Is it time for a Plan B for Substack?

Substack’s provided a beacon of hope for millions of citizens & benefitted many independent writers. However, recent trends suggest Substack’s not the total answer in the battle against authoritarians

This article, which is longer than most of my pieces, targets:

• Readers who are interested in Substack trends and how or why those trends are vitally important in a world of ascending mass censorship.

• Fellow Substack authors who might share my belief that “something” has changed at Substack.

• Those interested in analysis estimating the size and potential influence of the “freedom” or “contrarian” market.

• Those who think Substack might not be the total answer regarding the vital project of challenging and debunking myriad false narratives that harm society. (See last section of this article).

Section I: Micro examples from my Substack …

It’s been a while since I wrote an analysis piece on my “Substack metrics.” Today’s effort cuts to what I consider the “bottom line,” which is ….

Per my analysis and best estimate, my “market” (which I’ll call “Covid contrarians” or “freedom writers”) numbers approximately seven million Substack readers. These are the readers who might be most interested in subscribing to a newsletter such as my own.

For reasons to be developed in future articles, this number (7 million) is very important for a business idea I’m exploring. This number is also important to every person who believes principled and intelligent writers possess the potential to improve the state of the world. 

How I arrived at this estimated market of 7 million people

From various sources, I learned Substack has at least 35 million subscribers. However, many of these readers probably aren’t interested in the topics I write about. 

From various sources, I identified Substack’s most popular authors as determined by the metric of “total subscribers.” One Top-25 list identified what might be dubbed “Substack All-Stars.” 

Five of these writers - 20 percent - routinely write about the same topics as myself. These newsletter authors are (or were, at one point): Alex Berenson, Steve Kirsch, Matt Taibbi, Dr. Robert Malone and Dr. Joseph Mercola.

If one assumes the percentage of  readers who are interested in the content of “Covid contrarian” or “freedom writers” is constant, I can extrapolate that my “market” on Substack is approximately seven million people (20 percent of Substack’s 35 million subscribers).

Note: I also learned that Substack has/had 17,000 authors who have generated paid subscriptions. I’ve yet to find a source that tells me how many authors do not accept paid subscriptions or have yet to generate paid subscribers. My guesstimate would be that Substack hosts, perhaps, 25,000 newsletters. 

(See today’s Reader Comments for a list of questions I’d love to ask executives at Substack to better gauge the platform’s key metrics and changes in same).

Two initial comments:

When I try to grow my subscriber base, I’m really fishing in a lake with 7 million potential “fish” (or customers).

Seven million potential readers or customers is not an insignificant potential market. (This “lake” is pretty big.)

How many of these readers are current subscribers of my newsletter?

I recently surpassed 6,200 total subscribers. 

Note: While an educated guess, which might be wrong, I believe my number of total subscribers and paid subscribers (303 as of today) probably/perhaps places me in the top five percent of all Substack authors in both categories.

In one sense, as Substack authors go, 6,200 total subscribers isn’t shabby. 

However, in another sense, one can see that 6.994 million people who could be subscribers have yet to join my Substack team.  (My share of Substack’s “freedom-writer market” is about 1/10th of one percent - 0.09 percent.)

(The bad news is I have tapped into only a microscopic percentage of Substack’s “contrarian” market. The good news is I have immense room for growth.) 

How I compare to the Big 5 …

The Alex Berenson Comparison

My market share could perhaps be expressed in easier-to-grasp context if I compare my Substack subscribers to the Top 5 “Contrarian” all-stars mentioned above.

At different times, I’ve seen data which tells me all five of these writers have approximately 250,000 subscribers. Note: these numbers might have changed and be dated by now.

I know Alex Berenson has mentioned that he has approximately 250,000 Substack subscribers. This means that Alex has 40.3 times more subscribers than I do. Or: I have 1/40th (2.58 percent) of the subscribers as Alex.

One of the main reasons these numbers interest me …

One reason I’m interested in these analytics is I’m very interested in gauging the probability I’ll ever be able to make a living solely from Substack subscriptions.

As I’ve previously noted, my “magic number” (or goal) is to one day have at least 1,000 paid subscribers. As I net about $45 per annual subscription, this figure would equate to an annual income of $45,000.

Note: For context, an average, full-time salaried journalist in the mainstream or corporate media makes about $53,000. However, combined with my wife’s teacher salary, $45,000 in annual income would be more than enough to allow our family to live a fairly stress-free life. (This assumes - knock on wood - hyper inflation never happens).

