If you happen to be unfamiliar with the journalistic side of my professional background, I’ve been dabbling in journalism for over 15 years. I’ve worked as an editor at times, created my own publication during the dot com boom (with about 600k readers a month), have been a correspondent for
Just thinking aloud, and this is probably too obvious to need saying...
If clicks on the site itself can generate income, what about structuring it so that the big earners subsidize the lesser earners? I.e., you make the site itself a draw -- several blogs I can think of are, despite starting from nothing -- and you have a variety of contributors. You have some clickbait material, and you pay perhaps a bit less to the writers of those and pass the savings along to the writers of more earnest pieces. The clickbait writers get a venue and get easy cash, and the more serious writers have a chance to do more serious work.
"Substacks like mine, which don’t really have any interest in that, don’t tend to do so well. People aren’t as motivated to financially support unless they are deeply passionate about some issue (and to the few of you who’ve supported me despite the fact that I don’t fit into any of these boxes, I owe you my deepest of gratitudes).
Unfortunately, it’s just not sustainable in the long term beyond a hobby."
its really hard not to keep finding different facets in this piece like a gem held to light....i read on substack something about that there are no real "hobbies" but passions. You do what you have to do and yes in the meantime pay the bills. They say also if you write as if it is directed at one person you respect, whose opinions you admire without being beholden to, it can be liberating.
Money grounds us all or perhaps "grinds" is a better word.....
i have noticed the fact checking has deteriorated over the years and that process is what actually separates "journalism" from "fiction" no? ha! this is a pleasure to read and i hope you will/can continue this "hobby" and keep the interest in long form excellent journalism alive in your own work and that of others
I think long-term Substack will have to adjust the way they charge for content, possibly three ways to publish content. One is free, and two paid.
Paid A will be exactly as it is today. Some content is super specific and people will pay--it seems especially for investment subscriptions.
The Paid B version will be a flat fee. Any publisher not in Plan A can have plan B and would get paid based on the number of reads divided by total reads in the Substack community. If I remember correctly that's how Medium first started???
The way Substack generates revenue now won't be sustainable because it is simply too expensive to the reader base. This was the main reason that I didn't invest in their most recent investor round.
OK. Like a Beatles hit. 2:59 is it. All that you have to fascinate your readers. Continue to entertain, enlighten, and connect with constant content. You are a unique voice. 2:59 is it. Edit everything to this unique frequency. Proud of you Madame B ;)
I think it is already your second article about this subject, and based on that I can say that it worries you. The topic of monetization is very interesting for me as well, as I am in the process of transforming my life and have questions about how I can make a living mainly using my brain, not my hands. My quest is different than yours. You are looking into the world, finding what is exciting and important to you, and then writing about it. I, on the other hand, have to look inside myself and channel whatever comes. But the problem is similar: we both are trying to do what we like and think this is our life's purpose. The only problem is finding a way to make a comfortable living out of it.
As I see it, there is no objective reality. You may disagree with me on this, but this is the main point of my post. There is no objective reality. Every one of us "lives" in our heads; we basically create our life ourselves, consciously or unconsciously, and then experience it. First, we have thoughts based on our core beliefs, then experience emotions, then produce actions. By the way, most of the time, we don't even need to do that; the reality we thought of appears in front of us. We call it an accident, a happy accident, or an unfortunate accident. The truth is: there are no accidents; there are experiences we produce or need to go through for our spiritual development and awakening. Let's look at our financial struggle from this perspective. Obviously, the answer to the problems lies not outside of us (changing economy, new technologies, or different society) but inside our heads. We are in a vicious circle. We think in specific ways based on past experiences and information. Based on our thoughts and emotions, we get new experiences that confirm our beliefs and thoughts. Yes, life is constantly changing, creating the illusion of change in our lives, but in reality, everything remains in its place. As I see it, the only way to escape this "truth" is to start creating a new reality in our heads. This is not easy and will take time, focus, and determination. But most of all, it requires a different state of consciousness and maintaining it at a certain level. Of course, despite everything I said, it doesn't mean we need to do nothing. Contrary, we need to take active steps toward our new future and firmly believe that it is now, here, even if it is only in our heads.
I have no ready answers but find I'm sorta tapped out in terms of subscriptions. I get my local paper at ~ $450/year. Then Medium, print Wired, Newsweek, AARP and Fortune. Then multiple SubStack writers. I'm likely going to ditch Fortune because they are preoccupied with females in business - shoving it hard.
