Some readers have asked me to share more of my own data, so that’s the focus of this post. For those who don’t know, Kickstarter does provide creators with some data about each campaign, but personally I find it limited. However, there are still insights that can be shared.

A common question I get asked about crowdfunding is what day of the week is best to launch. I suspect this question arises because there is a cottage industry in social media posting insights, where people (for a fee) share the secrets for the best times to optimize the reach of your posts.

But there are also other areas where there is a day-of-the week effect. Long-time readers of this publication will recall the deep dive I did into an interesting paper about the Blue Monday effect in crowdfunding: Blue Monday? Decoding Its Impact on Reward-Based Crowdfunding. The TL;DR is that Mondays are the worst day of the week to launch a Kickstarter (in terms of dollars raised and number of backers), and minimizing the number of Mondays in any given campaign is the ideal outcome.

Digging into my own data (N=10 campaigns for comics and books) what do I find?

Subscribe now

Most of my campaigns (70%) launched on a Tuesday, with 20% launching on a Wednesday and 10% on Thursday. There was also 100% success rate.

For analysis, I’ll use the variable daily dollar ratio (DDR) which is defined as dollars raised as a share of the total campaign funding.

While it’s simpler to use dollars, my campaigns are all of different lengths (with my shortest only running Tuesday-Saturday) which means some campaigns have several Mondays, while some have few (or none). Using ratios of dollars is always preferable for analysis than a dollar amount as it is a scalar quantity.

For each campaign, I calculate the DDR for each day of the week and can then average over all campaigns to see which days generate the biggest share of the total funding. This is shown in the figure below, with the blue bars representing the overall mean DDR, while the orange ones remove the campaign that was less than one week in duration.

The two distributions look very similar. Tuesdays have the biggest average DDR (just over 33%), and each subsequent day sees a drop, with both Sunday and Monday also looking quite similar in terms of their DDR (both are under 5%).

It’s also interesting to explore which days are the most profitable overall using the rank. For each campaign, we rank the total dollar share earned per day, and then determine the frequency of that rank across all ten campaigns. The figure below shows this in more detail.

The dependent variable here is rank (1-7) with one being the highest and seven the lowest. To understand the figure let us focus on rank one as an example (the first column shown above). This tells us that Tuesday was the best campaign day in 60% of the campaigns, with Wednesday (20%) and Thursday (20%) both tied.

Let’s look at rank 7 data, which is corresponds to the worst day. The data shows Monday was ranked last around 58% of the time, with Tuesday, Saturday, and Sunday each ranked last around 14% of the time.

Althought this looks like Tuesday is far-and-away the best day to launch, remember i) that most of my campaigns launched on a Tuesday, and ii) most crowdunding campaigns receive a huge chunk of their total funding within the first few days of launch. These two facts alone can explain much of the shape of the distribution.

Going beyond descriptive data, we can investigate if there is any difference in the mean DDR between campaigns launching on a Tuesday versus those launching on another day. Unfortunately, a Mann-Whitney test shows no statistically significant difference (Z=0.2558, p>.05) between daily DDR distributions. Thus, the share raised per day is not sensitive to launch day.

Further, if we instead look examine the mean (or median) funds raised per day for projects launching on a Tuesday and those launching another day, a Kolmogorov Smirnov tests shows no significant difference between the distributions (D(31,24)=0.28, p>.05). This finding tells us that the shape of the distributions is basically the same, (which is a flattened S-curve) regardless of launch day.

Share The Data-Driven Creator

What does this mean for creators?

My limited data suggests launch day is less important. However, a key factor here is that all my projects funded (not meaning to brag), wherease the publication I referred to earlier examined all projects (both successful and unsuccesful). It’s possible that if I had data for non-succesful projects, I could actually see the day-of-the-week effect in my own data, but sadly this conclusion is definitely one that arises from large sample sizes.

Ultimately, for individual creators, your choice of launch day should be the one that best aligns with your ability to promote the campaign.

What really matters is that your first few days are critcial for success.

How critical?

When I normalize my own data using % of campaign length, I find that I cross the 50% threshold of total funding at 17% (on average). For example, if I run a 30 day campaign, my historical data suggests I will hit 50% of my total funding on day 5.

I can use this as a potential predictor: in that once I know my campaign length and amount raised by this threshol, I can double it to estimate my total expected funding. The variance of this method is only 7% (on average) for my data (i.e., my estimate is off by $140 for every $2k raised), which is helpful to determine if my campaign is on track or not.

Your scary summer starts here

I love working on different projects at the same time, which is creatively fulfilling, but means that my production is very slow as I only edge forwards at a snails pace. It’s been a long struggle but I’ve finally accepted that’s just who I am.

The standard creative advice I hear is that I need to find and conquer my niche. But that doesn’t interest me at all. My personality type is to be more of a generalist than a specialist - which is likely why my career often feels like it’s going backwards.

I get it. The advice makes sense in the old world, where there were clear and defined creative pathways for people to follow. Gatekeepers needed to place you into a lane, branding you as someone who creates X.

But we no longer live in that world, and waiting for permission from other people to create is actually the creative kiss of death.

This is a long-winded way of saying that I made something new, that’s not a comic, book, or film. It’s a short-form digital horror series called “Terror bites” and the teaser trailer is below.

I have no idea if this series will be seen by anyone. The truth is that I’m actually not too bothered about it. From my perspective, it was just important to make this series and I had a lot of fun figuring it all out and piecing it together.

Yes. Yes. I’m really selling you on this show, right?

The reality is that there are millions of stories being created and released every day. Standing out in that crowd is almost impossible, and more often than not it’s dependent on luck.

That’s what makes this more interesting for me, becauase I’m not chasing views. From my POV, going through the process was the success. Anything else is an unexpected bonus.

With all that said, if you love short horror stories, then I hope you’ll check out this show throughout August - with batches of new episodes dropping each week.

If you enjoyed this post, why not let me know. Until next time.

Leave a comment

I’m back. I’m sure some of you didn’t even realize I was away, but I decided to take some time off from Substack to refresh my batteries.

And it felt great.

Upon reflection, I think I was caught in the Substack hamster wheel, feeling pressured to churn out weekly posts at the expense of my other writing projects.

So I simply walked away. I didn’t performatively announce my hiatus, I just stopped posting, and stopped worrying about feeding the algorithm.

I was worried about losing followers, but that only lasted a week and then I forgot about it.

It wasn’t just time away that helped ease my concerns, it was also another paper I read on the topic of subscription-based crowdfunding, which includes platforms such as Substack, which allow creators to employ recurring payments on a per-work basis.

This paper identified an interesting theoretical framework to ground their analysis, namely an alignment between motivation theory (backing for intrinsic and extrinsic reasons), signaling theory (backing because of creator campaign signals), and goal-based behaviour, which are all topics I’ve examined before, albeit individually.

Motivation theory posits that creators need to balance their need for a large and diverse number patrons with the need to offer personalized products and services. They can do this by offering multiple rewards or tiers. This leads to the first hypothesis, namely:

H1: Increased number and customization of campaign rewards positively affect patronage in subscription-based crowdfunding campaigns.

The second hypothesis arises from signalling theory, focusing on the extent to which creators interact with their supporters, either directly or via sharing of personal information. The second hypothesis is therefore:

H2: Increased campaign access in subscription-based crowdfunding campaigns positively affects patronage.

Finally, creators are incentivized to signal that their campaign creates new content over time. This leads to the third hypothesis:

H3: Increased signs of campaign health positively affect patronage in subscription-based crowdfunding.

To test these hypotheses, the authors randomly sampled a set of campaigns from a larger Patreon dataset (data collected between 2013 and 2023). The set of campaigns they identifiedhad at least n=10 supporters and had publicly displayed earnings, and random sampling led to the inclusion of 696 campaigns for analysis.

Their model for analysis is shown in the figure below, with Patronage identified as the dependent variable, defined by the highest cost reward tier that received funding. For the independent variables, these are constructed from the theoretical frameworks.

Campaign rewards are the domain associated with motivation theory, which speaks to extrinsic and intrinsic decision-making on the part of backers. The creator can incentivize such behaviour by offering different reward tiers, and different levels of customization. Note there are also other variables that could be constructed, but these are either harder to quantify across the dataset, or are assumed to be lower-order effects.

Campaign access arises from signaling theory and goal-based behaviour, where the creator sends signals about their campaign through choices they make about the layout, design, and content of their page, along with their direct (and indirect) communication levels. The authors also argue that creators who use their (real) names are more likely to receive backing than those who are anonymous, or simply use the campaign title.

Finally, campaign health also comes from signalling theory and goal-based behaviour, with the assumption that a larger team may lead to increased levels of content, and also that the general activity level of the creator is indicative of the health of the campaign.

Using a negative binomial regression, they found increased customization and reward variety were both associated with positive increases in patronage, therefore hypothesis one was supported.

For the second hypothesis, campaigns with icons and photos led to increase in patronage, as did campaigns offering increased personal access, but there was no association with campaign name and patronage so the hypothesis was mostly supported.

Finally, campaign health was not associated with increased patronage as both team size and activity were negatively associated with patronage. Hypothesis three was therefore not supported.

Subscribe now

What does this mean for creators?

The analysis shows that customization and offering distinct rewards levels are associated with higher levels of patronage, as are creators sharing more personal information and having richer levels of communication with backers.

This isn’t exactly news, but it’s helpful to see it confirmed in the regression data. It suggests that successful subscription-based crowdfunding requires deeper connection between creator and audience. This is enhanced when the creator offers personalized rewards, distinct reward tiers, and is highly communicative with their audience.

The last one is where I struggle the most, as I often find it difficult to undertake that level of engagement. However, this paper convinced me that I need to at least try it, and then see what happens.

The most interesting finding from the paper was that more active campaigns (i.e., those publishing more frequently) don’t elicit higher levels of patronage.

This suggests more content isn’t better; that you don’t have to post every week to your audience. What matters is the depth of the relationship you develop with your audience, not how often you post.

It was this insight that helped me ignore the nagging voice in my head, and allowed me to take time away from weekly Substack posting. It goes against the standard advice that you must commit to a regular posting cadence (or else) in order to be succeed (whatever that means).

What do you think? Do you see how these findings could be useful for your own Substack? Or is there nothing new here?

Leave a comment

Want to support my work?

If you’re looking for a cool sci-fi read this summer, then you should check out this anthology currently funding on Kickstarter. The campaign has already funded, so the publisher is hoping to hit some exciting stretch goals including an audiobook version.

I have a dark sci-fi tale in this anthology, which I really loved writing, and hope you’ll enjoy too. The campaign finished in mid July, so don’t hesitate and back it today.

Back it here

If you’re a fan of earlyVertigo comics, then you should keep your eyes open for the Ms. Mist one-shot coming to Kickstarter this summer. This is an unsettling superhero horror comic about how we cope with lonliness, drawn by Sunado C., and published by Altruist Comics.

If this sounds like your cup of tea, then you should follow the campaign to be notified when it goes live.

Follow along

Okay folks, I’ll catch you next time!

John

Oh, the irony. People reading my note about people not reading on Substack.

Subscribe now

I wrote this note slightly facetiously, as I know there are lots of folks here who read other publications (including this one). But the responses were interesting, with most agreeing with the sentiment, with a handful disagreeing because their experience was different.

There’s no right or wrong answer to this question, but my reason for asking it was motivated by two observations.

First, I found it curious that many of the biggest accounts on the platform (as identified and promoted in the bestsellers list) have zero reads.

Now, that doesn’t mean they don’t read other posts, as they may in fact engage with articles posted via Notes (or it may be that the data isn’t correct), but it does suggest something about the platform - that elevated writers are not engaging with the community in the same way that most writers are.

The second observation was that my Notes feed overflows with people writing posts about how to grow or how to monetize on Substack. There are so many posts, it feels like a cottage industry unto itself (and probably deserves its own publication category). To me, this feels exactly like every other social media channel.

In many ways, I think these two issues are related, but this isn’t just a Substack problem: I think it’s a more general problem across the Internet.

Living in an engagement bubble

There’s a joke in the indie comics community that Kickstarter functions as a platform for creators to pass around the same $10 between different projects - and like many jokes, a large part of it is true.

I use Kickstarter to help produce comics and books and also back projects of other creators, and they often reciprocate (which is great). But I also worry that this undercuts the platform, which ultimately could become insular i.e., not bring in new fans and readers who aren’t also creators.

One way this does occur is when blockbuster comic projects are launched, either books by a celebrity (e.g., BRZRKR with Keanu Reeves) or traditional publishers launching a unique edition of a beloved IP (e.g., Skybound with G.I. Joe). While the indie community frequently laments the existence of these projects, they really do bring new people to Kickstarter and some fraction of them will (statistically) back other comic campaigns.

But I frequently meet people who have no idea about Kickstarter, or how to back a campaign, or even create an account. These people want to read and buy comics, but aren’t interested in joining yet another platform in order to do so.

More generally, I also reflect on the (few) social media platforms I still use. Most of the people I follow are other creators, and most of my followers are also other creators. This is great because I feel like I’m part of the community but when it comes to promoting new work and connecting with potential readers, it feels like I’m constantly shouting into the void.

It may be that my marketing materials and approach are not very good.

But it may also be true that I’m living in a creator bubble of my own making, and I’m not actually connecting with a mass of readers who may want to buy my work.