Key questions for this newsletter author:  Is it even possible for me to reach 1,000 paid subscribers and, if so, how much longer will this take?

The answer is … if recent trends hold, it might take me almost 10 years!

As I’ve previously noted, Substack growth trends changed significantly about 15 months ago - at least for me. (Note: I have heard from a fair number of other Substack authors who have noted the same-type changes at their newsletters).

It took me only 5 1/2 months to reach 3,000 total subscribers. However, it took me 17 months to add another 3,000 subscribers.

Where I once saw increases in my subscribers of more than 700/month, in the last five months I’ve averaged 120 new subscribers/month. (From February through mid-June, this figure was much lower. However - perhaps because I’ve been posting stories like a mad man - I’ve added 170 subscribers in the last 30 days.)

***

Another personal metric that’s important to me is the percentage of total subscribers who become “paid subscribers.” I think I do much-better than the typical Substack author in this metric as, right now, my ratio is 4.89 percent (6,200 total subscribers of which 303 are “paid.”)

If I can maintain this “paid ratio” of 4.9 percent, I would need to grow my total subscriber base to 20,400 to reach 1,000 paid subscribers.

In other words, I am 14,200 new subscribers away from reaching my “magic number.” This means if I keep growing my Substack by 120 subscribers/month, it will take me 118 months (9.8 years!) to get to 20,400 total subscribers.

If I had maintained my subscriber growth of my fist 5 1/2 months (545 new subscribers/month), I’d already have 12,535 subscribers and would be on pace to have 20,400 subscribers (and 1,000 paid subscribers) in September 2025 - 14 months from now.

When I write that “something changed” on Substack, the above math perhaps quantifies this change.

Where I once thought I’d be established as a “self-supporting” Substack author by next September, it now looks like I’m going to have to wait until September 2033.

What this means to me … and to you, the reader …

I have significant experience in advertising sales; sales reps are taught to tell the customer “what this means to you” (the prospective customer) is …

What all of the above means to Substack subscribers/readers is that … in the future, barring a major trend reversal, most writers who need to make a decent amount of money from their writing are going to … hang it up.

This doesn’t mean great Substack writers will no longer exist. It simply means this writers’ platform will largely be populated by the tiny percentage of authors who have already reached their own magic numbers (and can maintain these numbers) … and writers who simply enjoy writing or don’t need to generate income. (This sub-set might be viewed as pursuing a hobby more so than a vocation.)

As someone who embraces free-market capitalism, I’m in the group that believes financial incentives make the world go round. For me, it’s hard to picture many maverick “contrarian” authors working eight hours/day to produce independent journalism that’s highly unlikely to ever pay the bills.

Note: This wouldn’t matter if people who still like to read were receiving outstanding and important journalism from salaried journalists, but this is not the case. In fact, my friends in the captured “working press” will continue to be laid off at an increasing pace. Absent “funny business” on Substack, this inevitable trend should translate into even more people discovering Substack authors such as myself.

The reason my current analysis of Substack trends disturbs me is I’m becoming increasingly convinced Substack is NOT going to be the “solution” that exposes all the world’s myriad false narratives, frauds, crimes and crooks.

Briefly, why things might have changed on Substack …

I’ll save for another day an in-depth meditation on why I think trends have changed on Substack. 

In a nutshell, however, I think a combination of “funny business” on Substack (the world’s Censorship Industrial Complex doing its thing) and over-saturation of Substack articles and authors provides the key reasons for these changes. 

Also, I was perhaps late in joining the first big wave of Substack contrarian authors. By the time I started publishing this newsletter in September 2022, perhaps many readers had already reached their quota of “favorite writers.” 

Many readers have told me they already subscribe to far too many newsletters and there’s no way they can read all of these authors. 

Per this train of thought, readers - en masse and probably beginning about 14 months ago - decided they were going to dramatically cutback on new subscriptions … even if they enjoy a particular author’s writing and even though they can subscribe for free.

I’ve also recently reached the conclusion the reason(s) might not matter. All that matters is that Substack has, perhaps, already peaked as a “weapon” capable of scaring the living daylights out of the Powers that Be.

Or, if the Censorship Industrial Complex is now belatedly focussing on throttling the reach and influence of dissident Substack authors, the reason this might be happening is the world’s real rulers do feel threatened by content produced by authors such as myself.

