Read on Twitter
bluecheck invasion ruining substack a bit 
I have more hope for the platform than for Medium or Patreon (that's why I'm on it). It has less of a top-down cultural feel, and little to no cross-talk/cross-flow across newsletters, which is a good thing. Sacrifices content-network effect for diversity.
Basically the bias-variance tradeoff writ large. An aggregator platform will either have a large bias or a large variance. So far, unlike Medium or patreon (or livejournal or tumblr or what have you) substack is heading towards higher variance. x
But the arrival of 800lb gorilla bluechecks like Greenwald and Yglesias means that there is going to be an optics problem. They'll account for 1% of the writers, 30% of the unique subscribers, and 80% of optics. So even if the base has high variance, it will look like high bias.
The optics will drive preferential attachment of both readers and writers. And increasing number of readers will be singletons attached to single bluecheck-grade writers. Which means the exit-risk cost of a these single writers will be disproportionately high.
Unfortunately, the incentives are going to be tough for @SubstackInc because the exit-risk cost associated with teh 800lb gorillas means there will be pressure to overserve them, and underserve the long tail. The long tail is lower-margin.
I've chatted with Chris and Hamish. Great guys, and the fundamental sanity they seem to be bringing to this is a big part of the reason I got on board in April 2019, about a year before the bluechecks began discovering it. But their job is going to be really tough here very soon.
To lower singleton-subscriber risk associated with big bluechecks (ie readers only subscribed to say Greenwald), the most obvious option is to drive cross-promotion. Ie, attach their readers to other writers too, so platform revenue isn't sensitively dependent on 800lbers.
But the *moment* you decide to exercise the cross-promotion option, you're no longer editorially neutral. You're moving away from variance and towards bias on the bias-tvariance tradeoff curve.
The thing is, the easiest cross-promotion to do is the kind that reinforces existing tribes. A "if you like this, you'll like this also" approach will hook greenwald subscribers up to writers who are also like greenwald. Going against grain will be hard.
Along-the-grain cross-promotion will lower fragility a bit wrt single 800lb bluechekerillas, but simply bump the fragility up a level to an existing tribe. Patreon discovered this the hard way. Now you have to scenario-plan the exit risk revenue hit of entire tribes.
Worse, the tribes will realize it too, and will achieve a platform-local tribal consciousness and begin trying to "own" the platform, regardless of whatever the cross-promotion algorithms do along/against the grain. The platform will be drawn into a fight against its own readers.
I think Substack is doing many of the right things for the current stage of the platform. For example, focusing hard on empowering writers rather than readers, and doing a lot for beginning writers trying to build an audience... that's all good.
Reshape the curve away from 800lb bluecheckerrila dependence. Ideal for people like me, the mid-level non-brand-name types would be if substack could afford to lose any single bluecheck and never have to go to cross-promotion at all. This requires healthy margins from long tail
This is why it is short-sighted to complain about their high fee percentage (10% on top of credit card fees as opposed to say the fixed fee of ghost or mailchimp). They need to be making enough money off the long tail to resist the pressures created by 800lbers.
I don't grudge them that. I'm open to things like ghost and memberful, but it is polyannish to believe they resolve the issues. I was on mailchimp for a long time (still am for my basic ribbonfarm list) but their incentives for eg. push the product towards marketing clients.
Ghost is new enough that it isn't showing its own vulnerabilities, but there will be some. No free lunch. Content platform Pick 2 of 3 triangle: optimal featureset for you, low cost, high variance/low-bias.
An instructive precedent is the adjacent courseware sector. The el cheapo platforms really don't work for indie course creators. Teachable does, BUT costs an arm and a leg and STILL had to sell itself to a Brazilian PE firm to survive.
Courses require way more work to turn into profitable low-touch income streams. My teachable account just barely pays for itself because I don't put in the work to keep publishing new courses, running live cohorts, or updating old courses.
I'm considering EITHER kicking my teachable stuff up a notch next year or shutting it down entirely. I'm in an untenable place with it long term. Kicking it up a notch will require periodic effort spikes, as opposed to newsletters which require steady effort commitments.
