[internet_jockey]

Hey, this is Hamish from Substack. Thanks for this! We think this is a great idea and it's certainly something we're considering for the future. But in the meantime, the point of a 10% cut is that it specifically does not annoy publishers. In fact, it aligns our incentives with theirs – we only make money when they make money. When we established Substack, we wanted to get away from an ad model in which publishers had reason to favor ad-centric content strategies over reader-centric ones. We're attempting to create an environment where writers no longer have to worry about doing things that please advertisers. They should be focused only on doing things that please their readers. To us, that's a better way forward for the media. Taking a 10% cut is a substantial ask, but it is one that writers have so far been receptive to.

[shripadk]

Ah sorry! Yes you are right! Now that I re-read your text, I realized I misunderstood your business model. Maybe my suggestion sits well with those who are running free newsletters on Substack (who will have some form of regular income through sponsors). I notice that you are taking a fee from those who are running paid newsletters. That makes complete sense.

[internet_jockey]

Thanks, much appreciated. Yes, free newsletters don't have any charges. No subscriber limits, either.

[a13n]

Do you have a "Powered by Substack" somewhere in your free/paid newsletters?

Our product is also exposed to our customers' customers, so this has been a huge growth driver for us. Similar story for Statuspage, Intercom, etc.

[internet_jockey]

Just as a link in the footer. Substack is also in the domain name, though. Thanks for the advice!

[hacheka]

So every newsletter is sent through the same domain? Aren't you afraid of one newsletter affecting the reputación of another one?