This is a very thorough perspective on how to manage your Substack feed and why. I've been slowly muting people with this end in mine. I'm assuming that's not as harsh as 'blocking'? I've been too lazy to check.
All I know is that at the moment, I feel far more comfortable here than in the alternatives.
The thing for me is that I don't really want to directly make money from my Substack, and therefore Substack is less likely to show my wiring to others. But fair enough--why should I expect a free ride? Maybe curating other paid content here is enough?
I’m going to forward this post to Substack leadership as a letter of recommendation to put you on a strategic board of executives. Zero pay and incentives for you and other members though…
As long as Notes are segregated from the longer form essays, and they keep the "Following" (vs Home) tab on Notes, I'm very happy here. There are so many wonderful writers/artists and other lovely people here on Substack, as long as we have good tools for choosing who we connect with.
If nothing else, the limited bots so far seem to have provided uniquely focused meta entertainment. I’ve yet to mute anyone and have no way to check how much bubble-curating trouble my presence has stirred through no ill will. I wish for more refined control over content warnings such as blurring. The layers of UI could be simplified, probably easier said but there are too many steps to navigate bio/author/publication/about. Beyond critical apprehension concerning personally-tuned echo chambers, overwhelming quality options amid an already distracting online-tinted world, and the unlikely path toward serious revenue, who knows what’s going to happen. Just along for the dizzying ride.
Video is inevitable. The future of information transmission is squarely multimedia—combo of visuals (moving and/or still), audio, and text stitched together. Gen Z and future generations — especially COVID kids — are relatively textually illiterate (relative to millennials and older generations), and are much more comfortable in the multimedia format (when was the last time you saw a Gen Zer read an instruction manual, vs looking it up on YouTube?). The era of the written word is dead; the multimedia era is squarely upon us. Substack will evolve or die.
Doesn’t the Substack algorithm work by based on paid content? In other words, you can only get on a rising list based on your paid subscriptions. I’m not necessarily complaining. I’m just saying that it’s incentivized by money. The more money I make the more money Substack makes. So it seems to me that I only get amplified or uplifted by Substack if my paid subscriber base is growing, no?
They have a leaderboard that seems to be based on paid subscriptions...but I doubt many people use this.
I've seen no indication that the Notes algorithm (which isn't public) boosts paid content. I suspect it's the exact opposite. Free stuff tends to get more shares and engagement, which is likely part of their algorithm. Paid stuff is harder to spread since the majority of readers can't tell if it has any worth.
Notes has held up longer than many expected. What you end up seeing are the Twitter trolls flow through once in a while, get called out, blocked, and ignored, and then they move on to Bluesky.
Yes, exactly. I was pleasantly surprised that Notes didn't immediately become a dumpster fire. And then I said...well...give it six months. And people did arrive, eager to set the dumpster on fire...but it sort of just didn't catch fire. Fascinating.
It still sucks on its financial model. I am currently a free subscriber on many sites, love many posts and I would like to be able to pay, however …
The current subscription model is prohibitive for my budget. I counted at least 20 substacks they I would like to subscribe to and pay. They vary from $5 to $8 per month. Using an average of $6.50 x 20 makes it $130 per month which is a pretty high amount for me and I think for many other readers. The existing model benefits the substack company and a few “famous” authors.
I brought up the above issue and I proposed the following to the substack company and also to a few authors to pitch it to sunstack company but never got any responses.
One of the budiness models could be “Specialty subject magazine model”.
Let’s call it “The New Political Weekly Substack”. 10 Contributors share in a monthly subscription of $10 or each will receive $1 per month. The “magazine” grows to 100,000 subscribers and each author will receive $10,000 per month less the substack fee.
Obviously the above is too simple to execute. The questions of administration and editorial staff come into play. Maybe the substack company can develop templates and service to implement the “magazine “.
It is just an example to make a point- smaller subscription fee, synergy of multiple contributors and higher volume of subscribers to reach a ”living wage” for writers.
But here's the thing — even unpaid users get a vast quantity of "free goods," they never have to pay for on Substack. The majority of articles I read are free. Most of the articles I write are free.
