I know the focus of this piece is TikTok creators but too many of us with subscribers in the hundreds are at the mercy of your algorithm. Notes is a lottery, in my daily experience. I'm not seeing a concerted effort from Substack to draw attention to emerging writers.
The recommendations feature is a useful way to give someone a leg up – …
I know the focus of this piece is TikTok creators but too many of us with subscribers in the hundreds are at the mercy of your algorithm. Notes is a lottery, in my daily experience. I'm not seeing a concerted effort from Substack to draw attention to emerging writers.
The recommendations feature is a useful way to give someone a leg up – I'm dubious about offering multiple recs in a subscriber sign-up flow – but I don't know if writers at all levels are benefitting.
SmallStack is doing good work to plug the gap and build a community outside the big leagues.
I was reading a piece by beehiiv's Tyler Denk earlier, who offered this illustration –
"So, let's break publishers into two categories:
The breadwinners: The top 1% who generate most of the revenue for the company.
Everyone else: The long tail of users who feed the breadwinners and make the system go.
Said differently: if you’re not a breadwinner on Substack, you’re the yeast. The yeast is responsible for driving app downloads, granting access to their social graph, and funneling their readers towards the platform’s top earners.
These publishers attract their own followers (with their own dollars) and leverage their own social networks to introduce new readers to the platform. Substack then uses algorithmic recommendations and “community” features to direct these audiences to their most lucrative writers, ensuring that the long tail of creators supports and enriches the top earners."
Amar, thank you for your thought provoking analysis of the long tail. I'm looking forward to reading your rec. This is a wicked problem and I want to appreciate Substack for their vision and work so far for all of us to flourish, authors, readers, and Substack, fairly and sustainably. ICYMI, Hamish in response to similar concerns (on Notes not here on longform) has offered to have our CTO answer some of the concerns and my questions for CTO are restacked here: https://substack.com/@anitacoleman/note/c-81119962
Some really good questions on that other comment of yours, Anita. In my opinion, discoverability and nurturing emerging writers across all subject areas should be key priorities on this platform. Substack has given agency and encouragement to lots of hopeful writers and facilitated the community many of us feel part of. But they can go further.
FYI I've been on here for a year, publishing fortnightly at length on arts and culture, posting Notes daily in different forms and spending at least 30 minutes a day commenting on posts and discussions. I have 102 subscribers. Hamish has written that, "The Substack feed is designed to maximize engagement with deeper content, by driving people to posts and episodes." I'm not seeing that.
Occasionally, articles with hundreds of likes pop up and they are illuminating. But these writers are of a certain popularity, with more than 1,000 followers. I've had to go hunting via comments for talented writers with far smaller followings who can't be found.
Of course, I'll restack, comment or recommend. These are useful features to help us support one another. However, back to Notes, too often I see faux self-deprecation memes at how few subscribers x has or calls for reciprocal subscribing, or I'm new to Substack…
Amar, I completely agree—discoverability and supporting emerging writers should be central priorities for Substack which seeks to be a driving force in the creators' economy and global culture; they seem to be offering a space for independent and diverse voices to thrive, much like the ancient Tamil Sanghams of southern India in the Common Era or the literary salons of the European Renaissance — though far more accessible and democratized for the world. It’s clear that the platform has given many writers a sense of agency and community, but there’s definitely room for improvement in terms of visibility for smaller voices.
Thank you for sharing the challenges you’re facing with finding and being discovered by new audiences.Your efforts to engage with others through comments, restacks, and recommendations are really helping to build a supportive community, I’m sure, and are a great example besides! That said, it’s clear that Substack could do more to ease the discovery process, so writers don’t have to work so hard to reach new readers.
I’m tracking all this feedback and plan to write more about it soon. Thanks again for sharing your perspective—I really appreciate your honest input.
I'd like to believe that this platform can help develop writers' careers at all levels. Discoverability could be better. A few tweaks on the tech front are needed. Reconfiguring the Notes algorithm to give more weight to long form and emerging writers over memes and power publishers would be a good start. Rewarding restacks with comments… that type of thing.
