Chris, this is excellent advice (to both creators AND consumers). Your advice could apply to many many career choices (i.e., it's a grind). My dad is a retired Presbyterian minister. He worked hard to administer the office staff, committees, and congregation. But, many folks think "I love the Bible, I could come up with something to say once a week", picturing the other 6 days as coasting. A successful minister works HARD 6 (or even 7) days a week. How many people have thought "I'll open a restaurant...I know food, I know what people like to eat" (which means what they, themselves, like to eat). But, running a restaurant is HARD. You have to find recipes that more than just you like. You have to find suppliers, hire staff, keep crabby customers happy. Your content creation advice is well worth heading. I believe you, Chris, work very hard for what we consume. And, I for one, am grateful.
Stop buying “corporate coffee”..get a thermos, make it at home, and use the money you save to subscribe to a couple of independent journalists that interest you.
LOVE the free market, those who take risk, and those who succeed in the alt media space marketplace like Substack by offering quality, value and unique experiential insight -- not the same recycled B.S.
I gotta tell you -- your evangelizing on your preference for "independent content creator" status is *by far* the least interesting thing you write about.
I get that it is highly relevant to you, but it really just comes off as a long-form advertisement, self-aggrandizement, desperate justification, and king of needy.
We get it. You like being independent and it is constant hard work. This is not news to any of us who have started a business and hung our own shingle, and worked for years to make it viable.
With all do respect, not many people want to pay to read you writing content having a public advertisement/therapy session telling us why what you do is so important and special.
He asks for the sale in every post that is behind a paywall. Insisting regularly that legacy media is dying, and they didn’t break up with him, he actually dumped them and everything is awesome now — is boring. It doesn’t even matter whether it is true or not. I don’t care. I subscribe for analysis and commentary on politics. I don’t really care about how Chris is feeling about his career decisions this week. I think a paragraph boosting Tara Palmieri and linking to the NYT profile is probably sufficient to do a favor for a colleague. The rest of it was just masturbatory.
The problem I see is that although Chris as a seller is selling something that he genuinely believes, it is something that many, many potential buyers do not fully believe about Chris.
Chris continually repeats the balls and strikes analogy to sell his brand of independent journalism. And he does believe that he is calling balls and strikes. But as several others subscribers have stated in the past, myself included, we don’t always see that playing out in Chris’ writing. Just because he believes it, and just because he evangelicalizes that belief; it doesn’t make it true.
I’ve said before that what I think is wrong with the balls and strikes adage is that the game being played is no longer something resembling traditional baseball.
A better analogy for what is being sold in this space is the scientific method in a political and sometimes cultural realm.
Of the 7 steps, Chris plays around in the Question, Research, Hypothesis and Observation areas to varying degrees. He even occasionally attempts the Experiment step, but rarely or never will he actually draw a firm conclusion based on the previous 5 steps, yet he still insists on doing the final step which is sharing your findings. That’s irresponsible, and honestly, just not brave.
He says he’s an independent voice in his chosen field of study, but I see someone who constantly self-censors and fears actually having to draw conclusions (conclusions in this analogy would be the balls and strikes he insists he is calling but I’m saying he isn’t calling anything at all).
I think subscribers should insist on all 7 steps in order to ever consider buying what is being sold here.
I really wasn’t commenting on the substance of his other posts. I do think he has a tendency to use declarative sentences when talking about Democrats and more general observations or take-it-with-a-gran-of-salt when talking about Trump/MAGA. But that isn’t really what this was about.
I just get bored with his constant harping about how he is an “independent content creator” and it being the wave of the future, yada, yada, yada. It is all well and good for his opinion format, but it isn’t actual reporting. Independent content creators will not replace hard news reporting and investigative journalism. It is all well and good that he bangs out a few paragraphs of stuff he has been thinking about in between his kids’ soccer games, or a nice little YouTube video, but it won’t replace the work done by Punch Bowl, WaPo, NYT, The Hill, Politico, ProPublica, NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, the BBC, Al Jazeera, Reuters, the AP, etc. That will not change no matter how many times Chris lectures us on the impending death of traditional media. Yes, the landscape may change, and some outlets may close or consolidate until they are right-sized for their audience, but we can’t afford to let them completely go away in favor of a angry of independent podcasters and pundits with varying degrees of credibility.
I don't know if you will find this encouraging or not. I remember you from The Fix at the Washington Post and not at all from CNN. I think people underestimate the value of writing and reading at one's own pace.
I like the bundling idea; however, there might be too much of writers that all agree on the same subject. Maybe bundling with writers with opposing views?
