6 ms·

> "Substack is to newsletters what Spotify is to podcasts, Medium was to blogs, and what Google Reader was to RSS: an aggressive player that dominates an entire

> "Substack is to newsletters what Spotify is to podcasts, Medium was to blogs, and what Google Reader was to RSS: an aggressive player that dominates an entire segment with artificial and unsustainable advantages in a risky bet." As someone who is writing a reasonably popular Substack newsletter - and have used several newsletter platforms in the past - I have to disagree. The biggest difference between Substack and Spotify/Medium/Google Reader is how, with Substack - and with Ghost, Beehiv and other newsletter platforms - the author owns the relationship with readers. When you sign up for Substack, assuming you use a custom domain (which is a one-off $50 fee), you own: - Your domain - The email list of your subscribers - Your content that you can easily export and migrate - Your subscriptions: as you are not paid by Substack, but subscribers pay you via Stripe, and then you pay Substack This makes your Substack content, "audience" and paid subscriptions fully portable, should you ever want to move to or from this platform. These days, migrating to and from platforms like Ghost is fairly trivial without losing anything (content, subscribers or SEO ratings). This portability and owning of my content, and the connection with subscribers is why I am on Substack. It means that I have the freedom to leave to another platform. It's also why there have been many publications that have left Substack - and then some came back. For example, the newsletter Expontential View that has about 80,000 subscribers and thousands of paid subscribers left Substack for Ghost in June 2021 [1] and then migrated back to Substack from Ghost on August 2022 [2]. In both cases, they moved all their subscribers and content. And any publication can leave (or move to) without issues, any time! Sure: this portability is not the best business to Substack. But it's the opposite of threat to newsletters: it's the opportunity to choose your platform, and move when you want to. Show me another platform outside of newsletters that has this option. [1] https://www.exponentialview.co/p/important-migration-from-substack-2 https://www.exponentialview.co/p/important-migration-from-su... [2] https://www.exponentialview.co/p/announcement-move-2022 https://www.exponentialview.co/p/announcement-move-2022

nwienert 3y ago
As Substack pivots from VC driven growth at all costs to needing to actually be profitable, they will slowly chip away at every one of those facets: domain will get more expensive (likely monthly), email list will be locked down or paid, content export, and even payment portal likely changes to be through them. They have to justify a valuation at some point and it will happen. This happens with every VC company, they grow because they do unsustainable things, then pivot to ruining the platform.
- gregdoesit 3y ago
  Sure, but as a newsletter author, portability means that if this happens, I'll just move to e.g. Ghost or Beehiiv, or another platform. The portability is the reason I am on the platform, and not on another platform. Take away this portability and I am gone. The big difference with every other platform like Spotify, Medium, YouTube, Twitter, Instagram, LinkedIn etc etc is how those platforms do not allow for this kind of portability by design. They never have done so, and never will. And their take rate is also much higher than Substack's 10%. Given full portability exists today, why are we speculating about things that are not happening, and what would likely undermine Substack's business model of both attracting and retaining newsletter authors? And yes: Substack will need to make more money to justify their valuation. Taking away portability to do so would backfire: at least from my view.
  - ukuina 3y ago
    How would you move if they take away portability? Are you assuming sufficient warning before such a change?
- soco 3y ago
  Your argument is addressed to another (future) article, probably called "Substack WILL be the biggest threat..." because as of today nothing of what you are hinting at has happened, or is happening. Maybe we shouldn't take decisions based on fortune telling.
rosywoozlechan 3y ago
I appreciate the context you provided about what makes Substack appealing and how it may mitigate some of the threat. However, I believe the main point of the article is that Substack represents yet another example of money being poured into disrupting existing channels. When the funding dries up and the music stops, we may lose more than just Substack. We may witness a diversity of providers going out of business because they couldn’t compete with deep-pocketed investors throwing money around. In the end, we could be left with a spam-riddled Substack struggling to make any money at all, while the old services are gone because they couldn’t survive the onslaught of VC wealth. It’s a bad bet that could leave us with nothing but craters and scorched earth where a thriving newsletter community used to be.
- gregdoesit 3y ago
  Are we ignoring how one of Substack's major competitors, Ghost is doing just fine? Bootstrapped, on a $6M run rate, their growth speeding the past years and openly sharing their revenue details [1]. What would happen if Substack went out of business? Newsletters can (and would) migrate to Ghost or other alternatives that are also thriving. [1] https://ghost.org/open/ https://ghost.org/open/
  - rpgbr 3y ago
    Except Ghost isn't free, and I doubt most of Substack newsletters (I mean those from amateurs writers, not the pros that make a living off them) would be willing to pay. That's where the destructions will happen.
amadeuspagel 3y ago
If you try sending emails to that email list of your subscribers yourself, those will most likely land in the spam folder.
v0idzer0 3y ago
I can guarantee you’ll leave with none of those things if you leave

nwienert 3y ago

As Substack pivots from VC driven growth at all costs to needing to actually be profitable, they will slowly chip away at every one of those facets: domain will get more expensive (likely monthly), email list will be locked down or paid, content export, and even payment portal likely changes to be through them. They have to justify a valuation at some point and it will happen. This happens with every VC company, they grow because they do unsustainable things, then pivot to ruining the platform.

gregdoesit 3y ago
Sure, but as a newsletter author, portability means that if this happens, I'll just move to e.g. Ghost or Beehiiv, or another platform. The portability is the reason I am on the platform, and not on another platform. Take away this portability and I am gone. The big difference with every other platform like Spotify, Medium, YouTube, Twitter, Instagram, LinkedIn etc etc is how those platforms do not allow for this kind of portability by design. They never have done so, and never will. And their take rate is also much higher than Substack's 10%. Given full portability exists today, why are we speculating about things that are not happening, and what would likely undermine Substack's business model of both attracting and retaining newsletter authors? And yes: Substack will need to make more money to justify their valuation. Taking away portability to do so would backfire: at least from my view.
- ukuina 3y ago
  How would you move if they take away portability? Are you assuming sufficient warning before such a change?
soco 3y ago
Your argument is addressed to another (future) article, probably called "Substack WILL be the biggest threat..." because as of today nothing of what you are hinting at has happened, or is happening. Maybe we shouldn't take decisions based on fortune telling.

rosywoozlechan 3y ago

I appreciate the context you provided about what makes Substack appealing and how it may mitigate some of the threat. However, I believe the main point of the article is that Substack represents yet another example of money being poured into disrupting existing channels. When the funding dries up and the music stops, we may lose more than just Substack. We may witness a diversity of providers going out of business because they couldn’t compete with deep-pocketed investors throwing money around. In the end, we could be left with a spam-riddled Substack struggling to make any money at all, while the old services are gone because they couldn’t survive the onslaught of VC wealth. It’s a bad bet that could leave us with nothing but craters and scorched earth where a thriving newsletter community used to be.

gregdoesit 3y ago
Are we ignoring how one of Substack's major competitors, Ghost is doing just fine? Bootstrapped, on a $6M run rate, their growth speeding the past years and openly sharing their revenue details [1]. What would happen if Substack went out of business? Newsletters can (and would) migrate to Ghost or other alternatives that are also thriving. [1] https://ghost.org/open/ https://ghost.org/open/
- rpgbr 3y ago
  Except Ghost isn't free, and I doubt most of Substack newsletters (I mean those from amateurs writers, not the pros that make a living off them) would be willing to pay. That's where the destructions will happen.

amadeuspagel 3y ago

If you try sending emails to that email list of your subscribers yourself, those will most likely land in the spam folder.

v0idzer0 3y ago

I can guarantee you’ll leave with none of those things if you leave