I create an environmental comic strip (Arctic Circle) and normally read your work for your exceptionally good climate change data analysis.
As someone whose income has been eroded by the Internet (making cartoons effectively free) and AI (using our cartoons to train generative AI which is now taking our work), I found this post particularly pertinent. As well as supplementing my income, writing on Substack has built my community and forged connections between me, readers and other cartoonists.
You should consider enabling payments, even if you take the money and donate it to a cause you believe in. Margaret Atwood has done that (I think her cause is a bird charity). Payments support a platform that supports artists. Substack has its problems, but they aren’t nearly as bad as other corners of the Internet and as it grows, it will need money to improve the platform for artists and writers like me.
I wish people will take your advice on growing a thick skin and become more tolerant to criticism. Today, it is unfortunately a common practice for quite a lot of people to simply block anyone who dares to make a critical comment of their work, creating thus a bubble of admirers.
Growing a thick skin and not taking criticism personally is beneficial, first and foremost, for the development of the writer/researcher themselves.
Even better if people can also remain civil and not believe those with a different point of view come with animus or bad faith.
The old saying, 'those on the left think those on the right are evil, while those on the right just think those on the left are wrong,' does appear to have credence in many circumstances.
There are evolutionary reasons for disagreements to exist within any community of people. Even couples don't agree on everything, but discussing the ideas and evidence supporting those beliefs is a more optimal course of action.
Somewhat disagree. Solutions > Problems. "This solution is better because" works better than "Your solution sucks and you are the problem." Disagree better.
Thank you for a look under the hood, Hannah. I have found many of your articles ample food for thought and am eagerly looking forward to what you will write about in the future. I second your opinion that long-form writing is a valuable task in and of itself by honing your thinking and that more people should enter the arena and share their best shot at a topic that they think a lot about.
Hannah, great and very useful post, and I agree with every single word. If I might add a few thoughts:
Your last point, on the value of writing long-form, is perhaps the most important. For me, the only way to test whether I really understand something is to put it down in writing, laying out the logic and data. And Substack becomes a great place to have people test the strength of my arguments, highlight something I missed or (hopefully rarely) got wrong.
On Substack, I believe the right frame of mind is to do this first and foremost for yourself. Unlike traditional social media platforms, audience growth on Substack comes organically from word of mouth. You can’t try to game an algorithm to go viral. The algorithm neither helps you nor holds you back – that’s why, as you show, audience growth is often linear. You have to enjoy the process, and audience growth becomes a welcome side benefit if you do it right.
Meanwhile though, the contribution each of us gives to the process of identifying and sharing interesting individual voices is immensely valuable, in my view. The shift away from the traditional model of reliable gatekeepers of information throws us in a world where we are flooded by individual voices. The only help we can rely on to sift through them is the wisdom of our networks.
This is my favorite part of the article, thanks Hannah!."I hear so many people with expertise (or just thoughtful insight) on a topic grumble something like “what people don’t understand is that …”. Well, has anyone published a very clear explainer on what the misunderstanding is? If the answer is no, why would you expect any different? Rather than torturing yourself about the world’s ignorance, maybe you should be the one who takes the time to communicate it properly"
You obviously didn't start with 50,000 subscribers. But it does look like you did start with at least several hundred. So I suspect the amount of promotion you did was not actually zero (I mean, you had an existing career as a writer and were presumably able to leverage that a bit).
I, by contrast have 4 subscribers. And one of them is me (yes, I'm pretty sure substack counts you as your own subscriber). And one of the others is my partner. And I think one of the the remaining two has never opened a post of mine.
It is odd that your subscriber growth was linear though. You'd *really* expect it to be exponential or s-curved.
Thanks for sharing your experience of writing on Substack and I agree with your thoughts on why more people should write long-form.
Regarding your pledge subscriber value I would caution that it doesn't take account of the inevitable subscriber churn once people actually begin paying. Revealed preferences and all that.
Have you ever done an analysis of subscribers per writer? I'd expect that per-topic, it's a "power law" distribution, with a very few writers having many subscribers, and everyone else having nearly none. Those few at the top can then say how well it works, and tell everyone else to keep plugging at it. Except this is a bit like lottery-winners saying to keep buying tickets. All writers can't have a huge number of readers, the mathematics doesn't work.