So, here's a bundling idea: In addition to allowing a subscriber to construct a bundle ala carte, how about "curated" bundles: Here's a bundle of mixed political view points, here is a bundle focused on news of the day, here is a bundle for foodies, here is a bundle for....(well, you get the idea)
Bundling certainly feels like a good direction, and you raise a valid point about "sameness" Carol. An ala carte version, as mentioned by Andy, should be an automatic option for users, and I would that an ala carte option should be supported with an "intelligent" suggestion agent that offers up ideas for inclusion in a bundle.
100%. With that said, it applies across all industries. Everyone thinks their boss is rolling in money and they’ll set up their own single and they’ll get rich. If you’re not prepared to sell, it’s not gonna work. And that’s hard for a lot of people.
That’s part of why I subscribe. Yes, you’re a journalist. But I look at you as another small business owner. Plus, you’re from a neighboring CT town so I have to support you!
Yes – it is a grind. But every small business owner, I know who is successful, loves the grind and the process. Your customers see that and it greatly improves your odds of success.
How many people know there is an index on the Substack web site broken down into categories
I also think it helps when the writers suggest other writers I found Fleisher Schmidt and a couple others through you
By the way there is an excellent interview on CNN with a retired Canadian couple who are cutting back on their US vacations Besides Canadians doing that if you are taking a vacation try Canada
I sometimes forget the work you have to put in just to make it work so you can post several times a day and give us your perspective on the day's events.
>“I wonder what Chris thinks about X thing that happened in the news.”
This is exactly why I subscribe. After the election, I took a break from everything, including this substack. But then the Matt Gaetz stuff happened and I thought ohhhh I need to get Chris' perspective on this. And here I am!
I've thought of launching my own substack since I see more movies than most (Chris, we have got to get to you to a movie theatre), but between my full-time job and not being as famous as Chris, I just worry I'd be posting into the void.
Sam, what if you wrote substack posts on movies just for your own sheer enjoyment of processing the movie you just watched? If your opinions are not crazy off the rail, and you truly enjoy writing about movies, that will show, and attract readers. Perhaps slowly, but if your opinion is interesting, it might well draw readers. Don't worry about the void, write for yourself and see if others hop on the ride. (no guarantees, of course)
Thanks for sharing I finally subscribed paid to you even though you irritating at times because you offered a discount and the yearly was below $50. Cost is definitely a consideration as I have paid subscriptions to several and am sorting who is worthwhile and who isn’t. My focus is on political.
I subscribe to a number of Substacks, paying for some. I also subscribe to NYT and WaPo on line. I need to cut back. WaPo is making the decision easy with its self-immolation. Chris, I am in awe of your energy in producing insightful content so frequently.
I’m very thankful for finding you here Chris. I remember looking on the CNN website almost daily wondering where your hilarious and poignant articles went before finally googling you and being devastated you were laid off. Took me a few months after that to find out about Substack (never heard of it before finding out that’s where you went). I immediately became paid subscriber and am glad I did. CNN was dumb to let you go but thankfully you seem to be thriving. Keep up the great work!
And I’m sure we as consumers of independent media are also starting to experience the law of diminishing marginal utility. Not that the additional content is not good and does not bring us additional joy and value, but at some point when I’m working through that gallon of Rocky Road, the next bite might not bring the same satisfaction as the previous spoonfuls.
There are things that encourage me to subscribe to a substack: a) the writer interacts with their audience, b) the frequency of posting, and c) whether the content is interesting to me. A new writer can control a and b.
So, I watched your content for a bit to see if it was interesting enough to me to subscribe and it was. Someone else may have a different set of metrics and maybe Substack provides their own.
As you suggest Chris, this is a KEY! "And not just ANY content. Content that’s interesting. Unique. Fun/funny. Content that people can’t get on CNN.com or ABC News or wherever."
In the marketing world, in which I have worked for over 2 decades, we refer to this as "differentiation". You have to find a way to stand out from the herd, and stand out in way(s) that are valued by your customer/viewer/user. AND, you need to evolve your differentiation intelligently and selectively over time.
Chris, this is excellent advice (to both creators AND consumers). Your advice could apply to many many career choices (i.e., it's a grind). My dad is a retired Presbyterian minister. He worked hard to administer the office staff, committees, and congregation. But, many folks think "I love the Bible, I could come up with something to say once a week", picturing the other 6 days as coasting. A successful minister works HARD 6 (or even 7) days a week. How many people have thought "I'll open a restaurant...I know food, I know what people like to eat" (which means what they, themselves, like to eat). But, running a restaurant is HARD. You have to find recipes that more than just you like. You have to find suppliers, hire staff, keep crabby customers happy. Your content creation advice is well worth heading. I believe you, Chris, work very hard for what we consume. And, I for one, am grateful.