As we’ve seen in Covid times, fear is the greatest motivator and this would also apply to the world’s rulers - despots who fear “exposure” above all else.

For Substack contrarians, Alex Berenson is The Man. He’s also fighting “The Big Guy” in a very important Censorship Lawsuit.

A deeper dive into Alex Berenson’s numbers

(compared to mine)

Above I referenced the fact Alex Berenson has approximately 250,000 subscribers. I also noted that I think a strong over-lap exists between Alex’s “market” and my own.

Partly due to the reason cited above, I’ve spent a lot of time making Reader Comments at Alex’s site (and other sites as well). I do this because Alex often writes about topics that interest me. However, truth be told, I also thought that if my name and writing became well-known at Alex’s far-more-popular site, this might translate into new subscribers for my site.

Here I again apply basic math to my arm-chair analysis …

Since Alex has 250,000 subscribers, if I could persuade just five percent of his subscribers to also subscribe to my newsletter, that would boost my total subscriber numbers by 12,500. Since I already have 6,200 subscribers, this would get me very close to my magic number of 20,000.

By now, I must be well-known to everyone who peruses Alex’s excellent Reader Comment section. (A recent post I made generated 348 “likes” - by far the No. 1 post of that particular day.

I’ve been a paid subscriber at Alex’s site for more than two years and often link to my own articles in his Comments section.

I thought it would be interesting to research how many of Alex’s subscribers are now also subscribers to “Bill Rice, Jr.’s Newsletter.” Thanks to Substack’s excellent metrics I know where my subscribers come from. The answer is 65 of my current subscribers found me from posts I made at Alex’s site. 

Quick Aside: Alex’s newsletter is my top “feeder” source among other Substack newsletters. The largest number of my subscribers - more than 1,000 - came from Citizen Free Press, which used to routinely link to my articles, but, for some reason, rarely does anymore. Besides Citizen Free Press, my top producer of subscribers is The Brownstone Institute - which is highly flattering as I think the Brownstone Institute has become the world’s most important website.

It’s odd to me that only 65 of my subscribers came directly from Alex’s site. (To be clear, the number of my subscribers who also subscribe to Alex’s site is no doubt much more than 65 people. However, according to Substack metrics, the provenance of just 65 of my 6,200 subscriptions traces to Alex’s site.

Still, if I had just 8 percent of Alex’s subscribers, I’d have 20,000 total subscribers, which would translate to approximately 1,000 paid subscribers - which, again, is my Magic Number.

I’ve long thought that if I could convert  just 5 percent of Alex’s subscribers (1,250 of his Substack subscribers) plus 5 percent of the readership of Steve Kirsch, Matt Taibbi, Dr. Malone, Dr. Mercola - plus other well-known Substack all-stars like Dr. Meryl Nass, A Midwestern Doctor, Igor Chudov, Dr. Alexander, Celia Farber, el gato malo, euggypius, Mark Crispin Miller, the Lioness of Judah, etc. … I’d easily have 20,000 total subscribers at the moment. 

Two of my favorite Substackers are Mark Oshinskie and Simulation Commander, whose thoughts usually mirror my own. I also believe Mark and the Commander have very similar numbers of paid and total subscribers as myself. It seems to me that half of the subscribers at these two sites should also be subscribers to my newsletter. If this was the case, that would be approximately 6,000 additional subscribers right there.

This long thought exercise makes me ask what am I not doing that Alex is doing? Or what do I have to do to reach just a fraction of his subscribers? (If I signed up just 1/20th of Alex’s subscribers, this would be a walk-off grand-slam for my newsletter.)

I started this piece noting that my market - and Alex’s market and Matt Taibbi’s market and every author mentioned in this piece - is at least 7 million citizens who routinely visit Substack. 

Alex seems to have tapped into 1/28th (3.57 percent) of this market (250,000 subscribers/7 million people).

I, on the other hand, have tapped into 1/1,129th of this market (0.08 percent).

We’re all competing for the same 7 million readers …

It also occurs to me that every “contrarian” writer is trying to get his unfair share of these 7 million potential subscribers.

I’m actually not competing against 17,000 “paid” Substack authors (or maybe 25,000 total authors). As noted above, only about 20 percent of these authors are producing the type content I produce. This means there might be 3,400 “contrarian” authors on Substack (20 percent of 17,000).

