Some Substack trends might be encouraging
I updated the subscriber numbers for about 12 Substack All-Stars and identified possible positive trends …. as well as other odd or disconcerting metrics.
I was once probably known as the Substack contrarian who wrote about “early spread” … and then, maybe, “the embalmers’ clots.”
Now I’m probably known as the nerd who’s obsessed with Substack metrics and trends.
I’m also probably known as the guy who senses “foul play may be afoot on Substack” and the guy who’s not afraid to publish a little provocative speculation.
But I also want to be known as a writer who is “fair and balanced” and has the integrity to report trends that don’t jibe with his hypotheses. So, today, I feel obligated to tell readers my own Substack subscription metrics have made a dramatic turn - upwards - in recent days.
For example, in one day (from Feb. 1 to 2nd), I added a (net) 36 total subscribers. This is definitely noteworthy as two months ago I was averaging one new subscriber/day.
In fact, for a week now, I’ve been adding (free) subscribers left and right - on some days, more than I was averaging in the first six months of my Substack (back when I was “Cocky Bill” and thought by now I’d be “Semi-Affluent Substack Author Bill.”
But I didn’t analyze just my own numbers …
I also want to present a data snapshot that suggests the good news I’ve experienced in recent days is being shared by several other “Substack Contrarians.”
That is, I’ve identified several other writers who produce similar content who’ve experienced a recent - and noteworthy - spike in subscriptions since I published my list/ranking of “Contrarian All-Stars” on January 10.
My own subscriber data and that of a sample of contrarian colleagues makes me wonder if something has (again) changed on Substack - but, maybe, this time, a development that’s encouraging and positive.
In the curb-your-enthusiasm category, I also have to report that the “liberal titans” I keep monitoring (Robert Reich, Paul Krugman and Your Local Epidemiologist) are still growing their subscriber bases at a much-faster rate than the vast majority of “Covid Contrarians.”
Also, per my analysis of current subscriber numbers, several stalwarts in our “Contrarian fraternity” are, for the most part, stuck in the mud.
Here’s four other Covid Contrarians who have experienced significant Subscriber Growth in the last three weeks since I published my “Top 140” ranking January 10th.
Debbie Lerman -Had 2,690+ subscribers, but now has 4,000 - an increase of 1,300+ or an increase of approximately 48.1 percent.
Story tease: Substack readers should be on the lookout for a dossier of fascinating news and reporting coming from Debbie and Sasha Latypova tomorrow.
Rebekah Barnett, author of “Dystopian Down Under,” grew her Substack from approximately 11,900 subscribers to 12,900 subscribers in the same time period - an increase of 1,000 subscribers or 28.8 percent.
My Substack buddy Jenna McCarthy is moving up the Contrarian Charts, adding at least 500 subscribers in the last couple of weeks. Jenna now has 7K+ subscribers when she had 6.5K when I compiled my list. Her numbers have increased by 7.7 percent.
A Midwestern Doctor (AMD) writes the longest dispatches on Substack, but they’re always interesting and always address serious medical/science subjects. It’s nice to see she’s been rewarded with impressive subscriber numbers. (See, people can and will read “long stories.”)
AMD has increased her subscriber numbers from 162,900+ to 174,900+ - an increase of 12,000 new subscribers, which is a very solid growth rate of 7.36 percent.
Aside 1 …
I use the pronoun “she” for AMD because I’m pretty sure this maverick or atypical doctor is a female.
Of course, the gender of this doctor, who wishes to remain anonymous, doesn’t really matter. However, I recently thought of another interesting future story - an analysis showing what percentage of “Substack Contrarians” are female and what percentage are male.
I’d also be very interested in learning what percentage or regular Substack readers/subscribers (paid and free) are female, and what percentage are male. It’s probably 50-50, but maybe not.
I can say enough highly-intelligent and important Substack authors and readers are female that we can say that the “Karen” pejorative is probably not fair to our friends and allies in the fairer gender.
