Substack truly is the best of media at the moment. It genuinely feels like a community and a space to grow and thrive. I consider myself both a writer and reader Thank you for creating such wonderful opportunities for us.
I'd have to agree if it weren't for the fact that I have been trying to migrate my blog, The 13th Clown, to Substack but have been thwarted by technical jargon that stumps me. If someone out there, including Substack management, can walk me through the process, demystifying the speed bumps, I would be forever grateful. bruce@brucebrittain.com
There's a way to migrate your blog by first moving it to a blank WordPress and the moving it to Substack.... I have written a huge post on doing this as I moved mine from Ghost to Substack via moving parts of the site (that couldn't be imported by themselves to Substack) to WordPress,, I'll link the article below:
There's a "substack" gap between supply and demand:
a) the demographics show substack is little read by the younger 25 ... probably because they don't read at all.
b) Most writers are over 30. We need to engage them in their own terms: short video, audio, flash presentations, but some of us are not good with that way of communication...
We need new tools. A good start would be an AI auto-flash presentation of the main concepts in each post and then the author can tweak it.
Still, some posts are hard to summarize for those who are off-topic example:
God, please do not add video or any form of media other than the written word. I have been chased off so many reading platforms by crosswords, podcasts, and blogs. I just want somewhere where I can read quality writing in peace.
I am 21 and I can already attest to this. I grew up with social media and Youtube (although not as emerged as I see people being now), and what brought me to Subtack was exactly this lack of "easy to consume" form of content. The clear webpage layout makes the text stand out and leaves no room for distractions.
I subscribe to several artists on here who do post videos (drawing and music mostly) and I love these videos! Not all art or intellectualism needs to be "words only". I am officially quite old (in mid-70's) and I find the rejection of anything other than the written word to be short sighted. And several writers on Substack enjoy reading their work on video or even just audio, as another way to connect with their readers. It's lovely! Just because videos are offered, doesn't mean you have to watch any of them! But kindly don't deny this level of engagement for the rest of us.
I'm a believer in the "do one thing, and do it well" mantra.
Hosting video is expensive. Not just in storage space, but also bandwidth. Then, making sure there's no objectionable content in it is hard (and usually handled by the big players by piling out-sourced human labor onto the problem). Then there's also the problem of indexing and ranking video content.
I'd rather see Substack flourish as the #1 home for quality content in writing than have it divert resource into things that established players already do, and let's face it, due to budgets often times do better.
The Internet is built on linkage, and I'd humbly propose that there is always an option to link to Youtube and Instagram (or Nebula, or Tumblr ...).
I add YouTube or Vimeo links to some of my posts and Spotify podcast links for audio to others. I don't think that prevents readers from consuming my content. Are you saying people avoid multimedia posts?
No. I'm merely saying I don't think Substack should divert into becoming a video and images hoster. What you are doing is incidentally exactly what I propose in my post.
I’m also an artist, I love Substack for its writing. I was majorly hacked on IG and spent way too many hours trying to rectify it. To no avail, their answer to problems is useless bots so there is absolutely no way to access help. Im done with it for good. It really never worked much to my advantage at any rate.
I add minimal graphics to my articles and the odd video, but I tend to agree with you: the less clutter the better. In fact, I get lost and slightly annoyed when a news article is awash in, say, pasted screen shots of Tweets or whatever. Words are what we're all about here - or should be.
I'm a substack reader. I followed my favorite journalist blogger, Tony Ortega, over here from the "fringes of the internet". He's an excellent writer, but the interviews that he posts are also great and essential to his job. I understand the reticence towards adding any type of social media bells and whistles... and agree. But just throwing away videos completely would be short-sighted, I think. If a writer is using vid or audio in conjunction with their writing, that's great. If the creator isn't a writer, then I think they should post their vid/audio stuff elsewhere.
I'm 55 and I process everything in the written word. I struggle with the meandering nonsense that passes as a talk show and I don't have the patience to listen to 20 minutes of media when all that is required is a well-written paragraph. I don't want to wear earphones all day and I don't want to watch videos all day. I simply want good quality interesting writing to read without distractions. There have been various attempts at creating curated feeds on line and they start off well and then run out of good content and then think a daily crossword might be good value, or perhaps you might want to listen to a couple.of people waffling about nothing in particular.
Good writing is hard to do, making blogs and podcasts it seems is even harder by the general waikity out there.
If substacknisnfor writers then that's what it should be. I don't want it diluted as a general free for all.media platform..
"I don't have the patience to listen to 20 minutes of media when all that is required is a well-written paragraph." ... you took the words out of my pen. Thankyou.
I also hate video and audio: it's a waste of time to get info! I read much faster!
Yet we must understand that what's important is the message, not the means. If an author wants the message to reach a broader audience, he must adapt to different media types.. like notes! Substack is moving in the right direction, but too slowly.
Dear God No! There's more than plenty media that does that, ie everything else. Substack is a different model by design. Thankfully. The future will be, assuming we avoid dystopia (not guaranteed by any means!), that we realize and acknowledge that succumbing to the neurological hellscape of total media bombardment was a HUUUGGEE mistake disguised as amusement and content. A la Huxley and Postman. Either Society deals with this at face value, or it ends.
What you are advocating is just another website for those who suffer short attention spans. There are millions of those to which millions are already addicted. This website is worth reading and worth supporting financially. Let the “kids” of the world enjoy their short videos and leave Substack just as it is...perfect for those who can read and comprehend. We need a safe place, too.
Fred, demographics never interested me one iota. And I don't think one needs to be elderly to be prurient; it's not unseemly to want to know someone's age, it's simply irrelevant.
Your comment invites a question: whether you aim to cultivate an audience, to direct your content specifically to "capturing" a certain "demographic". Like drilling for oil. There's little point drilling for it where you know it's not to be found. But, what I suspect many Substack writers do is drill, and see what comes out of the hole. Because what comes out may be conditioned by the manner in which one drills, but does not change the essence of the drill bit.
I invite you to reflect on whether what you suggest in your comment does not in fact run counter to what the piece is actually trying to encourage. Write (or film, video, or whatever) what lies in you and that you wish to tell to the world. If the manner in which you convey your message is ill-chosen, does that denigrate the message? Or does it denigrate the non-reader of the message?
