What's old is new again. The Medici family served as the patrons of Michelangelo, which empowered him to create timeless masterpieces. Pope was the OG Substacker and many of America's founding fathers published pamphlets, while some like Franklin did so anonymously. Ads are unnecessary middle men who push agendas - cable news would have died a long time ago without their Big Pharma sponsors. Creators should stay as authentic and independent as possible to avoid becoming astroturfed billboards.
Hi Hamish, I’m Tony Haile’s mother-in-law. But more importantly I’m a former publishing CEO, circulation manager for magazines, direct mail copywriter and Substack writer. Please keep Substack ad free! And also, I’m happy to help you think about a future free of advertising.
Maria, while I'm incredibly jaded about advertising, I think it can and must play an important role in helping people access information. Unfortunately, the industry has been corrupted, IMO largely because we fooled consumers into believing that the internet was free, when in reality they just had an implicit trade-off of their time (attention) and data for content. As we move to a world where that trade-off becomes more explicit, content creators should give users choices to "pay" for it with their money (subscriptions, micropayments), their time (on ads), or their data (email, survey responses, etc.).
I think Substack could be one of the leading drivers and beneficiaries of this change, and I hope they will consider giving creators the ability to let their users "unlock" at least some of their content by watching ads.
Advertising was worth being jaded about long before the internet. Highly paid people were hired to create false narratives that made people override their common sense to consume things that are harmful to them (tobacco, sugar, pharma, processed foods, etc.) We are where we are today (environmentally, politically, physically) because we let advertising (and their lobbyists) define the terms. Substack needs to be a SAFE zone, where authentic and real people can express their truth. That's worth paying for because the rest of the world has sold itself out. "Unlocking" some content to watch ads is like saying you are just going to open Pandora's Box a tiny bit.
I think the Substack model should be more of a micro-book publishing business. No ads, with the freedom to say whatever one wants. There is a reason young people flee any platform that starts becoming dependent on ads. Learn from that. Have the courage to create a whole new model.
I completely understand, and would not deny the harmful effects of advertising started long ago.
But advertising also has a positive impact, perhaps most importantly subsidizing content (including news) for more people to be able to access. I think this reason alone is worth keeping advertising for, and I think if it is properly balanced, it can be a net positive (even though imperfect) force on the world.
IMO, the only way this works is if we stop deluding people that content is free. Nothing in this world is free. Let people choose how to pay for that content. This is how YouTube and now streaming TV and so many other media channels work, quite well IMO, and I think this model can expand to the text-based web as well.
I also think content creators relying only on a small base of loyal readers willing to pay or donate for their content limits both their ability to monetize and their ability to spread their content to a broader readership.
Advertising doesn't necessarily ruin a platform. But advertising done poorly does.
There is so much interesting writing on Substack that i wish i could read. I am so grateful to the ones who keep at least some of their content free (and not pay-walled mid-paragraph, that's cruel.). The one thing advertising had going for it is that it makes it possible for us poor folk to access stuff too.
This is why I'm so adamant about Substack (and other premium paywalled publishers) shifting to dynamic ad/paywalls that give users the ability to unlock at least some of their content by watching ads.
During Vietnam before we got married my husband was on a troop carrier for 4 years in the Met. He got to go to Cannes and see many more things gs like the Leaning Tower of Pisa, things I would give my eye teeth to see even now. He was my soul mate. When we finally got married I thanked him for his military service but I told him I should have had it so good! I'd still like to go there. He's gone and I don't want to go alone. Know anyone who would like to adopt a 77 yr old grandma to introduce to the world ?😁
To be human is so richly and whacky paradoxical. We criticize "sheeple" begging to be led. We lionize independent voices. Yet an honest look in the mirror reveals that most of us resonate with both of these impulses, often at the same time. I do appreciate Substack for giving quieter voices a vehicle. Let's discover a voice that is prescient, prophetic, or even better, gently persuades us to approach a clean mirror where we finally see ourselves as we are.
Yes, we are never one of the 'sheeple' are, that's everyone else, right?!
We decry other writers or creatives jumping on a bandwagon of some kind or earning stacks of cash thinking we could do better, yet much can be good ol' jealousy or whatever. Those of us not rich or connected have to make a living somehow and those rich and connected often claim to despise grubby populist endeavours but live off the fat of the land! It's an old old story played out throughout time and many cultures and genres. Sometimes you just keep on keeping on in spite of all the BS. Never been to Cannes and have absolutely no desire to. But each to their own.
