The study’s main take-away lifted my spirits and was embarrassingly flattering. However, a deeper dive (and a little context) might support what my Spider Sense suspects.
Regarding the 390 “likes” Mark Oshinskie got in his reader experiment, in one sense, this figure seems impressive, but, then again, maybe not.
Mark has 5,800 subscribers (a figure that, curiously, hasn’t increased in about nine months).
Mark’s homework assignment was much easier than mine. All his readers had to do was hit the heart button after reading his article.
390 likes out of 5,800 subscribers is still just 6.7 percent of his total subscribers.
Mark did tell me in an email that this story, which was cross-posted by a few fairly-well known writers including Lew Rockwell, got approximately 5,215 Page Views.
Thus, by the Page View metric, 1-in-13.4 of the people who read this particular story hit it with a like (7.47 percent of his “readers.”)
As a ratio of his total subscribers, 5,215 Page views is 89.9 percent of Mark’s total subscribers. (Mark said he usually gets a little more than 4,000 page views).
For comparison purposes, lately my stories have been producing about 4,100 Page views. My ratio of Page Views to Total Subscribers is about 51.8 percent. For the first 18 months of my newsletter, my stories almost always produced more “page views” than I had total subscribers, meaning this ratio used to be greater than 100 percent.
Given that Mark’s story was (allegedly or purportedly) read by 5,215 people and that Mark specifically asked people to hit the story with a like, I might have expected, say, 20 percent of his readers to hit this story with a like - which would have produced 1,043 “likes” (not 390).
Another take-away from these Substack studies is that very few Substack readers bother to hit a story with a like even if they like the story.
Mark’s hypothesis is/was that more likes might trigger the algorithms and beget more “reads,” which may or may not be a sound or accurate theory.
I once had the theory that more subscribers would beget more future subscribers. That theory held true for about the first 24 months of my newsletter, but no longer holds true. Today, everything I do begets FEWER future subscribers - which qualifies as a significant change - and “significant changes,” IMO, are news-worthy.
I'd have expected more cooperation from readers when you or Mark request a like or comment. If I'm reading an article on a more "conventional" platform, I'd probably ignore such requests. But I feel an affinity with and appreciation for the Substack writers I follow, and presume most readers feel exactly the same. So of course if they request a like or comment, I'll do it. Seems like the least one could do when the writers have been so important. I'm seldom surprised by lameness demonstrated by the general population. But I am surprised readers of COVID contrarian Substack writers didn't do better.
Thanks, Steel J. I think I'm going to develop your point (which I've also thought about) in my follow-up piece where I publish the results of this "study."
If I read an article from a writer I like and he asked me for a tiny favor (hitting a "like" button for a research project), I'd certainly do this. I'd figure that this person has their reasons for making such a request; I'll help him/her out.
It looks like my recent "study" is going to produce a reader response of about 3 or 4 percent - which is ... (very) odd to me.
UPDATE: 25 hours after posting this "homework" assignment, I can publish early results.
* This story has generated 150 likes on 3,430 Page Views.
Note: The Page-View figure is one of my lowest in years.
* 150 "likes" is 240 fewer than Mark Oshinskie got six weeks ago (390) when he did the same experiment. As noted, I have 2,100 more subscribers than Mark.
As a ratio of readers who Opened my article, 4.37 percent of "readers" hit me with a like. Expressed differently, 95.63 percent of my (alleged?) readers decided not to participate in this study.
The same ratio for Mark's experiment was 7.47 percent.
So Mark's experiment produced 61.6 percent more "likes" than my experiment and I have 36 percent more subscribers than Mark. (I have 7,898 subscribers to Mark's 5,800.)
On the plus, side, this story did produce some great comments, and I appreciate everyone who participated in this experiment. It also produced one new paid subscriber, (if the payment isn't cancelled) and two new Free subscribers, which is a major change from recent trends. Thank you to these new subscribers!
I'm going to hold the story I was going to write today. I hope everyone has a great weekend. Pull for Bama to beat suddenly powerful (and very scary) Vandy tomorrow and Troy to beat South Alabama.
You are maybe right, but I teased this project in the first sentence of my dispatch. I can't remember how I worded it, but told everyone "scroll to the bottom of this post for a reader study/survey."
Did you see this story on espn game day today Bill?? I’m shocked this was just aired and the showed the bucket of meds right there with horse paste on top!!
More Substack metric analysis and conjecture: How many people pay for Substack subscriptions?
****
Per my research, more than 35 million people have Substack subscriptions. Also, per my research, Substack has "three to four million" paid subscribers.
If we take the lower figure as accurate, that would mean that 8.57 percent of Substack's subscribers pay for at least one subscription.
Using my newsletter for a metric, I know that 3.43 percent of my subscribers are paid. (This is down from a high of about 4.9 percent many months ago).
I've read from reliable sources who study Substack metrics that most newsletter authors are generating a "paid ratio" of only 1 to 3 percent.
One of my main take-aways, and firm beliefs, is that about 1 percent of Substack's subscribers (about 350,000 people) are supporting multiple Substack authors.
