‘Something changed on Substack.’

Today I present an analysis of my own metrics, including ‘damn-the-torpedoes’ speculation on what might have changed and why.

The author and his son are pulling for the Good Guys … Once upon a time, a freelance writer in Troy, Alabama who wanted to help save the world started a Substack newsletter. At first, his newsletter grew rapidly and was producing many new subscribers; this citizen journalist was optimistic he might be contributing to an effort to debunk a few of society’s misery-producing and bogus narratives … and, then, something changed.

Note: Since this article approaches the length of a dispatch penned by A Midwestern Doctor, I’ve provided a Table of Contents. It won’t hurt my feelings if readers skip down to the final two sections, which enter more provocative terrain.

However, it would make my day if a few of my 7,255 (human?) subscribers read the whole meditation.

Article Sections:

I. Two analogies demonstrate the importance of ‘new business’ - the radio sales rep and the baseball slugger.

II. Comparing my new-subscriber-conversion-rate to Robert Reich: ‘One of these newsletters is not like the other.’

III. Another key metric: Readers as a ratio to total subscribers … documenting changes over time.

IV. Key observations from analyzing my own metrics.

V. Possible explanations for these trends or changes: ‘What’s happening, why and how …’

VI. What I’d do if I worked for the Censorship Industrial Complex and wanted to suppress the reach of dissident voices … How conspirators might create faux or dummy subscribers, bots or AI creations.

VII. Conclusion

********************************************************

To perform the optimal analysis of one’s subscription metrics, a researcher should examine the number of non-subscribers who become subscribers.

That is, the only way an author can add new subscribers is to “reach” people who are currently not subscribers.

I. An analogy from a previous job might illustrate a germane point, albeit one that’s rarely analyzed.

For two years, I sold radio commercials for a living. For sales reps, one of our key metrics was the number of new clients we “got on the air.” Indeed, most of my time and energy was spent trying to convince business managers who were not currently advertising to become “paid advertisers.”

In sales parlance, this metric is called “new business.” (According to the consensus of commerce professors, it’s hard for businesses to stay in business if they don’t generate new business).

As a Substack author, I’m effectively doing the same sales work. Once someone is already a subscriber, I can’t re-sell them. Instead, I focus on converting non-subscribers into subscribers.

In fact, I’d argue this metric - the percentage of non-subscribers who decide to become subscribers - is the most important metric for Substack authors.

The analysis that follows reveals that, on average, I once converted far more non-subscribers into subscribers than I currently do.

Did I lose my stroke?

To switch from a sales to a sports analogy, my batting average converting readers into subscribers was once much higher.

Common sense tells me something explains why my “batting average” plummeted. Did I change my swing? Did I get lazy and cut back on my pre-game batting practice?

Or did other factors - things that I can’t control - perhaps change?

***

Sales is basically a numbers game. If my memory is correct, when I was in radio sales I’d produce approximately one sale for every 10 prospects I called on. If I wanted to sign up three new advertisers per week, I needed to call on 30 prospects.

What if I went back into radio sales today and found out I now had to make 20 sales calls to produce one sale?

If I did this, I’d know my sales pitch hadn’t changed … nor had my great personality (a little metic humor) … Let’s also assume the radio stations hadn’t changed.

If my new “close ratio” was now 1-in-20, I’d have to conclude something else had changed.

In this article, I’m simply pointing out that something definitely changed (and I don’t think it’s me or my work product) …. because my ratio of converting non-subscribers into subscribers has clearly plummeted.

II. But not for everyone, which is … strange.

For example, Robert Reich.

Per my analysis of Reich’s subscription numbers, I believe about 1-in-80 to 1-in-35 of Reich’s non subscribers read one of his articles and decide, on the spot, they are going to subscribe to Mr. Reich’s newsletter.

A little math produces my conversion estimate of 1-in-80 to 1-in-35

As Substack’s 17,000+ authors know, one of a writer’s key metrics is our Open Rate - which is the percentage of subscribers who “open” and, one assumes, read one of our emailed articles.

In the last eight or so months, my Open Rate has ranged from 33 to 35 percent. Recently, it’s been 34 percent - a figure I think is common for Substack authors with at least 1,000 total subscribers.

(Note: For most of the first 12 months of my newsletter, my Open Rate ranged from 44 to 54 percent … so that metric has also plummeted.)

If Reich has the same Open Rate as most Substack authors, one can calculate how many existing subscribers read each of his articles and how many non-subscribers read his articles.

In the last week or two, Reich had around 700,000 total subscribers (he now has 725,000+).

If his open rate is 34 percent, I can deduce that 238,000 current subscribers read each of his articles. (Math: 700,000 total subscribers x an Open Rate of 34 percent = 238,000 subscribers who read a typical article).