I like that you bring the age question to the fore, yes better contact with the young is of great value to all in the quest for humanities survival. But please NO MORE VIDEOS for our WRITERS Community. Images are fine by me - they tell a story. Far too many video voices are not spoken with any regard at all for the listener. TOO FAST: STUMBLING DELIVERY:TOO MANY COLLOQUIALISMS / BROAD ACCENTS: MONOTONIC:TOO MUCH JARGON: and sadly a few whose voices grate. A video that features the voice of a speaker who cannot be bothered to clearly enunciate... IS A COMMUNICATION FAILURE - However good the rest of the skillset may be. With respect, peace, Maurice
Max Blumenthal called her out at an event: asked her point blank why she wouldnt/hadn't disavowed the Russiagate nonsense as mis/disinformation. Blumenthal was removed, and Maddow instantly disparaged him as nothing but a substacker or some such BS. It's par for the course.
He's a journalist. Nothing more, nothing less. No one is 'looking up' at anyone. Re: trust...while every journalist has biases (duh), I'd place my trust in the Taibbis, Mates, Greenwalds, Blumenthals, Fangs, before the Maddows, Coopers, Hasans, Carlson, et al. Up until these folks pulled the curtains back on the Establishment (their fucking job!) they were ALL bastions of left-leaning reporting.
What is there that makes this medium more amenable for this potential abuse? I don't see that its any different from others. The implication of this claim is that we are foolish enough to accept what is false news and trivial comment as if it were true.
Well for one, its owners refuse to make any comment on having featured a bonfide white supremacist on their podcast or for reposting his “pseudo-apology” when the vile things he posted under a pseudonym were recently exposed. I believe their motive for this is that in our hyper partisan world, such a move might cause his right-wing/libertarian type authors to categorize them or the site as hostile to the right. But there’s a difference from the right and fringe alt-right extremism.
One would think no one should have a problem openly withdrawing support from someone who has called for the eugenics based genocide.
I’m all for varied types of views - even things I don’t agree with or find offensive. But I don’t like thinking that some percentage of my money is helping support people who are too cowardly to condemn that kind of speech.
First off, I want to say how much I love being on Substack. My mental health has improved since switching my networking efforts to Substack instead of social media. Most engagements here are authentic, and I'm part of a community. Thank you to Chris, Hamish, Mills, and the team.
I'm grateful, and that's why I want to grow together with Substack's improvements. Here's my idea:
Imagine if Substack made it easier to collaborate with filmmakers, musicians, and animators. Elle Griffin has a great article called No one will read your book, which, in part, explains the supply and demand problem. We have too many writers and too few readers. Most successful writers on Substack (unless they were established beforehand) provide information rather than stories and poems. What if we increased the demand for writers on Substack by attracting film students, producers, and music students — people who need writers?
It would also be helpful to have a formatting system that allows for scripts. Almost all the expert advice on Substack boils down to creating a community and collaborating. Screenplays and TV scripts are the best writing forms for collaboration.
Just imagine if Substack writers found people they wanted to write with, wrote a series, combined their networks, and could find producers right here on Substack.
This is just an idea, but I'm definitely curious if it's possible.
Another idea:
The "Writer Bundle" Pitch.
Sometimes I struggle with our Substack newsletters being in a similar price range as Kindle Unlimted, Amazon Prime Video, Apple TV, HBO Max, etc. Plus, we're often more expensive than established magazine subscriptions.
How can a single writer offer the same value as a corporation with content from thousands of writers and artists?
Many agree the answer is offering unique and specialized content that caters to niche interests, providing a personalized experience. This allows readers to connect directly with the writer and support their work.
So, discover what you have to offer, define your niche, tailor your work to what your readers want to read, network with those with a similar audience, and publish consistently at the correct times. In other words, marketing.
Unfortunately, there is only so much time in the day, and as an independent writer, marketing often comes at the expense of quality writing.
This got me thinking. Many of us have a similar niche or audience, so why not create "writer bundles." There are ways to do something similar with multiple publications under the same account, recommendations, and gift subscriptions. Still, we don't have the opportunity to subscribe to 5-10 of our favourite writers for the price of _____.
Yes, it would be discounted, meaning each writer gets paid less than a direct subscription, but it also means more paid subscribers. People who can afford multiple $4-$10 subscriptions will continue to do so. Instead, writer bundles would be a way to attract those who want to read as much high-quality work as possible at the best price.
I love the idea of a multiple writer subscription! Paid subscriptions to everyone I’d love to support is beyond my means. Some kind of bundle subscription would level out the effects of less money per reader for each writer in the bundle by encouraging more paid subscribers overall. I’m sure a lot of writers would prefer at least share of compensation, rather than none (from free subscribers)
Absolutely a great idea....a way to combat "subscription fatigue" and also a way to support writers who really don't supply enough content to justify the full charge (...just sayin')...and also a way to avoid over-dropping.
I agree! Some type of bundle subscription sounds appealing. I’m a single older woman working so hard to retire in a year, but each quality podcast costs, and most Substacks cost, and quality news subscriptions cost, and I just can’t afford hundreds of dollars. I DO want to support quality writing and absolutely want quality reading content, but I can’t afford so many individual subscriptions.! This current pay model doesn’t recognize that people with limited incomes are smart and want to be informed, too. So I choose a couple and sigh when I can’t afford more.
My mental health has also improved from prioritizing this platform over other social media! It's amazing what they've built here when it comes to community.
I want to second the bundle idea. I would indeed consider myself a "substack reader" but I've maxed out my budget to support substack writers. I would like to be able to spread my budget further, especially to support less established writers. One of my favorites, Anjali Prasertong, Antiracist Dietician (https://anjaliruth.substack.com), had to go on hiatus because she doesn't have enough subscribers to keep going. How can the money be spread around to support the people who aren't well known who are trying to do something different?
Excellent idea. I too wish we could “bundle” with other writers. I’m proud of my writing but in no way do I think it makes sense that someone pays as much for my Substack as they do for Esquire.
Great suggestion. I have considered unsubscribing to some because of only teaser intros, and I don’t have time or money to subscribe to ten or so authors to read a few posts a week or month. Perhaps some solution that allocates income on “reads” not just click on title so merit writing is rewarded.
Bundling is a business model and is the thin edge of the wedge to devalue a writers worth, on mass and at scale.
Remember, music creators experienced the calamitous decline in income via streaming aggregators and the departure from creator patronage to consumer convenience via the subscription model.
That's a really good point. This could get into a whole new debate about whether streaming has benefitted or hurt more musicians, but what do you think about something like "pay to subscribe to my newsletter, you can get a discount to any of the newsletters I recommend (if those writers approve that)?" Elle Griffen mentioned that, and I think it would be much easier to implement. Do you see this devaluing writer as well? *Edit* Noticed Mike Sowden posted this article about bundles. Maybe it wouldn't devalue writers... https://www.listenupih.com/every/
I appreciate your thoughts here Nolan but regarding the benefit of recommendation driven subscription bundles it falls into the power law (Pareto) math space. What once was a democratised space rapidly becomes a concentrator of wealth benefitting the tiny proportion of influential actors. It’s game theory and a no brained for aggregators of content to simplify & concentrate the wealth generated by the platform.