Stop buying “corporate coffee”..get a thermos, make it at home, and use the money you save to subscribe to a couple of independent journalists that interest you.
I rely on corporate coffee to pay the bills, please don’t 😆
LOVE the free market, those who take risk, and those who succeed in the alt media space marketplace like Substack by offering quality, value and unique experiential insight -- not the same recycled B.S.
I gotta tell you -- your evangelizing on your preference for "independent content creator" status is *by far* the least interesting thing you write about.
I get that it is highly relevant to you, but it really just comes off as a long-form advertisement, self-aggrandizement, desperate justification, and king of needy.
We get it. You like being independent and it is constant hard work. This is not news to any of us who have started a business and hung our own shingle, and worked for years to make it viable.
With all do respect, not many people want to pay to read you writing content having a public advertisement/therapy session telling us why what you do is so important and special.
This happens far too often.
You have to ask for the sale and part of that is the reason (reasons) they should buy It is easy to skip over that part
He asks for the sale in every post that is behind a paywall. Insisting regularly that legacy media is dying, and they didn’t break up with him, he actually dumped them and everything is awesome now — is boring. It doesn’t even matter whether it is true or not. I don’t care. I subscribe for analysis and commentary on politics. I don’t really care about how Chris is feeling about his career decisions this week. I think a paragraph boosting Tara Palmieri and linking to the NYT profile is probably sufficient to do a favor for a colleague. The rest of it was just masturbatory.
As I said a good salesperson asked for the sale and gives reason (s) why the customer should buy
Again you can always skip the request
I don't think it is cut and dry about who dumped who There is a lot of gray there
I am 72 and grew up reading the newspaper and watchin evening news on 3 networks
I think it is dead Look at the numbers and the good writers and analysts leaving
Those two numbers say a lot
I am younger than you and still have 7 day home delivery.
But, that isn’t the point. I already subscribed to Chris. Stop selling me. Stop telling me why legacy media sucks. It is annoying.
The problem I see is that although Chris as a seller is selling something that he genuinely believes, it is something that many, many potential buyers do not fully believe about Chris.
Chris continually repeats the balls and strikes analogy to sell his brand of independent journalism. And he does believe that he is calling balls and strikes. But as several others subscribers have stated in the past, myself included, we don’t always see that playing out in Chris’ writing. Just because he believes it, and just because he evangelicalizes that belief; it doesn’t make it true.
I’ve said before that what I think is wrong with the balls and strikes adage is that the game being played is no longer something resembling traditional baseball.
A better analogy for what is being sold in this space is the scientific method in a political and sometimes cultural realm.
Of the 7 steps, Chris plays around in the Question, Research, Hypothesis and Observation areas to varying degrees. He even occasionally attempts the Experiment step, but rarely or never will he actually draw a firm conclusion based on the previous 5 steps, yet he still insists on doing the final step which is sharing your findings. That’s irresponsible, and honestly, just not brave.
He says he’s an independent voice in his chosen field of study, but I see someone who constantly self-censors and fears actually having to draw conclusions (conclusions in this analogy would be the balls and strikes he insists he is calling but I’m saying he isn’t calling anything at all).
I think subscribers should insist on all 7 steps in order to ever consider buying what is being sold here.
I really wasn’t commenting on the substance of his other posts. I do think he has a tendency to use declarative sentences when talking about Democrats and more general observations or take-it-with-a-gran-of-salt when talking about Trump/MAGA. But that isn’t really what this was about.
I just get bored with his constant harping about how he is an “independent content creator” and it being the wave of the future, yada, yada, yada. It is all well and good for his opinion format, but it isn’t actual reporting. Independent content creators will not replace hard news reporting and investigative journalism. It is all well and good that he bangs out a few paragraphs of stuff he has been thinking about in between his kids’ soccer games, or a nice little YouTube video, but it won’t replace the work done by Punch Bowl, WaPo, NYT, The Hill, Politico, ProPublica, NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, the BBC, Al Jazeera, Reuters, the AP, etc. That will not change no matter how many times Chris lectures us on the impending death of traditional media. Yes, the landscape may change, and some outlets may close or consolidate until they are right-sized for their audience, but we can’t afford to let them completely go away in favor of a angry of independent podcasters and pundits with varying degrees of credibility.