It was a different world when print reigned supreme. Back then, magazines could count on loyal subscribers and lucrative ad contracts from big brands eager to reach a captive audience. Social media flipped the script: real-time analytics, microtargeting, and influencer marketing scattered those ad dollars across a thousand digital platforms. The audience didn’t just migrate — they fragmented
Well, I'm glad Substack is working for someone lol! Was just thinking niche within a niche at this point. Like any art form. You become well-known within your smaller niche (Mediterranean) within a larger niche (Healthy Eating). Or some niche within Health and Fitness. Perhaps Tai Chi, but performed upside down. Good luck out there everyone!!
I worked in advertising until I couldn't stomach it anymore -- when I saw that people were happily wearing corporate logos on their bums, I wrote "Marketing, My Ass" and walked away from the industry. As someone who was working mainly for Big Pharma, I had been trained in the perfect way to lie without lying, and to fool the average consumer. Advertising bombards us, night and day, and it was only when I stopped watching advertising that I regained my sanity and my wallet. Question: You've done some impressive research. Why is that Netflix did so well without any advertising revenue from its launch several decades ago? It is the perfect irony, isn't it, that consumers are now spending more to NOT see any ads? We are such suckers. :)
It's like rain. I put on a mental windshield wiper and flick ads, like deleting spam on my phone. I rarely take in an ad, unless there is that rumored subconscious naked lady in the ice trick. I resent the waste of my time doing removal tasks, like skips, but mainly respond by spending less time online wherever adverts exist. I remember when Facebook was just friends, but now you must select "favorites" and still a few ads are presented. I am strategically less of a consumer, slightly to resist the marketing world, but more to favor the natural, non-human world that our consumerism is destroying.
Enjoyed many a drunken night and morning in La Croisette or more specifically, The Gutter Bar during my advertising days,shooting ads for print and directing TV commercials. It was a circus then and as you allude to,still one today. Great memories.
Okay, now here’s the downside of the wonderful platform I write on with no monetization, so it’s the view of someone with no horse in this rich person’s game. (My Substack takes a unique position here that I think is valuable to the thinking going on, but I would place a big bet on never being singled out by Substack because there’s no money in it for you -- but that’s not the reason I wrote this comment.)
My Substack is political. What to do in the crisis we are in? When I click on some of the best thinkers but can’t even read some of them without paying, and since many people can’t afford to do that, something is wrong. Another issue is all the well-known people leaving MSM and landing here, who clog my inbox with announcements of frequent livestreams that don’t even support comments but for the frantic typing that goes by so fast nobody can read them let alone exchange with each other, which seem diametrically opposite to what Substack is all about.
What to do? How about no pay walling, with everyone being able to read and comment on people’s writing out of “the egalitarian spirit of Substack,” where those who are affluent enough, in a scout’s honor business model, pay for writing they consider valuable to read? It’s nice to think that could bring in more revenue than the frustratingly material world model you have going now.
Wouldn't it be a great demonstration of the altruistic way our society should operate if rich people generously did all the subscribing, at the highest levels of founding members, to compensate for those who couldn't afford to pay?
So the media is now controlled by money, power and influence. And money and power generate more influence. We cannot trust what we read and see any more. So while this has possibly buried so much talent and art it has a broader influence on society and politics. We seem to accept things now that would have been discarded years ago. And there are 'more bots than humans on the internet'. So we don't even know if we are conversing with a fellow human being. I think this is so destructive that it could even destroy life on this blue planet. But the connection to your article is that the very people who would stand up to tyranny and stupidity are silenced or are deflected to things that aren't real or don't matter. We are losing our social warriors! Our poets, artists, musicians and singers. Our writers and our collective consciousness.
What's old is new again. The Medici family served as the patrons of Michelangelo, which empowered him to create timeless masterpieces. Pope was the OG Substacker and many of America's founding fathers published pamphlets, while some like Franklin did so anonymously. Ads are unnecessary middle men who push agendas - cable news would have died a long time ago without their Big Pharma sponsors. Creators should stay as authentic and independent as possible to avoid becoming astroturfed billboards.