As to your idea — a specialty magazine introduces middlemen, curators, editors, etc, which adds friction, cost, risk, and creative restraint. This is the old model, and it still exists. Look around and see the quality. It's done well in some places, but it's struggling. And economically, Medium, Apple news, and other websites have tried bundling and doing similar things and it hasn't succeeded. It seems to fail as a model.
There's also a reason people are writing here. People like having their own subscription rolls and following that can't be taken away from them because they "get fired" or the algorithm changes or they get "canceled" by some group.
But I think you're right that there is an option for some sort of a meta subscription that could be equitable and fit into the subscription model Substack already has. I haven't given this enough thought, but it probably looks like paying some amount of money — $50-100/month, say — and getting a certain amount of temporary subscribes you can spread around as you wish. But it won't solve your problem completely. The article reads won't be unlimited, and some people will still balk at paying $50-100/month.
But honestly, I'm pretty sure I wouldn't opt in to it (though I would reconsider depending on the particulars). I would keep the very small amount of paid writing/courses and other benefits I have for subscribers only and keep everything else free.
I said in this article that Substack can't be all things to all people, and no platform can. This is a limitation. For people who wan't to read for free, there's a vast bounty of free stuff here. They can also go to Twitter and get it all free, but as this article lays out....there's a downside to that.
I've advocated a monthly credit based model where I can either tip credits, use credits to buy discounted subscriptions or use them to unlock invidivdual articles. Because I agree. $5/month per sub is super hard to justify.
I have adopted a "enjoy it while it lasts" mentality to everything that is good online these days. It's better for my mental health this way.
Yep. Same with everything in life. Gratitude that it came, being fully aware that it might be snatched away tomorrow. Memento mori.
This is a very thorough perspective on how to manage your Substack feed and why. I've been slowly muting people with this end in mine. I'm assuming that's not as harsh as 'blocking'? I've been too lazy to check.
All I know is that at the moment, I feel far more comfortable here than in the alternatives.
The thing for me is that I don't really want to directly make money from my Substack, and therefore Substack is less likely to show my wiring to others. But fair enough--why should I expect a free ride? Maybe curating other paid content here is enough?
Appreciate this nuanced perspective. Thank you for taking the time to share it
My brain is quieter, calmer, and happier when I use Substack as opposed to other platforms.
Engaging with long form deep thinking is valuable, of course.
But I also want to say, thank you to those who just post beauty here. Art, nature, even if it’s just a “my neighborhood looks beautiful today”.
You guys make me happier, and for the first time in many years I find that there’s a corner of the internet which benefits me rather than harms me.
I hope this culture sticks around :)
Substack was a great find and truly enjoy the substacks I am following. Hoping it will last!
I’m going to forward this post to Substack leadership as a letter of recommendation to put you on a strategic board of executives. Zero pay and incentives for you and other members though…
Great. I bet they'll be super excited when I begin my 3-hour lecture on virtue.
I would!
😂
Skinner was right. It's all about the incentives.
As long as Notes are segregated from the longer form essays, and they keep the "Following" (vs Home) tab on Notes, I'm very happy here. There are so many wonderful writers/artists and other lovely people here on Substack, as long as we have good tools for choosing who we connect with.
Agreed.
If nothing else, the limited bots so far seem to have provided uniquely focused meta entertainment. I’ve yet to mute anyone and have no way to check how much bubble-curating trouble my presence has stirred through no ill will. I wish for more refined control over content warnings such as blurring. The layers of UI could be simplified, probably easier said but there are too many steps to navigate bio/author/publication/about. Beyond critical apprehension concerning personally-tuned echo chambers, overwhelming quality options amid an already distracting online-tinted world, and the unlikely path toward serious revenue, who knows what’s going to happen. Just along for the dizzying ride.
Video is inevitable. The future of information transmission is squarely multimedia—combo of visuals (moving and/or still), audio, and text stitched together. Gen Z and future generations — especially COVID kids — are relatively textually illiterate (relative to millennials and older generations), and are much more comfortable in the multimedia format (when was the last time you saw a Gen Zer read an instruction manual, vs looking it up on YouTube?). The era of the written word is dead; the multimedia era is squarely upon us. Substack will evolve or die.