What does this have to do with Substack?

I fear a similar bubble is growing here.

Writers will always support one another to build small, but sustainable communities. But a core goal of almost all writers is to make money from their work. It sounds crass when said this way, but I think we have to be honest with ourselves. As much as we write because we want to share something of ourselves with other people, we also want some form of remuneration down the road (not necessarily an immediate sale). If we accept this premise, then we need people to read what we create

While it is true that writers are also readers, from the perspective of the platform, small groups of writers reading each other’s work is not a monetization model. Eventually this may change once adverts appear, but for now they only make money when publications do, so there is an incentive for the platform to strongly push publications that are making money, over those that may have excellent writing but remain free.

Just like in the Kickstarter case, when big name writers join the platform they are not necessarily welcomed, even though they may actually bring in new readers (a small subset of whom may also then discover other writers). In a few instances, these writers have been driven off the platform entirely - often taking their readers with them.

Other big names may bring or attract a large audience to their publication, which creates feelings of envy and frustration for other writers who are less visible. It’s this feeling that drives many to ask what they’re doing wrong, and that drives them to posts and accounts professing to have the secret sauce. As more writers read and subscribe to such accounts, the monetization effect drives these publications to become more visible and further reduces the visibility of other writers in a vicious circle.

Eventually, if nothing changes, the platform will be over-run with Substack-focused publications, and big names/publications who leverage the platform but are not part of the platform community.

What does this mean for creators?

For those of us who are looking to connect with audiences and readers, we may need to think about breaking free of our creator bubble(s) on discovery platforms.

If we are looking for readers then we need to go where the readers are. Simple, right?

But that’s easier said than done.

As someone who gravitates more naturally to text-based social media, I don’t like the idea of having to make photos for Instagram, or videos for YouTube and TikTok. Yet I’m also aware of the impact of things like #BookTok, which indicates there are readers on those platforms who I am absolutely not connecting with.

One solution is thus to diversify where we live (digitally) and try these other platforms, but that’s still a challenge. I tried (and failed) on both IG and YouTube to connect with new readers, but was also spending so much time creating material for these platforms that it was eating into precious creative time.

Again, those platforms are also governed by algorithms or norms which is why we see so much derivative material, as creators copy the posts and videos that seem successful, turning the platform into carbon copies of the same content.

Other creators suggest I leave all the platforms I’m on and not worry about it. While this is definitely appealing, I’m not sure how that helps my visibility and engagement with an audience outside of people in my geographic location.

A platform like Substack acts as both a discovery and engagement platform, at least in theory. But that dual function is likely not helping most writers here because while niche publications are good for engagement, they may be bad for discovery (and vice versa). The main advice I received here was to optimize my account using the same tricks and tips as everyone else, to shift my focus to sell transformation for readers. That sounded like good advice at the time, and I took it. Or tried to take it.

The reality is that it’s not who I am, or what I want to write.

I love talking data and business and craft with other writers, but I also like talking about things I love, projects I’m working on or completed, dream projects that continue to elude me, failures and successes. In short, like many writers here, I’m infinitely curious about a great many things that can’t be reduced into a simple sales pitch.

As is often quoted in the modern business literature, you can optimize for process or outcomes but not both. I fear I spent too much time optimizing for outcomes, and not really enjoying the process.

That’s where I need to make changes.

I need to lean into my authenticity not “Authenticity” in the buzzword sense, but authenticity in the idiosyncratic sense. My publication can focus on crowdfunding and my favourite horror movies, it can focus on my own projects, while also illuminating the research on creativity.

I don’t have to follow the same canonical advice and turn my publication into a niche brand-focused machine. I can write whatever the fuck I want and if people like it, that’s awesome and if they don’t then that’s also awesome. This means it’s unlikely I’ll monetize my work here, but I’ll just have to make peace with that.

Colin and Samir recently talked about how success means being able to do more of what you’re currently doing, and that made me pause. If I follow the Substack advice, I’m sure it would eventually work. I would optimize and optimize until I niched down sufficiently to satisfy our algorithmic overlords and then paid subscribers would come flooding in.

But then what?

Would I enjoy writing that publication week after week, month after month?

For now, I’m not worrying about success (whatever that means) or growth (whatever that means) or monetization. I want to write about things I care about. I think that’s how I break free of the creator bubble. I think that’s how I connect with people who want to read what I’m writing about.

I hope you’ll join me.

Sci-fi anthology launches June 1

Your summer of science fiction starts here, with the launch of a new anthology from North Ridge Studios on the nature of individuality. I have a dark and twisted story in this one, so I hope you’ll check it out.

Make sure you get notified when the book goes live by clicking on the image above or the button below!

Follow the pre-launch page

Modern creators understand we need to be a creator+ in 2026. We may not like it. In fact, we may often fight against it but (sadly) it’s no longer enough to have creative talent or resilience, if we actually want to make money from our art.

We need to stand out in an era of abundance.

This is why so many creators are doing videos for Instagram Reels and YouTube shorts, and why we post obsessively on text-based social media platforms (including this one). Keeping up with marketing and promotion on these platforms is almost like having a full-time job to support the part-time job of actually creating art.

We hate it.

But without it, our work is basically invisible. This makes it harder to generate sales, harder to win awards or grants that generate buzz, and harder to pitch new work to industry gatekeepers - who require you to already have a baked-in audience.

This is why we love subscription-based crowdfunding.

It’s a walled-in garden, where creators are financially supported by their fans. It’s a place where we hope to make genuine connections without the performative actions required by social media.

Or is it?

Subscribe now

A very recent paper1 caught my eye as it focused explicitly on how musicians and music creators navigate the challenges of using YouTube and Patreon to support themselves, and asked: how do artists present themselves to their audiences on Patreon and YouTube, and how do they build intimacy with them?

Patreon and YouTube are complimentary platforms for musicians, with the latter acting as a discovery and ad revenues, and the former enabling direct financial support. They represent an alternative to platforms like Spotify, which continues to tweak its royalty mechanisms to disfavour newer or non-established artists.

But being on these platforms doesn’t guarantee success. How creators present themselves to their audience or fans is important. For example, platforms like Patreon encourage and require intimacy and connection between creator and fans to generate revenue. But how does this intimacy get built?

The paper focuses on the top 20 creators in the music category (those with the most patrons in February 2023) on Patreon and qualitatively analyzes the text-based content of the “About” section, while also repeating the analysis for the same artists “Description” section on their YouTube channels. Creators in the study were musicians (40%), music content creators (40%) and music educations (20%).

The analysis employed the self-presentation theory as its theoretical framework, which proposes that the way individuals engage in social roles is contingent upon the diverse situations and context they encounter. In the Internet age, self-presentation is generated through performative production of messaging during social interactions on platforms for the purpose of leveraging commercialization opportunities.

However, social media platforms often constrain the boundaries of self-presentation because they have fields with fixed character limits (e.g., in profiles) which force people to highlight certain identifies but marginalize others.

Beyond self-presentation, there is the concept of “extimacy,” which occurs when “fragments of the inner self are presented to others for validation.” This term is used across much of the research literature to explore how people build online identifies, and is a core feature of creator engagement in subscription-models, where creators need to strategically deploy extimacy to feel connected enough to subscribe.

The findings

Overall, the paper argues that creators are forced to present differently on YouTube and Patreon. On the former, there is a focus on appearing professional, listing achievements such as awards or reach, being very brief and descriptive, and writing in the third person. Conversely, Patreon creators adopt a more vulnerable persona, use inclusive language, use more words, and focus more on behind-the-scenes content.

Of course, the platforms have different functions, so this is not surprising, with YouTube serving as a discovery platform, while Patreon is a monetization one. However, the paper argues that intimacy between creator and fan is actually the product on Patreon.

Although extimacy was expected to be seen, it was only visible in 10% of Patreon profiles. Why would this be so low? The answer is that extimacy is present, but locked behind paid tiers. So, the more fans pay, the more intimate a connection they get with the creator.

A key limitation of the study was the scope, which only focused on analysis of text in the About and Description sections of creator profiles. These are not the only signals used on these platforms e.g., many profiles on Patreon also had videos or images, while YouTube comments are frequently a place for creators to cultivate communities. However, the way platforms frame the information requests for creators is perhaps reflective of the indicators valued by that platform. It would be a useful exercise for researchers to drill down more into other signals in future work.

What does this mean for creators?

The paper tells us much of what we already know, that the platform itself governs how the creator needs to adjust their persona. Sure, you could go against the grain, and demonstrate high levels of extimacy on YouTube (for example), but you will likely not be rewarded by the algorithm, and in fact you may be punished.

So, creators need to be strategic in how they present themselves on different platforms, and not simply re-use the same biographies and information.

The second thing I took from the paper, is that the act of creating intimacy with fans and audiences is a requirement on platforms like Patreon. However, this is also extra work for creators, and there is a risk of burnout as creators make themselves more vulnerable in order to maintain their subscriber base.

To avoid burnout, creators need to find a balance between being authentic and vulnerable enough for fans, without it being detrimental to themselves. The danger of course is that authenticity itself can end up being performative, and ultimately self-defeating.

Share

As I read this work, I thought about what it means for writers on a platform like Substack, which has a discovery engine (like YouTube) but also uses engagement and monetization tiers (like Patreon). In some ways, this merger of systems requires writers to be both professional and vulnerable at the same time, which is not an easy feat and one that I am certainly failing at.

While it may seem more beneficial to lean into the extimacy angle to attract readers, the risk is that you will be penalized by the algorithm if you ever stop doing so. Of course, writers could follow the Patreon model here and reserve their more intimate connections for paid subscribers only. But that could also mean that writers feel they are not being their authentic selves when they post.

I realized that my persona here is neither one nor the other, and I am not leveraging the full suite of platform tools (such as podcasts and video) that would help to generate more intimacy with readers.

This also helped me understand what went wrong with my YouTube strategy, as I didn’t lean into the professionalism persona which may be more favoured by their algorithm. If I go back there, I will shift focus to align better with the platform incentivization framework, and use it more as a funnel for audience engagement.

The question that bugs me though, is whether this is sustainable?

Regardless of platform, the need to inhabit multiple digital personas to optimize growth and monetization, in addition to writing and creating content for the platform (in addition to writing the books and comics I’m trying to promote) doesn’t seem sustainable.

How do you think it could be done sustainably? I’d love to hear your thoughts.

Leave a comment

First up is this post from which focuses on the myopic nature of screenwriters, who finish their script and then suddenly realize they don’t know what to do next.

The Optimist's Guide to Hollywood | Creating in the AI Age

No one wants to read your screenplay... (Yet!)

Congratulations! You did it. You finished your screenplay. A lifetime’s worth of work and passion wrapped into a bright shiny PDF. Title page and even a completely unnecessary WGA registration number (IYKYK…

Read more

3 months ago · 17 likes · 10 comments · Robert | Film & TV Producer

The practical tips here are great, exhorting screenwriters to create a strong logline, pitch deck and one-pager to help convince producers to read their work.

While this speaks specifically to screenwriters, the general lesson here is one of preparation. Creators are incredible at the creative element, but too often have no plans for what comes next.

Indie creators should embrace this philosophy when it comes to their work. What is the marketing plan? What other materials do you need to create to help achieve your goals?

I frequently see creators complain that they only want to create and don’t want to have to perform on Instagram, YouTube, or TikTok. I get it. But unless you are creating specifically for a patron, you likely have to sell your art - and even if you do have a connection to a producer, agent, distributor, or other gatekeeper, then you need to make it easy for them to say yes.

This likely means creating extra marketing materials that help to overcome any easy objections. Maybe that is a video. Maybe it’s a pitch package. But it requires you to have a plan and be willing to execute it.

The next post was from which provides a fascinating dive into changes in retail payroll and the challenges faced by store managers in increasingly hostile economic environments.

The Voice of the Frontline

Your Lean Operating Budgets are Actually Just Broken

I didn’t think it was possible for corporations to break retail stores even more, but it’s happening. From 1997 to 2022, I worked on a retail floor. I watched the industry cut resources for the people running stores every year…

Read more

3 months ago · 9 likes · 1 comment · Kit Campoy

This piece resonated with me for a couple of reasons. First, the withdrawal of resources and capacity building by corporations is not only limited to the retail sector. Every creative industry has seen funding and programs slashed in the race to appear profitable. The phrase “we need to do more with less,” never seems to vanish from the corporate playbook, and now echoes across every sector, not just retail.

Second, there are some store managers who - despite all the odds - keep their stores running. Yet, instead of being rewarded for their extreme competence, are used by corporations as proof that their brilliant strategy is succeeding.

These are the talented people who succeed despite leadership, not because of leadership.

Again, this is as rife within the creative industries as it is in retail. Corporate greed continues to demand reductions and sacrifice in order to keep them more profitable, at the expense of everything else.

My takeaway from this post is that creators have to learn to say no. We are run into the ground: over-worked and under-paid, and corporations think we are too scared to say no because we’ll be replaced by someone cheaper.

Just look at the comics industry as exhibit A.

Creators can and should say no when they feel they are being abused. Ultimately, when it suits corporate interests, you’ll be discarded so they have no loyalty or concern for you. Why do we continue to show loyalty and deference to them?

Find the people who manage to keep shit running despite the environments they are in. Work with them to build something new, something sustainable, and ultimately something joyful. The alternative is to be fed into the wood-chipper when it suits them, after they’ve drained all your joy and vitality for the medium you create in.

