My wife can see what I’m seeing …
To me, the negative changes in my key reader metrics are both obvious and alarming. My bottom-line: Substack probably isn’t going to be tool that brings about positive fundamental changes.
The other morning I asked my wife to sit next to me at my computer to look at Substack metrics which have convinced me something disconcerting appears to have changed on Substack.
By clicking on various dashboard features, I showed Carrie the numbers of new subscribers my articles used to produce and then showed her the same numbers from the past two months.
I also showed her how many “likes,” “Reader Comments” and “Page views” my articles used to produce compared to recent months.
“This is what’s changed,” I told her.
I asked Carrie to look at these metrics because I figured my wife might think I’m becoming paranoid or obsessed with “Substack metrics” (just like, probably, some of my readers).
I wanted to show her I’m not imagining things. I also pointed out that these trends are affecting her husband’s ability to make a living as an “independent writer” and/or my potential to “make a difference” via my “contrarian” articles and essays.
If these changes have happened to me, the same trends are probably also happening to other “dissident” Substack writers, I offered.
The bottom line, I told Carrie, is that my articles aren’t reaching nearly as many people as I thought I’d be reaching by now.
To me, it seems increasingly clear that Substack is not going to be a weapon independent writers can use to debunk legions of dangerous and bogus narratives.
IMO, due to changes on Substack, enough people will not be able to grasp that they’ve been scammed and harmed by a nefarious cabal of Establishment serial liars.
“Yes, I can see it,” said Carrie, a comment which at least made me feel I’m not the only person who can see these trend changes.
Today, I want to share with my readers what I showed my wife.
While I’m no statistician, I believe all of these metric changes are indeed “statistically significant” and, at least at my newsletter, can be easily quantified.
In future articles, I’ll add more thoughts on why I think this might be happening and expound a little more on why I think what’s happening on Substack should matter to billions of global citizens.
Metric 1 - New Subscribers produced per new article
Comment: After readers note the first series of numbers, please compare these figures to the same numbers I publish just below.
Number of New Subscribers produced by my last 31 articles: 1, 0, 0, 0, 0, 2, 4, 0, 2, 2, 1, 3, 4, 0, 1, 0, 2, 0, 1, 1, 0, 1, 1, 1, 2, 0, 1, 5, 2, 2, 2.
(Note: These articles were published from June 17, 2025 to April 7, 2025. All subscriptions except one were FREE. Data through June 18-19.)
Quick observations:
Average new subscribers generated per article: 1.3
Articles that produced more than 5 subscribers: 0
Articles that produced 0 new subscribers: 10 articles out of 31 (32.3 percent).
Articles that produced 1 new subscriber: 9 articles (out of 31).
Note: 19 of 31 articles (61.3 percent) produced 1 or fewer subscribers.
Note: 25 out of my recent 31 articles (80.64 percent) produced from 0 to 2 subscribers.
Now let’s compare the same metric (‘new-subscribers-produced-per-article’) from, roughly the same period two years ago …
(Note: Bill Rice, Jr. original articles published between April 12 to June 21, 2023 - also 31 articles.)
Number of New Subscribers produced by each article: 12, 243, 34, 4, 9, 4, 16, 5, 12, 6, 70, 14, 12, 4, 1, 10, 9, 86, 1, 2, 4, 7, 13, 44, 22, 9, 9, 15, 31, 6, 5.
Total number of new subscribers: 717
Average new subscribers generated per article: 23.1
Observations/comments:
Two years ago, 77.4 percent (24 out of 31) of my articles produced at least five new subscribers.
48.4 percent of my articles (15 out of 31) produced at least 10 subscribers.
22.6 percent of my articles (7 out of 31) produced 20 or more subscribers.
One article produced 243 subscribers.
***
Compared to two years ago, my metric “new-subscribers-produced-per-article” fell by 94.4 percent (from an average of 23.1 new subscribers to 1.3).
Two years ago, in a 2-month period, I produced 717 new subscribers. In the most-recent two-month period, I produced 41 total new subscribers - also a decrease of 94.4 percent.
Two years ago, over a two-month period, I didn’t publish a single article that failed to produce a single new subscriber. In the last two months, I published 10 articles (out of 31) that failed to generate one new subscriber.
