If you look at the gender income distribution it's even worse. Substack probably makes 85% of its revenue from just politics and finance. Wealth inequality in the creator economy has always been an issue. This year I have noticed Venture Capital interests and technological optimism lobbying is also infiltrating this network. So the platform literally mirrors American exceptionalism since most subscriptions come from the United States. It doesn't matter if the founders are idealistic or claim an ideology, it matters what the product actually reflects.
I’m thinking of just taking this into my own hands, starting community meetups in various cities in Europe, and telling people about Substack. What other solutions do you see, Michael??
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!
The founders are very selective tp who they answer to. It's been months, if not a year or two that many writers who can't use Stripe in their country are tagging and writing to Hamish et al, and there is no answer. Not even a 'this isn't our priority at the moment.' About localisation, I am really wondering what they are cooking because I don't what it means to hire a British person to develop the French market 😅🤣. And I am talking as someone with a decade of experience in that field. I am curious to see what they are working on.
I knew someone would bring up Stripe! I actually had a section about it, but it made the article lose focus. I hope they resolve that in the future. As for localization, I thought he just meant that the app would translate according to your location. My app is in Spanish, for instance.
I don't think they'll ever resolve it because, at this point, their silence seems very much deliberate.
I intended localisation as, yes, translating the platform but also developing each market, which means doing what they are doing with their US audience. But if they aren't making any effort to do so, they'll never be global as they pretend to be.
For sure. That's also why I'm a bit wary of the firms that invested in Substack. I don't know what types of hidden motives they have. You'd think making Substack more global would be financially beneficial, but maybe they're pushing American discourse to support the technofeudal nightmare.
I am all about talking and engaging with people with diverging opinions, but it is something else to take their money, so I perfectly understand your wariness. I suspect they want to go global but are realising it is no easy job to localise because it isn't just about translation and people magically flocking to your site. To me, they're definitely pushing American discourse, but each time Hamish or Chris posts, I do not feel they speak to a broader audience.
Everything, especially online, is a popularity contest. People trust what they already know, and they assume that's what they like, because they don't have time or inclination to search out anything different. This also applies to music, art, books -- there are fantastic musicians toiling in obscurity while autotune plonk dominates the charts, and great writers that nobody reads while ghostwritten autobiographies of a b-level celebrity fill the bookstore windows, and so on.
But of course it's also true that many obscure newsletters here don't have much to offer readers, and many of us have lots to learn. And still others who are not chasing money or large readerships at all, happy to write for themselves or a few likeminded friends.
It would be nice if Substack made some engineering or usability changes to try to encourage wider readership. You'd imagine that might be good for Substack, as well as the many writers with tiny followings, sort of a win-win. But maybe that's just fighting human nature.
For me, I know my newsletter is just one blade of grass in a vast meadow and I'm grateful for every subscriber, like, and thoughtful comment. I subscribe almost exclusively smaller newsletters, smart people without huge followings who have interesting things to say. I subscribed to "Letters from an American" for a while, and it was informative and consistent, but just... too much every day.
Have you read “Letters from an American?” by Heather Cox Richardson? The quality of writing and research involved in the daily pieces could also have something to do why her newsletter is at the top.
I read a bit, but it didn’t interest me. It might have been the pieces I read, though. I definitely don't have anything against a writer doing well. I am not saying she doesn't deserve it. She probably adds a lot of value to people’s lives.
I'm also happy to read more. Do you have any recommendations?
Well, technically, "than" can work in certain informal contexts because the comparison is implied. It's acceptable in casual or conversational writing, especially with a modern tone. Anyway, I changed it in case it bothers other people. Cheers.
If you look at the gender income distribution it's even worse. Substack probably makes 85% of its revenue from just politics and finance. Wealth inequality in the creator economy has always been an issue. This year I have noticed Venture Capital interests and technological optimism lobbying is also infiltrating this network. So the platform literally mirrors American exceptionalism since most subscriptions come from the United States. It doesn't matter if the founders are idealistic or claim an ideology, it matters what the product actually reflects.