I know which path I’d rather take.

Subscribe now

Finally, this great post from digs into the failures of the streaming business model.

The Artist Economy

The Death of Spotify: Why Streaming is Minutes Away From Being Obsolete

The Sentence That Broke My Brain…

Read more

5 months ago · 16709 likes · 1440 comments · Joel Gouveia

The focus here is on how the (legacy) music industry threw away its control of the format, by deferring to the streaming industry and ultimately turning music into a utility rather than an art form.

Artists can’t develop relationships with their fans, because the platforms need fans to be locked into their platform, and develop a relationship with them. Spotify is the example highlighted in the piece, but this is true of most digital platforms (e.g., KDP for authors) who want to mediate every interaction between creators and their audience.

In these models, independent artists always suffer. They are squeezed in order to maintain corporate profits, and only those who are big enough (or lucky enough to be highlighted by algorithm twiddling) are able to make money.

The lesson here for me is that indie creators need to have direct engagement with their fans, rather than allow third-party platforms to mediate.

I understand the fear that immediately rises for indie creators when I say this. Creators feel they need to be on these massive platforms, as that’s where the mass of people are to be found. Musicians and podcasters need to be on Spotify. Writers need to be on Amazon. Crowdfunders need to be on Kickstarter.

But this piece asks whether we need to step back from this thinking and really evaluate what is best for us as creators. Sure, there are tens of millions of potential readers on Amazon, but how many of those even see your book, let alone buy or read it? And even if you do sell something, how much money does the platform claw away from you with its service fees?

Being on these platforms is like buying a lottery ticket, crossing your fingers, and telling yourself “you have to be in it to win it.”

You can keep doing that, or you can find platforms where you can engage directly with an audience, and where you mediate the relationship, even if they are smaller. Ultimately that’s going to be how indie creators can thrive. It’s not fast. It’s not flashy, but it is sustainable.

Share The Data-Driven Creator

What do you think? Which of these posts resonated the most for you? Let me know in the comments.

Leave a comment

You have to choose between art or commerce.

You have to pick freedom or stability.

Do you want to go viral or build slowly?

I’m sure you’ve all heard these, or variations of them. It’s the same mindset that says we have to pick a lane and stick to it. And it works. For some people.

But think about all the creators who inspire you. Are they people who follow this binary way of thinking? Or are they resilient creators who somehow manage to embrace both options simultaneously?

I bet it’s the latter, and that’s because resilient creators have a paradox mindset.

Subscribe now

What’s a paradox mindset?

In a nutshell, it’s the ability to embrace contradictory forces as being complementary rather than contrasting. It’s not “one or the other,” but “both.”

A loose (and I mean very, very loose) analogy here is the difference between classical and quantum thinking.

Consider the Schrödingers cat thought experiment. Once the cat goes is in the box we don’t know whether the cat is alive or dead. It exists in a superposition of states (both alive and dead at the same time). Once you open the box (making a measurement), the wavefunction collapses and the cat is either alive or dead.

The state of the cat after measurement is a classical result, but while the cat is in the box it’s both alive and dead at the same time, which is a quantum result.

Debates continue to rage about the meaning of this thought experiment, and I don’t want to add to that noise - but I think it helps us understand something about the paradox mindset, where one has to hold two contradictory ideas, and somehow make them into something understandable.

This paradox mindset has been explored in the business literature for some time, particularly regarding complicated and complex problems in systems thinking. These papers articulate the importance of embracing a paradox mindset as a way to find solutions to“wicked problems.”

Creativity and the paradox mindset

Creators also inhabit similar complex spaces, and there has been some recent work applying a paradox mindset to creativity and innovation.

I think they’re right.

The paper digs deeper into the paradox thinking research literature and suggests that creativity arises from, and is driven by, the careful balance between freedom with constraint, and innovation with tradition.

However, the main focus of their work is to identify the three most important paradoxes for creativity.

1. The novelty–usefulness paradox

Something that maximizes novelty often reduces its usefulness because the generated ideas are too radical for implementation. However, maximizing usefulness frequently grounds thinking to existing frameworks, which constraints novelty.

2. The persistence-flexibility paradox

Creativity requires flexibility and exploration, the generation of multiple possibilities and shifting perspectives. Yet it also requires persistence, sustained focus, iteration and refinement. Frequently creators will cycle between divergent, flexible, phases, and convergent, persistent, phases, but they cannot be cleanly separated.

3. The diversity–resonance Paradox

Dynamic integration of cognitive variability through shared understanding and coordinated engagement drives creativity. Diversity provides novel inputs that expand the space of possibilities, but resonance transforms these inputs into coherent action. Creative collaboration requires the orchestration of ideas, enabled through the alignment of cognitive differences.

I don’t know about you, but these strongly resonate with me.

What other creator paradoxes can you think of?

The authenticity-strategy paradox

Substack in particular is full of people urging you to "be yourself,” and create the product you want to make, yet this authenticity often clashes with the need to find and build an audience.

Some creators get lost in the matrix of optimization, tweaking every headline and call-to-action, until they are absorbed by the mass of homogeneous voices and end up with no engagement. Others spend all their time treating their audiences like their friends or family, but their growth curve flattens.

The solitude-connection paradox

The best creative work often requires deep focus, typically in isolation from other people.2 But success (certainly in the modern world) requires constant engagement to promote yourself and your work.

Some creators are so online they run the risk of burning out, while others have quit all platforms entirely but no longer have the same engagement with their audience.

The control-surrender paradox

Creators want to control their schedule, their workflow and the quality of the output, but the reception to their work is unpredictable and out of their control entirely.

I’m sure you get the picture.

Being a creator forces you to adopt a paradox mindset, even as the act of creation itself demands the same.

So how do we navigate these contradictory elements? Do we just have to move between the end-points of the spectrum, picking one approach and then the other?

Having a paradox mindset forces you to integrate both these contradictions, using one as the foundation for the other.

Take the persistence-flexibility paradox for example.

Creators should learn when to intensify their efforts and when to re-calibrate, while recognizing that they need to be fluid and responsive to the demands of evolving tasks.

Or how about the novelty–usefulness paradox? Creators should probe new ideas, while also seeking meaningful feedback to reinforce usefulness. Their work should simultaneously break with convention, but still address a meaningful need.

For the solitude-connection paradox, creators can think of solitude as the engine of their creativity, with connection being the fuel that it runs on. Creators can learn to protect their time for deep-work, then intentionally engage with community.

These are all skills that creators can learn, either by themselves or through mentors. What is interesting is that mentors who also exhibit a paradox mindset typically make their mentees more creative.3

What does this mean for creators?

Maybe none of this is new to you. If so, that’s awesome.

As a writer, I frequently find myself struggling with these and other contradictions, and my solution is to bounce from one to the other, often because other people advise me that it’s the right way to go.

But I’ve never believed in binary thinking, even though I adopted it. I think I always had a paradox mindset, but was too scared, or lacked the language and understanding, to really embrace it.

That changes as of today.

Recognizing the mindset exists is one thing, applying it is something different. But I can see it’s necessary not only to improve my own creative work, but also to navigate the business of being a creator.

Solutions aren’t easy, but I think embracing, and being open about, the paradox mindset will make us better creators.

I recall getting contradictory notes on a screenplay from two producers. I didn’t like either note and told them the notes were contradictory, so I didn’t take them. The project didn’t move forward.

There are likely many reasons why it didn’t move forward. Maybe it was my reaction, or how I presented my reaction, or a whole host of other things. But I didn’t even try to find a way to do both notes using paradox thinking. Was there a way to do it? Would that have created something new and interesting in the story? I’ll never know.

Notes are suggestions, and I’m not advocating for people to take every one. Only you know which are the ones to take and the ones to ignore.

But in this case, I wonder what would’ve happened if I had tried to take both notes?

I’ve often felt that the best works of art come from friction.

My best work didn’t come easily. It was difficult and painful, but I think it was necessary. I think the paradox mindset forces us to accept and embrace friction, and by doing so it can elevate what we create - which is ultimately what I think we’re all trying to do. Right?

What do you think? What other paradoxes have you faced in your creative work? Share them in the comments, and also how you resolved them.

Leave a comment

But when everyone uses the same formats, templates, and structures, everything you read online feels the same.

The irony is that these tips and hacks are limited in their utility because they are focused on what worked in the past. While we like to think they have insight about the future, the reality is often different.

Past behaviour isn’t always a good indicator of future behaviour.

I feel the same way about some of the research I dive into in this publication, which frequently rely on regression models and large datasets. While regression is very helpful for understanding associations between variables in the past, we have to be careful about extrapolation into the future and understand there’s a tremendous amount of uncertainty that we don’t account for.

Think about A/B testing of email subject lines. Sure, you can learn which subject was the most popular according to a given metric, but does that lesson apply to future emails? We want to think so, but it’s not always true.

A similar thought popped into my mind when I was forced to participate in yet another dry, corporate, soul-sucking workshop event to refresh “the vision” and “the strategy” at my day-job.

Not only was the session as tedious as watching paint dry, it was also focused entirely on historical actions, and what they would look like when projected forward incrementally.

Again, this assumes that the future looks just like the past. But is that really true? Surely a vision-focused workshop should force us to consider new possibilities that aren’t simply connected to things that have already happened.

My final thought was also about the conservative structuring of the workshop. It was boring, choked off by power dynamics, and group-think. I thought: there has to be a better way of doing these activities.

And there are.

I looked up some methods after the workshop and found a host of other approaches that were far more engaging—including many based on science-fiction!

Recent posts like the one below have dug into the fact that sci-fi consumption is actually a useful catalyst for creativity.

But this doesn’t just mean artistic creativity. No. It can actually be used for much more than that.

A recent systematic review1 on this topic scanned over 60K publications to identify the use of sci-fi inspired methods in the innovation literature. The result? A roadmap of 17 distinct methods that creators can use to support different elements of their creative or business processes.

The main hypothesis of this paper is that sci-fi inspired methods can help us in our creative work by:

• Overcoming cognitive biases: They force us to question status quo constraints.

• Simulating the impossible: They let us test ideas that are currently unrealistic without the cost of failure.

• Building social reality: They show that narratives shape what we believe is possible.

Innovation as a term is poorly understood, seldom defined, and frequently used inappropriately, but the authors of this review focused on the OECD definition:

Innovation is a new or improved product or process (or combination thereof) that differs significantly from the unit’s previous products or processes and that has been made available to potential users (product) or brought into use by the unit (process).

For their analysis, they defined a generic framework for the innovation process, based on six core phases:

• Strategic planning

• Foresight and future analysis

• Technology analysis and assessment

• Market and user analysis

• Idea generation and evaluation

• Concept development and validation

They then use this framework to group different sci-fi methods into the different phases of innovation. Not all of these phases and identified methods are relevant for writers and creators e.g., technology analysis and assessment, but many others are.

For example, under strategic planning, they identified an interesting method called “search field identification from a science fiction perspective,” which sounds pretty dull, until you realize that it’s based on Star Trek role playing - where people are divided into teams (Team Spock and Team Kirk) to view new strategies from the perspectives of logic or emotion.

That sounds cool, but how does it help creators?

If you don’t have a mission or vision statement, you should probably take time to figure one out otherwise it could become easy to lose focus on your career - and this exercise can help by testing it from different forward-looking perspectives.

One phase of relevance to creators is idea generation, and here there were two identified methods in the paper.

One is again based on Star Trek role play, where you interrogate your idea using different Star Trek character personas, while the other is more generative in nature, requiring you to take your idea and then make substitutions (instead of Game of Thrones meets Pirates of the Caribbean, what about GOT meets Bluey?) or phrases, or deliberately invert the idea (instead of Dog bites Man, what about Man bites Dog.2)

Subscribe now

What does this mean for creators?

The methods identified in this paper are designed to shift your mental models, helping you to think about the future, rather than reflecting on the past.

They can help inspire creativity when you’re stuck, or help you test (or refine) a project before you set out to create it. They can also help you prepare for the unexpected.

This interests me because it suggests how science-fiction isn’t just entertainment, but it can also be used to spark creativity and innovation, not just for individuals, but also for groups. I don’t want to sit in boring visioning workshops, when we could be doing it far more effectively through a Star Trek-based activity.

More generally, this article speaks to how creative work can be re-used in different ways, and not just consumed as a piece of entertainment. I think this is something we are seeing with live-streaming creators, and the community of clippers who are clipping and re-contextualizing videos - creating something new whilst simultaneously promoting the original material.

Do you include teaching prompts or lesson plan ideas at the end of your work? Why not? Maybe by doing this, you could increase the chances of your book or comic making into a school curriculum.

What else could you think about including in the back matter that could lead to an interesting new use for your work? Why not let me know in the comments?

If you want to learn more, you can read the full paper, or you can grab this workbook I created, that walks you through eight of the methods. Turn your next brainstorming session into a creative breakthrough.

Get your hands on it

If you enjoyed this post, please consider sharing it, and let me know what you thought of it in the comments.

Share

Leave a comment

Don’t get me wrong, I’m very excited to write these posts for those who signed up to read them (I really hope they’re helpful), but I can’t help but compare myself to other creators on the platform and feel like I’m doing it all wrong.

I see notes that say “Been here two days and have 500 paid subscribers. Isn’t Substack great?” I see posts bragging about how much money people have made on Substack.