That is, this very-generous "One percent" is often paying for 5 to 10 or more paid subscriptions. Thus, it's just a minute percentage of people who are producing those 3 to 4 million paid subscriptions.
Also, only a microscopic percentage of newsletter authors are producing a "living wage" from their writing. To me a living wage, would be about 1,000 paid subscribers.
I would venture to guess that maybe 98 percent of Substack's 75,000 authors don't have any paid subscribers or maybe just a handful.
So I don't think the "subscription model" really works for 98 percent of content providers. It's also very expensive for the tiny percentage of readers who pay for multiple subscriptions.
I would absolutely love to support more of my favorite dissidents. Substack became my go-to during the full court press of globalized big brother that was the covid hoax. However, I moved back to the US in the latter half of 2022, during what is for my lifetime, unprecedented inflation. The three years I spent overseas saw my return basically triple or quadruple my cost of living to maintain the same standard. I went from 10 paid subscriptions down to 3, and have been letting those expire as well as the time runs out. It is indeed a Catch-22, as I understand that if I (and like-minded others) do not or cannot support the alt-media, then we will eventually collapse back to the MSM Pravda - and that way lies a LOT more legwork on my part. My subscriptions were ultimately me paying to outsource much of the detailed analysis that I struggle to find time for often.
I think a lot of how many comments you get depends on what kind of community you've fostered. I love hanging out and chatting in the comments section, so people who "find" me that way are more interested than average in chatting in the comments section. Some people tend to 'silo' themselves off, so they'll get people who read and close the article.
That's how I found your site - from all your great comments at other sites. I copied you when I started my newsletter. The main way I "marketed" my new newsletter was making Reader Comments all over Substack.
That's how Mark Oshinksie and I became buddies. I think he liked all of my comments I was making at his site.
Yep. But some people turn off comments or have paywalls or something that stops the community from interacting -- and that lack of interaction becomes a habit. (I finally ditched many of the subscriptions that wouldn't let me comment.)
I've noticed that too. Far more people now allow only comments for Paid Subscribers. I get what these authors are doing - they are trying to increase their paid subscriber numbers - which tells me they are also concerned about declining paid subscriber numbers.
Other authors produce some stories just for Paid subscribers or publish only part of their story for free (Jon Rappaport does this).
I'd be interested in seeing a "study" on whether these techniques do or don't produce more paid subscribers. Personally, all of my stuff is free. That is, the un-paid subscribers get everything the paid subscribers get. I've always considered Paid Subscribers as just "donations." The subscribers know they aren't going to get any "added value," they just want to support a writer they like.
I recently lost a big revenue source so I had to cancel (or "pause") about 12 paid subscriptions (incuding yours' and Mark's) I was previously receiving and paying for. I understand the necessity of the easiest "inflation work-around" - cancelling paid subscriptions.
I run my 'Stack the same way, because the information getting out is more important than the money coming in.
At some point, you either believe in the market or you don't. Keep providing value and over time, more people will acknowledge that value. Example: I read through that recent court ruling about the student deportations and am writing up a summary. That saves people like three hours (and some sanity because the judge is nuts). Then we'll have a space to discuss the ruling, too. (more value)
Writers like you (and myself) spend a tremendous amount of time on research or reading everything we can and trying to highlight what we think is important. The writing part - which takes many hours - is the shortest part of our jobs.
Then you have to try to market your newsletter and try to get new subscribers.
It's completely different than the journalist who works at a big city newspaper and writes maybe four or five stories a week - and gets paid $70,000/year with benefits.
On a per-hour basis, I make about $1/hour. This job is really only ideal for people who have a good retirement or investment income and/or have a spouse who makes enough to cover all household expenses.
... now a few people can do outstanding. In the "Covid Contrarian" cohort of writers, those were primarily (with some exceptions) the people who started growing their newsletter in 2020.
In contrast, all the Leftist refugees from the dying mainstream media or left-leaning public figures are, somehow, killing it on Substack. Their newsletters are growing even faster than Alex Berenson or Steve Kirsch's newsletters were once growing.
And it's not like I didn't like the content, but I had so many subscriptions I didn't have time to read all the content I was getting. The answer seemed pretty simple to me.....
I can understand that. Most of the ones I have unsubscribed from are the ones that fore shorten and want paid to read the rest. I can't give money I don't have to anyone.
peggy hall - who dissects fake news better than anybody, you would think she would have had a big bump from her charlie kirk videos - is losing subs
Mark Oshinskie got a repost from Lew Rockwell, who gets millions of pageviews, and only got 5k hits?
did Lew link to Mark's stack?
or maybe Lew is getting shadowbanned too
IMO, pageviews are the most accurate metric for reach (and is the substack hit counter working? hmmm...). i'll bet a lot of nonsubscribers read you. i was a lurker on your page for a couple of years before i subbed...and just realized that i had unsubbed from Mark's stack at some point! even though i never stopped reading him. lots of us reached substack overkill and had to discipline ourselves and cut back
and sometimes a writer's best work draws the least engagement. chris bray - an oldschool style real journalist and one of the funniest people on substack https://chrisbray.substack.com once griped that a particularly good piece of his didn't generate much engagement. i told him that i didn't respond because he nailed the issue so well that there was nothing left to say about it.
