Is Substack the future of publishing

Is Substack the Future of Publishing or Just Another Newsletter Bubble?

by

Table of Contents

Introduction

At first glance, Substack looks like the messiah publishing never saw coming. It promises the holy trinity of modern content creation—autonomy, direct audience access, and cold, hard cash. For writers tired of gatekeepers, freelancers craving predictable income, and columnists itching to escape editorial red tape, Substack seems like the answer to a decades-old publishing crisis.

But is Substack really the future of publishing, or are we watching the early stages of a bubble that’s destined to burst under the weight of its own hype? The platform sits at the crossroads of technological optimism and creator burnout, where everyone is encouraged to be a brand—but not everyone is cut out to be one. Let’s dig into what Substack has really done to the publishing world—and ask the question few want to hear: what if this revolution has a short shelf life?

The Rise of Substack: Disrupting the Newsletter Game

Substack launched in 2017 with a deceptively simple value proposition: empower writers to monetize their newsletters directly through subscriptions. No ads. No editorial gatekeepers. Just email, content, and the hope that readers would be willing to pay for it.

And readers did. By 2021, the platform claimed over 1 million paid subscriptions across all newsletters. High-profile defections from legacy media—think Glenn Greenwald, Bari Weiss, and Matt Taibbi—brought attention and legitimacy. They weren’t just writing; they were making six figures or more doing it.

Substack hit a nerve, and for good reason. It represented a backlash against an industry plagued by layoffs, algorithmic meddling, and institutional distrust. The promise? A digital homestead where writers could build communities without middlemen. It was the newsletter’s revenge arc—and it was glorious.

Why Writers Flocked to Substack

Let’s be real. Substack didn’t invent the email newsletter. But it did strip the idea down to its purest, most profitable form.

  1. Ease of Use: No need to fiddle with plugins, Mailchimp automation, or back-end logistics. Substack offers a clean, frictionless experience for both writers and subscribers.
  2. Monetization Model: The 90/10 revenue split (90% to the writer) is attractive when you compare it to traditional publishers or platforms like YouTube.
  3. Built-in Discoverability: Though not as powerful as a social algorithm, Substack’s own directory, recommendations, and cross-promotion give newcomers a fighting chance.
  4. Ownership of Audience: Writers get access to their email lists. That alone is a form of creative insurance most platforms don’t offer.

These features spoke directly to the frustrations of gig writers and freelancers who had grown weary of being treated like cogs in someone else’s SEO machine.

Not Everyone Wins: The Myth of Substack Riches

Here’s where the narrative starts to wobble. For every Substacker earning $300,000 a year, hundreds—possibly thousands—earn less than minimum wage for their efforts.

Substack doesn’t guarantee virality or financial independence. It offers a platform. That’s it. Building a loyal, paying subscriber base takes marketing savvy, content consistency, personal branding, and sometimes dumb luck. And let’s not forget that most of your audience is already overwhelmed by inbox clutter.

This raises a crucial point: Substack is not a publishing house—it’s a monetized tool for audience management. That means the onus of growth, sustainability, and brand development rests almost entirely on the creator. You’re the author, editor, marketer, and customer service rep. Exhausted yet?

Even top Substackers have started hiring teams to handle their growing operations—from copyediting to email marketing strategy—essentially turning back into micro-publishers. The cycle continues. The simplicity Substack promised? It comes with a workload that scales quickly.

Substack vs Traditional Publishing: A False Binary?

A lot of hot takes pit Substack against legacy media like it’s a battle between Jedi rebels and a broken Empire. But this oversimplifies what’s really going on.

Traditional publishing offers reach, legitimacy, and professional support (editing, design, legal). Substack offers autonomy and immediacy. The two serve different needs; sometimes, the best strategy is to blend both.

Think of Substack as the author’s version of Patreon crossed with Medium. For seasoned journalists or subject-matter experts with a built-in following, it’s a viable outlet. But for newcomers without a niche or name recognition? It’s often just shouting into the digital void.

