Trade Secrets: Some Writers Flourish and Succeed and Others Tank

(ON WRITERS and REVENUE) I was surprised that after writing for all three platforms—only one seems to respect writers.

Here's an in-depth review of the three most popular writing platforms that have a monetization component. I look at how they operate, how responsive they are to inquiries, audience engagement, a brief synopsis of the money part, and overall writer satisfaction.

I have more than a few decades of experience in writing, publishing, editing, and mentoring writers. I tell a good story, and have written books, websites, newspaper and magazine articles, 200 Medium stories, and a flock of other types of prose. I have taught creative writing. Therefore, I'm qualified to evaluate writer-experience.

Medium.com

Medium.com can be user-friendly or not, depending on how complex you want your profile and stories to be. In a short time, a new user can figure out how to post a story via the Medium editor. But it is difficult to find clear instructions on lesser known capabilities like making lists, using stats, or working with topics.

Medium's rules and support files have been cobbled together over the years by more than one administration team. They have never updated or overhauled their help system. It's clunky.

The Medium member roster includes writers, readers, and writer/readers. Members can read or write unlimited free articles on Medium, but may only read three paywalled articles per month for free. To read more, they need to become paid members, which costs $5 monthly.

Writers publish articles directly to their profiles and can include multimedia elements like images, videos, and embeds from other platforms. In general, stories are not vetted for quality, content, or writer skill, though the platform claims to have an algorithm that vets content on some levels. One popular aspect of Medium is the opportunity for engagement between writers and readers.

It's possible to search the site by author, topic, date, publication, title, or a number of other filters, however, the search function is sporadic and incomplete. Medium offers members a "feed" of select stories, publications, and authors, but, again, the system is not accurate and readers often miss stories they have expressed an interest in.

The same is true of Medium's email subscription function in which members subscribe to specific writers. In theory, an email is sent when the writer publishes a story. In practice, it's hit and miss. Recently, the notifications function has worked sporadically, with instances of notification being posted many hours or even a day late.

Writers can earn money loosely based on member engagement. Earnings are influenced by a number of metrics determined by Medium. Those metrics do not seem transparent, consistent, or accurate. Medium, as an entity, rarely communicates with members.

The platform is, overall, highly competitive, has a steep learning curve, and isn't conducive to supporting writers, earnings, or member satisfaction. Possibly due to administrative efforts to iron out issues, the rules, standards, and processes change quickly. There is a boost program that may offer some writers a jump in visibility or earnings, but the program is seriously flawed and extremely limited.

Pros: freedom to publish at will and with few restraints, small opportunities for monetization, reasonable cost, a sense of community. The cost is competitive for general membership. There are occasional events or programs for writers.

Cons: An aging interface that needs updating, a large amount of poor content, AI generated content, inconsistent parameters, difficult for most writers or publications to gain visibility, fewer than 10% of writers make more than pennies per story. There is an extreme focus on niche writing which penalizes good writers who gravitate to generalist topics. Writers have little control over revenue and no ability to manage it. Events and programs are haphazardly organized and difficult to access.

Substack

Substack.com is a web platform developed originally to facilitate newsletters and mailing lists for writers wishing to monetize content through subscriptions.

Substack launched launched in 2017 as an easy-to-use platform for starting a paid newsletter. Period. Like Mailchimp and its ilk, the company realized that the most effective way to monetize a blog, a vlog, or a website, for example, was (and maybe still is) by developing a consistently sent email newsletter.

Recently, the platform is trying to be a lot of other stuff, including social media. You can interact with members via direct chat, a Twitter-like clone called Notes, and other tools. For me, all these choices equal a ton of noise and not much genuine engagement. Participants admit they use these tools strictly to bolster their own visibility without much intention to read stories.

Unintentionally, Substack is characterized by a ton of spammy posts, emailings, and chat, including random messages from people trying to find a cyber flirting relationship.

Users sign up for Substack using their email addresses. Writers publish newsletters and email them to subscribers—people who sign up to receive various newsletters for various reasons. There are free and paid subscriptions. Substack has a straightforward, basic editor for composing newsletters. Writers have a lot more options and controls for writing, site design, and disseminating than they do on Medium or Vocal.