I’m not sure, but I perhaps do rank in the top 5 percent of these 3,400 “contrarian writers” in terms of “total subscribers” and “paid subscribers.” If this is true, I’m at least in the top 170 of “Covid contrarian writers.”

If only 170 fairly well-known writers (those who have achieved a decent “brand”) were competing for our target market of 7 million readers … and our collective readership was equally distributed, this would mean all 170 would have, on average, 41,176 subscribers. 

If this was the case, at my paid ratio of 4.9 percent, I’d have 2,017 paid subscribers … and would probably be writing my article on a handsome desk instead of a hand-me-down card table.

But I don’t have anywhere close to 41,000 subscribers. I have 6,200.

I make less than minimum wage …

This extrapolation tells me that even if I outperform 95 percent of my primary “competition” of “contrarian” Substack writers, I’m still going to be making an income from Substack that’s about the same or lower than someone who earns the federal minimum wage. 

(My net income from Substack is approximately $14,000/year. Someone who makes the federal minimum wage of $7.25/hour and works 40 hours/week grosses $15,080. (FWIW, I work more than 40 hours/week on my Substack).

To be clear, I’m not whining nor making a subscription appeal with this article. No one held a gun to my head and said I had to work as a Substack author. I’m doing this because I enjoy what I’m doing and feel I could, perhaps, make a difference in increasingly perilous times.

My primary goal with this article is to illustrate that very few Substack authors are or can making a “living wage” from Substack income. (I should also note that, absent the invention of Substack, I’d probably be making $0 from my writing.)

Finally, I get to the real reason this topic intrigues me …

Whatever the reason for Substack’s apparent changing metrics, it seems clear to me that Substack is not the ideal financial solution for the vast majority of “independent” writers.

Which brings me to my final question (one I’ve been thinking about for many months): Is there an alternative solution that might provide better financial returns for Substack authors such as myself?

Is there a “work-around” for Substack writers? Also, is there a better alternative for readers who are tired of subscribing to many authors they rarely read?

I think there is. (Much more to come on this idea in the future).

The key number that grabs my attention

is the ‘7 million’ number

This is the number of people we know are interested in content such as I produce. That’s the KEY market for “our side.” 

Note: The real number is no doubt much higher than 7 million as many citizens around the world still haven’t discovered Substack or they get their “conservative” or alternative media fix from websites or sources other than Substack.

America has an adult population of approximately 250 million citizens. A market of 7 million readers who largely think like I do would represent 2.8 percent of the adult population. 

That is, I think a market of 7 million is a very conservative estimate and would be multiples higher if we include people who think like I do who live outside of America. (Many of my subscribers are from outside America).

The Tucker Carlson Demo …

One good proxy for my “target market” might be “people who like Tucker Carlson.” 

I know from Neilsen ratings that Tucker routinely drew 4 million viewers/night when he worked for Fox News. Over an entire month, perhaps 10 million Americans watched at least one episode of “Tucker Carlson Tonight.”

I also know Tucker’s X podcast of his interview with Vladimir Putin drew more than 100 million viewers.

This represents an army of (smart, civic-minded) citizens who are fed up with the “mainstream news” and might be interested in a journalist platform that offered benefits Substack can’t offer.

Conclusion and Final Questions …

How many writers - both professionals and “citizen journalists” - might want to tap into this market if they believed they could make significantly-more money than they do on Substack?

I’m not saying this is the case, but if Substack’s founders are, perhaps, “going wobbly” on free speech - or if contrarian writers are being targeted by nefarious algorithms created by former CIA software experts - demand or interest in a Substack work-around might be even greater.

As important as Substack has been as a platform that still allows free speech, I believe Substack is not the total answer or the magic silver bullet that will allow the world’s best and most-principled writers to expose the scandals that must be exposed if the world - and freedom - are going to have a fighting chance going forward.

For whatever reason, the vast majority of Substack authors aren’t coming close to tapping into what is a vast market of truth-starved news consumers. 

Maybe it’s time members of this vital talent pool of “dissident” and independent writers put our heads together and start thinking about a Plan B.

Some Substack Humor: If 5 percent of Alex Berenson’s (perhaps) 250,00 subscribers are “paid,” Alex has 12,250 paid subscribers. I have 303. I could catch Alex if this story produces 11,947 paid subscribers. 

Writer gratuities via Ko-Fi.