Aside 2 …
Another interesting analysis would be a story seeking to identify how many of our “Contrarian All-Stars” used to be (excuse the unfair label) “bleeding-heart liberals.”
Per my observations, a surprising number of the most-important Covid Contrarians or “Freedom” writers used to self-identify as progressives or liberals.
While these citizens might still lean to classic liberal thinking, they now seem to feel much more “at home,” hanging out with neighbors who have always viewed themselves as conservatives or libertarians. Or, expressed differently, they are now fed up with their former liberal friends and want to stay far, far away from them.
Excluding Matt Drudge, Joe Scarbrough, former Congresswoman Cheney and several writers at The National Review, it’s harder to identify as many public figures or writers previously associated with the Right who “changed teams” in such a conspicuous manner.
… Back to the ‘content creators’ …
Bill Rice, Jr - In this same time period , I’ve added 232 (net) new subscribers, going from 6,954 to 7,186 earlier today - a surge of 232 subscribers or 3.3 percent. Alas, my (net) “paid subscriber” numbers have gone from 288 to 285 … but let’s don’t talk about that today.
Putting a spotlight on several of Substack’s better-known “All-Stars” …
The following data provides context that might dampen my celebration. (Authors are ranked according to percentage increase in total subscribers.)
Paul Krugman - In the past 10 days, Krugman has gone from 119,000 subscribers to 171,900+ - an increase of approximately 53,000 subscribers or a growth rate of 44.5 percent. Krugman is now adding subscribers at a rate of 5,888 every day .
When I first started monitoring his numbers, Krugman was adding about 2,000 subscribers/day. In recent days, Krugman’s daily numbers have more than doubled.
Robert Reich - If one believes Substack’s metrics, Mr. Reich’s number of subscribers has grown by 149,000 in the past 27 days (from 517,900+ to 666,900+). In less than a month, his subscriber numbers have increased by 28.8 percent. Over this time period, he’s added, on average, approximately 5,519 new subscribers every day.
Like Krugman, Reich’s daily subscriber growth rate has more than doubled since I’ve been charting his numbers. In the last three days, Reich’s subscription numbers increased by 24,000 - a daily growth rate of 8,000 (!).
Note: Reich is now adding (significantly) more subscribers every day than I accumulated in the 870 days (29 months), I’ve been publishing my Substack.
Your Local Epidemiologist (Dr. Katelyn Jetelina) - America’s epidemiologist who “consults” with the CDC - now has approximately 322,000 total subscribers.
I haven’t been monitoring YLE’s numbers since January 7. However, I wrote a story about her on Nov. 15, 2023 when she had 211,000 subscribers. YLE has, thus, added 110,000 subscribers in 14 1/2 months.
The Great News: Ms. Jetelina has been adding, on average, only about 261 new subscribers every day.
The Bad news: She added 4,000 subscribers in the last 2 or 3 days.
*** (My “story reads” - aka “my reach” - would be depressing if nobody was sharing my articles, but enough people are doing this to, perhaps, keep me semi-relevant as a Substack author.) ***
Our side’s MVP’s aren’t doing as well
The following authors’ metrics allow us to compare the liberal Substack All-Stars with a few of “our” side’s best-known Stackers.
Alex Berenson - Today has 243,900 total subscribers. The most infamous alumnus of the NY Times had the exact same number of subscribers three weeks ago which = “zero growth” and a 0-percent increase.
Steve Kirsch has grown his Substack from 256,900 subscribers to 257,900 subscribers - an improvement of 0.39 percent in the past 27 days.
Everybody I chat with on Substack likes Jeff Childers’ “Coffee and Covid” Substack, but Jeff is not in the same ballpark as Krugman and Reich, adding only 4,000 net subscribers (from 163,000 to 167,000) in the past 27 days. Still, this is an increase of 2.5 percent, which is better than the proverbial “stick in the eye.”
