I'm long retired and on fixed (and ever shrinking) resources so while I read widely (well, widely within the scope of "dissident" writers which I prefer) it is not possible for me to pay subscriptions to the over 24-30 sub-stacks that I read as they post. Perhaps there is a growing universe of folk in my dilemma ... who would, if we could? In any case I enjoy your opinions as they stretch mine at times so I continue to grow in my dissidence. Thank you for that! I am human, not bot!
I go through my subscriptions every 6 months or so and reduce if the writer seldom posts. I have a budget for news and as the price of energy has gone up it leaves less $$ for subs. Inflation certainly contributes to buying fewer subscriptions. Sometimes I drop a Substack with big subs for a smaller one who I think needs to be heard because the former won't notice and the latter probably needs it more. But buying books and serials on a budget has been my career as a librarian so I am always pondering. I'm not sure about anything happening in the mechanics of Substack because as a free writer people probably don't unsub.
This analysis deals with free subscribers, which are now more than 96 percent of my subscribers ... so I don't think inflation is the big determining factor in my much-slower growth rate.
The dynamic of people having "too many Stacks to read" is definitely a major contributor to these trends I'm writing about.
Still, I'm not convinced a sudden "mass purge" or culling of Substack subscriptions would fully explain these trends.
I didn't get into it, but I've also identified huge numbers of "subscribers" who suddenly unsubscribe in one day. I don't think all of these subscribers were real or authentic subscribers or readers.
And I wonder why they subscribed in the first place. Perhaps the goal is to make me think I wasn't losing subscribers ... or to camouflage the possibility my articles were no longer reaching as many legit subscribers?
Also, about two weeks ago, my percentage of paid subscribers dropped below 4 percent for the first time. For much of the history of my Substack - until recently - my "paid" ratio was approximately 4.7 percent.
They won't hired me, Richard. My "Contrarian" bonafides are now far too well-known. Most organizations won't hire anyone they think might "rock the boat" or challenge conventional wisdom ... or someone who has a "paper trail" of being too controversial or politically incorrect.
I now have an extensive paper trail in the form of archived stories.
If the incentive of this substack is to earn money, then the thought that you might, is an incentive in itself. Covid is yesterday's news now and although Doctor's are still injecting Covid vaccines (paid Salespeople for Big Pharma - inject or lose your job), until the next "made" pandemic comes along, people are moving on with their lives and thinking they can put the past to sleep and forget about it - because we all suffer from short term memory loss and the Sheep are still Sheep and they need to be panicked en mass, to be concerned about the next calamity they have to forego and overcome, like the last Covid one.
The Moderna Covid-19 virus made by GOF with DARPA's help and Patented in 2013 and again in 2016 by Moderna, just for you...........to get their "life saving" vaccines.
It was interesting to note that Moderna never owned up to that one, so nobody ever accused Moderna of doing anything wrong - now that Biden has given Moderna 539 Million to make a vaccine for Bird Flu which has been with us for millions of years and can't jump genetically different species, it is interesting to see how long it takes for Moderna to get around that "genetic" problem, once more, with DARPA's help. one can but wonder, again?
Noted that Cats eat Birds so it seems Cats might be in the firing line for the chop next, then dogs too presumably, re - Bird flu.
If at first you don't succeed killing off Humans, try and try again, to knock off something else instead, perhaps?
You heard the story going around in 2020 - the new Covid vaccines were injected into a Texas herd of Cattle, the Cattle all died within a few days, except one Cow which lasted 9 days before it died too - then, you will never guess where the vaccines, "untested", went next - you guessed, "us Human's" - my thinking being that those with genetics similar to Cattle all died, because we all are natural to this planet and the species on it, in some way and that might be how genetics are used to separate us for extermination.
Everything is still in flux .. my guess is places like Substack will eventually coalesce into writer alliances that resemble Magazines - both for price and reading balance .. Rolling Stone needed lots of regular, fluffier fare in order to maintain a home for the rarer Hunter Thompson gem. (My recommendation is that instead of the authors choosing themselves, that Substack offer a menu to the readers .. one in which the readers can periodically swap writers in and out. Maybe they already do - I haven't paid that much attention.)