Amar, This is wonderful! I’m planning to add this to my curated list of features that writers have requested to enhance their experience here on Substack—including your suggestions. More to come soon. Thanks.
It is not happening. The enshittification of this platform has begun in the form of Notes filled with click/ragebait headlines mostly hawking articles that land somewhere on the "culture wars" spectrum. True growth and the promised returns can only happen IRL in the analog world.
Thank you so much for the kind words and taking the time and effort to engage. Just to clarify, Amar and I aren’t colleagues, but rather two writers who, like many of us, have noticed the implications of Substack’s business model (long tail) and its architecture (centralization), care about the future of long-tail authors (and readers) here, many of whom have voiced similar concerns about Substack's direction, and want sustainable flourishing for all of us.
ICYMI. The fundamental long tail dilemma means there’s no direct financial incentive for Substack to solve issues like decentralization or the limitations of its tech architecture. We both appear to understand the signals around Substack's current trajectory—particularly as it enters its 7th year, grappling with monetization efforts, the potential for new ownership, and features that don’t always benefit the writers who came here for engagement and meaningful discourse.
I love your lecture hall and classroom analogies. It captures the kind of open exchange we all hope to find and this kind of thoughtful dialogue is still happening on some writers' Substacks (I mean through the long-form posts). However, the way Substack’s Notes algorithm works, with its emphasis on social media-style engagement, isn’t serving smaller, new writers as we hoped. It’s a burden, and worse, a distraction. All this just reinforces the tension between what Substack aims to do and the realities of its current model. (I'm working on a longer essay, have posted comments, and Notes -e.g. 'Substack Games: How Fair is a 'Sovereign Creator' Model?' where paid writers end up subsidizing free writers and readers. https://substack.com/@anitacoleman/note/c-80871620?)
Still, I remain supportive of Substack and hopeful that their spaces like this can preserve what’s most valuable—real engagement and meaningful discourse for building a global knowledge culture, and inspiring a curiosity culture for human well-being. I appreciate your belief in those of us trying to bring thoughtful writing and dialogue to the forefront. Thank you again for your support—your words mean a lot. All the best!
PS. I look forward to continuing the conversation!
I know the focus of this piece is TikTok creators but too many of us with subscribers in the hundreds are at the mercy of your algorithm. Notes is a lottery, in my daily experience. I'm not seeing a concerted effort from Substack to draw attention to emerging writers.
The recommendations feature is a useful way to give someone a leg up – I'm dubious about offering multiple recs in a subscriber sign-up flow – but I don't know if writers at all levels are benefitting.
SmallStack is doing good work to plug the gap and build a community outside the big leagues.
I was reading a piece by beehiiv's Tyler Denk earlier, who offered this illustration –
"So, let's break publishers into two categories:
The breadwinners: The top 1% who generate most of the revenue for the company.
Everyone else: The long tail of users who feed the breadwinners and make the system go.
Said differently: if you’re not a breadwinner on Substack, you’re the yeast. The yeast is responsible for driving app downloads, granting access to their social graph, and funneling their readers towards the platform’s top earners.
These publishers attract their own followers (with their own dollars) and leverage their own social networks to introduce new readers to the platform. Substack then uses algorithmic recommendations and “community” features to direct these audiences to their most lucrative writers, ensuring that the long tail of creators supports and enriches the top earners."
In fact, a response to the whole thing would very useful, please: https://mail.bigdeskenergy.com/p/death-by-thousand-substacks
Amar, thank you for your thought provoking analysis of the long tail. I'm looking forward to reading your rec. This is a wicked problem and I want to appreciate Substack for their vision and work so far for all of us to flourish, authors, readers, and Substack, fairly and sustainably. ICYMI, Hamish in response to similar concerns (on Notes not here on longform) has offered to have our CTO answer some of the concerns and my questions for CTO are restacked here: https://substack.com/@anitacoleman/note/c-81119962
Some really good questions on that other comment of yours, Anita. In my opinion, discoverability and nurturing emerging writers across all subject areas should be key priorities on this platform. Substack has given agency and encouragement to lots of hopeful writers and facilitated the community many of us feel part of. But they can go further.
