Dead Man Walking

I was once, perhaps, considered a rising star on Substack, but I think “someone” noticed my work and pegged me as a threat to the Establishment, which I think explains my plummeting Substack metrics.

Instead of “Dead Man Walking,” I might figuratively be “Dead Journalist Pecking.”

For at least 20 months, I’ve possessed the sneaking suspicion my Substack newsletter is somehow being targeted, IMO to suppress the number of people my articles reach.

I admit this suspicion might be paranoia and my “Spider Sense” could be completely wrong … however, this is my theory and, for now, I’m sticking with it.

In today’s dispatch, I summarize a few of my own Substack metrics I think support this theory and, in Part 2, will provide my thoughts on why my particular Substack might have been targeted for reach-suppression operations.

If sophisticated forms of censorship are being employed against my newsletter - and somehow this operation could be proven or confirmed - this revelation would be immensely disturbing and, I believe, would provide evidence that Orwellian censorship continues to be prevalent and must involve significant levels of coordination, utilizing myriad and sinister technological tools.

If reach-suppression efforts are being employed against my Substack, I also think this would provide compelling clues which could identify the taboo subjects the world’s real rulers and controllers are determined to conceal from the public.

A supplemental take-away of my hypothesis is that the content and theories of certain citizen journalists are deemed to be more “thermo-nuclear” than those of other “contrarian” authors. That is, I believe different “algorithms” or tools are being used to suppress the reach of skeptics who have been assessed as greater potential “threats.”

Furthermore, I think evidence of on-going censorship would strongly suggest that the “Powers that Be” are not finished rolling out nefarious and draconian initiatives or agendas. To bring these authoritarian/Orwellian programs to fruition, the world’s real rulers know they must target those with the greatest potential to thwart their plans.

What makes me believe my Substack newsletter might have been targeted to ensure I don’t reach more people in the future?

As I’ve noted in several dispatches, for the first 12 months of this newsletter all of my key metrics (Subscribers, Page Views, “Likes,” Reader Comments, Shares, etc.) were growing rapidly.

However, approximately 18 months ago, all of these positive trends reversed - and reversed hard and conspicuously.

Significantly to myself, while my total subscriber numbers have doubled in the past 31 months, my most important metric - the number of people reading my content - hasn’t increased at all and, in fact, has plummeted.

(I reached 3,951 subscribers in eight months. It then took me 31 months to add the same number of subscribers. Recently, I have been losing an average of four subscribers every day.)

As one of my New Abnormal maxims postulates, “freedom of reach is perhaps just as important as freedom of speech.” At least in my own case study, even though I was once a contrarian Substack author whose star was rapidly ascending, the “stock price” of my newsletter clearly became “bearish” for reasons that strike me as odd, puzzling or non-sensical.

As I’ve also documented, the reversal of my Substack metrics occurred at the same time the subscription statistics of numerous Leftist or Statist authors were rapidly doubling, tripling and quadrupling.

Generally speaking, authors who support and defend the “authorized narratives” were now experiencing rapid growth, while authors like myself who were trying to detonate potentially thermo-nuclear truth bombs were either experiencing stagnant, modest or negative growth on Substack.

This statistic might highlight the change in the popularity of my Substack.

• In the first 20 months of my Substack, my paid subscriber number increased from zero to 291. In the next 20 months - after I was established and (I think) had shown that I could consistently produce quality original content and my “brand” was much-better known - I lost 37 paid subscribers.

Instead of being on pace to reach 1,000 paid subscribers by the end of 2027 (which was once the case), current trends suggest I will have fewer than 100 paid subscribers by the end of next year.

In football parlance, this would qualify as a “sudden change.” As my subscriber Kim Di Giacomo recently pointed out in a Reader Comment, the change in subscriber metrics has not been “evenly distributed” among Leftist writers and conservative writers.

(These trends also explain today’s provocative headline. As a potentially influential Substack citizen journalist, I might be deceased in 24 months … if not sooner … When I advise readers to “post while you still can,” I’m actually talking to myself).

While I think many “Covid Contrarian” authors could report similar trend-reversals in the past 18 to 24 months, I think readership attrition at my newsletter is more pronounced than many of my colleagues - which, obviously, makes me wonder “what’s different with Bill Rice, Jr.?”

My “Spider Sense” that fewer readers are now receiving my dispatches is supported by my analysis - not of total subscribers, but of the number of “likes” and Reader Comments my articles generate (compared to dispatches from the first two years of my newsletter).

Even more striking to myself is the tiny number of “likes” (often zero) that comments in my Reader Comments Section generate.

