logo
How Substack is upending media: ‘It is seriously challenging the old-guard message that people won't pay for writing'

How Substack is upending media: ‘It is seriously challenging the old-guard message that people won't pay for writing'

Irish Times2 days ago
Elon Musk
wanted to buy Substack not long after he bought Twitter in 2022. But the newsletter and podcast platform wasn't for sale. This month Substack raised a further $100 million (€85.44 million) in investment. The deal put a reported $1.1 billion valuation on the business. For now, Substack remains privately owned.
Even though it's been around for eight years, it's only in the last couple of years that Substack has become more visible and popular. Part of the reason is that several big-name writers have started using the platform.
Margaret Atwood
, George Saunders,
Miranda July
,
Salman Rushdie
, Chuck Palahniuk and many others have Substacks.
[
A Swim in a Pond in the Rain: A masterclass in how to write by George Saunders
Opens in new window
]
Maybe it's the ethos of Substack that draws writers of such renown. As the app states, 'with full editorial content and no gatekeepers, you can do the work you most believe in'. At this starry juncture of the careers of Atwood et al, it's difficult to imagine any book editor savaging new manuscripts they submit, but maybe it's the freedom to play around with random content and ideas that is the attraction.
Other well-known people on the platform are the Nobel-winning economist Paul Krugman, former Vanity Fair editor Tina Brown and singer-songwriter
Patti Smith
.
READ MORE
So how did Substack evolve? Back in the analogue day, we hand-wrote letters to each other when we had something to say. That lasted for centuries. The most exposure those letters received were overwhelmingly to an audience of one. That's unless the recipients and/or senders were famous, and had the foresight to keep their correspondence; a correspondence that some day in the future ended up being published as Collected Letters.
Then came the Internet and mobile phones for all, and the new reality of your thoughts, images and live experiences reaching huge digital audiences. On the writing side of this in the early days were blogs, usually on the platform Word Press. Plenty of ordinary people blogged about their lives, children, travels, social experiments, interests and an inexhaustible range of other subjects.
In the democracy of the online world, some blogs were good, some were terrible. They were free to read, or at least any I came across were, although, as ever, donations were welcome.
Some that became widely read went on to have another life, one example being
Julie Powell
's 2002 blog Julie & Julia, 365 days, 524 Recipes, 1 Tiny Apartment. Powell blogged for a year about cooking her way through Julia Child's Mastering the Art of French Cooking. It later became a bestselling book, then a hit movie starring Meryl Streep as Child.
After the long and enduring life of the blog came newsletters. These differed from blogs in that they were less frequrntusually once a fortnight or once a month. You could sign up to be added to the mailing list. I subscribed for a time to author Dolly Alderton's newsletter, which was, as I recall, short, newsy and funny.
Maybe it's the ethos of Substack that draws writers of such renown. Photograph: Gabby Jones/Bloomberg
Substack is essentially the 3.0 sophisticated incarnation of the blog-stroke-newsletter, its aim to secure a subscription fee for access to at least some of the writer's content.
Substack was founded in San Francisco by Hamish McKenzie, Chris Best and Jairaj Sethi. It was funded by various venture capitalist investors.
The mission statement on the app reads: 'Building a new economic engine for culture. Do your best work, supported by your subscribers. Substack lets independent writers and podcasters publish directly to their audience and get paid through subscriptions.'
There aren't any ads on Substack, and it is free to use the platform. The idea was that writers – in an era when freelance assignments have become ever rarer and ever more poorly paid – could have some autonomy over monetising their own content. Readers pay writers directly, rather than the traditional arrangement of editors commissioning copy, and organisations then waiting to pay contributors after weeks or even months.
Writers posting on Substack have an individualised website for their archive content, in addition to whatever way they wish to personalise the page. New articles on Substack get emailed to subscribers. The author owns their content and their mailing list.
Traditional media outlets frequently retained copyright over content written by writers. Writers can make their content free, or subscriber-only. Substack's business model takes a 10 per cent cut on paid subscriptions. The company doesn't release profit figures, so if it's difficult to know how much it makes. However, Substack said earlier this year that it now has five million paid subscribers. That came just four months after the company claimed four million paid subscribers, so this number appears to be advancing rapidly.
To talk about media or publishing at this moment, you have to talk about Substack or look out of touch
There is usually some free, or 'unlocked', content on a Substack, so potential subscribers can get a flavour of what's being offered. When writers are starting out, they can choose to make all their content free, while also offering a 'pledge' option. This means that if and when content becomes subscriber only, the pledge automatically transforms into a subscription.
Freelance journalist
Laura Kennedy
, a contributor to The Irish Times who is now based in Australia, has had a Substack called Peak Notions since 2022. It has 14,000 subscribers, though she prefers not to reveal how many of those pay for her content.
'For a writer or freelancer, steady income and consistent work – the reliability of it, the editorial control and ownership of your own content and platform – is legitimately life-changing,' she says.
'A small, regular income that can't be pulled from under you at no notice is more than most writers can expect.
'Substack has sort of upended media in the best sense – it is seriously challenging the old-guard message that people won't pay for writing, that it is the platform and not the writer they value, that they only want to read particular kinds of work, or that local news is not something people will fund directly.
Kennedy points out that some writers have secured book deals through their Substacks.
[
Demystifying the path to publication, for free
Opens in new window
]
In May of this year, the New Yorker
published an essay by Peter C Barker titled Is the Next Great American Novel Being Published on Substack?
As Kennedy says: 'To talk about media or publishing at this moment, you have to talk about Substack or look out of touch. That's a profound change and a good one. There is no reason writers and journalists can't be in both worlds – they enrich one another. They're the same world.'
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Posting photos of your children online just got a lot riskier
Posting photos of your children online just got a lot riskier