I'd like to support more on SubStack but really can't afford more, besides I find I'm getting flooded beyond my ability to really adsorb it all. I really enjoy the comment sections which often brings even more light to the article topic; of course, some are venting but at least not too much trolling.
Part of the dilemma of the publishing world lies with the adverts and the domination by Google. Then we see the advertisers even dominating content of mass media, perhaps Carlson was a victim of their wrath. I suspect their control goes much deeper which means the mass media is no longer free speech. Perhaps the loss of objective, real journalism might be connected to corporate controls to suit themselves rather than inform the public. As government becomes a partner of corporations we arrive at a degree of public evil.
I am not a journalist but attended a university with a journalism school from which my best friend (and roommate for almost 8 years) graduated (and went on mostly to work in trade publications). I have always loved newspapers, the feel of them in my hands, the randomness of what you might find on page 17. Today, as a semi retired but curious individual, I subscribe to only three papers, two of which I receive in digital format plus my twice weekly local paper. I subscribe to the NYT because of the breadth of its coverage. I can read about art, sports, politics, business and entertainment and cap my experience with the crossword and/or the wordle. Of course I also spend some time on line and I look for interesting takes on subjects ranging from astronomy to international culinary delights. Im also a rocket nerd and like to think of where we are all headed next. One of the reasons its more difficult today for a reader is that there is so much available and therefor become difficult to decide both how to spend my time, and my money (the former perhaps more challenging even though I don’t have a huge pile of the latter). To say things were simpler 50 years ago is an understatement.
As a former journalist who fled the industry because of all of this (I was at the Daily Beast last, you can only imagine what I saw), I think this is spot on. I wish I had an alternative to offer, though. IMO, subscriptions are probably the best bet--at least for survival if you don't want to go the click-bait route. But that isn't always a true fix because then you have to be beholden to your subscribers, in a sense, and try not to publish things that might turn them away. It's a rough game these days. I have much to criticize about the industry, but at the end of the day, apart from being funded by a billionaire (which has its own problems) I'm not entirely sure what other alternatives are out there.
Just thinking aloud, and this is probably too obvious to need saying...
If clicks on the site itself can generate income, what about structuring it so that the big earners subsidize the lesser earners? I.e., you make the site itself a draw -- several blogs I can think of are, despite starting from nothing -- and you have a variety of contributors. You have some clickbait material, and you pay perhaps a bit less to the writers of those and pass the savings along to the writers of more earnest pieces. The clickbait writers get a venue and get easy cash, and the more serious writers have a chance to do more serious work.
Does that make sense?
"Substacks like mine, which don’t really have any interest in that, don’t tend to do so well. People aren’t as motivated to financially support unless they are deeply passionate about some issue (and to the few of you who’ve supported me despite the fact that I don’t fit into any of these boxes, I owe you my deepest of gratitudes).
Unfortunately, it’s just not sustainable in the long term beyond a hobby."
its really hard not to keep finding different facets in this piece like a gem held to light....i read on substack something about that there are no real "hobbies" but passions. You do what you have to do and yes in the meantime pay the bills. They say also if you write as if it is directed at one person you respect, whose opinions you admire without being beholden to, it can be liberating.
Money grounds us all or perhaps "grinds" is a better word.....
i have noticed the fact checking has deteriorated over the years and that process is what actually separates "journalism" from "fiction" no? ha! this is a pleasure to read and i hope you will/can continue this "hobby" and keep the interest in long form excellent journalism alive in your own work and that of others
I think long-term Substack will have to adjust the way they charge for content, possibly three ways to publish content. One is free, and two paid.
Paid A will be exactly as it is today. Some content is super specific and people will pay--it seems especially for investment subscriptions.
The Paid B version will be a flat fee. Any publisher not in Plan A can have plan B and would get paid based on the number of reads divided by total reads in the Substack community. If I remember correctly that's how Medium first started???
The way Substack generates revenue now won't be sustainable because it is simply too expensive to the reader base. This was the main reason that I didn't invest in their most recent investor round.