I’m not making a moral claim here, it’s a feature & a bug of the digital space.
I was just thinking about this as I read the replies. If Substack introduced a bundle, I would bet they’d include the big names who already pay who will get newsletter everyday from their favorites. Issue is as you mentioned: concentration of wealth. Then little guys have to band together for a pittance each when they just don’t have the wide audience to command higher prices.
Substack has stayed on course with its model and while I’m sure people wish they could get things for less, how much less? Are we just used to criminally low prices for things?
I agree with you regarding the immediate asymmetry this bundle concept would introduce into the Substack system.
If you follow the logic of critical power theory, the first piece of the puzzle is the first step you mentioned; concentration of influence (“big names” ) into a monetisation class at the expense of those not enjoying such influence (“little guys”).
Reminds me of the old truism “follow the money” conflating to “follow the influence”. Which leads me to the misnomer of trickle down economics who’s adherents would argue subscription based models promote wealth downstream..
Well, take at look at the subscription based monoliths of Spotify & Netflix who keep posting losses to see how wealth is being syphoned from the creative class IMHO.
Bundling doesn't have to be an either/or proposition. Both/and is an excellent idea. Perhaps the most popular writers can continue individual subscriptions and the writers who are struggling to build an audience could participate in a bundling idea. Perhaps bundled by interest/genre, perhaps in a magazine concept where readers can browse the magazine and discover new writers in their field of interest. Perhaps the SS newsstand (see picture above) could have a bunch of different topical magazines we could browse thru for one monthly subscription. That would allow us to always support our favored writers and read their work consistently, yet also allow for relaxed reading, discovery, ideas, and offer writers who are trying to be discovered an outlet that showcases their work and provides at least some level of support. And, to stay within our budget.
Or, maybe SS could offer reseller services that allows others to curate, aggregate, collate and publish a collection of different writers (who choose to participate) in a magazine style format. We already see that in many of the popular 'stacks that pull together the interesting essays they have read and make one post out of it with links to the different writers. That would offer a host of new discovery possibilities, supporting both readers and writers, and a new participant, the publisher.
I'm certain these smart folks are already all over this. Possibilities are exciting, and endless, and if designed to support the readers/writers instead of the company, really beneficial to restoring reading to our culture.
Agreed on attracting more readers. I think there’s should be a reader only profile that doesn’t require much set up. It’ll be easier for people outside the ecosystem to stay engaged and find great Substacks.
Agreed on screenwriting format. It’s probably the few shortcomings of this platform is the inability to justify text, text wrap around photos, and have single space poetry (without having to hit Shift Enter).
If we’re going to do a bundle, we should have individuals agree to be part of the package. I’m not sure what limits Substack would place on that type of collaboration but I’m not sure they want a big time publication budding out of Substack. Might be wrong.
We make these comparisons to big media houses but NYT owns prime real estate in Manhattan. I don’t. So it’s a lot harder for an individual to lowball their price when it may be a one-person show. We could try pay per article or tip per article model which would maybe help lower a monthly subscription but I don’t know about that level of tedium. I’m sure Substack has considered all the ways this platform could get out of hand.
Thanks for adding all of this. Also, I love the idea of a "reader-only profile that doesn't require much setup." This could grow Substack into the creators of Substack often write could. I have a tip jar at the bottom of most of my articles. I have seen some readers ask for them in the comments of other writers. I don't know much it helps, though.
No one is demanding money but we are talented people, why shouldn’t we have the choice to use that to make a living? It’s clear with the writer’s strike that the talent makes the money for the network but little is left over for the individual. While not a replacement, it is definitely a place to increase your profile, hone your talent, and accept different opportunities.
This is a platform like any other that can be monetized and if people can do that to offset the cost of their projects or simply accept encouragement for good work, then I don’t see the problem. It’s not easy producing work and some are doing incredible work that takes up a lot of time.
Re. bundling, there's a good example of the power of doing this - the folk running the Every bundle/collective/whatever-it-is: https://www.listenupih.com/every/
Yes! This was precisely what I was thinking. However, rather than leave Substack, I thought of doing it here. I saw they used Ghost. I used Ghost at first. I went for Ghost because they don't take a percentage, they are carbon neutral, more customizable, and nonprofit, but I switched to Substack because the community is so much stronger here. However, I would LOVE to team up with several Substack writers to create a bundle newsletter on Ghost where we transfer over our articles. That way, we can continue being part of Substack but also benefit from the potential of Ghost (and be part of a carbon-neutral nonprofit).
There is a very easy way to support multiple writers on a budget, and that's to purchase single monthly subscriptions. For the price of a sinlge one year subscription you can "buy a cup of coffee" for a dozen writers. In fact there are writers from the UK (Laura K for one) who are set up to ask for just that. A big advantage of this is that it releaves Substack of an enormous administrative burden. But on the other hand it requires some thought and planning on the part of the readers. Deshalb wird es nicht passieren, glaube ich.
“A Substack reader is someone who might be on the verge of opting out of online media because of their aversion to the toxicity of their social feeds. It’s someone who wants high-quality news and culture. It’s someone who’s willing to consider a range of sources, even ones that challenge their assumptions. It’s someone who wants to find a way to be online with dignity.”
I’m a Substack reader, not a writer, and that’s exactly how I landed here. I no longer have Twitter, Facebook, or Instagram. Only Substack. I am *begging* you to stick to what you’ve outlined here and not become another gross platform.
Seconded. I subscribe to over 200 (yes, 200!) publications. I really love the feel of Substack and I my keen hope is that they don’t monkey with it too much. (Search could be way better, though). I don’t know if I’ll ever start my own newsletter, but I really enjoy commenting on what I read and sharing stuff in Notes. I feel like Goldilocks; everything about this site right now is just right.
Substack is for people who read and write. I don’t want video clips and headlines, I want accurate and sourced information as well as authentic and creative writing.
We know that “they” are purposely trying to manipulate our attention spans and imaginations so please Substack - don’t participate in the same forms of hacking our brains!! Instant gratification is the death of our mental wellness.
Thank you to Chris, Hamish, Mills, and team for creating the best reading experience on the internet. What we read matters, just like what we eat. A healthy information diet is critical to good mental health and a better understanding of our beautiful, chaotic world. I have built my own newspaper by subscribing to over 100 Substacks.
