
Substack's video push faces YouTube dominance and interactive TV's history of failure. 90% revenue share tempts creators, but distribution and funding gaps remain. Next 12 months determine viability.
Substack launched a TV app in January, and cofounder Hamish McKenzie is pitching it as the platform's entry into original video series. At Substack's "The Once and Future Media Forum" in New York, McKenzie pointed to Ben Sinclair, creator of HBO's "High Maintenance," whose new project "The SUR Experience" lives entirely on Substack. The vision: users subscribe to channels, studios, or independent filmmakers, consuming video alongside podcasts and written posts with built-in commenting and live chats.
McKenzie told Business Insider the shift is "already happening." The platform's video push began last year with a live video feed and the arrival of former CNN anchor Jim Acosta. Substack now wants to evolve beyond newsletters into a home for interactive television.
Substack's core pitch to video creators is the revenue split: 90% of subscription revenue stays with the creator. McKenzie emphasized that show makers would keep earning from their community even after a series ends. "The show makers would be continuing to make the money from those subscriptions, and they'd be keeping the 90% of the revenue," he said.
Substack is funding some production costs to seed the ecosystem. Caroline Chambers, Substack's top food creator, is launching a cooking show with Substack covering part of the production. The platform also connects creators with production crews. McKenzie described Substack as an infrastructure provider, not a studio. "We see ourselves as providing infrastructure," he said. "We're not editorially in control. We don't own anything."
McKenzie contrasted Substack's model with traditional TV's half-hour episodes funded by 30-second ads. He pointed to the original "High Maintenance" episodes, which varied from a few minutes to 15 minutes, as a template. The comparison also highlights the scale gap. HBO's "Succession" had an estimated production budget of about $90 million per season, according to TheWrap. Substack is not offering that kind of upfront financing to most creators.
Brandon Katz, an entertainment strategist at Greenlight Analytics, said Substack's opportunity is to help creators "deepen and embolden paid audience relationships through another medium, which is video." The open question is whether a 90% revenue share compensates for the lack of distribution muscle and production funding.
McKenzie envisions a lean-forward television experience. He imagines a series like "Succession" on Substack: "There'll be people in the comments every show, there'll be live chats all the time about it. There'd be behind-the-scenes Substack lives going on every so often."
The concept of interactive TV has been tried repeatedly without a breakthrough. "Media has been trying to get interactive TV right for years, and nobody has quite nailed it yet," Katz said. Television is a lean-back medium by consumer preference. Asking viewers to comment, chat, and engage during a show adds friction that most streaming services have avoided.
McKenzie's argument that creators can keep earning from subscriptions after a series ends assumes that subscribers remain engaged. That is unproven. If a creator finishes a show, the community may drift to the next creator rather than continue paying. Substack's model depends on creator loyalty, not platform stickiness. The platform's pitch of community monetization after a show ends is untested at scale.
Substack's biggest structural obstacle is YouTube. YouTube is the top streaming service on TVs in the US, and it is aggressively pitching advertisers for TV budgets. Creators like Kareem Rahma, the "Subway Takes" creator, already treat YouTube as television. "You go home, you sit on your couch, you open the YouTube app, and you watch this television show the same way that you would any other television show," Rahma said at a premiere for his new YouTube show.
YouTube offers creators a massive built-in audience, sophisticated ad revenue sharing, and a comments section. Substack's 90% revenue share looks generous. It comes with a much smaller audience. Creators must decide whether a higher cut of a smaller pie beats a lower cut of YouTube's enormous pie.
McKenzie argues that Substack's commenting tools and live chats create a direct relationship between creator and fan that YouTube cannot replicate. He pointed to Sinclair's Substack, which started as a documentation of weaning off marijuana and evolved into content about a cult. Sinclair said Substack offers "a clear, undisturbed inner monologue of what's going on with the character."
YouTube also has comments, live streams, and community tabs. The difference is that Substack is subscription-first, while YouTube is ad-supported and algorithm-driven. Substack's model may appeal to creators who want to escape the algorithm and build a dedicated paid audience. The trade-off is smaller reach and no algorithmic boost.
Ben Sinclair's journey on Substack illustrates the platform's potential and its limits. He started posting about his marijuana withdrawal, then began creating content about a cult. The result is "The SUR Experience," a meta web series that is difficult to summarize. In one video, Sinclair pitches a show to McKenzie (playing himself) and asks for millions. McKenzie rejects the plea and tells Sinclair that Substack is useful for building an audience and earning money from fans.
Substack is not funding Sinclair's show. The platform is relying on organic creator adoption rather than big-budget originals. That approach keeps costs low. It also limits the scale of productions. Sinclair's show is a small experiment, not a bannerhead for mass adoption.
McKenzie described Substack as an infrastructure provider: "We're not putting the thumbs on the scale in terms of distribution." Creators can "pick and choose" from formats: video, newsletters, podcasts, or a mix. This flexibility is a strength. It also means Substack is not aggressively promoting video over other formats. The platform is hedging its bets.
For a creator deciding between Substack and YouTube or other platforms, the relevant factors are concrete.
Practical rule: Substack is best for creators who already have a loyal newsletter audience willing to pay monthly. It is weaker for discovery. A new creator without an existing fanbase will struggle on Substack versus YouTube's search and recommendation engine.
Katz summed up the broader context: "History has shown us that cost-controlled experimentation and expansion is the way forward. Remaining static in a constantly changing and volatile media ecosystem is not an option." Substack is experimenting. The cost is modest. The upside is a new revenue stream. The risk is that the experiment stays small.
The next 12 months will show whether Substack can turn its HBO pitch into a real business line. If funded shows like Chambers' cooking series generate buzz and subscriber retention, the platform may attract more creators. If not, video will remain a side feature for a newsletter company.
For broader context on how media platforms are reshaping content economics, see our stock market analysis coverage.
Prepared with AlphaScala editorial tooling from the source reporting linked above. Indexable analysis may include a cited Alpha Score value. Publishing checks screen each story before release. Educational coverage, not personalized advice.