For example, in my last article, 12 of the 49 comments my article generated were actually made by myself and only eight or nine readers (out of almost 8,000 subscribers) made a comment. Seven of my comments generated zero “likes” and four generated just one “like,” which suggests to me that few readers are reading my Comments section and responding to my posts - which is starkly different than the newsletters of other “Covid Contrarian” authors with similar subscription numbers.

IMO if more people - or the same numbers of people - were reading my articles, these metrics - which prove readership - should be much higher.

For myself, the scant evidence of “reader engagement” in my Comments Section is particularly disappointing as I include many of my more provocative observations and theories in follow-up posts in the Reader Comments section.

Per my theory, “someone” might have figured out that the most-threatening content in my newsletter is often developed in the Reader Comment section. It, thus, might follow that the fewer people who read these posts the better (at least for those interested in suppressing certain threads of inquiry or my efforts to connect potentially seismic “dots.”)

(It will be interesting to note the Page View, Share, “Like” and Reader Comments today’s dispatch generates.)

Comparing my newsletter to the Simulation Commander, Mark Oshinskie and Jenna McCarty …

To test my theory, I’ve observed the differences in the number of “likes” and “Reader” comments of three of my favorite “Covid Contrarian” authors - Simulation Commander, Mark Oshinskie and Jenna McCarthy. Of note, I have more subscribers than two of these authors and the third, Jenna, doesn’t have that many more subscribers than I do.

Still, as this metric-analysis shows, all three of my friends and colleagues blow my doors off when it comes to the number of “likes” and Reader Comments their dispatches generate.

To keep my analysis simple and recent, I tallied the average number of “likes” and Reader Comments that the last three articles of these authors produced and compared these numbers to my own metrics.

(Note: Analysis figures were tallied at 8:30 a.m. on Wednesday (today) and numbers for my last article have no doubt increased by the time I post this article).

Bill Rice, Jr. (7,897 subscribers)

Average number of “Likes” for last three stories: 62.3

Average number of Reader Comments: 36

- Note: A significant percentage of these Reader Comments were made by me.

Simulation Commander (6,500 subscribers)

Average number of “Likes” last 3 stories: 158

Average number of Reader Comments: 128.7

Mark Oshinskie (5,800 subscribers)

Average number of “Likes” last 3 stories: 149.7

Average number of Reader Comments: 123.3

Jenna McCarthy (9,300 subscribers)

Average number of “Likes” last 3 stories: 222.3

Average number of Reader Comments: 224

Take-aways:

• While I have 1,400 more subscribers than Simulation Commander, my friend’s dispatches still generate, on average, 96 more “likes” per story and 93 more Reader Comments.

• While I have 2,100 more subscribers than Mark, my friend’s dispatches, on average, generate 87 more “likes” and 87 more Reader Comments.

• Jenna McCarthy has 1,400 more subscribers than I do (17.7 percent more subscribers) … however Jenna’s stories average 3.6X as many “likes” and 6.2X as many Reader Comments as my stories.

Main take-away: Based on these metrics, evidence suggests my stories are being read by far fewer people than these three excellent Covid Contrarian colleagues. However, I have more subscribers than two of these authors.

Another odd metric:

As everyone on Substack knows, the most popular Reader Comments are placed at the top of the Comment Section. Maybe I’ve become obsessed with analyzing my own metrics, but I also note how many “likes” the most popular comments generate.

Per my observations, the most popular comments at newsletters with similar numbers of subscribers as my own routinely generate 20 to 50 (or even more) “likes.” In contrast, at my newsletter it’s now rare that the most-popular comment generates more than eight “likes.” This, to me, is another metric that might suggest fewer readers are visiting my Reader Comments section, which makes me think fewer people are receiving my dispatches.

For the record, I should note that the declining number of “likes” and Reader Comments at my newsletter is also a new development or a change. I have previously gone back into my archives and - don’t roll your eyes - counted the number of “likes” and Reader Comments my articles once generated.

Twelve months ago, 18 months ago, 24 months ago, even 30 months ago, my articles, on average, generated significantly more “likes” and Reader Comments than my articles of recent months. Strangely, I had far more “likes” and Reader Comments when I had far fewer subscribers - which seems non-sensical (or odd) to me.

Considering possible explanations for the disparity between my newsletter and that of my friends …

The first or most obvious possible explanation for the above-cited metric disparities (in “likes” and Reader Comments) would be that the newsletters of my colleagues are simply more popular with readers.

If one’s gauge is the number of “likes” and Reader Comments, this is obviously the case.

However, it would seem to me that if Mark and Simulation Commander’s newsletters were far more popular than my own, they would have more subscribers than I do.

Another theory/possible explanation would be that readers of these three newsletters are simply far more likely than my own readers to skim the Reader Comments section or hit a story they like with a “like.”