OK. Like a Beatles hit. 2:59 is it. All that you have to fascinate your readers. Continue to entertain, enlighten, and connect with constant content. You are a unique voice. 2:59 is it. Edit everything to this unique frequency. Proud of you Madame B ;)
I think it is already your second article about this subject, and based on that I can say that it worries you. The topic of monetization is very interesting for me as well, as I am in the process of transforming my life and have questions about how I can make a living mainly using my brain, not my hands. My quest is different than yours. You are looking into the world, finding what is exciting and important to you, and then writing about it. I, on the other hand, have to look inside myself and channel whatever comes. But the problem is similar: we both are trying to do what we like and think this is our life's purpose. The only problem is finding a way to make a comfortable living out of it.
As I see it, there is no objective reality. You may disagree with me on this, but this is the main point of my post. There is no objective reality. Every one of us "lives" in our heads; we basically create our life ourselves, consciously or unconsciously, and then experience it. First, we have thoughts based on our core beliefs, then experience emotions, then produce actions. By the way, most of the time, we don't even need to do that; the reality we thought of appears in front of us. We call it an accident, a happy accident, or an unfortunate accident. The truth is: there are no accidents; there are experiences we produce or need to go through for our spiritual development and awakening. Let's look at our financial struggle from this perspective. Obviously, the answer to the problems lies not outside of us (changing economy, new technologies, or different society) but inside our heads. We are in a vicious circle. We think in specific ways based on past experiences and information. Based on our thoughts and emotions, we get new experiences that confirm our beliefs and thoughts. Yes, life is constantly changing, creating the illusion of change in our lives, but in reality, everything remains in its place. As I see it, the only way to escape this "truth" is to start creating a new reality in our heads. This is not easy and will take time, focus, and determination. But most of all, it requires a different state of consciousness and maintaining it at a certain level. Of course, despite everything I said, it doesn't mean we need to do nothing. Contrary, we need to take active steps toward our new future and firmly believe that it is now, here, even if it is only in our heads.
I have no ready answers but find I'm sorta tapped out in terms of subscriptions. I get my local paper at ~ $450/year. Then Medium, print Wired, Newsweek, AARP and Fortune. Then multiple SubStack writers. I'm likely going to ditch Fortune because they are preoccupied with females in business - shoving it hard.
I'd like to support more on SubStack but really can't afford more, besides I find I'm getting flooded beyond my ability to really adsorb it all. I really enjoy the comment sections which often brings even more light to the article topic; of course, some are venting but at least not too much trolling.
Part of the dilemma of the publishing world lies with the adverts and the domination by Google. Then we see the advertisers even dominating content of mass media, perhaps Carlson was a victim of their wrath. I suspect their control goes much deeper which means the mass media is no longer free speech. Perhaps the loss of objective, real journalism might be connected to corporate controls to suit themselves rather than inform the public. As government becomes a partner of corporations we arrive at a degree of public evil.
We need new models but won't get them easily.
You are right on, as usual. I cross-posted this piece. Hope it brings you some traffic.
"What other financial models could work to address some of the issues around journalism?"
The answer is very, very simple: the non-profit world. The vast majority of journalism that I've done in my career was subsidized by 501(c)3s.
I am not a journalist but attended a university with a journalism school from which my best friend (and roommate for almost 8 years) graduated (and went on mostly to work in trade publications). I have always loved newspapers, the feel of them in my hands, the randomness of what you might find on page 17. Today, as a semi retired but curious individual, I subscribe to only three papers, two of which I receive in digital format plus my twice weekly local paper. I subscribe to the NYT because of the breadth of its coverage. I can read about art, sports, politics, business and entertainment and cap my experience with the crossword and/or the wordle. Of course I also spend some time on line and I look for interesting takes on subjects ranging from astronomy to international culinary delights. Im also a rocket nerd and like to think of where we are all headed next. One of the reasons its more difficult today for a reader is that there is so much available and therefor become difficult to decide both how to spend my time, and my money (the former perhaps more challenging even though I don’t have a huge pile of the latter). To say things were simpler 50 years ago is an understatement.
Respectfully, there’s a typo here: “I’ve been dabbling in *journalist*...”
As a former journalist who fled the industry because of all of this (I was at the Daily Beast last, you can only imagine what I saw), I think this is spot on. I wish I had an alternative to offer, though. IMO, subscriptions are probably the best bet--at least for survival if you don't want to go the click-bait route. But that isn't always a true fix because then you have to be beholden to your subscribers, in a sense, and try not to publish things that might turn them away. It's a rough game these days. I have much to criticize about the industry, but at the end of the day, apart from being funded by a billionaire (which has its own problems) I'm not entirely sure what other alternatives are out there.