This post also downplays the negative effect a large social media presence can have on one's employment. Putting a huge number of words out there for someone to potentially use against you is a rather risky proposition these days.
Regarding "Rather than torturing yourself about the world's ignorance, maybe you should be the one who takes the time to communicate it properly." - Case in point, is anyone even going to read this comment?
Thank you for taking the time to write this, it's very encouraging for me as I've only been writing on climate change for a few months (Climate Uncovered).
Would you have an opinion about those that have left Substack because of the fact that it gives a platform to people promoting hate speech? The otherwise known as "Substack has a nazi problem".
Could it be that hate speech is speech and ideas you do not like?
Surely the best way to deal with such ideas and speech is to show that it is factually incorrect. Or is your preferred solution to ban speech you don't personally agree with?
Oh, yes! It's probably that! Thanks for pointing it out! Now that I think about it, thanks to your comment, I can see how I don't like white supremacism, authoritarianism, speech that suggests submission of women to men, attacks on democracy, and exploitation of people's rights to maximise profit.
Moreover, I concur with you suggestion: all those things should be banned! They make the world a terrible place!
But while we get to that ideal world, I would be happy if people with whom I share values do not support the platforms that contribute to hate speech. And do not create businesses on top of them, as it's the case of writing for money on Substack.
Thanks for confirming that hate speech is just speech you don't agree with and must be banned to protect your feelings and the feelings of those who share your echo chamber. This is much easier for you than trying to argue your case with facts and evidence; just ban people you don't agree with. Job done!
That is sure to work in creating the world you think would be ideal! However, the lack of diversity will ensure your Utopia is not only very dull but will soon stagnate and degenerate as all Utopian ideas trend towards over time.
I have always thought it odd that so many progressives are such authoritarian busybodies who wish to impose their will on others. The concept of live and let live appears alien to such people.
The Internet has a Nazi problem. Actually, everywhere does, but the Internet amplifies hate speech. All the more reason to populate it with more good things.
Hosting good things on Ghost, or in Beehiv, or in your own Wordpress, does not have a nazi problem. Writing on Substack does. It's similar to keeping on writing on Twitter instead of using the existing alternatives in which you're not funding authoritarianism.
Your over use of the term Nazi just deminishes the potency of the term, a bit like calling everyone 'racists'! It just loses its value to the point where few care.
But in doing so it says much about you and indicates you have very little understanding of National Socialism and you demean the memory of those who suffered under real Nazis. But hey ho, just so long as you can signal your received high-status opinions to your tribe, all is good.
Just why are you not satisfied with using the alternative to X and SubStack, and leave others who don't share your worldview to get on with life, is not clear. Again, it is likely the authoritarian urge to interfere with people with whom you disagree.
Good luck as the next few years are going to be brutal for you.
It seems to me that the world needs more forums for calm, inlelligent discussion. Although Ms. Ritchie isn't taking money, many Substack writers demand quite a bit. It's a strange world in which readers must choose which writers to subsidize, unlike with a magazine where one can have a variety of writers to read. How much can indifviduals be expected to pay to keep themselves informed? If they subscribe to one writer, shouldn't they also subscribe to someone who might disagree with him/her? There's a lot of room here for audience capture and intellecctual isolation.
As someone who is starting to grow his readership and is contemplating whether longform is the right way to go or has any room, I find this very helpful and inspiring. Thank you!
Thank you for the post. I found Hannah's posts inspirational enough to attempt my own first Substack writing. But I couldn't even find it via Google. How does one get an initial audience?
This is the article, in case anyone is interested on whether we should use farmland for solar PV, and comparing it to the land used for biofuels in the UK:
I create an environmental comic strip (Arctic Circle) and normally read your work for your exceptionally good climate change data analysis.
As someone whose income has been eroded by the Internet (making cartoons effectively free) and AI (using our cartoons to train generative AI which is now taking our work), I found this post particularly pertinent. As well as supplementing my income, writing on Substack has built my community and forged connections between me, readers and other cartoonists.
You should consider enabling payments, even if you take the money and donate it to a cause you believe in. Margaret Atwood has done that (I think her cause is a bird charity). Payments support a platform that supports artists. Substack has its problems, but they aren’t nearly as bad as other corners of the Internet and as it grows, it will need money to improve the platform for artists and writers like me.
Thank you for what you do.