I’m thinking of just taking this into my own hands, starting community meetups in various cities in Europe, and telling people about Substack. What other solutions do you see, Michael??
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!
Thank you! Why do you think a writer deserves less than other professionals, though?
Ack--that was a typo--will fix!
Ah okay! I almost wish it wasn't a typo, haha. I was a bit shocked and very curious.
LOL
The founders are very selective tp who they answer to. It's been months, if not a year or two that many writers who can't use Stripe in their country are tagging and writing to Hamish et al, and there is no answer. Not even a 'this isn't our priority at the moment.' About localisation, I am really wondering what they are cooking because I don't what it means to hire a British person to develop the French market 😅🤣. And I am talking as someone with a decade of experience in that field. I am curious to see what they are working on.
I knew someone would bring up Stripe! I actually had a section about it, but it made the article lose focus. I hope they resolve that in the future. As for localization, I thought he just meant that the app would translate according to your location. My app is in Spanish, for instance.
I don't think they'll ever resolve it because, at this point, their silence seems very much deliberate.
I intended localisation as, yes, translating the platform but also developing each market, which means doing what they are doing with their US audience. But if they aren't making any effort to do so, they'll never be global as they pretend to be.
For sure. That's also why I'm a bit wary of the firms that invested in Substack. I don't know what types of hidden motives they have. You'd think making Substack more global would be financially beneficial, but maybe they're pushing American discourse to support the technofeudal nightmare.
I am all about talking and engaging with people with diverging opinions, but it is something else to take their money, so I perfectly understand your wariness. I suspect they want to go global but are realising it is no easy job to localise because it isn't just about translation and people magically flocking to your site. To me, they're definitely pushing American discourse, but each time Hamish or Chris posts, I do not feel they speak to a broader audience.
They should hire us to help expand into the European market :p
I think it's cool that you took the time to write to Hamish, Nolan.Thanks from all of us (who didn't write).
I was happy he responded to my Note!
Definitely!
Everything, especially online, is a popularity contest. People trust what they already know, and they assume that's what they like, because they don't have time or inclination to search out anything different. This also applies to music, art, books -- there are fantastic musicians toiling in obscurity while autotune plonk dominates the charts, and great writers that nobody reads while ghostwritten autobiographies of a b-level celebrity fill the bookstore windows, and so on.
But of course it's also true that many obscure newsletters here don't have much to offer readers, and many of us have lots to learn. And still others who are not chasing money or large readerships at all, happy to write for themselves or a few likeminded friends.
It would be nice if Substack made some engineering or usability changes to try to encourage wider readership. You'd imagine that might be good for Substack, as well as the many writers with tiny followings, sort of a win-win. But maybe that's just fighting human nature.
For me, I know my newsletter is just one blade of grass in a vast meadow and I'm grateful for every subscriber, like, and thoughtful comment. I subscribe almost exclusively smaller newsletters, smart people without huge followings who have interesting things to say. I subscribed to "Letters from an American" for a while, and it was informative and consistent, but just... too much every day.
You're right, Gary. I appreciate you pointing out the unfortunate truths while remaining grateful.
"But maybe that's just fighting human nature" is something I need to give more thought to.
Have you read “Letters from an American?” by Heather Cox Richardson? The quality of writing and research involved in the daily pieces could also have something to do why her newsletter is at the top.
I read a bit, but it didn’t interest me. It might have been the pieces I read, though. I definitely don't have anything against a writer doing well. I am not saying she doesn't deserve it. She probably adds a lot of value to people’s lives.
I'm also happy to read more. Do you have any recommendations?
The only consolation is that hearses don’t tow U-Haul trailers to the cemetery.
What, haha? This comment went over my head.
Ultimately, the big bucks mean nothing. You can’t take it with you.
Different from, not than.
Well, technically, "than" can work in certain informal contexts because the comparison is implied. It's acceptable in casual or conversational writing, especially with a modern tone. Anyway, I changed it in case it bothers other people. Cheers.
No, it's wrong, but it's a common error especially among younger people. Glad to see you changed it.