Writers publish newsletters directly to subscribers' email inboxes or to the writer's Substack page, known as the writer's website. The opening rate is generally under 40 to 50%, tops. It's interesting to look into a controversy based around whether Substack is a platform on which writers have an equal chance of being noticed or a mega-publication that favors a stable of preferred writers.

If you're interested, read this Vox article about Substack recruiting pro writers and paying big, big bucks to them for joining. Example: Matt Yglesias, an edgy, liberal, popular blogger/journalist was reportedly conscripted, along with others like him, by Substack, which paid him $250,000 plus 15% of subscription revenue he generated for a year. He is not alone in having a deal like this, but you and I will never be that fortunate.

So the question is, who is visible on Substack and who is invisible. You, as a writer, may not care if your goal is to write stories and send them via email to your audience. You should be aware that the company's promotional efforts will not typically include an average writer's work. You will have to devote a lot of time to promoting your own newsletter to your own list.

I found more authentic readership and interaction on Medium than on Substack, and for me, Vocal provided the most readership and engagement of the three.

I left Substack rather quickly because it became apparent that few people are actually reading or caring about my writing or anyone else's. The main aims of many active Substackers are like-for-like and comment-for-comment interactions. It is instantly apparent that the majority of the people liking and commenting do not read a single line of stories or articles. Racking up high numbers of followers is a typical strategy, but the followers are usually ghosts.

Consider this: To support a writer on Substack, you have to subscribe for free or for a fee. Every story written by every writer is sent to subscribers email addresses. Say I subscribe to a miniscule 20 writers, and each writes one to two stories a day. I receive 20 to 40 emails, plus platform generated nags, ads, and tips. Most members subscribe to far more than 20 writers. No one has time to read that number of stories and articles, particularly if they want to build their own readership.

As for the question of money, paid subscriptions yield 90% of the fee to the writer, 10% goes to Substack (and of course, Stripe gets a cut). Writers must earn a minimum of $20 in order to get a payout. Once you cash out an account balance, the $20 mark resets, so you wait for another balance to accumulate.

Be aware that the majority of subscribers DO NOT sign up for paid subscriptions. Writer gets, therefore, zero revenue. How many readers are going to pay a minimum of $60 per year to each of a whole bunch of writers? Do the math.

If you have a large, established list of email addresses of people who already love your work and are willing to pay a fee every month to follow you, you could earn money on Substack. There are people with strong followings that make decent revenue, but they are the exceptions, not the rule.

My experience with Substack, admittedly limited, is that it's a ton of work for a tiny return, if any. The platform is crowded and noisy, with a lot of really poor quality writing and an extreme amount of social-media-type useless posts and memes. The interface is expansive, the documentation is scattered and limited—you can waste a lot of time navigating this system.

Pros: Easy to get started, no cost until you make a buck, bubbly-friendly people to engage with, a moderately good way to develop and build your own email list. A lot of freedom with no vetting or oversight. It's fairly easy to repost material you've previously posted elsewhere.

Cons: NOISE—lots of writers self-promoting their writing or selling classes, courses, books, and the rest of the ubiquitous internet commodities. Clumsy, bloated help file, very little opportunity to make more than pennies, email spam up the wazoo from the first day you sign on. The interface is not intuitive, logical, or organized. Not many people are there to read or care about what anyone else writes. A lot of articles of low quality without vetting or oversight. There is very little probability of your work being highly visible.

Vocal.media

Here's a digital publishing platform that allows writers, artists, and content creators to publish and share their work with a large, active audience that seems to have a higher than typical interest in reading. This platform has a lot less self-promotion, affiliate links, sales efforts, and writer-hubris than some others do. In other words, in my experience, these people pay attention to what they read. There are free and paid memberships—writer earnings increase with the paid version.

Vocal.media organizes all stories into communities called sites or channels. If Medium's version of pubs and Medium's topics or tags had a baby, that child would be Vocal's communities. These are broad focus areas, like fiction, health, technology, travel, and more. They have catchy names, such as Longevity for the health community, and each has an independent group of followers, facilitators, and readers.