Doesn’t the Substack algorithm work by based on paid content? In other words, you can only get on a rising list based on your paid subscriptions. I’m not necessarily complaining. I’m just saying that it’s incentivized by money. The more money I make the more money Substack makes. So it seems to me that I only get amplified or uplifted by Substack if my paid subscriber base is growing, no?
They have a leaderboard that seems to be based on paid subscriptions...but I doubt many people use this.
I've seen no indication that the Notes algorithm (which isn't public) boosts paid content. I suspect it's the exact opposite. Free stuff tends to get more shares and engagement, which is likely part of their algorithm. Paid stuff is harder to spread since the majority of readers can't tell if it has any worth.
I’d love to know!
Notes has held up longer than many expected. What you end up seeing are the Twitter trolls flow through once in a while, get called out, blocked, and ignored, and then they move on to Bluesky.
Yes, exactly. I was pleasantly surprised that Notes didn't immediately become a dumpster fire. And then I said...well...give it six months. And people did arrive, eager to set the dumpster on fire...but it sort of just didn't catch fire. Fascinating.
It still sucks on its financial model. I am currently a free subscriber on many sites, love many posts and I would like to be able to pay, however …
The current subscription model is prohibitive for my budget. I counted at least 20 substacks they I would like to subscribe to and pay. They vary from $5 to $8 per month. Using an average of $6.50 x 20 makes it $130 per month which is a pretty high amount for me and I think for many other readers. The existing model benefits the substack company and a few “famous” authors.
I brought up the above issue and I proposed the following to the substack company and also to a few authors to pitch it to sunstack company but never got any responses.
One of the budiness models could be “Specialty subject magazine model”.
Let’s call it “The New Political Weekly Substack”. 10 Contributors share in a monthly subscription of $10 or each will receive $1 per month. The “magazine” grows to 100,000 subscribers and each author will receive $10,000 per month less the substack fee.
Obviously the above is too simple to execute. The questions of administration and editorial staff come into play. Maybe the substack company can develop templates and service to implement the “magazine “.
It is just an example to make a point- smaller subscription fee, synergy of multiple contributors and higher volume of subscribers to reach a ”living wage” for writers.
Your thoughts?
And please pitch it to the substack company.
Costs can be prohibitive, which is why I feel it's important for me to offer discounts: https://andrewperlot.substack.com/i/159961549/cost
But here's the thing — even unpaid users get a vast quantity of "free goods," they never have to pay for on Substack. The majority of articles I read are free. Most of the articles I write are free.
As to your idea — a specialty magazine introduces middlemen, curators, editors, etc, which adds friction, cost, risk, and creative restraint. This is the old model, and it still exists. Look around and see the quality. It's done well in some places, but it's struggling. And economically, Medium, Apple news, and other websites have tried bundling and doing similar things and it hasn't succeeded. It seems to fail as a model.
There's also a reason people are writing here. People like having their own subscription rolls and following that can't be taken away from them because they "get fired" or the algorithm changes or they get "canceled" by some group.
But I think you're right that there is an option for some sort of a meta subscription that could be equitable and fit into the subscription model Substack already has. I haven't given this enough thought, but it probably looks like paying some amount of money — $50-100/month, say — and getting a certain amount of temporary subscribes you can spread around as you wish. But it won't solve your problem completely. The article reads won't be unlimited, and some people will still balk at paying $50-100/month.
But honestly, I'm pretty sure I wouldn't opt in to it (though I would reconsider depending on the particulars). I would keep the very small amount of paid writing/courses and other benefits I have for subscribers only and keep everything else free.
I said in this article that Substack can't be all things to all people, and no platform can. This is a limitation. For people who wan't to read for free, there's a vast bounty of free stuff here. They can also go to Twitter and get it all free, but as this article lays out....there's a downside to that.
A "good samaritan" subscription where a user pays 10 dollars a month that goes to his free reads would be nice.
I've advocated a monthly credit based model where I can either tip credits, use credits to buy discounted subscriptions or use them to unlock invidivdual articles. Because I agree. $5/month per sub is super hard to justify.