There are a number of similar substacks around = Quora has one (I lasted 4 weeks the first time I posted anti vax there and the second time a few days) The Conservative Woman (TCW) has their own one - you have to post on it to get your articles in their online paper - and there was another one, which I posted to occasionally, can't remember what it was called and there was the Medical one too Crocus or something like that, which Steve Kirsch was also part of - I posted there too at one stage, had a following for a bit too.
Substack has always been regarded as "Anti Vax" so it always got the push from the Vax Brigade - and there is The Expose too, which was always bang on the money, so far as I was concerned - moist the stuff I got and passed on, was The Expose based - well worth a free membership.
Personally, I think everything is slowing down and moving away from Covid, because after almost 5 years, everyone's fed up with it - we survived, on to the next internet sponsored calamity.
To Kathleen: I have installed 18 Solar Panels on the North facing roof of my home (the sunny side) and I have 3 storage batteries, so that all Solar electricity goes to power my home first and anything left over goes into the Grid, for which I get peanuts repayments.
I've just upgraded the system, which I installed about a year ago to 3 batteries, one was not quite enough and I'm running my home on my generated stored electricity with about 40% drained overnight and 60% left in the batteries - it takes a few hours to recover that 40% usage, the next day - so day time, I'm running 100% fully charged batteries and I do my cooking and other large expenditure electricity use, at the sunniest time of the day - heat water for 3 hours then turn off the tank water heater (hot water lasts about one week) refrigerate cooked meals to teatime and can cook multiple meals same time - I don't like cooking - etc, big refrigerator and freezer and big TV's in my home and zoned air conditioning too, ceiling fans all rooms - turned off Gas and only electric home now - big financial saving, short and longer term, free to be spent elsewhere as it pleases me. I estimate that the free electricity should pay for itself in about 5 years, then all free of course - and shop around for the cheapest Solar System with a 10 year Warranty - the most expensive one, is not always the best, but a lot like not being vaccinated, from those who have been, if you like!!
Exactly my situation, for one, Sharon. I wonder if the Substack community, on aggregate, is trying to take out more money than it is willing to put in. A kind of authorial perpetual motion.
I still think Reich (& other leftists writers) gets lots of subscriptions from subscribers that don't pay for it, it's bought for them as a way to funnel money to Reich. If he was subsisting on subscribers, you wouldn't be able to read past the first paragraph, but you can read all his post, can't comment, but you can read & share. Somebody is buying those subscriptions for the subscribers, like the bureaucrats that were getting expensive Politico special subscriptions paid for by USAID?
Seems very plausible. The early enthusiasts for democracy may not have foreseen a time when government would be able to tax the citizens, then use some of their money to brainwash them.
Bill, Substack is the only place I can search to find “unapproved” news and historical narratives…BECAUSE OF WRITERS LIKE YOU! Stay strong, pray, and follow your instincts…the wisdom and common sense possessed by you and at least a handful of other “contrarian” writers here is a blessing from God. He is showing grace and mercy to us every day here in what has become a pagan country, and the prayers of the righteous (though all sinners saved by His grace) have been going forth constantly as He has brought forth fighters, truth-seekers, like you, who have begun to peel back the decades of deception…lies laid down layer after layer by our greatest enemy and the father of all lies…satan. All ultimately to God’s Glory!🙌
May God bless you and your precious family, meet all of your needs, and most of all give you His Peace. 🙏
Bit of a worry, if you have been "genetically modified" by a Gene Therapy Injection, also known as a Covid vaccine and your DNA and Human Genome has been changed (which is what the vaccines do - but for the Military) if mRNA is natural to all species and by US Supreme Court Law 2013, cannot be Patented - but anything new, like ModRNA created in a laboratory can be, like the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines and all of the other ones too - they all have NanoGraphi Nanotubes in them (Google NanoGraphi) - if mRNA is the key to Heaven, what door does ModRNA open after death, I wonder?
Two ways to exterminate, kill off the living and make sure their Spirits can't ever come back either, I would have thought?