Thanks. I definitely think some of my best or most-important articles are duds as judged by the Substack metrics.
The most important variable for a writer seeking to optimize his reach is if a better-known writer shares or cross-posts your article.
My story that netted me 35 paid subscribers (196 total subscribers) and 1,200 likes was cross-posted by Robert Malone.
Thanks for plugging and remembering my story on Dad's battles with the EPA as a gasoline jobber for Gulf Oil. That was on the power of the Unintended Effect of underground gasoline storage tanks.
Those regs were the reason Dad got out of the gas business. (See, I don't write just about Covid issues!)
I've also found that the time you drop the articles makes a lot of difference. Drop anything after about 3 pm on Friday and it might as well not exist. Late-night EDT is terrible on the weekdays, etc.
Yeah you can schedule posts to drop in the future. I sometimes do it when I'm finished with the article at 1 am (4 eastern) -- I'll delay it a few hours until more people are awake to comment, which really gets the ball rolling.
I've sometimes taken the opposite approach and posted stories on the weekend, thinking that fewer of my Substack colleagues are probably doing this ... thus, I'll have less competition for "reads."
I don't have enough data to make any conclusions, but I do seem to remember a few weekend dispatches did better than I thought they would.
This is just me, but I read 99% of your content via emails on my smart phone. I comment rarely for two reasons. Number one is that typing anything lengthy on a smart phone is painful. Second reason is that you do such a great job of laying out a position that I am at a loss for words other than, "right on" and it seems silly to post a "right on" comment after every newsletter.
I am here, comment or not. Keep up the great work.
Thanks, Ron. In the last 10 months I finally got a "smart phone" which I now use often. However, I hate making posts with it because it takes so long to compose a post.
I like making Reader Comments from my desktop computer. But I think probably 1 or 2 percent of Substack readers access articles from an old-fashioned computer.
Many times I have typed a comment, and in the edit/review process before hitting 'reply' my phone (google battling duckdgo battling my Internet connection) glitches and resets my browser.
Pithy becomes irrelevant.
Effort becomes unnecessary, and I'm reduced and discouraged.
Bill, the paranoids are not after you! I don't think you or any other contrarians are being deamplified by substack. I'm just going to go ahead and be brutally honest.
Your stack loses focus when you spend so much effort on your concerns that you touch on in this post. Your subscribers are seeking information and knowledge. Your worries over your stack metrics doesn't provide that.
I believe that is compounded by a difference between your "type" of subscriber and the type that reads the progressive view of some of the stacks that surprise you with their huge follower base. Where your followers are seeking truth, those following the progressive narrative are seeking comfort, reassurance and maybe even fellowship.
It's getting harder all the time for the truth seekers like yourself to keep your followers engaged given that the contrarian narrative is becoming more widely accepted. They aren't seeking further reassurances. They have it figured out and will at least act with their ballots.
But, your work isn't done! It's just getting harder. I think you need to focus on the clots. Of all the potential weak spots in the MSM narrative the clots have the greatest potential to disrupt. It's got words and pictures. Very unsettling pictures. On the other hand, it will also be met with great resistance because the people you need to impact practice a daily mental process of denial. It's hard to upset that apple cart. They are horrified at the prospect that they have one of those god awful things inside them.
Ya gotta hit em hard. I think you need a coalition of voices with a plan to reach beyond substack. I don't know how to do that but I think that is the chink in the armor.
You make some good points, Mike. One reason I focus so much writing on "curious Substack metrics" is that very few authors are doing this. For example, I've learned that Substack has at least 75,000 newsletter authors. Of this number, I'd guess that maybe 10 to 15 have written more than two stories on this subject. To me, this means I've found an original niche (just like with my writing on "early spread.").
The other reason I focus so much attention of metrics is that I think these obvious and stark changes are very important. If we can't "influence debates" on Substack, where else are we going to go?
Which brings up one of your great points. We need a better alternative to Substack.
And I of course agree with you on the potential "thermo-nuclear impact" of the embalmers' clots, somehow, suddenly going viral.
Debbie Learman has a great idea she posted in her Reader Comment section yesterday. Every single "Covid Contrarian" author in the world needs to file a dispatch (with photos) on this topic on the SAME DAY.
That's a great approach as suggested by Lerman. The question is, what target would these sharp arrows be aimed at? Hopefully somehow somewhere that the impact is hard to ignore.
I have sibs who are multiply vaccinated. I am supposed to tell them they may have clots inside them? What good would that do? Conumdrum anyone?
Can we dissude folks from continuing with the madness? The amount of mental gear shifting required is immense for those who think that the authities and media are never to be questoned.
I agree, my in box is so full! At this point, I’m feeling my paid subscription feels more like a charitable donation to a writer I very much respect, but doesn’t offer much of anything new, the Substack metrics does not contribute to my personal life
I've experienced the same thing, Whiskey. Or sometimes you have to "sign in" or "register" to hit a story with a like.
