@Mic - I find these discussions borderline navel gazing exercises. Ask any non-media person to name 3 hacks and most would struggle. And therein is the point. Nobody cares. The flip side is that IF you offer something people can’t get elsewhere then you’re part way to monetising. Substack is the blogger’s aggregator of aggregators that provides the potential as a foghorn for those whose solo efforts aren’t making it. Substack also saves a metric ton of code maintenance. Ergo...pay your money, do your best and if it works then fine. Otherwise STFU and do something else. Those who choose to sneer at Substack or it’s writers would do well to STFU too...or recognise their own inability to deliver a product people want that likely outsized their jealousy at those who are doing just fine on Substack.
Den, I get your point BUT this is a media criticism newsletter so… lots of the readers can and do name more than three hacks. And not every edition is for every reader. Try the previous one which is a long and deeply researched piece on Murdoch for example.
I'm considering changing it but right now the number of people reading via RSS is *tiny*. I appreciate it's irritating for you at the moment. I may change it this week but I don't really want to use the other quote style if I don't have to.
I enjoyed this. Being a sub of yours has opened my eyes to many new voices.
Thanks, Andy. That's really good to hear.
Why an earth would 12 people unsubscribe after your Brand articles?
I presume they were pro-Brand! 6 more paid subscribers have come in since so I’m only down 6 now.
@Mic - I find these discussions borderline navel gazing exercises. Ask any non-media person to name 3 hacks and most would struggle. And therein is the point. Nobody cares. The flip side is that IF you offer something people can’t get elsewhere then you’re part way to monetising. Substack is the blogger’s aggregator of aggregators that provides the potential as a foghorn for those whose solo efforts aren’t making it. Substack also saves a metric ton of code maintenance. Ergo...pay your money, do your best and if it works then fine. Otherwise STFU and do something else. Those who choose to sneer at Substack or it’s writers would do well to STFU too...or recognise their own inability to deliver a product people want that likely outsized their jealousy at those who are doing just fine on Substack.
Den, I get your point BUT this is a media criticism newsletter so… lots of the readers can and do name more than three hacks. And not every edition is for every reader. Try the previous one which is a long and deeply researched piece on Murdoch for example.
Sorry to nag you, but to illustrate the blockquote/code-block issue, this is what the RSS version of this post looks like:
https://imgur.com/a/bLhSNyI
Though I suppose I can dig around in the page source and in the Substack CMS to see if I can glean more about what’s going on, here.
I'm considering changing it but right now the number of people reading via RSS is *tiny*. I appreciate it's irritating for you at the moment. I may change it this week but I don't really want to use the other quote style if I don't have to.
Yes, I recognize that I’m a literal dinosaur. 🤓
I’m extremely pro-dinosaur. I’ll try a different arrangement in the next edition.
🦕