Such a fascinating article! re: your first footnote, I was under the impression the recommended publications are ones that that specific owner of that Substack recommends, not recommendations algorithmically generated by Substack (source: a friend subscribed to my Substack in front of me and I saw the publications I recommended pop up in the drawer after she did so). If so, that just goes to advance your argument in a way (or it could be twisted in Substack’s favor — if they hadn’t been on Substack, they couldn’t have been recommended — implying other platforms don’t have this recommendation feature, which may be true).
As someone in the tech/startup world, 'gracefully' presenting analytics to paint a certain story is so absurdly common I'd be surprised if they didn't count everything they possibly could as ' from substack'.
It's not just tech analytics - science, politics, books, all pretty typically use data to lie, which is so dangerous because data is seen as hard evidence.
My anecdotal experience matches yours. The over-reporting tracks (and I appreciate your breakdown)+ for me personally, only the smallest sliver of new readers have come through Substack. Are there network effects? Sure. Are they remotely evenly distributed amongst comparable publications or approaching the level that Substack promotes? Nope. I've worked with online community/creator/small biz etc for many years and the host platform is very, very rarely the thing that makes a successful product. Like Patreon before, Substack has a massive incentive (10% worth) to tell that story, but I don't believe it's true.
This is really interesting & helpful to know re: Substack referrals. I will note the argument in your first footnote is true for me, in part - I’m much more likely to subscribe to a Substack newsletter because I have access to their infrastructure (mainly, an app that redirects those newsletters to a designated place.) That’s why I have 100+ subscriptions. I think Substack conflates that with referral, as you discuss here, but knowing that your audience is Substack readers is a conscious effort on its part to keep you in this ecosystem.
Few things I think about the supposed network effects of Substack.
1. the world of "network effects" is different for small newsletters compared to large newsletters. In case of many high profile newsletters like Lenny's Substack itself is putting great deal of work into promoting them. They [the newsletters] are featured on Substack's platform. The writers frequently give webinars to other writers, they are active on other social media. So those "network effects" for large newsletters are just that THEIR network effects rather than Substacks.
2. For small newsletters the window for network effects is considerably smaller. If the writer has no web 2.0 internet clout, they are relegated to random luck. And "internet luck" like a broken watch strikes the right time at least twice a day. For the small newsletter seeing 1 new sub from Substack network is a huge deal. While for the bigger one it's just another Tuesday. so there's that effect vs affect here. 1 new sub from Substack app is yay, dopamine, it doesn't mean that Substack is actually working.
I moved my newsletter to Ghost and i see the same "yay 1 new sub" dopamine after I publish. At the end of the day Substack like any platform that believes in it's own supremacy adds every feature specifically to keep the content supplies (us writers) on the platform, by providing the glitz and glamour of the regular dopamine hits or impressions of said dopamine hits.
Anyway... thanks for coming to my TED talk I guess :D
I was one of the person that answered your e-mail. But I just realized that my answer was wrong. I thought that I subscribed via Substacks’s weekly recommendation e-mails. But for sure was a referral from Anil’s Dash piece on Rolling Stone.
Such a fascinating article! re: your first footnote, I was under the impression the recommended publications are ones that that specific owner of that Substack recommends, not recommendations algorithmically generated by Substack (source: a friend subscribed to my Substack in front of me and I saw the publications I recommended pop up in the drawer after she did so). If so, that just goes to advance your argument in a way (or it could be twisted in Substack’s favor — if they hadn’t been on Substack, they couldn’t have been recommended — implying other platforms don’t have this recommendation feature, which may be true).
As someone in the tech/startup world, 'gracefully' presenting analytics to paint a certain story is so absurdly common I'd be surprised if they didn't count everything they possibly could as ' from substack'.
It's not just tech analytics - science, politics, books, all pretty typically use data to lie, which is so dangerous because data is seen as hard evidence.
This is an important topic and I am thrilled that you tackled it. Haven't seen anyone question Substack's network effects before. Thanks!
My anecdotal experience matches yours. The over-reporting tracks (and I appreciate your breakdown)+ for me personally, only the smallest sliver of new readers have come through Substack. Are there network effects? Sure. Are they remotely evenly distributed amongst comparable publications or approaching the level that Substack promotes? Nope. I've worked with online community/creator/small biz etc for many years and the host platform is very, very rarely the thing that makes a successful product. Like Patreon before, Substack has a massive incentive (10% worth) to tell that story, but I don't believe it's true.
This is really interesting & helpful to know re: Substack referrals. I will note the argument in your first footnote is true for me, in part - I’m much more likely to subscribe to a Substack newsletter because I have access to their infrastructure (mainly, an app that redirects those newsletters to a designated place.) That’s why I have 100+ subscriptions. I think Substack conflates that with referral, as you discuss here, but knowing that your audience is Substack readers is a conscious effort on its part to keep you in this ecosystem.
Few things I think about the supposed network effects of Substack.
1. the world of "network effects" is different for small newsletters compared to large newsletters. In case of many high profile newsletters like Lenny's Substack itself is putting great deal of work into promoting them. They [the newsletters] are featured on Substack's platform. The writers frequently give webinars to other writers, they are active on other social media. So those "network effects" for large newsletters are just that THEIR network effects rather than Substacks.
2. For small newsletters the window for network effects is considerably smaller. If the writer has no web 2.0 internet clout, they are relegated to random luck. And "internet luck" like a broken watch strikes the right time at least twice a day. For the small newsletter seeing 1 new sub from Substack network is a huge deal. While for the bigger one it's just another Tuesday. so there's that effect vs affect here. 1 new sub from Substack app is yay, dopamine, it doesn't mean that Substack is actually working.
I moved my newsletter to Ghost and i see the same "yay 1 new sub" dopamine after I publish. At the end of the day Substack like any platform that believes in it's own supremacy adds every feature specifically to keep the content supplies (us writers) on the platform, by providing the glitz and glamour of the regular dopamine hits or impressions of said dopamine hits.
Anyway... thanks for coming to my TED talk I guess :D
I was one of the person that answered your e-mail. But I just realized that my answer was wrong. I thought that I subscribed via Substacks’s weekly recommendation e-mails. But for sure was a referral from Anil’s Dash piece on Rolling Stone.