I agree you are doing great. The problem with me is that if you like quite a few journalists it can get kind of expensive pretty fast at $6 a month for each. Not sure what the answer is - just be very selective on your subscription choices I guess.
Chris, I think the race is to see who can collect the most independent journalists who do what you do - analyze the news for a growing population of people who have left cable news almost entirely. For me, almost three years now of tuning it ALL out and reading more. Back to basics - reading for me has always allowed me better insight into what is going on, period. That and actual interviews with politicians answering sometimes-tough questions. But that's coming from someone who can afford subscriptions to the NYT, WaPo, and WSJ. Subscriber benefits from all three provide so much stuff to read, it would be impossible. Basically, you're offering what a lot of people need and want to read but are also people that want to read a collection of people like yourself and form their own opinions. But yeah, with the shifting market, what happens to the institutions that support it, and news-gathering itself?
I totally agree. I was laid off in 2020 at age 61. I've only been able to find part time employment since, and even that is being paid hourly and I never know how much I will make month to month (even week to week). Getting a subscription to Chris was a luxury that I know will not be extended to other individual journalists.
With The Dispatch and The Bulwark you get a sizable crew. I like that model. They're both to the right of me, but I like variety and subscribe to both. To the left, I still have Mother Jones (not Substack, but their web presence has been good), which is great for both pro-labor viewpoints (often missing in other center and left of center media), great (award-winning) investigative reporting and a relatively independent viewpoint. Forbes has done fairly well online, too - editorially, they're way to the right, but the reporting is often very good and online (not in print) they have writers all over the spectrum (Rick Ungar was very good while he lasted there - I still quote his piece on socialized medicine in the U.S. in 1798 https://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2011/01/17/congress-passes-socialized-medicine-and-mandates-health-insurance-in-1798/)
Content creators rely on the big news organizations to do all the hard work of reporting and determining the news of the day. In conjunction, most independent creators provide commentary and analysis on that predetermined news cycle.
The problem is that if all the MSM went dark, content creators wouldn't have anything to say, as individually they do not have enough resources to actually do real reporting. Not to knock the hard working individuals on Substack and it's siblings; it is just that without MSM resources, we will all be less informed, and there would be far fewer independent content creators as a result.
Non-profit newsrooms (e.g. PBS, NPR, The Center for Investigative Reporting, Pro Publica, etc.) turn out a lot of good material and cover things that for-profit media can't/won't touch.
Good point. There is a bit of a symbiosis between the data coming from live reporting, press pool traveling with politicians, etc., and the independent journalists that analyze that data and put it in “context” for their “community”, as Chris has described.
It would indeed be hard to analyze data if the data sources were even more limited than they are today.
That was an interesting and thought provoking post. And reading that Foxnews has lost 20 percent of their audience was heartwarming. Maybe they will layoff Watters and Gutfeld.
Chris, you had a built in audience from your days at WaPo & CNN, and likely honed your craft and benefited from conversations with colleagues and editors. How does a young journalist hoping to write commentary get the feedback and develop skills without a newsroom? Your columns are opinions, however without facts delivered by reporters in newsrooms, how could you write your commentary?
Personally, i'd rather have healthy newsrooms employing great reporters so citizens can learn what is happening in their region/state /nation /world and have their own chance to think critically about the effects of what they read. I still hope to have writers who can dissect the news and provide different ways to evaluate news.
The newsroom model is more efficient than substacks and more cost effective.
This is the second time I have seen “¯\_(ツ)_/¯”, and the other time, I’m pretty sure, was on this Substack as well. I thought it was some kind of language, like Hebrew. I just now saw the smiley face in the middle and figured it was an emoji. So for you other out of date old persons, Google says it’s a shrug emoji … and now I see it very clearly. These are getting very clever. My paid subscription just paid off for me.
As someone who has spent most of his career as a freelance, let me suggest that you continue to pursue multiple revenue streams: teaching, lecturing, books, articles for other outlets. No one might be enough, but together, you can patch together a decent living.