I've also noticed my "like" metrics rapidly change. For example, I can click on this story and it will show I've got "25 likes" but, a minute later, it shows I have 40 or the "like" figure changes even as I'm watching it. This might just be a tech delay or glitch, but it happens all the time and I don't remember seeing the same things two years ago.
Nope same thing for me, often on a post there isnt even the like button to begin with. Then sometimes I am unable to make a comment or reply because thats missing too
Thanks, PJB. This "like" study might be more interesting than I thought. I'm using the number of "registered" likes for a proxy of "proven readers." I'm starting to wonder if my "Page View" numbers aren't legit.
Because I am caring for my spouse who is in Alzheimer's (he took the jabs, by the way), I sometimes find it difficult to carve out the time to read all of the articles, but I am always informed and/or inspired by what you write. Thank you for your dedication to fact finding and the shared results.
Thank you, Marcy. I always start out the day saying I'm going to write a story on A - or finish that story I started two days ago - and then I have another idea. I had a good one this morning, but I got sidetracked making Reader Comments at my site and Debbie Learman's site!
I tried to leave a comment on your article the other day, but the app wouldn't open... nor could I get a comment to post through the web. Today it worked as it should.
So I liked an article or read an article or made a comment. By this time tomorrow or the next day, I will have forgotten the whole thing. That is unless the article is something that is really important to me. Most articles are not. That's not so much as a reflection upon the writers, as it is the subject matter. I don't know how it is with other readers.
I save many articles in folders but seldom go back to them. My substack comes through Proton email and I have had it about 3 years. My other email is Yahoo that I have had since 2001 but am slowly migrating away from it. I have things saved there going back 20 years. Why? I am not a junk collector and have gotten rid of much of my past (books, mementos, odds and ends).
Yeah, I get that. I use my Gmail for subs and all manner of site logins.
I 'share' info to a Gmail draft. Some 200 waiting to compile and/or send to myself if I decide it's necessary. As you say, I rarely return to the material, but it's comforting to be able to search-sort-retrieve it.
Conservatives are no longer the opposition. They are on the inside now. Not as many people feel the need to remain engaged?
The scamdemic is over. Disaster averted in some people's minds?
And of course, social media fatigue is real. There is very little good happening in the world. We have to disengage for our own health. Not to mention a declining economy where people need to focus on their jobs.
With all that said, I do NOT believe that the progressive follower counts on Substack are organic. For many reasons.
1) the AI race holds nothing on those vested interests trying to control social media. And Substack would be a top prize.
Control of TikTok is almost complete. Israel, Qatar, the government, the deep state blob, the billionaire class, all are trying to control hearts and minds through education or social media control. It is naive to consider they are not trying to capture Substack.
2) What evidence do we have that progressives read more than Covid Contrarians, independents and conservatives? Why would progressives need or want to read more text supporting their agenda when they can find it everywhere? It's not hard to find. They don't need Substack to find their message, their peeps.
They have majority control of the print media, television media, search engine's, social media, and almost all the academic journals. They still read all those sources and want us to believe they are suddenly also massive substack readers? I don't buy it.
Cheryl, Those are great points. I think I've tried to make all of them in articles or in Reader Comments. The bottom line might be that the "Left" long ago captured the MSM. The only place writers and readers like ourselves had to engage in important debates was Substack ... and now the Left has taken over this platform too.
I mean, we're still here. I can post what I want, but our "reach" isn't growing and I don't think we are going to "change any narratives" on this platform. But since I have no where else to post, I'm going to keep writing articles here and hitting send. I'm glad I'm reaching readers like yourself!
Treechat.ai is a blockchain alternative. Maybe look into that? It's on bsv blockchain which is possibly the most censored topic on the Internet. The fact that it could replace the Internet and the banking system possibly has something to do with it. (I am commenting in Dec on a comment from early Oct so you might not see it)
I have found it very challenging to comment as I had to sign on and then enter a verification code and it all took time. It's taken me 3 days to get around to commenting. I wasn't able to simply comment. Maybe this is a factor.
BONUS CONTENT:
Regarding the 390 “likes” Mark Oshinskie got in his reader experiment, in one sense, this figure seems impressive, but, then again, maybe not.
Mark has 5,800 subscribers (a figure that, curiously, hasn’t increased in about nine months).
Mark’s homework assignment was much easier than mine. All his readers had to do was hit the heart button after reading his article.
390 likes out of 5,800 subscribers is still just 6.7 percent of his total subscribers.
Mark did tell me in an email that this story, which was cross-posted by a few fairly-well known writers including Lew Rockwell, got approximately 5,215 Page Views.
Thus, by the Page View metric, 1-in-13.4 of the people who read this particular story hit it with a like (7.47 percent of his “readers.”)
As a ratio of his total subscribers, 5,215 Page views is 89.9 percent of Mark’s total subscribers. (Mark said he usually gets a little more than 4,000 page views).
For comparison purposes, lately my stories have been producing about 4,100 Page views. My ratio of Page Views to Total Subscribers is about 51.8 percent. For the first 18 months of my newsletter, my stories almost always produced more “page views” than I had total subscribers, meaning this ratio used to be greater than 100 percent.
