100% agree & one of the reasons why I really enjoyed writing & being on Substack was to get that depth in thought, research, and writing. However, as with all the many choices founders & organisations face, finding that right balance to preserve your “why” and still keep the business afloat and progressive is very important.
Also, I generally look at these things as experimentation - trying & seeing if it works? LinkedIn discontinued stories (I mean who wanted stories on LinkedIn?!), IGTV also didn’t stick initially but reels are here. Curious to see how this plays out, the uptake and what the learnings will be.
Whenever I watch shows like Star Trek and read books like Iain Bank’s The Culture series, I find it so fascinating that in those stories, real physical books are treated as relics. It always seemed crazy to me that writing as an art form would one day become lost to humanity.
Substack’s rise to me also felt the same. It felt like there was still hope for readers. In between books and tweets there’s essays.
The weirdest thing about human beings is the way we’ve been trained. Getting people to watch videos just happened to be the best way to keep them staring at a screen long enough to show them ads. Somewhere along the line writing/publishing became harder and harder to sustain because humans now want fast flashy videos.
Just have to speak up about Star Trek. The whole "relic" thing with books in that franchise always feels less like "people don't read anymore" and more "paper is expensive so fewer people have physical books." I can't speak to any other franchise, but I do know that I read in multiple ways these days (paper - hardback & paperback, digital on a tablet & cell, and audio) and feel like this was just another way that Star Trek forecast the future of where we would find our books. I don't think the idea is that writing is a lost art form, but that's just my impression.
That said, I was devastated when Substack announced "Substack TV." I definitely came here as a writer who loves to read longform work, and wasn't a fan of the whole "Notes" thing, much less any of the emphasis on video. I don't particularly like to watch videos on my phone and so most of that is lost on me. And, since I don't make videos, I feel like my work isn't valued by the Substack platform as a whole.
The irony of this is also that the GP of Bond Capital (their lead investor) writes some of the longest and most detailed reports on internet culture and behavior, and has been doing so since 1995 (https://www.bondcap.com/#specialreports). What they say to attract users is not what they say to the reality of investors. At a certain point Substack chose to become a marketplace, because those are the dynamics most aligned with a venture scale return. It's also become a ubiquitous place for journos who have gone independent, but it comes with a host of tradeoffs (as you know well).
For writers such as ourselves, the ability to speak to these things clearly and with rigor is in fact, the necessity of the times.
Solid point, because this is a pattern seen with many investors, too. They put out these comprehensive and long memos, but their portfolio companies (like Substack) are somehow moving in a different direction.
Indeed. Substack is operating precisely as a scaling media company that took on venture money decides too. Taking on $100M to scale will always require tradeoffs, because you need to find ways to continue growth in an era of massive fragmentation.
I thought you would also add more context to the possible competition and political statement angles that have seen them bleed writers to X, Beehiv and now try to see what else sticks.
"There will be a return, not to old media institutions, but to something looser and more adaptive: individual writers growing into small media companies, collectives, or tightly curated networks with shared subscriptions and overlapping audiences. We are already seeing this, and we will see much more of it in the coming years."
gave me perspective into why Every.to left Substack years ago, bundling a couple of niche newsletters into a pack I paid $200/yr for without thinking twice.
looking at how far (>100K+ subscribers) they got (I say got because currently, they seem to have lost their voice trying to keep up with any and everything AI) only shows the only path left for long-form writing to survive: individual writers growing into media companies of their own, where, first, the incentive for their growth is the depth of writing on offer.
your piece has led into the rabbit hole of investigating how much dilution the quest to match venture-scale growth can cause a startup's original, compelling product narrative.
turns out Casey Newton (I don't buy his core reason for leaving Substack) is just one of a few examples proving that venture capital can, in some cases, force a startup down the path of muddling the narrative that made them a no-brainer.
this will be my next piece for the Product-Led Storytelling Newsletter.
Tbh, Casey is very persistent with his beliefs, so I don't doubt his reasons at all. But good to know this sparked some ideas for you. Please share when you publish.
"When most people hear the word creator today, they do not think of writers. They think of videos. Maybe even podcasts. They think of feeds and formats optimised for platforms that reward immediacy over reflection. Writing, by contrast, demands slowness, both from those who produce it and those who consume it."
TBH, I *never* equated creator with writer. "Creators" make "content," whatever the heck that is. "Writers" produce stories to be *read.* We are not content creators, we are writers.
I understand your position, honestly. And I hold writing with the same esteem as you do, but there’s an argument to be made for writing as one more medium of content production (for the sake of internet consumption, at least). It’s the degrees to which the writing varies and the styles with which it is expressed that make the difference, I believe. There is a type of writing that we could argue falls within the "content" framework.
You're right, and that's likely the reality of things. That's why I acknowledged the need for Substack to meet its valuation. It doesn't make it any less painful as a writer, and it means we need to do the hard work of thinking deeper about how this art form will continue to survive.
100% agree & one of the reasons why I really enjoyed writing & being on Substack was to get that depth in thought, research, and writing. However, as with all the many choices founders & organisations face, finding that right balance to preserve your “why” and still keep the business afloat and progressive is very important.
Also, I generally look at these things as experimentation - trying & seeing if it works? LinkedIn discontinued stories (I mean who wanted stories on LinkedIn?!), IGTV also didn’t stick initially but reels are here. Curious to see how this plays out, the uptake and what the learnings will be.
Perhaps, we can revisit this essay in future.