I appreciate you and all you do Chris Cillizza! The way you present relevant political topics even if I don't always agree but also when you share personal experiences!! You were the first substack I paid for and I do not have buyers remorse 🙂
Journalism isn't dead, it's just not interested in the truth or holding people in power to account. Misinformation, disinformation, and propaganda make money. The truth...not so much.
Today's media caters to people's confirmation biases. Substack no different and you tube isn't either.
It is a sad situation, sometimes the media is the enemy of the people by their own choice.
The media's inability to hold people in power to account spawned a new industry-- fact checking.
Using today 's standards the Pentagon Papers and Watergate would be glossed over. That is the saddest thing of all.
I don't think it's as simple as "journalism isn't interested". It is, after all, a for-profit industry...hence all the cut backs as income shrinks. I bet that just about every serious journalist you might talk to personally, truly believes in the truth, and holding people to account. You see it happening some, so you can't say it never happens--not if you're honest. But, if media isn't profitable, we aren't going to get what some of us crave. That's just reality.
there are some being held to account, just not enough.
the print media was too slow to adapt to the information age and got crushed in the process. Content, even if it is pure garbage, is what drives the market. Print Media tried to keep their content off the web for the longest time. Even the smallest newspapers charge way too much for their services because advertisers don't need their services.
Section 230 needs to change as too many "providers" say they are only middlemen...
I think the big test for outlets like Substack (at least those dedicating a large part of their content to politics) will be what happens after the election.
OK, I am just going to ask. And yes, I know it is rude. :O( How much do political writers, like yourself, normally make? Unless my math is fuzzy, 3246 subscribers a month equals nearly 20 thousand dollars a month. I don't know anyone who makes 20K a month. I love your writing. I am a happy subscriber but if everyone is going to charge me $6 a month to subscribe it isn't going to work for long. I like the idea of some kind of price break for folks subscribing to more than one substack.
Publishing on Substack is free for content creators, but Substack does take a 10% commission on paid subscriptions. So $0.60 of our $6 subscription price. Last year creators were allowed to buy equity in the company via WeFunder. It's still a private company and currently valued at $650 million. It's doubtful they've figured out how to be profitable yet.
In addition to the cut Substack takes (as Paul noted), I think this may also be considered "self employment" income for Chris, meaning that he's still on the hook for state and federal takes since none of this is being deducted from his "paycheck". Nor does any of this count towards Social Security, unless he personally pays both the employer and employee portion himself.
I'd have to think that Substack is taking a healthy cut in the range of 50-60% off the top. I may be wrong as it's possible that it's not that steep.
I hate wading into this type of discussion as I've never liked to spend another man's money. (Dell Curry's advice to his son Steph)
Love the idea of multiple subs and a discount, but that would have to come out of Substack's bottom line. And as they are growing, I would find it hard to believe that they are going to take dollars off their books. Of course, they would be more than happy for the content creator to eat that discount, but I'd be shocked if substack would ever engage.
Have you thought of doing TikToks? You have two sons, I'm sure they could tell you all about it. (While rolling their eyes)
To what Judy said, I wonder if Substack has thought of offering bundling subscriptions. I enjoy the Bulwark and love Oliver Darcy, and if there was a guy to subscribe to all three of you at a little discount, I'd sign up in a heartbeat.
I think the future of journalism shows if you have a unique voice and perspective to offer, you can fin your audience, and that's where you excel.
No, I saw Chris trying to do funny videos some years back. That's not his skill, lol, as I'm sure he'd admit. A can of 'Mad Bitch' beer ended his comedy videos.
I am glad I subscribed and I do enjoy your takes on current events regardless of which party. The reduction of news organizations in size and number is troubling and this avenue seems to be a positive step in harnessing a lot of people in the business to provide accurate and informed news/commentary. But we cannot subscribe to all the people we would have seen in a news organization. How will you get your information and from where in order to provide analysis in the future if this keeps going on? Your excelllent points create a conundrum but I am going to say I have faith in you looking at and coming to some solutions to keep the field flat for all players.