The end result is a model that creates target audiences who are already interested in what you're writing about. Think about this from a writer's point-of-view. You can cross-post a story in more than one community, thereby honing in on the kind of reader most likely to appreciate your story. I haven't seen another venue that handles this as well as Vocal does. It makes a difference to how your story is supported by readers.

Creators earn money based on engagement and various metrics. Vocal, like Substack, has a minimum balance to reach before they payout

Reads: Writers earn based on the number of reads their stories get via an algorithm that is more transparent, objective, and accessible than Medium's 30-second rule.

Tipping: Readers can tip creators directly, and tips are an accepted feature on Vocal. People are used to tipping, so you see more of it.

Challenges: Regular writing contests with cash prizes. More onthis below; it's a key feature that increases revenue opportunities.

Bonuses: Additional payments for achieving specific milestones or when a human facilitator designates your work as noteworthy. Akin to Medium's boost, but quantifiable and achievable. I know of no one else who pays bonuses in this way.

Vocal provides unique resources and tools, such as professional editing and feedback. In theory, a human reviews every story. Any story can be rejected, but a writer can edit and fix the problem and resubmit. This is pretty effective in limiting AI generated writing and other writing of questionable quality or value. It can be helpful to burgeoning writers interested in perfecting their craft.

The user interface is easy to use with uncomplicated publishing tools, formatting options, and analytics to track performance. There isn't a lot of choice in formatting or age design, but the process is easy and efficient.

I noticed after posting my first story that at least two dozen members read and commented on my work. Every one of the comments made it clear that the individual actually read and understood the story. I saw no generic or fake comments.

As I mentioned, Vocal's unique monetization perk for writers comes in the form of bonuses. Medium might boost a few stories per month, but Vocal awards payment from $5.00 and up for various achievements. You don't have to apply for the spiff, they just appear in your account with an explanation. If you reach a milestone on reads, when you do show significant support for other creators, or maybe you post a story the Vocal team loves, you may find a reward in your "wallet".

Then there are challenge opportunities. Now THIS is how writers should be treated!

There are challenges, or contests, nearly every day on Vocal. Each has specific parameters, and I have never heard of a prize not being paid out. Simple rules: you must be older than 13 with an active Vocal account (some challenges are limited to the paid Vocal+ members, but some only require a free account). You have to live in a country where Stripe is available at the time of entry.

The challenges are frequent and varied. For example, one called for mention of a glass of Merlot, another wanted limericks, and another asked "What kinds of things give you great comfort."

I have read about prizes in the $20K range, many have $100-$500 rewards, some are far less, but all can be fun and inspirational for writers of all skill levels.

Yes, you can find rants and reviews online claiming that a few in-crowd writers win every prize. I doubt that's true. There are ¾ of a million Vocal writers, so not everyone can win every challenge. Consider that Medium boasts at least 80 times that number. I feel like I'd be way more visible on Vocal.

Bottom line, Vocal gets an iffy rap in some consumer reviews. I have read those that claim the company favors their preferred writers, but as a total newbie, that has not been my experience. My experience puts Vocal ahead of both Substack and Medium in terms of audience response and writer visibility. Good stories get pretty quick traction and don't seem to die off in a couple of hours, as I have seen on the other two platforms.

Pros: Easy to learn, free or inexpensive, dedicated readers, audience targeting, stories are vetted by humans, various revenue opportunities.

Cons: Some people complain about inequitable treatment of some authors. The site editing app is temperamental. It takes longer to create a draft, and you have fewer formatting options. Images are fiddly to embed.

None of these three platforms are designed to provide writers with a full time career income. There's no such thing as a free lunch, as they say.

My overall opinion

You can easily find writers who complain about Vocal.media's team of moderators that review every story submitted. Yes, every story. This is my favorite aspect of Vocal.

Some say it takes as long as weeks to get reviewed, and then there are no guarantees of approval. I submitted a story this week, and in under three minutes, I had a response. It was rejected. That happened (same story) four times in an hour. I'm not telling you this to discourage you, because here's the rest of the story.