In the past two months, no article I published produced at least six new subscribers. Among 31 articles published two years ago, 22 (71 percent of my articles) produced at least six new subscriptions.
Expressed simply, two years ago, the vast majority of my articles produced at least six new subscribers. Today, the vast majority of my articles (81 percent) produce 0 to 2 subscribers.
*** (Thank you to all Substack authors who share or re-stack this article, although this might be harmful to your own newsletter growth). ***
To me, this is interesting (or strange) …
According to Substack metrics, two years ago I had 3,606 total subscribers (my average subscriber number from this two-month period). In the last two months, my average total subscriber figure is (purportedly, according to my total subscriber metrics) approximately 7,530.
That is, judged by “total subscribers,” I am reaching more than two times as many readers/subscribers as I did two years ago.
However, from other Substack-provided metrics, I know my “readership” numbers have barely increased at all and, I strongly suspect, my readership/Page View numbers may have dropped precipitously and noticeably.
This conclusion/assessment is informed by a similar analysis of the number of “likes” and “Reader Comments” my articles now generate (again, compared to two years ago).
In this section of analysis, I assume that if a reader clicks on the heart/“like” button, this means these people probably saw and read my article. (I should note that I continue to receive reports from subscribers who’ve told me they “try to hit the like button” and their vote of approval, via the “like” button, doesn’t show up on the screen.)
Significantly fewer readers ‘like’ my articles …
“Likes” generated by my last 31 articles: 107, 59, 49, 20, 31, 55, 82, 53, 151, 54, 67, 93, 76, 62, 52, 71, 49, 53, 56, 83, 42, 86, 84, 54, 72, 58, 67, 56, 65, 76, 51.
(Note: Data from 31 articles published between June 17, 2025 back to April 7, 2025. Through June 19.)
= 2,036 “likes”/31 stories = 65.68 “likes per story.”
Now, let’s look at the same ‘like’ metric from two years ago …
“Likes” generated by 31 articles between April 12, 2023 to June 22, 2023: 57, 136, 98, 101, 57, 26, 91, 49, 99, 80, 110, 20, 52, 44, 30, 82, 80, 24, 47, 69, 66, 58, 86, 96, 24, 61, 59, 137, 93, 70, 116.
= 2,218 “likes”/31 stories = 71.55 “likes” per story.
In two years, the number of “likes” my articles generated declined by 8.94 percent.
Two years ago, 14 of my 31 articles produced at least 80 “likes.”
In the past two months, only seven of my 31 articles produced at least 80 likes.
The percentage of articles that generate at least 80 “likes” has declined by 50 percent.
100 or more likes: 2 in last two months vs. 4 two years ago.
80 or more likes: 7 in last two months vs. 14 two years ago.
60 or more likes: 14 in last two months vs. 18 two years ago.
Note: Two years ago I had only 3,600 subscribers compared to (allegedly) 7,530 today. Despite the fact I had 47 percent of the subscribers I have today, on average, my articles still produced 9 percent more “likes” two years ago.
That is, when I had far fewer subscribers, my articles produced significantly more “likes” … which is not a result an established “content provider” would expect to observe.
Lastly, my comments on my vanishing Reader Comments …
Yet another metric one can use to gauge readership levels or levels of reader “engagement” is the number of Reader Comments each article generates. At least at my newsletter, this metric has fallen off a cliff as this analysis documents ….
The number of Reader Comments my articles generated in 31 articles TWO YEARS AGO: 71, 119, 146, 81, 79, 37, 107, 44, 88, 61, 101, 34, 52, 37, 27, 117, 92, 84, 34, 145, 49, 45, 54, 87, 75, 76, 119, 143, 106, 82, 154.
= 2,546 comments/31 stories = 82.13 comments per article
(Note: Number of Reader Comments April 12, 2023 to June 22, 2023 - 31 articles).
Reader Comments generated by my last 31 articles: 27, 38, 27, 10, 15, 22, 59, 43, 51, 62, 73, 105, 111, 48, 58, 32, 19, 13, 53, 64, 14, 77, 62, 49, 57, 24, 67, 45, 53, 61, 35.
= 1,474 Reader Comments/31 stories = 47.55 Reader Comments per article.