Given that Mark’s story was (allegedly or purportedly) read by 5,215 people and that Mark specifically asked people to hit the story with a like, I might have expected, say, 20 percent of his readers to hit this story with a like - which would have produced 1,043 “likes” (not 390).
Another take-away from these Substack studies is that very few Substack readers bother to hit a story with a like even if they like the story.
Mark’s hypothesis is/was that more likes might trigger the algorithms and beget more “reads,” which may or may not be a sound or accurate theory.
I once had the theory that more subscribers would beget more future subscribers. That theory held true for about the first 24 months of my newsletter, but no longer holds true. Today, everything I do begets FEWER future subscribers - which qualifies as a significant change - and “significant changes,” IMO, are news-worthy.
I'd have expected more cooperation from readers when you or Mark request a like or comment. If I'm reading an article on a more "conventional" platform, I'd probably ignore such requests. But I feel an affinity with and appreciation for the Substack writers I follow, and presume most readers feel exactly the same. So of course if they request a like or comment, I'll do it. Seems like the least one could do when the writers have been so important. I'm seldom surprised by lameness demonstrated by the general population. But I am surprised readers of COVID contrarian Substack writers didn't do better.
Thanks, Steel J. I think I'm going to develop your point (which I've also thought about) in my follow-up piece where I publish the results of this "study."
If I read an article from a writer I like and he asked me for a tiny favor (hitting a "like" button for a research project), I'd certainly do this. I'd figure that this person has their reasons for making such a request; I'll help him/her out.
It looks like my recent "study" is going to produce a reader response of about 3 or 4 percent - which is ... (very) odd to me.
UPDATE: 25 hours after posting this "homework" assignment, I can publish early results.
* This story has generated 150 likes on 3,430 Page Views.
Note: The Page-View figure is one of my lowest in years.
* 150 "likes" is 240 fewer than Mark Oshinskie got six weeks ago (390) when he did the same experiment. As noted, I have 2,100 more subscribers than Mark.
As a ratio of readers who Opened my article, 4.37 percent of "readers" hit me with a like. Expressed differently, 95.63 percent of my (alleged?) readers decided not to participate in this study.
The same ratio for Mark's experiment was 7.47 percent.
So Mark's experiment produced 61.6 percent more "likes" than my experiment and I have 36 percent more subscribers than Mark. (I have 7,898 subscribers to Mark's 5,800.)
On the plus, side, this story did produce some great comments, and I appreciate everyone who participated in this experiment. It also produced one new paid subscriber, (if the payment isn't cancelled) and two new Free subscribers, which is a major change from recent trends. Thank you to these new subscribers!
I'm going to hold the story I was going to write today. I hope everyone has a great weekend. Pull for Bama to beat suddenly powerful (and very scary) Vandy tomorrow and Troy to beat South Alabama.
I think the way you asked for comments was "hidden" in the last bit of the post. Perhaps stating it first would have made a significant impact
You are maybe right, but I teased this project in the first sentence of my dispatch. I can't remember how I worded it, but told everyone "scroll to the bottom of this post for a reader study/survey."
Did you see this story on espn game day today Bill?? I’m shocked this was just aired and the showed the bucket of meds right there with horse paste on top!!
https://youtu.be/5y1ykbWfQM4
If the link doesn’t work it’s the story of Houston coach Kurt Hester! And here is the photo of the meds he’s trying…..
file:///var/mobile/Library/SMS/Attachments/23/03/FD785455-0745-44C7-9B83-931E953DF17B/IMG_7821.HEIC
More Substack metric analysis and conjecture: How many people pay for Substack subscriptions?
****
Per my research, more than 35 million people have Substack subscriptions. Also, per my research, Substack has "three to four million" paid subscribers.
If we take the lower figure as accurate, that would mean that 8.57 percent of Substack's subscribers pay for at least one subscription.
Using my newsletter for a metric, I know that 3.43 percent of my subscribers are paid. (This is down from a high of about 4.9 percent many months ago).
I've read from reliable sources who study Substack metrics that most newsletter authors are generating a "paid ratio" of only 1 to 3 percent.
One of my main take-aways, and firm beliefs, is that about 1 percent of Substack's subscribers (about 350,000 people) are supporting multiple Substack authors.
That is, this very-generous "One percent" is often paying for 5 to 10 or more paid subscriptions. Thus, it's just a minute percentage of people who are producing those 3 to 4 million paid subscriptions.
Also, only a microscopic percentage of newsletter authors are producing a "living wage" from their writing. To me a living wage, would be about 1,000 paid subscribers.
I would venture to guess that maybe 98 percent of Substack's 75,000 authors don't have any paid subscribers or maybe just a handful.
So I don't think the "subscription model" really works for 98 percent of content providers. It's also very expensive for the tiny percentage of readers who pay for multiple subscriptions.
