Substack created a top of the funnel where creators do have more control than other networks. Let me be clear this is not like other platforms, because the click rate is so much higher. However a lot of churn is also taking place on the engagement bait side of the business, where readers might be spending too much time on the gimmicks at the top of the funnel.
Is that by design or totally necessary? Does the platform growth benefit most writers or mostly the top earning ones? These are the legitimate questions. Substack is not actually incentivized to support all writers but the ones that are making them the most money.
I waded through a lot of click-baity articles and notes when I first joined. I quickly got bored with articles that more or less said the same thing and stopped reading them. I found higher-quality publications, and Substack started recommending better reads to me. Now, I hardly ever see clickbait anymore. I don’t know how typical this experience is, but it seems to me that Substack is where people go to avoid clickbait and seek deeper discussion. Many of the most popular publications I read are also well written and thoughtful. Again, this could just be my perspective, but I hope it’s true!
I agree with ideas here - there is a tension between long form in depth thinking and writing and then engagement farming (typical on mature social media platforms) .
I hope SS will stay hang in there, but eventually we'll all have to migrate elsewhere - I guess that's part of using a service instead of running your own blog/website/server.
I’ve been thinking frequently that it would be interesting if Substack somehow integrated with X. It would make both platforms way better. Regardless, I’m betting Substack will grow rapidly in 2025.
I very much agree with your analysis. The platform lifecycle you describe is in principle the same as that in the anaolgue space. Just faster. If someone wants to build, say, a smoothie brand, they would do the same: Attract consumers with some USP, something that is lacking elsewhere. Maybe something others even once had, but that got lost in their lifecycle. You put super nice ingredients in, unique flavors, etc. . Later, you extend to all kinds of flavors. Like all other smoothie brands have. That takes away the uniqueness, but helps growth. Then you squeeze, and try to make more margin by using second rate ingedients. And you try to keep the customers as good as you can, having created "brand loyalty".
Looks pretty much inevitable to me in a profit-optimizing system. If you are a shareholder, you *want* them to do it this way. It gives you the best payback to your investment. No matter how unwise it is. Given a money dominated system logic, there is simply no other dimension a company can meaningfully align itself to than profits. We have seen how things go if one tries: Look at sustainability metrics for investment. Works well as long as there are no serious monetary disadvantages. If you have mega AI hype, and super profitable military industry: Investments get increasingly shifted (that is a super simplified logic, I know - but IMHO still true).
The best way I see to manage this in terms of digital platforms in the short term: Realism, and limited brand loyalty. Using federated or multiple systems where possible, to avoid lock-in.
Thanks for the thoughtful analysis! Your’e right that this happens in the analog world too. Fast fashion is a great example of how quality decreases over time for the sake of squeezing more pennies out of a broken system. I have a seventeen-year old pair of jeans that have consistently outlasted new pairs that I buy from the same brand. The quality has gone down that dramatically in less than two decades.
The underlying problem seems to be our obsession with growth. A company must grow year after year, no matter what. This is true even if they’ve already built a perfect product and cornered the market for it. Staying at that sweet spot is a market impossibility. This has implications for everything from product quality to environmental impact.
If there’s a silver lining, it’s that creators have learned to be more flexible. I’m developing a more entreprenurial mindset, and my loyalty is to my readers, not to any one platform.
I didn’t read your article. Substack’s financials are based on two erroneous assumptions.
(1) people will trade in cheap subscriptions for teams of professional writers via print media for subscribing to two, or three, or four… solo writers? You’re trading down to pay more. That’s not a winning value proposition.
(2) we’re not a literate culture anymore. this is a shocking revelation. not only are people not reading, people are not understanding the written word. how many times do I scroll through comments sections thinking… that’s not what she wrote, that’s not what he meant… again and again and again. and those are the people who are reading.
Substack is for writers. It has to try harder to be for readers. There are no readers here. None.
“On social media the sky is always falling somewhere” - love that ❤️👍👍
Substack created a top of the funnel where creators do have more control than other networks. Let me be clear this is not like other platforms, because the click rate is so much higher. However a lot of churn is also taking place on the engagement bait side of the business, where readers might be spending too much time on the gimmicks at the top of the funnel.