(Note: Reader comments generated June 17, 2025 to April 7, 2025.)
Key findings:
The number of reader comments my articles generate has declined by 42.1 percent in the past two years.
100 or more comments: 9 out of 31 articles two years ago vs. 2 out of 31 articles in recent two months.
75 or more comments: 19 out of 31 articles two years ago vs. 3 out of 31 in recent two months.
Two years ago, 29 of 31 articles generated at least 35 comments. In the past two months, only 10 of my articles produced at least 35 comments.
Nine recent articles produced fewer than 30 Reader Comments (and many of those comments were made by myself).
Summary: What does this analysis show or ‘prove’
In the past two years at this newsletter, the number of new subscribers my articles produced has plummeted by 94.5 percent.
The number of Reader Comments my articles generate has plummeted by 42.1 percent.
The number of “likes” my articles now generate has declined by nine (9) percent.
Strangely (to me), these reversals in observable metrics occurred in a time period when my total number of subscribers had (allegedly) more than doubled.
A few “Covid Contrarian” Substack colleagues have taken an interest in my analysis of what I view as peculiar and disconcerting Substack trends.
In an email, one well-known Substack author asked me if I could identify when these changes began and asked if I could better identify any writing projects that might have made me a target of possible “reach suppression” efforts.
These are good questions. My best estimate is somewhere around August 2024 is when I first noted significant changes at my newsletter.
For example, on August 24, 2024, I had 310 paid subscribers. Today, I have 273. In approximately 10 months, I’ve lost 37 (net) paid subscribers. In less than 10 months, my paid subscriber metric has declined by 11.94 percent.
Of possible significance, August 2024 is approximately when I began to notice a significant (massive) increase in the number of Substack authors who might be distinguished by their proclivity to defend and support “authorized narratives.”
In stark contrast to my trend reversals, numerous “Leftist” or statist writers have been adding hundreds of thousands of new subscribers (See analysis and documentation here.)
Note: I thought this was one of my more significant pieces of research. However, the above article generated only approximately 3,600 page views in the two weeks after I published it - a figure well below what I used to average two years ago when I had half the subscribers I currently have, although I’m not sure all of my “subscribers” are humans).
This means at the same period my key metrics experienced obvious reversals, the subscriber metrics of “narrative-protecting” authors exploded in popularity.
One conclusion might be that large swaths of the global population suddenly discovered Substack and these readers were almost all from the far left of the political spectrum.
In the same period writers like Robert Reich and Paul Krugman were adding 5,000+ new subscribers with every article they posted, “conservative” readers were rapidly culling subscriptions.
As I noted in a previous analysis, no “conservative” or “contrarian” writer has experienced similar subscription gains in the past 10 months to one year.
In a world where half the population probably “thinks like I do,” it doesn’t seem plausible to me that 90 percent (?) of the growth in Substack subscriptions would, suddenly, almost exclusively, come from leftist writers.
My working theory is that the stark reversal in my Substack metrics and the massive increase in (alleged) popularity of “Statist” newsletters could, very possibly, be related.
Even if I am being paranoid and my Substack metrics have nothing to do with any intentional “reach suppression” operation(s), it still seems clear to me that my goal of “growing my reach” and revenue on Substack is no longer possible or likely.
Final questions …
If the MSM is indeed “completely captured” and is never going to fulfill its vital role as a “watchdog” of organizations with great power, where are independent and skeptical journalists going to publish their work?
If such real journalists and researchers can’t reach enough people on Substack to make a difference and debunk false narratives, where will significant numbers of the public find such narrative-challenging articles and essays?
In my view, Substack - and the reader metrics it produces for content creators with a skeptic’s bent of mind - does matter.
At least to some degree, Substack has made a positive difference and could make an even greater difference in the future … but not if recent trends increasingly become the New Normal for this independent writers’ platform.
***
*** (At one time about two years ago, I was on pace to have 1,000 paid subscribers by the fall of 2026. My revised pacing schedule - my new trends - suggests I might have only a few paid subscribers in two years. The words “Substack work-around” have crossed my mind.) ***
P.S.