“We thought we were going to live in the Library of Alexandria; instead we’re wading through its sewers hoping to find wisdom on wet pages pasted to the walls.”
Substack is doing a really fantastic job of prioritizing community, much better than other platforms. Features like Recommendations and setting up Weekly Office Hours -- this isn't seen on other platforms that I've been on. I've met so many brilliant people on this platform.
What I first thought was going to be my own website a la Tumblr has turned into my favourite place on the internet to learn, connect, and share. Something about the culture and safety of this place makes it really easy to be vulnerable and ultimately build real connections.
Really excited to see this ecosystem develop and build. I have thought a lot about how substack has given so much to it's writers, and supported our growth without prioritizing just certain/popular voices like traditional media; but when I ask friends who read Substack how they are using it, where they read it (in email or on the app) and how many Substack newsletters they are reading, it seems to be far, far less (in some cases, just one newsletter) than those of us who are also writers here. Looking forward to seeing this shift.
I love Substack! I will continue to support it until my wallet says “Whoa girl.” It is my “go to” every morning. I value the smart and thoughtful writers! THANK YOU! And, I also value the hundreds of smart and thoughtful readers who reply THANK YOU!
I live in the rural South and my county is 85% republicans (Virginia Foxx!) and I’m sure the vast majority of those are MAGA. The Trump 2024 signs are already up in their yards. The first thing someone asks you when they meet you is “where do you go to church” I thank the Good Lord for you Substack. (How’s that for Southern speak?)
I do like Substack a lot, and would *love* to love it. But the subsciption model is a problem. There is no way I'm going to pay more to Substack, per month, than I pay for all my subscription services combined (Netflix, Prime Video, etc.). In fact, psychologically I am unwilling to pay more than about 40€/month in total - so, I can (and do) subscribe to only 5-7 stacks.
I seriously doubt I am the only person to feel this way. The model needs to change. Either you introduce a flat rate plan (like all other services): say, 30 or 40/month and you can read *any* article on Substack, with authors getting compensated for both subscribers and individual "read-article" events. Or you introduce a plan whereby subscriptions go down (dramatically) in price the more subs you have. So readers pay full price for their first 2 subs, but half price from 2 to 6, 1€/1$ for each sub from 7 to 10, and then 0.50€/$ above 10. Under either of these plans I'd pay more to Substack authors (total), and I'd read a lot more authors.
You make a good point here. There are several Substacks that I would love to have subscriptions to, but I can’t realistically afford access to all of them, and I’m sure that they’re saving their best content for the paid subscribers.
I've invested a lot of time into writing on this platform, and I did so because I thought what Substack was trying to do was very important for the direction of our society. I really like the way everything is set up here because it places a lot of trust in both the authors and users and incentivizes writers making good quality content that helps rather than harms the readers. To be honest, I am astounded by how much support I have gotten from this platform and how much growth it has facilitated for me.
Lastly, I also know a lot of the leading authors here, and I've been consistently surprised at how strong of a commitment Substack has made to supporting free speech (this includes that which I and my colleagues disagree with), and this has made me hopeful Substack will continue to do as it is doing for a while.
This is actually a fantastic anecdote - much more powerful than might at first strike us.
If SubStack really is/is to be a true 𝘮𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 - nea - a paradigm shift in media production & consumption - then this is what the leading edge of such a movement looks like, on the ground, in an airport.
I stand against the dumbification of the Internet, and while it often feels like I'm urinating into the wind, in fact my readers here are engaged and thinking much more than I've seen anywhere else.
We are having nuanced, meaningful conversations.
Idiocracy is happening across the Internet, but there are pockets like Substack where smarter folks are having a good time. Let's keep this place smart. The world really, really needs this right now.
“Let’s turn the page”
Substack truly is the best of media at the moment. It genuinely feels like a community and a space to grow and thrive. I consider myself both a writer and reader Thank you for creating such wonderful opportunities for us.
I'd have to agree if it weren't for the fact that I have been trying to migrate my blog, The 13th Clown, to Substack but have been thwarted by technical jargon that stumps me. If someone out there, including Substack management, can walk me through the process, demystifying the speed bumps, I would be forever grateful. bruce@brucebrittain.com
Hi Bruce! This article may be useful: https://support.substack.com/hc/en-us/articles/360037830351-How-do-I-import-my-posts-from-another-platform-such-as-Mailchimp-WordPress-Medium-or-Ghost-
If not, there's a contact form on that page to contact Substack Support
I wish it was this simple. I will have to spend hundreds of hours to fix the problems in the imported posts.
https://zorkthehun.substack.com/p/an-open-letter-to-substack
There's a way to migrate your blog by first moving it to a blank WordPress and the moving it to Substack.... I have written a huge post on doing this as I moved mine from Ghost to Substack via moving parts of the site (that couldn't be imported by themselves to Substack) to WordPress,, I'll link the article below:
https://maniainc.substack.com/p/migrating-from-ghost-to-substack
There's a "substack" gap between supply and demand:
a) the demographics show substack is little read by the younger 25 ... probably because they don't read at all.
b) Most writers are over 30. We need to engage them in their own terms: short video, audio, flash presentations, but some of us are not good with that way of communication...
We need new tools. A good start would be an AI auto-flash presentation of the main concepts in each post and then the author can tweak it.
Still, some posts are hard to summarize for those who are off-topic example:
16 laws we need to exit Prison Planet
https://scientificprogress.substack.com/p/laws-to-exit-planet-prison
Thoughts? Thank you!
Prof. Fred Nazar
God, please do not add video or any form of media other than the written word. I have been chased off so many reading platforms by crosswords, podcasts, and blogs. I just want somewhere where I can read quality writing in peace.
I agree with AndrewW--please, no videos! Yes I’m old
I am 21 and I can already attest to this. I grew up with social media and Youtube (although not as emerged as I see people being now), and what brought me to Subtack was exactly this lack of "easy to consume" form of content. The clear webpage layout makes the text stand out and leaves no room for distractions.
I strongly disagree (please see my comment above).
I am old, I drink, I know things and I fix things.
Agree. I'm worried about the "changes". No videos please, otherwise it will be a glorified Instagram, and I've largely abandoned that.
I subscribe to several artists on here who do post videos (drawing and music mostly) and I love these videos! Not all art or intellectualism needs to be "words only". I am officially quite old (in mid-70's) and I find the rejection of anything other than the written word to be short sighted. And several writers on Substack enjoy reading their work on video or even just audio, as another way to connect with their readers. It's lovely! Just because videos are offered, doesn't mean you have to watch any of them! But kindly don't deny this level of engagement for the rest of us.
