I want to commend you, Hamish, for using a human illustrator and Substack for having an in-house illustrator.
With that in mind, I want to respond to this statement:
"As artificial intelligence gives these independents only more power, this is a trend that will neither reverse nor slow down."
Although I agree with your point from a practical perspective, I think what we as independent creators have to offer is a unique, original, *real* voice, and it is this humanity that will set us apart from the behemoths, which can run just as well on AI-generated content as they can on the button-push press-release model they've been relying on for years. It is that originality we should be celebrating and touting at Substack, not the artificial mass production content people can find anywhere.
My view differs, and my conclusion is unfortunate. As this AI-gen mess unfolds, I become more certain that it will ultimately dominate media because it gets cheaper, faster, and easier than any human creative could hope to be. The result will be, unless pending lawsuits in New York deflate the AI boom, that human creative workers will be compelled to create new ways to work with and beside AI. Maybe we will become creative curators. Maybe we will develop specific and in-depth editorial calendars for media organizations. IN any case, as has happened throughout the development of technologies, we creatives will need to think outside the box, look for training and education in new specialities, and adapt. I've worked as a professional writer/journalist for 50 years--so this idea is a little tough for me to embrace, but I know we have to. We in the industry had to adapt to learning digital publishing and all but abandoning typesetting or lithography and we survived. No one can detect or erase all AI-generated content --and that will not get better. I'm working to adapt by creating my own Substack-based media company--I hope to match or rival the biggest players.
Thank you, Hamish McKenzie and the Substack team. This is such an important discussion.
As a journalist and Journalism professor, my Substack has been a life-changer for me and I’m excited about the possibilities that this network brings.
As it grows and evolves, one word we can use more of in this discussion is “mission.”
This could not be more important. Look beyond engineers. Legacy journalists - many of them in our network here - are deeply trained in public service and the role of reporting in our democracy. Be guided by those who have thought deeply about and worked on the frontlines of public-service journalism, dedicating their lives to the values of public trust, human rights, knowledge, and dignity.
This business is about more than new technologies, new delivery models, and the supply and demand that our engineers/entrepreneurs major in; it’s about the health and wealth and dignity of our global communities, our access to and exchange of ideas. Our freedoms, our democracies, our lives. Make mission - public service, the public trust - key to the discussion, with those who have a proven track record and have dedicated their lives to it. Do it together.
But to produce really good quality, original journalism, you need to get out and research stories. Go into the field, observe, film, conduct interviews. It costs a lot of money and time to produce just one story. Then you have to get it seen. It takes months, years even to build an audience on Substack or YouTube. Even then you are.not guaranteed of getting the views. Media organisations give a journalist the platform. They have also verified you. There are a lot of 'journalists' out there now reporting absolute nonsense. we need investment, we need time, we need a platform and we need verification of facts and of journalists.
“Substack… has obliterated the former advantages of legacy media organizations, and created new dynamics that favor an emerging class of independent voices and perspectives…”
At first, I believed this, but recently it seems like every day there’s a new announcement from Substack saying: “Hey, everybody, check out Stephen King, and Matt Yglesias, and Paul Krugman! They’re on Substack now, hooray!”
I joined Substack, in part, to escape these often obnoxious voices that pollute other platforms and need absolutely no amplification whatsoever.
I don’t mind that the people whose tired screeching has been heard for decades are allowed on the same platform as someone like little ol’ me with fewer then 100 followers.
I do, however, mind that it seems you’re putting an awful lot of effort into shining a bright spotlight on them and directing everyone to follow them.
These people are by no means an “emerging class of independent voices.”
Again… I don’t mind that they’re here (and I just mute them when they arrive) but it definitely does feel like you’re celebrating people with a bazillion followers already a hell of a lot more these days which seems contrary to your original vision. They already have tremendous inertia and don’t need more help. It feels like this is just a lateral move for them and a quick way for you to monetize off the enormous incomes they already come with.
Simply serving as a different payment processor for somebody with a massive following already is not exactly what I understood Substack to be.
Legacy media had a distribution model that I don’t see entrepreneurial media able to replicate. There are no paperboys tossing it onto the driveways of its potential audience — the audience has to dig through the hedges to find it. The majority of people aren’t actively looking, but are passive receptors to whatever information is put in front of them, and we all know that means they get more of the thing they just clicked on. We see what we like and we stay in our bubbles. That majority is not equiped to suss out a fair and balanced slate of information.
The other problem is the fractured way we pay for content. I can’t pay $5 or whatever for every Substack I want to subscribe to, so I don’t subscribe because my subconscience says the writer deserves to get paid. It’s a conundrum that stresses me out.
I agree with your point about the pay models. They need to be refined. But as for the audience digging through the hedges--if one wants to succeed in the new business model, one has to become the paper boy and toss their work out there in the form of marketing and promotion--which is accessible to anyone with an interest or connection. Those of us who lament "I hate marketing and promotion, it's tawdry and sleezy," will be the paper boys with flat tires on their bicycles and no means of delivering.
To extend the metaphor, the paperboy has to pedal into far-flung neighborhoods, strange cul de sacs and dark alleys to spread the word. At least that’s what I would hope for — a less polarized information system.