I originally subscribed because your content was all written. I work full time running a small business and a ranch and my time is precious to me. Your video content is well done, but 99% of the time I don't have any time to watch. Reading it in the substack app is miserable. I wish you could figure out a way to publish your video content below the video. If I had that, I would subscribe forever!
You may already know this, but on the chance that you don't:
For the desktop browser version - on many (most?) youtube videos, if you expand the description (look for ...more), you'll see a _show transcript_ link near the bottom of the expanded description. When you click on that, an autogenerated transcript will appear to the right of the video. It can be a little glitchy, but it's way better than nothing. You can also use the browser's search-within-page function (Ctrl-f in most browsers) to find things in the transcript.
I seldom use the mobile browser version and never use the app. Perhaps someone else can speak to those.
I think substack and similar vehicles are great supplements, but regret the overall trend away from "broadcast" to "narrowcast" in all media. For one thing, it leads to people expecting to hear/read only content that conforms to their overall world view. I've noted before the unfortunate trend of people celebrating how they canceled their NYTimes or WaPo subscriptions b/c of some story (eg. re Biden), and , Chris, you've seen pushback of similar variety . Perhaps a more serious problem with the reliance on narrowcast outlets is few if any have the resources to do investigative reporting.
I'm glad you are doing well. As usual I guess I am in the minority. I prefer your news related posts. I am not interested in your personal life. I don't follow sports at all. I do identify with being laid off. It's great that you can be successful working for yourself.
I agree you are doing great. The problem with me is that if you like quite a few journalists it can get kind of expensive pretty fast at $6 a month for each. Not sure what the answer is - just be very selective on your subscription choices I guess.
Totally agree Judy. That, to my mind, is the BIGGEST problem facing the Substacks of the world.
Chris, I think the race is to see who can collect the most independent journalists who do what you do - analyze the news for a growing population of people who have left cable news almost entirely. For me, almost three years now of tuning it ALL out and reading more. Back to basics - reading for me has always allowed me better insight into what is going on, period. That and actual interviews with politicians answering sometimes-tough questions. But that's coming from someone who can afford subscriptions to the NYT, WaPo, and WSJ. Subscriber benefits from all three provide so much stuff to read, it would be impossible. Basically, you're offering what a lot of people need and want to read but are also people that want to read a collection of people like yourself and form their own opinions. But yeah, with the shifting market, what happens to the institutions that support it, and news-gathering itself?
I totally agree. I was laid off in 2020 at age 61. I've only been able to find part time employment since, and even that is being paid hourly and I never know how much I will make month to month (even week to week). Getting a subscription to Chris was a luxury that I know will not be extended to other individual journalists.
With The Dispatch and The Bulwark you get a sizable crew. I like that model. They're both to the right of me, but I like variety and subscribe to both. To the left, I still have Mother Jones (not Substack, but their web presence has been good), which is great for both pro-labor viewpoints (often missing in other center and left of center media), great (award-winning) investigative reporting and a relatively independent viewpoint. Forbes has done fairly well online, too - editorially, they're way to the right, but the reporting is often very good and online (not in print) they have writers all over the spectrum (Rick Ungar was very good while he lasted there - I still quote his piece on socialized medicine in the U.S. in 1798 https://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2011/01/17/congress-passes-socialized-medicine-and-mandates-health-insurance-in-1798/)
Content creators rely on the big news organizations to do all the hard work of reporting and determining the news of the day. In conjunction, most independent creators provide commentary and analysis on that predetermined news cycle.
The problem is that if all the MSM went dark, content creators wouldn't have anything to say, as individually they do not have enough resources to actually do real reporting. Not to knock the hard working individuals on Substack and it's siblings; it is just that without MSM resources, we will all be less informed, and there would be far fewer independent content creators as a result.