Hi Hamish, I’m Tony Haile’s mother-in-law. But more importantly I’m a former publishing CEO, circulation manager for magazines, direct mail copywriter and Substack writer. Please keep Substack ad free! And also, I’m happy to help you think about a future free of advertising.
Maria, while I'm incredibly jaded about advertising, I think it can and must play an important role in helping people access information. Unfortunately, the industry has been corrupted, IMO largely because we fooled consumers into believing that the internet was free, when in reality they just had an implicit trade-off of their time (attention) and data for content. As we move to a world where that trade-off becomes more explicit, content creators should give users choices to "pay" for it with their money (subscriptions, micropayments), their time (on ads), or their data (email, survey responses, etc.).
In case you're interested, I laid out here why I believe this evolution is both inevitable and necessary, and some of the massive changes happening across the ad industry that will make this possible: https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:7265373441174691840/
I think Substack could be one of the leading drivers and beneficiaries of this change, and I hope they will consider giving creators the ability to let their users "unlock" at least some of their content by watching ads.
Advertising was worth being jaded about long before the internet. Highly paid people were hired to create false narratives that made people override their common sense to consume things that are harmful to them (tobacco, sugar, pharma, processed foods, etc.) We are where we are today (environmentally, politically, physically) because we let advertising (and their lobbyists) define the terms. Substack needs to be a SAFE zone, where authentic and real people can express their truth. That's worth paying for because the rest of the world has sold itself out. "Unlocking" some content to watch ads is like saying you are just going to open Pandora's Box a tiny bit.
I think the Substack model should be more of a micro-book publishing business. No ads, with the freedom to say whatever one wants. There is a reason young people flee any platform that starts becoming dependent on ads. Learn from that. Have the courage to create a whole new model.
I completely understand, and would not deny the harmful effects of advertising started long ago.
But advertising also has a positive impact, perhaps most importantly subsidizing content (including news) for more people to be able to access. I think this reason alone is worth keeping advertising for, and I think if it is properly balanced, it can be a net positive (even though imperfect) force on the world.
IMO, the only way this works is if we stop deluding people that content is free. Nothing in this world is free. Let people choose how to pay for that content. This is how YouTube and now streaming TV and so many other media channels work, quite well IMO, and I think this model can expand to the text-based web as well.
I also think content creators relying only on a small base of loyal readers willing to pay or donate for their content limits both their ability to monetize and their ability to spread their content to a broader readership.
Advertising doesn't necessarily ruin a platform. But advertising done poorly does.
There is so much interesting writing on Substack that i wish i could read. I am so grateful to the ones who keep at least some of their content free (and not pay-walled mid-paragraph, that's cruel.). The one thing advertising had going for it is that it makes it possible for us poor folk to access stuff too.
This is why I'm so adamant about Substack (and other premium paywalled publishers) shifting to dynamic ad/paywalls that give users the ability to unlock at least some of their content by watching ads.
I think this shift is both inevitable and necessary, but the sooner we can move to this the better. I outlined here why and how I think this will come to pass: https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:7265373441174691840/
During Vietnam before we got married my husband was on a troop carrier for 4 years in the Met. He got to go to Cannes and see many more things gs like the Leaning Tower of Pisa, things I would give my eye teeth to see even now. He was my soul mate. When we finally got married I thanked him for his military service but I told him I should have had it so good! I'd still like to go there. He's gone and I don't want to go alone. Know anyone who would like to adopt a 77 yr old grandma to introduce to the world ?😁
To be human is so richly and whacky paradoxical. We criticize "sheeple" begging to be led. We lionize independent voices. Yet an honest look in the mirror reveals that most of us resonate with both of these impulses, often at the same time. I do appreciate Substack for giving quieter voices a vehicle. Let's discover a voice that is prescient, prophetic, or even better, gently persuades us to approach a clean mirror where we finally see ourselves as we are.
Yes, we are never one of the 'sheeple' are, that's everyone else, right?!
We decry other writers or creatives jumping on a bandwagon of some kind or earning stacks of cash thinking we could do better, yet much can be good ol' jealousy or whatever. Those of us not rich or connected have to make a living somehow and those rich and connected often claim to despise grubby populist endeavours but live off the fat of the land! It's an old old story played out throughout time and many cultures and genres. Sometimes you just keep on keeping on in spite of all the BS. Never been to Cannes and have absolutely no desire to. But each to their own.
