In many ways, the early 2020s has been a second Golden Age of Blogs. The first Golden Age of Blogs was in the late 2000s when the Internet really began to penetrate all aspects of life (with wireless connection) yet it wasn't as commercialized then. Google search actually took one to all sorts of fun and otherwise obscure blogs that today would be hard to reach due to all the big commercial sites showing up first (not to mention often having problematic views in the eyes of search engine programmers). DuckDuckGo still takes one to more interesting stuff occasionally though.
A big hearty "yes" to a sense in having a 'moderate' long-term strategy/absence of click-bait rage.
This is why I keep reading and keep (willingly) pay to read you Ed: everything you write, no matter the subject, is always well-written, balanced, and, above all, just very interesting.
You write well without an editor (meaning you probably spend several hours refining things).
On substack the lack of editing (including amongst the millionaires) is evident.
Why does centrism (or maybe center-left pragmatic perspectives that reject the progressive loyalty oaths on a dozen unrelated issues and accept some of the narratives on the right) pay? It is an underserved niche, and one filled by higher income people generally (lots of working class people in this niche as well but many are less engaged and have other interests). Most digital media goes for the easy wins- give partisans what they want and keep the clicks coming. More of an in-group reciprocal grooming exercise and out-group hate fest than “journalism”. Then again, we’re primates.
Perhaps one area where AI could help is acting as a personal editor on tap. It seems pretty much designed for that purpose, far more than creating new content. It obviates the very real problem in human cognition of being effectively blind to minor mistakes we have made in writing (or other tasks) by shining an unsparingly objective light on your output. As long as you tell it not to flatter or condescend you, although I suspect these are risks encountered in living editors too.
I am very grateful to you and Substack although I seem to have less and less time for reading actual books. What I admire is the spirit of the jobbing writer, living off his or her wits, from one day to the next. There is no fixed contract, and if the writing stops, the income stops. You need to keep your readers engaged and wanting more and being prepared to go on paying before they get bored or Substack fatigue sets in. At some point though there will be too much content and therefore more competition.
"Indeed, almost all the Substack millionaires seem to be centrists with very middle-of-the-road opinions, far more restrained than the rage bait frequently found in broadsheets."
If an Yglesias-ization of popular consciousness is a consequence of the Substack revolution, it would be better than many alternatives.
I have to say I find Yglasias to be mildly annoying. He literally founded Vox, the Woke online publication of our time, and then stands in bewildered awe at how social justice politics became so nutty.
It's a bit like Bill Kristol giving us Sarah Palin and the Tea Party and then outraged that Trump came along.
I have just started a Substack and am enjoying the thinking and writing. May never charge for it, we’ll see. Would like to engage in and foment civil discourse. Best wishes
You may well be self-deprecating but yours is 1 of only 3 or 4 which I am determined to keep funding.
You continually invest your efforts in providing material which cannot be found elsewhere.
I love your weekly anthologies which have often brought other writers and interesting material to my attention.
You're a bit left-wing for my taste (and maybe other people's - lay off Trump!) but I thought you responded appropriately and thoughtfully the one time I voiced criticism.
The £million a year may be out of reach. The only site I subscribe (free) to which I suspect is a million-earner is Doomberg, whose insights probably earn many of their subscribers with financial interests more than the cost of its (expensive) subscription.
The MSM is now government-sponsored propaganda……had been for a long time, but the editors crossed the Rubicon in 2020-21.
I get 90% of my news/comment from Substack, and the other 10% from people WA-ing links to stuff I have missed (rarely look at X).
Sadly, this means Substack is doomed to infiltration and censorship. I stick to history and sport - perhaps they’ll leave me until last.
Whilst I enjoy writing - thank-you Substack for providing me with a forum - I’m pants at promoting my stuff, still haven’t got the hang of the software.
Strange to say, but in my (our?) experimental interactions ChatGPT has also suggested writing on Substack as a side career or hobby. Not to make a fortune but as 'catharsis': presumably so I stop writing long-winded essays to it.
A good piece, with one quibble. Substack is part of the attention economy, it is merely that it markets itself as organic and wholesome, in contrast to the junk provided by TikTok.
How many of the top Substackers have had previous careers in the traditional media? All the ones I pay for have come from elsewhere. How easy is it for someone to appear out of nowhere and start a successful substack? I'd say it was difficult.
In many ways, the early 2020s has been a second Golden Age of Blogs. The first Golden Age of Blogs was in the late 2000s when the Internet really began to penetrate all aspects of life (with wireless connection) yet it wasn't as commercialized then. Google search actually took one to all sorts of fun and otherwise obscure blogs that today would be hard to reach due to all the big commercial sites showing up first (not to mention often having problematic views in the eyes of search engine programmers). DuckDuckGo still takes one to more interesting stuff occasionally though.
Early 2000s were special- lots of good stuff.
