Are Substackers Any Different from the Billionaires We Hate?
How Substack Cares for Smaller Writers & Substack's "Trickle-Down Effect."
"You can easily judge the character of a man by how he treats those who can do nothing for him.”
Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
Many Substackers have written about income inequality, billionaire greed, and how much better Substack is than X, TikTok, and Meta. But are we any different?
As of April 2023 (these numbers have likely grown since), Substack reported over 35 million active subscriptions, with over 2 million being paid subscriptions. Notably, the top 10 authors alone account for over $25 million annually, reflecting a significant concentration of earnings among the platform's leading creators.
While Substack does not publicly disclose detailed income distributions, these figures suggest that the top 1% of earners command a substantial portion of the platform's total revenue. Given that there are over 17,000 writers earning income on Substack, the top 1% would comprise approximately 170 writers. Considering the earnings of the top 27 newsletters, it's reasonable to infer that the top 1% collectively earn well over $22 million annually, representing a significant share of the platform's income.
This concentration mirrors the societal problem many complain about: a small percentage of people capture a large portion of total revenue.
Yes, it’s unfair to compare ‘mere’ millionaires, whose wealth could last several lifetimes, to billionaires, whose wealth could last thousands of lifetimes. But what about the celebrities flocking over? If they’re not putting an effort into joining communities outside their famous circles, are they really that different than the billionaires? Are we just supposed to hope their wealth “trickles down” with the money that goes into app development? Or should the rich and famous put an effort into not turning Substack into every other platform they dominate?
Here’s a little thought experiment.
Let’s use a progressive tax rate and pretend 45% of billionaires’ income goes to taxes. We’d live in a healthier and more equitable world. Now, let’s scale it down to our Substack society. Imagine if all these celebrities with enough money for several lifetimes spent 45% of their Substack income—or even just reading time—on those without a solid orange or purple checkmark. What would happen then?
We’d have a more equitable Substack.
Billionaires are on a hedonistic treadmill with their reference group, becoming accustomed to their levels of success and always wanting more. They don’t care about those below them, only those who can strengthen their position. Don’t be like a billionaire. Support those who can do nothing to increase your power, influence, and success. Substack will remain a better place because of it.
Many successful writers have already invested much of their time helping smaller writers in their community. Plus, the founders, Hamish McKenzie and Chris Best, share work and ideas from people across the ideological spectrum, no matter how big or small. Even if you disagree with who they promote or the decisions they make, your ideas can flourish on the platform. The algorithm doesn’t punish you for long content or external links. You own your email list and can leave without losing everything. Plus, you have more control over what you see and read than any other social network.
On Substack, ideas, conversation, and creation have always come before ads, but what about corporate interests?
Substack has attracted investments from several venture capital firms. In 2019, Andreessen Horowitz led a $15.3 million Series A funding round for Substack. Marc Andreessen (estimated net worth of 1.9 billion) and Ben Horowitz backed Trump. Andreessen also faced backlash for attacking anti-colonialism, and labelling Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) initiatives as the "enemy.”
On his Substack page, you can read his pro-polarization and pro-AI stances. He was also the longest-serving board member on Facebook (now Meta), so before writing another post insulting Meta, remember the same tech bros are at play here as well.
Yet, Substack truly is different. When I—a writer without a large readership—raised my concerns, Hamish McKenzie took the time to respond.
Can you imagine the founders of TikTok, Meta, or X taking time to reply to a small writer unless it’s a polemic or a conspiracy? I can’t.
Substack cares about its creators, no matter how small. But if we truly stand for freedom of expression on Substack, those at the top must support voices at the bottom. Freedom rooted in self-interest becomes the tyranny of ego, while freedom rooted in diversity is the catalyst for progress.
Born Without Borders is a reader-supported guide to building bridges across divides, cultural psychology, travel writing and how to salir de las fronteras que impone tu mente. Both free and paid subscriptions are available. If you want to support my work and help me upgrade to more than one cabin bag, the best way is to take out a paid subscription or Buy Me a Coffee.
Related Articles
Ok, don't set fire to me, but the problem is the take here. "Forced" equality is socialism at its worst and the minute we start down that path, "Everything" is over. Not just Substack, but anything were objective measurement is an absolute requirement. See "enshittification" h/t cd.
I don't want a World in which the less-charismatic, talented, capable etc-achieve the same as those with more. But more is relative. I'm not on Substack as a writer, but as a reader and I want my reading time to be filled with the best: insight, observation, curation and comprehension. That won't happen if false tides raise all boats. After all, we faced that problem in traditional media and look what we have now: a veritable waste land of declining trust and impossible choices because journalist and their corporate overlords were irresponsible and cowardly. A deadly combo with serious consequences.
If you allow your sympathy for those who are -less- to dominate the reasoning behind why you are removing support from those who are -more- you consign Substack and those who rely on it for discussions we can no longer have in a traditional forum to the same mediocre outcomes. The responsibility is on them to get better, or do something else. They may be better at the something else. Encouraging them to be motionless and mediocre is unfair to us all.
I get it..in a way I feel your pain. My trajectory was those very newsrooms. I had a forced course correction, but now looking back, I'm glad because I
would have been devastated to watch a paper I worked for chopped up and sold off to pander to some ridiculous agenda. Journalism should forever stand apart...but if the Captain of the ship cannot sail, he will soon run around. And that's where we are not; stuck on a sandbar with no hope of freeing ourselves without tearing our hull.
I've thought about this myself, noting that some folks have literally thousands of subscribers at say $80 a year... and then there are folks like me, who don't charge a dime just because. (And I acknowledge that's my choice.) I put it into this idea: I don't mind someone making a solid living by writing. I think a good writer, be it journalist, creative, or philosopher, deserves no less than other professionals. So making anywhere from $80K to $300K a year? Congratulations! Go you! I also know some of the stacks are groups, not individuals like Bulwark and Meidas. They have several folks to pay. So there's that to consider. And there are the costs associated with their research. I'm good with all that IF their content remains true to the original mission. But as always it's good to follow the money and keep them honest, so to speak, so good on you Nolan! Let's keep it real!