3 ms·
> in which case we take a fee: 10% for people who start during the beta. Why take a cut from the publisher? Why not instead open up access to the publishers vi
by shripadk 9y ago
> in which case we take a fee: 10% for people who start during the beta.
Why take a cut from the publisher? Why not instead open up access to the publishers via a marketplace on your site so people/companies can sponsor the mailing lists? You can take a cut from the sponsor for having given the opportunity to introduce them to publisher(s) that cater to their market. It's a win-win-win for the potential sponsors(advertisers), the publishers as well as Substack. As a sponsor, I would have immediate market access through these publishers who cater to my niche. As a publisher, I would have outsourced the task of attracting sponsors and managing sponsor timelines to Substack so I can focus more on creating content and expanding my mailing list. As Substack, you wouldn't have to annoy your publishers by taking a cut and instead carry over your fee to be paid by sponsors/advertisers. A bonus would be allowing your publishers to carry over their existing sponsors to use your system which would possibly attract a huge populace of publishers who are currently manually micro-managing their existing sponsors and timelines instead of focusing on creating content.
- internet_jockey 9y agoHey, this is Hamish from Substack. Thanks for this! We think this is a great idea and it's certainly something we're considering for the future. But in the meantime, the point of a 10% cut is that it specifically does not annoy publishers. In fact, it aligns our incentives with theirs – we only make money when they make money. When we established Substack, we wanted to get away from an ad model in which publishers had reason to favor ad-centric content strategies over reader-centric ones. We're attempting to create an environment where writers no longer have to worry about doing things that please advertisers. They should be focused only on doing things that please their readers. To us, that's a better way forward for the media. Taking a 10% cut is a substantial ask, but it is one that writers have so far been receptive to.
- shripadk 9y agoAh sorry! Yes you are right! Now that I re-read your text, I realized I misunderstood your business model. Maybe my suggestion sits well with those who are running free newsletters on Substack (who will have some form of regular income through sponsors). I notice that you are taking a fee from those who are running paid newsletters. That makes complete sense.
- internet_jockey 9y agoThanks, much appreciated. Yes, free newsletters don't have any charges. No subscriber limits, either.
- a13n 9y agoDo you have a "Powered by Substack" somewhere in your free/paid newsletters? Our product is also exposed to our customers' customers, so this has been a huge growth driver for us. Similar story for Statuspage, Intercom, etc.
- internet_jockey 9y agoJust as a link in the footer. Substack is also in the domain name, though. Thanks for the advice!
- hacheka 9y agoSo every newsletter is sent through the same domain? Aren't you afraid of one newsletter affecting the reputación of another one?