Platforms like Substack have undeniably changed the game, empowering countless writers, journalists, and experts to connect directly with their audience and earn a living through paid subscriptions. It’s fantastic to see individual creators finding independence and building loyal followings this way. We celebrate that empowerment.
But as this landscape matures, a question arises: Does the direct subscription model solve every challenge, especially for funding ambitious, time-consuming, or costly creative work? What about deep investigative journalism that takes months? Or intricate narrative art projects? Or consistent, professional reporting covering our own Austin neighborhoods? Can these always rely solely on individual subscribers signing up before the work is even created?
This is where exploring different approaches becomes crucial. While Substack offers a powerful model focused on supporting the writer, here at InHouse Journal (IHJ), we're experimenting with a complementary model focused on funding the specific creative work or project itself, within an integrated ecosystem designed for trust and sustainability.
Let’s break down some of the key differences:
The Core Focus:
- Substack: Empowers the individual writer/creator. Success is primarily measured by their ability to attract and retain direct subscribers.
- InHouse: Aims to enable the creation of specific, often ambitious, projects. Success involves not only creating valuable content but also fostering a sustainable ecosystem with aligned incentives for creators, supporters, and the platform. It's about ecosystem health and blended value (positive impact + financial viability).
How Funding Works:
- Substack: Primarily recurring subscriptions paid by readers directly to the writer. Substack facilitates payments for a cut.
- InHouse: Uses multiple streams, centered around the “Story-Stock.” This allows the community to invest directly in specific project proposals vetted by IHJ. If successful, these Story-Stocks generate potential dividends for investors (and creators who opt-in) from advertising revenue tied directly to that content's engagement. We also plan for platform subscriptions for premium features.
What It Means for Creators:
- Substack: Offers independence, full editorial control, and direct revenue based on audience size. The pressure is on the creator to consistently deliver value to subscribers.
- InHouse: Aims to provide upfront funding for larger projects via Story-Stocks, potentially reducing personal financial risk. Offers creators a choice: take a payout (Opt-Out) or retain an equity stake in their work's success (Opt-In). Comes with editorial partnership (via IHJ) and platform support, but less absolute individual control than Substack.
What It Means for Supporters/Readers:
- Substack: You directly support a writer you value, often getting exclusive content or community access for your subscription fee. Your risk is low (the cost of subscribing).
- InHouse: You can support specific projects you believe should exist. By purchasing a Story-Stock, you're essentially making a regulated investment in that story's potential, possibly earning financial dividends alongside the impact of the work itself. This involves investment risk but offers a different kind of participation.
Content & Curation:
- Substack: A vast ocean of content. Quality and focus are determined solely by the individual writer. Minimal gatekeeping.
- InHouse: Likely more focused on project-based work requiring significant investment (time or money). Involves an editorial vetting process (via IHJ) for projects seeking Story-Stock funding and publication. This implies a level of curation and potentially different standards.
Platform & Complexity:
- Substack: Provides relatively simple, focused tools for publishing, subscriptions, and payments.
- InHouse: Is conceived as a complex, integrated ecosystem combining a publisher (IHJ), a regulated marketplace (Story-Stocks), an ad engine, community tools, potentially a media intelligence arm, and built-in compliance – much higher operational complexity.
Building Trust:
- Substack: Trust resides primarily with the individual writer's reputation and credibility.
- InHouse: Aims for systemic trust engineered into the platform itself through transparency, compliance, clear processes, editorial standards, and defined mechanisms (our “Trust Architecture”).
Community Model:
- Substack: Primarily a direct link between writer and reader/subscriber.
- InHouse: Envisions a multi-stakeholder ecosystem connecting readers, creators, investors, potentially advertisers, and the platform itself, with features designed to foster interaction between these groups (like Neighborhood Pages for hyperlocal focus).
Different Tools for Different Needs
It's crucial to see these as different tools, not necessarily competitors replacing one another. Substack brilliantly serves independent voices building direct audiences. InHouse is an experiment designed to address a different, vital need: creating sustainable pathways for funding high-quality, ambitious, potentially costly work that might struggle in a purely subscription-driven model. Think deep investigative reporting, complex narrative projects, or reviving consistent hyperlocal news coverage block by block.
We believe a healthy creative ecosystem needs multiple funding models. While Substack empowers the writer, InHouse aims to empower the work itself, creating a new way for communities to invest directly in the stories and creative projects they value most.
What do you think? What funding models do creators need most right now? Is investing in specific stories a path worth exploring? We're building InHouse to find out, and we invite you to join the conversation.