They mainstreamed paying for independent writing, and changed the lives of thousands of writers in the process.
But they're building for a specific type of creator.
Thinking of starting a Substack?
Read this first 👇
They mainstreamed paying for independent writing, and changed the lives of thousands of writers in the process.
But they're building for a specific type of creator.
(Putting my product hat on, this is a smart strategy for them to differentiate and win a specific market)
In 2020 they rolled out initiatives like grants, legal support, and mentorship for writers.
Want to take some time off? One of their smartest features gives writers the power to pause paid subscriptions.
But, there are successful writers who are 'graduating' from Substack when they discover a few problems.
https://t.co/ryvYz4kXvD
Interesting point from @JayCoDon on why he left Substack.
— Austin Rief \u2615\ufe0f (@austin_rief) December 16, 2020
"Substack" becoming synonymous with "newsletter" on Twitter certainly has its pros.
But, there are also cons that may turn off future creators. pic.twitter.com/o5BhWxFv4x
đź’° High take rate
The Substack revenue calculator (https://t.co/QG6UhlCbyp) shows ~80% profit margin for creators. Competitors are closer to 95%.
https://t.co/f98WLD6rzo
When you start to see success, you'll want to sell other products to your audience (see: “Multi-SKU creator” by @hunterwalk). This needs audience segmentation & automation—you can do neither here.
https://t.co/m0xR1ILXeM
Since this NYer article about Substack quotes a paragraph from my blog post about MultiSKU Creators but doesn't link to ithttps://t.co/QS206eYRsT
— \U0001f468\U0001f3fb\u200d\U0001f4bb\u2615\ufe0f (@hunterwalk) December 28, 2020
Refusal to link credit is one persistent example of how traditional media still doesn't truly embrace internet culture https://t.co/FUDvLgamBI
Sure, you get a home on the internet for your writing. But ability to customize your site design, layout, and organization is limited. It's 1 long feed. This is not ideal for discovery, evergreen content, and SEO.
@ConvertKit , @Ghost, or @letterdropco are all good options.
Email is a powerful tool for distribution and monetization. Newsletters are only one part of an email strategy, and switching costs are high.
Choose wisely.
https://t.co/sYBtptRj7H
You can now run paid newsletters through @ConvertKit!
— Nathan Barry (@nathanbarry) November 11, 2020
Here's why you'll love it:
- Free for up to 1,000 subscribers
- 3.5% payment fees (compared to 12.9% for Substack)
- Very customizable custom designs
- Subscriber referral programs
- Automations to drive more sales pic.twitter.com/eH6JfFCyzP
More from Finance
Having made over 1000 boxes for vulnerable families in Cambridge via @RedHenCambridge (thanks to our customers 🙏🏽) My thoughts on the £30 box thing. Lots of factors at play here. 1/
If the pics in this @BootstrapCook thread are true and correct then the Govt/taxpayers & families in need are getting absolutely SHAFTED 👇🏽 2/
There are some mitigating circumstances. A £30 box won’t ever contain £30 (retail) worth of food - people aren’t factoring in
-the cost of the box
-paying someone to fill it
-rent & rates
-& most expensive the *transport/distribution*
3/
If you’re doing the above at scale. Delivering *across the UK* it’s not cheap BUT IMHO there should be at LEAST £20 worth of groceries in a £30 box. To get more value they need more fresh produce. Just carrots & apples is terrible. 4/
I’m gonna put my rep on the line here & say something about these big national catering companies whose names I’ve seen mentioned. They are an ASSHOLE to deal with & completely shaft small businesses like mine with their terms which is why I won’t deal with them. 5/
If the pics in this @BootstrapCook thread are true and correct then the Govt/taxpayers & families in need are getting absolutely SHAFTED 👇🏽 2/
Hi all. I\u2019ve been sent LOTS of photos of the food parcels that have replaced the \xa330 vouchers and asked what I would do with them. I\u2019m replying with advice privately because to do so publicly would look like justifying these ill thought through, offensively meagre scraps /1.