I'm a believer in the "do one thing, and do it well" mantra.
Hosting video is expensive. Not just in storage space, but also bandwidth. Then, making sure there's no objectionable content in it is hard (and usually handled by the big players by piling out-sourced human labor onto the problem). Then there's also the problem of indexing and ranking video content.
I'd rather see Substack flourish as the #1 home for quality content in writing than have it divert resource into things that established players already do, and let's face it, due to budgets often times do better.
The Internet is built on linkage, and I'd humbly propose that there is always an option to link to Youtube and Instagram (or Nebula, or Tumblr ...).
I add YouTube or Vimeo links to some of my posts and Spotify podcast links for audio to others. I don't think that prevents readers from consuming my content. Are you saying people avoid multimedia posts?
No. I'm merely saying I don't think Substack should divert into becoming a video and images hoster. What you are doing is incidentally exactly what I propose in my post.
I am an artist. Instagram is the place for that, and artists know it. In fact, know it too well.
I’m also an artist, I love Substack for its writing. I was majorly hacked on IG and spent way too many hours trying to rectify it. To no avail, their answer to problems is useless bots so there is absolutely no way to access help. Im done with it for good. It really never worked much to my advantage at any rate.
Yes
Obviously you are not deaf yet?
I add minimal graphics to my articles and the odd video, but I tend to agree with you: the less clutter the better. In fact, I get lost and slightly annoyed when a news article is awash in, say, pasted screen shots of Tweets or whatever. Words are what we're all about here - or should be.
Love love love love the comment. A READING ONLY SITE PLEASE GOD.
I 100% agree with you on this !!! Only words and why not podcast but no video. It would really put me off
I'm a substack reader. I followed my favorite journalist blogger, Tony Ortega, over here from the "fringes of the internet". He's an excellent writer, but the interviews that he posts are also great and essential to his job. I understand the reticence towards adding any type of social media bells and whistles... and agree. But just throwing away videos completely would be short-sighted, I think. If a writer is using vid or audio in conjunction with their writing, that's great. If the creator isn't a writer, then I think they should post their vid/audio stuff elsewhere.
What about people who are deaf?
Transcripts are available.
Not always.
It could be optional: when you sign in for the first time to substack, it could ask you if you want 5 flashcards of the content to be read.
Would that be too intruding/intimidating?
Curious: your age?
I'm 55 and I process everything in the written word. I struggle with the meandering nonsense that passes as a talk show and I don't have the patience to listen to 20 minutes of media when all that is required is a well-written paragraph. I don't want to wear earphones all day and I don't want to watch videos all day. I simply want good quality interesting writing to read without distractions. There have been various attempts at creating curated feeds on line and they start off well and then run out of good content and then think a daily crossword might be good value, or perhaps you might want to listen to a couple.of people waffling about nothing in particular.
Good writing is hard to do, making blogs and podcasts it seems is even harder by the general waikity out there.
If substacknisnfor writers then that's what it should be. I don't want it diluted as a general free for all.media platform..
"I don't have the patience to listen to 20 minutes of media when all that is required is a well-written paragraph." ... you took the words out of my pen. Thankyou.
I also hate video and audio: it's a waste of time to get info! I read much faster!
Yet we must understand that what's important is the message, not the means. If an author wants the message to reach a broader audience, he must adapt to different media types.. like notes! Substack is moving in the right direction, but too slowly.
I mostly agree, but I will try to add the audio of my posts read by myself.
My writing is written to be spoken and even with my accent, I am probably the best person to articulate it.
I would not want to see interviews and talks-shows on Substack either
I wrote a long comment on this post:
https://zorkthehun.substack.com/p/an-open-letter-to-substack
Andrew says it well. Peace, Maurice
Me too
Pray, where's the guarantee that what you find anywhere is "quality writing"?
100% agree.
Also please provide transcripts for deaf people.
Dear God No! There's more than plenty media that does that, ie everything else. Substack is a different model by design. Thankfully. The future will be, assuming we avoid dystopia (not guaranteed by any means!), that we realize and acknowledge that succumbing to the neurological hellscape of total media bombardment was a HUUUGGEE mistake disguised as amusement and content. A la Huxley and Postman. Either Society deals with this at face value, or it ends.
True, we are moving fast-forward towards a digital prison:
https://scientificprogress.substack.com/p/the-plan-revealed
Too many font and format changes for me to read I’m afraid
I am deaf and I have to read transcripts.
Always they say on substack the transcripts will get better BUT they don't.
How many deaf people are there in the world?
What you are advocating is just another website for those who suffer short attention spans. There are millions of those to which millions are already addicted. This website is worth reading and worth supporting financially. Let the “kids” of the world enjoy their short videos and leave Substack just as it is...perfect for those who can read and comprehend. We need a safe place, too.
That's the point: the other platforms have fierce censorship!
Fred, demographics never interested me one iota. And I don't think one needs to be elderly to be prurient; it's not unseemly to want to know someone's age, it's simply irrelevant.
Your comment invites a question: whether you aim to cultivate an audience, to direct your content specifically to "capturing" a certain "demographic". Like drilling for oil. There's little point drilling for it where you know it's not to be found. But, what I suspect many Substack writers do is drill, and see what comes out of the hole. Because what comes out may be conditioned by the manner in which one drills, but does not change the essence of the drill bit.
I invite you to reflect on whether what you suggest in your comment does not in fact run counter to what the piece is actually trying to encourage. Write (or film, video, or whatever) what lies in you and that you wish to tell to the world. If the manner in which you convey your message is ill-chosen, does that denigrate the message? Or does it denigrate the non-reader of the message?
I like that you bring the age question to the fore, yes better contact with the young is of great value to all in the quest for humanities survival. But please NO MORE VIDEOS for our WRITERS Community. Images are fine by me - they tell a story. Far too many video voices are not spoken with any regard at all for the listener. TOO FAST: STUMBLING DELIVERY:TOO MANY COLLOQUIALISMS / BROAD ACCENTS: MONOTONIC:TOO MUCH JARGON: and sadly a few whose voices grate. A video that features the voice of a speaker who cannot be bothered to clearly enunciate... IS A COMMUNICATION FAILURE - However good the rest of the skillset may be. With respect, peace, Maurice
At the risk of being 'that guy', what you point to is exactly why the Maddows of the world vilify it. Which IS interesting.
What do you mean? I've never heard Rachel Maddow say anything about Substack... Can you clarify what you mean?