A heads up if you like, better prepared for any eventuality after death, than going in blind and The Pope said all Catholics had to be vaccinated like him, if they were really Catholics, meaning what - perhaps you should ask your vaccinated Pope?
I'm not with you on Reich's non-subscribing readers in part 2. He has 700,000 subscribers. You estimate 238,000 of those read an article. 700,000-238,000=462,000 is how many non-reading subscribers he had. NOT how many non-subscribing readers. You figured YOUR non-subscribing readers correctly, by subtracting the subscribers who read from total readers. At no point did you cite how many READERS Reich had. Unless I missed something, but I did reread it, twice. Maybe I need to again?
As far as why conversion rate of readers who are not subscribers into subscribers has plunged, I'd expect that to decline, and decline markedly over time. Two strong reasons come to mind.
1) Some people are inclined to subscribe to newsletters, as their general behavior. Some aren't You are NOT DEALING WITH A PRISTINE POOL of non-subscribing readers for each article, like you were on your very first substack. Some non-subscribing readers have never been exposed to Bill Rice before. Most have, by this point. They've read before, and already demonstrated they're uninclined to subscribe. Why expect them to change now? It will take something very, very compelling to make such people subscribe.
2) Many of the the non-subscribing readers WOULD HAVE subscribed in the earlier days. But not today. As the scamdemic unfolded, we were searching for content we liked. We find Bill Rice, like him, subscribe. Then, Mark Oshinskie, and subscribe, Meryl Nass, subscribe. Before we know it, we've got 20-100 authors showing up in our inbox. Enough, already. If we read an article by Joe Schmoe, just as good as Bill or Mark (not possible, but this is for illustrative purposes only), we won't subscribe because we've already got too many good authors filling our inbox. After all, we can just go directly to his stack via the web page whenever we want, anyway. Personally, I've passed on subscribing to a LOT of stacks I would have subscribed to in the early days because I don't want any more in my inbox unless it's some bona fide superstar much better than the excellent stacks I already subscribe to. That's a MUCH HIGHER BAR than a few years ago.
I can think of a few other reasons, but this is too long already.
Steel J, see if these revised extrapolations are more germane or better … Note: I use my own Open Rate of 34 percent, which I think is common for Substack authors and use my ratio of non-subscriber readers to readers who are current subscribers ….
Revised Bottom line: It looks like Reich’s “conversion rate” is far better than I originally calculated (and far more implausible or non-credible).
Reich now has approximately 730,000 total subscribers (a "known knowable.") At the common Open Rate of 34 percent …
- 248,200 of Reich’s readers are subscribers. (This is a “known knowable” if his open rate is 34 percent)
But, as you astutely point out, we actually don’t know how many “readers” read each of Reich’s articles (since I don’t have access to his “page view” metrics.
However, for thought-exercise purposes, I can apply my own metrics to Reich’s numbers.
My break-down of total readers gives me my recent ratio of non-subscriber “readers.” In recent weeks, each of my articles produced …
4,490 - Total Readers.
Of this number, I know that, on average …
2,467 of these readers are existing subscribers.
Math: I have 7,255 total subscribers and an Open Rate of 34 percent = 2,467 readers who are existing subscribers.
By subtracting the number of my readers who are existing subscribers (2,467) from my total readers (4,490 - my “page view” metric), I know that 2,023 of my readers are not subscribers.
My recent numbers:
4,490 - Total Readers
2,467 - Readers who are subscribers
2,023 - Readers who are not subscribers
My ratio of non-subscribers to subscribers is 82 percent
We can now apply the same ratio to Reich’s metrics.
- 248,200 - readers who are subscribers (open rate of 34 percent)
- 203,524 - readers who are not subscribers (Math: 82 percent of his subscriber numbers.)
451,724 - Estimated Total Readers for a typical Reich article.
Note: This actually makes more sense as I don’t know how Reich would have many more non-subscriber readers than his number of "existing-subscriber" readers. For example, he’s not getting new readers from X as X doesn’t link to Substack articles. He’d have to be getting new prospective subscribers from Substack “shares.” (Although I don’t think there are as many liberal sites with big audiences to produce large numbers of potential “reads” from other liberal authors).