Will definitely be observing how this evolves for them. The difference is the ideological posts on which they all chose to hang their identities.
True that!
Whenever I watch shows like Star Trek and read books like Iain Bank’s The Culture series, I find it so fascinating that in those stories, real physical books are treated as relics. It always seemed crazy to me that writing as an art form would one day become lost to humanity.
Substack’s rise to me also felt the same. It felt like there was still hope for readers. In between books and tweets there’s essays.
The weirdest thing about human beings is the way we’ve been trained. Getting people to watch videos just happened to be the best way to keep them staring at a screen long enough to show them ads. Somewhere along the line writing/publishing became harder and harder to sustain because humans now want fast flashy videos.
The score is Capitalism 50. Writing 2.
It's really the result of years of incentives and social engineering. I wonder how we can turn this tide.
Just have to speak up about Star Trek. The whole "relic" thing with books in that franchise always feels less like "people don't read anymore" and more "paper is expensive so fewer people have physical books." I can't speak to any other franchise, but I do know that I read in multiple ways these days (paper - hardback & paperback, digital on a tablet & cell, and audio) and feel like this was just another way that Star Trek forecast the future of where we would find our books. I don't think the idea is that writing is a lost art form, but that's just my impression.
That said, I was devastated when Substack announced "Substack TV." I definitely came here as a writer who loves to read longform work, and wasn't a fan of the whole "Notes" thing, much less any of the emphasis on video. I don't particularly like to watch videos on my phone and so most of that is lost on me. And, since I don't make videos, I feel like my work isn't valued by the Substack platform as a whole.
The irony of this is also that the GP of Bond Capital (their lead investor) writes some of the longest and most detailed reports on internet culture and behavior, and has been doing so since 1995 (https://www.bondcap.com/#specialreports). What they say to attract users is not what they say to the reality of investors. At a certain point Substack chose to become a marketplace, because those are the dynamics most aligned with a venture scale return. It's also become a ubiquitous place for journos who have gone independent, but it comes with a host of tradeoffs (as you know well).
For writers such as ourselves, the ability to speak to these things clearly and with rigor is in fact, the necessity of the times.
Solid point, because this is a pattern seen with many investors, too. They put out these comprehensive and long memos, but their portfolio companies (like Substack) are somehow moving in a different direction.
Indeed. Substack is operating precisely as a scaling media company that took on venture money decides too. Taking on $100M to scale will always require tradeoffs, because you need to find ways to continue growth in an era of massive fragmentation.
Preeeeeeach!
I thought you would also add more context to the possible competition and political statement angles that have seen them bleed writers to X, Beehiv and now try to see what else sticks.
Yeah, that’s definitely an angle I could have explored. Perhaps in a future piece, if it comes to that.
this take...
"There will be a return, not to old media institutions, but to something looser and more adaptive: individual writers growing into small media companies, collectives, or tightly curated networks with shared subscriptions and overlapping audiences. We are already seeing this, and we will see much more of it in the coming years."
gave me perspective into why Every.to left Substack years ago, bundling a couple of niche newsletters into a pack I paid $200/yr for without thinking twice.
looking at how far (>100K+ subscribers) they got (I say got because currently, they seem to have lost their voice trying to keep up with any and everything AI) only shows the only path left for long-form writing to survive: individual writers growing into media companies of their own, where, first, the incentive for their growth is the depth of writing on offer.
this is why i read 1914 Reader.
You definitely get it. I love this comment.
your piece has led into the rabbit hole of investigating how much dilution the quest to match venture-scale growth can cause a startup's original, compelling product narrative.
turns out Casey Newton (I don't buy his core reason for leaving Substack) is just one of a few examples proving that venture capital can, in some cases, force a startup down the path of muddling the narrative that made them a no-brainer.
this will be my next piece for the Product-Led Storytelling Newsletter.
Tbh, Casey is very persistent with his beliefs, so I don't doubt his reasons at all. But good to know this sparked some ideas for you. Please share when you publish.
Hey David, my piece is live here:
https://productledstorytelling.substack.com/p/substack-narrative-dilution
Would love your thoughts.
"When most people hear the word creator today, they do not think of writers. They think of videos. Maybe even podcasts. They think of feeds and formats optimised for platforms that reward immediacy over reflection. Writing, by contrast, demands slowness, both from those who produce it and those who consume it."
TBH, I *never* equated creator with writer. "Creators" make "content," whatever the heck that is. "Writers" produce stories to be *read.* We are not content creators, we are writers.
I understand your position, honestly. And I hold writing with the same esteem as you do, but there’s an argument to be made for writing as one more medium of content production (for the sake of internet consumption, at least). It’s the degrees to which the writing varies and the styles with which it is expressed that make the difference, I believe. There is a type of writing that we could argue falls within the "content" framework.
It will be interesting to see how this plays out for those of us who see writing more as a tool than a passion.
'Once you raise venture capital, you no longer control your destiny'.
"Writing is being swallowed whole by the broader creator economy." No observation could be more apt.
Thoughtful piece as always. I'm curious about this line though:
"Not that it is expanding, but that in expanding, it is signalling that writing alone is no longer enough."
What if this statement is the factual reality of things? That to keep the lights on at its current scale, Substack needs to "expand"?
You're right, and that's likely the reality of things. That's why I acknowledged the need for Substack to meet its valuation. It doesn't make it any less painful as a writer, and it means we need to do the hard work of thinking deeper about how this art form will continue to survive.
Fair enough. It is well
Very well said.
Thank you!