I don't know if you will find this encouraging or not. I remember you from The Fix at the Washington Post and not at all from CNN. I think people underestimate the value of writing and reading at one's own pace.
Yes, and I am not a video or podcast person - I really like to read!
I like the bundling idea; however, there might be too much of writers that all agree on the same subject. Maybe bundling with writers with opposing views?
So, here's a bundling idea: In addition to allowing a subscriber to construct a bundle ala carte, how about "curated" bundles: Here's a bundle of mixed political view points, here is a bundle focused on news of the day, here is a bundle for foodies, here is a bundle for....(well, you get the idea)
Bundling certainly feels like a good direction, and you raise a valid point about "sameness" Carol. An ala carte version, as mentioned by Andy, should be an automatic option for users, and I would that an ala carte option should be supported with an "intelligent" suggestion agent that offers up ideas for inclusion in a bundle.
100%. With that said, it applies across all industries. Everyone thinks their boss is rolling in money and they’ll set up their own single and they’ll get rich. If you’re not prepared to sell, it’s not gonna work. And that’s hard for a lot of people.
That’s part of why I subscribe. Yes, you’re a journalist. But I look at you as another small business owner. Plus, you’re from a neighboring CT town so I have to support you!
Yes – it is a grind. But every small business owner, I know who is successful, loves the grind and the process. Your customers see that and it greatly improves your odds of success.
Keep up the great work.
How many people know there is an index on the Substack web site broken down into categories
I also think it helps when the writers suggest other writers I found Fleisher Schmidt and a couple others through you
By the way there is an excellent interview on CNN with a retired Canadian couple who are cutting back on their US vacations Besides Canadians doing that if you are taking a vacation try Canada
We are all brothers and sisters
I sometimes forget the work you have to put in just to make it work so you can post several times a day and give us your perspective on the day's events.
>“I wonder what Chris thinks about X thing that happened in the news.”
This is exactly why I subscribe. After the election, I took a break from everything, including this substack. But then the Matt Gaetz stuff happened and I thought ohhhh I need to get Chris' perspective on this. And here I am!
I've thought of launching my own substack since I see more movies than most (Chris, we have got to get to you to a movie theatre), but between my full-time job and not being as famous as Chris, I just worry I'd be posting into the void.
Sam, what if you wrote substack posts on movies just for your own sheer enjoyment of processing the movie you just watched? If your opinions are not crazy off the rail, and you truly enjoy writing about movies, that will show, and attract readers. Perhaps slowly, but if your opinion is interesting, it might well draw readers. Don't worry about the void, write for yourself and see if others hop on the ride. (no guarantees, of course)
Thanks for sharing I finally subscribed paid to you even though you irritating at times because you offered a discount and the yearly was below $50. Cost is definitely a consideration as I have paid subscriptions to several and am sorting who is worthwhile and who isn’t. My focus is on political.
I subscribe to a number of Substacks, paying for some. I also subscribe to NYT and WaPo on line. I need to cut back. WaPo is making the decision easy with its self-immolation. Chris, I am in awe of your energy in producing insightful content so frequently.
I’m very thankful for finding you here Chris. I remember looking on the CNN website almost daily wondering where your hilarious and poignant articles went before finally googling you and being devastated you were laid off. Took me a few months after that to find out about Substack (never heard of it before finding out that’s where you went). I immediately became paid subscriber and am glad I did. CNN was dumb to let you go but thankfully you seem to be thriving. Keep up the great work!
Paying for this newsletter is a cheap investment toward being an informed voter.
And I’m sure we as consumers of independent media are also starting to experience the law of diminishing marginal utility. Not that the additional content is not good and does not bring us additional joy and value, but at some point when I’m working through that gallon of Rocky Road, the next bite might not bring the same satisfaction as the previous spoonfuls.
There are things that encourage me to subscribe to a substack: a) the writer interacts with their audience, b) the frequency of posting, and c) whether the content is interesting to me. A new writer can control a and b.
So, I watched your content for a bit to see if it was interesting enough to me to subscribe and it was. Someone else may have a different set of metrics and maybe Substack provides their own.
Just my $.02
As you suggest Chris, this is a KEY! "And not just ANY content. Content that’s interesting. Unique. Fun/funny. Content that people can’t get on CNN.com or ABC News or wherever."
In the marketing world, in which I have worked for over 2 decades, we refer to this as "differentiation". You have to find a way to stand out from the herd, and stand out in way(s) that are valued by your customer/viewer/user. AND, you need to evolve your differentiation intelligently and selectively over time.