Now … of Reich’s estimated 203,524 non-subscriber readers, how many become “subscribers?”
Answer: I know that Reich is adding, on average, approximately 5,755 new subscribers every day (or with every article).
This equals a conversation rate of 1-in-35.26 (2.84 percent!)
Math: 203,524 non-subscriber readers produce 5,755 new subscribers (203,524/5,755 = 35.36)
Note: I’d earlier estimated this ratio as approximately 1-in-80. His “conversion rate” might be much greater/better!
Checking my math: A conversion rate of 2.84 percent
… If 203,524 non-subscribers read each of Reich’s articles and 2.84 percent become subscribers, this would be 5,780 subscribers per article … math …checks.
My main point: IMO very few Substack authors would have a “conversion rate” of 2.84 percent. However, at least with some articles, I used to routinely publish articles which produced a similar “conversion rate” as Reich is experiencing right now.
For example, I have found articles where my conversation rate was 1 new subscriber for every 17 non-subscriber readers, 1-in-29, etc. For the first 14 months of my Substack newsletter, I think my average conversion rate was approximately 1-in-120.
It might be illustrative to show how many new subscribers I’d produce if I had the same conversion rate as Reich today (a figure - every now and then - I used to achieve).
As the above metrics from my own newsletter show, I’ve recently been averaging 2,023 non-subscriber readers per article.
These article are producing from 0 … to 1 … to 4 new subscribers ("conversion ratios" of 0-in-2,023 to 1-in-2,023 to 1-in-506)
If I was averaging 1 new subscriber from every 35.26 non-subscribers who read my articles (a conversion rate of 2.84 percent, the same percentage as Reich if his readership metrics are the same as mine), I’d be adding 57.5 new subscribers per article!
Note: For the first seven months of my newsletter, I was averaging about 36 new subscribers per article … So, again, I once achieved subscriber growth rates somewhat similar to Reich … so, for me, “something changed.”
Recently, I’ve been writing 17 articles a month. If each article produced 57.5. new subscribers (Reich’s possible “conversion rate”), I’d be adding 977 subscribers a month!
At this rate, over 29 months, I’d now have 28,333 total subscribers (and not 7,255).
For context, In November 2024, I added (net) 40 subscribers month.
One question I have is why is Reich adding so many new subscribers? When very few of the “Contrarian” writers are producing ratios or metrics anywhere close to this?
Some of our All-Star authors used to be able to produce similar numbers … but not anymore.
Certainly, Reich’s non-subscriber conversion rate of 1-in-80 or 1-in-33 is atypical on Substack and very suspicious.
Or: Maybe many “Substack contrarians” should be producing conversion rates similar to that of Reich - or they once did - but now they are not. So what changed?
We can now apply the same ratio to Reich’s metrics.
- 248,200 - readers who are subscribers (open rate of 34 percent)
- 203,524 - readers who are not subscribers (Math: 82 percent of his subscriber numbers.)
451,724 - Estimated Total Readers for a typical Reich article.
Yes! I was thinking of the same extrapolation to Reich, based on your own numbers.
As you noted, the famous "confounding factors" may mean Reich's ratio will differ from your 82%. Maybe by a lot, maybe not. But, without speculating on those unknowns, the above seems to me to be the best we can do.
I can't do justice to reading the rest right now, but will. I have some work that pays that needs attention. But I'll get back to it. It is SO EASY to try to follow mathematical logic and make mistakes - can't rush it. And even when you think you've got it, so easy to have whiffed, especially with an aging brain.
Thanks, Steel J. Those are great points. You are correct I don't know how many "readers" Reich has with each article ... since I don't have access to his Substack metrics. I do have those metrics for my own articles.
I still think my metrics are sufficient to "prove" that my conversion rate has dropped off a cliff. I agree that the "over-subscribed" rationale is a big factor in the change in my growth rate, but my "Spider Sense" tells me it can't be the only reason. Something else is going on.
You can look at how many subscribers Reich is adding per day and compare his figures to "Covid contrarian" all-stars like Alex Berenson and Steve Kirsch. They are barely adding any new subscribers and are basically treading water. (Their numbers have remained constant for many months - unlike Reich's numbers).
