opinions I want to read in the evening after a day at work. So 1h max of good thinking.
Richard Hanania has a pretty big gulf between his substack and his twitter (perhaps you could just say the trolling level goes up between the two, but one seems to have some value and the other not so much).
According to his own testament twitter is the biggest source of new subscribers by a wide margin. People get pulled in by the 4chan level twitter hot takes and then some number of them filter into subscribers for his real work.
I’ve never had a twitter account of sent a tweet. I’ve only ever used it as a way to find new authors (like a link on a blog roll). You pull up Charles Murray’s twitter and the algorithm links you to Chris Rufo or whoever.
Nowadays I use the recommended sub stacks in the substack I already read far more often.
I suspect you will be proven right, but I hope you turn out to be wrong.
I moved my blog from my own domain to Substack because of a bunch of helpful features & discoverability. I love collaborating with other writers, and currently have 3 in the works. I think the Recommendations feature here does the bundling job that you're wanting. Indirect, but I think that's the way.
That was my first question: will notes ruin Substack? We'll see. Would be a shame to see long-form writing suffer on the altar of Notes!
Possibly the mix of the two will save Notes. Notes is primed to focus more on content from newsletters. So that should give it a bit of a leg up on content quality and the nature of discussion. As long as Twitter still exists, the status value one can receive may be so much higher there that there will be little urge to spend resources gaining (comparatively) lower status hits on Notes.
Most writers on substance keep some stuff free and then have some paid stuff or extra premiums available only to paid subscribers. Simple enough model, but at the platform level, having some free stuff and some paid stuff also keeps you on the platform. I think substance would suffer of everything were paywalled, the free stuff drives traffic on the platform and helps anyone who asks for people to pay.
Arnold mentioned a few weeks back that if you use the platform you should pay for something (not necessarily his) and I started paying for one after this as it seems fair. Part of choosing who you pay for is a reflection of loyalty/politics beyond just what you get quality from.
I couldn't agree more, and I like both products. Twitter is a newswire. It's a great tool for discovery and top-of-funnel research. It takes time to manage and curate your feed, but generally that's the time spent using the product. On the downside, it's optimized for engagement (i.e. the slot machine effect) and is most definitely an ADD enablement tool. That people expect twitter to be free--or to provide free clout for competition--and blame Elon for "ruining the platform" (by asking people to pay), is just silly. Personally, I would charge more for the more followers you have, but that's just me.
Substack, otoh, cultivates the longform habit--the original vision of Google Reader is absolutely the way to go. The "medium-like" community recommendations features are nice, but the next product investment should be growth and engagement tools, like beehiv, and not "recreate the twitter firehose" (which will destroy the community effect). Ultimately, substack will likely have to serve ads to make a living--writers are doing it anyway with sponsored posts (e.g. Packy, Byrne, etc.) so I'm not sure what the hang up is.