So it turns out Substack is giving 1 year money guarantees to writers to get them to write on their platform, but they won't tell you who

excelsiorlef · Mar 20, 2021

With Substack Pro, we pay a writer an upfront sum to cover their first year on the platform. The idea is that the payment can be more attractive to a writer than a salary, so they don’t have to stay in a job (or take one) that’s less interesting to them than being independent. In return for that financial security, a Pro writer agrees to let Substack keep 85% of the subscription revenue in that first year. After that year, the deal flips, so that the writer no longer gets a minimum guarantee but from then on keeps 90% of the subscription revenue – which, if we’ve made our bet well, will be a larger overall dollar amount. We like this structure because, while some who get these deals are already well off, it gives financially constrained writers the ability to start building a sustainable enterprise. We take most of the risk for them. In return, their work contributes to the quality of the Substack ecosystem and they become long-term customers.

Why we pay writers

The thinking behind Substack Pro

blog.substack.com

But they won't tell you who, and they're also trying to pretend they aren't a publishing body, despite the fact that they clearly chose who to pay up front and who to not/

Ironically this tweet which I think is defending Pro highlights another unethical aspect:

It's like if there was a Go Fund Me type site for helping house the the homeless, to use an over the top example, but secretly the site was providing housing to selected people, but not telling you, so when you donate to those people thinking you're really helping them out.... what you're actually doing is giving money to the company itself, and while they claim they won't use that money elsewhere in their business...you don't exactly get to audit them.

But this is even worse on some level because at least homeless people are getting housing... here if you give money to pro writer A who is a trans rights writer your money actually could easily be used by substack to pay someone like Graham Linehan and you'd have no way of knowing

AndyD · Mar 20, 2021

Do you subscribe to a particular writer, or to the platform?

So is it a bit like Youtube's specific channel subscriptions as opposed to the general ad funding or Youtube Red that goes to every channel that gets views?

excelsiorlef · Mar 20, 2021

AndyD said:
Do you subscribe to a particular writer, or to the platform?

So is it a bit like Youtube's specific channel subscriptions as opposed to the general ad funding or Youtube Red that goes to every channel that gets views?

It was presented to people like patreon for journalism, you are supposed to be paying the author directly, with substack taking a cut ala patreon... what's happening here is if you give someone who is on a pro deal you are just giving substack money essentially and a pittance to the writer directly.

Also if you had to pick between two authors one who was directly relying on your money and the other who was getting 250k for the first year... you'd probably pick author A... but with the secrecy of Pro unless they tell you all pro authors get to masquerade as the aforementioned I really need your money Author A.

sangreal · Mar 20, 2021

Greenwald is always pushing this thing and that’s the only reason I’ve heard of it (when people post his crap here) so I’d guess he is one of them

bickieditches · Mar 20, 2021

sangreal said:
Greenwald is always pushing this thing and that’s the only reason I’ve heard of it (when people post his crap here) so I’d guess he is one of them

Same with Matt Yglesias. I guess I'm ok with people being paid for their work? But I generally don't care enough about these writers' opinions to ever subscribe to them myself.

excelsiorlef · Mar 20, 2021

bickieditches said:
Same with Matt Yglesias. I guess I'm ok with people being paid for their work? But I generally don't care enough about these writers' opinions to ever subscribe to them myself.

Right but if you thought you were paying them for their work but it turns out you're just paying their publisher so the publisher can pay someone else, someone you might not want to pay...

Joni · Mar 20, 2021

I can kinda understand. I mean, these writers won't come to your platform unless you pay upfront. But telling people won't help them stick around in the second year because they'll see their subs being bad.

345 · Mar 20, 2021

this isn't really different to when (say) sony funds an indie game and only shares revenue after recouping its investment. which is very common! you buying the game at launch doesn't put money in the developer's pockets, though it does help convince the publisher that paying developers is worthwhile.

the dev/author has to weigh initial stability against a ceiling on launch earnings.

excelsiorlef · Mar 20, 2021

Joni said:
I can kinda understand. I mean, these writers won't come to your platform unless you pay upfront. But telling people won't help them stick around in the second year because they'll see their subs being bad.

Uhh the whole point of substack is supposed to be that the readers pay the writers... substack is supposed to just be the facilitator.

excelsiorlef · Mar 20, 2021

345 said:
this isn't really different to when (say) sony funds an indie game and only shares revenue after recouping its investment. which is very common! you buying the game doesn't put money in the developer's pockets, though it does help convince the publisher that paying developers is worthwhile.

It's completely different because substack is like patreon the idea is that these people aren't getting paid unless you give them money

indie devs get paid before you pay anything, you know they're getting paid before you pay anything

GG-Duo · Mar 20, 2021

Yeah it’s garbage. They’re making editorial decisions with this

Joni · Mar 20, 2021

excelsiorlef said:
Uhh the whole point of substack is supposed to be that the readers pay the writers... substack is supposed to just be the facilitator.

I understand that, but you need an incentive to get some bigger names so people come to the platform.

excelsiorlef · Mar 20, 2021

Joni said:
I understand that, but you need an incentive to get some bigger names so people come to the platform.