— Jack Monroe (@BootstrapCook) January 11, 2021
There are some mitigating circumstances. A £30 box won’t ever contain £30 (retail) worth of food - people aren’t factoring in
-the cost of the box
-paying someone to fill it
-rent & rates
-& most expensive the *transport/distribution*
3/
If you’re doing the above at scale. Delivering *across the UK* it’s not cheap BUT IMHO there should be at LEAST £20 worth of groceries in a £30 box. To get more value they need more fresh produce. Just carrots & apples is terrible. 4/
I’m gonna put my rep on the line here & say something about these big national catering companies whose names I’ve seen mentioned. They are an ASSHOLE to deal with & completely shaft small businesses like mine with their terms which is why I won’t deal with them. 5/
You May Also Like
I just finished Eric Adler's The Battle of the Classics, and wanted to say something about Joel Christiansen's review linked below. I am not sure what motivates the review (I speculate a bit below), but it gives a very misleading impression of the book. 1/x
The meat of the criticism is that the history Adler gives is insufficiently critical. Adler describes a few figures who had a great influence on how the modern US university was formed. It's certainly critical: it focuses on the social Darwinism of these figures. 2/x
Other insinuations and suggestions in the review seem wildly off the mark, distorted, or inappropriate-- for example, that the book is clickbaity (it is scholarly) or conservative (hardly) or connected to the events at the Capitol (give me a break). 3/x
The core question: in what sense is classics inherently racist? Classics is old. On Adler's account, it begins in ancient Rome and is revived in the Renaissance. Slavery (Christiansen's primary concern) is also very old. Let's say classics is an education for slaveowners. 4/x
It's worth remembering that literacy itself is elite throughout most of this history. Literacy is, then, also the education of slaveowners. We can honor oral and musical traditions without denying that literacy is, generally, good. 5/x
As someone\u2019s who\u2019s read the book, this review strikes me as tremendously unfair. It mostly faults Adler for not writing the book the reviewer wishes he had! https://t.co/pqpt5Ziivj
— Teresa M. Bejan (@tmbejan) January 12, 2021
The meat of the criticism is that the history Adler gives is insufficiently critical. Adler describes a few figures who had a great influence on how the modern US university was formed. It's certainly critical: it focuses on the social Darwinism of these figures. 2/x
Other insinuations and suggestions in the review seem wildly off the mark, distorted, or inappropriate-- for example, that the book is clickbaity (it is scholarly) or conservative (hardly) or connected to the events at the Capitol (give me a break). 3/x
The core question: in what sense is classics inherently racist? Classics is old. On Adler's account, it begins in ancient Rome and is revived in the Renaissance. Slavery (Christiansen's primary concern) is also very old. Let's say classics is an education for slaveowners. 4/x
It's worth remembering that literacy itself is elite throughout most of this history. Literacy is, then, also the education of slaveowners. We can honor oral and musical traditions without denying that literacy is, generally, good. 5/x
This is a pretty valiant attempt to defend the "Feminist Glaciology" article, which says conventional wisdom is wrong, and this is a solid piece of scholarship. I'll beg to differ, because I think Jeffery, here, is confusing scholarship with "saying things that seem right".
The article is, at heart, deeply weird, even essentialist. Here, for example, is the claim that proposing climate engineering is a "man" thing. Also a "man" thing: attempting to get distance from a topic, approaching it in a disinterested fashion.
Also a "man" thing—physical courage. (I guess, not quite: physical courage "co-constitutes" masculinist glaciology along with nationalism and colonialism.)
There's criticism of a New York Times article that talks about glaciology adventures, which makes a similar point.
At the heart of this chunk is the claim that glaciology excludes women because of a narrative of scientific objectivity and physical adventure. This is a strong claim! It's not enough to say, hey, sure, sounds good. Is it true?
Imagine for a moment the most obscurantist, jargon-filled, po-mo article the politically correct academy might produce. Pure SJW nonsense. Got it? Chances are you're imagining something like the infamous "Feminist Glaciology" article from a few years back.https://t.co/NRaWNREBvR pic.twitter.com/qtSFBYY80S
— Jeffrey Sachs (@JeffreyASachs) October 13, 2018
The article is, at heart, deeply weird, even essentialist. Here, for example, is the claim that proposing climate engineering is a "man" thing. Also a "man" thing: attempting to get distance from a topic, approaching it in a disinterested fashion.
Also a "man" thing—physical courage. (I guess, not quite: physical courage "co-constitutes" masculinist glaciology along with nationalism and colonialism.)
There's criticism of a New York Times article that talks about glaciology adventures, which makes a similar point.
At the heart of this chunk is the claim that glaciology excludes women because of a narrative of scientific objectivity and physical adventure. This is a strong claim! It's not enough to say, hey, sure, sounds good. Is it true?