It seems like if more "conservatives" or MAGA people were discovering Substack, people like Kirsch and Berenson would continue to add a good number of new subscribers - just from this new pool of prospects. But this hasn't happened.
Also, if Reich has fewer readers than he does subscribers (which he probably does), his ratio of converting non-subscribers into subscribers would be even higher, right?
Gonna have to think about your final sentence a bit. My first thought is you need to compare apples to apples. Without his data (# of readers) you can't get where you want to go. Still thinking! I used to enjoy thinking hard, always. These days, only sometimes.
I'm not disagreeing with you, something fishy may well be going on and you are doing exactly what you should be doing to investigate. I'm naturally inclined to shoot holes in arguments whether I agree with them or not. That's an important part of ending up with the right answer.
If you are working and you have income to burn, good for you. Personally, I've always thought that anything I contributed should be free, because we were in a fight for our individual survival and if I earned income from it, then was I any better than the people who were pushing the vaccines into everyone and capitalizing from it, as well?
Until recently I've never heard of Reich - maybe it's an American thing - and I've still not read any of his articles either - Bill Rice, a few months, but not over the past 5 years or so.
I'm on a Pension and I have priorities to my survival first and foremost and everything else after that and when I go shopping I don't buy from the shelves at eye level, I buy from the cheaper shelves lower down, so I drive my money much further - and I'm disinclined to have automatic payments deducted from my already paltry Pension income, with Exchange Rates thrown in, which double the expenditure going out, if I were to let it.
Buy a book - what for - there are tons of free books on the internet and I already have many more than I could possibly read in my last few years of life - then there are the free articles on this substack - you hide behind a paywall, you don't get me, or what I have to offer either, to advance your substack cause, for your advantage, hopefully.
I've done the "experiment" of posting "Covid contrarian" Substack articles on Facebook many times. When I shared these articles on Facebook, they typically get zero "likes" and zero comments.
I have about 1,900 Substack followers. It's hard for me to believe none of those 1,900 potential viewers would hit me with a like or add a random comment.
Now when I post a cute picture of my kids, I get 75 likes and 40 comments.
Of course, for many months I was banned from Facebook. I now no longer post or share any "Contrarian" stories on Facebook.
(I got back on Facebook and got out of FB "timeout" to promote my new, local Substack, The Troy Citizen. At that Substack, I don't run any controversial stories that might lose me subscribers or get me banned.
If Facebook had not put its algorithms to work against the Covid Contrarians, our side might have REACHED 1 billion global citizens. So they knew what they were doing and why.
Isn't the logical next step to ask some of your individual followers whether they have seen or read your "controversial" posts, and if so why they didn't like them?
You don't think bear meat is cute? (Actually I don't know. Only recently seen, and brought home for adoption, venison Jerky - Hudson Meat Market, Austin TX).
That's me with "Pickle Jack McCoy." I tried to make Pickle Jack even more of a legend by telling his back-story in one of my Substack articles.
That story didn't even mention Covid.
P.S. Pickle Jack just got the lead "child" part in Troy University's production of "The Music Man." He's going to play the kid that Ronnie Howard once played as a child actor!
Reich's Conversion rate might be 1-in-35 not 1-in-80 ...
Steel J, see if these revised extrapolations are more germane or better … Note: I use my own Open Rate of 34 percent, which I think is common for Substack authors and use my ratio of non-subscriber readers to readers who are current subscribers ….
Revised Bottom line: It looks like Reich’s “conversion rate” is far better than I originally calculated (and far more implausible or non-credible).
Reich now has approximately 730,000 total subscribers (a "known knowable.") At the common Open Rate of 34 percent …
- 248,200 of Reich’s readers are subscribers. (This is a “known knowable” if his open rate is 34 percent)
But, as you astutely point out, we actually don’t know how many “readers” read each of Reich’s articles (since I don’t have access to his “page view” metrics.
However, for thought-exercise purposes, I can apply my own metrics to Reich’s numbers.
