Substack has established itself as the reference platform for professional newsletters. Journalists, essayists, sector analysts and, increasingly, organizations have moved part of their communication there. The interesting question isn't whether it works (it does), but for whom and under what conditions joining makes sense.

For a public or complex organization, that decision shouldn't be made because it's trendy or under internal pressure. It should be made after answering four questions no marketing vendor will ask you unless you ask them first.

What Substack solves (and why that matters now)

Substack solves three concrete problems that have built up over the last decade:

  1. An audience you own. Unlike social media, your subscriber list is yours. It doesn't depend on a third party's algorithm. If Substack disappeared tomorrow, you'd export the list and keep communicating from somewhere else.
  2. Distribution without algorithmic intermediaries. What you publish reaches the inbox of whoever subscribed. There's no competing for reach.
  3. Very low entry cost and simple upkeep. No templates to design, no infrastructure to maintain. You publish almost like a blog, at half the effort.

These three points resonate especially with organizations that have watched their social media posts generate less and less organic reach, and seen how dependence on external algorithms makes any medium-term strategy unsustainable.

Owning your audience isn't a luxury: it's the only way to have a communication channel you're accountable for, not a third party's algorithm.

When Substack fits a public organization

It fits well when three conditions are met at once:

The three conditions for a good fit

  • There's something to say on a regular basis. If you're not going to publish at least once a month with substantive content, it isn't worth opening the channel. An abandoned newsletter communicates worse than no newsletter at all.
  • There's an identifiable audience that would value the format. Sector professionals, specialized journalists, interest groups who already consume newsletters: that's the natural audience. The general public probably isn't.
  • There's someone to write it with their own editorial judgment. This isn't a community manager's job. It's the job of someone with the authority to set the message and sign what's said.

When it's better not to join

It doesn't fit when any of the above isn't met. But there are three specific situations where opening an institutional Substack backfires:

  1. If the organization can't handle a direct editorial tone. Substack rewards voices with judgment, not recycled institutional press releases. If everything published has to clear five layers of approval, the result will be a diluted bulletin no one reads.
  2. If the frequency depends on one person's availability. When that person goes on vacation, changes roles or leaves the organization, the channel dies. Dead personal channels communicate abandonment.
  3. If there's no decision on what to do with subscribers. A subscriber list is an asset. If there's no clarity on how it's used, how it's cared for and how it respects GDPR, better not to build it.

The most common mistake: treating Substack like another social channel

Many organizations launch their Substack as if it were just another account: the same tone, the same rehashed content, the same generic cadence. The result is predictable: low open rates, high unsubscribe rate, gradual abandonment.

Substack works when it's treated as an editorial outlet, not a distribution channel. It has an editorial line, a recognizable voice, judgment about what gets in and what doesn't. If the organization isn't willing to treat it that way, the tool won't make up the difference.

What we ask for when we help set one up

When an organization asks us to open a Substack as part of its strategy, before touching the platform we do four things:

  1. Define the editorial mandate: what it publishes, for whom, how often and under whose authority it's signed.
  2. Build the first six months' plan: not individual pieces, but thematic arcs consistent with the overall communication plan.
  3. Set up the measurement system: which metrics matter, which are ignored and what decisions follow from them.
  4. Define the continuity protocol: what happens if the person signing it leaves, how it's handed over, how the channel is guaranteed not to die.

Without these four elements, opening a Substack is just creating an account. With them, it's building a channel that delivers value for years.

If your organization is considering opening a Substack and wants an independent read before deciding, that's exactly the kind of conversation we start with.

Let's talk

No commitment. Reply within 48h.

Conclusion

Substack is an excellent tool for the problem it solves: direct communication, without intermediaries, with an audience you own. It isn't a universal solution. For a public or complex organization, the decision to join should be editorial and strategic, not a matter of trend.

Done well, it delivers value for years. Done just to follow the current, it becomes one more channel to maintain, an asset that erodes, and a distraction from what was actually moving the needle.