Agreed, but the difficulty for the average consumer in this ecosystem Substack is such a guiding light in seems to be at least two, primarily (certainly for me): 1) it's hard to curate a broad and continuously refreshed portfolio of stuff (authors/ journalists/ columns/ books/ podcasts/ streaming channels etc. to consume), and 2) it's hard to afford at $5 plus per month per throw and growing. If I could surmount those two hurdles, I would see your vision, and raise you, perhaps going "all in".
Huge substack fan but let's be realistic like OnlyFans. The top 1% will earn the big bucks while the rest scrape by. The main difference is I expect it to be a few more people who will earn a partime income, for example the German review makes about €10,000 a year a nice part-time income but not enough to quit your job.
You should be pushing my Substack. It's the best single source of info on federal, state and local government on the planet. In addition to lots of general info I'm doing a deep dive into trump 2.o actions!
Hola Mr. McKenzie. I am grateful for the platform you provide to honor the privilege of free speech and for standing strong against those who use the “Nazi” word to ironically suppress it. As a health care worker I was shocked and horrified at the control exerted by government, mainstream media, and corporate interests over our sacred first amendment, though I now realize the efforts for suppression have been long standing. The damage has caused so much harm, it will take years to rectify. You have created a platform for the voices of many warriors/heroes, for free expression. In doing so, you are a hero as well. Blessings. Mary Sjoberg, RPh, CCN
That said, there’s one spot where I think you’re being a bit too optimistic:
👉 Not every creator wants to be an entrepreneur.
Building a mini-business, running marketing, managing sales, producing content—it’s a completely different skill set. Creative fatigue and isolation are going to be real, and they’ll hit harder than people expect.
👉 The support you describe ("editing, marketing, events, etc.") won't be free.
New media groups will capture value in quieter ways—through tech, data ownership, and silent revenue cuts. It won’t be a utopia of pure support. It’ll be a new kind of control, just more polite.
👉 More niches mean more silos.
Instead of one fragmented media space, we’re heading for a thousand echo chambers that barely talk to each other. It’s freedom, yes—but also fragmentation.
👉 Editorial quality will suffer.
When survival depends on subscriptions and constant growth, serious investigative journalism—the slow, expensive kind—gets pushed aside. The speed game wins. Depth loses.
So here for this vision. And I am working on building it!
The world needs more Elles
I want to commend you, Hamish, for using a human illustrator and Substack for having an in-house illustrator.
With that in mind, I want to respond to this statement:
"As artificial intelligence gives these independents only more power, this is a trend that will neither reverse nor slow down."
Although I agree with your point from a practical perspective, I think what we as independent creators have to offer is a unique, original, *real* voice, and it is this humanity that will set us apart from the behemoths, which can run just as well on AI-generated content as they can on the button-push press-release model they've been relying on for years. It is that originality we should be celebrating and touting at Substack, not the artificial mass production content people can find anywhere.
My view differs, and my conclusion is unfortunate. As this AI-gen mess unfolds, I become more certain that it will ultimately dominate media because it gets cheaper, faster, and easier than any human creative could hope to be. The result will be, unless pending lawsuits in New York deflate the AI boom, that human creative workers will be compelled to create new ways to work with and beside AI. Maybe we will become creative curators. Maybe we will develop specific and in-depth editorial calendars for media organizations. IN any case, as has happened throughout the development of technologies, we creatives will need to think outside the box, look for training and education in new specialities, and adapt. I've worked as a professional writer/journalist for 50 years--so this idea is a little tough for me to embrace, but I know we have to. We in the industry had to adapt to learning digital publishing and all but abandoning typesetting or lithography and we survived. No one can detect or erase all AI-generated content --and that will not get better. I'm working to adapt by creating my own Substack-based media company--I hope to match or rival the biggest players.
What a thoroughly well thought out essay. Did so uplifting to find something positive these days. Well done.
Sing it!
Thank you for all the support you and the substack team have provided to us solo media entrepreneurs!
I agree.
Thank you, Hamish McKenzie and the Substack team. This is such an important discussion.
As a journalist and Journalism professor, my Substack has been a life-changer for me and I’m excited about the possibilities that this network brings.
As it grows and evolves, one word we can use more of in this discussion is “mission.”
This could not be more important. Look beyond engineers. Legacy journalists - many of them in our network here - are deeply trained in public service and the role of reporting in our democracy. Be guided by those who have thought deeply about and worked on the frontlines of public-service journalism, dedicating their lives to the values of public trust, human rights, knowledge, and dignity.
This business is about more than new technologies, new delivery models, and the supply and demand that our engineers/entrepreneurs major in; it’s about the health and wealth and dignity of our global communities, our access to and exchange of ideas. Our freedoms, our democracies, our lives. Make mission - public service, the public trust - key to the discussion, with those who have a proven track record and have dedicated their lives to it. Do it together.