You get the idea.

It’s a similar thing with Patreon.

I’ve set up a Patreon three times in the six years, but end up pulling the plug because I just can’t get it to work. I follow the advice doled out by other creators and marketing experts, but sitting at zero subscribers for a year is demoralizing. It’s hard to put effort into running a Patreon (or Substack) when you don’t feel like you’re going anywhere.

This isn’t really about money. I’m not naive enough to think that most indie creators are making a ton of money through these platforms. But, I also know every little helps.

What am I doing wrong?

Lots of things.

But, I also wanted to see what the research had to say about Patreon, since that’s been around for a long time and is more transparent about their data than other platforms. Cough. Cough.

I found a 2022 paper1 that wanted to better understand how backers and creators connect on a subscription-based platform. The authors used the pledge data from Patreon (2013-2020) as their dataset, comprising hundreds of millions of pledges.

The Patreon backer community was purely organic within the time-frame in question. This means that creators had to pull their audience to the platform from external discovery mechanisms. This is no longer the case, as Patreon has begun rolling out a recommendation system, similar to what Substack (and other platforms) use.

There’s a lot in this paper, but I’ll focus on the elements I thought were interesting and of potential value for other creators, starting with analysis of backer behaviour.

Backer behaviour

Loyalty and retention

Backer loyalty and retention are two key engagement measures for subscription-based crowdfunding platforms. In this paper, the authors used the following definitions:

• Loyalty = backers continue to support creators they have pledged to

• Retention = backers continuing to pledge actively on the platform

Analysis of the full dataset requires splitting backers into spending-deciles, with the number of creators backed by any one backer taken to be a proxy measure of their engagement.

Results indicate that backers who support multiple creators are more likely to stay on the platform, while those who back only one creator are the least likely to stay. Both loyalty and retention had large, and significant, effect sizes.

Backer loyalty over time can be measured by the duration of backing (the time a backer pledges to the same creator), but also the total time a backer spends on the platform. The latter is proportional to the maintenance of pledges i.e., veteran backer are more loyal, although the former also shows a similar finding, with both having large effect sizes.

General interest vs specific interest

A key question to understand about backer behaviour, is whether backers tend to support creators who are similar - or whether they support a wide range of different creators. Defining similarity is always a difficult issue, but here the analysis relied on a community embedding approach; creating a multidimensional network model where any two creators are deemed to be similar when many backers pledge to both (similarity in this context is defined through a specific mathematical mapping).

To illustrate this point, consider the following image which is a 2D slice through the space of the network, where every point is a creator, and they are clustered by topic.

By averaging over the mapping, a similarity score (the GS-score) can be identified and this allows the authors to identify backers who are specialists (high GS-score), who pledge to similar creators, and generalists (low GS-score), who pledge to dissimilar creators.

Thus, a generalist would back creators who are far apart in the multidimensional space e.g., visual art and Ukulele, in the above figure. Whereas a specialist backs creators who are close together (but not necessarily in the same topic).

With that out of the way, here’s what matters.

Multi-backer GS-scores are high (most are above 0.8) which indicates Patreon has a specialized user base. While other research shows specialists are more likely to stay on a given platform, is this true for Patreon?

Data shows that generalists are more likely to be active on the platform after 12 months, and are less likely to keep pledging to the same creators but at lower pledge levels. By contrast, specialists demonstrate high loyalty, but are more likely to churn from the site.

Creator behaviour

Analysis shows most creators get their pledges from maintained backers, these are backers who have backed or purchased from them previously. While creators of all sizes were growing their audience, those with small audiences were growing at higher (relative) rates.

Interestingly, larger creators (those with the biggest audiences) attracted backers with lower rates of multi-patronage i.e., they have the highest rate of “one-and-done” backers, who don’t back any other creator on the platform.

Data shows that those in the top earning decile have audiences where only 40% also back other creators. Smaller creators, on the other hand, have audiences where 90% are backing multiple creators.

Creator earnings were also analyzed using mean pledge amounts. The highest-earning creators received almost $15 per pledge, while the lowest earning creators only got $2 per pledge. This suggests high-earning creators are attracting larger audience and larger average pledge levels.

That’s not surprising.

The impact of format

The final interesting analysis from the paper concerns the type of content a creator produces. The figure below shows relative loyalty (with respect to mean loyalty), relative pledge level (with respect to mean pledge level), and relative activity (with respect to mean activity).

The first column shows, for example that podcast creators have the most loyal audience. Writers have the second most loyal audience (yay!). The second column shows that writers have an average expected pledge amount (+0.3), whilst Communities and Websites have the highest. The final column identifies multi-creator backing, showing that Visual Arts has the highest levels of multi-creator backers, while Communities and Websites had the lowest levels.

What does this mean for creators?

Understanding backer behaviour should provide creators with key insights about how to find success on subscription-based platforms.

Creators who want to maximize their earnings should target specialist backers, as they exhibit a high-degree of loyalty. This aligns with the common wisdom handed around, that you need to identify a niche audience who believe in your specific vision.

However, the analysis shows that these backers frequently churn from the platform, so you need to find new ways to keep them engaged, or find new backers to replace them.

Worse, this strategy actually leads to important tension between the creator and the platform itself.

Over time, this may suggest creators may need to move platforms if they are targeting specialist audiences, if the original platform optimizes heavily towards generalists.

Another interesting finding was that large creators have audiences who are less likely to support other creators. While it’s human nature to try and compare yourself to such creators in your niche, and maybe even try to appeal to their backers, it’s actually self-defeating. It’s much better for you to focus on connecting with your own audience.

Finally, it’s also true that your chosen format has a massive impact, and you need to plan accordingly. Are you trying to focus on audience loyalty? Or pledge amounts?

The Patreon data showed Podcasts had the highest amount of loyalty, but they had lower than average pledge amounts. Conversely, Communities and Websites had the highest average pledge amounts but average levels of loyalty. For writers, the audience shows above average loyalty, but only average levels of pledge amounts and multi-creator backers.

However, on a platform like Substack, it’s easy for creators to work in multiple formats e.g., writing, podcast, and video. Does that mean that different formats may appeal to slightly different backer behaviours? It’s impossible to extrapolate from this paper, but would be an interesting open question to explore.

Subscribe now

Reflecting on the findings of this paper actually made me feel much better about my Patreon and Substack experience. It doesn’t erase the feelings of inadequecy, but it does provide context when trying to compare yourself against other creators in the space.

What do you think? Do you feel like you’re doing things wrong on these platforms? Did anything here surprise you? Does this change how you think about Patreon and Substack? Let me know in the comments.

And if you want to know where you sit on the specialist/generalist audience spectrum, check out this short quiz I created.

Leave a comment

If you enjoyed this post, you should also check out these.

I draw on research evidence to identify key insights that empower creators. I share my successes and failures, and I try to create a space where creators can learn from one another.

That’s really what this publication is all about.

I’m aware that a cursory glance through the archive doesn’t necessarily create that impression. The posts may seem random and disconnected, but in fact they’re all pieces of the same roadmap.

Each post is essentially a case study about one specific learning I think could be helpful for other creators. I appreciate that may not be obvious, so hopefully this post will help.

I went back through some of my recent (still free) posts and grouped them by focus area. This post may be too long to fit in the email, but hopefully it’s still readable on the website or mobile app.

1. Case studies for success in reward-based crowdfunding

2. Case studies for success in subscription-based crowdfunding (like Substack)

3. Case studies for successful science fiction writing

4. Case studies for successful horror writing

Although this only covers a few of my posts, I hope it helps to see that they are connected (there is method in my madness), albeit loosely.

5. Case studies for successful digital books

Subscribe now

Did anything here surprise you? Which of these past posts was your favourite? Jump into the comments and share your perspective.

Leave a comment

Here are three posts that caught my eye over the past month, which I hope you’ll also find valuable.

Make left turns while writing

As a writer, I live in constant fear that my work is derivative, or that I’ve forgotten how to tell a compelling story. My solution to this is to jump into a story I enjoy, a film, a book, or a comic, and ask myself why the creators made the choices they did. How did their choices impact the story? What other ways could they have gone?

Yes, this does seem like a lot of extra work to quell my imposter syndrome, but it works for me. Okay?

Imagine my surprise, when this recent piece by appeared, featuring a short video clip that should be enough to remind many writers of how to keep their stories interesting and engaging. I had to watch this three times in a row, because I just couldn’t believe this was real.

Please check out the post, and I hope the video clip inspires you!

5AM StoryTalk

This NYC Local News Story Is a Master Class in Screenwriting

January has kicked my ass, StoryTalkers. The fall of America aside, I’ve been juggling renovations on and moving into my family’s new house outside Melbourne with various writing obligations (narrative work and, of course, 5AM StoryTalk). Because of this, I want to close out the month discussing early 21st century landlord-tenant disputes in New York City…

Read more

6 months ago · 27 likes · 4 comments · Cole Haddon

Building cultural hangars

This article by really struck a chord with me. It details how the music industry has shifted away from a system where they owned the infrastructure, to one where they are dependent on third-party tech platforms, who in turn treat music as a utility, leading to a low signal-to-noise ratio.

The platforms control the distribution, the money, and the data, and want you to be locked into their ecosystem more than they want you to be a fan of an artist.

This spoke to something I’ve thought about a lot in recent months, namely the importance of creator and audience engagement, and how that is more necessary now than ever.

Whether you’re a writer, or filmmaker, or dancer, you have to find a way to create space for your audience to engage with you directly, and not simply rely on other platforms and mediators, who don’t have your interests at heart.

It’s a timely reminder for all creators.

The Artist Economy

The Death of Spotify: Why Streaming is Minutes Away From Being Obsolete

Read more

5 months ago · 12583 likes · 1227 comments · Joel Gouveia

Don’t chase the audience

I have to be honest, I’m constantly frustrated when people tell me that I need to write what my audience wants to buy.

I get it, if you want to make money as a creator then you need to offer something that people want to buy, and this isn’t the same as trying to create for a market, which is a futile response to macro-level trends.

But I write for different reasons, and not all of them are financial. Whilst I want my audience to enjoy and/or buy what I create, I don’t start writing with them specifically in mind.

How to square this conundrum bugged me for a long time, but was finally resolved when I read this piece by .

ROYALNIFTY

Films Are Disappearing. Here’s the Structure Causing It.

We’re watching something unprecedented in cinema history: films with genuine creative merit are vanishing before they reach audiences. Not because the art is failing. Not because audiences don’t want them. But because the production structure itself is fundamentally broken…

Read more

6 months ago · 14 likes · 3 comments · Tano Wira

The article has lots of interesting thoughts about how to connect the different creative elements of filmmaking, but the thing that hit me the most was the section value-proposition split-test.

Basically, this spoke to the need to frame stories in three different ways: Theme-forward, Character-forward, and World-forward.

I read this and a lightbulb went off in my head.

Eureka, I cried, leaping from the bath-tub and running naked down the streets, eager to share my revelation with the masses…

What landed for me was the framing. It’s not that I need to ask my audience what I should create for them. It’s about the way I position my work to the audience.

Some respond better to the character-first pitch, where I focus on characters and their relationship. Others respond better to theme, and others respond better to the genre elements.

I’m still writing the story I want to tell, but I sell it to different audiences in different ways, depending on their needs and desires.

After I read this post, I immediately went to the loglines and brief synopses I had created for various projects, and re-wrote them all to have slightly different facets, which gives me more flexibility when it comes to pitching.

In hindsight, this seems obvious, but it was only because of this post that I turned it into concrete action.

Subscribe now

Which of these posts resonated most with you? Which one surprised you? Drop your thoughts in the comments and let’s have a conversation.

Leave a comment

If you love to discover new work, and love mind-bending horror and sci-fi, then you should pop by my online store this weekend to get special pricing on comics, books and merch!

This happened to me not long ago.

I started taking my writing more seriously around 2010, and made some decent progress getting paid to write some feature films that ultimately never got made, but which opened many doors for me.

While I loved film, my first love was always television. It was my love of Star Trek (TV) that inspired me to write in the first place, and as we entered the “golden-age” of television, it felt even more important for me to move in that direction.

So I did.

I wrote dozens of pilots. Some got optioned. Most went nowhere. I took meetings with producers and directors across Canada. I was actively involved in community building, mentoring newer writers, running writing groups, doing a podcast that increased my visibility, and even won screenwriting awards.

But we don’t make many shows in Canada, so there are very few jobs, and being out in Vancouver put me at a definite disadvantage.

Even though I was working my ass off, I was going nowhere - and it sucked.

I felt like I was a failure.

Subscribe now

Of course, I didn’t just sit around wallowing. I did what we all do; kept writing, hoping to write my way out of the situation. I started writing and publishing comics, then short stories, and finally novels. Along the way, I also rediscovered my love for indie film, and began to write feature screenplays once more, and then also started blogging and working on my newsletters.

I kept writing even as I worked a busy day job and then had a family. The projects kept stacking up, and I spent more and more of my dwindling free time writing.

But the feeling of failure didn’t go away. If anything, it got worse.

I could feel myself creatively drowning.

Don’t get me wrong. I actually love the process of writing. I’m not one of those people who “hate the process but love the outcome.” For me, the process is probably the part I love the most.