My break-down of total readers gives me my recent ratio of non-subscriber “readers.” In recent weeks, each of my articles produced …
4,490 - Total Readers.
Of this number, I know that, on average …
2,467 of these readers are existing subscribers.
Math: I have 7,255 total subscribers and an Open Rate of 34 percent = 2,467 readers who are existing subscribers.
By subtracting the number of my readers who are existing subscribers (2,467) from my total readers (4,490 - my “page view” metric), I know that 2,023 of my readers are NOT subscribers.
My recent numbers:
4,490 - Total Readers
2,467 - Readers who are subscribers
2,023 - Readers who are not subscribers
My ratio of non-subscribers to subscribers is 82 percent
We can now apply the same ratio to Reich’s metrics.
- 248,200 - readers who are subscribers (If Reich has an open rate of 34 percent)
- 203,524 - readers who are not subscribers (Math: 82 percent of his subscriber numbers, applying my ratio.)
451,724 - Estimated Total Readers for a typical Reich article.
Note: This actually makes more sense as I don’t know how Reich would have many more non-subscriber readers than his number of "existing-subscriber" readers. For example, he’s not getting new readers from X as X doesn’t link to Substack articles. He’d have to be getting new prospective subscribers from Substack “shares.” (Although I don’t think there are as many liberal sites with big audiences to produce large numbers of potential “reads” from other liberal authors. In other words, it seems that Reich wouldn't have more non-subscriber readers than he has "subscriber" readers.
Now … of Reich’s estimated 203,524 non-subscriber readers, how many become “subscribers?”
Answer: I know that Reich is adding, on average, approximately 5,755 new subscribers every day (or with every article).
This equals a conversation rate of 1-in-35.26 (2.84 percent!)
Math: 203,524 non-subscriber readers produce 5,755 new subscribers (203,524/5,755 = 35.36)
Note: I’d earlier estimated this ratio as approximately 1-in-80. His “conversion rate” might be much greater/better!
Checking my math: A conversion rate of 2.84 percent
… If 203,524 non-subscribers read each of Reich’s articles and 2.84 percent become subscribers, this would be 5,780 subscribers per article … math …checks.
My main point: IMO very few Substack authors would have a “conversion rate” of 2.84 percent. However, at least with some articles, I used to routinely publish articles which produced a similar “conversion rate” as Reich is experiencing right now.
For example, I have found articles where my conversation rate was 1 new subscriber for every 17 non-subscriber readers, 1-in-29, etc. For the first 14 months of my Substack newsletter, I think my average conversion rate was approximately 1-in-120.
It might be illustrative to show how many new subscribers I’d produce if I had the same conversion rate as Reich today (a figure - every now and then - I used to achieve).
As the above metrics from my own newsletter show, I’ve recently been averaging 2,023 non-subscriber readers per article.
These article are producing from 0 … to 1 … to 4 new subscribers ("conversion ratios" of 0-in-2,023 to 1-in-2,023 to 1-in-506)
If I was averaging 1 new subscriber from every 35.26 non-subscribers who read my articles (a conversion rate of 2.84 percent, the same percentage as Reich if his readership metrics are the same as mine), I’d be adding 57.5 new subscribers per article!
Note: For the first seven months of my newsletter, I was averaging about 36 new subscribers per article … So, again, I once achieved subscriber growth rates somewhat similar to Reich … so, for me, “something changed.”
Recently, I’ve been writing 17 articles a month. If each article produced 57.5. new subscribers (Reich’s possible “conversion rate”), I’d be adding 977 subscribers a month!
At this rate, over 29 months, I’d now have 28,333 total subscribers (and not 7,255).
For context, In November 2024, I added (net) 40 subscribers month.
One question I have is why is Reich adding so many new subscribers? When very few of the “Contrarian” writers are producing ratios or metrics anywhere close to this?
Some of our All-Star authors used to be able to produce similar numbers … but not anymore.
Certainly, Reich’s non-subscriber conversion rate of 1-in-80 or 1-in-33 is atypical on Substack and very suspicious.
Or: Maybe many “Substack contrarians” should be producing conversion rates similar to that of Reich - or they once did - but now they are not. So what changed?
