There used to be a limnal space for writers between staff and freelance, a category known as right of first refusal. Magazines with feature length stories (New Yorker, Vanity Fair, Esq.) provided a stipend to writers for the privilege of a first look at a story. If accepted, writers were paid for the story in addition to the stipend. If they passed he/she could shop it around. The stipend wasn't enough to live on but helped financially. Plus being a writer "on tap" was something to crow about.
I don't even know if ROFR still is a thing but it should be and it's a shame it never gained more traction. Perez is absolutely correct it is foolish to chase outdated models. Writing is a career not a charitable endeavor. People have weaned themselves off cable to streaming; off discs and records onto Spotify. The Substack platform follows those models and will only grow. When people my age subscribe to something it's no longer a trend, it's arrived. You made the right call.
Meanwhile, I totally agree about the vibrancy of what's happening on Substack: my reading has also become mainly Substacks along with the NY Times, Economist, and The Atlantic. And I love the micro communities that emerge like the one here.
But do think there is so much good writing on that it's going to be increasingly hard for new folks to make a living at it. I'm probably now paying (whispering so the wife doesn't hear) about $200+ a month on Substack subscriptions and will probably need to cull it some point.
I'd like to see Substack get smarter about bundle options. Maybe three writers unite and there's a bundle rate where someone subscribes to three and money gets cut three ways.
I think you're right that bundling of some kind is part of the answer. But I think the question of the right way for Substack to approach bundling is a really complicated one.
What makes it so hard, I think, is that my rationale (and I'm guessing I'm not alone in this) for who I subscribe to on Substack is a little different than it is for traditional publications, where it's generally a more straightforward calculation about whether what I read from them is worth the money. With Substacks, on other hand, it's a little more complicated, since part of the attraction/value proposition is that you're supporting a particular person. So while I certainly read all the people I subscribe to, I also consider things whether I want to show gratitude, help someone out, or amplify a particular perspective.
Here are a few examples, in my case, of how that plays out:
- I've subscribed to Tomas Pueyo for a couple of years (who I find interesting but who writes about topics I wouldn't generally pay for), in large part because I wanted to show appreciation for his critical essays in the early days of COVID.
- I subscribe to Radley Balko because--even though he posts rarely, I don't always read his posts thoroughly, and I don't always agree with him--because I think the work he is doing is important.
- Ben Dreyfuss is lots of fun to read, but he doesn't post often to really justify a subscription. But I want his perspective out in the world, and I feel little bit sorry for him and want him to make it.
- Glenn Loury basically does podcasts, which generally I don't read, but for bunch of a different reasons I think he has an important perspective that I want to both hear and amplify.
- Damon Linker doesn't post enough to really justify a subscription, but I also want to amplify his perspective.
Plus, another complicating factor is I think that what makes a lot of Substacks valuable is the community discussion around the content as much as the content.
Anyway, a long way of saying that I think bundling is more complicated with Substack than it is for say a traditional magazine or cable tv. Which isn't to say it's not the right solution, but I think there is a lot of thinking that will have to go into how to solve it.
Totally agree. This is breath-of-fresh air advice for writers. Don’t waste time feeling rejected by big name publications or book publishers. They’re not villains but they’re overwhelmed with submissions. A “no” isn’t a game-ending, comprehensive assessment of your abilities. Likewise, a “yes” can be equally random and doesn’t predict future success. Cultivate original thoughts, write about what moves you and distribute it as best you can.
"...it is, increasingly, a more meaningful outlet for the median writer if the goal is reaching a living, breathing audience and establishing, immediately, a place in someone else’s consciousness." This is so true and captures much of what I have appreciated about this platform. About two years ago by now, I was feeling pretty desperate about my writing and eager, above all, to actively connect with an audience. I briefly thought Facebook's Author Page could accomplish this (I know, I know) but really it was Substack that came through and then some toward this goal. I recently read DeLillo's "Mao II" and was reminded about a passage in that book where he discusses the novel as a democratic shout amidst the faceless crowds, a kind of proxy for the individual I suppose. I think these newsletters might perform a similar function, marginal though necessary. At least that's what I took from your piece.
Smart discourse, Ross. I haven't submitted to a lit mag in at least a year, though I used to have 70+ simultaneous subs humming at once. I mostly agree with you, but what I'm struggling with is how to measure literary achievement without discerning curators. There was something charming about the model where you could win over a stranger -- and editor who had nothing in common with you but a craft sensibility -- with art alone. There was also a possibly unreliable sense of coherence about that model, the way there is with professional sports, where talent usually rises above the usual team politics, etc., and we more or less believe that the players we see in The Show are the best available. Is that true of writing?
Writing has always been more difficult to gauge. I think submitting anywhere is fine, but there also comes a point where holding back writing gets self-defeating.
Strongly agree with all of this. Writing fiction on here has changed everything for me: as you say, even a small number of subscribers (around 70 in my case) gets rid of that feeling of shouting into the void that is the day-to-day experience of a writer working on a book for a traditional publisher. Coming out of a four-year period of chronic illness, I thought starting a substack would be a way to ease myself back into regular writing. It has done that, but it’s done so much more as well.
