The Questioning Substack Edition

Our friend David Michon writes the excellent design Substack, “FOR SCALE”. We enjoyed one of his recent sends, and he’s kindly allowed us to adapt it for you all today.

David here. I’m a fellow Substacker, here to question Substack itself, and its direction. Executive summary: I’m thinking we have maybe three good years left?

For the sake of my own credentials, let me explain “Why” I’ve been using Substack in the first place. (And, if you’ll excuse me, I like bullet points)

I am a writer, one not at all interested in the going-live, faux-confessional, perky-persona life of an ‘Influencer.’
Writing is incredible, or should be — and (décor) magazines have, for the most part, totally lost an interest in interesting in it. (As part of this loss of interest, they have also essentially stopped paying for it. A gossipy aside is that very recently, I brought a story to a magazine that involved a lot of my warm personal contacts. It could only happen because of my intel and network, and because I organized timings for the photographer to shoot some studios in L.A. Anyway, I got paid $450 for a few days of work and about 1,000 words, and my fee was 1/3 of the photographer’s.)
Writing for oneself (on a platform that’s interested in expanding your audience) is empowering, probably the first time a writer gets to actually explore “voice.” “FOR SCALE”, for what it’s worth, has had some niche success — according to Substack, it is one of the top design newsletters.

Most importantly, other newsletter platforms seem interested in “small businesses” (Mailchimp) or the tech world (Beehiiv, who’s brand copy is hyper Silicon Valley: “The newsletter platform built for growth. Launch the next iconic media brand in minutes.” Ew!) Substack always seemed to be the one with soul. The one that could attract Writers, Authors, Intellectuals, Critics. Where the biggest newsletter is that of a History Professor, not a brand.

One felt like, just maybe, there was heart in this?!?!!!?! Naively, perhaps.

Why is this interesting?

It’s been absolutely interesting (to the brink of concerning) to see that Everyone On Planet Earth is leaping into Substack. All are welcome(-ISH!!!), but frankly not all should be here. As Substack enjoys and tries to capture this moment (and prob. raise another round of funding), there are some red flags.

1. THE SUBSTACK WRITERS:

Much like the world of podcastery a decade years ago (in which I was involved), there’s a blood thirst to participate: newcomers see folks cutting through the sh*t and they want to cut through too. I.G. is too busy; Pinterest isn’t cool; etc. Here’s a new way to “extend a personal brand”.

Yet, they often (a) don’t really have anything (or enough) to say, and/or (b) instead of cutting through sh*t, become simply adders-to the sh*t… it’s nothing different, urgent, critical, et cetera. The worst of the worst are just affiliate link lists. Which brings us to...

2. SUBSTACK ITSELF:

There are two things Substack is doing that f*ck with me (derogatory).

The reference by Substack itself to those on the platform as “Creators”… Put us out of our misery! A useless term to begin with (because W.T.F. does it mean, really), but the soul of Substack, as discussed, is the written word. This is something they seem to be trying to dismantle as quickly as possible, because…
Substack’s new features lean *ICK*: Live video, which we believed Substack to be a sanctuary from, and in-app purchases, which is cute if you’re “writing” about lipstick, but not if you’re writing about cultural theory, or politics.

All that said, Substack does something very important: enable, if not outright encourage, subjectivity. (Complimentary.) Vivian Gornick, the radical-feminist-critic-American, once wrote: “Man is free only when he is doing what the deepest self likes, and knowing what the deepest self likes, ah! that takes some diving.” (Man? Anyway.) Subjectivity is not only what critical writers all espouse (to have a point of view!), it is also what should be demanded of you (to have a point of view, too!). For my own ease, I’ll use the décor world as our example: Décor should/could satisfy “the deepest self”, as a very crucial form of self-expression: it is your nest, after all. Good décor writing should help one explore this. This is sadly not found in the current topsoil that is “Amazon Dupes for Design Within Reach.” Less and less depth is also found in the décor magazines of the mainstream — because as the image reaches its zenith (surely?), writing has become Generic. In Architectural Digest, “words” feel as if they are there to fill a magazine, and not the reverse: that a magazine must be made because a certain amount of excellent ideas about décor exist.

(One need only read Skurka’s 1972 “Underground Interiors”, or Kron and Slesin’s 1978 “High-Tech”, or any back issue of Nest magazine to sense a difference between then and now.)

What I’m trying to say is, the increasing cachet of Substack, as it enters a period of major growth, should not be used to expand the platform into the well-worn, worn-out territory of “Influencer”. It should plant its f*cking flag in the sand and figure out the tougher question of how to really get better writing to happen and make a difference.

I don’t necessarily give a sh*t about “Substack”, per se. I’d very happily see a rejuvenation of traditional print magazines. Architectural Digest, World of Interiors… These were incredibly exciting. But, the business model, I guess, is a little shaky these days.

I would rather see Substack build a future for writing and words — rather than chasing Twitter and Instagram and YouTube, as they have been. I highly doubt they’ll win. The world needs a wealth of very exciting writing, and deeper-dimensional-opinionated newsletters that are not overwhelmed by affiliate links. Starting a very good newsletter is a super duper contribution to The Discourse — I just hope that Substack works to crack new business models for us that don’t erase its soul, and ours, in the process. (DM)