Irish Times

time4 hours ago

  • Irish Times

Posting photos of your children online just got a lot riskier

The ethics of sharing photos online has shifted over the years, especially when it comes to children. A few years ago, many of us may have posted back-to-school photos or holiday snaps without thinking twice. But recently I have noticed that even some of the most enthusiastic oversharers in my social media feeds are quietly backing away. This has happened as the politics and the business of 'sharenting' has evolved. And with AI it is all about to get even more fraught. 'Sharenting' was once a jokey portmanteau for the over-enthusiastic social media parent. But it has developed a sharper edge as stories have emerged of children, now teenagers, asking their parents to delete childhood images posted without consent. Some of these young people have gone public, embarrassed and sometimes distressed by the permanent record of them in nappies or having meltdowns. Former child influencers, who had their big milestones and sometimes daily struggles turned into a stream of monetised content, have been some of the most vocal critics. One young person , Cam Barrett, a TikTok influencer, recently testified to a hearing in Washington state that she was terrified to use her real name, 'because a digital footprint I had no control over exists'. Her mother, she said, had shared details of her first period, of illnesses she had and of a car crash she was involved in. Ensuing debates about child exploitation and consent have prompted a political response. France introduced legislation first requiring profits from under-16 influencers to be set aside in protected accounts, and later giving children explicit rights to their own image. In the US, several states are considering similar laws, or updating laws for child actors to cover influencers. This has all prompted many regular platform users to post fewer pictures, use private messaging apps or opt for back-of-head portraits that don't show children's faces. READ MORE Now, a further big shift is under way. If a photo of you, or of your child, exists on the internet, it has likely been used to train the AI models powering text- and image-generating tools. We no longer have to think about who may see our images, but also who processes them. Text- and image-generating tools, such as OpenAI's ChatGPT or Google's Gemini , are underpinned by AI models, and these models need to be trained on vast, almost unimaginable quantities of data; billions if not trillions of snippets of text, photos and videos. The first wave of this came from crawling the web, copying text and images from across millions of websites, forums, blogs and news sites. But eventually tech companies exhausted even the seeming vastness of the internet. They are now in a race to find content to feed a voracious appetite, and the winner stands to dominate the next phase of the internet. The need for data is so acute that Meta considered buying the storied publishing house Simon & Schuster just to have access to its catalogue of human language. In the end, according to court filings , they deemed buying content from publishing houses too slow and too expensive; they are accused of having instead downloaded 7.5 million pirated books and 81 million pirated research papers from file-sharing site LibGen. Owners of copyrighted content have fought back. Creators from journalists to illustrators are suing AI companies for using their work without permission. The core issue is whether scraping the internet for data including copyrighted content qualifies as 'fair use'. So far, the answers are murky. [ Don't be fooled: AI is a long way from being able to think for itself Opens in new window ] Perhaps it is inevitable, then, that the likes of Google and Meta would look closer to home for content to feed the machines. Google transcribed millions of videos posted to its YouTube platform and fed the text to their models (so did OpenAI, which is being sued by YouTube content creators). Meta is trying to work out how it can use the billions, if not trillions, of pieces of content people have uploaded to Facebook and Instagram going back decades. Mark Zuckerberg told shareholders in 2024 that the company's data set is 'greater than the Common Crawl', one of the largest open web data sets used to train language models. By this he means publicly available Facebook and Instagram content – or, in other words, your photos and mine. And it might go even further. Reporting by TechCrunch and The Verge suggests that recent changes to Meta's terms of service may make it possible for the company to use unpublished photos on our phones' camera rolls to train AI models. (Meta has responded that it is not currently using unpublished photos in this way, and that these features are 'opt-in' as part of an AI photo tool, but the reporting suggests it has not ruled out using them in future). This all adds up to the politics of photos of ourselves and others online – whether shared or just taken and stored in our phones – becoming even more fraught. Where once we worried about bad actors stealing photos of kids for unthinkable purposes, we now need to consider the ethics of their voices, gestures and birthday parties feeding energy-guzzling image generators that will be used for ends we can't even imagine yet. Ultimately, we need to consider whether we're happy for our private photos to be used to bolster the market value of some of the most valuable companies that have ever existed. The monetisation of childhood is no longer limited to a lucky (or unlucky) few who sign brand deals; now every photo you've ever taken is a commodity. [ 'Really scary territory': AI's increasing role in undermining democracy Opens in new window ] Liz Carolan works on democracy and technology issues, and writes at

