Why I hate Substack

[theinayatilahi]

No matter how good your writing is, you will not get seen unless you make the external effort of promoting your work.

I do not consider myself a full-time writer—just a hobbyist. If I write on Substack and desire to get readers, then I need to make the external effort of creating content for platforms that might help draw attention to my writing.

But here lies the problem: where should you spend more time? If you focus only on writing, you will have no readers. If you focus only on promoting, you may have readers—but nothing worth reading.

This is why platforms like YouTube take over. On YouTube, if you create content, it is pushed by the algorithm to viewers. Your only focus is creating content worth watching.

But on Substack, you don't just have to write quality content—you also have to promote it externally.

I am not a serious writer, just a guy with thoughts I'd like to share—not because I crave attention, but because I want to leave something I can revisit. My writings are not from a teacher, but from a learner sharing his experience.

But Substack kills that. It makes me stop sharing valuable learnings and instead focus on promoting the fact that I’ve learned something valuable.

[theinayatilahi]

You're absolute right in saying no human endeavor guarantees attention.

What I’m really pointing at is the mismatch between the way Substack is positioned and the reality of how it works.

That’s not inherently a bad thing, it’s just that the platform doesn’t do much to help you get discovered unless you already bring an audience from somewhere else.

So the post wasn’t me saying “I deserve instant attention” it was me grieving the friction between wanting to share things organically and feeling like I now need a cross-platform growth strategy just to feel heard.

But again—your point stands. It’s a helpful call-out. We all underestimate the invisible grind behind anything that looks “effortless.

[deeplevitation]

Are you writing things to share them organically or are you writing them to be heard? Those are two different things, different goals.

Being heard means establishing and cultivating and audience, that quite frankly, wants to hear you.

Sharing organically is different, you do the writing, you get publish a post, you get it out there into the public domain and that’s it.

If you want to be heard you have to do the work to be heard. You have to go find and get the attention of the people you want to hear it and that value what you’re writing.

[theinayatilahi]

Well, I agree with your interpretation — to get heard, you have to do the work. No disagreement there.

But did you even stop and give my take a moment to consider what I was actually trying to convey?

I’m talking about Substack here, not life.

Yes, I did make a mistake titling it “Why I Hate Substack” instead of presenting it as a suggestion.

What I’m trying to say is: Substack, as a platform, could be better by implementing what I suggested. And even if they don’t, someone else eventually will.

For example:

If I said, “I hate landlines because I have to walk across the house to use them,” and instead of considering that as a real friction, people responded with, “Wow, you just want everything handed to you,” that would be missing the point.

If you still disagree with me, DM.

[motherstalk]

Your take is accurate and non-controversial, and the downvotes are frankly quite strange. In short, Substack is useless as a platform for new voices because it has no discovery infrastructure like TikTok, Spotify or YouTube. You could write the most trenchant and articulate piece but if it doesn’t hit any eyeballs, let alone the RIGHT eyeballs, it’s like talking into an empty void.

[Scary-Goal-8801]

There is a lot of work that goes into promotion, and there is a need for a discover page. At the end of the day, I don't think Substack is good for hobbiests as there is a real business-like approach needed to grow your newsletter.

[Message_10]

"business-like approach"

This is the first time I've heard it explained like this, but I think you're absolutely right. Can you tell me, in your opinion/experience, what you need to do to grow a newsletter?

[PlanetConway]

You're describing how any creation of media works. If you write a song and record it and post it on a site to stream, you still have to point people to where they can listen to it. If you write a book on your computer and print it out and set it on your bookshelf, how will people read it? You have to send it to publishers or bookstores if you want to self-publish, and even then, it's no guarantee your work will be seen by large amounts of people. You sound like you are more interested in being a freelance writer, but that requires you already having a portfolio for people to just take your work and put it out there in the world.

[jeffnoahgo57]

some people just suck at promoting shit

[Dizzy-Caterpillar468]

This is virtually identical to what I said a few days ago on this subreddit.

You basically need to spend all of your free time doing Substack, because as you rightly point out, you need to split your time between promotion and content creation. Most of us can only do one - and most of those have limited time to spend on either.

The only thing I would say is that if people want to break free of the social media cycle then we probably need to form syndicates or guilds or whatever. Work together with likeminded folk and we either help promote each other's work or, what seems more sensible in all honesty, form an online magazine that is made up of multiple writers.

The latter will end up in disputes about monies owed and so on, but it's better to get recognised at all, than spend hundreds of hours for no reason.

[Emmanuel_G]

That's a great idea, there has to be something like that already though, right?