Dr. Meryl Nass might be the most important Substack author of all. Alas, Dr. Nass’s Substack is treading water, adding only 1,000 subscribers in the same period Reich added 150,000 subscribers. Dr. Nass’s subscriber base has experienced a growth rate of 2.1 percent since I published my “Top 140” list.
This chart shows the good news about my subscriber numbers
Looking at the far left of this 90-day total subscriber chart, one can see that my Subscriber growth was almost non-existent for most of November 2024.
For example, from Nov 6th to December 2nd (26 days), I added only 31 net subscribers. Seventy to 90 days ago, I was adding, on average, 1.23 subscribers every day.
Things improved a smidgen from December 3rd to Dec. 26th when I added 65 subscribers over 23 days (2.8 subscribers/day).
However, in the last 23 days (from Jan. 10th to Feb. 2nd), I rallied and added 210 subscribers, which averages out to 9.13 subscribers/day.
On Feb. 2nd, I added 36 net subscribers in one day!
On Feb. 1st, I added 13 net subscribers.
Between Jan. 10th and 13th, I added 75 new subscribers - which averages out to 25/subscribers per day.
Note: These numbers, which are net figures, would be higher if I didn’t continue to have a perplexing number of (free) subscribers who continue to unsubscribe.
I’m somewhat embarrassed to trumpet these improvements, which seem paltry compared to most of the above-mentioned Substack authors.
Still, going from 1 to 2 new subscribers per day to days where I add 13, 25 or 36 subscribers is, perhaps, worth noting.
Is this a real trend or, perhaps, a sign of hope?
These metrics make me wonder if any jockeys, who’ve perhaps been pulling back on the reins of my Substack have, for some reason, loosened their restraints.
Since this better news is happening to a fair number of Substack authors, I can’t help but wonder if this is a sign that Substack is once again growing like it did in 2020-2021.
For a second, I even wondered if all my writing publicizing “odd” subscriber trends on Substack might have reached the right people, who maybe decided they were going to prove Rice wrong.
Then I said, “Nah,” …that idea is silly. I’m not that good or that influential.
Maybe I just hit a little spurt where I produced a series of articles that resonated with more Substack readers.
These people decided “that article was pretty good” or “kind of interesting … I’m going to give this guy a trial run with a free subscription.”
If that’s the case, my response would be… this is the way Substack ought to work.
Writers do their best to produce interesting articles which, for whatever reason, reach a fair number of people who are not current subscribers … which produces or begets more subscribers and readers … or something like this.
However, ever the contrarian, I also note that all the other articles I posted - the ones that weren’t producing hardly any new subscribers - were (IMHO) just as good or interesting.
Question: Why didn’t those articles also produce the same number of new subscribers? Answer: I don’t know.
… So I’m still right back where I started. When it comes to Substack trends, I don’t know what the heck’s going on.
All I know is that in this war of narratives Substack’s more important than many people might appreciate. Somehow our writers have got to hold this beach and continue to bring in reinforcement writers and even more citizens who’d previously never heard of Substack.
That is, I continue to think these subscriber and readership trends really do matter. Also, if I’m in a fight … I want it to be a fair fight.
*** (Below is the all-important red “metric” button). ***
I should note that I still get a few new paid subscriptions. I just got one today - with a very nice note. However, I'm losing more paid subscribers than I gain. In the last 90 or so days, I've gone from 304 paid subscribers down to 283 - but now back up to 285.
My work-around for losing paid subscribers was ... start a local Substack - which has been fun and I've enjoyed that, but the risk is I suffer major burn-out trying to produce quality content for two distinct audiences.
As far as revenue goes, my Ko-Fi supporters have made up for my loss of paid subscribers so I really appreciate their consistent generosity.
As little money as I make, I'd rather be doing this and writing the stories I'm writing and interacting with all my subscribers and Contrarian Colleagues than following orders for a captured MSM news organization. This work is more important and actually kind of exciting.
If Your Local Epidemiologist numbers are real I will eat my hat, a flying pig, and a unicorn.
Those CDC bots have been busy.