Fear probably explains why Substack’s paid numbers are so low

In this article, I show that families used to pay for content, and present a proposal that might resonate with 7 percent of Substack readers.

Our family always subscribed to Newsweek and I remember this edition from 1983.  I like the “Right Stuff” theme as we’re going to find out if America still has enough citizens with the Right Stuff to fight our captured institutions and faux leaders. Today Newsweek symbolizes the dying MSM.

I’ve been wracking my brain trying to answer one question:  Why is 3 or 4 percent paid subscribers the ceiling on what’s possible for even a successful Substack author?

I think the primary answer is fear. The vast majority of Substack readers are probably like me - they fear not having enough money to pay the bills they have to pay.

Especially in times of rampant inflation, people are far more inclined to eliminate paid subscriptions instead of adding more paid subscriptions. Cutting out or cutting back on paid subscriptions is one of the easiest inflation “work-arounds.”

Substack is also an odd business model in that most of its readers can receive the exact same articles and content … for free.

The pitch for supporting Substack “freedom writers” is also vague and gives no assurances that the journalism and commentary of citizen journalists will  directly benefit those who do literally “buy in.”

The most salient pitch for Substack’s freedom writers might be that we’re trying to save the world or we are helping lead the fight against corrupt or captured organizations.  

As my research shows, about 1 to 4 percent of Substack readers do, in fact, embrace this pitch and are willing to support their favorite Substack authors. Many inspiring citizens are supporting multiple Substack writers. (One of my subscribers, Dr. K, is supporting 80 different Substack writers by himself!)

But, so far at least, I’ve failed in my quest to show that the influence of Substack citizen journalists would be much greater if we boosted this figure to, say, 10 percent paid.

With today’s article, I’ll attempt to demonstrate that, historically, adjusted for inflation, Americans in past decades paid more for subscriptions than they’re paying today.

I also will provide a few numbers which might show what would happen if “our side” could triple the number of Substack readers currently paying for Substack content (with these new Substack funders still spending sums that would be affordable to most middle class citizens).

The Rice Family Example, circa 1983

My late parents, at different times (and for decades), subscribed to the largest newspaper in our area (The Montgomery Advertiser), our local small-town newspaper, Newsweek, Sports Illustrated, TV Guide, Readers Digest and other periodicals popular at the time.

My father (our family’s sole income-provider back in the days when some families could get by with just one income-provider) was probably spending at least $10/month in 1983 to receive “journalism content.”

Adjusted for inflation, $10 month on subscriptions in 1983 would equate to $30.83 in today’s money, according to the “Inflation calculator” I used.

However, I note that just about every family in 2023 has cut out paid subscriptions to at least one of their newspapers. For example, in Troy, Alabama, thousands of middle class families once subscribed to The Montgomery Advertiser. Today, I’d bet fewer than 1 percent of local families subscribe to this Gannett newspaper.

I also know most families have cut out subscriptions to Time or Newsweek, Readers’ Digest, Sports Illustrated, TV Guide, Esquire, Southern Living and the other magazines I remember coming to our house every week or month.

My point is that it’s possible today’s generation of families could spend some of the money they used to spend on newspapers and magazines on a couple of Substack newsletters … and still be paying less money than their parents’ generation spent 40 years ago (adjusted for inflation).

Of course, this suggestion would only appeal to the subset of citizens who actually think Substack’s independent writers are doing work they view as important.

The good news is that, per my calculations, at least 8 million Americans do value the work of Substack’s “freedom” authors. 

(Eight million Substack readers who “think like I do” would equate to 3.2 percent of America’s adult population. Substack has at least 35 million subscribers. I’m assuming - guessing -  that 23 percent of these readers think like my readers do). 

If these millions of citizens didn’t think this, they wouldn’t take out a free subscription or routinely visit newsletter sites like my own.

As I pointed out in my recent “extrapolation” article, I also think only about 850 “contrarian Substack authors” currently exist in the world, at least if we count only those who have reached 2,500 total subscribers (free or paid).

My Specific Proposal … 

If someone could lead an effort that would boost the paid subscription ratio of “Covid writers” from 3 to 10 percent and these new paid subscribers could pay just $18/month supporting their favorite writers, this would boost total revenue being disbursed to freedom writers by more than $120 million!

Note: An average monthly subscription on Substack is $6 … thus an expense of $18/month would equate to a donor supporting three different Substack content creators.

MATH:

Instead of approximately 240,000 “paying” Substack readers in America, there’d now be 800,000. This would represent 560,000 more concerned, freedom-supporting citizens with “skin in the game” joining our side.

These “new” 560,000 donors (if they were willing to invest $18/month for our cause) would produce $10.080 million/month in new revenue for the writers I want to help. If you multiply this by 12 months, that’s $120.9 million in funding for “our side’s” most important “truth seekers” or “narrative debunkers.”

Also, as Substack grows (which will happen),  a new standard of “10 percent paid” would produce even more happy contrarian journalists.

A fair question is “what good would that do for our cause?”

My answer: Well, an influx of $120.9 million in funding for our side would allow 3,024 (!) Substack contrarian authors to make at least $40,000/year from their labors.

(Math: $120.9 million divided by $40,000 = 3,024 journalists who no longer have to worry about making enough money to pay their bills).

Instead, of Bill Rice, Jr. being the only “freedom journalist” in the state of Alabama, there now might be five or 10 … or 60 other writers in my state seeking to reverse the scary trends enveloping the world… because these writers will see this revenue figure is now actually possible.

And note that this extrapolation envisions Substack’s “patriot” readers spending only $18/month in paid subscriptions, which, adjusted for inflation, is probably far less than the figure our parents were spending for written-word subscriptions four decades ago.

It would be up to these subscribers to pick which three Substackers they want to support/subsidize. If these readers decide $18 is the maximum amount they can budget for their “freedom-supporting” expense, but they’d like to support more than three worthy writers, they could rotate the writers they are supporting. 

For example, they could support Writers A, B and C for three months, then cancel those subscriptions and add three new writers for the next three months. If Substack readers do the same thing for 12 months, they would have supported 12 writers (not just three) throughout the year.

Why don’t we do what Bill Gates has been doing for years?

Lastly, I’d mention these suggestions are taken right out of the playbook of the people and organizations “freedom writers” are fighting.

The Rockefeller Foundation, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and Big Pharma are spreading money around to the people and organizations they want to support. Except they are already spreading billions of dollars to their captured cronies.

At least to me, it seems their nefarious game plan is working perfectly.

I also point out that while the mainstream media is dying, it’s still able to fund livable salaries for more than 40,000 full-time journalists who might as well be stenographers for the captured Status Quo.

In my view, 850 “freedom” writers (barely making ends meet with a few donations here and there) is probably not going to pose a grave threat to the group our side is fighting. 

But, if due to the generosity of a small percentage of Substack readers, this number became 3,000 paid writers who are now making a livable income … our side could make a much larger difference.

I think one reason the captured organizations don’t really fear Substack is they are certain 97 percent of the readers of this platform will NOT choose to spend $6 or $18/month fighting them.

So far, this prediction has proven correct. Still, it’s undeniable that the efforts of the so-called freedom writers, who are attacking our disinformation specialists at their many points of vulnerability, are making a difference.

Just like our adversaries are tripling down on their lies and cover-ups, our side needs to triple down on our support of the people who scare them the most.

Our side has the most persuasive writers and happens to have the truth on our side. In my strong opinion, we need to recruit more writers … and do what we can to help our best writers make a little more money.

But this is a decision Substack readers will ultimately make. 

I’m grateful I have a Substack newsletter that allows me to present possible “solutions” to readers who may share my views.