Most worrying aspect of Coldplay concert scandal has to be the ubiquity of online tripe
Most worrying aspect of Coldplay concert scandal has to be the ubiquity of online tripe

Irish Times

time4 hours ago

  • Irish Times

Most worrying aspect of Coldplay concert scandal has to be the ubiquity of online tripe

'You know what's really interesting about this Coldplay couple story?' a colleague said to me the other day. I very much doubted I would know. We were speaking nearly a week after Andy Byron, the chief executive of tech company Astronomer, was caught on a giant video screen at a Coldplay concert in Boston with his arms wrapped around a woman who was a) his head of HR and b) not his wife. Byron had by then been a top-trending Google topic from Australia to Albania, and it seemed unlikely there was anything compelling left to say about him. But my colleague made a good point: for those of us who deal with the vast corporate PR industrial complex, it was notable to watch a top executive fall so comprehensively that no amount of fudging or obfuscation could save him. READ MORE The Coldplay concert happened on a Wednesday. Astronomer's board said it was investigating the matter on Friday. Byron resigned on Saturday. The HR head went less than a week later. Never having heard of Astronomer before, I have no idea about its normal PR strategies. Perhaps it always takes this forthright approach to bad news. That would make it unusual in a world where media inquiries about corporate impropriety, no matter how well-founded, are often met with a 'no comment', a huffy denial, or a threat of legal action. It's been like this for years, as a lay-off strewn news industry continues to confront a far more buoyant public relations sector. In the US alone, there were nearly five PR people for every journalist in 2013 and by some counts, the ratio has since widened to more than six to one. There are, of course, a lot of decent PR professionals and yes, journalists have long been among the least trusted people. Though a 2024 global survey suggests we are now doing better than politicians and are level with bankers and, as it happens, business leaders. How will the updated National Development Plan shape Ireland in years to come? Listen | 35:59 This improvement is welcome because the Coldplay affair underlines another critical point: the need for robust journalism in an age of rampant and grimly effective fake social media 'news'. One of the most notable aspects of the incident was the spread of fabricated online statements purporting to be from those involved. Contrary to what you might have read (and may still believe), Byron did not say he found it troubling that 'what should have been a private moment became public without my consent'. His wife did not post a tearful statement about the scandal. Coldplay did not say it would now have camera-free audience sections for people and their 'sidepieces'. Likewise, the red-faced woman filmed standing next to Byron and his HR head was not another Astronomer employee named Alyssa. This avalanche of online tripe was so gigantic that Astronomer had to address it head-on. 'Alyssa Stoddard was not at the event and no other employees were in the video,' it said in a statement. 'Andy Byron has not put out any statement; reports saying otherwise are all incorrect.' Alas, this came too late for some newspapers, which reported Byron's statement as fact. On the upside, proper news outlets corrected the mistake. Don't expect to see anything like this from the hoaxers, nor the social media platforms that hosted their nonsense. And here is the serious point. Coldplay-gate doubtless caused hurt for those at the centre of it, and their families. But so far, the hoaxes it spurred have been relatively harmless compared with the plethora of online scams that continue to go unchecked. In the European Union alone, the latest figures show that internet fraudsters swindled people out of €4.3 billion in 2022. Since then, there has been an explosion of artificial intelligence tools that help scammers make cheap and convincing fake videos of financial experts to lure consumers into making dodgy investments or disclosing personal data. Social media companies insist they remove adverts for this rot and constantly try to stay ahead of the fakers. But as my colleague Martin Wolf wrote after discovering his identity had been faked by financial fraudsters, it is hard to believe tech giants, with all their resources, cannot do better. The same goes for all the other unfettered online harm. Some governments are trying to legislate against this muck, notably in the EU. The Coldplay couple – and the misleading maelstrom that followed their exposure – are a reminder that many more authorities need to join them. – Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2025

Top seven tech firms' earnings put AI divide in sharp focus
Top seven tech firms' earnings put AI divide in sharp focus

Irish Times

time5 hours ago

  • Irish Times

Top seven tech firms' earnings put AI divide in sharp focus

It's a blockbuster week for the Magnificent Seven stocks. By Thursday, six of the seven tech titans will have reported earnings, with only Nvidia keeping its powder dry until August. Google parent Alphabet and Tesla have already shown their cards. Next up: Microsoft, Meta, Amazon and Apple. Together, they account for a combined market value of over $11 trillion (€9.4 trillion) and a disproportionate share of investor attention. Yet, the group no longer moves as one. Tesla and Apple have suffered double-digit declines in 2025. Alphabet and Amazon have flatlined. Nvidia, Meta and Microsoft, meanwhile, are each up 20 per cent or more. READ MORE The AI boom remains the dominant story. Meta, Microsoft and Amazon are racing to expand capacity after bumping against infrastructure limits. Apple, by contrast, has yet to convince anyone it's in the race. Tariffs, cloud margins, and retail resilience will all feature. For tech's biggest names, however, AI is the dividing line between leading and lagging.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store