Nov 27, 2022·edited Nov 27, 2022Liked by Christopher Brunet
Keep it. Use every bit of leverage you have to become better known.
I like the reference to Sinclair Lewis, a little-known writer who should be better known. He did accept the Nobel for Literature in 1930 though.
Hemingway disdained Lewis's writing and said this of his appearance: "His face was a piece of old liver, shot squarely with a #7 shot at twenty yards."
Edit PS It's good that you are suspicious of external validation. That's a real trap. Lewis the writer was aware of this, Hemingway not so much. He fell victim to his own image.
Nov 26, 2022·edited Nov 27, 2022Liked by Christopher Brunet
Oh heck don't over-agitate yourself here.
Tiny little invisibles like me wouldn't be able to publish *at all* without the big-name draws making all them bucks for Substack. Those prestige accounts are dropping just enough crumbs on the table to let us itty bitty mice nibble on bits of cake.
Some grim reality here for the purportedly pure-of-heart? The minute you turn on paid subscriptions, you *are* thinking always, at some level or another of brainpower, about how to keep them come renewal time, and how to attract more. You can never again write exactly what you want in the blithe freedom of the unowned.
It's OK. You think Jane Austen or Adam Smith didn't get grief from their publishers about what the market wanted and what was worth paying the typesetters to set under the smoky glare of the midnight oil?
It's only the independently wealthy set who needn't care about publicity and hierarchies.
You're doing good here, and just think of that checkmark as a party favor if you want to keep your head screwed on right, going forward.
Substack is a business. It's not a heroic Ent of the Interwebs saving civilization. I mean, hasn't everyone accepting Stripe payment processing already sold out, or something? (Just only slightly kidding.)
I'm glad to be able to read you. You're a great enjoyment. Don't sweat nuthin'.
[edited for spelling. I'd never want to *red* you!]
Despite adopting some of the trappings of the loathed "big social", this platform isn't like any other. Nobody's going to make much money spamming and scamming, it doesn't lend to the sort of manipulation short-attention span medium like Twitter, and it doesn't appeal to people's remarkable desire to gain fake status by posting all sorts of personal info (all while giving it to advertisers), nor does it provide a way for psychopathic THOTS to exploit desperate, thirsty beta-males.
Nor does it facilitate human trafficking, slavery, or sharing of child pornography (this happens on Twitter and Facebook, although I think Musk got the CP off, at least).
Remember: Substack takes a cut. They need people like you to get paid so they can get paid, and keep this platform running.
Keep it. Take the money. The universe is trying to tell you something.
You could also argue that checkmarks provide an incentive structure for writers. That they'd be more keen to accumulate those paid subscribers if they get another reward for it (a badge).
Nov 27, 2022·edited Nov 27, 2022Liked by Christopher Brunet
We live in a society and have some measure of a social contract to keep with our neighbors, this seems to keep being rewritten as of late mind you, however grading society seems to only lead us to a social credit as a means to meek out control of morality by the rich, much of what is going on goes ignored by the rich, given they profit from it in some way. If fiat is worth nothing tomorrow, it will be because society is deemed morally bankrupt, those at the top of the caste will be at fault for being counted as one who "see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil"*. All the trinkets in the world won't help if you are counted as such.
edit: Wrote up a lazy usage of the proverb, in turning a blind eye to bad behavior, if the rich continue to ignore what is actually being discussed, the currency will be worthless.
My subscription is a gamble. Will you have the wherewithal to fulfill your early promise? It will take money and more good writing. Are there risk? Yes. You seem to know many of them so perhaps you will avoid them. If not, then maybe I gambled and will lose.
Keep it. I've always admired those adept at spinning erudition into gold: Umberto Eco, J.R.R. Tolkien, Gore Vidal. Checkmarks may be a status symbol, but at least they're hard-earned -- and more fulfilling than harvesting "likes". We need people of all political persuasions succeeding at Substack.