But I couldn’t shake the feeling that it was all going nowhere. What was the point? As an indie creator, you don’t just have to create high-quality art, you also have to find the audience for it, and then sell the product to them. You become obsessed not just with word count, but audience size, newsletter open rates, engagement metrics, and a host of other Key Performance Indicators (KPI’s).

At one point I actually felt like quitting.

I realized that I had lost my way entirely. I wasn’t sure why I was working on some projects, or where they were going, and more importantly - what I wanted from them. I felt like I was doing everything right, but not making any career progress, and not really making much money either.

I was also afraid that if stopped writing, I would be going backwards. This meant I was too afraid to spend time promoting and marketing my work, because that would take me away from creating.

It wasn’t a fun time.

Something had to change.

That’s exactly what I did. I took time to sit down, without my digital distractions, and used a tool from my day job to help me figure out what to do.

I built myself a logic model.

Some of you may be familiar with logic models as theories of change, but if you’re not, you can find information anywhere online. In short, a logic model is a visual representation of the relationships between resources, activities, outputs and outcomes.

It’s a framework for connecting what you do to what you want to happen.

This all sounds obvious in hindsight, but when you’re trying to finish pages and projects, you’re not able to step back and think about the bigger picture. It’s all operational thinking with no strategic thinking.

I sat down and mapped out a logic model for myself, to reconnect with what I wanted to get out of being a creator; what I wanted to see change in my life. I wasn’t enjoying my writing and my work because I had forgotten what I wanted to get out of it in the first place.

Build your own logic model

Typically, a logic model includes the following components:

• Inputs: the resources you have to invest (e.g., time, money, skills)

• Activities: what you actually do (e.g., write, record, post, pitch)

• Outputs: the tangible deliverables (e.g., number of posts published, episodes released, campaigns launched)

• Outcomes: the short-term and medium-term effects (e.g., audience growth, skill development, revenue)

• Impact: the long-term change (e.g., career sustainability, creative freedom, community influence)

You can fill in a logic model vertically or horizontally, but the point is that there is meant to be a logical and causal connection between each component.

The way I usually approach this is to work backwards, starting with impact, and re-frame everything as a series of questions. Something like the following:

• Impact: what’s the ultimate goal for my writing? What future state do I want to live in?

• Outcomes: what are the outcomes I need to create that will lead to my ultimate goal being realized?

• Outputs: what are the things I need to create in order to realize the outcomes?

• Activities: what are the things I need to learn and do in order to deliver on the outputs?

• Inputs: what resources do I need to invest to learn and do the activities?

A key distinction here is between outputs and outcomes. They are often treated as synonyms, but they are very different, as outcomes are intended to reflect changes of state.

Working through this model helped me remember what the hell I wanted from all this in the first place, and also gives me a clearer roadmap to get there. It also helps me better pick the projects I want to work on, because if the project or activity doesn’t align with the logic model, then I need to say no to it.

I think the creator economy has trained us all to optimize for the wrong metrics: we worry about follower counts, open rates, backer numbers, pledge counts, because they’re easy to measure. But we don’t track career alignment with the same level of precision, and that’s ultimately the only metric that counts.

Subscribe now

What does this mean for creators?

Taking time to build my own career logic model helped get me back on track, and back in love with my writing again. I wasn’t a failure because I wasn’t a full-time TV writer; because that was only ever a possible outcome, not my ultimate goal.

More practically, the logic model helps guide my work and decision-making. I know why I’m working on a given project at any time, because I can connect it to my ultimate goal.

It means I am learning more from the data I collect, because I’m not worried about outputs. Moreover, when things don’t go as planned, I understand this as in the context of new data collection, rather than a personal set-back. It also gives me permission to drop things that don’t work.

This also means I have structure to monitor and update, and can actually do a meaningful review once a quarter, not just figuring out where I am on projects, but how those projects are advancing my ultimate goal.

If you’re feeling stuck, I encourage you to take some time and build your own logic model. I can’t guarantee that it’ll fix your issues, but it will certainly go a long way to helping you understand them better.

Want to try it yourself?

If you’re feeling stuck, I recommend going through the above exercise for yourself to figure out where you’re going and how your projects align. I’ve even made a free worksheet for you to use which you can grab at the link below.

Grab the free worksheet

Of course, things didn’t get magically easier once I had the logic model, but it helped remind me of why I wrote and what I wanted to get out of it in the first place.

I stopped seeing myself as a failure, and started seeing how I could work smarter to align my projects with the goals I actually cared about. This was a big breakthrough and helped me overcome a lot of friction, and also gave me a way to prioritize what I was working on.

So, if you’re struggling with your writing and feeling overwhelmed by everything, try and develop your own logic model. If you’re unsure about how to proceed, or want to have someone look over it and provide feedback, please reach out as I offer 1:1 and group consultations on how to implement this framework for your own creative career.

Get in touch

If this was useful, consider subscribing. Every 1–2 weeks, I identify practical recommendations from evidence-driven insights to help you grow as an indie creator, and it’s completely free.

I admit to becoming a bit of a print snob in recent years, and now worry constantly about the weight and finish of the paper stock in order to produce something of high quality that I know readers will love to hold in their hands.

It’s a similar thing with books. I love the weight and smell of a printed book in my hands. There’s something magical about it.

But I’m also acutely aware of print costs, and how they can quickly destroy the business model of an indie creator, which is why I also focus on crafting a high-quality DRM-free digital experience as a cost-effective alternative for backers.

I also struggle to find time to read physical books. Between the day job, family time, and writing time, there’s not much opportunity to sink into my favourite chair and read. More often than not, my reading time consists of me devouring an e-book in bed before falling asleep.

It’s fine. I never thought I would be able to adapt to it, but when push comes to shove, it’s not the worst way to read. But I do miss reading the printed version, and find myself skimming through e-books, and forcing myself to go back and read them.

As we all know, it’s a different reading experience.

But just how different is it?

I found a 2021 paper that looked into this question, not only by asking people to read a text and answer comprehension questions (which is a standard tool in this area of research) but also by measuring eye movements across the page.

Subscribe now

The study

The study focused on comparing how print and digital readers responded to the same scientific text and images. There were nine images in the study, corresponding to one of four types which are associated with different cognitive responses:

• Decorative e.g., a photograph, which takes little cognitive function to process.

• Representational diagram, which takes more function because it is an abstract description of text.

• Explanatory diagram, which shows a series of steps involved in performing an action.

• Statistical diagram, which show relationships between variables.

The study also sought to understand if there were any differences between diagrams when read in print or digital formats.

64 undergraduate students were recruited for the study, with the text selected to be about slow earthquakes caused by typhoons. Because of the topic, students in geography and similar programs were ineligible to participate. Due to experimental difficulties, ultimately there was only data from 50 participants.

Participants were tested about their knowledge of the topic prior to the experiment, as part of the baseline.

They were randomized to either the print or digital group, and sat in the same chair (alone) to read the text. Upon completion, they were first tested on reading comprehension, which requires questions focused on free-recall, main-ideas, text retrieval, descriptions, and inference-generation. Responses were scored by two independent raters who needed to reach a specific level of agreement in how they interpreted responses.

The eye movement variables are defined below:

• Total fixation duration = total time spent on an area of interest (defined in this study as text, diagrams, and diagram statements). Generally, the higher the fixation duration, the more intense the cognitive processing.

• First pass fixation duration = total time spent on a first pass of the area of interest.

• Re-reading fixation duration = total time spent on a repeat pass of already read material. Typically, this reflects deeper processing.

• Number of rereading instances across pages = the number

  of instances in which readers turned pages and made more than one eye movement between sections.

The comprehension test scores showed statistically significant differences between groups (ANOVA) with print readers scoring much higher than digital readers. An ANCOVA was also undertaken using total fixed duration, showing that article reading time affected comprehension scores, with the print group having significantly higher scores than the digital group.

The authors then used a two-way MANOVA (multiple analysis of variance) with eye movement measures as dependent variables, with reading modality and stage as independent variables. Print and digital readers spent the same amount of time reading the article, but where they spent their time was different.

Text

The analysis showed the digital group exhibited a large difference between the two reading stages (first pass and re-read) whereas the print group did not. Both groups had similar total fixation durations while reading the text sections in the first-pass stage; however, the print group spent more time reading text sections in the re-reading stage.

Diagrams

The digital group spent more time examining diagrams on the first-pass than on the rereading stage, whereas the opposite was true for the print group. In fact, the digital group typically spent more time in the first-pass stage for all diagram types, while the print group spent more time (at the statistically significant level) in the re-reading stage, especially for decorative and representational diagrams.

This behaviour is shown more clearly in the figures below (taken from the paper).

Finally, analysis further found that the print group had significantly more instances of re-reading across pages than the digital group.

The first conclusion from this study is that print readers have better comprehension of the material than those who read digitally.

Why is this the case? The authors postulate that this may be due to the theory of textual landscapes, suggesting the brain forms a better mental representation of printed text than digital text, allowing for better recall of information. However, they also suggest print may be less visually fatiguing than digital.

The second conclusion is that print and digital actually changes the way people read.

Digital readers typically read things once and then moved on, while print readers tended to re-read information (i.e., skimming first and then re-reading). This reflects more intentional and deeper processing amongst print readers, and that they adopt more flexible reading strategies, however the rationale was not well understood.

These findings resonate with me, as I know I often have to re-read printed text to either remember where I am in the story, or try to get a better understanding. While I could do this with e-books, I seldom seem to do so. Reflecting on my reading habits, I do tend to skim when I read digitally, and rarely ever go back to a previous page.

Part of this may be that I find it easier to do this with a physical book, as you can use a bookmark or finger to hold on the present page and then flip back to an earlier one. It’s not quite as easy to do this digitally, where you typically have to scroll or swipe back to an earlier page and then have to repeat the process to return.

What does this mean for creators?

This study dives into the different reading strategies exhibited by readers of print and digital, but not on the causal mechanisms behind the different strategies.

I think this is important for indie creators to think about, as there is clearly a difference between the physical and digital versions of the comics and books we create.

One caveat I think we need to understand though, is that the experiment here necessitated constraints on the digital readers to try and mimic the same conditions as the physical arm of the study. A key one was the inability of digital readers to enlarge the font size as they read. However, this constraint is actually an important one, because in the real world we often increase the size of the page (or the text in an e-book) to make it easier to read.

A reasonable question then, is whether comprehension and visual stimuli scores would actually be that different if the study leaned into the inherent differences of each format? I assume someone is working on this.

My takeaway though is that I need to think more carefully about how I create my digital products, so they are become more “sticky” for readers, and aren’t simply skimmed over in the rush to finish.

For comics, the interesting finding for me was that readers in both formats spent almost equal time on the explanatory images in the first-pass and re-read. Recall that these images are ones that show a series of steps in performing an action, and to my mind, are therefore the closest (of the four types) to panel layouts on the page.

The fact that digital readers didn’t skim and move on with these panels, suggests they spent time engaging with the narrative, i.e., they are more “sticky.” This was not true for decorative and representational images, where digital readers continued to skim read and seldom returned.

It suggests that comic panels need to be more than just decorative, in order to be effective. This goes to the heart of what makes for good comic storytelling, so isn’t necessarily anything new. But it does reinforce the need to know have throw-away panels or text in the digital comic, as that will reduce the likelihood of the reader skimming.

Was there anything here that surprised you? What are your key takeaways from this study?

Leave a comment

Reward-Based Crowdfunding (RBC) platforms like Kickstarter have now been part of the indie creator landscape for almost 20 years, yet products produced through this model continue to suffer from stigma and disdain by mainstream gatekeepers.

Don’t get me wrong, a lot has changed in this time, particularly in areas like comics, where “traditional” direct-market publishers now routinely launch comic projects through the platform.

But even now, I continue to hear about other direct market publishers who won’t ever consider releasing a book if it’s been crowdfunded. While I’m sympathetic to those who argue that there is a potential market overlap, which would hamper direct-market release of those books, I’m skeptical to the extent it exists. I think the overlap between those who back comics through RBC and those who go to their local comic shop to purchase books on a regular basis, is not that large.

It’s not just comics, of course. Brandon Sanderson lit the internet on fire by raising $41M for his four secret novels campaign in 2022, and broke the doors open for numerous authors to follow in his footsteps.

Indie creators see the potential to leverage crowdfunding to bring their work directly to a hungry audience, bypassing traditional gatekeepers, and owning more of their work and their audience.

So, I understand why traditional players may finally now see crowdfunding as a threat to their existence. If creators can build entire careers going direct to their audience, then what need do they have for traditional publishers, producers, studios etc.

These gatekeepers once played a pivotal role because of their taste. But in the race to enshittify themselves before late-stage capitalism sends us all off the cliff, they turned on the creators who made them rich. Predatory contracts. Low-ball offers. No royalties. Shifting marketing to the creator, but still deducting marketing expenses from any payments. Check. Check. Check. Check.

This is why indie creators use RBC. It’s not that their work wasn’t “good enough” for traditional gatekeepers, it’s that creators have finally had enough of being exploited and are seizing the means to support themselves.

None of this should be news to anyone who has read my work before.

Subscribe now

I bring it up again, because I still see think-pieces and editorials that refer to crowdfunding in derogatory tones. People acknowledge it exists, but keep highlighting how it sits apart from traditional or approved or quality creations, suggesting that crowdfunding like social media, is lesser than.

You know I don’t agree.

But the quality issue still bugs me.