Agreed and well said. I respectfully suggest the possibility that literary magazines have been compromised by the same demands for short term profits that have doomed corporate journalism.
I am Managing Editor of The Buffalo Hive, an independent, non-profit arts and cultural journalism site; we are just one of hundreds of nonprofit news sources opening across the US.
The growth of nonprofit news is the inverse of daily newspapers, popping up where for-profit media is floundering under the demands of quarterly, double-digit growth.
The written word has lost none of its value in 6000 years. How our words are distributed may be changing as corporate journalism collapses under the weight of its own greed, but our work as writers is as important as ever.
I love my email subscribers. I look through the list after every piece. "There's that guy . . . And there's my FAMOUS subscriber . . . And that girl has been with me from the start . . . And whose this new person?"
Mr. Barkan is too polite to mention this explicitly here, but for unwoke readers, Substack is also a welcome refuge from the intellectually deleterious effects of wokeism on mainstream institutions. If I want to read apparatchiks dutifully repeating canned political slogans, I'll check out mainstream magazines. If I want to read writers who actually think seriously, I'll go to Substack.
The Substack email & website model allows and invites people into your desk basically, at least to the outbox and drawers of archives. The outbox bypasses everything basically - postal delay, editors, publishers, corporate and academic owners, delimiters and censors of all sorts. The Substack advantage over a basic blog is the direct delivery to the subscribers' own inbox. The Substack advantage over simple email is that more than a note is delivered; access to a community comment and desk space is also provided on both periodic and permanent basis, and not only for subscribers and followers. In these ways, Substack "expands the floor of the cage" along with optional payment mechanisms and other features. Direct delivery of an uncensored desk (or plate) of materials, with permanent community space, is the key. Censorship, delivery, and interaction problems are solved, and somewhat publicity though much less so. Would be better if it were user owned. It's the lack of ideology-bound editors, publishers, and owners that allows for the technicolor in the art and analyses. In broader life as well.
I concur! And good photo choice -- pretty sure that's Grand Central from the stairs? I am passing this along to a few folks, because you are capturing something important about this awkward moment in culture, when the small magazines and the legacy gatekeepers have . . . anyway, well said.
There used to be a limnal space for writers between staff and freelance, a category known as right of first refusal. Magazines with feature length stories (New Yorker, Vanity Fair, Esq.) provided a stipend to writers for the privilege of a first look at a story. If accepted, writers were paid for the story in addition to the stipend. If they passed he/she could shop it around. The stipend wasn't enough to live on but helped financially. Plus being a writer "on tap" was something to crow about.
I don't even know if ROFR still is a thing but it should be and it's a shame it never gained more traction. Perez is absolutely correct it is foolish to chase outdated models. Writing is a career not a charitable endeavor. People have weaned themselves off cable to streaming; off discs and records onto Spotify. The Substack platform follows those models and will only grow. When people my age subscribe to something it's no longer a trend, it's arrived. You made the right call.
Coincidentally, Persuasion had a piece yesterday (https://www.persuasion.community/p/scenes-from-the-literary-blacklist) that talked about another downside of literary magazines vis a vis Substack: essentially censorship of unpopular ideas.
Meanwhile, I totally agree about the vibrancy of what's happening on Substack: my reading has also become mainly Substacks along with the NY Times, Economist, and The Atlantic. And I love the micro communities that emerge like the one here.
But do think there is so much good writing on that it's going to be increasingly hard for new folks to make a living at it. I'm probably now paying (whispering so the wife doesn't hear) about $200+ a month on Substack subscriptions and will probably need to cull it some point.
I'd like to see Substack get smarter about bundle options. Maybe three writers unite and there's a bundle rate where someone subscribes to three and money gets cut three ways.
I think you're right that bundling of some kind is part of the answer. But I think the question of the right way for Substack to approach bundling is a really complicated one.
What makes it so hard, I think, is that my rationale (and I'm guessing I'm not alone in this) for who I subscribe to on Substack is a little different than it is for traditional publications, where it's generally a more straightforward calculation about whether what I read from them is worth the money. With Substacks, on other hand, it's a little more complicated, since part of the attraction/value proposition is that you're supporting a particular person. So while I certainly read all the people I subscribe to, I also consider things whether I want to show gratitude, help someone out, or amplify a particular perspective.
Here are a few examples, in my case, of how that plays out:
- I've subscribed to Tomas Pueyo for a couple of years (who I find interesting but who writes about topics I wouldn't generally pay for), in large part because I wanted to show appreciation for his critical essays in the early days of COVID.
- I subscribe to Radley Balko because--even though he posts rarely, I don't always read his posts thoroughly, and I don't always agree with him--because I think the work he is doing is important.
- Ben Dreyfuss is lots of fun to read, but he doesn't post often to really justify a subscription. But I want his perspective out in the world, and I feel little bit sorry for him and want him to make it.
- Glenn Loury basically does podcasts, which generally I don't read, but for bunch of a different reasons I think he has an important perspective that I want to both hear and amplify.
