As usual, bookmark worthy perspective. A couple of thoughts triggered by this. 1. Geese may not be streaming like pop stars, but it has been this way for rock music for quite some time (similar to the literary/mainstream fiction divide), and they are definitely happening in the arena in which bands of their ilk can make their money, live performance. Their last tour at relatively small clubs had tickets going for $500 on the secondary market. Their next tour will move them from 1000-1500 seat theaters to 5000+ seat arenas, and they'll be making 90% of their income from live performances.
2. Ron Charles is going to be a very successful newsletter writer since he is one of the last name brand book reviewers in the country. He'll be excellent at it too, but he'll also be read by many fewer people than when he was in the Washington Post no matter how successful he is here. I'm no Ron Charles, but every week I write 600-word column for the Chicago Tribune and a newsletter post here. Income-wise, for me, they're almost identical, but even in the Tribune's incredibly diminished state compared to when I started (2011), even a conservative estimate of what percentage of Sunday Tribune readers read my column would put the audience 5 to 10x greater than for my newsletter. The newsletter is a very highly concentrated universe of dedicated readers, as compared to the people who come across me in a Sunday newspaper, but my overall reach at the newsletter is significantly smaller. It's possible that me talking about a particular book in my newsletter drives more direct sales, but it is also narrower band in terms of talking about books as part of a broader culture.
I agree, my problem with Substack is that I literally cannot support everyone I want to read; currently I subscribe to The New York Times and read dozens of authors for the annual cost of one or two Substack subs. Also if you don't already have a following like Charles, you are lost in the sauce.
Same dilemma in terms of support both as a reader and writer. I tend to pay for people who I know don’t have institutional support of some kind, but if someone I really like puts their stuff behind a paywall and I keep reading it, I pay for that subscription, but that also makes me less likely to read and pay for someone else. It’s not quite zero-sum, but it’s close.
As a newsletter writer I’ve kept everything free and on a patronage model which brings in some income, but much less than if I put some stuff behind a paywall. I’ve decided to trade reach for income because I think I benefit from that long term because of my relative position. I had just enough launch momentum because of my Tribune column to establish a secure (enough) base, but it’s nowhere near Ron Charles level. He could probably make what WaPo was paying if he puts everything behind a paywall.
Thanks so much for this thoughtful breakdown. I’m particularly interested in how “Intensity, not overall visibility, is what is driving culture.” I’d love to find more examples of this intensity. How does one build it from scratch?
This is a thoughtful look at what a lot of people are quietly noticing — that institutions don’t really create meaning or momentum anymore, they recognize it after it already exists. The part about intensity of connection being more important than visibility feels especially true. People aren’t looking for gatekeepers as much as they’re looking for honesty and voice, something that feels human and lived rather than manufactured.
What’s interesting to me is how this also changes the role of the writer. It’s less about being endorsed and more about being present long enough for real trust to form. Smaller networks, churches, book clubs, and conversations seem to be where things actually take root now. That feels less efficient, but maybe more real.
I’ve been thinking about this from the angle of presence, meaning, and why certain writing connects at all — wrote a bit about that here if you’re interested:
The latching onto things already successful is something I’ve noticed on Substack in the bookish circle. So many accounts are focused on what’s new and everyone is looking forward to the same upcoming releases. I find myself looking for accounts that aren’t posting the same content as the crowd.
This hits: “We’re in a vampiric media ecosystem, where the most powerful players, instead of trying to drive conversation, will be latching onto what’s already working, amplifying it, and trying to own its popularity and take a piece of it for themselves (see: every Taylor Swift album rollout).”
I agree wholeheartedly! I think what "sells" is belief, not visibility. When we believe in something - a book, a movie, a candidate, a cause...that's when we recommend it. When someone we truly believe in (for more than just their celebrity) recommends something, we go look.
Witness how many people (not just in NYC, but in many places in the US) are winning elections despite having a fragment of the ad budget of their opponents. Buying visibility, through promotions or ads or publicity, isn't working anymore. Which, as someone who has worked on the side of thought leadership and influence for a long time, delights me to no end!
gosh this is great. you’ve got your finger right on something here. it’s big and hard to describe but you’ve hit the nail on the head, esp in regards to these big institutions grabbing onto books/movies/music when they’ve realized they’re ‘hot’ or viral and not before so. i think big media institutions like today show are on their way out, they’re so antiquated and fake seeming, i don’t know how people still watch them.
Thanks for a great article, especially this: "In the past, the establishment powers might have ignored Sinners success and been able to put their finger on the scale for a film that fits more in the mold of what they traditionally reward." Seems like the Phoenix may be rising out of its ashes as the place is still burning?
As usual, bookmark worthy perspective. A couple of thoughts triggered by this. 1. Geese may not be streaming like pop stars, but it has been this way for rock music for quite some time (similar to the literary/mainstream fiction divide), and they are definitely happening in the arena in which bands of their ilk can make their money, live performance. Their last tour at relatively small clubs had tickets going for $500 on the secondary market. Their next tour will move them from 1000-1500 seat theaters to 5000+ seat arenas, and they'll be making 90% of their income from live performances.