Like many indie creators, I take pride in putting together campaigns that are things I would want to back. I don’t take shortcuts when it comes to editing, or paper stock, or printing, or fulfillment. I care about the products that I’m making, because I care about the audience experience.

I create high quality products, and so do most creators on these platforms.

The question I come back to again, is what defines quality in the context of RBC?

My own take is that it’s the audience who define the quality. If they don’t like something, then they won’t back it. Simple as that.

But I want to do more than just share my opinion on this, and went back to the research literature, and my search turned up this interesting recent paper When the Crowd Signals Quality: A Blind Test of Reward-Based Crowdfunding’s Evaluative Power which focuses on understanding perceived quality in RBC.

The study

The authors of this paper focused on 20 high-tech gadget Kickstarter projects (10 of which were successfully funded) between May-September 2023. They recruited 120 self-identified business experts to assess two projects each (one funded and one not) in order to compare funding outcomes to expert-identified quality outcomes.

Campaigns were not shown to the experts, but the essential information contained within the campaign page was copied and presented in the same structural format. The experts were then focused on identifying from this information alone, which projects were of high quality.

Experts were shown one project at a time and then asked to complete two tasks. First was to complete a grading block, where they answered questions about the the quality of the project, and also assigning an overall grade (0-10). The second task was a funding question: they were each told that they were eligible to receive a $20 bonus for participating, and could choose how much of this bonus they were willing to allocate to the crowdfunding project ($0-$20).

For experimental design purposes, the projects seen by the experts were randomized, the tasks were also randomized, and items within the grading block were also randomly ordered to reduce response bias.

Findings

Experts rated successful projects more positively than unsuccessful projects on multiple criteria.

• Successful projects received a higher grade (mean=6.41 vs mean = 5.25).

• Successful projects were rated more credible, more reliable, higher quality, more useful, and more feasible at statistically significant levels using regression analysis.

This suggests the experts were good at picking winners.

However, the authors went further in their analysis. Using the funding question, they divided the 20 projects into four categories:

1. Projects that experts agreed should be funded, and were also successfully funded by the crowd (10%).

2. Projects that were funded only by experts (6%).

3. Projects funded only by the crowd (40%) i.e., rejected by the experts.

4. Projects funded by neither experts or by the crowd (45%).

They defined a composite agreement variable where category 1 and 4 indicate agreement, and 2 and 3 indicate disagreement.

Analysis showed that a large proportion of successful projects were not selected by the experts, conversely those that were unsuccessful had a higher level of expert agreement. The authors tested the data to see if this was a random finding, but were able to reject this hypothesis at the 5% significance level. Thus, their finding was that experts opposed crowdfunding success.

Using the grade score as the dependent variable, another regression model shows that category 1 and 2 were ranked highest, followed by categories 3 and 4. This is not surprising, given that projects in category 1 and 2 were those selected by experts, but again shows disagreement between expert perspectives of quality, and those of the crowd.

In summary, a blind study showed experts rated successful PBC campaigns higher in terms of credibility, feasibility, reliability and usefulness (but not for quality, novelty, audience, uniqueness, or utility).

However, comparison between expert and crowdfunding choices showed that uniqueness and novelty were not highly regarded by the experts, but clearly were important for the crowd.

What does this mean for creators?

While this study focused specifically on high-tech gadgets, and allowed self-identification of expertise, and the authors cautioned against generalizability, I think the findings do have utility for creators.

The main difference between the funding choices of the experts and the crowd lie with the latter’s embrace of unique and novel products. To me, this is the essence of PBC as a business model for indie creators. It’s a place where audiences are looking for something new.

Creators should embrace this when building their campaigns, or even when they’re contemplating a launch in the first place. Uniqueness is the value-add for backers.

It also explains much of the disdain for PBC by traditional gatekeepers, who are closer to the experts than the crowd. They don’t value novelty and uniqueness. They value things that are “the same but different” as their core products.

Their taste is narrow, and constrained by what has come before.

But the tastes of the crowd have diverged. The internet created new connections and markets and choice, and people no longer feel obligated to the choices of traditional gatekeepers in the same way they did in the past. They want something new, and that’s why they turn to PBC.

The second lesson I take from the study are the factors that the experts identified for successful campaigns. Despite their apparent disinterest in novelty, their scores for credibility, feasibility, reliability, and usefulness, are important for creators to bear in mind.

These were the quality domains for successfully funded projects that were also identified as being statistically significant by the experts. Whilst the utility one is likely more product specific, the other three are important for us all to consider as we use crowdfunding.

• How are we demonstrating credibility?

  • Are we backing other campaigns? Have we launched prior campaigns? Are we demonstrating that we have a track record?

• How are we demonstrating the feasibility of our work?

  • Are we being realistic in terms of timelines? Are we being realistic in terms of goals and rewards?

• How are we demonstrating reliability?

  • Are we fulfilling previous campaigns? Are we regularly engaging backers?

Does anything about this surprise you? How do you think it changes how you think about crowdfunding?

Leave a comment

Hospice: Inferno

Launching on April 7, this is a psychological horror comic that’s part of Hospice Season 2, a shared universe experiment. Inferno is drawn by Daniel Jimeno, coloured by Linda Campbell, and lettered by Rick Joseph.

Underworld fixer Marcus Walker must acquire a rundown Vancouver building housing a Rising Suns hospice. When persuasion fails, and his developer bosses threaten to destroy him, he’s forced to take desperate measures. But his actions awaken a horrifying demonic force that reveals the true nature of his existence.

It’s time to crowdfund your book

Indie creators are bypassing traditional publishing and launching their own crowdfunding campaigns.

I’m John Ward, author of Three Tokens for Mammon and Sweet Delicious Candy. I’ve succeeded and failed at crowdfunding, and in this 30-minute mini-course I’ll show you how to leverage your existing audience and successfully crowdfund your book, using tested strategies, science-based tactics, and printable worksheets for every step.

From crafting a high-converting campaign page, to maintaining momentum through the dead zone, you’ll get a crash course in how to bring your book to life without waiting for approval from traditional gatekeepers.

Check out the course using pay-what-you-want pricing - only available this weekend!

Tell me more

If this was useful, consider subscribing. Every 1–2 weeks, I identify practical recommendations from evidence-driven insights to help you grow as an indie creator, and it’s completely free.

This question has been at the heart of horror debates since the creation of cinema, with different sides arguing the nuances of their favourite medium were responsible for making stories more (or less) scary.

So which is scarier?

I went to the research literature to find out.

There is some evidence to suggest that horror films are more likely to elicit stronger emotions such as fear, or disgust, than horror books. However, the evidence is not strong, and moreover, is difficult to interpret because the horror films and horror books included in studies are not the same.

As any horror fan knows, the diversity of stories in the genre is incredibly vast, and it’s likely that these initial effects are due to the specific films and books chosen for study. For a stronger comparison, it would be better to examine the effects between books that had been turned into films!

Sadly, this is still a gap within the research literature, however a recent thesis attempted to address a very similar issue, which I found pretty interesting.

The author undertook a study to compare the effects of watching a movie, compared to the audiobook of the same story. The titles chosen were Misery, Silence of the Lambs, and IT., and the study focused in on specific actions found in both the book and the movie.

Why audiobook and not the actual text?

Subscribe now

The author suggests two factors which may (or may not) be correlated. The first was that participants were all undergraduates at University, and the second was that audiobooks are more immersive than text, meaning that the listener would be more immersed in the moment, whereas readers may feel compelled to skim the text and not read as deeply.

Whilst this is not an exact comparison between books and films, it’s relatively close.

The study sought to understand the differences between movies and audiobooks when it comes to emotional responses, but also to explore any gender differences that may exist. The literature suggests women tend to (self) report more heightened responses than men to horror films, so this was also an interesting variable to consider.

In total, there were only 45 people in the study, all aged between 18-30 with 24 women and 21 men. Participants were randomly assigned to the movie arm or the audiobook arm and were tested individually in front of the same TV screen (the movie arm had the lights turned off, whilst the audiobook arm did not).

After watching/listening to the three clips, emotion data was collected in surveys, with a focus on using rating tools to measure the four target emotional responses: fear, shock, horror, and disgust. Participants were also asked to describe what happened in the clips they were exposed to, and how they felt about them. They also completed a (modified) transportation survey and additional demographic information.

Transportation was a critical measure I identified in a recent post, but essentially transportation measures the extent to which an audience/reader becomes emotionally and cognitively involved in the narrative.

Qualitative responses were further processed for sentiment analysis using two different measures: negative tone, and negative emotion.

• negative tone analysis detects negative sentiments, emotions, or perspectives.

• negative emotion analysis detects words that represent or relate to negative emotional states

These were then used to create new variables for analysis:

• content tone (mean % of negative tone words)

• content emotion (mean % of negative emotion words)

• reaction tone (mean % of negative tone words to reaction prompts)

• reaction emotion (mean % of negative emotion words to reaction prompts)

All variables were subsequently analyzed using a 2X2 ANOVA.

Study findings

The study found no statistically significant difference in any of the conditions when it came to emotional response ratings, story description negative tone words, reaction negative tone words, and reaction negative emotion words.

There was, however, a statistically significant difference between audiobook and film responses in the story description negative emotion words, i.e., participants who listened to the stories on audiobook used more negative emotion words than those in the movie arm when describing the story.

For transportation scores, there was a marginal (but not statistically significant) gender effect, with women reporting slightly higher scores than men.

What does this mean for creators?

Those in the audiobook arm of the study used proportionately more negative emotion words when describing the content of the stories than those in the movie arm, but there was no difference in emotional response scores.

This suggests there is no difference between how people emotionally respond to horror movies and audiobooks, in direct contrast to assumptions in the literature that movies were the scarier medium.

Understanding why this might be the case was beyond the current study, but in some ways, the two mediums are complimentary to one another. While movies rely heavily on visuals and sound to immerse (transport) the viewer into the narrative, audiobooks can also be an intimate experience for the listener, as there is substantial information provided in the sound design that allow for high levels of transport, and allow the listener to co-build the horror in their mind. This latter point is also true of books, and therefore suggests that all formats may be equally effective at generating the intended fear responses.

For writers, it suggests the need to focus on effective descriptions that transport the reader, allowing them to clearly visualize the story.

The challenge is that this study used an audiobook rather than text, therefore the findings could indicate that audiobooks and movies are more similar, as formats, than we may have initially thought.

This is interesting because audiobooks typically cost much less than films to produce. Indie creators looking to build a name for themselves in horror, could consider going down the audiobook path - or maybe the podcast path, as there are clear similarities between these audio formats. While these may not have the same prestige as films, they can still engage and terrify a dedicated horror audience.

To return to the initial question: we don’t really know which is scarier, but we do know that the film isn’t any scarier than the audiobook.

What surprised you about this finding? Have you considered producing an audiobook? What was your experience? Let me know in the comments.

Leave a comment

Are you interested in crowdfunding your book, but don’t know where to start?

What if you could get practical evidence-based information that’s thoughtful, concise, and actionable?

That’s why I created Crowdfunding for authors, an introductory workshop I’m now making available as a bite-sized mini-course for indie authors. You can purchase the course through the link below - or you can become a paid subscriber and get unlimited access to that, and other stuff.

Show me the course

Times are tough for everyone, especially indie creators, so we have to be more creative with how we diversify our revenue streams. This is why subscription-based platforms, like this one, are seeing an explosion in the number of users.

But if you are trying to gain subscribers, how do you optimize your page? Seems like this is in itself a cottage industry here on Substack, but research suggests the biggest enabler of success when it comes to subscription-based platforms (even if you’re an artist) is to make sure you have a long, detailed description of the value you offer to readers.

Does this seem obvious?

Maybe. The value part is certainly key, but does the length of the description actually make a difference? Turns out that it does, and I’ll dig into that more below.

I’m interested in subscription-platforms not just because this is one, but because they are examples of Subscription-Based Crowdfunding (SBC), which are similar, yet distinct, to other forms of crowdfunding such as Reward-Based Crowdfunding (RBC).

In recent years, I’ve become a big proponent of indie creators integrating crowdfunding into their business models, as it’s one marketplace that continues to thrive on risk, unlike traditional and legacy media institutions which are increasingly risk-averse.

But my interest is also around what the research evidence suggests are enablers and barriers to participating in these models. This provides interesting, and often unusual, findings that don’t easily align with the “common sense” wisdom being shared on social media.

This interest has moved to the more nascent field of SBC, and a recent post of mine focused on backer motivation.

Ultimately, creators want to run successful RBC campaigns, and we are always looking to identify optimization pressure points. But this should also be true for SBC, but as the models are different, we shouldn’t expect the success factors to be the same.

Or should we?

This is the question I wanted to answer, namely what are the characteristics associated with successful SBS campaigns?

Subscribe now

While there are lots of opinions about this floating around the internet, these are almost always context dependent. They work for some people, for some of the time. But can we identify key characteristics that work more generally?

I scanned the research literature for answers and found this 2022 paper which tackles some of these characteristics, although the work is still grounded in other scholarship on RBC. The author scraped data from over 160,000 Patreon campaign pages in August, 2020 in an effort to test the following hypotheses, all of which were assumed to have a positive effect on the campaigns.