It’s worth noting that many Substack success stories started with reputational equity from traditional institutions. Bari Weiss had the New York Times, and Matt Taibbi had Rolling Stone. Without that runway, growth is steeper and slower.

Is Substack a Bubble?

Let’s call out the elephant in the room: Substack’s user base is niche, affluent, and largely skewed toward English-speaking, U.S.-centric audiences. That’s not necessarily a bad thing, but it does place a ceiling on its global relevance.

A classic bubble scenario looks like this:

  • Sudden hype and media buzz ✔️
  • VC funding and speculative growth ✔️
  • Imitators (hello, Ghost, Beehiiv, Buttondown) ✔️
  • Dependence on a narrow user base ✔️
  • Creator fatigue and churn… also ✔️

As more writers compete for limited reader dollars, Substack risks becoming the Uber of publishing—innovative at first, but unsustainable without market consolidation or a serious pivot.

Add to this the mounting pressure from regulatory scrutiny (especially around misinformation and content moderation), and the sheen begins to wear off. The platform’s laissez-faire ethos is both a feature and a flaw.

What Substack Got Right

Despite the risks, let’s not ignore Substack’s real contributions to publishing:

  • It reminded writers they could own their audience.
  • It popularized email as a creative medium again.
  • It shifted the conversation from ad metrics to direct reader support.
  • It made serious money for a handful of creators, which helped change industry perceptions.

Substack doesn’t need to “kill” traditional publishing to matter. Like WordPress before it, its true value may lie in its ability to empower the long tail of creators—niche writers, indie thinkers, educators, and specialists.

How Publishers Are Responding

It would be naive to think traditional publishers aren’t watching Substack with both admiration and concern. Many are now launching Substack-like newsletters with paid options. Others are aggressively recruiting top Substack talent or creating in-house platforms with similar tools.

Some publishers even encourage their writers to use Substack as a sandbox—to test ideas, build followings, and generate pre-publication buzz. In short, we’re seeing co-opetition: competing and collaborating at the same time.

University presses and academic journals are also eyeing Substack-like models. Not necessarily for monetization, but for reader engagement, simplified dissemination, and bypassing traditional paywalls.

Substack and the Creator Economy: Lessons and Warnings

Substack is a case study in creator economics, where content meets capitalism with no safety net. It rewards independence, but it also demands it. And as AI tools become more prevalent, and reader attention becomes even scarcer, the sustainability of solo content empires becomes questionable.

A key takeaway? Owning your list is not the same as owning your livelihood. Creators need backup plans, diversified income streams, and the humility to know that today’s hype platform could be tomorrow’s MySpace.

And let’s not forget the mental health toll. Being a solo publisher means being in a permanent state of hustle. Substack, for all its elegance, hasn’t solved the burnout crisis—it’s just rebranded it.

AI, Automation, and the Future of Substack

Can AI write your newsletter? Technically, yes. Should it? That’s debatable. Substack’s current value lies in voice and personality—something AI still struggles to replicate authentically.

That said, many writers are already using AI tools to generate headlines, optimize delivery times, manage reader segmentation, and create first drafts. The future Substacker may not be a solo writer but a savvy editor overseeing an AI-powered workflow.

This opens an interesting door for publishers and media outlets: building micro-newsletters for hyper-targeted audiences using AI-generated or AI-assisted content, delivered on platforms like Substack or custom-built clones.

Conclusion

Substack isn’t the future of publishing. But it’s part of it.

Like zines in the ’90s or blogs in the 2000s, Substack has lit a fire under the industry—and proved that readers will pay for quality, independent voices. It won’t replace books, magazines, or academic journals. But it’s already reshaping the value chain, from production to distribution to monetization.

In a way, Substack has done what legacy publishers couldn’t: it made newsletters cool again. But the question remains—can it make them sustainable? For now, Substack is less of a revolution and more of a reckoning. And like all great publishing experiments, its real legacy will be determined not by its hype, but by the stories it helped bring to life.

Leave a comment