More significantly, I know that approximately 462,000 of his readers were not existing subscribers (Math: 700,000 - 238,000 = 462,000 non-subscriber readers).

UPDATE (Feb. 15): Subscriber Steel J pointed out a flaw in my math formula. I have now revised my estimate of Reich’s “conversion rate,” which might be around 1-in-35 instead of 1-in-80. See Reader Comment thread for math. (Note: A conversion ratio of 1-in-35 is even more implausible or hard to believe).

From almost-daily monitoring of Reich’s published subscription numbers, I also know that Reich has been averaging 5,743 new subscribers every day (or every article he publishes, which is about one every day).

Thus, using these figures and math extrapolations, I know that approximately 1-in-80 (to 1-in-35) of Reich’s non-subscribers are becoming subscribers every day.

Expressed as a percentage, 1.24 to 2.8 percent of Reich’s non-subscribers become subscribers - every day.

I can now compare Reich’s estimated subscriber-conversion rate to my own.

One of these newsletters is not like the other …

My last eight articles produced three (3) new subscribers, which is less than 1/2 a subscriber every article.

To illustrate the significance of one author’s conversion rate, I can look at my own metrics for a recent article. I examined the metrics for my article “WikiLeaks Lives!” which I posted five days ago on Feb. 9th.

This article was opened by 2,544 of my 7,255 subscribers, meaning my Open Rate for this article was 35 percent.

Note: I might also mention that this article was not a complete clunker as it did pretty well with other metrics like “likes” (110), cross-posts (19) and shares (31).

These days I’m very interested in learning how many non-subscribers are reading my articles and, more significantly, how many of these non-subscribers are becoming subscribers. Thanks to Substack’s excellent metrics, this information is easy to ascertain.

World-wide, my article “WikiLeaks Lives” was read by 4,870 people (and/or bots).

I know (or maybe I don’t know for a fact) that 2,544 of these people were subscribers, which tells me the article was read by 2,326 people who have not yet decided to become subscribers to “Bill Rice, Jr.’s Newsletter.”

The latter figure provides the money metric. With this particular article, I reached 2,236 prospective subscribers.

From this figure, zero (0) global citizens decided to hit the “subscribe” button.

This means my “conversion rate” for this article was 0-in-2,236 (0.000 percent).

As it turns out, this was the exact same conversion percentage as seven of my last eight articles.

In recent days, I decided to analyze many of my previous articles published at different points in my 29-month tenure as a Substack author to see if my conversion rate had changed by any noticeable degree.

Lo and behold, I found out it had … big time.

***

Once upon a time - for approximately the first year of my Substack - my rate of converting non-subscribers into subscribers was not that different than the Great Robert Reich himself.

For example, picking a story at random, on November 22, 2022 I published a story with the headline “Why Early Spread Matters.”

At that time - two months after the launch of my Substack - I already had 1,059 subscribers (an average of 530 new subscribers/month).

429 existing subscribers opened that article, which produced 2,160 “page views.” Since probably 10 of those page views were me checking out how this article did, I’ll estimate this article was read by 2,150 people (not counting myself ten times).

As you can tell, most of my readers were non-subscribers. In fact, 1,721 of my readers weren’t subscribers. (19.9 percent of my readers were subscribers; 80.1 percent were not subscribers).

Of this cohort of excellent prospects, 15 people decided to subscribe. (Substack’s metrics tell authors how many total subscribers each article produces).

My conversion rate for this article was, thus, 1-in-114.7 (or 0.87 percent).

While this ratio isn’t as impressive as Reich’s 1-in-80 ratio (or, per my revised math, 1-in-33) it wasn’t too shabby either.

And, to be clear, I didn’t cherry pick when I selected my “Why Early Spread Matters” article.

In the first seven months of my Substack, I published 98 original articles, which netted me 3,582 subscribers.

Simple math (division) reveals that for the first seven months of this newsletter I was averaging 36.6 new subscribers with every article I posted.

But, as they say, that was then and this is now.

In the past week, I’ve been averaging less than 1/2 a subscriber with every article I post. Two months ago, in November 2024, I averaged 2 new (net) subscribers per article.

***

The purpose of this article is to illustrate the number of non-subscribers who read each of my articles.

For some reason(s), this number has barely gone up at all and, in many examples, actually went down.

My analysis shows that my total subscriber numbers have doubled in the past 22 months - a result that makes me happy …, but a result I thought would have happened in, say, six months.

It strikes me as odd that the average number of non-subscribers who read my articles has barely increased and, with many stories, has actually gone down.

For example, My recent article “Math’s a Great Invention” - published six days ago- was read by 1,926 non-subscribers. (The math on this article: None of these nearly 2,000 readers opted to become subscribers).