• H1: The length of the description of the campaign;

• H2: The number of reward levels offered;

• H2a: The price span of reward levels;

• H3a: The number of goals offered;

• H3b: The span of the goal amounts;

• H4: The number of posts; and

• H5: The number of social media websites used/linked.

For H1, the issue is that there is no time-limit for a given SBC campaign, since the campaign is focused on supporting the creator rather than any specific product. The hypothesis is that the campaign description should outline the value for the backer, touching on both extrinsic and intrinsic motivations. Thus, the assumption is that the length of the text is a proxy quality signal for potential backers.

Drawing on the RBC literature, there is an association between the number of reward tiers and the amount of campaign over-funding, however there was mixed evidence about the relationship between campaign success and the number of rewards. This leads to the H2A hypothesis (assuming a positivist lens). Further, it is known from RBC that when backers are confronted by multiple rewards, they’ll typically select the middle choice. This suggests that offering more rewards, with a higher price difference between them (span) will have a positive effect on income, thus the need for H2B as a hypothesis.

For the third hypotheses, it’s important to understand what goals refer to in SBC. Unlike the time-limited goals in RBC, the goals in SBC are tools for stimulating backer motivation, with creators stating that the goal will allow them to increase output, or purchase new or better equipment. However, unlike in RBC, there is no concept of over-funding in SBC, since creators who hit a goal can set another one. Thus, SBC is marked by multiple goals (H3a). Given that creators and backers experience stronger motivation near a goal, it’s also important to consider how far apart these multiple goals should be, which leads to H3b.

As with other crowdfunding models, backer engagement is a key success factor. This doesn’t just refer to responses to comments (for example) but also on the number of posts, videos, and other signals. Thus, the number of posts is a proxy communication measure, and also identifies the sum of un-lockable content that caters to extrinsic motivation.

Finally, the last hypothesis arises because creators need to bring backers into their ecosystems through other channels, with social media being an important vector.

Data analysis was done using regression models with income as the dependent variable, and where more variables were included into each model. However, some variables (e.g., reward price span) are only present if the campaign offers at least one reward, which changes the total number of observations as the model becomes more complicated. The first regression ignored both span variables, but reward span was included in the second regression, and goal span included in the third. The findings are shown in the table below.

The table shows that Description Length had the largest positive impact of the campaign characteristics in model one, however in model two and three it switched over to the number of reward levels. Interestingly, the number of goals is positive for model one, but becomes negative once more variables are introduced. For the other characteristics, the coefficients are all positive (albeit smaller), and all the p-values are statistically significant.

In short, this tells us that H1, H2a, H2b, H4, and H5 are supported. H3a is not supported, but H3b is supported.

Subscribe now

Drilling down further

The authors ran two further models. First, they ran a model where total posts were broken down by different types: Audios per day, images per day, links per day, live streams per day, polls per day, updates per day, and videos per day.

Of these, live streams, images, and videos had positive and significant association, with audios and polls having a negative association. Updates and links had no discernible effect.

The second model focused on specific social media channels: Facebook, Instagram, Twitch, Twitter, and YouTube. Of these, Instagram, followed by Facebook and Twitch were significant and positive impacts, whereas Twitter had a significant negative association with income. YouTube had no significant effect.

Results

The paper argues that campaign description, the number of reward levels, and communication, are all critical success factor for SBC campaign success. While having many goals is not important, the span of these goals is. The final factor of relevance is social media links.

What does this mean for creators?

Creators should consider describing themselves, their work, and the value for potential backers in detail, taking care to appeal to both intrinsic and extrinsic motivations. Although the evidence identified in this paper was from Patreon backers and campaigns, it’s likely transferable to other platforms such as Substack, although there are some differences between the platform mechanics.

For Substack creators, this likely means you need way more detail than you think on your about page, your welcome emails, and maybe even consider creating a pinned post on your Substack webpage. This all helps reduce the risk for potential backers.

A second suggestion is to consider offering multiple reward tiers at vastly different price points. For platforms like Patreon, this is certainly possible, but not for platforms like Substack, which only offers a fixed number of tiers. Even so, it makes sense to ensure these three tiers are at vastly different price points to maximize the effect.

When it comes to goals, creators need to be more explicit about what they are aiming for (and why). Patreon creators are generally pretty good at this, but I have not seen this much at all on Substack. Most creators do not mention goals at all, and assume that paid subscribers will back them because of altruism.

I think that’s partially true. I also think it’s true that most of the funding on the platform goes to a few super creators, with the rest diluted across the rest of the landscape. But, if we are serious about i) providing value to backers and ii) maximizing the likelihood of turning subscribers into paid subscribers, then it might be useful to articulate one or two goals or milestones (which is now the term that Patreon uses).

Finally, media-rich posts are more likely to appeal to subscribers. This means videos, live-streams and images. Again, this may be skewed by the Patreon audience who want to follow artists, but I think there’s another lesson here too.

Backers want to connect with you as a creator.

Yes, people can read your posts and notes to get a sense of your voice and interests, but video is a way to connect more deeply and honestly with potential subscribers, and for that reason, it’s probably worth considering.

Oh, and one final lesson, Twitter posting has a negative effect on your SBC income.

Suck it, Musky!

What are your thoughts? Did anything here surprise you? Do you see yourself trying to implement any of these characteristics? Let me know in the comments.

Leave a comment

Are you interested in crowdfunding your book, but terrified about how to get started?

What if you could get practical evidence-based information that’s thoughtful, concise, and actionable?

That’s why I created Crowdfunding for authors, an introductory workshop I’m now making available as a bite-sized mini-course for indie authors. You can purchase the course through the link below - or you can become a paid subscriber and get unlimited access to that, and other stuff.

Let me see the course

Trying something new again this week, which is to share three articles that inspired me from the past month.

Give yourself permission

First up is this post on Development Hell from , which you can check out below.

Elliot digs into the (mostly abusive) development process for feature films, which is remarkably similar across multiple art forms, from TV, to comics, to games. The general gist of his post is that media gatekeepers are increasingly risk-averse, and using creators to mitigate the risks they should be taking. Free labour. Lost time. Endless revisions.

Sound familiar?

The solution is to recognize that ultimately none of these corporations would exist without the material we create, and that means we need to put ourselves first. There may be a time to work for low/no budget, but only if it serves your goal as a creator. Otherwise, we have to take matters into our own hands, and make the damn thing ourselves.

Easier said than one, to be sure, but there’s always a way - you just need to make it happen.

Subscribe now

Storytellers are their own worst enemy

The second article is this great piece from which provides a rapid overview of red flags in short story submission letters, and also issues with the opening paragraphs of stories themselves.

Devon Halliday

Red Flags in Short Story Submissions

If you regularly submit to literary journals, I highly recommend that you, at some point, volunteer as a reader for a literary magazine…

Read more

6 months ago · 247 likes · 42 comments · Devon Halliday

It doesn’t matter what format you’re working in, chances are that you have pitched your work to someone in a gatekeeping capacity, whether that’s a producer, editor, or commissioner. Pitching is hard, but it doesn’t help when you shoot yourself in the foot with a poorly written, researched, or downright desperate cover letter. The article provides some good advice on what not to do here, which is very helpful.

But the real gold is in the short story section, where Devon highlights the challenges of being a reader, and having to slog through the massive slush pile. Basic errors in the first paragraph mean your work is basically DOA, even if the rest of it is pure genius. This is the reality of the business. Readers are over-worked and under-paid, having to read hundreds of submissions in short time-frames. They are looking for any excuse to not read yours - yet writers continue to fail by not taking this into consideration. We want to think our work will be read in its entirety, but it won’t. You get a paragraph, or a single page, and if you can’t generate interest, it’s over.

I had first-hand experiences of this when reading submissions for Consumed, as I was literally reading hundreds of stories. Although I did make sure to read everything, this took a huge amount of time and mental capacity, and the difference between selection and non-selection was often razor-thin.

The take-away for creators, is that even when you feel the story is ready to submit, go back to the first paragraph and page, and ask yourself how it can be improved. I guarantee it can.

Subscribe now

Social proof builds careers

The final article is this one from , which focuses on the association between perceived film quality, and the timing of reviews.

StephenFollows.com - Using data to explain the film industry

Does the timing of reviews predict whether a film is any good?

I think we all suspect that if a distributor is preventing critics from reviewing a movie, it’s not because they’re so pleased with how good it is that they want to make sure the critics really enjoy the anticipation of seeing it…

Read more

6 months ago · 25 likes · 6 comments · Stephen Follows

The article used data to find that early reviews (publication date prior to release date) were correlated with higher film quality, and that this extends backwards in time - so that films being reviewed when still on their festival run, typically have higher quality scores when they are released in cinemas.

Films that studios feel may be weaker, tend to delay their reviews until the last possible moment - ensuring that audiences are essentially blind to the films, so that they achieve the highest possible box office. Conversely, when studios are confident in the film, they want reviews out much earlier to build word of mouth.

This is clearly another example of social proofing, which is something I’ve discussed before in the context of applying information theory to crowdfunding.

Here it would appear that early, positive reviews, will typically lead to herding behaviour, driving people to need to see the film on its opening weekend. This is very similar to how crowdfunding functions - just substitute campaign launch for release date.

What does this mean for indie creators? It again highlights that you need to share your work as early as you can. Get reviews. Do press. Do promotion. Ask for blurbs. I know this may be difficult for some of us - I know it’s often hard for me. But these are all information signals that we - as audience members and consumers - use as proxies for quality. If we want our work to be visible and to cut through the noise, then social proofing is a simple but critical tool that we can leverage. Do it early. Do it often. Just do it1.

What did you think of this post? Is it something you’d like me to do again (likely on a monthly basis)?

As always, feel free to drop your thoughts in the comments or through any other mechanism.

Leave a comment

Are you interested in crowdfunding your book, but terrified about how to get started?

What if you could get practical evidence-based information that’s thoughtful, concise, and actionable?

That’s why I created Crowdfunding for authors, an introductory workshop I’m now making available as a bite-sized mini-course for indie authors. You can purchase the course through the link below - or you can become a paid subscriber and get unlimited access to that, and other stuff.

Let me see the course

If this was useful, consider subscribing. Every 1–2 weeks, I identify practical recommendations from evidence-driven insights to help you grow as an indie creator, and it’s completely free.

It’s exhausting.

I posted a note about this a couple of weeks ago as a way to vent my frustration about this productivity-hustle culture mindset that seems to devour every platform, including this one.

Fortunately, a few people reminded me that there was more nuance that I had neglected to mention (thanks ) and that got me thinking about why I was pissed off, doing some of the self-reflection that I claimed others weren’t doing.

Subscribe now

Growth by itself is nebulous, and to me that’s where the danger lies (the “number go up” model currently in vogue with the tech oligarchs). If I really did “10X” my numbers, what would that mean? Is that good growth? It might sound like it, but then we all know stories about how growing too rapidly can actually destroy a business, rather than enabling a business.

What’s important to me is strategic, targeted growth.

I asked myself if I want more subscribers to my Substack?

Of course, the answer is yes.

But then I asked myself: why? Why do I want more subscribers?

Is it because I’m comparing my numbers to the numbers of other people? If so, that’s foolish.

Is it because I think that having more subscribers will lead to more paid subscribers? Sure. This also makes sense, because the more interactions you have with people, the more likely you are to find those who want to support you.

Which is exactly where the nuance lies.

What I want isn’t more subscribers, but more engaged subscribers who find unique value in the products that I’m offering. Yes, I can see that having more subscribers may lead to identifying more engaged subscribers, but what I’m really looking for isn’t merely growth - it’s the right kind of growth in the right measure. It’s more important to have 100 engaged subscribers than 10,000 disengaged subscribers because the latter is a vanity metric, while the former is likely to occur through ongoing, high-value engagement over time, i.e., the growth is specific and slow.

It’s not about 10X or 100X, it’s about targeted, meaningful, sustainable growth for creators.

To me, this means growth should be strategic and bounded by the amount of resources available to a creator. If growth exceeds the available resources, it could actually lead to contraction.

Subscribe now

What does growth look like?

So what does this actually look like? I think creators like provide great advice, training, and resources to support creative business grow, but I also went to the business literature to find some quick tips to consider.

Gary P. Pisano wrote an interesting article for Harvard Business Review, based on his research into growth. He found that the vast majority of companies do not grow - at least not in the way you may think. The top quartile of companies have double-digit growth (on average) year-over-year, but beyond that quartile, growth is basically zero or even negative.

So while everyone is excited about growth, it’s not actually as prevalent in business as you may think.

Pisano suggests growth should be strategic and responsive to three questions: How fast do they want to grow? In which direction (e.g, which target market)? Using what method (e.g., organic, partnership).

In the same issue, Blase and Leinwand wrote an article focused on how to systematize growth beyond episodic success, where they outlined five critical steps (which I’ve paraphrased below for creators):

Define a compelling customer outcome

You need a clear, relevant, unique promise that defines what you’re creating, and for whom.

Architect the right capabilities

Create a specific blueprint detailing how all growth capabilities work to create products, services, and solutions that deliver on customer-identified outcomes.

Create the right operating model

Ensure integration across different function areas such as marketing, sales, customer service etc., don’t let them become silos that operate independently.

Renew insights continuously

Move beyond trend analysis to direct engagement with your audience.

Measure return and reallocate investment

Evaluate progress towards goals on a regular basis, and reinvest in the areas that are succeeding.