Non-profit newsrooms (e.g. PBS, NPR, The Center for Investigative Reporting, Pro Publica, etc.) turn out a lot of good material and cover things that for-profit media can't/won't touch.
Good point. There is a bit of a symbiosis between the data coming from live reporting, press pool traveling with politicians, etc., and the independent journalists that analyze that data and put it in “context” for their “community”, as Chris has described.
It would indeed be hard to analyze data if the data sources were even more limited than they are today.
Very challenging times for journalism.
That was an interesting and thought provoking post. And reading that Foxnews has lost 20 percent of their audience was heartwarming. Maybe they will layoff Watters and Gutfeld.
Getting rid of Watters and Gutfeld......
To quote George Costanza: "I think it moved".
Chris, you had a built in audience from your days at WaPo & CNN, and likely honed your craft and benefited from conversations with colleagues and editors. How does a young journalist hoping to write commentary get the feedback and develop skills without a newsroom? Your columns are opinions, however without facts delivered by reporters in newsrooms, how could you write your commentary?
Personally, i'd rather have healthy newsrooms employing great reporters so citizens can learn what is happening in their region/state /nation /world and have their own chance to think critically about the effects of what they read. I still hope to have writers who can dissect the news and provide different ways to evaluate news.
The newsroom model is more efficient than substacks and more cost effective.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
This is the second time I have seen “¯\_(ツ)_/¯”, and the other time, I’m pretty sure, was on this Substack as well. I thought it was some kind of language, like Hebrew. I just now saw the smiley face in the middle and figured it was an emoji. So for you other out of date old persons, Google says it’s a shrug emoji … and now I see it very clearly. These are getting very clever. My paid subscription just paid off for me.
😊 I am both old AND a programmer. These days, though, i tutor youngsters, which keeps me a little bit hip - a word youngsters might not know! 😂
As someone who has spent most of his career as a freelance, let me suggest that you continue to pursue multiple revenue streams: teaching, lecturing, books, articles for other outlets. No one might be enough, but together, you can patch together a decent living.
I appreciate you and all you do Chris Cillizza! The way you present relevant political topics even if I don't always agree but also when you share personal experiences!! You were the first substack I paid for and I do not have buyers remorse 🙂
Journalism isn't dead, it's just not interested in the truth or holding people in power to account. Misinformation, disinformation, and propaganda make money. The truth...not so much.
Today's media caters to people's confirmation biases. Substack no different and you tube isn't either.
It is a sad situation, sometimes the media is the enemy of the people by their own choice.
The media's inability to hold people in power to account spawned a new industry-- fact checking.
Using today 's standards the Pentagon Papers and Watergate would be glossed over. That is the saddest thing of all.
I don't think it's as simple as "journalism isn't interested". It is, after all, a for-profit industry...hence all the cut backs as income shrinks. I bet that just about every serious journalist you might talk to personally, truly believes in the truth, and holding people to account. You see it happening some, so you can't say it never happens--not if you're honest. But, if media isn't profitable, we aren't going to get what some of us crave. That's just reality.
there are some being held to account, just not enough.
the print media was too slow to adapt to the information age and got crushed in the process. Content, even if it is pure garbage, is what drives the market. Print Media tried to keep their content off the web for the longest time. Even the smallest newspapers charge way too much for their services because advertisers don't need their services.
Section 230 needs to change as too many "providers" say they are only middlemen...
I think the big test for outlets like Substack (at least those dedicating a large part of their content to politics) will be what happens after the election.
Exactly! Will be very interesting.
Just the best lines from trumps crazy speeches posts are worth $9CAD per mo. Keep up the good work!
OK, I am just going to ask. And yes, I know it is rude. :O( How much do political writers, like yourself, normally make? Unless my math is fuzzy, 3246 subscribers a month equals nearly 20 thousand dollars a month. I don't know anyone who makes 20K a month. I love your writing. I am a happy subscriber but if everyone is going to charge me $6 a month to subscribe it isn't going to work for long. I like the idea of some kind of price break for folks subscribing to more than one substack.