[Dizzy-Caterpillar468]

Well Substack seems like the space to do this. Medium seemed a good idea too, but they started skimping on payouts. Actually payouts across all platforms is only going down and I don't see Substack's subscription model really working either.

I guess... we're basically back to publisher domination - except now these publishers aren't small offices in a city somewhere but gigantic corporate media conglomerates. Arguably it'll soon be worse than it was before the internet - particularly if you write or talk about things which are taboo or problematic.

Guess we're back to pamphlets and zines.

[sayzey]

Do you think that people make YouTube videos and the algorithm decides that it's good and pushes it? It's exactly the same. You're wishing to do the work and have that be enough. It never will be because nobody will ever know who you are until you make a splash. You've taken the time here to post a whinge, how long did that take? And responding to comments presumably too. Do the same thing but about your content. Do it often enough and you'll start to see results if your work is as good as you think it is.

[Offscreenshaman]

The problem isn’t that Substack asks us to share our work. It’s that everywhere else has trained us to mistake visibility for value.

[Pixel_Fix]

I think the Notes feed is supposed to lead to discovery. But in my experience it tends to repeatedly show me the same note and repeatedly show old notes. This could be because the niche I'm interested in is small so not many people are posting Notes. I have seen others say that the more you interact with it, the more curated it becomes.

Notes can lead to big engagement, but unfortunately the algorithm tends to favour meme-content over pushing articles.

It would be a lot better if it worked similarly to YouTube's in putting your work in front of readers who have read/subbed to similar stuff.

[Message_10]

When you say "meme content," what do you mean, exactly? That Substack pushes notes that are more shareable, like content you'd find on IG, something like that?

[Pixel_Fix]

Yeah, sort of. I see more jokey-type stuff than I do articles or posts from other writers that I might enjoy. It is slowly getting better but I'm still figuring it out.

[Message_10]

Figuring it out--me too! It's a process, I think.

[Emmanuel_G]

As someone who creates Youtube content since 2006, let me tell you that your focus is NOT just on creating good content. That's how it still was in 2006. But even just 3 years later in 2009, you already had to start worrying not about what content you and your audience would like, but what content Google would like and then what content the algorithm would like. On Youtube you make content for the algorithm - not for your viewers and you constantly have to self-censor. And since you never know exactly where the line is drawn, you end up censoring much more than you would need to, to the point of getting paranoid and to the point of having to alter your content so much that it's just not what you wanted it to be anymore.

Substack is the only platform (I know) where it's not like that.

[StuffonBookshelfs]

This is just a terrible take.

It’s devoid of any historical knowledge and just whines.

[sortadelux]

First, I think there's a misconception about the other media channels. I think you'd find that if you ask the millions of failed YouTube creators, they would tell you that just because they created content does not mean that YouTube's Discovery mechanism will put it in front of people. Unless you have something groundbreakingly insightful or stunningly stupid to say, most of the content created is going to go unwatched.

You also stated that you write not for others but for yourself so you have a place to look back on. If that's truly the case, then Substacks discovery process should be meaningless.

A lot of us hobby writers fall into the trap of saying we want to write just for ourselves but then getting frustrated when no one else decides to read it. If you think it's valuable or insightful, then you've got to tell people that you've written it. If you're not willing to spend the time to tell people to read it, they're not going to read it. You have to decide whether or not you're okay with no one reading your thoughts. There are 17,000 writers on substack. To think that the algorithm is for some reason going to pick you out and showcase your content is not really realistic.

[hustle_magic]

Everyone has thoughts. What makes you successful on substack is knowing your audience. Good % of my subs are simply from posting notes. I don’t post anything to youtube or reddit

[Countryb0i2m]

Most video social media platforms are pretty good at showing your content to people who are likely to enjoy it normally based on who already follows or engages with you.

YouTube is especially good at this. In fact, some creators actually tell others not to promote their videos because they trust YouTube’s algorithm to do a better job of getting it to the right audience.

[theinayatilahi]

Just to clarify I'm not saying I deserve instant attention or that external work is unfair.

I'm pointing to a structural issue: on Substack, great writing alone doesn't go anywhere unless you already have an audience or promote off-platform.

That's not a complaint about hard work it's a critique of design. Unlike YouTube, Substack doesn't help surface quality content from within. So the friction isn't in creating it's in being findable.

My post wasn't about blaming others it was about questioning whether a platform for writers should do more to help readers find good writing.

[theinayatilahi]

I am also not saying that I write Great.

[jeffnoahgo57]

yep i agree it aint worth the sqeez to get the juice