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
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'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!