One of my favorites was Two Blowhards.
So true. Your author - no, this one, not Ed - was a humble extremely popular blogger around 2014.
A big hearty "yes" to a sense in having a 'moderate' long-term strategy/absence of click-bait rage.
This is why I keep reading and keep (willingly) pay to read you Ed: everything you write, no matter the subject, is always well-written, balanced, and, above all, just very interesting.
thank you so much!
You write well without an editor (meaning you probably spend several hours refining things).
On substack the lack of editing (including amongst the millionaires) is evident.
Why does centrism (or maybe center-left pragmatic perspectives that reject the progressive loyalty oaths on a dozen unrelated issues and accept some of the narratives on the right) pay? It is an underserved niche, and one filled by higher income people generally (lots of working class people in this niche as well but many are less engaged and have other interests). Most digital media goes for the easy wins- give partisans what they want and keep the clicks coming. More of an in-group reciprocal grooming exercise and out-group hate fest than “journalism”. Then again, we’re primates.
thank you. I do re-read each piece endlessly but mistakes still get through and when I read them later I wish I'd changed things.
That is true about centrist accounts. Matt Ygeslias and Noah Smith's bank balances certainly suggest so.
Perhaps one area where AI could help is acting as a personal editor on tap. It seems pretty much designed for that purpose, far more than creating new content. It obviates the very real problem in human cognition of being effectively blind to minor mistakes we have made in writing (or other tasks) by shining an unsparingly objective light on your output. As long as you tell it not to flatter or condescend you, although I suspect these are risks encountered in living editors too.
You keep on doin’ what you doin’!
I am very grateful to you and Substack although I seem to have less and less time for reading actual books. What I admire is the spirit of the jobbing writer, living off his or her wits, from one day to the next. There is no fixed contract, and if the writing stops, the income stops. You need to keep your readers engaged and wanting more and being prepared to go on paying before they get bored or Substack fatigue sets in. At some point though there will be too much content and therefore more competition.
It will definitely become saturated
"Writers write best about the things that interest them, but not obsess them (that often has the opposite effect)."
I can testify to that.
So well said, profound and true.
"Indeed, almost all the Substack millionaires seem to be centrists with very middle-of-the-road opinions, far more restrained than the rage bait frequently found in broadsheets."
If an Yglesias-ization of popular consciousness is a consequence of the Substack revolution, it would be better than many alternatives.
Am I reading you correctly? Like Julio Iglesias, the Spanish crooner? What a great analogy!
I have to say I find Yglasias to be mildly annoying. He literally founded Vox, the Woke online publication of our time, and then stands in bewildered awe at how social justice politics became so nutty.
It's a bit like Bill Kristol giving us Sarah Palin and the Tea Party and then outraged that Trump came along.
I have just started a Substack and am enjoying the thinking and writing. May never charge for it, we’ll see. Would like to engage in and foment civil discourse. Best wishes
You may well be self-deprecating but yours is 1 of only 3 or 4 which I am determined to keep funding.
You continually invest your efforts in providing material which cannot be found elsewhere.
I love your weekly anthologies which have often brought other writers and interesting material to my attention.
You're a bit left-wing for my taste (and maybe other people's - lay off Trump!) but I thought you responded appropriately and thoughtfully the one time I voiced criticism.
The £million a year may be out of reach. The only site I subscribe (free) to which I suspect is a million-earner is Doomberg, whose insights probably earn many of their subscribers with financial interests more than the cost of its (expensive) subscription.
The MSM is now government-sponsored propaganda……had been for a long time, but the editors crossed the Rubicon in 2020-21.
I get 90% of my news/comment from Substack, and the other 10% from people WA-ing links to stuff I have missed (rarely look at X).
Sadly, this means Substack is doomed to infiltration and censorship. I stick to history and sport - perhaps they’ll leave me until last.
Whilst I enjoy writing - thank-you Substack for providing me with a forum - I’m pants at promoting my stuff, still haven’t got the hang of the software.
Strange to say, but in my (our?) experimental interactions ChatGPT has also suggested writing on Substack as a side career or hobby. Not to make a fortune but as 'catharsis': presumably so I stop writing long-winded essays to it.
A good piece, with one quibble. Substack is part of the attention economy, it is merely that it markets itself as organic and wholesome, in contrast to the junk provided by TikTok.
It's the attention economy adapted for those with one standard deviation of IQ above mean or more. Alas, it could be worse.
How many of the top Substackers have had previous careers in the traditional media? All the ones I pay for have come from elsewhere. How easy is it for someone to appear out of nowhere and start a successful substack? I'd say it was difficult.
NS Lyon is one off the top of my head
Freya India is another. I think she struggled to get commissions in mainstream media but has become huge on substack.
I have thought this and keen to see information about the successes on this platform.
I'm struck that the term 'man of letters' never occurs in the article. The OED attests it from 1645.