Chris - Do you know if gifted paid subscriptions count towards the checkmark badge? Specifically, gifted subscriptions on behalf of the author where no money is actually exchanged?
Suppose I had 100 free readers, and I gifted paid status to all of them, would that earn a badge? I'm not really clear on how all that works as I just comment here and never publish, but I have been given a free lifetime paid substack in the past, so it is (or was) possible.
I'm just trying to understand the discrepancy I see between checkmark status and community engagement after it was rolled out.
Parentdata, as you used in example, (and one of my 40+ paid subscriptions), boasts "tens of thousands of paid subscriptions", but given the community engagement I had expected hundreds at best. I have been a subscriber to Emily Osters stack a year now, and her posts rarely receive more than a few dozen "likes" and only a handful of low effort comments.
Scrolling through her most recent posts for the past month the one with the most engagement appears to be populated nearly entirely by free subscribers in the comment section. [1]
I'm just wondering, if someone converted all their early free subscribers to paid through gift option, even if no money went to substack, would substack count that number in their badge status? I am not suggesting this is what Oster did, I'm just trying to explore why the gap between subscription status and engagement seems so vast.
It could very well be that I am misjudging the behaviors of substack subscribers. Perhaps there are 10,000+ moms who pay the $40 annual subscription to ParentData, read/glance at the newsletter in their email, but never take the next step to click on it to add a "like" or bother commenting. It could be that is natural for a newsletter focused on tame questions like "are pacifiers bad for you" not to get secondary engagement, while a writer like Eugyppius, with a fraction of the subscriber base, gets more community involvement specifically because he is writing on controversial subjects [2].
*If* it is possible to leverage gifted paid subscriptions to bump up your checkmark status, then it seems rather easy to exploit - just hire a small bot farm to make a bunch of email addresses, subscribe, then gift.
Keep it! You earned it!
Keep it. Use every bit of leverage you have to become better known.
I like the reference to Sinclair Lewis, a little-known writer who should be better known. He did accept the Nobel for Literature in 1930 though.
Hemingway disdained Lewis's writing and said this of his appearance: "His face was a piece of old liver, shot squarely with a #7 shot at twenty yards."
Edit PS It's good that you are suspicious of external validation. That's a real trap. Lewis the writer was aware of this, Hemingway not so much. He fell victim to his own image.
Oh heck don't over-agitate yourself here.
Tiny little invisibles like me wouldn't be able to publish *at all* without the big-name draws making all them bucks for Substack. Those prestige accounts are dropping just enough crumbs on the table to let us itty bitty mice nibble on bits of cake.
Some grim reality here for the purportedly pure-of-heart? The minute you turn on paid subscriptions, you *are* thinking always, at some level or another of brainpower, about how to keep them come renewal time, and how to attract more. You can never again write exactly what you want in the blithe freedom of the unowned.
It's OK. You think Jane Austen or Adam Smith didn't get grief from their publishers about what the market wanted and what was worth paying the typesetters to set under the smoky glare of the midnight oil?
It's only the independently wealthy set who needn't care about publicity and hierarchies.
You're doing good here, and just think of that checkmark as a party favor if you want to keep your head screwed on right, going forward.
Substack is a business. It's not a heroic Ent of the Interwebs saving civilization. I mean, hasn't everyone accepting Stripe payment processing already sold out, or something? (Just only slightly kidding.)
I'm glad to be able to read you. You're a great enjoyment. Don't sweat nuthin'.
[edited for spelling. I'd never want to *red* you!]
Keep it. Take the money.
Despite adopting some of the trappings of the loathed "big social", this platform isn't like any other. Nobody's going to make much money spamming and scamming, it doesn't lend to the sort of manipulation short-attention span medium like Twitter, and it doesn't appeal to people's remarkable desire to gain fake status by posting all sorts of personal info (all while giving it to advertisers), nor does it provide a way for psychopathic THOTS to exploit desperate, thirsty beta-males.
Nor does it facilitate human trafficking, slavery, or sharing of child pornography (this happens on Twitter and Facebook, although I think Musk got the CP off, at least).