Is that by design or totally necessary? Does the platform growth benefit most writers or mostly the top earning ones? These are the legitimate questions. Substack is not actually incentivized to support all writers but the ones that are making them the most money.
I waded through a lot of click-baity articles and notes when I first joined. I quickly got bored with articles that more or less said the same thing and stopped reading them. I found higher-quality publications, and Substack started recommending better reads to me. Now, I hardly ever see clickbait anymore. I don’t know how typical this experience is, but it seems to me that Substack is where people go to avoid clickbait and seek deeper discussion. Many of the most popular publications I read are also well written and thoughtful. Again, this could just be my perspective, but I hope it’s true!
I agree with ideas here - there is a tension between long form in depth thinking and writing and then engagement farming (typical on mature social media platforms) .
https://substack.com/@victordibia/note/c-83063910?r=1f0ow6&utm_medium=ios&utm_source=notes-share-action
I am really enjoying substack. Hope they don't change too much for a long time
I hope SS will stay hang in there, but eventually we'll all have to migrate elsewhere - I guess that's part of using a service instead of running your own blog/website/server.
A good read, thank you.
That’s why I’m glad we can at least take our subscriber lists with us. We own those, at least.
I’ve been thinking frequently that it would be interesting if Substack somehow integrated with X. It would make both platforms way better. Regardless, I’m betting Substack will grow rapidly in 2025.
I very much agree with your analysis. The platform lifecycle you describe is in principle the same as that in the anaolgue space. Just faster. If someone wants to build, say, a smoothie brand, they would do the same: Attract consumers with some USP, something that is lacking elsewhere. Maybe something others even once had, but that got lost in their lifecycle. You put super nice ingredients in, unique flavors, etc. . Later, you extend to all kinds of flavors. Like all other smoothie brands have. That takes away the uniqueness, but helps growth. Then you squeeze, and try to make more margin by using second rate ingedients. And you try to keep the customers as good as you can, having created "brand loyalty".
Looks pretty much inevitable to me in a profit-optimizing system. If you are a shareholder, you *want* them to do it this way. It gives you the best payback to your investment. No matter how unwise it is. Given a money dominated system logic, there is simply no other dimension a company can meaningfully align itself to than profits. We have seen how things go if one tries: Look at sustainability metrics for investment. Works well as long as there are no serious monetary disadvantages. If you have mega AI hype, and super profitable military industry: Investments get increasingly shifted (that is a super simplified logic, I know - but IMHO still true).
The best way I see to manage this in terms of digital platforms in the short term: Realism, and limited brand loyalty. Using federated or multiple systems where possible, to avoid lock-in.
Thanks for the thoughtful analysis! Your’e right that this happens in the analog world too. Fast fashion is a great example of how quality decreases over time for the sake of squeezing more pennies out of a broken system. I have a seventeen-year old pair of jeans that have consistently outlasted new pairs that I buy from the same brand. The quality has gone down that dramatically in less than two decades.
The underlying problem seems to be our obsession with growth. A company must grow year after year, no matter what. This is true even if they’ve already built a perfect product and cornered the market for it. Staying at that sweet spot is a market impossibility. This has implications for everything from product quality to environmental impact.
If there’s a silver lining, it’s that creators have learned to be more flexible. I’m developing a more entreprenurial mindset, and my loyalty is to my readers, not to any one platform.
Great piece and correct analysis. Thanks.
100% Yes.
I didn’t read your article. Substack’s financials are based on two erroneous assumptions.
(1) people will trade in cheap subscriptions for teams of professional writers via print media for subscribing to two, or three, or four… solo writers? You’re trading down to pay more. That’s not a winning value proposition.
(2) we’re not a literate culture anymore. this is a shocking revelation. not only are people not reading, people are not understanding the written word. how many times do I scroll through comments sections thinking… that’s not what she wrote, that’s not what he meant… again and again and again. and those are the people who are reading.
Substack is for writers. It has to try harder to be for readers. There are no readers here. None.