As shown above, in November 2022, 224 more non-subscribers read an article I published.

Today, I’m much more established as a “Contrarian author” and my “brand” or name ID must be much greater. However, this higher profile hasn’t enhanced my efforts to attract more readers and convert more non-subscribers into subscribers.

III. Another key metric …

I must have too much time on my hands because I actually charted my ratio of “total readers to total subscribers.”

On average, for the first seven months of my Substack, I had more non-subscriber readers than I did existing subscribers.

To cite two more examples, on April 24, 2023, I wrote an article that was read by 5,160 people on Substack when I had only 3,549 subscribers at the time. This represents a ratio of readers-to-subscribers of 1.45.

On April 28, 2023, I knocked out an article that was read by 4,510 people, but I only had 3,585 subscribers. For that article my reader-to-subscriber ratio was 1.26.

Here’s how this ratio has changed …

Per a recent analysis spanning two months (from Dec. 7, 2024 through February 7, 2025), my articles were read by average of 4,490 people. However, in this time period I had approximately 7,200 total subscribers. So my reader to subscriber ratio is now 62.3 percent (well below 1.0).

One break-down of my subscribers in the past week:

2,448 - Average number of subscribers who read my articles (34 percent)

4,752 - Average number of subscribers who don’t open or read my articles (66 percent)

Here’s another break-down of my “readers”:

2,448 - Average number of subscribers who read my articles

2,048 - Average number of non-subscribers who read my article.

IV. Bill’s key observations …

Observation 1: In recent months, significantly more subscribers read my articles than non-subscribers … which is a major trend reversal from the fist seven to 12 months of my Substack … Conclusion: “Something changed.”

Observation 2: The number of non-subscribers who read my articles has barely changed and, compared to 20 months ago, has gone down.

From this anecdote we can identify “something that didn’t change” … That is, one might have expected more non-subscribers to have “discovered” my newsletter by now - but this change didn’t occur.

Observation 3: The number of non-subscribers who decide to “give this guy a try” and become a subscriber (no payment necessary) has fallen off a cliff.

Going back to my slugger analogy, my batting average has plummeted. In fact, if I was a Big League ball player, the GM - all of whom are now metric savants - would have surely shipped me down to AA.

V. Quick conclusions/possible explanations for these trends or changes:

That was then ….Readers in my “target market” of non-subscribers once had a 1-in-29 to 1-in-200 probability of subscribing to my newsletter.

This is now: With a few anomalous exceptions, the same readers now have a 1-in-1,000 to zero probability of becoming subscribers … Conclusion: “Something changed.”

While more subscribers have produced more subscribers for my newsletter, the rate of my subscriber growth has …. dropped off a cliff … Again, “Something changed.”

*** (Almost all of the anomalous and big subscriber spikes I’ve had occurred after well-known Substackers cross-posted one of my articles.) ***

Possible Conclusions re: What’s happening, Why and How …

Note: Here I make a hard segue into speculation and throw some theories against the wall to see if any of them might stick.

Possibility 1: The Substack readers changed, at least the “dissident” market of skeptical readers, who are no longer subscribing to recently-discovered newsletters at nearly the rate they were 12 months ago. Over-saturation of the “Contrarian author” market could be what changed.

However, certain liberal Substack writers (like Robert Reich and Paul Krugman) are experiencing eye-opening increases in total subscribers as well as in the rate of subscriber growth.

Possibility 2: Liberal citizens may now be flocking to Substack at rates far greater than conservatives. This would be a major change as it was more conservative or “contrarian” readers who put Substack on the map five years ago with the Covid lockdowns.

Possibility 3: For some reason, apparently citizens with a similar bent of mind as my own are NOT discovering Substack.

Stated differently: If larger numbers of long-time Substack readers are now far less inclined to subscribe to additional Substack authors and are more likely to unsubscribe to existing newsletters, these numbers are not being offset by the addition of new readers who’ve recently discovered Substack.

Unanswered Question: Why aren’t more conservative or “MAGA” citizens discovering Substack?

Possibility 4: Or perhaps subscription numbers for liberal, Statist or Narrative-Protecting authors are being artificially inflated and, perhaps, the reach of newsletters like my own is now being suppressed or somehow manipulated.

Another conclusion that flows from my metric research: While developing a positive brand or name ID might have helped early Substack authors grow their subscriber numbers, this dynamic, generally speaking, no longer results in significant subscriber growth.

Possibility 5: Substack has peaked as a platform where contrarian authors have a realistic expectation of experiencing significant subscription growth.

Two Key Conclusions:

The days where the growth of “contrarian” authors experienced dramatic growth are now gone.