Remember: Substack takes a cut. They need people like you to get paid so they can get paid, and keep this platform running.
Keep it. Take the money. The universe is trying to tell you something.
Keep it!
Where is the option for overthinking it? Do whatever you want!
You could also argue that checkmarks provide an incentive structure for writers. That they'd be more keen to accumulate those paid subscribers if they get another reward for it (a badge).
People , me, are voting with their pocketbooks for you. Not to showcase that would be stupid.
Keep it! Thoughtful article. How rare to present both arguments.
Off-topic, this was my favorite phrase. "I grinded in obscurity ..." Because "I ground" would just be wrong.
We live in a society and have some measure of a social contract to keep with our neighbors, this seems to keep being rewritten as of late mind you, however grading society seems to only lead us to a social credit as a means to meek out control of morality by the rich, much of what is going on goes ignored by the rich, given they profit from it in some way. If fiat is worth nothing tomorrow, it will be because society is deemed morally bankrupt, those at the top of the caste will be at fault for being counted as one who "see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil"*. All the trinkets in the world won't help if you are counted as such.
edit: Wrote up a lazy usage of the proverb, in turning a blind eye to bad behavior, if the rich continue to ignore what is actually being discussed, the currency will be worthless.
I clicked on keep it and got an error message.
My subscription is a gamble. Will you have the wherewithal to fulfill your early promise? It will take money and more good writing. Are there risk? Yes. You seem to know many of them so perhaps you will avoid them. If not, then maybe I gambled and will lose.
Keep it till you have enough subscribers to generate an adequate income. Then turn it off.
Congratulations! Impressed you’ve written so many posts and curious to know if you know the exact number. When did you first start posting?
Keep it. I've always admired those adept at spinning erudition into gold: Umberto Eco, J.R.R. Tolkien, Gore Vidal. Checkmarks may be a status symbol, but at least they're hard-earned -- and more fulfilling than harvesting "likes". We need people of all political persuasions succeeding at Substack.
Chris - Do you know if gifted paid subscriptions count towards the checkmark badge? Specifically, gifted subscriptions on behalf of the author where no money is actually exchanged?
Suppose I had 100 free readers, and I gifted paid status to all of them, would that earn a badge? I'm not really clear on how all that works as I just comment here and never publish, but I have been given a free lifetime paid substack in the past, so it is (or was) possible.
I'm just trying to understand the discrepancy I see between checkmark status and community engagement after it was rolled out.
Parentdata, as you used in example, (and one of my 40+ paid subscriptions), boasts "tens of thousands of paid subscriptions", but given the community engagement I had expected hundreds at best. I have been a subscriber to Emily Osters stack a year now, and her posts rarely receive more than a few dozen "likes" and only a handful of low effort comments.
Scrolling through her most recent posts for the past month the one with the most engagement appears to be populated nearly entirely by free subscribers in the comment section. [1]
I'm just wondering, if someone converted all their early free subscribers to paid through gift option, even if no money went to substack, would substack count that number in their badge status? I am not suggesting this is what Oster did, I'm just trying to explore why the gap between subscription status and engagement seems so vast.
It could very well be that I am misjudging the behaviors of substack subscribers. Perhaps there are 10,000+ moms who pay the $40 annual subscription to ParentData, read/glance at the newsletter in their email, but never take the next step to click on it to add a "like" or bother commenting. It could be that is natural for a newsletter focused on tame questions like "are pacifiers bad for you" not to get secondary engagement, while a writer like Eugyppius, with a fraction of the subscriber base, gets more community involvement specifically because he is writing on controversial subjects [2].
*If* it is possible to leverage gifted paid subscriptions to bump up your checkmark status, then it seems rather easy to exploit - just hire a small bot farm to make a bunch of email addresses, subscribe, then gift.
_____________
[1] https://www.parentdata.org/p/wins-woes-and-no-right-answers
[2] https://www.eugyppius.com/p/maximum-vaccination