At it’s core, Substack is a newsletter provider with a user-friendly interface. It’s a place for writers and creators to build and email list, write a newsletter, and cultivate a relationship with readers. The added bonus? Top fans can opt for subscribers only content, and writers get paid.

Substack claims to be a place for independent writing, separate from the toxic world of social media. Here in the Substack utopia, your content has value beyond clickbait. Substack’s claims of empowering independent writers and journalist have lead to headlines like “What is Substack Really Doing to the Media” and “Why We’re Freaking out About Substack“.

(The jist of all these articles more or less, is that Substack is not actually upending mainstream journalism, and is in fact, another iteration of social media. All of this according of course, to the major publications and media threatened by Substack itself. Hm.)

Is Substack actually good for small creators and writers?

Substack claims to be changing the way we write, and upending social media. But is Substack actually helping small creators and writers? What does an independent writer or creator without a large platform stand to gain by using Substack?

In short, yes. Substack can be a great tool for a small creator or independent writer. But like any platform, social media or not, Substack comes with its own set of limitations.

What is Substack?

Launched in 2017, Substack today has over half a million paying subscribers. This statistic does not include the hundreds of thousands more of subscriptions to free publications.

Substack cuts into the subscription-based news industry, generally dominated by publications like The New York Times and The Washington Post by giving journalists who have already garnered a following on social media the means to go independent by starting their own subscription-based newsletter through Substack. While there is some heated debate as to whether or not Substack offers any real chance at income for the average independent writer, several notable journalists have switched to independent writing through Substack.

For most people, Substack subscriptions will not become income replacement. Still, Substack functions as a tip jar similar to Patreon and a way to create content outside of the influence of a social media algorithm.

Essentially, Substack is a platform for anyone to have their own small publication. You can either offer your content completely free (and at no cost to you as a creator), or you can paywall your content through a subscription. Personally, I use a combination of majority free content, with 1-2 subscribers-only articles a month.

Substack and subscription-based content: why it matters

Fundamentally, Substack is both anti-social media, and an iteration of social media itself.

Social media apps like Facebook and Instagram are designed to keep users on the app as long as possible in order to sell ad space. Instagram and Facebook quite literally use your content to keep people addicted to the app, then sell ads, profiting without compensating creators. This ad-based model of content prioritizes clickbait over quality. Basically, social media today is designed to keep you scrolling, not provide value.

Substack is different in that as a provider, they don’t depend on ads to make money. Your content is not ranked by how long people spend on an app, and it doesn’t feed into the attention economy. Collectively, we’re tired of being used by social media.

Substack’s subscription model prioritizes the quality of content. If you don’t write something good and interesting, there’s no incentive to subscribe to your publication or newsletter. If your content is especially good, readers will forward it to a friend, or share it on Facebook. If they stop enjoying your content, they’ll unsubscribe.

Substack seems to put writers and creators first in a way that Instagram, Twitter, and Facebook just don’t.

What are people subscribing to Substack for?

There are sort of two ways and reasons people subscribe to a Substack style subscription based newsletter; they either find clear value in the content, or they are interested in supporting a person.

Celebrities and influencers can likely make money through simply providing additional access to them as a personality through a paid online dairy, while smaller writers and journalists will be able to write, and have to write, quality content to build a subscriber base. The savviest Substackers, and those who already have become and online personality with a social media following, will likely use a combination of both access and value to gain and retain subscribers.

Above is the stats for my Substack showing new visitors to the site overtime. Spikes in visitation are directly related to sharing articles on social media.

Pros of Substack

• Substack has a beautiful, easy to use interface. It’s a newsletter provider that any aspiring writer or creator could pick up and start using quickly.
• The subscription-based content model inherently empowers writers to create quality content and de-prioritizes clickbait.
• There’s potential for quality writing and content to translate to a stream of income.
• People are fed up with social media. Creators are tired of creating content for free that Instagram and Facebook turn around and use to sell ad space. It’s fairly likely in the coming years we’ll see a push away from traditional social media and towards more democratized platforms and online spaces.

Cons of Substack

• It’s hard to build your email list if you don’t already have a social media following. For an “anti-social network”, Substack will still favor writers and creators who already have a platform. The best way to promote individual articles will still be through sharing on social media.
• Substack isn’t SEO friendly. In my opinion, that’s okay. That’s why I have a brick and mortar blog like the one you’re reading right now. The life span of the content you create for Substack will be much shorter than anything you write on a WordPress blog, and it won’t bring in organic traffic from Google searches. Figuring out how to use Substack in conjunction with a traditional WordPress, and in conjunction with social media, makes it much less feasible for “just anyone” to start and grow a successful independent publication.
• It can be hard to convert your free email list to paying subscribers. You’ll probably find that plenty of people will sign up for your free newsletter if it consistently provides value; probably dramatically fewer of those people will be willing to pay for content.
• Today, Patreon has nearly 6 million active supporters. While Substack is geared for writers specifically, Patreon supports a variety of content creators and media. For a lot of creators, it probably makes more sense to use a platform that people are already familiar with (ie, Patreon). That being said, you don’t have to have a Substack account to subscribe to free emails, and much of the communication takes place outside of the platform itself.
• For most writers and creators, Substack and subscriptions will never substitute an income.
• Facebook and Twitter are rolling out paid subscription email services. There’s a chance Substack won’t be able to compete.