Today, rapid or impressive subscriber growth is much more likely for writers who support the official or authorized narratives.

VI. What I would do if I worked for the Censorship Industrial Complex and its Deep State backers and wanted to suppress the reach of dissident voices …

Note: The following thought exercise definitely qualifies as hard-core contrarian speculation, but damn the torpedoes …

If I worked for the Globalists or Statists - Machiavelli disciples who wanted to finish as many of their unfinished agendas as possible or protect their cushy positions in society - I might …

• Create programs to suppress the reach of citizens who pose the greatest threat to achieving their objectives.

• By now, I would have identified the “Substack Contrarians” as a major threat and would probably want to neutralize this threat (by any means … fair or unfair).

For example, if a typical article produced by a “contrarian” or dissident author once produced X new subscribers or readers, I’d want to change this metric to, say, X minus 80 percent.

• On Substack, the challenge would be creating a program that minimized the reach of authors who comprised these threats … without these authors knowing this was happening.

(Today, a new fear might be Elon Musk’s platoon of heroic DOGE computer geeks figuring out what’s going on).

• If the goal is to block or slow the growth or reach of these authors (so their arguments or evidence never “go viral” and thus reach the mainstream population), conspirators would need to restrict the number of citizens who are exposed to potentially narrative-debunking articles.

• On Substack, this might mean blocking the growth of new subscribers in the tranche of so-called disinformation super spreaders.

• To achieve this result, conspirators might create faux or dummy subscribers (bots or AI creations).

This would make these authors incorrectly think their total subscriber numbers are growing (or, at least not shrinking) when some “subscribers” might not be real people.

Presumably, these dummy or bot subscribers would be far less likely to “share” articles, which would reduce the ability of writers to reach potential new subscribers and grow their audience.

Also, dummy subscribers might be far more likely to unsubscribe than real subscribers, which might control or limit the growth of authors who have, perhaps, been designated to the “threat group.”

• I might also create a program that makes sure some percentage of real subscribers don’t receive an author’s articles in the email.

These and other programs would reduce the rate of subscriber growth, including paid subscribers, which would reduce the income dissident authors were generating on this writers’ platform.

(One more personal metric: In the past three months, my (net) paid subscribers have decreased from 304 to 284 - a decrease of 20 paid subscribers or 6.6 percent).

This might cause frustration/depression and, ultimately, cause some number of dissident authors to give up their goal of being a significant Substack muckraker.

• I might tamper with various metrics so authors think they are still reaching large numbers of prospective subscribers … when they might be reaching fewer excellent prospects than they once were.

• I might also artificially inflate the subscriber numbers (and income) of authors who will always support the Statist’s authorized narratives.

This program might allow the executives of Substack to continue to increase the company's subscriber numbers (and boost revenue) … but instead of relying on politically-incorrect “Contrarians” to provide this growth, it would now be the Status-Quo-defending authors who account for the bulk of Substack’s continued growth.

It’s possible Substack executives have concluded such initiatives might keep a certain 900-pound gorilla off their backs.

• As a Deep State member, I wouldn’t want the “Man on the Street” to discover Substack and its impressive roster of dissident citizen journalists and researchers.

• To facilitate this goal, I’d make sure social media companies like Facebook (which reach more than one billion people), either shadow ban or ban outright the shares and/or reach of articles produced by Substack’s Contrarian authors.

(It should be noted that X doesn’t allow shares of Substack content).

• I might launch a bogus campaign to label Substack as a “haven for Nazis.”

• With Substack’s own PR programs, I might ensure no “Substack Contrarian” authors are promoted … but heavily promote “authorized” liberal, narrative-defending authors.

• I might create a psy-op or narrative which characterizes people who think some of the above programs could be occurring as “paranoid” or wild “conspiracy kooks” who should be dismissed or ignored (if not banned).

Etc.

Conclusion …

In a recent article (re-published by The Brownstone Institute), I opined that massive conspiracies not only exist - they all seem to work.

In the hypothetical conspiracy outlined above, the goal would be to suppress the reach of “dissident” authors like myself.

I also recently wrote an article positing that my own “brand” might be as the Substack author who established a riche with articles that focus on “Early Spread,” the “embalmers’ clots” and, now, the hypothesis that something nefarious might have changed on Substack.

If I somehow proved the latter conspiracy is real and on-going, my brand and audience might explode.

… But only if my articles reached enough people … which they won’t … which, I think, might prove the above thesis.

***

(In the last 64 days, I have added 19 new paid subscribers, but approximately 35 paid subscribers unsubscribed. My new goal is not to add net subscribers, but to try to lose as few net subscribers as possible. I appreciate all of my subscribers - paid and free.)

One-time Ko-Fi donations greatly appreciated!