I've noticed something strange over the past few weeks. I keep receiving substack articles from authors I don't recognize -- probably 6 over 4 weeks. All of them are Left leaning, the subject matter nothing that interested me. More importantly, nothing I would have subscribed to. Needless to say I promptly unsubscribed. Is it possible that these authors are being subtly promoted via random sends? Just wondering.
I never signed up to 'Letters from an American' which has millions of subscribers, yet it pops up on my alt. email account that I am 'subscribed.'
However, this has also occurred for 'right/populist/MAGA' substacks as well. Again - I never signed up to these people, it is my dummy email account, have never used Substack with that email, yet I am somehow 'subscribed.'
I believe they are government-shill run accounts using internet scrapers/AI to inflate their subscriber numbers.
Hey, now that you mention it...I read part of a SS article last week that I didn't seek out. I read as far as the word "Trumpian" in the 2nd or 3rd sentence, and realized after scanning a but further that it was a very left-leaning article.
I wouldn't be at all surprised if the algo is sending "mainstream-compliant" authors to inboxes of those who subscribe to SS'ers.
Agree ~ getting articles on ‘hot yoga’ does not fit my stack profile ~ but they are arriving at a steady pace.
There is a subtle change in Substack but difficult to pinpoint.
At one point subscribing to a new stack was maddening with ‘are you a bot’ photos/answers and somehow my choices did not please the defender against bots.
Also interesting is that friends and acquaintances have not started reading Substack but are now on X.
Interesting fact: Elon did ‘offer’ to buy Substack a few years ago.
Hi Bill! Very interesting! I wanted you to know that since Trump and Team were elected I have been soooo busy keeping up with the many “discoveries” of USAID.. etc.. I have neglected reading and “liking “ your Substack.. that’s what I’ve noticed with myself anyway.. I can now take a deep breath ….RFK jr. . Was confirmed.. so I’ll be back to reading you! 😍
1. There is over-saturation of (same/similar) content. I always have my own conclusions about what is going on and am just skimming through (way too long narratives) for some new pro/cons arguments to my own.
2. Substack is pretty obscure platform IMO, I discovered it by chance few months ago, and considering how short my attention span is I may just disapper when novelty wears off. Don't know X, or any other social platform as I am not part of "social" experiments, but their members are in billions?. I am mostly on Telegram.
3. Your metric should be based on # of comments per reads.
Something to consider in your calculus of these issues.
Correlation does not imply causation.
Many make this mistake. Understanding the difference between correlation and causation is crucial in product analytics and research. Correlation helps reveal patterns in user behavior, but without testing for causation, it's unclear whether the variables influence each other.
For example, there might be a correlation between ice cream sales and drowning incidents, but this does not mean that ice cream consumption causes drowning. Both might be related to a third factor, such as hot weather, which increases both ice cream sales and swimming activities.
That is true - and that is why statistics in the hands of nefarious forces can be a tool of harm versus a tool reveals underlying reality.
I'm pretty sure there are entities out there just now - and they have been "stifling" discourse, but now they are "halfway" running for their lives - for good reason - cause they have been stifling discourse - that offends the gods.
My advice to them is this - don't halfway run for your life when the Wolfpack is on the Hunt!
If you do - you will be Wolfpack mincemeat - and for good reason.
They would be better off disavowing their harm - otherwise - get ready for a Wolfpack that is growing in numbers - and means business. Serious business I'm talking bout - real serious.
Along with the sudden "Popularity" of the likes of the vile Reich and Krugman, there have been a lot of very nasty people who meet any differences of opinion from fellow readers with verbal bomb throwing.
I guess the two events belong together and the third may be the bomb throwers won't read you?
I’m not an author but if you don’t subscribe but just read it in some way without subscribing, don’t you have to search out the substack on the internet because no email. I have no idea about the app as I don’t use it because it annoys me. But the way I use substack is online browser exclusively. I subscribe, I get the email and in the browser it’s easy to edit and manipulate when I comment. I usually go for the free option but slowly adding a few paid. I do put some in my FEEDLY app that aggregates via search words. I just get a list of what I have asked FEEDLY to capture including substacks. . These I have not subscribed to but only want to read without a fuss finding them or subscribing. I get to decide who I want to read and it varies. Confusing and what I said is probably confusing as well. Like I said, I don’t use the app. Reich’s is very suspicious.