Yeah and they should be upfront with who and how it works.

Ultimately they aren't because then the reader will pay someone else knowing those people are secure in their funding, and this means less money for substack so they'll just have this secret program and leave it up to the writers to disclose

It's scummy and it's not a neutral act for something claiming to just be a "platform"

345 · Mar 20, 2021

excelsiorlef said:
It's completely different because substack is like patreon the idea is that these people aren't getting paid unless you give them money

indie devs get paid before you pay anything, you know they're getting paid before you pay anything

maybe? but i feel like substack's biggest names are pretty open about the existence of their deals. yglesias has even said he's losing money on his based on his subscriber count.

i agree with you that they're certainly a publisher but i don't really think anyone should feel bamboozled about where their money's going. if you sub to someone you're rewarding that investment in them.

Mulligan · Mar 20, 2021

This sounds like that hotel startup called OYO where they enter into an agreement with an existing hotel, renovate it at the hotel’s expense, promise the hotel to get new customers, and then take all of the profits for a year.

Unfortunately for the hotel, OYO destroys hotels. OYO never gets new clients for the hotels, charges the hotel $100,000 + for the shitty renovations, and extracts the final profits before bankrupting the lodge.

Joni · Mar 20, 2021

excelsiorlef said:
Yeah and they should be upfront with who and how it works.

Ultimately they aren't because then the reader will pay someone else knowing those people are secure in their funding, and this means less money for substack so they'll just have this secret program and leave it up to the writers to disclose

It's scummy and it's not a neutral act for something claiming to just be a "platform"

It is a platform, not a charity. If they did as you proposed, they would be losing money on those and the authors wouldn't have a subscription when their deal is up. So we get back to the initial issue. How would you suggest getting big people on that platform?
(Question is of course if enough people are willing to pay in the first place to not have this crash and burn)

excelsiorlef · Mar 20, 2021

345 said:
yglesias has even said he's losing money on his.

This makes the concept even scummier fyi.

345 said:
i agree with you that they're certainly a publisher but i don't really think anyone should feel bamboozled about where their money's going. if you sub to someone you're rewarding that investment in them.

Except when you're subbing to Matt you're not you're giving money to Substack to Glenn Greenwald and if Matt hadn't told you you wouldn't know that

excelsiorlef · Mar 20, 2021

Joni said:
It is a platform, not a charity. If they did as you proposed, they would be losing money on those and the authors wouldn't have a subscription when their deal is up. So we get back to the initial issue. How would you suggest getting big people on that platform?
(Question is of course if enough people are willing to pay in the first place to not have this crash and burn)

Pro isn't itself that much of a problem, other than them claiming to just be a platform and not a publisher goes out the window when they're paying writers directly, it's not disclosing who is pro that's the problem

Mezentine · Mar 20, 2021

Isn't Jesse "I totally support trans people I just think they should never actually transition" Singal also one of the people with this offer? Or was something else blowing up recently?

excelsiorlef · Mar 20, 2021

Mezentine said:
Isn't Jesse "I totally support trans people I just think they should never actually transition" Singal also one of the people with this offer? Or was something else blowing up recently?

Pretty sure they're paying him yes

alexiswrite · Mar 20, 2021

excelsiorlef said:
It was presented to people like patreon for journalism, you are supposed to be paying the author directly, with substack taking a cut ala patreon... what's happening here is if you give someone who is on a pro deal you are just giving substack money essentially and a pittance to the writer directly.

Also if you had to pick between two authors one who was directly relying on your money and the other who was getting 250k for the first year... you'd probably pick author A... but with the secrecy of Pro unless they tell you all pro authors get to masquerade as the aforementioned I really need your money Author A.

This is just like Advances with book deals though. People have to pay back the money over time. The pro writers actually do still need the money, like the way an author with a huge advance still needs to sell a lot of copies. Without advances like this I'm sure a lot of people wouldn't be able to just leave their jobs and start substacking without things like this. And also, I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of other services do exactly the same shit, but don't tell anyone. A lot of people are being paid directly by twitch and we know nothing about it.

I think the fact that this is all private is ultimately bad. People should be aware how much people they want to give money to are making/have been paid up front.

excelsiorlef · Mar 20, 2021

alexiswrite said:
This is just like Advances with book deals though. People have to pay back the money over time. The pro writers actually do still need the money, like the way an author with a huge advance still needs to sell a lot of copies. Without advances like this I'm sure a lot of people wouldn't be able to just leave their jobs and start substacking without things like this. And also, I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of other services do exactly the same shit, but don't tell anyone. A lot of people are being paid directly by twitch and we know nothing about it.

I think the fact that this is all private is ultimately bad. People should be aware how much people they want to give money to are making/have been paid up front.

Except again... everyone knows an author is getting paid by a publisher at some point.

