4 ms·

This is a great example of creative destruction. Back before the internet took over distribution, it took a small army of typesetters, graphic designers, printe

This is a great example of creative destruction. Back before the internet took over distribution, it took a small army of typesetters, graphic designers, printers, delivery services, etc. to publish and distribute magazines. There was simply no way an individual, or even a small group, could scale production and distribution. The logical extension of the old model would be for Google or Meta (who now own distribution) to hire staff writers in order to improve ad revenue. So far, they don't think they need it - turns out they can sell ads just fine with the low-cost garbage spewed by your crazy uncle. We will see if the direct-pay model of Substack has staying power before enshittification takes over. I haven't found anything on Substack compelling enough justify spending sometimes ~$10/month on a single writer.

jll29 2y ago
That's because the asymmetry of the one-way publication funnel where we can only consume has been replaced by a more symmetric ecosystem where users contribute content. Because they donate their content to platforms, they make the platform owners rich - they get the attention, so they also get the ad revenue, but they don't need to pay for quality content because users are just fine with (other) users' contributed content. If there had been zero-install tools for self-publishing early on instead of the centralized Facebooks and Mediums, perhaps things could have gone differently.
AlbertCory 2y ago
> I haven't found anything on Substack compelling enough justify spending sometimes ~$10/month on a single writer. Exactly. I might go for some package of 100 or so writers, with only their best stuff that week/month. But the reality is, the writers still wouldn't be making all that much money; not as much as Ted is. It would be similar to being in the chorus for a Broadway show with Patti Lupone: she's making a whole bunch; you're at least getting paid.

jll29 2y ago

That's because the asymmetry of the one-way publication funnel where we can only consume has been replaced by a more symmetric ecosystem where users contribute content. Because they donate their content to platforms, they make the platform owners rich - they get the attention, so they also get the ad revenue, but they don't need to pay for quality content because users are just fine with (other) users' contributed content. If there had been zero-install tools for self-publishing early on instead of the centralized Facebooks and Mediums, perhaps things could have gone differently.

AlbertCory 2y ago

> I haven't found anything on Substack compelling enough justify spending sometimes ~$10/month on a single writer. Exactly. I might go for some package of 100 or so writers, with only their best stuff that week/month. But the reality is, the writers still wouldn't be making all that much money; not as much as Ted is. It would be similar to being in the chorus for a Broadway show with Patti Lupone: she's making a whole bunch; you're at least getting paid.