Yea, one of the biggest problems for the media now is that any take or angle you have on something, hundreds of other people are giving it away for free on twitter. The twitter "hive mind" makes reading the articles more often than not, redundant.
Somewhat tangential to your point, but: I've been surprised at how many paid Substacks don't seem to actually offer much (or any!) original content. They are run by writers whose output mostly runs in conventional media outlets, and the Substack posts consist mostly of links to those outlets, with maybe a paragraph or two of how-I-wrote-this-article commentary, or of a bit of color that didn't make the primary piece. I assume those writers see Substack as something like Patreon, where people are giving you money because they want you to have it and not because they expect to receive something of value in return.
I also didn't renew my subscription. I read Deadspin originally because it offered analysis of sports that couldn't be found elsewhere. In the past year, I almost never read anything on Defector which was surprising or original. The DeBoer critique in the spring sealed it for me.
“Relatively few people pay to read a newsletter to signal their virtue.”
Wow this is crazy wrong. Virtue signal may be the wrong term, but a tremendous number of people buy products they never use and subscribe to print and digital media they never read because they identify with and support certain politics, individuals and groups. I don’t personally like Glenn Greenwald but he is extremely intelligent and surely knows how much his subscribers consume and don’t consume of what they pay for. And while he is never ever going to tell you, I’m sure he gets a kick that a sizable portion never read much at all.
I’m curious how true this is. No doubt there are some people subscribing to Weiss’ substack more out of support for her general project than due to interest in reading every single newsletter, but it’s certainly not obvious to me what percentage of subscribers that is. 2%? 15%? I could believe either. “Crazy wrong” suggests that you’re pretty confident that it’s a large number; is that based on something more than intuition?
To further use Glenn Greenwald as an example, he is a writer but he is also a brand. Something that I believe Ross is aware of and I think aspires to himself. When you reach that level, many people will buy your books, subscribe to your newsletters, go to your lectures and so on… because they like what you have to say and what supporting you has to say about them.
That is not the same as saying they did more than thumb through your newest book or spent more than a few minutes lately reading your writing. Ask any bestselling author and they will tell you of many many (so many) awkward conversations with people who own their books and never really read them. And so on with other media. I think Ross knows this and his essay is a bit of a letter to himself regarding the paradox of wanting to be a great writer and wanting more fame (and money). Building a brand is not the same as just winning people over with luminous writing.
If you are reading this comment then you live with me in a small bubble of people that do read quite a bit and one might think this is the norm but my G-d it is not. I am as confident in my assertions as Ross is in his. Neither of us has the data to back it up but should anyone like Greenwald ever honestly answer this question, yes, I am very confident in what I am saying.
I canceled my subscription recently. Site is boring and its politics are just tedious at this point.
Yea, one of the biggest problems for the media now is that any take or angle you have on something, hundreds of other people are giving it away for free on twitter. The twitter "hive mind" makes reading the articles more often than not, redundant.
Somewhat tangential to your point, but: I've been surprised at how many paid Substacks don't seem to actually offer much (or any!) original content. They are run by writers whose output mostly runs in conventional media outlets, and the Substack posts consist mostly of links to those outlets, with maybe a paragraph or two of how-I-wrote-this-article commentary, or of a bit of color that didn't make the primary piece. I assume those writers see Substack as something like Patreon, where people are giving you money because they want you to have it and not because they expect to receive something of value in return.
Really brilliantly laid out, here.
I also didn't renew my subscription. I read Deadspin originally because it offered analysis of sports that couldn't be found elsewhere. In the past year, I almost never read anything on Defector which was surprising or original. The DeBoer critique in the spring sealed it for me.
“Relatively few people pay to read a newsletter to signal their virtue.”
Wow this is crazy wrong. Virtue signal may be the wrong term, but a tremendous number of people buy products they never use and subscribe to print and digital media they never read because they identify with and support certain politics, individuals and groups. I don’t personally like Glenn Greenwald but he is extremely intelligent and surely knows how much his subscribers consume and don’t consume of what they pay for. And while he is never ever going to tell you, I’m sure he gets a kick that a sizable portion never read much at all.
That's not really "signaling" though, at least not in the conventional sense.
I’m curious how true this is. No doubt there are some people subscribing to Weiss’ substack more out of support for her general project than due to interest in reading every single newsletter, but it’s certainly not obvious to me what percentage of subscribers that is. 2%? 15%? I could believe either. “Crazy wrong” suggests that you’re pretty confident that it’s a large number; is that based on something more than intuition?
To further use Glenn Greenwald as an example, he is a writer but he is also a brand. Something that I believe Ross is aware of and I think aspires to himself. When you reach that level, many people will buy your books, subscribe to your newsletters, go to your lectures and so on… because they like what you have to say and what supporting you has to say about them.
That is not the same as saying they did more than thumb through your newest book or spent more than a few minutes lately reading your writing. Ask any bestselling author and they will tell you of many many (so many) awkward conversations with people who own their books and never really read them. And so on with other media. I think Ross knows this and his essay is a bit of a letter to himself regarding the paradox of wanting to be a great writer and wanting more fame (and money). Building a brand is not the same as just winning people over with luminous writing.
If you are reading this comment then you live with me in a small bubble of people that do read quite a bit and one might think this is the norm but my G-d it is not. I am as confident in my assertions as Ross is in his. Neither of us has the data to back it up but should anyone like Greenwald ever honestly answer this question, yes, I am very confident in what I am saying.
Good shit