Even if the readers of Mark, SC and Jenna are far more inclined to hit the “like” button or make Reader Comments than my own readers, it doesn’t seem that the disparity would be this striking. (For example, Jenna’s content generates almost seven times as many Reader Comments as mine does. On average, the articles of Simulation Commander and Mark produce almost three times the number of “likes” as my articles.)

When it comes to “evidence of reader engagement,” for some reason(s), I’m not even in the same ballpark with my writing peers.

Have I completely lost my Mojo as a Substack author?

Another possible explanation would be depressing to consider, but could be the harsh truth. Namely, readers are simply tiring of my essays and I don’t have the number of “fans” I once did. The reason fewer people hit the like button is they didn’t like the article. Far fewer people make comments because the topic of the article didn’t really interest them.

Here, I must say I’m biased, but I think my writing is just as good as it was when I burst onto the scene as a “Covid contrarian” writer 40 months ago. In fact, ever the contrarian, I think many of my pieces might be better because my theses are now better informed (based on copious research and non-stop reflection on the topics I’m writing about).

As noted, I now get far fewer Reader Comments than I once did, but the comments I do receive are often incredibly kind and flattering. “This is your best piece yet, Bill” or “This is another great analysis” would be samples of the comments I receive.

I can’t remember a comment where someone told me one of my articles was awful or my points were ridiculous.

Playing my own critic, I would agree that some of my articles (including this one) are maybe too long, but most of my pieces can be read in eight to 12 minutes. (If you calculated the average word count of my articles and Mark’s, we both probably write articles of the same average length. My articles are certainly 6,000 words shorter than those published by A Midwestern Doctor, who is one of the few “Covid Contrarian” authors who has experienced impressive growth in the past 12 to 18 months.)

***

I’ve followed the advice of Substack experts and produce content on a consistent basis (almost one article a day). I’ve broken or highlighted numerous scoops and, IMO, many of my topics, at least get an “A” or “B” for originality.

Also, I know that, at one time, my articles were very popular. For example, for more than a year, “Citizen Kane,” the proprietor of Citizen Free Press, routinely linked to my articles. I know those articles were popular because my “Page View” metrics would jump from 4,000 to 20,000 to 74,000. Plus, the mysterious Mr. Kane wouldn’t have kept running my articles if they weren’t generating many reads.

I’ve also had articles picked up by The Daily Sceptic, The Brownstone Journal, Real Clear Markets and a couple at Zero Hedge. Those articles all generated positive numbers and flattering reader comments.

(As a possibly germane aside, Citizen Free Press and Real Clear Markets suddenly stopped running my articles - for some reason.)

Once upon a time, it was common for my articles to instantly produce 40 to 500 new subscribers. Per simple deduction, all of those new subscribers must have “liked” my articles or, presumably, they wouldn’t have subscribed.

In the past 10 or so months, half of my new articles produce zero new subscribers - which is not only a “change” but a stark change.

Journalists should look for changes …

In a future article, I plan to share a “pro tip” that explains how I come up with many of my story topics.

In my job, all I do is perform constant research and reading, then throw in a good deal of thinking, which allows me to identify trends or events that have changed. I look for examples of something that was once normal and then, at some point, was no longer normal, producing a world I now call our “New Abnormal.”

IMO, the changes in my Substack metrics are not “normal.” Such massive changes are not what I would expect to observe given my past history and the positive and encouraging feedback I once received.

As I’ve also written numerous times, the best question is always “Why?”- which has led me to ask this question:

Why did my metrics suddenly change so abruptly?

My answer/hypothesis: I think the stories I’m trying to highlight - many of which could be “thermo-nuclear” if enough people, or the “right people,” were exposed to them - have put a target on my back.

In Part 2, I’ll itemize the unique storylines I’ve developed that I think probably explain why “someone” doesn’t want my newsletter to grow and reach more people.

At least to myself, it’s a given that Narrative Controllers fear certain revelations being exposed and reaching a mass market. IMO, powerful and psychopathic villains have identified the writers and public figures with the potential to ruin their lives and defeat their plans.

Only a microscopic number of people on the planet pose any kind of real threat to the world’s real rulers. While this opinion might make some of my valued readers shake their heads at my self-regard, I really do think a fairly obscure freelance journalist from a small town in south Alabama might be in this group … which, per my theory, best explains why my growth metrics on Substack changed so dramatically and why I might be a “Dead Man Walking” on Substack.

***

(I am in the middle of a one-week subscription drive. Thank you very much to the three new paid subscribers this effort has so produced so far. I have lost 31 total subscribers in the past 8 days, which is not an encouraging “trend.”)

Writer gratuities via Ko-Fi.