I would absolutely love to support more of my favorite dissidents. Substack became my go-to during the full court press of globalized big brother that was the covid hoax. However, I moved back to the US in the latter half of 2022, during what is for my lifetime, unprecedented inflation. The three years I spent overseas saw my return basically triple or quadruple my cost of living to maintain the same standard. I went from 10 paid subscriptions down to 3, and have been letting those expire as well as the time runs out. It is indeed a Catch-22, as I understand that if I (and like-minded others) do not or cannot support the alt-media, then we will eventually collapse back to the MSM Pravda - and that way lies a LOT more legwork on my part. My subscriptions were ultimately me paying to outsource much of the detailed analysis that I struggle to find time for often.
I think a lot of how many comments you get depends on what kind of community you've fostered. I love hanging out and chatting in the comments section, so people who "find" me that way are more interested than average in chatting in the comments section. Some people tend to 'silo' themselves off, so they'll get people who read and close the article.
That's how I found your site - from all your great comments at other sites. I copied you when I started my newsletter. The main way I "marketed" my new newsletter was making Reader Comments all over Substack.
That's how Mark Oshinksie and I became buddies. I think he liked all of my comments I was making at his site.
Yep. But some people turn off comments or have paywalls or something that stops the community from interacting -- and that lack of interaction becomes a habit. (I finally ditched many of the subscriptions that wouldn't let me comment.)
I've noticed that too. Far more people now allow only comments for Paid Subscribers. I get what these authors are doing - they are trying to increase their paid subscriber numbers - which tells me they are also concerned about declining paid subscriber numbers.
Other authors produce some stories just for Paid subscribers or publish only part of their story for free (Jon Rappaport does this).
I'd be interested in seeing a "study" on whether these techniques do or don't produce more paid subscribers. Personally, all of my stuff is free. That is, the un-paid subscribers get everything the paid subscribers get. I've always considered Paid Subscribers as just "donations." The subscribers know they aren't going to get any "added value," they just want to support a writer they like.
I recently lost a big revenue source so I had to cancel (or "pause") about 12 paid subscriptions (incuding yours' and Mark's) I was previously receiving and paying for. I understand the necessity of the easiest "inflation work-around" - cancelling paid subscriptions.
I run my 'Stack the same way, because the information getting out is more important than the money coming in.
At some point, you either believe in the market or you don't. Keep providing value and over time, more people will acknowledge that value. Example: I read through that recent court ruling about the student deportations and am writing up a summary. That saves people like three hours (and some sanity because the judge is nuts). Then we'll have a space to discuss the ruling, too. (more value)
Writers like you (and myself) spend a tremendous amount of time on research or reading everything we can and trying to highlight what we think is important. The writing part - which takes many hours - is the shortest part of our jobs.
Then you have to try to market your newsletter and try to get new subscribers.
It's completely different than the journalist who works at a big city newspaper and writes maybe four or five stories a week - and gets paid $70,000/year with benefits.
On a per-hour basis, I make about $1/hour. This job is really only ideal for people who have a good retirement or investment income and/or have a spouse who makes enough to cover all household expenses.
... now a few people can do outstanding. In the "Covid Contrarian" cohort of writers, those were primarily (with some exceptions) the people who started growing their newsletter in 2020.
In contrast, all the Leftist refugees from the dying mainstream media or left-leaning public figures are, somehow, killing it on Substack. Their newsletters are growing even faster than Alex Berenson or Steve Kirsch's newsletters were once growing.
When I decided to start writing for a living, I didn't realize how much reading there would be!
👍 Me, too, Sim Com.
And it's not like I didn't like the content, but I had so many subscriptions I didn't have time to read all the content I was getting. The answer seemed pretty simple to me.....
I can understand that. Most of the ones I have unsubscribed from are the ones that fore shorten and want paid to read the rest. I can't give money I don't have to anyone.
Bill, everybody is losing subs
everybody
peggy hall - who dissects fake news better than anybody, you would think she would have had a big bump from her charlie kirk videos - is losing subs
Mark Oshinskie got a repost from Lew Rockwell, who gets millions of pageviews, and only got 5k hits?
did Lew link to Mark's stack?
or maybe Lew is getting shadowbanned too
IMO, pageviews are the most accurate metric for reach (and is the substack hit counter working? hmmm...). i'll bet a lot of nonsubscribers read you. i was a lurker on your page for a couple of years before i subbed...and just realized that i had unsubbed from Mark's stack at some point! even though i never stopped reading him. lots of us reached substack overkill and had to discipline ourselves and cut back
and sometimes a writer's best work draws the least engagement. chris bray - an oldschool style real journalist and one of the funniest people on substack https://chrisbray.substack.com once griped that a particularly good piece of his didn't generate much engagement. i told him that i didn't respond because he nailed the issue so well that there was nothing left to say about it.
for example i wonder how much engagement you got on that killer piece about your dad's gas distributorship and the EPA https://billricejr.substack.com/p/what-killed-the-country-store
Thanks. I definitely think some of my best or most-important articles are duds as judged by the Substack metrics.
The most important variable for a writer seeking to optimize his reach is if a better-known writer shares or cross-posts your article.
My story that netted me 35 paid subscribers (196 total subscribers) and 1,200 likes was cross-posted by Robert Malone.
Thanks for plugging and remembering my story on Dad's battles with the EPA as a gasoline jobber for Gulf Oil. That was on the power of the Unintended Effect of underground gasoline storage tanks.