Regards.
Thank you, Hamish. My hooman has gone a dozen times to the festival over the years. Your reporting resonated with him.
It was a different world when print reigned supreme. Back then, magazines could count on loyal subscribers and lucrative ad contracts from big brands eager to reach a captive audience. Social media flipped the script: real-time analytics, microtargeting, and influencer marketing scattered those ad dollars across a thousand digital platforms. The audience didn’t just migrate — they fragmented
Well said.
And I fear that fragmentation is fatally injuring our shared culture, shared truth, shared values.
Well, I'm glad Substack is working for someone lol! Was just thinking niche within a niche at this point. Like any art form. You become well-known within your smaller niche (Mediterranean) within a larger niche (Healthy Eating). Or some niche within Health and Fitness. Perhaps Tai Chi, but performed upside down. Good luck out there everyone!!
Thank you for leading with integrity - we need it! <3
We shoulda hung out!
I worked in advertising until I couldn't stomach it anymore -- when I saw that people were happily wearing corporate logos on their bums, I wrote "Marketing, My Ass" and walked away from the industry. As someone who was working mainly for Big Pharma, I had been trained in the perfect way to lie without lying, and to fool the average consumer. Advertising bombards us, night and day, and it was only when I stopped watching advertising that I regained my sanity and my wallet. Question: You've done some impressive research. Why is that Netflix did so well without any advertising revenue from its launch several decades ago? It is the perfect irony, isn't it, that consumers are now spending more to NOT see any ads? We are such suckers. :)
It's like rain. I put on a mental windshield wiper and flick ads, like deleting spam on my phone. I rarely take in an ad, unless there is that rumored subconscious naked lady in the ice trick. I resent the waste of my time doing removal tasks, like skips, but mainly respond by spending less time online wherever adverts exist. I remember when Facebook was just friends, but now you must select "favorites" and still a few ads are presented. I am strategically less of a consumer, slightly to resist the marketing world, but more to favor the natural, non-human world that our consumerism is destroying.
Enjoyed many a drunken night and morning in La Croisette or more specifically, The Gutter Bar during my advertising days,shooting ads for print and directing TV commercials. It was a circus then and as you allude to,still one today. Great memories.
Yes! Host more dinners where people say "Wow, we can actually have a conversation here"!
(new arrivals at Substack often say a similar thing)
Okay, now here’s the downside of the wonderful platform I write on with no monetization, so it’s the view of someone with no horse in this rich person’s game. (My Substack takes a unique position here that I think is valuable to the thinking going on, but I would place a big bet on never being singled out by Substack because there’s no money in it for you -- but that’s not the reason I wrote this comment.)
My Substack is political. What to do in the crisis we are in? When I click on some of the best thinkers but can’t even read some of them without paying, and since many people can’t afford to do that, something is wrong. Another issue is all the well-known people leaving MSM and landing here, who clog my inbox with announcements of frequent livestreams that don’t even support comments but for the frantic typing that goes by so fast nobody can read them let alone exchange with each other, which seem diametrically opposite to what Substack is all about.
What to do? How about no pay walling, with everyone being able to read and comment on people’s writing out of “the egalitarian spirit of Substack,” where those who are affluent enough, in a scout’s honor business model, pay for writing they consider valuable to read? It’s nice to think that could bring in more revenue than the frustratingly material world model you have going now.
Money, therefore corporatism creeps into everything. Yet for all us little guys and gals we often have to earn a living.
Wouldn't it be a great demonstration of the altruistic way our society should operate if rich people generously did all the subscribing, at the highest levels of founding members, to compensate for those who couldn't afford to pay?
Absolutely but Bezos, Musk and lots of v wealthy people have a different view. It is tedious but there it is.
So the media is now controlled by money, power and influence. And money and power generate more influence. We cannot trust what we read and see any more. So while this has possibly buried so much talent and art it has a broader influence on society and politics. We seem to accept things now that would have been discarded years ago. And there are 'more bots than humans on the internet'. So we don't even know if we are conversing with a fellow human being. I think this is so destructive that it could even destroy life on this blue planet. But the connection to your article is that the very people who would stand up to tyranny and stupidity are silenced or are deflected to things that aren't real or don't matter. We are losing our social warriors! Our poets, artists, musicians and singers. Our writers and our collective consciousness.