- Damon Linker doesn't post enough to really justify a subscription, but I also want to amplify his perspective.
Plus, another complicating factor is I think that what makes a lot of Substacks valuable is the community discussion around the content as much as the content.
Anyway, a long way of saying that I think bundling is more complicated with Substack than it is for say a traditional magazine or cable tv. Which isn't to say it's not the right solution, but I think there is a lot of thinking that will have to go into how to solve it.
Totally agree. This is breath-of-fresh air advice for writers. Don’t waste time feeling rejected by big name publications or book publishers. They’re not villains but they’re overwhelmed with submissions. A “no” isn’t a game-ending, comprehensive assessment of your abilities. Likewise, a “yes” can be equally random and doesn’t predict future success. Cultivate original thoughts, write about what moves you and distribute it as best you can.
Love this. Substack is where it’s at. I don’t miss writing for the mainstream at all. That connection to the audience and the trust is priceless.
"...it is, increasingly, a more meaningful outlet for the median writer if the goal is reaching a living, breathing audience and establishing, immediately, a place in someone else’s consciousness." This is so true and captures much of what I have appreciated about this platform. About two years ago by now, I was feeling pretty desperate about my writing and eager, above all, to actively connect with an audience. I briefly thought Facebook's Author Page could accomplish this (I know, I know) but really it was Substack that came through and then some toward this goal. I recently read DeLillo's "Mao II" and was reminded about a passage in that book where he discusses the novel as a democratic shout amidst the faceless crowds, a kind of proxy for the individual I suppose. I think these newsletters might perform a similar function, marginal though necessary. At least that's what I took from your piece.
This is so good and so accurate and optimistic
Smart discourse, Ross. I haven't submitted to a lit mag in at least a year, though I used to have 70+ simultaneous subs humming at once. I mostly agree with you, but what I'm struggling with is how to measure literary achievement without discerning curators. There was something charming about the model where you could win over a stranger -- and editor who had nothing in common with you but a craft sensibility -- with art alone. There was also a possibly unreliable sense of coherence about that model, the way there is with professional sports, where talent usually rises above the usual team politics, etc., and we more or less believe that the players we see in The Show are the best available. Is that true of writing?
Writing has always been more difficult to gauge. I think submitting anywhere is fine, but there also comes a point where holding back writing gets self-defeating.
Strongly agree with all of this. Writing fiction on here has changed everything for me: as you say, even a small number of subscribers (around 70 in my case) gets rid of that feeling of shouting into the void that is the day-to-day experience of a writer working on a book for a traditional publisher. Coming out of a four-year period of chronic illness, I thought starting a substack would be a way to ease myself back into regular writing. It has done that, but it’s done so much more as well.
(https://pulpstack.substack.com, if anyone’s interested in some juicy genre fiction…)
Agreed and well said. I respectfully suggest the possibility that literary magazines have been compromised by the same demands for short term profits that have doomed corporate journalism.
I am Managing Editor of The Buffalo Hive, an independent, non-profit arts and cultural journalism site; we are just one of hundreds of nonprofit news sources opening across the US.
The growth of nonprofit news is the inverse of daily newspapers, popping up where for-profit media is floundering under the demands of quarterly, double-digit growth.
The written word has lost none of its value in 6000 years. How our words are distributed may be changing as corporate journalism collapses under the weight of its own greed, but our work as writers is as important as ever.
I love my email subscribers. I look through the list after every piece. "There's that guy . . . And there's my FAMOUS subscriber . . . And that girl has been with me from the start . . . And whose this new person?"
Brilliant and, for this soul, inspiring. It’s also such a physical pleasure producing newsletters on Substack.
Mr. Barkan is too polite to mention this explicitly here, but for unwoke readers, Substack is also a welcome refuge from the intellectually deleterious effects of wokeism on mainstream institutions. If I want to read apparatchiks dutifully repeating canned political slogans, I'll check out mainstream magazines. If I want to read writers who actually think seriously, I'll go to Substack.
The Substack email & website model allows and invites people into your desk basically, at least to the outbox and drawers of archives. The outbox bypasses everything basically - postal delay, editors, publishers, corporate and academic owners, delimiters and censors of all sorts. The Substack advantage over a basic blog is the direct delivery to the subscribers' own inbox. The Substack advantage over simple email is that more than a note is delivered; access to a community comment and desk space is also provided on both periodic and permanent basis, and not only for subscribers and followers. In these ways, Substack "expands the floor of the cage" along with optional payment mechanisms and other features. Direct delivery of an uncensored desk (or plate) of materials, with permanent community space, is the key. Censorship, delivery, and interaction problems are solved, and somewhat publicity though much less so. Would be better if it were user owned. It's the lack of ideology-bound editors, publishers, and owners that allows for the technicolor in the art and analyses. In broader life as well.
I concur! And good photo choice -- pretty sure that's Grand Central from the stairs? I am passing this along to a few folks, because you are capturing something important about this awkward moment in culture, when the small magazines and the legacy gatekeepers have . . . anyway, well said.
yup, the old Grand Central
This was helpful, thank you!
Well said Ross. Happy to be a reader of your work here on the Stack.