Substack is both the next social media, and an anti-social media: here’s why:

Substack is both an antidote to social media, and an evolution of social media itself. According to Anna Wiener at the New Yorker, “Substack, like these social networks, allows readers to create an information ecosystem populated by individuals of their choosing.”

While a subscription model might push content away from clickbait, Substack does not evade what is perhaps the most dangerous aspect of social media— when you’re choosing the content you consume, you tend to pick content that reinforces the ideas you already have, rather than challenges you. Substack, same as any social media, allows people to become entrenched in their own ideological bubble, or as Wiener puts it, self-selected information ecosystem.

This of course, is useless as a critique of Substack as a platform itself and more a commentary on how we as humans interact with social media the monster.

Along this same vein, Substack does nothing to combat fake news. On Substack, you’ve subscribed to an individual who’s opinion trust. Substack has none of the fact checking rigors of standard news publications, nor does it have any safeguards against abuse of power. Popular writers on Substack have the same power that is afforded influencers on social media; your audience and readership trusts your opinion and what you present as fact, whether or not it is inherently true.

The social media monster influences all writing

One of the biggest critiques of Substack is that despite claiming to be a respite from social media, Substack is still social media. The platform prioritizes personalities who are already popular, and offers little assistance to small creators in platform building, or eventual monetization.

“All this said, I think it is true that there are many up-and-coming writers on Substack who are creating content for the platform at an unsustainably cheap rate because they harbor the improbable hope that they will eventually become one of the few who can earn a comfortable living off of such journalism. “

Eric Levitz, “Substack Is a Scam in the Same Way That All Media Is”, Intelligencer

Here’s the thing: as a writer with a relatively small platform, I would still rather create content for 10 subscribers and make $50 a month than create content at the mercy of the Instagram algorithm where my content is used for free to sell ad space at the profit of Instagram and Facebook.

All modern writing and journalism exists within the context of social media.

Nothing exists in a vacuum, and it’s trendy to hate social media. Even on social media, we like to talk about how much we hate social media. All of these incredibly critical articles on Substack have good points, but they were written by writers funded by a major media collective. A hot, negative take about how Substack isn’t different than social media is what gets clicks, it’s what gets shared, and it’s what gets remembered.

Facebook shares, whether for an independent Substack writer or Eric at the Intelligencer, are the currency of the modern journalist or writer. It is literally impossible for writing and journalism to exist today outside of the context of social media.

Now and always, on Substack or in Intelligencer, it’s about critical thinking. Sit down and ask “how does this piece of writing serve the writer and the publisher?” For Slate or the New Yorker or whoever, that writer and publisher need you to want to share that article on Facebook. They need you to want to subscribe, and they need to get enough eyes on the page to keep selling ad space on that pretty little sidebar— oh look, we’re back to critiques of ad-based content.

Meanwhile, a Substack writer needs to produce writing that keeps people subscribed to their page. I find the critiques of Substack to be compelling; I also recognize that they were written by writers funded by media collectives and newspapers actively threatened by the existence of Substack.

Should small creators and independent writers use Substack?

I’m on Substack. I have a small but existent platform on Instagram, which has translated to a modest Substack following. I joined Substack when I was looking into newsletter providers for my blog, and went down the deep dive of Substack discourse. I was intrigued, and decided to give it a shot.

I really like Substack. Here’s why:

I’ve never left Substack feeling drained or used, the way I feel on most social media.

As a young, small independent writer and not a journalist, I’ve liked using Substack. I have a small platform that I’ve built on Instagram, that’s translated to just a few hundred Substack readers. But it gives me the freedom to write to for a small audience, to write about what I want, and to begin to learn how to market myself. Substack doesn’t have the pressure of social media, and it’s a good place to learn to be a writer.

The primary critiques of Substack by the Intelligencer, and The New Yorker, and Slate basically boil down to the idea that Substack will only make elite and already popular writers rich. (Which, like. Duh?)

Here’s what major publications are missing about Substack:

For me, Substack is a way to write for a small group of people who are invested in my writing and photography. It’s a way to practice becoming a better writer, and get feedback, and learn. It’s not about explosive growth, or making money; it’s about being able to create outside of an algorithm, with a community that enjoys my writing and work. I really like Substack for that reason.

I’m never going to make tons of money from Substack, and I don’t expect to. The things I write on Substack aren’t supposed to go viral, or reach a new audience; they’re for the people who already like my work.

The benefit of Substack for small creators lies in that—

Whether you have 10 Substack subscribers or 2,000, or 200,000, it’s a group of people who support you and are interested in your writing. It’s people who will buy the book you wrote, or will check out the article you suggested, or will buy your fine art photography prints even though the market is crazy saturated, because they like you and want to support you.

Personally, I don’t care if Substack is upending journalism. It’s given me an algorithm-free place to practice being a writer, and share things I care about. For all that, I think it’s good to take Substack at face value; it’s an email newsletter provider with a really really nice interface, and a way to connect with people outside of social media.