Is this a new and unique insight? Not really. But it’s a good reminder that the first tactic requires defining a unique value-proposition for a specific audience. It’s not just growth for the sake of growth.

It requires a clear understanding about what I write, who my target audience actually is, and what is the unique value that I provide.

The list is also a reminder that you need to collect data from your audience, evaluate progress, and reinvest in your actions. This essentially generates a loop, which reminds me of the Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) cycles which are used in Quality Improvement.

This intuitively makes sense to me. It describes an ongoing, continuous, process where growth is strategic, specific, and iterative. It’s not a one-time action that you can copy and paste from someone else, but rather it’s unique to your specific situation and context, and requires creators to keep making changes as they acquire new data.

Mapping the PDSA domains to the growth elements looks like the following, where some elements live in more than one domain.

The continuous cyclical nature of PDSA suggests an adaptive approach, whereby the plan is refined by the collection of data.

For example, let’s assume that the goal is to increase the number of paid subscribers by 10% in the next two months. Note this is a specific, timely, measurable goal.

Planning:

• Review current subscribers and determine their profiles. What are the common features?

• Consider two methods: a limited-time discount, and a series of paid-subscriber-only posts.

Doing:

• Launch the discount offer across social media, Substack etc.

• Write and publish weekly paid-subscribers-only series of posts. Use the freemium model to provide teasers for non-paying subscribers.

Studying:

• Collect data after 3–4 weeks.

• Compare against the baseline.

• Look for patterns in who responded.

Acting:

• Depending on findings, consider modifications to both or either method.

• Double down on successful methods e.g., if paid-subscriber-only posts are working, then consider moving them to bi-weekly, or bundle the posts together as a new product for paid subscribers.

At this point, the cycle starts again with either a refined goal, refined method/approaches, until the law of diminishing returns kicks in, and you find little or no improvement from cycle to cycle.

I’m curious to try this approach, and will let you know how it works out!

Was there anything in this post that surprised you? How do you think you can use these ideas to support your own creative business, whether here or elsewhere? Why not leave a comment and let me know.

Leave a comment

If this was useful, consider subscribing. Every 1–2 weeks, I identify practical recommendations from evidence-driven insights to help you grow as an indie creator, and it’s completely free.

So far, 2026 looks like it’s leading us straight into the abyss. I don’t know about you, but I’ve found it hard to concentrate on writing, marketing, or pretty much anything because of the daily horrors that fill our news and social media.

It’s a struggle, but I still manage to find some time each day to sit down and put words on the page, because it’s the only way to stay sane. Finding time to create is hard, but it can be done.

The Fiction Coach

Writers Don't Need More Time, They Need Less Friction

Last week, I suggested you track your time in 60-minute increments for a full week if you don’t have enough time to write…

Read more

6 months ago · 8 likes · 2 comments · James Powell

Taking time away from the news and social media is also helpful, as the horrors there will swallow you up, if you let them. It does feel crass and inopportune to try and promote art and creativity during this time.

But, if not now, when?

Pre-orders are currently live for Consumed, a unique, food-themed indie horror that I co-edited with Kacey Flynn.

You can grab the book in digital and physical formats via the link below.

One deliciously deadly desert. A family Christmas interrupted by a game of trick-or-treat. A sentient barrel that knows the taste of human flesh. These are just a few of the macabre tales in Consumed, a food-themed horror anthology.

The stories in Consumed explore themes of consumption, bodily autonomy, and the monstrous by putting a unique spin on the familiar and essential act of eating. These spine-tingling tales introduce you to werewolves, mystery meat, murderers, cannibals, monstrous entities, and even lawyers! Consumed is an imaginative anthology of gruesome stories that celebrate food, drink, life, and death.

Grab your copy here

You may also recall I decided to turn on subscriptions for those of you who wanted to dive deeper into my work, and my thoughts on the art and business side of writing. My decision was heavily influenced by a research paper I came across on subscription-based crowdfunding, and which I analyzed more completely in the post.

Ever since that decision, I’ve been thinking about backer motivation when it comes to Subscription-Based Crowdfunding (SBC), and trying to understand how it differs from the intrinsic and extrinsic motivations that drive backers in Reward-Based Crowdfunding (RBC).

At first glance, these crowdfunding models seems quite different, with SBC not being bound by a timeline or funding goal, focused on recurring (rather than one-off) payments, and focused on supporting an individual creator rather than a specific project. Does this imply that backers are driven by more altruistic motives than in RBC? Not necessarily.

As usual, I went to the research literature in search of answers and found this paper1 which was very helpful in informing my thinking.

The authors of this paper were interested in examining four hypotheses about backer motivation.

1. Current campaign success has a negative impact on supporters’ willingness to pay.

   1. In the SBC context, success here is defined as associated with the level of recurring revenue received by a creator.

2. Current campaign size has a positive impact on supporters’ willingness to pay.

   1. Here, the authors focus on number of backers as a measure of campaign size, with the hypothesis suggesting that herding behaviour can occur when people perceive there are already many backers for a given campaign.

3. Goal proximity has a positive impact on supporters’ willingness to pay.

   1. This speaks to self-reported creator goals (on specific SBC platforms such as Patreon), or pledge-drive type events. An example would be when a creator posts to their campaign suggesting they need to raise a specific dollar amount in order to perform an action (e.g., I need to raise $500 to buy a new Cintiq).

4. Hidden information has a negative impact on a supporters’ willingness to pay

   1. Certain SBC platforms allow(ed) creators to hide measures such as number of backers, or recurring revenue, from their audience. There is mixed evidence about whether this has an impact on subscribers.

To test these hypotheses, the authors undertook a two-step analysis. In the first instance, they reviewed the full Patreon pledge dataset from 2013-205, which was recently made available for research, amounting to just over 580,000 pledges. They could then run regression analysis on this data to search for correlations. However, recognizing this data was a decade old, they undertook a second step by conducting a discrete-choice experiment (basically an online survey that asks respondents to rank a group of scenarios). This essentially allows them to test any associations identified through the regression analysis. The survey also included questions about SBC, so that respondents would be unable to proceed through the survey unless they answered these knowledge testing questions correctly. This helps ensure respondents are making measured choices, since they understand the nature of SBC versus other forms of crowdfunding or retail.

Subscribe now

Analysis of the Patreon data shows positive correlations between all independent variables and a supporters’ willingness to pay (dependent variable), so hypothesis confirmation could only come from the discrete-choice experiment. This was undertaken by 303 recruited participants (with 294 included in the final data). The analysis variables were:

• current recurring income (no information, low, medium, high, very high)

• number of supporters (low, medium, high, very high)

• proximity to a goal (no information, 5%, 50%, 95%)

• tier price

• type of reward available (gratitude, physical, virtual)

The analysis showed that tier price was the most important factor for supporters (51.3% in terms of relative importance), followed by reward type (22.36%), current recurring income (11.75%), goal proximity (7.39%), and number of supporters (4.22%).

In terms of addressing the hypotheses, the analysis found that higher levels of current recurring income led to reduced willingness to pay. This confirmed the first hypothesis, and is likely due to a lack of perceived need to financially support the creator (as they “don’t need it”), which speaks to a reduced altruistic motive amongst supporters.

For hypothesis two, analysis found higher subscriber numbers led to an increased willingness to pay. This confirms the hypothesis, likely due to herding behaviour, but the authors also suggest there is an extrinsic motivation at play, whereby supporters receive community recognition for their backing.

For hypothesis three, analysis found mixed results. There was no linear effect present, but instead the authors identified a U-shaped effect on willingness to pay, with creators who were perceived to be far from their goal (5% level) and those close to their goal (95%) receiving support, but those in the middle seeing significantly less willingness to pay.

The final hypothesis was also confirmed, since hidden information had a negative impact on willingness to pay, likely due to reduced trust between creator and supporter.

What does this mean for creators?

The findings of this paper suggest creators can (and should) design their campaigns to better align with the individual motivations of potential supporters.

Obviously, having many supporters is important, because it drives herding behaviour. Creators should offer cheap reward levels to ensure a lower barrier to entry, and attract new supporters. For SBC platforms like Substack, this can also be achieved using the freemium model (whereby creators offer some of their work for free, providing additional work and value to paid subscribers). The challenge with platforms like Substack, is one of conversion, i.e., turning subscribers into paid subscribers. However, as with other crowdfunding models, there will likely also be supporters who are happy to pay a premium price to support creators, therefore offering both very cheap, and more highly priced tiers is likely a good strategy.

Another consideration is for creators to employ multiple goals, as this will naturally lead to low and high goal proximity for different goals. This is particularly pertinent for those running pledge-drives, which often have only a single stated goal. As with RBC, it may be useful to employ stretch-goals to better stimulate altruistic motivational responses amongst backers.

The final lesson is that success (or perceived success) can be detrimental, as potential supporters may feel the creator doesn’t need their financial contribution. Creators can try to hide or suppress this information, but that could negatively impact the trust between creator and audience. On a platform like Substack, the list of “Top Bestsellers” which is (in whole or in part) based on paid subscription growth, and therefore those who are ranked high on this list may see their revenue stall, as new potential backers decide to financially support creators who are ranked much lower.

The Online Writing Club

The Ultimate 2025 Guide to Substack Leaderboards: Bestsellers & Rising Stars

I just got a notice from Substack that I’m #63 rising in Business…

Listen now

a year ago · 30 likes · 4 comments · Kristina God

Creators who already appear to be successful could mitigate this challenge by refining their messaging to speak directly to altruistic supporter motives (whatever they may be) and ensure they are providing high value rewards to their backers.

Ultimately, this paper argues that SBC creators should tune their campaigns to target both the intrinsic and extrinsic motivations of potential supporters. This means, providing high value through low tier prices, and tailored rewards (the paper actually found physical rewards had a larger impact than digital ones, which could be an opportunity for inventive creators to consider).

Do you agree with the findings here? What changes are you considering for your platform?

Leave a comment

If this was useful, consider subscribing. Every 1–2 weeks, I identify practical recommendations from evidence-driven insights to help you grow as an indie creator, and it’s completely free.

One thing appears clear to me in 2026. The old ways of doing business are changing, if not already dead.

We’ve seen mass consolidation across every sphere of the creative sector in the past few years, leaving only a handful of companies who have become increasingly risk-averse in their decision-making. That’s before we even get into those companies who are preemptively waving the white flags and making cowardly decisions from a place of appeasement rather than creativity.

Now is the time for indie creators to seize the moment. As mainstream entertainment becomes sterile and inoffensive, those of us with idiosyncratic voices and tastes have an opportunity to reach audiences who crave honest stories with something to say.

How can we better position ourselves to do this?

A key part of this is being able to pitch ourselves and our stories in novel and engaging ways.

I can hear many of you groan as you read that. Isn’t this just more unpaid work that creators have to do? Won’t this take time away from simply writing/creating, which is what we really want to do?

You’re absolutely right.

But this is the world in which we live now. The old world - where you could simply make stuff, and eventually you would be ‘discovered’ - is dead. In today’s world, if you want a big audience, then you have to find that small audience first, which means you have to do the work to make this happen.

Subscribe now

Part of that work is about pitching your ideas to a cold audience, to people who don’t know you, or have any opinion about you or your work. Having a good pitch already makes you stand out, whether you’re going an independent route, or whether you’re still trying to make it through the legions of risk-averse gatekeepers in mainstream entertainment.

Pitching is hard. Pitching well, is even harder.

Some people are naturally gifted when it comes to pitching, but I suspect most of us are introverts who hate the sound of their own voice, and would prefer to crawl under a rock than have to try and sell their story to a roomful of suits.

But I don’t think we have a choice anymore. If we want to connect with audiences both in-person and online, we need strong, simple pitches that arouse curiosity and engagement.

That’s why I’ve always turned my pitches into videos.

When I first started writing feature films, I learned pretty quickly that the pitch was everything. Producers wouldn’t even read a script until they had heard the pitch. I like many others, started sending long email missives to production companies and agents, trying to hook them with compelling loglines, and pitch decks.

I got nowhere.

Then I had the idea to make the pitch into a 90-second video which I could upload to YouTube, and started sending emails with the link included. The result? I started getting meetings and reading requests.

Since then, I’ve developed pitch videos for every project I’ve done. Some of those videos have never been shared, but they served a purpose for me, in that they forced me to think hard about what my story was really about, and what I was trying to say.

Now, I feel that these videos can be repurposed, and used as marketing material for online audiences, providing something more engaging than requests to buy my book or comic or whatever.

So, do I know what makes for a good pitch?

I’m still working on that.

But I thought it might be fun to turn one of my pitches into something helpful, so I made a short, but hopefully gun, video about it, which you can check out below.

This video analyzes a pitch video that I ended up sending to the ATX television festival pitch competition in 2015, which resulted in me going to Austin to pitch live to an industry panel (and large audience), and was one of the most terrifying pitching experiences of my life.

Here’s a picture of me during the actual on-stage pitch, looking like I’m about to break into song at any moment. Maybe I should have, as ultimately I didn’t win.

Ultimately, the point, is to think about how creators can authentically share their stories in a quick, engaging, and authentic format, that can be used when trying to connect with traditional gatekeepers, which can also be used and remixed to help build an audience for their work.

Have you ever made a pitch video? Where did you share it, and what happened? Do you think you could make a 90-second video to pitch your current project? Let me know in the comments, below.

Leave a comment

Until next time,

Cheers