Max Blumenthal called her out at an event: asked her point blank why she wouldnt/hadn't disavowed the Russiagate nonsense as mis/disinformation. Blumenthal was removed, and Maddow instantly disparaged him as nothing but a substacker or some such BS. It's par for the course.
He's a journalist. Nothing more, nothing less. No one is 'looking up' at anyone. Re: trust...while every journalist has biases (duh), I'd place my trust in the Taibbis, Mates, Greenwalds, Blumenthals, Fangs, before the Maddows, Coopers, Hasans, Carlson, et al. Up until these folks pulled the curtains back on the Establishment (their fucking job!) they were ALL bastions of left-leaning reporting.
Exactly who are the "Maddows of the world" villifying, or do you even know?
Oh ffs. Are you making any relevant point? Doesn't seem so...
Love it here too
A gated community of Nazis sure
What does that mean? Who are you talking to? Who are you talking about?
What is there that makes this medium more amenable for this potential abuse? I don't see that its any different from others. The implication of this claim is that we are foolish enough to accept what is false news and trivial comment as if it were true.
Well for one, its owners refuse to make any comment on having featured a bonfide white supremacist on their podcast or for reposting his “pseudo-apology” when the vile things he posted under a pseudonym were recently exposed. I believe their motive for this is that in our hyper partisan world, such a move might cause his right-wing/libertarian type authors to categorize them or the site as hostile to the right. But there’s a difference from the right and fringe alt-right extremism.
One would think no one should have a problem openly withdrawing support from someone who has called for the eugenics based genocide.
I’m all for varied types of views - even things I don’t agree with or find offensive. But I don’t like thinking that some percentage of my money is helping support people who are too cowardly to condemn that kind of speech.
A one line comment. We are intelligent people please do carry on?
Thank you for adding audio to our posts automatically. Now folks can listen while driving. 👏👂
I am WILDLY impressed that it says my name correctly!!!! 😭😍 Absolutely floored and grateful.
The Substack reading experience just hit the next level.
Agree- great feature! I can listen and multitask, and absorb so much more content!
Or walking or cleaning
I second that Jim!
...and IF you are feaf how does this work?
Some ideas for attracting readers:
First off, I want to say how much I love being on Substack. My mental health has improved since switching my networking efforts to Substack instead of social media. Most engagements here are authentic, and I'm part of a community. Thank you to Chris, Hamish, Mills, and the team.
I'm grateful, and that's why I want to grow together with Substack's improvements. Here's my idea:
Imagine if Substack made it easier to collaborate with filmmakers, musicians, and animators. Elle Griffin has a great article called No one will read your book, which, in part, explains the supply and demand problem. We have too many writers and too few readers. Most successful writers on Substack (unless they were established beforehand) provide information rather than stories and poems. What if we increased the demand for writers on Substack by attracting film students, producers, and music students — people who need writers?
It would also be helpful to have a formatting system that allows for scripts. Almost all the expert advice on Substack boils down to creating a community and collaborating. Screenplays and TV scripts are the best writing forms for collaboration.
Just imagine if Substack writers found people they wanted to write with, wrote a series, combined their networks, and could find producers right here on Substack.
This is just an idea, but I'm definitely curious if it's possible.
Another idea:
The "Writer Bundle" Pitch.
Sometimes I struggle with our Substack newsletters being in a similar price range as Kindle Unlimted, Amazon Prime Video, Apple TV, HBO Max, etc. Plus, we're often more expensive than established magazine subscriptions.
How can a single writer offer the same value as a corporation with content from thousands of writers and artists?
Many agree the answer is offering unique and specialized content that caters to niche interests, providing a personalized experience. This allows readers to connect directly with the writer and support their work.
So, discover what you have to offer, define your niche, tailor your work to what your readers want to read, network with those with a similar audience, and publish consistently at the correct times. In other words, marketing.
Unfortunately, there is only so much time in the day, and as an independent writer, marketing often comes at the expense of quality writing.
This got me thinking. Many of us have a similar niche or audience, so why not create "writer bundles." There are ways to do something similar with multiple publications under the same account, recommendations, and gift subscriptions. Still, we don't have the opportunity to subscribe to 5-10 of our favourite writers for the price of _____.
Yes, it would be discounted, meaning each writer gets paid less than a direct subscription, but it also means more paid subscribers. People who can afford multiple $4-$10 subscriptions will continue to do so. Instead, writer bundles would be a way to attract those who want to read as much high-quality work as possible at the best price.
What do you think?
I love the idea of a multiple writer subscription! Paid subscriptions to everyone I’d love to support is beyond my means. Some kind of bundle subscription would level out the effects of less money per reader for each writer in the bundle by encouraging more paid subscribers overall. I’m sure a lot of writers would prefer at least share of compensation, rather than none (from free subscribers)
Absolutely a great idea....a way to combat "subscription fatigue" and also a way to support writers who really don't supply enough content to justify the full charge (...just sayin')...and also a way to avoid over-dropping.
I agree! Some type of bundle subscription sounds appealing. I’m a single older woman working so hard to retire in a year, but each quality podcast costs, and most Substacks cost, and quality news subscriptions cost, and I just can’t afford hundreds of dollars. I DO want to support quality writing and absolutely want quality reading content, but I can’t afford so many individual subscriptions.! This current pay model doesn’t recognize that people with limited incomes are smart and want to be informed, too. So I choose a couple and sigh when I can’t afford more.
My mental health has also improved from prioritizing this platform over other social media! It's amazing what they've built here when it comes to community.
Yes! I am that person turning away from social media. Substack enriches my life with a sense of new connection and more besides.
I want to second the bundle idea. I would indeed consider myself a "substack reader" but I've maxed out my budget to support substack writers. I would like to be able to spread my budget further, especially to support less established writers. One of my favorites, Anjali Prasertong, Antiracist Dietician (https://anjaliruth.substack.com), had to go on hiatus because she doesn't have enough subscribers to keep going. How can the money be spread around to support the people who aren't well known who are trying to do something different?
Excellent idea. I too wish we could “bundle” with other writers. I’m proud of my writing but in no way do I think it makes sense that someone pays as much for my Substack as they do for Esquire.
Great suggestion. I have considered unsubscribing to some because of only teaser intros, and I don’t have time or money to subscribe to ten or so authors to read a few posts a week or month. Perhaps some solution that allocates income on “reads” not just click on title so merit writing is rewarded.
Allocating money based on reads is *exactly* how you get clickbait, and poorly-but-quickly-written articles. Terrible idea.
I have also wished for “writer bundles”, and hope it will become a reality.
Bundling is a business model and is the thin edge of the wedge to devalue a writers worth, on mass and at scale.