Those regs were the reason Dad got out of the gas business. (See, I don't write just about Covid issues!)
I've also found that the time you drop the articles makes a lot of difference. Drop anything after about 3 pm on Friday and it might as well not exist. Late-night EDT is terrible on the weekdays, etc.
does substack have a postdate feature? that would solve the problem
Yeah you can schedule posts to drop in the future. I sometimes do it when I'm finished with the article at 1 am (4 eastern) -- I'll delay it a few hours until more people are awake to comment, which really gets the ball rolling.
I've sometimes taken the opposite approach and posted stories on the weekend, thinking that fewer of my Substack colleagues are probably doing this ... thus, I'll have less competition for "reads."
I don't have enough data to make any conclusions, but I do seem to remember a few weekend dispatches did better than I thought they would.
As long as it's not Friday night or Sunday morning, weekend posts do okay for me.
Bill,
This is just me, but I read 99% of your content via emails on my smart phone. I comment rarely for two reasons. Number one is that typing anything lengthy on a smart phone is painful. Second reason is that you do such a great job of laying out a position that I am at a loss for words other than, "right on" and it seems silly to post a "right on" comment after every newsletter.
I am here, comment or not. Keep up the great work.
Thanks, Ron. In the last 10 months I finally got a "smart phone" which I now use often. However, I hate making posts with it because it takes so long to compose a post.
I like making Reader Comments from my desktop computer. But I think probably 1 or 2 percent of Substack readers access articles from an old-fashioned computer.
Many times I have typed a comment, and in the edit/review process before hitting 'reply' my phone (google battling duckdgo battling my Internet connection) glitches and resets my browser.
Pithy becomes irrelevant.
Effort becomes unnecessary, and I'm reduced and discouraged.
I log back in a day later to muster a 'heart.'
*Whew*
To your point:
I always read your posts, and will hit the like button...
I only comment if I believe I have something useful to say...
Keep writing!
Bill, the paranoids are not after you! I don't think you or any other contrarians are being deamplified by substack. I'm just going to go ahead and be brutally honest.
Your stack loses focus when you spend so much effort on your concerns that you touch on in this post. Your subscribers are seeking information and knowledge. Your worries over your stack metrics doesn't provide that.
I believe that is compounded by a difference between your "type" of subscriber and the type that reads the progressive view of some of the stacks that surprise you with their huge follower base. Where your followers are seeking truth, those following the progressive narrative are seeking comfort, reassurance and maybe even fellowship.
It's getting harder all the time for the truth seekers like yourself to keep your followers engaged given that the contrarian narrative is becoming more widely accepted. They aren't seeking further reassurances. They have it figured out and will at least act with their ballots.
But, your work isn't done! It's just getting harder. I think you need to focus on the clots. Of all the potential weak spots in the MSM narrative the clots have the greatest potential to disrupt. It's got words and pictures. Very unsettling pictures. On the other hand, it will also be met with great resistance because the people you need to impact practice a daily mental process of denial. It's hard to upset that apple cart. They are horrified at the prospect that they have one of those god awful things inside them.
Ya gotta hit em hard. I think you need a coalition of voices with a plan to reach beyond substack. I don't know how to do that but I think that is the chink in the armor.
You make some good points, Mike. One reason I focus so much writing on "curious Substack metrics" is that very few authors are doing this. For example, I've learned that Substack has at least 75,000 newsletter authors. Of this number, I'd guess that maybe 10 to 15 have written more than two stories on this subject. To me, this means I've found an original niche (just like with my writing on "early spread.").
The other reason I focus so much attention of metrics is that I think these obvious and stark changes are very important. If we can't "influence debates" on Substack, where else are we going to go?
Which brings up one of your great points. We need a better alternative to Substack.
And I of course agree with you on the potential "thermo-nuclear impact" of the embalmers' clots, somehow, suddenly going viral.
Debbie Learman has a great idea she posted in her Reader Comment section yesterday. Every single "Covid Contrarian" author in the world needs to file a dispatch (with photos) on this topic on the SAME DAY.
That's a great approach as suggested by Lerman. The question is, what target would these sharp arrows be aimed at? Hopefully somehow somewhere that the impact is hard to ignore.
I have sibs who are multiply vaccinated. I am supposed to tell them they may have clots inside them? What good would that do? Conumdrum anyone?
Can we dissude folks from continuing with the madness? The amount of mental gear shifting required is immense for those who think that the authities and media are never to be questoned.
Exactly.
I agree, my in box is so full! At this point, I’m feeling my paid subscription feels more like a charitable donation to a writer I very much respect, but doesn’t offer much of anything new, the Substack metrics does not contribute to my personal life
I don't think (I hope) that I'm not the only one who occasionally has a problem with the like button.
Sometimes when I hit the like button, it doesn’t register at all, even after multiple tries.
And sometimes it does register, but then it manages to de-register it. I've checked back later and there's no like from me.
It could just be a technical glitch. Or maybe substack doesn’t like me in general.
No clue what's going on with that.
I've experienced the same thing, Whiskey. Or sometimes you have to "sign in" or "register" to hit a story with a like.