Again disclosure is the issue here because it's pretending to be a neutral patreon platform but it's really a hybrid publisher but it can't admit to be a publisher because then it can be accused of having political stances

345 · Mar 20, 2021

excelsiorlef said:
This makes the concept even scummier fyi.

some people value stability over revenue upside and that's their prerogative. the same happens with book/game/whatever deals all the time. substack writers who take this deal are betting that they'll be able to do good work over the initial year with guaranteed income and build a subscriber base for the future. will some ultimately come out behind if their blogs blow up? yes, but it might be worth it for them anyway.

excelsiorlef said:
Pro isn't itself that much of a problem, other than them claiming to just be a platform and not a publisher goes out the window when they're paying writers directly, it's not disclosing who is pro that's the problem

are you aware of any substack writers who haven't disclosed that they're on the pro contract? i would think the solution to this problem is to ask any writer to confirm whether they're on pro or not before subscribing, if you care about where your money goes. otherwise i don't see why substack should be under any more obligation to disclose the details of their upfront payments than any other publisher would be. yes it would be nice to have a public list but it doesn't strike me as unusual that the list doesn't exist

excelsiorlef · Mar 20, 2021

345 said:
are you aware of any substack writers who haven't disclosed that they're on the pro contract? i would think the solution to this problem is to ask any writer to confirm whether they're on pro or not before subscribing, if you care about where your money goes. otherwise i don't see why substack should be under any more obligation to disclose the details of their upfront payments than any other publisher would be. yes it would be nice to have a public list but it doesn't strike me as unusual that the list doesn't exist

How could I be aware of which ones who are secretly paid by substack haven't disclosed that they are secretly paid by substack without a list that substack won't provide?

alexiswrite · Mar 20, 2021

excelsiorlef said:
Except again... everyone knows an author is getting paid by a publisher at some point.

Again disclosure is the issue here because it's pretending to be a neutral patreon platform but it's really a hybrid publisher but it can't admit to be a publisher because then it can be accused of having political stances

I agree with you 100% disclosure is an issue. I'm just pointing out that this isn't a substack issue. This is an internet issue. Almost every service that allows you to subscribe to someone is paying out advances in order to stay competitive. Even patreon is doing this.

345 · Mar 20, 2021

excelsiorlef said:
How could I be aware of which ones who are secretly paid by substack haven't disclosed that they are secretly paid by substack without a list that substack won't provide?

beats me, but ask them if it matters to you! why would you expect substack to provide the list? it's private information that the writers can choose to disclose or not.

patreon does the same thing with revenue advances.

excelsiorlef · Mar 20, 2021

alexiswrite said:
I agree with you 100% disclosure is an issue. I'm just pointing out that this isn't a substack issue. This is an internet issue. Almost every service that allows you to subscribe to someone is paying out advances in order to stay competitive. Even patreon is doing this.

Had no idea though it seems like one you apply for where this is basically substack hiring writers while claiming to be not a publisher

DekuBleep · Mar 20, 2021

Is all the writing on substack freely available? Or is some of it paywalled like with Patreon?

Some of the writers on substack self disclosed that substack paid them upfront to move to their platform. I think it’s safe to assume that almost any big shot on substack who recently moved was paid to move there.

whatsinaname · Mar 20, 2021

It is so difficult to unseat entrenched habits on the internet now (go to youtube, use whatsapp, go to verge or go to netflix or go to reddit), is it even feasible to start something new and have it come to a critical sustainable audience without pumping money in at the start?

Not sure how I feel in this particular instance.

Like I can see how this company Substack is clearly trading on that feeling of 'supporting x reporter' and they will become the new rent seeker in the future taking their 15% cut and with their own shitty practices and creating their own 'superstars' who might be disproportionally supported on the platform. But I also feel somehow this new model might be a step up from the current one for the vast majority of writers?

Personally for me - the ideal would be having a no-fee micropayment structure on the internet. That's where I had hoped bitcoin would go but we all know how that turned out.

Nox · Mar 20, 2021

I can assume Greenwald is one of them? Explains why he just burned every bridge at Intercept and left

skullmuffins · Mar 20, 2021

DekuBleep said:
Is all the writing on substack freely available? Or is some of it paywalled like with Patreon?

some of it is paywalled. the authors choose which pieces to make free and which, if any, they want to put behind a subscription fee

JABEE · Mar 20, 2021

Makes sense. They want to compete with other media outlets and bring in big names to build the reputation of their company.

medinaria · Mar 20, 2021

Nox said:
I can assume Greenwald is one of them? Explains why he just burned every bridge at Intercept and left

by his own assertion, he is not

this thread contains at least a subset of the people that we know took money from substack, but we basically only know the contours of matt yglesias' deal - you can kind of assume that similar people made a similar deal, in all likelihood

greenwald honestly has enough of a brand on his own that I think it's very likely he's being truthful here, and assumed that he would make more than the amount being offered through his subscriptions (and it's extremely likely that he was correct)

excelsiorlef · Mar 20, 2021

JABEE said:
Makes sense. They want to compete with other media outlets and bring in big names to build the reputation of their company.

They claim to not be a media outlet

So it turns out Substack is giving 1 year money guarantees to writers to get them to write on their platform, but they won't tell you who

Mambo Number PS5