Remember, music creators experienced the calamitous decline in income via streaming aggregators and the departure from creator patronage to consumer convenience via the subscription model.
That's a really good point. This could get into a whole new debate about whether streaming has benefitted or hurt more musicians, but what do you think about something like "pay to subscribe to my newsletter, you can get a discount to any of the newsletters I recommend (if those writers approve that)?" Elle Griffen mentioned that, and I think it would be much easier to implement. Do you see this devaluing writer as well? *Edit* Noticed Mike Sowden posted this article about bundles. Maybe it wouldn't devalue writers... https://www.listenupih.com/every/
I appreciate your thoughts here Nolan but regarding the benefit of recommendation driven subscription bundles it falls into the power law (Pareto) math space. What once was a democratised space rapidly becomes a concentrator of wealth benefitting the tiny proportion of influential actors. It’s game theory and a no brained for aggregators of content to simplify & concentrate the wealth generated by the platform.
I’m not making a moral claim here, it’s a feature & a bug of the digital space.
I was just thinking about this as I read the replies. If Substack introduced a bundle, I would bet they’d include the big names who already pay who will get newsletter everyday from their favorites. Issue is as you mentioned: concentration of wealth. Then little guys have to band together for a pittance each when they just don’t have the wide audience to command higher prices.
Substack has stayed on course with its model and while I’m sure people wish they could get things for less, how much less? Are we just used to criminally low prices for things?
Hey Chevanne
I agree with you regarding the immediate asymmetry this bundle concept would introduce into the Substack system.
If you follow the logic of critical power theory, the first piece of the puzzle is the first step you mentioned; concentration of influence (“big names” ) into a monetisation class at the expense of those not enjoying such influence (“little guys”).
Reminds me of the old truism “follow the money” conflating to “follow the influence”. Which leads me to the misnomer of trickle down economics who’s adherents would argue subscription based models promote wealth downstream..
Well, take at look at the subscription based monoliths of Spotify & Netflix who keep posting losses to see how wealth is being syphoned from the creative class IMHO.
Some people like me are not rich! I would love to subscribe to more.
Bundling doesn't have to be an either/or proposition. Both/and is an excellent idea. Perhaps the most popular writers can continue individual subscriptions and the writers who are struggling to build an audience could participate in a bundling idea. Perhaps bundled by interest/genre, perhaps in a magazine concept where readers can browse the magazine and discover new writers in their field of interest. Perhaps the SS newsstand (see picture above) could have a bunch of different topical magazines we could browse thru for one monthly subscription. That would allow us to always support our favored writers and read their work consistently, yet also allow for relaxed reading, discovery, ideas, and offer writers who are trying to be discovered an outlet that showcases their work and provides at least some level of support. And, to stay within our budget.
Or, maybe SS could offer reseller services that allows others to curate, aggregate, collate and publish a collection of different writers (who choose to participate) in a magazine style format. We already see that in many of the popular 'stacks that pull together the interesting essays they have read and make one post out of it with links to the different writers. That would offer a host of new discovery possibilities, supporting both readers and writers, and a new participant, the publisher.
I'm certain these smart folks are already all over this. Possibilities are exciting, and endless, and if designed to support the readers/writers instead of the company, really beneficial to restoring reading to our culture.
Agreed on attracting more readers. I think there’s should be a reader only profile that doesn’t require much set up. It’ll be easier for people outside the ecosystem to stay engaged and find great Substacks.
Agreed on screenwriting format. It’s probably the few shortcomings of this platform is the inability to justify text, text wrap around photos, and have single space poetry (without having to hit Shift Enter).
If we’re going to do a bundle, we should have individuals agree to be part of the package. I’m not sure what limits Substack would place on that type of collaboration but I’m not sure they want a big time publication budding out of Substack. Might be wrong.
We make these comparisons to big media houses but NYT owns prime real estate in Manhattan. I don’t. So it’s a lot harder for an individual to lowball their price when it may be a one-person show. We could try pay per article or tip per article model which would maybe help lower a monthly subscription but I don’t know about that level of tedium. I’m sure Substack has considered all the ways this platform could get out of hand.
Thanks for adding all of this. Also, I love the idea of a "reader-only profile that doesn't require much setup." This could grow Substack into the creators of Substack often write could. I have a tip jar at the bottom of most of my articles. I have seen some readers ask for them in the comments of other writers. I don't know much it helps, though.
I am prepared to write for free..so should everyone on here.
BUT How do I do this?
Why is it even necessary to demand money?
No one is demanding money but we are talented people, why shouldn’t we have the choice to use that to make a living? It’s clear with the writer’s strike that the talent makes the money for the network but little is left over for the individual. While not a replacement, it is definitely a place to increase your profile, hone your talent, and accept different opportunities.
This is a platform like any other that can be monetized and if people can do that to offset the cost of their projects or simply accept encouragement for good work, then I don’t see the problem. It’s not easy producing work and some are doing incredible work that takes up a lot of time.
My powerful and informative substack is FREE: Critically Thinking about Societal Issues. I typically post every week, and more if warranted. Here is my latest commentary — and you will not find anything comparable anywhere: <https://criticallythinking.substack.com/p/the-fda-can-say-and-do-anything-it>.
Great ideas!
Re. bundling, there's a good example of the power of doing this - the folk running the Every bundle/collective/whatever-it-is: https://www.listenupih.com/every/
I’d be interested to see if you could select the newsletters you want for another price. 5 newsletters for $10 or something like that.
Yes! This was precisely what I was thinking. However, rather than leave Substack, I thought of doing it here. I saw they used Ghost. I used Ghost at first. I went for Ghost because they don't take a percentage, they are carbon neutral, more customizable, and nonprofit, but I switched to Substack because the community is so much stronger here. However, I would LOVE to team up with several Substack writers to create a bundle newsletter on Ghost where we transfer over our articles. That way, we can continue being part of Substack but also benefit from the potential of Ghost (and be part of a carbon-neutral nonprofit).
Good idea as long as there is an opt-in/opt-out model.
Yes, that would be a must.
Good idea!
There is a very easy way to support multiple writers on a budget, and that's to purchase single monthly subscriptions. For the price of a sinlge one year subscription you can "buy a cup of coffee" for a dozen writers. In fact there are writers from the UK (Laura K for one) who are set up to ask for just that. A big advantage of this is that it releaves Substack of an enormous administrative burden. But on the other hand it requires some thought and planning on the part of the readers. Deshalb wird es nicht passieren, glaube ich.