I wish people will take your advice on growing a thick skin and become more tolerant to criticism. Today, it is unfortunately a common practice for quite a lot of people to simply block anyone who dares to make a critical comment of their work, creating thus a bubble of admirers.
Growing a thick skin and not taking criticism personally is beneficial, first and foremost, for the development of the writer/researcher themselves.
Criticism is also a skill that can be done thoughtlessly, undiplomatically and overconfidently or, preferably (and more effectively) the opposite.
If the goal is to actually change minds rather than engage in tribal warfare then, in my experience, many critics need to up their game.
+1,000,000
Snark and cruelty are the coins of the realm on the intertubes.
Even better if people can also remain civil and not believe those with a different point of view come with animus or bad faith.
The old saying, 'those on the left think those on the right are evil, while those on the right just think those on the left are wrong,' does appear to have credence in many circumstances.
There are evolutionary reasons for disagreements to exist within any community of people. Even couples don't agree on everything, but discussing the ideas and evidence supporting those beliefs is a more optimal course of action.
There’s “criticism”, and there’s this stuff (and it’s extremely disturbing how little it takes to get such hatred):
https://www.thefp.com/p/jesse-singal-bluesky-has-a-death-threat-problem
Somewhat disagree. Solutions > Problems. "This solution is better because" works better than "Your solution sucks and you are the problem." Disagree better.
Yes. Which is why I love good editors – they make my writing better with constructive criticism.
Thank you for a look under the hood, Hannah. I have found many of your articles ample food for thought and am eagerly looking forward to what you will write about in the future. I second your opinion that long-form writing is a valuable task in and of itself by honing your thinking and that more people should enter the arena and share their best shot at a topic that they think a lot about.
Words to live by: “curate a small corner of the internet where people can have better conversations.” Yes!
Thats what I liked the most too!!!
Hannah, great and very useful post, and I agree with every single word. If I might add a few thoughts:
Your last point, on the value of writing long-form, is perhaps the most important. For me, the only way to test whether I really understand something is to put it down in writing, laying out the logic and data. And Substack becomes a great place to have people test the strength of my arguments, highlight something I missed or (hopefully rarely) got wrong.
On Substack, I believe the right frame of mind is to do this first and foremost for yourself. Unlike traditional social media platforms, audience growth on Substack comes organically from word of mouth. You can’t try to game an algorithm to go viral. The algorithm neither helps you nor holds you back – that’s why, as you show, audience growth is often linear. You have to enjoy the process, and audience growth becomes a welcome side benefit if you do it right.
Meanwhile though, the contribution each of us gives to the process of identifying and sharing interesting individual voices is immensely valuable, in my view. The shift away from the traditional model of reliable gatekeepers of information throws us in a world where we are flooded by individual voices. The only help we can rely on to sift through them is the wisdom of our networks.
So, thanks!
This is my favorite part of the article, thanks Hannah!."I hear so many people with expertise (or just thoughtful insight) on a topic grumble something like “what people don’t understand is that …”. Well, has anyone published a very clear explainer on what the misunderstanding is? If the answer is no, why would you expect any different? Rather than torturing yourself about the world’s ignorance, maybe you should be the one who takes the time to communicate it properly"
Thanks for these insights, Hannah.
You obviously didn't start with 50,000 subscribers. But it does look like you did start with at least several hundred. So I suspect the amount of promotion you did was not actually zero (I mean, you had an existing career as a writer and were presumably able to leverage that a bit).
I, by contrast have 4 subscribers. And one of them is me (yes, I'm pretty sure substack counts you as your own subscriber). And one of the others is my partner. And I think one of the the remaining two has never opened a post of mine.
It is odd that your subscriber growth was linear though. You'd *really* expect it to be exponential or s-curved.
Interestingly, that linear growth is pretty typical for most publications. It may have to do with the network effect.
Interesting posts Andrew. Try restocking (either yourself or a family follower) Good luck.
Thank you, Alan.
Thanks for sharing your experience of writing on Substack and I agree with your thoughts on why more people should write long-form.
Regarding your pledge subscriber value I would caution that it doesn't take account of the inevitable subscriber churn once people actually begin paying. Revealed preferences and all that.