FYI I've been on here for a year, publishing fortnightly at length on arts and culture, posting Notes daily in different forms and spending at least 30 minutes a day commenting on posts and discussions. I have 102 subscribers. Hamish has written that, "The Substack feed is designed to maximize engagement with deeper content, by driving people to posts and episodes." I'm not seeing that.
Occasionally, articles with hundreds of likes pop up and they are illuminating. But these writers are of a certain popularity, with more than 1,000 followers. I've had to go hunting via comments for talented writers with far smaller followings who can't be found.
Of course, I'll restack, comment or recommend. These are useful features to help us support one another. However, back to Notes, too often I see faux self-deprecation memes at how few subscribers x has or calls for reciprocal subscribing, or I'm new to Substack…
Amar, I completely agree—discoverability and supporting emerging writers should be central priorities for Substack which seeks to be a driving force in the creators' economy and global culture; they seem to be offering a space for independent and diverse voices to thrive, much like the ancient Tamil Sanghams of southern India in the Common Era or the literary salons of the European Renaissance — though far more accessible and democratized for the world. It’s clear that the platform has given many writers a sense of agency and community, but there’s definitely room for improvement in terms of visibility for smaller voices.
Thank you for sharing the challenges you’re facing with finding and being discovered by new audiences.Your efforts to engage with others through comments, restacks, and recommendations are really helping to build a supportive community, I’m sure, and are a great example besides! That said, it’s clear that Substack could do more to ease the discovery process, so writers don’t have to work so hard to reach new readers.
I’m tracking all this feedback and plan to write more about it soon. Thanks again for sharing your perspective—I really appreciate your honest input.
Exactly this. Thank you! I'm definitely not seeing the growth and returns that have bee promised over and over.
I'd like to believe that this platform can help develop writers' careers at all levels. Discoverability could be better. A few tweaks on the tech front are needed. Reconfiguring the Notes algorithm to give more weight to long form and emerging writers over memes and power publishers would be a good start. Rewarding restacks with comments… that type of thing.
Amar, This is wonderful! I’m planning to add this to my curated list of features that writers have requested to enhance their experience here on Substack—including your suggestions. More to come soon. Thanks.
It is not happening. The enshittification of this platform has begun in the form of Notes filled with click/ragebait headlines mostly hawking articles that land somewhere on the "culture wars" spectrum. True growth and the promised returns can only happen IRL in the analog world.
David,
Thank you so much for the kind words and taking the time and effort to engage. Just to clarify, Amar and I aren’t colleagues, but rather two writers who, like many of us, have noticed the implications of Substack’s business model (long tail) and its architecture (centralization), care about the future of long-tail authors (and readers) here, many of whom have voiced similar concerns about Substack's direction, and want sustainable flourishing for all of us.
ICYMI. The fundamental long tail dilemma means there’s no direct financial incentive for Substack to solve issues like decentralization or the limitations of its tech architecture. We both appear to understand the signals around Substack's current trajectory—particularly as it enters its 7th year, grappling with monetization efforts, the potential for new ownership, and features that don’t always benefit the writers who came here for engagement and meaningful discourse.
I love your lecture hall and classroom analogies. It captures the kind of open exchange we all hope to find and this kind of thoughtful dialogue is still happening on some writers' Substacks (I mean through the long-form posts). However, the way Substack’s Notes algorithm works, with its emphasis on social media-style engagement, isn’t serving smaller, new writers as we hoped. It’s a burden, and worse, a distraction. All this just reinforces the tension between what Substack aims to do and the realities of its current model. (I'm working on a longer essay, have posted comments, and Notes -e.g. 'Substack Games: How Fair is a 'Sovereign Creator' Model?' where paid writers end up subsidizing free writers and readers. https://substack.com/@anitacoleman/note/c-80871620?)
Still, I remain supportive of Substack and hopeful that their spaces like this can preserve what’s most valuable—real engagement and meaningful discourse for building a global knowledge culture, and inspiring a curiosity culture for human well-being. I appreciate your belief in those of us trying to bring thoughtful writing and dialogue to the forefront. Thank you again for your support—your words mean a lot. All the best!
PS. I look forward to continuing the conversation!