6 ms·

I understand what they meant though: paying celebrities to join while giving people the impression that those celebrities joined by free choice* (ie because the

I understand what they meant though: paying celebrities to join while giving people the impression that those celebrities joined by free choice* (ie because the platform was so great). * edit: free choice as in "not swayed by payment"

skybrian 4y ago
They signed a contract of their own free choice because it was a good deal for them. This isn't hidden. There's no reason to hide it any more than a musician would hide getting signed by a record label.
- notahacker 4y ago
  Sure, but it was a good deal for them because Substack advanced them a lot of money. Substack's platform features and general content creator revenue model may be better than most but are incidental to why those heavy hitters chose to join. Musicians complain a lot about Spotify being a poor deal for them financially, but there's no doubt it was an excellent deal for Joe Rogan.
  - skybrian 4y ago
    We know that for writers, Substack normally charges 10% of subscription revenue. Also, some writers said they would have made more money taking the normal deal over the Pro deal. However, a guaranteed paycheck for the first year is lower risk, so they took the deal. This all depend on your own efforts building an audience and it's still the case that most authors won't make much. But it seems like better terms than Spotify for moderately successful authors.
- Cthulhu_ 4y ago
  Did they mention that Substack paid them to post? I believe disclosure is a defining factor between astroturfing and "just" marketing/sales/paid promotions.
  - skybrian 4y ago
    It's going to depend on the author and I only read a few of them, but some authors were quite transparent about the details of the deals they signed, much more than is usual for professional authors. For example: https://freddiedeboer.substack.com/p/financial-transparency https://freddiedeboer.substack.com/p/financial-transparency
DoneWithAllThat 4y ago
You have a very different definition of “free choice” than I think is typical.
- beaconstudios 4y ago
  I mean free choice as in they decided unprompted. It's still a free choice in terms of free will either way - I'm not sure what the better term would be. Unprompted I guess.
  - Cthulhu_ 4y ago
    I mean. I'd probably post less shitposts on HN if someone offered me a financial incentive.
JacobThreeThree 4y ago
>giving people the impression that those celebrities joined by free choice Paying writers for their work means they didn't choose to join Substack?
- trynewideas 4y ago
  They didn't necessarily choose it for the merits of the service. There's no all-things-equal decision on features, model, or viability that the rest of us make when one throws significant money at you and the others don't. It's a free choice, yes, but it's one biased by an external factor (money) rather than an intrinsic one (good tools, support, long-term viability). But then people who don't know or understand this yet might subscribe to one of these paid contributors and think, gee, Substack must be a great platform because Famous McBrain writes on it, as opposed to the subtly more accurate point that Substack's _money_ must be great because Famous McBrain took it.
beagle3 4y ago
The only writer I follow on substack, Scott Alexander S. (Previously of SlateStarCodex fame, now AstralCodexTen) went into all the details - what he was offered, and why it was a good offer - it wasn’t a bribe like most celebrity deals are - it was more like a book advance. He most definitely didn’t pretend to “just go there”, and his post on the subject mentioned a few others with similar deals by name. Do you have a problem when a publisher pays an advance to (say) Stephen King in order to get him to publish through them?

skybrian 4y ago

They signed a contract of their own free choice because it was a good deal for them. This isn't hidden. There's no reason to hide it any more than a musician would hide getting signed by a record label.

notahacker 4y ago
Sure, but it was a good deal for them because Substack advanced them a lot of money. Substack's platform features and general content creator revenue model may be better than most but are incidental to why those heavy hitters chose to join. Musicians complain a lot about Spotify being a poor deal for them financially, but there's no doubt it was an excellent deal for Joe Rogan.
- skybrian 4y ago
  We know that for writers, Substack normally charges 10% of subscription revenue. Also, some writers said they would have made more money taking the normal deal over the Pro deal. However, a guaranteed paycheck for the first year is lower risk, so they took the deal. This all depend on your own efforts building an audience and it's still the case that most authors won't make much. But it seems like better terms than Spotify for moderately successful authors.
Cthulhu_ 4y ago
Did they mention that Substack paid them to post? I believe disclosure is a defining factor between astroturfing and "just" marketing/sales/paid promotions.
- skybrian 4y ago
  It's going to depend on the author and I only read a few of them, but some authors were quite transparent about the details of the deals they signed, much more than is usual for professional authors. For example: https://freddiedeboer.substack.com/p/financial-transparency https://freddiedeboer.substack.com/p/financial-transparency

DoneWithAllThat 4y ago

You have a very different definition of “free choice” than I think is typical.

beaconstudios 4y ago
I mean free choice as in they decided unprompted. It's still a free choice in terms of free will either way - I'm not sure what the better term would be. Unprompted I guess.
- Cthulhu_ 4y ago
  I mean. I'd probably post less shitposts on HN if someone offered me a financial incentive.

JacobThreeThree 4y ago

>giving people the impression that those celebrities joined by free choice Paying writers for their work means they didn't choose to join Substack?

trynewideas 4y ago
They didn't necessarily choose it for the merits of the service. There's no all-things-equal decision on features, model, or viability that the rest of us make when one throws significant money at you and the others don't. It's a free choice, yes, but it's one biased by an external factor (money) rather than an intrinsic one (good tools, support, long-term viability). But then people who don't know or understand this yet might subscribe to one of these paid contributors and think, gee, Substack must be a great platform because Famous McBrain writes on it, as opposed to the subtly more accurate point that Substack's _money_ must be great because Famous McBrain took it.

beagle3 4y ago

The only writer I follow on substack, Scott Alexander S. (Previously of SlateStarCodex fame, now AstralCodexTen) went into all the details - what he was offered, and why it was a good offer - it wasn’t a bribe like most celebrity deals are - it was more like a book advance. He most definitely didn’t pretend to “just go there”, and his post on the subject mentioned a few others with similar deals by name. Do you have a problem when a publisher pays an advance to (say) Stephen King in order to get him to publish through them?