Have you ever done an analysis of subscribers per writer? I'd expect that per-topic, it's a "power law" distribution, with a very few writers having many subscribers, and everyone else having nearly none. Those few at the top can then say how well it works, and tell everyone else to keep plugging at it. Except this is a bit like lottery-winners saying to keep buying tickets. All writers can't have a huge number of readers, the mathematics doesn't work.
This post also downplays the negative effect a large social media presence can have on one's employment. Putting a huge number of words out there for someone to potentially use against you is a rather risky proposition these days.
Regarding "Rather than torturing yourself about the world's ignorance, maybe you should be the one who takes the time to communicate it properly." - Case in point, is anyone even going to read this comment?
Thank you for taking the time to write this, it's very encouraging for me as I've only been writing on climate change for a few months (Climate Uncovered).
Would you have an opinion about those that have left Substack because of the fact that it gives a platform to people promoting hate speech? The otherwise known as "Substack has a nazi problem".
Could it be that hate speech is speech and ideas you do not like?
Surely the best way to deal with such ideas and speech is to show that it is factually incorrect. Or is your preferred solution to ban speech you don't personally agree with?
Oh, yes! It's probably that! Thanks for pointing it out! Now that I think about it, thanks to your comment, I can see how I don't like white supremacism, authoritarianism, speech that suggests submission of women to men, attacks on democracy, and exploitation of people's rights to maximise profit.
Moreover, I concur with you suggestion: all those things should be banned! They make the world a terrible place!
But while we get to that ideal world, I would be happy if people with whom I share values do not support the platforms that contribute to hate speech. And do not create businesses on top of them, as it's the case of writing for money on Substack.
You're Welcome.
Thanks for confirming that hate speech is just speech you don't agree with and must be banned to protect your feelings and the feelings of those who share your echo chamber. This is much easier for you than trying to argue your case with facts and evidence; just ban people you don't agree with. Job done!
That is sure to work in creating the world you think would be ideal! However, the lack of diversity will ensure your Utopia is not only very dull but will soon stagnate and degenerate as all Utopian ideas trend towards over time.
I have always thought it odd that so many progressives are such authoritarian busybodies who wish to impose their will on others. The concept of live and let live appears alien to such people.
The Internet has a Nazi problem. Actually, everywhere does, but the Internet amplifies hate speech. All the more reason to populate it with more good things.
But who is the arbiter of what is hate speech?
Personally, I find it odd that people bandy the word 'Nazi' about so liberally to the point it has lost all meaning. Much like the word 'fascist'.
Hosting good things on Ghost, or in Beehiv, or in your own Wordpress, does not have a nazi problem. Writing on Substack does. It's similar to keeping on writing on Twitter instead of using the existing alternatives in which you're not funding authoritarianism.
Your over use of the term Nazi just deminishes the potency of the term, a bit like calling everyone 'racists'! It just loses its value to the point where few care.
But in doing so it says much about you and indicates you have very little understanding of National Socialism and you demean the memory of those who suffered under real Nazis. But hey ho, just so long as you can signal your received high-status opinions to your tribe, all is good.
Just why are you not satisfied with using the alternative to X and SubStack, and leave others who don't share your worldview to get on with life, is not clear. Again, it is likely the authoritarian urge to interfere with people with whom you disagree.
Good luck as the next few years are going to be brutal for you.
It seems to me that the world needs more forums for calm, inlelligent discussion. Although Ms. Ritchie isn't taking money, many Substack writers demand quite a bit. It's a strange world in which readers must choose which writers to subsidize, unlike with a magazine where one can have a variety of writers to read. How much can indifviduals be expected to pay to keep themselves informed? If they subscribe to one writer, shouldn't they also subscribe to someone who might disagree with him/her? There's a lot of room here for audience capture and intellecctual isolation.
Great read. Thank you for writing.
As someone who is starting to grow his readership and is contemplating whether longform is the right way to go or has any room, I find this very helpful and inspiring. Thank you!
Thank you for the post. I found Hannah's posts inspirational enough to attempt my own first Substack writing. But I couldn't even find it via Google. How does one get an initial audience?
This is the article, in case anyone is interested on whether we should use farmland for solar PV, and comparing it to the land used for biofuels in the UK:
https://substack.com/home/post/p-165098068
Any arguments welcome ....:)
As someone very new to Substack, I found this clear, smart, and humane. I couldn't ask for anything more in this column.