I have the impression that humans are not performing the first review. That's a shame. But it's also part of the real world now. Whoever or whatever gets first crack at a story seems to scan for some pattern or set of patterns that raise red flags. Then the story may get trash-canned (though the writer can edit and resubmit.)

Excuse my hubris, but it has to be noted that I am an experienced, trained, educated, professional writer who tells engaging stories. My stories are generally not rejected by editors or publishers. Of course, from time to time I might write something rejection-worthy, but that would be atypical. In this case, the story I submitted had been previously published on Medium and subsequently boosted there.

When Vocal dismissed the piece, I fumed for a minute, but then contacted the support desk to see if they could tell me why they hated it. Hey, you can't trash my story! And here's where I received an enormous shock.

A real human at Vocal's help desk responded within an hour of my inquiry. I had explained that the story seemed decent and had no errors, conforming to the platform's community standards. The reject message offered no reasons or concerns. The response? An apology. An admission that there was nothing wrong with the story, and I should not expect to see this issue repeated.

Vocal instantly published my story and dubbed it a Top Story. Then they deposited a bonus payment for exceptional quality into my Stripe account. Whoa!

I have reached out to Medium's help ticket system more than once—in fact, about five times. My issues were important. For one, I received an awesome reply with a custom video explaining the solution to my problem. On the others? Crickets.

No reply. No acknowledgement. No solution. I dislike this about Medium. They are too busy to communicate with writers or readers. They don't acknowledge when they have done something that is counter-productive.

They don't seem concerned about their members when they make snap decisions willy-nilly, which they often do. Point for Vocal. Actually, since they handed me money, two points.

I can't even figure out how to contact Substack, so zero points for them.

My bottom line judgments

I like Medium—I've been there a while and have a couple of hundred stories up. I make a monthly spiff that isn't going to make me rich but does make me feel rewarded. I enjoy interacting with a large number of intelligent and engaging members.

But it's frustrating how often the company overhauls metrics, pay basis, rules, and standards on a whim. They have an ivory tower business model that sets their owner and their preferred staff members on pedestals so high off the ground that there is no effective communication. I detest that they put huge importance on rhetoric about how they want to deal primarily with niche experts.

And think about this: Medium claims that more than 100 million people "connect and share their wisdom on Medium every month." Still, around 90% or more of their writers make far less than $100 per month. But the platform is raking in the cash. I recently read that their management team's salaries are between $150K and $200K+ annually. Don't writers provide the basis for that revenue?

Still, I'll stick around Medium for now. I have made some tight relationships there.

If I continue with Substack, it will be solely to compose and email a newsletter monthly that will likely point readers to my stories from Vocal and Medium.

As for Vocal? I'm intrigued and will be moving a chunk of my energy to that platform until and unless I prove to myself that the opportunities are not as robust and the pay basis is not as accessible as it seems. I'll let you all know how it goes.

My decision may not be the right plan for you. I'm retired, and I write in order to communicate something worthwhile to readers. The money is secondary, or tertiary, or irrelevant. But I believe a company making money off the backs of creative humans is obligated to at least pretend to understand the value of the product and stretch a bit to compensate those humans.

One more thing…

If you plan to grow a following, gain recognition, or earn money as a writer on these or any venues, you have to BE a writer. Understand the craft.

Know how to use the language. Be willing to invest time in creating and polishing your work. It's a lie that absolutely anyone can write. A lot, and I mean a LOT of the articles I see online are sophomoric, unauthentic, and not worth the reading time.

Certainly not all, but a fair number of self-defined writers are looking for easy money without much effort or commitment. That doesn't work in any field.

If your vocabulary leans on sh*t, f*ck, and other overused words to make your point, if you can't place a comma properly, and your prose rambles pointlessly, filled with bloviation and erudite ramblings, it might be worth your time to develop a stronger persona.

If you aren't earning respect or rewards with your keyboard, you might want to rethink where your skills and talents really lie. If you want to be known as a writer, walk the walk and pay your dues. If you aren't getting traction, the fault, dear Brutus, may be in you.