2. Ron Charles is going to be a very successful newsletter writer since he is one of the last name brand book reviewers in the country. He'll be excellent at it too, but he'll also be read by many fewer people than when he was in the Washington Post no matter how successful he is here. I'm no Ron Charles, but every week I write 600-word column for the Chicago Tribune and a newsletter post here. Income-wise, for me, they're almost identical, but even in the Tribune's incredibly diminished state compared to when I started (2011), even a conservative estimate of what percentage of Sunday Tribune readers read my column would put the audience 5 to 10x greater than for my newsletter. The newsletter is a very highly concentrated universe of dedicated readers, as compared to the people who come across me in a Sunday newspaper, but my overall reach at the newsletter is significantly smaller. It's possible that me talking about a particular book in my newsletter drives more direct sales, but it is also narrower band in terms of talking about books as part of a broader culture.
I agree, my problem with Substack is that I literally cannot support everyone I want to read; currently I subscribe to The New York Times and read dozens of authors for the annual cost of one or two Substack subs. Also if you don't already have a following like Charles, you are lost in the sauce.
Same dilemma in terms of support both as a reader and writer. I tend to pay for people who I know don’t have institutional support of some kind, but if someone I really like puts their stuff behind a paywall and I keep reading it, I pay for that subscription, but that also makes me less likely to read and pay for someone else. It’s not quite zero-sum, but it’s close.
As a newsletter writer I’ve kept everything free and on a patronage model which brings in some income, but much less than if I put some stuff behind a paywall. I’ve decided to trade reach for income because I think I benefit from that long term because of my relative position. I had just enough launch momentum because of my Tribune column to establish a secure (enough) base, but it’s nowhere near Ron Charles level. He could probably make what WaPo was paying if he puts everything behind a paywall.
Best thing I read on Substack this week!!
Thanks so much for this thoughtful breakdown. I’m particularly interested in how “Intensity, not overall visibility, is what is driving culture.” I’d love to find more examples of this intensity. How does one build it from scratch?
This is a thoughtful look at what a lot of people are quietly noticing — that institutions don’t really create meaning or momentum anymore, they recognize it after it already exists. The part about intensity of connection being more important than visibility feels especially true. People aren’t looking for gatekeepers as much as they’re looking for honesty and voice, something that feels human and lived rather than manufactured.
What’s interesting to me is how this also changes the role of the writer. It’s less about being endorsed and more about being present long enough for real trust to form. Smaller networks, churches, book clubs, and conversations seem to be where things actually take root now. That feels less efficient, but maybe more real.
I’ve been thinking about this from the angle of presence, meaning, and why certain writing connects at all — wrote a bit about that here if you’re interested:
https://theeternalnowmm.substack.com/p/eternal-love?r=71z4jh
The latching onto things already successful is something I’ve noticed on Substack in the bookish circle. So many accounts are focused on what’s new and everyone is looking forward to the same upcoming releases. I find myself looking for accounts that aren’t posting the same content as the crowd.
Paranormal intensity does not instill much hope. Still who you know, not what you know.
A great read. Love that you address the entire media and entertainment ecosystem and publishing as just one microcosm
https://substack.com/@donnelly/note/c-160635148?r=asz&utm_source=notes-share-action&utm_medium=web
This hits: “We’re in a vampiric media ecosystem, where the most powerful players, instead of trying to drive conversation, will be latching onto what’s already working, amplifying it, and trying to own its popularity and take a piece of it for themselves (see: every Taylor Swift album rollout).”
I agree wholeheartedly! I think what "sells" is belief, not visibility. When we believe in something - a book, a movie, a candidate, a cause...that's when we recommend it. When someone we truly believe in (for more than just their celebrity) recommends something, we go look.
Witness how many people (not just in NYC, but in many places in the US) are winning elections despite having a fragment of the ad budget of their opponents. Buying visibility, through promotions or ads or publicity, isn't working anymore. Which, as someone who has worked on the side of thought leadership and influence for a long time, delights me to no end!
Very smart post.
gosh this is great. you’ve got your finger right on something here. it’s big and hard to describe but you’ve hit the nail on the head, esp in regards to these big institutions grabbing onto books/movies/music when they’ve realized they’re ‘hot’ or viral and not before so. i think big media institutions like today show are on their way out, they’re so antiquated and fake seeming, i don’t know how people still watch them.
Thanks for a great article, especially this: "In the past, the establishment powers might have ignored Sinners success and been able to put their finger on the scale for a film that fits more in the mold of what they traditionally reward." Seems like the Phoenix may be rising out of its ashes as the place is still burning?
Intriguing essay. Enjoyed it.
Well argued. Thanks for providing the lingo for what I keep seeing—intensity of connection is key.