Creator Interview: Elle Griffin

An honest look at web3 & book publishing

Photo by GR Stocks on Unsplash

Hello friends! We’re doing something a little different today - an interview!

Elle Griffin is the author of The Novelleist where she is writing a utopian novel and a collection of essays imagining a more beautiful future.

There aren’t enough good things to say about her & her newsletter. She’s open, honest, and most importantly, vulnerable. It’s a real window inside the mind of a talented fiction writer. Elle is an accomplished author with a variety of articles & experience in web3 and the creator economy. I encourage you to join me & become a regular reader of her newsletter!

With that out of the way, let’s get into the questions!

What has been working well for you in web3?

After all my experimentation in the web3 world, my conclusion was that it was too soon for web3. At least in the book publishing world, there are not enough readers on any of those platforms to merit putting my work there.

What was interesting to me was the idea that investors could invest in a creator's work rather than own it outright (which is how a lot of record labels, film studios, and publishing houses operate today). I'd rather own my own work, and I'd rather have an investor than a publishing contract, but right now there isn't a market for that in the web3 world, and I'd be better off with a non-smart contract and a regular old angel investor!

That might change in the future, and I'll be watching it in case it does. But Substack is the first place I've actually seen readers flock to in a long time. And I strongly doubt a company in the web3 world is going to be able to replicate that at scale.

First, web3 technologies need to get to mainstream acceptance. We might be headed in that direction, but right now most of the web3 platforms are trying to remake web2 platforms on the blockchain. And I think that's the wrong strategy, because it's very hard to achieve mass adoption of a platform. We'd be better off adding web3 technologies to existing platforms that already have large user bases.

Do you think Substack will become the default way to become a full-time writer online?

For instance, right now there is a company called Paragraph that wants to be "Substack for the blockchain." But Substack has created a place where millions of people read every day, and creating that market of readers is extremely difficult to do. Maybe there's a world in which Paragraph innovates above and beyond Substack and readers shift from Substack to Paragraph. But I think the more likely outcome is that Paragraph, which has the technology but very few readers, will die. And Substack, which has millions of readers, can easily add web3 elements and win.

The market of readers is the hard thing to create, not the technology. So I want to rephrase your question from, "do I think Substack will become the default way to become a full-time writer online," to "do I think Substack will become the default place people read online?" And the answer is yes I do. And wherever there is a market of readers is, is where the writers will go.

Web3 involves very interesting technology that could be used by artists in very interesting ways. But I think that technology needs to be used in existing markets for it to become mainstream. Until then, it exists within the realm of early adopters. I might be able to make money writing a blockchain book, but no one will read it. I'd rather put me work where it will be read.

With all this in mind, what should aspiring creators be doing today to position themselves for if/when web3 gets incorporated into existing social media?

The way I see it, the best thing you can do as a creator, regardless of the technological landscape, is build a platform for your work—somewhere where you can take that platform with you if it fails.

For example, I chose to build a platform for my work on Substack because, even if Substack fails or another platform becomes more popular, I can download a list of all my email subscribers at any time and take them all with me. That is not the case with say, Wattpad, where I have followers but no actual email addresses. If Wattpad suddenly changes their algorithm so that my followers no longer see my posts (as Facebook and then Instagram did), there’s nothing I can do—all the work I put into building a following for my work is gone.

So build a platform for your work, one that you own—that's important whether you eventually plan to monetize it using subscription services like Substack or Patreon or using web3 technologies if that's a thing, or even go out to get an agent and sign a book deal. The platform is what makes everything else possible!

Do you think web 2.5 is a more likely outcome of public blockchain adoption?

From what I understand, "web2.5" just means the liminal state between web2 and web3—so no, I don't think we'll stay in this place forever. I think we'll build web3 but it will look different than the web3 everyone is imagining.

What does the future creator economy look like, and how likely is web3 tech to be part of it?

The promise of web3 is good. There is this idea that creators should be able to own their work, and that web3 technologies would allow fans to invest in it.

For instance: Right now Taylor Swift is re-recording all of her old albums because they are owned by an investment firm who won't grant her rights to her own work. She got into this scenario because, early on in her career, she needed an investor who could fund the creation and distribution of her albums, her music videos, her tours, etc. At the time, a record label said, 'hey, we'll fund all of that, in return we'll own your master's.'

The promise of the web3 world—especially NFTs—was to say, why don't we get investors involved to foot the bill, while the artist still retains ownership of their work? In this case, investors might put up enough money to own 49% of Taylor Swift's master's, while she retains the other 51%—with each of them earning royalties on their share. Investors earn a percentage of revenues, artists get the funding they need while retaining ownership of their work.

The kind of ridiculous thing about this idea is that we don't actually need web3 to make that work. That's literally how investors invest in startups right now—they invest money in exchange for equity. And they use regular contracts to do it rather than smart contracts. The web3 world just popularized it for artists with NFTs—and I still don't think the promise of the web3 world is the reality.

As a result, maybe there's a future where record labels, movie studios, and publishing houses invest in an artist, rather than purchase their work outright. But whether that takes place in the blockchain is irrelevant.

What would an ideal creator economy look like to you?

Honestly, Substack's pretty close to being the ideal for me. Where it might be cool to add some investing tools would be if I could also crowdfund some of my startup capital—and I've thought about launching a Kickstarter or Republic campaign for that purpose. Upfront investment would allow me to do really amazing things with my art—like print my books, record a vinyl album, host an in-person dinner party, etc—it also might allow me to have enough upfront capital to quit my job and focus on my art. But it would also mean sacrificing equity in my art, and I'm not willing to do that at this point.

I'd rather have an investor who owns 49% of my work than a publishing contract that owns 100% of my work. But the best case scenario is still to own 100% of my work. Just like in the startup world, it's much better to take no investment at all if you can help it! And because Substack has given me direct access to readers, I no longer need an investor or a publishing house to give me a platform for my work. The promise of the creator economy is that we can create that platform on our own!

---