Why Substack is trying to lure in TikTok creators
PLUS: Forbes is a professional networking company with a media outlet attached.
Welcome! I'm Simon Owens and this is my media industry newsletter. If you've received it, then you either subscribed or someone forwarded it to you.
If you fit into the latter camp and want to subscribe, then you can click on this handy little button:
Let’s jump into it…
Why Substack is trying to lure in TikTok creators
Substack announced a $20 million “creator accelerator fund” for creators who want to migrate over to Substack from other platforms like TikTok:
The Substack Creator Accelerator Fund provides creators with a financial guarantee to ensure that they will lose none of their existing revenue as a result of the migration. The creators will receive ongoing strategic and business support from Substack’s deeply experienced partnerships team, with particular focus on the migration process and key launch moments. They also get early access to new features and help shape the future of the platform as members of our product lab.
This is somewhat similar to Substack Pro, the shuttered program where Substack would extend cash advances to prominent writers to get them onto the platform. The main difference here is that this seems more geared toward multimedia creators — podcasters, YouTubers, TikTokers — than writers.
Substack ended these types of payments a few years ago to focus on building out its social networking features. So why revive it now? My guess is the company thinks there's blood in the water in terms of TikTok's legal instability; a lot of creators with huge followings are now casting about for where they can move their audiences, and Substack probably believes that those creators are wary of joining yet another algorithm-dependent platform that's stingy on sharing revenue.
This also plays into Substack's efforts to expand into a true multimedia publishing platform. A lot of people still think of it as a newsletter company, but it's made big investments in building out tools for podcasts, live video, on-demand video, and online communities. It wants to become the go-to subscription layer of the internet, and I think a lot of algorithm-battered creators are becoming more and more attracted to a platform that lets you own your audience.
Shortly after I posted about this on social media, Substack co-founder Hamish McKenzie piped in with this clarification: “Just want to clarify that these are guarantees, not advances. So, if a creator with a paid audience migrates to Substack, we provide a guarantee to ensure they won’t lose any money in the migration.”
I’m looking for advertising partners
Let me start with some audience stats.
The number of subscribers to my Substack newsletter: 15,952
The number of subscribers to my LinkedIn newsletter: 7,665
The number of impressions I drive per month between these two newsletters: 185,000
The average number of streams/downloads of my podcast: 1,200
My audience demographics: a healthy mix of people who work in tech, media, marketing, and the Creator Economy.
If you offer a product or service that caters to this audience, then definitely reach out. I’d love to form a handful of advertising partnerships where we can focus on driving real ROI.
Should progressive media outlets produce more non-political content?
This is a good profile of Jubilee Media, which has amassed huge viral scale by placing people with opposing political viewpoints in the same room together so they can debate each other.
Moderators, when they’re involved at all, take only the lightest touch in steering conversations, which can mean letting misinformation and misdirection fly. (Fact-checks happen after filming and are provided by another start-up, Straight Arrow News, which pitches itself as “Unbiased. Straight Facts.”) Cast members tend to seem like regular, if colorful, folks who speak off-the-cuff. The point isn’t to change participants’ minds—full-on ideological conversions almost never happen in the videos. Rather … Jubilee thinks of its efforts as a “practice” or a “ritual.” The awkward or upsetting moments that inevitably arise are part of the product.
Jubilee's founders argue that this generates "empathy" and allows both sides to learn from each other, but the company's critics say that it's just creating rage bait that further polarizes each side of a debate.
One thing I find interesting is that the company doesn't just focus on politics; if you peruse its YouTube archives, you'll find that it applies this same format to all sorts of less-polarizing subjects. Examples: "I'm Addicted to My Phone: Pro vs Anti Social Media"; "30 Straight Men vs 1 Secret Gay Man"; and "I Spy on my Kid's Phone: Strict vs Free Range Parents."
This reminds me of a recent Bloomberg analysis finding that many of the most popular podcasts Trump appeared on were not overtly political. Most had on a healthy mix of celebrities, comedians, influencers, and pro athletes, and they were therefore able to pull in mainstream audiences that might not have been right-wing or even super interested in politics.
This makes me wonder then if progressive media should put a lot more focus over the next four years into diversifying beyond political content. As it turns out, the key to reaching low-information, low-propensity voters isn't to try to make them care more about politics; you simply have to slip politics into their entertainment feeds.
The New Yorker deserves more credit for its digital transition
The New Yorker celebrates its 100th anniversary this year and is the subject of an upcoming Netflix documentary:
“Quite a while ago, I went and I met, I think for the first time, Ted Sarandos at Netflix,” said New Yorker editor David Remnick. “At a certain point he said, ‘You know, there should be a documentary about The New Yorker.’ And I kind of filed that away. Then as we were approaching a hundred years, I kind of raised it.” The Netflix documentary, directed by Marshall Curry and executive produced by Judd Apatow, is built around the months leading up the making of the 100th anniversary issue (out February 10) but also explores the history of the magazine through its most significant articles, covers, and cartoons.
There's an argument to be made that David Remnick has been one of the most successful media operators over the past 25 years.
When he took over The New Yorker, it had been unprofitable for decades. He not only brought it to profitability, he also launched an extremely successful digital subscription offering that allowed the magazine to expand its writing staff and significantly increase its prices. Now, it's the crown jewel of the Conde Nast empire, and other than The Atlantic, I can't think of any other magazine that handled its digital transition so well.
Legacy media outlets don’t know how to keep their biggest stars
The New York Times told Paul Krugman he was publishing too much content, so he quit and launched a Substack newsletter:
Krugman agreed that he could have stayed at the paper. But in an interview, he said the circumstances of his job changed so sharply in 2024 that he decided he had to quit. He had been writing two columns and a newsletter every week, until September, when, Krugman said, Healy told him the newsletter was being killed.
“That was my Network moment,” Krugman said. “‘I’m mad as hell and I’m not gonna take it anymore’”—a quote from the Howard Beale character in Paddy Chayefsky’s 1976 film.
This is another example of the legacy media failing to understand how much the power balance has shifted in recent years. Star journalists are less enamored with the imprimatur of a newspaper brand, and at the same time they crave the creative and financial freedom that comes with launching an independent media outlet.
For someone like Paul Krugman, who has a huge online following and personal brand, leaving was a no-brainer. His newsletter already has 121,000 subscribers, and there's little doubt he'll be able to exceed his NYT salary once he eventually turns on paid subscriptions.
ICYMI: How a former travel journalist built a paid membership community for the PR industry
Behind the paywall
Here’s what’s on deck for paying subscribers:
Forbes is a professional networking company with a media outlet attached
CNN needs to invest in more evergreen content
Why Substack shouldn’t build out its own advertising network
Star creators are launching their own content bundles
Let’s jump into it:
Forbes is a professional networking company with a media outlet attached
In many ways, Forbes is basically just a professional networking company with a media arm attached. Its online content elevates the brand and provides some monetization, but its real goal is to drive affluent audiences to its events, private club, and/or its C-suite "networks":