I agree although I also don't know what "substance" is. If they're contributing to the monetary value of goods and services being sold to an end user, they're contributing to GDP. If they're not, they're not.
Other than that--or by explicitly considering only manufactured goods for example--you're effectively making value judgements about what products and services contribute to society and which don't. You could equally as well argue (though I wouldn't) that the 50th new rebranded and repackaged laundry powder doesn't contribute either.
One definition of "substance" might be consumer surplus. Electricity provides massive utility to society, despite its relatively cheap price. Consumer surplus is not reflected in GDP, but it is certainly real and important.
Other than that--or by explicitly considering only manufactured goods for example--you're effectively making value judgements about what products and services contribute to society and which don't. You could equally as well argue (though I wouldn't) that the 50th new rebranded and repackaged laundry powder doesn't contribute either.