Publishing on Substack is free for content creators, but Substack does take a 10% commission on paid subscriptions. So $0.60 of our $6 subscription price. Last year creators were allowed to buy equity in the company via WeFunder. It's still a private company and currently valued at $650 million. It's doubtful they've figured out how to be profitable yet.
In addition to the cut Substack takes (as Paul noted), I think this may also be considered "self employment" income for Chris, meaning that he's still on the hook for state and federal takes since none of this is being deducted from his "paycheck". Nor does any of this count towards Social Security, unless he personally pays both the employer and employee portion himself.
And don’t forget the other costs of being self employed, like health care, liability insurance, infrastructure costs, and I’m sure there are others.
I'd have to think that Substack is taking a healthy cut in the range of 50-60% off the top. I may be wrong as it's possible that it's not that steep.
I hate wading into this type of discussion as I've never liked to spend another man's money. (Dell Curry's advice to his son Steph)
Love the idea of multiple subs and a discount, but that would have to come out of Substack's bottom line. And as they are growing, I would find it hard to believe that they are going to take dollars off their books. Of course, they would be more than happy for the content creator to eat that discount, but I'd be shocked if substack would ever engage.
Have you thought of doing TikToks? You have two sons, I'm sure they could tell you all about it. (While rolling their eyes)
To what Judy said, I wonder if Substack has thought of offering bundling subscriptions. I enjoy the Bulwark and love Oliver Darcy, and if there was a guy to subscribe to all three of you at a little discount, I'd sign up in a heartbeat.
I think the future of journalism shows if you have a unique voice and perspective to offer, you can fin your audience, and that's where you excel.
No, I saw Chris trying to do funny videos some years back. That's not his skill, lol, as I'm sure he'd admit. A can of 'Mad Bitch' beer ended his comedy videos.
I am glad I subscribed and I do enjoy your takes on current events regardless of which party. The reduction of news organizations in size and number is troubling and this avenue seems to be a positive step in harnessing a lot of people in the business to provide accurate and informed news/commentary. But we cannot subscribe to all the people we would have seen in a news organization. How will you get your information and from where in order to provide analysis in the future if this keeps going on? Your excelllent points create a conundrum but I am going to say I have faith in you looking at and coming to some solutions to keep the field flat for all players.
I originally subscribed because your content was all written. I work full time running a small business and a ranch and my time is precious to me. Your video content is well done, but 99% of the time I don't have any time to watch. Reading it in the substack app is miserable. I wish you could figure out a way to publish your video content below the video. If I had that, I would subscribe forever!
You may already know this, but on the chance that you don't:
For the desktop browser version - on many (most?) youtube videos, if you expand the description (look for ...more), you'll see a _show transcript_ link near the bottom of the expanded description. When you click on that, an autogenerated transcript will appear to the right of the video. It can be a little glitchy, but it's way better than nothing. You can also use the browser's search-within-page function (Ctrl-f in most browsers) to find things in the transcript.
I seldom use the mobile browser version and never use the app. Perhaps someone else can speak to those.
Hey! I didn’t know I got a 30 minute zoom call with you. How cool is that? When can we schedule it?
I think substack and similar vehicles are great supplements, but regret the overall trend away from "broadcast" to "narrowcast" in all media. For one thing, it leads to people expecting to hear/read only content that conforms to their overall world view. I've noted before the unfortunate trend of people celebrating how they canceled their NYTimes or WaPo subscriptions b/c of some story (eg. re Biden), and , Chris, you've seen pushback of similar variety . Perhaps a more serious problem with the reliance on narrowcast outlets is few if any have the resources to do investigative reporting.
I'm glad you are doing well. As usual I guess I am in the minority. I prefer your news related posts. I am not interested in your personal life. I don't follow sports at all. I do identify with being laid off. It's great that you can be successful working for yourself.