“A Substack reader is someone who might be on the verge of opting out of online media because of their aversion to the toxicity of their social feeds. It’s someone who wants high-quality news and culture. It’s someone who’s willing to consider a range of sources, even ones that challenge their assumptions. It’s someone who wants to find a way to be online with dignity.”
I’m a Substack reader, not a writer, and that’s exactly how I landed here. I no longer have Twitter, Facebook, or Instagram. Only Substack. I am *begging* you to stick to what you’ve outlined here and not become another gross platform.
Seconded. I subscribe to over 200 (yes, 200!) publications. I really love the feel of Substack and I my keen hope is that they don’t monkey with it too much. (Search could be way better, though). I don’t know if I’ll ever start my own newsletter, but I really enjoy commenting on what I read and sharing stuff in Notes. I feel like Goldilocks; everything about this site right now is just right.
Sure would like the ability to edit comments in the app, though.
I’m with you.
Substack is for people who read and write. I don’t want video clips and headlines, I want accurate and sourced information as well as authentic and creative writing.
We know that “they” are purposely trying to manipulate our attention spans and imaginations so please Substack - don’t participate in the same forms of hacking our brains!! Instant gratification is the death of our mental wellness.
Thank you to Chris, Hamish, Mills, and team for creating the best reading experience on the internet. What we read matters, just like what we eat. A healthy information diet is critical to good mental health and a better understanding of our beautiful, chaotic world. I have built my own newspaper by subscribing to over 100 Substacks.
Please continue to protect free speech: https://yuribezmenov.substack.com/p/how-to-make-substack-the-greatest-network
Our Substacks seem to be in the same ballpark so would you be interested in swapping free subs? (ie make me no. 101 and I do likewise)
I am already a Substack reader and there is no going back!!!! This is the future of reading!
Hi Elle…..agree. The future of creating and getting your writing to readers is so promising here on Substack.
“We thought we were going to live in the Library of Alexandria; instead we’re wading through its sewers hoping to find wisdom on wet pages pasted to the walls.”
Oof. Well put.
Substack is doing a really fantastic job of prioritizing community, much better than other platforms. Features like Recommendations and setting up Weekly Office Hours -- this isn't seen on other platforms that I've been on. I've met so many brilliant people on this platform.
What I first thought was going to be my own website a la Tumblr has turned into my favourite place on the internet to learn, connect, and share. Something about the culture and safety of this place makes it really easy to be vulnerable and ultimately build real connections.
Really excited to see this ecosystem develop and build. I have thought a lot about how substack has given so much to it's writers, and supported our growth without prioritizing just certain/popular voices like traditional media; but when I ask friends who read Substack how they are using it, where they read it (in email or on the app) and how many Substack newsletters they are reading, it seems to be far, far less (in some cases, just one newsletter) than those of us who are also writers here. Looking forward to seeing this shift.
I love Substack! I will continue to support it until my wallet says “Whoa girl.” It is my “go to” every morning. I value the smart and thoughtful writers! THANK YOU! And, I also value the hundreds of smart and thoughtful readers who reply THANK YOU!
I live in the rural South and my county is 85% republicans (Virginia Foxx!) and I’m sure the vast majority of those are MAGA. The Trump 2024 signs are already up in their yards. The first thing someone asks you when they meet you is “where do you go to church” I thank the Good Lord for you Substack. (How’s that for Southern speak?)
Do you attend church?
I do like Substack a lot, and would *love* to love it. But the subsciption model is a problem. There is no way I'm going to pay more to Substack, per month, than I pay for all my subscription services combined (Netflix, Prime Video, etc.). In fact, psychologically I am unwilling to pay more than about 40€/month in total - so, I can (and do) subscribe to only 5-7 stacks.
I seriously doubt I am the only person to feel this way. The model needs to change. Either you introduce a flat rate plan (like all other services): say, 30 or 40/month and you can read *any* article on Substack, with authors getting compensated for both subscribers and individual "read-article" events. Or you introduce a plan whereby subscriptions go down (dramatically) in price the more subs you have. So readers pay full price for their first 2 subs, but half price from 2 to 6, 1€/1$ for each sub from 7 to 10, and then 0.50€/$ above 10. Under either of these plans I'd pay more to Substack authors (total), and I'd read a lot more authors.
You make a good point here. There are several Substacks that I would love to have subscriptions to, but I can’t realistically afford access to all of them, and I’m sure that they’re saving their best content for the paid subscribers.
You are certainly not the only person who feels this way. It’s not a sustainable model.
Came here to say this. They never seem to engage with this question.
I've invested a lot of time into writing on this platform, and I did so because I thought what Substack was trying to do was very important for the direction of our society. I really like the way everything is set up here because it places a lot of trust in both the authors and users and incentivizes writers making good quality content that helps rather than harms the readers. To be honest, I am astounded by how much support I have gotten from this platform and how much growth it has facilitated for me.
Lastly, I also know a lot of the leading authors here, and I've been consistently surprised at how strong of a commitment Substack has made to supporting free speech (this includes that which I and my colleagues disagree with), and this has made me hopeful Substack will continue to do as it is doing for a while.
I LOVE your substack!
Mee too!!!
I love substack!
Thank you for your constant efforts to improve this platform -- a truly unique place to be involved with. Makes me proud to be involved with.
MAKE YOUR GARDEN A MASTERPIECE
If you spend time chasing butterflies, they’ll fly away.
If you spend your time making your garden beautiful, the butterflies will come to you.
~ Unknown
I just planted 6 Joe Pye Weed plants. Already have butterflies :)
That’s fantastic!
Love that
Thanks Claire! I think I came across it somewhere on social media without attribution. I liked it so much I wrote it down. 🌸🌺🌻🪷
I love the invite to write something down from socials - that’s so nice!
There's something magic about putting it down in ink!
Yes I really felt that! ✨
Grateful for this, as a writer and reader, too. 💛
Me too!!
layover in Dallas, and I just overheard someone say, when asked if they wanted a copy of the NYT, “no thanks, I have Substack.”
This is actually a fantastic anecdote - much more powerful than might at first strike us.
If SubStack really is/is to be a true 𝘮𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 - nea - a paradigm shift in media production & consumption - then this is what the leading edge of such a movement looks like, on the ground, in an airport.
Folks, this is why I'm here.
I stand against the dumbification of the Internet, and while it often feels like I'm urinating into the wind, in fact my readers here are engaged and thinking much more than I've seen anywhere else.
We are having nuanced, meaningful conversations.
Idiocracy is happening across the Internet, but there are pockets like Substack where smarter folks are having a good time. Let's keep this place smart. The world really, really needs this right now.