But to produce really good quality, original journalism, you need to get out and research stories. Go into the field, observe, film, conduct interviews. It costs a lot of money and time to produce just one story. Then you have to get it seen. It takes months, years even to build an audience on Substack or YouTube. Even then you are.not guaranteed of getting the views. Media organisations give a journalist the platform. They have also verified you. There are a lot of 'journalists' out there now reporting absolute nonsense. we need investment, we need time, we need a platform and we need verification of facts and of journalists.
“Substack… has obliterated the former advantages of legacy media organizations, and created new dynamics that favor an emerging class of independent voices and perspectives…”
At first, I believed this, but recently it seems like every day there’s a new announcement from Substack saying: “Hey, everybody, check out Stephen King, and Matt Yglesias, and Paul Krugman! They’re on Substack now, hooray!”
I joined Substack, in part, to escape these often obnoxious voices that pollute other platforms and need absolutely no amplification whatsoever.
I don’t mind that the people whose tired screeching has been heard for decades are allowed on the same platform as someone like little ol’ me with fewer then 100 followers.
I do, however, mind that it seems you’re putting an awful lot of effort into shining a bright spotlight on them and directing everyone to follow them.
These people are by no means an “emerging class of independent voices.”
Again… I don’t mind that they’re here (and I just mute them when they arrive) but it definitely does feel like you’re celebrating people with a bazillion followers already a hell of a lot more these days which seems contrary to your original vision. They already have tremendous inertia and don’t need more help. It feels like this is just a lateral move for them and a quick way for you to monetize off the enormous incomes they already come with.
Simply serving as a different payment processor for somebody with a massive following already is not exactly what I understood Substack to be.
Legacy media had a distribution model that I don’t see entrepreneurial media able to replicate. There are no paperboys tossing it onto the driveways of its potential audience — the audience has to dig through the hedges to find it. The majority of people aren’t actively looking, but are passive receptors to whatever information is put in front of them, and we all know that means they get more of the thing they just clicked on. We see what we like and we stay in our bubbles. That majority is not equiped to suss out a fair and balanced slate of information.
The other problem is the fractured way we pay for content. I can’t pay $5 or whatever for every Substack I want to subscribe to, so I don’t subscribe because my subconscience says the writer deserves to get paid. It’s a conundrum that stresses me out.
I agree with your point about the pay models. They need to be refined. But as for the audience digging through the hedges--if one wants to succeed in the new business model, one has to become the paper boy and toss their work out there in the form of marketing and promotion--which is accessible to anyone with an interest or connection. Those of us who lament "I hate marketing and promotion, it's tawdry and sleezy," will be the paper boys with flat tires on their bicycles and no means of delivering.
To extend the metaphor, the paperboy has to pedal into far-flung neighborhoods, strange cul de sacs and dark alleys to spread the word. At least that’s what I would hope for — a less polarized information system.
Agreed, but the difficulty for the average consumer in this ecosystem Substack is such a guiding light in seems to be at least two, primarily (certainly for me): 1) it's hard to curate a broad and continuously refreshed portfolio of stuff (authors/ journalists/ columns/ books/ podcasts/ streaming channels etc. to consume), and 2) it's hard to afford at $5 plus per month per throw and growing. If I could surmount those two hurdles, I would see your vision, and raise you, perhaps going "all in".
Hamish, you have the platform.
Why not experimenting with some of the ideas already?
Microfinancing, team-building, and so on
What's holding you back?
Huge substack fan but let's be realistic like OnlyFans. The top 1% will earn the big bucks while the rest scrape by. The main difference is I expect it to be a few more people who will earn a partime income, for example the German review makes about €10,000 a year a nice part-time income but not enough to quit your job.
You should be pushing my Substack. It's the best single source of info on federal, state and local government on the planet. In addition to lots of general info I'm doing a deep dive into trump 2.o actions!
Hola Mr. McKenzie. I am grateful for the platform you provide to honor the privilege of free speech and for standing strong against those who use the “Nazi” word to ironically suppress it. As a health care worker I was shocked and horrified at the control exerted by government, mainstream media, and corporate interests over our sacred first amendment, though I now realize the efforts for suppression have been long standing. The damage has caused so much harm, it will take years to rectify. You have created a platform for the voices of many warriors/heroes, for free expression. In doing so, you are a hero as well. Blessings. Mary Sjoberg, RPh, CCN
Really enjoyed this vision, Hamish.
That said, there’s one spot where I think you’re being a bit too optimistic:
👉 Not every creator wants to be an entrepreneur.
Building a mini-business, running marketing, managing sales, producing content—it’s a completely different skill set. Creative fatigue and isolation are going to be real, and they’ll hit harder than people expect.
👉 The support you describe ("editing, marketing, events, etc.") won't be free.
New media groups will capture value in quieter ways—through tech, data ownership, and silent revenue cuts. It won’t be a utopia of pure support. It’ll be a new kind of control, just more polite.
👉 More niches mean more silos.
Instead of one fragmented media space, we’re heading for a thousand echo chambers that barely talk to each other. It’s freedom, yes—but also fragmentation.
👉 Editorial quality will suffer.
When survival depends on subscriptions and constant growth, serious investigative journalism—the slow, expensive kind—gets pushed aside. The speed game wins. Depth loses.
fool