Regarding “Reader Comments,” my first comment today references my very first article on Substack metrics. That article from 18 months ago generated 228 new subscribers and was viewed by 12,500 readers and produced a record number of article “likes” and “Reader Comments.” Per my new metrics, interest in this topic has, apparently … fallen off a cliff.
One more story metric, which is ironic to me …
I published my first story on disconcerting trends on Substack on January 5, 2024 - 17 1/2 months ago.
As it turned out, this was, arguably, the most popular or significant story I’ve published in my 30 months as a Substack author.
Significantly, the story was cross-posted by Dr. Robert Malone, a random act of kindness that propelled all of my metrics into the stratosphere.
The story “And So It Begins” produced ….
- 228 New Subscribers, including 35 new paid subscribers (a record.)
- 12,469 Page Views
-1,154 “likes” (a record)
- 688 Reader Comments (a record)
- 139 cross-posts (a record)
Here’s the lede sentence of that article:
“For a while now I’ve been worried Substack would become a major target of the Censorship Industrial Complex for the hideous and dangerous crime of allowing free speech.”
To me (at the time anyway), this story PROVED that there WAS a keen interest in odd or changing Substack trends among other Substack authors (139 cross-posted the articles) and Substack readers of whom 228 became subscribers.
The story also produced a record number of “likes” and Reader Comments for my Substack.
ONE story generated approximately $2,000 in new subscription revenue. For context, in the past 60 days, I think I’ve produced one article that produced one new paid subscriber ($54 in net revenue).
At the time, I thought, “Well, I’ll be danged” - there IS tremendous interest in this topic. I accidentally stumbled upon a topic that will help establish another Substack niche for myself.
Instead of being known as the guy who constantly writes about “early spread,” I’ll now be the contrarian who writes about peculiar trends on Substack itself.
Alas, judging from later Substack metrics, the interest in this topic must have been one of those “illusions.”
Since I published that article, I must have posted 12 other articles on Substack trends, the last eight or so which have been clunkers.
For example, my big story from a month ago showing how “leftist writers”now dominate Substack generated only about 3,600 page views and not a single free subscription. (In the last two weeks, the article produced several free subscriptions and a couple hundred more “page views.”)
One question that's crossed my mind: Where did the great interest in “peculiar Substack trends” go?
In a period of 12 months, 12,500 people who were once very interested in the topic now think it’s a Nothing Burger?
Maybe so, but if so, this strikes me as a head-scratcher.
Personally, I think this is another potential taboo or “thermo-nuclear” topic that the Powers that Be don’t want Substack sleuths investigating.
This subject might be like “early spread” (and the CONSPIRACY to conceal the same) … or “the embalmers’ clots” that no scientists can investigate …. or the strange FACT (“coincidence”?) that almost 3,000 American schools closed in the weeks and months BEFORE official Covid … or the possibility that any contagious, non-deadly, virus might have originated in America … or the possibility that censorship and reach-suppression operations aren’t being scuttled, but are actually ramping up and going forward as I post yet another article that makes me more than a little nervous.
If at least a few Substack contrarians are being targeted for “suppression,” I can only repeat the advice I’ve been sharing for five years now - “Post while you still can.”
It's occurred to me that our friends in the Deep State and Censorship Industrial Complex really don't have to block the reach of everyone - just the relatively small number of people who are hitting close to vulnerable targets or people who have the potential to rapidly grow their following.
My guess is that the Censors/Pandemic Planners overlooked the significance of Substack in the early months and years of "Covid." They then, belatedly, saw/appreciated that these authors could represent a serious threat to their current and future agendas. So, they belatedly, perhaps (?) devised an ingenious means to throttle the reach and influence of this sub-set of potential influencers.
In a previous article on this topic, I used a photo of a cattle corral to symbolize where all the important dissenters have been herded (largely, Substack, with a few other key alternative media sites like Brownstone).
Substack's "contrarians" have been herded into one media/speech platform, which was once marketed as a haven for "extremists" and even "Nazi's."
However, Substack is no longer viewed as a grave threat to "democracy" because tens of thousands of Status-Quo protecting writers and podcasters are now "flooding this zone."
My worry is that some billionaire will now buy Substack and then finish off the influence/threat of "Covid contrarians." ... Which is why someone needs to probably start working on a "Plan B" for Substack.