I've also noticed my "like" metrics rapidly change. For example, I can click on this story and it will show I've got "25 likes" but, a minute later, it shows I have 40 or the "like" figure changes even as I'm watching it. This might just be a tech delay or glitch, but it happens all the time and I don't remember seeing the same things two years ago.
Nope same thing for me, often on a post there isnt even the like button to begin with. Then sometimes I am unable to make a comment or reply because thats missing too
One of my subscribers is on a Windows 7 machine, and the like button is totally non-functional.
I bought a (last disc New) Win7 license but was unable to load it, obviously not able to register. Sad loss.
... As MS contracts & eliminates support for Win10, that may be my fate.
Linux is calling.
Mark isn't "a much better writer" than you, Bill. He's very good, but so are you. I think he doesn't post as often, which may be a factor.
I don't have as much time to read Substack as I did a few years ago (why could that be? 🤔) And even less time and energy to comment.
But I can commit to registering likes, if that would help 😉
Thanks, PJB. This "like" study might be more interesting than I thought. I'm using the number of "registered" likes for a proxy of "proven readers." I'm starting to wonder if my "Page View" numbers aren't legit.
Because I am caring for my spouse who is in Alzheimer's (he took the jabs, by the way), I sometimes find it difficult to carve out the time to read all of the articles, but I am always informed and/or inspired by what you write. Thank you for your dedication to fact finding and the shared results.
Thank you, Antoinette. I am very sorry to hear about your spouse. I know that's very hard.
I seldom if ever comment but I agree with the “Don’t quit” comment. I look forward to your articles - always!
Thank you, Marcy. I always start out the day saying I'm going to write a story on A - or finish that story I started two days ago - and then I have another idea. I had a good one this morning, but I got sidetracked making Reader Comments at my site and Debbie Learman's site!
I tried to leave a comment on your article the other day, but the app wouldn't open... nor could I get a comment to post through the web. Today it worked as it should.
Thanks for the intel. I also sometimes have issues making comments or even hitting a story with a like.
So I liked an article or read an article or made a comment. By this time tomorrow or the next day, I will have forgotten the whole thing. That is unless the article is something that is really important to me. Most articles are not. That's not so much as a reflection upon the writers, as it is the subject matter. I don't know how it is with other readers.
I save many articles in folders but seldom go back to them. My substack comes through Proton email and I have had it about 3 years. My other email is Yahoo that I have had since 2001 but am slowly migrating away from it. I have things saved there going back 20 years. Why? I am not a junk collector and have gotten rid of much of my past (books, mementos, odds and ends).
Yeah, I get that. I use my Gmail for subs and all manner of site logins.
I 'share' info to a Gmail draft. Some 200 waiting to compile and/or send to myself if I decide it's necessary. As you say, I rarely return to the material, but it's comforting to be able to search-sort-retrieve it.
Google knows everything.
Protonmail is for security.
A couple more factors to consider.
Conservatives are no longer the opposition. They are on the inside now. Not as many people feel the need to remain engaged?
The scamdemic is over. Disaster averted in some people's minds?
And of course, social media fatigue is real. There is very little good happening in the world. We have to disengage for our own health. Not to mention a declining economy where people need to focus on their jobs.
With all that said, I do NOT believe that the progressive follower counts on Substack are organic. For many reasons.
1) the AI race holds nothing on those vested interests trying to control social media. And Substack would be a top prize.
Control of TikTok is almost complete. Israel, Qatar, the government, the deep state blob, the billionaire class, all are trying to control hearts and minds through education or social media control. It is naive to consider they are not trying to capture Substack.
2) What evidence do we have that progressives read more than Covid Contrarians, independents and conservatives? Why would progressives need or want to read more text supporting their agenda when they can find it everywhere? It's not hard to find. They don't need Substack to find their message, their peeps.
They have majority control of the print media, television media, search engine's, social media, and almost all the academic journals. They still read all those sources and want us to believe they are suddenly also massive substack readers? I don't buy it.
Cheryl, Those are great points. I think I've tried to make all of them in articles or in Reader Comments. The bottom line might be that the "Left" long ago captured the MSM. The only place writers and readers like ourselves had to engage in important debates was Substack ... and now the Left has taken over this platform too.
I mean, we're still here. I can post what I want, but our "reach" isn't growing and I don't think we are going to "change any narratives" on this platform. But since I have no where else to post, I'm going to keep writing articles here and hitting send. I'm glad I'm reaching readers like yourself!
Treechat.ai is a blockchain alternative. Maybe look into that? It's on bsv blockchain which is possibly the most censored topic on the Internet. The fact that it could replace the Internet and the banking system possibly has something to do with it. (I am commenting in Dec on a comment from early Oct so you might not see it)
Bill, it's cumbersome and slow replying on a tablet. Sorry, brother.
I feel you ... But you did it with this post. Thanks!
I have found it very challenging to comment as I had to sign on and then enter a verification code and it all took time. It's taken me 3 days to get around to commenting. I wasn't able to simply comment. Maybe this is a factor.
What's up with that "verification code?" I also encounter that far more than I used to.