But to return to substack. I a) like the product b) am willing to continue paying the price premium to keep it long-tail/variance oriented c) don't like the alternative incentive pressures competing platforms face.
But one thing I'm not doing is moving home base from blogging like I was considering last year. Wordpress is an aging monster in many ways, but it is still the worthwhile foundational piece of the puzzle.
The one wildcard in this picture is where static sites will go -- gatsby, jekyll etc. I've now been on the sidelines of one pretty ambitious static site ( http://yakcollective.org ) and developed a better appreciation of the potential there, but definitely not for pure writers
Still rounding out the views I put forth in my text renaissance post earlier this year, and might potentially use the ideas to expand the longform course on teachable so I can make money off all this content industry prognistication https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2020/02/24/a-text-renaissance/
This is my art of longform course. I need about 2-3 weeks uninterrupted time to record a 2x expanded version covering all this new stuff, but haven't been able to find the time. I don't think I'll have the time to run a live cohort, which would be ideal. https://ribbonfarm.teachable.com/p/the-art-of-longform
This is a good point. WordPress violates my platform point by... simply not being a platform at all. It is featureset optimal, can be low cost (if you self host and have low traffic) and high variance. https://twitter.com/mrgunn/status/1328800252141334528
I think this is because Automattic failed at making wordpress dot com a true platform level competitor to things like Medium. It never outgrew roots as basically an open source product rather than a platform. What it actually competes with are hosted WP players like WPengine
I've been on WPEngine a long time, happily paying premium to not have to think about the headaches of self-admin'ed WP. But hosted WP is not a platform and can never be. The tech is fundamentally a digital mansion. At most you can create a feudal landscape of mansions. Not a city
This article has apparently been doing the rounds ht @noupside https://www.cjr.org/special_report/substackerati.php
Will read and comment later on this thread. Stopping for some Real Work™
Ok, read it. Kinda meh. The writer kinda doesn't get it I think. The choice to center the kind of writer who is hoping to go to a secure paid gig at the same level of effort, lower risk, and more pay, is not really the interesting kind of writer for the future.
Like many rearview mirror analysis, the writer is looking at this through the lens of old media and the unexamined assumption that the same people must succeed on the new medium, for the same kinds of value/recognition. Begging the question basically.
If you assume the status hierarchies of the old world must self-evidently be sustained in the new world, of course you'll reach the conclusion that that is what will happen. The problem is there may soon be no "traditional" world for people "passing through" substack to aspire to
If you've been substacking with the hope of getting a NYT op-ed gig... you are kinda missing the whole point. The point is that utopian destination is increasingly not a tenable one at all and its own top people are abandoning ship. So this sort of thing is "it."
Also, I'd like to know how many fires I have on their 1-4 fire scale. I'm guessing a 1-fire.
My unsolicited top-3 advice items:
1. Stay the course focusing on writers over readers
2. Avoid cross-promotion
3. Build more individual writer branding tools and push tech into the background. Avoid temptation of making the platform the brand.
1. Stay the course focusing on writers over readers
2. Avoid cross-promotion
3. Build more individual writer branding tools and push tech into the background. Avoid temptation of making the platform the brand.
Basically the product would benefit from being more product-driven. True north is not NYT but WordPress. Deeper, more feature-ful product, more customizable for all. Definitely do NOT create 2 classes of writers (rating system is fine, different feature sets starts to get dicey)
tldr of strategy recommendation for substack: commoditize your complement, ie writers to the tune of 90% but not 100%. Putting all writer brands on an equal level playing field instead of creating *feature* tiers for bluechecks is the key to being a good platform.
There is no royal road to geometry
There is no special iPhone for special people, everybody gets the same price points.
No special substack for special writers. But fee tiers for ++ services are okay. Like the extra fee for own domain mapping.
There is no special iPhone for special people, everybody gets the same price points.
No special substack for special writers. But fee tiers for ++ services are okay. Like the extra fee for own domain mapping.