Apparently, a significant number of Substack readers maintain lists of interesting Substacks; bookmarks or something. I keep them in an email to myself.
That’s nice. I use my iPad for reading comfortably. I get no alerts for anything my interests sit in my feedly until I go look at them. I don’t know that substack knows I aggregate them. Because I get treated like an unsubscribed reader and if I wanted to comment while reading on substack , substack wants me to sign in. Which I don’t do. I still can read the comments. Works for me.
I use my Windows Computer and Monitor to read my emails. I delete them all, after I've read what interests me, then when I sign in, it's all new posts and hopefully, nothing for anyone else to find, if I get someone looking over my shoulder, to see what I've been getting up to.
I don't like my Mobile and I only use it to verify a purchase when it needs my Bank's "verification code" to go through - all "digital" here - coming your way soon and with older age, we tend to find ourselves "left out" more and more..........
What, you still here?
I thought you died years ago...
If you live long enough, you might find out personally, what I mean.
It helps to have kids, if they as Adults have time for you - I never did, so no kids, no company either, as older age kicks in.
This substack helps to keep my feet on the ground and waste a few hours of being on my own much of the time.
As a librarian and Wikipedian I have watched Substack as an information source. No writer on Substack can be cited in Wikipedia because it is self-published-- they deem it not a reliable source. This might change as more legacy media people start their own Substacks.
Search engines do not pull up hits to Substack articles. Academic articles do not cite Substack. This is true regardless of the size of the Substack. I write a free Substack (free because I have a FT job that doesn't permit outside work). I have about 1100 subscribers. Truthfully, I think people wouldn't subscribe for a fee, but my topic (library history) means a lot to me. My open rate is about the same as yours. And hardly anyone clicks on my so carefully crafted links and citations. Most of my new Subscribers are from other Substacks recommending.
An interesting article stuffed with facts and figures. As a newcomer to Substack, I wonder if the relentless focus on marketing metrics isn't rather self-defeating past a certain point. I prefer the idea that a writer has something to say and says it, whoever is paying attention - or even if no one is. Of course that doesn't take into account that many people hope to earn some kind of income from Substack - and that's where I fear the whole thing may have become rather self-obsessed and self-defeating. It's as if we were all trying to get rich by taking in each other's washing. A given society has enough leisure and spare cash to support a given number of writers - but there is a limit.
I'm long retired and on fixed (and ever shrinking) resources so while I read widely (well, widely within the scope of "dissident" writers which I prefer) it is not possible for me to pay subscriptions to the over 24-30 sub-stacks that I read as they post. Perhaps there is a growing universe of folk in my dilemma ... who would, if we could? In any case I enjoy your opinions as they stretch mine at times so I continue to grow in my dissidence. Thank you for that! I am human, not bot!
I go through my subscriptions every 6 months or so and reduce if the writer seldom posts. I have a budget for news and as the price of energy has gone up it leaves less $$ for subs. Inflation certainly contributes to buying fewer subscriptions. Sometimes I drop a Substack with big subs for a smaller one who I think needs to be heard because the former won't notice and the latter probably needs it more. But buying books and serials on a budget has been my career as a librarian so I am always pondering. I'm not sure about anything happening in the mechanics of Substack because as a free writer people probably don't unsub.
This analysis deals with free subscribers, which are now more than 96 percent of my subscribers ... so I don't think inflation is the big determining factor in my much-slower growth rate.
The dynamic of people having "too many Stacks to read" is definitely a major contributor to these trends I'm writing about.
Still, I'm not convinced a sudden "mass purge" or culling of Substack subscriptions would fully explain these trends.
I didn't get into it, but I've also identified huge numbers of "subscribers" who suddenly unsubscribe in one day. I don't think all of these subscribers were real or authentic subscribers or readers.
And I wonder why they subscribed in the first place. Perhaps the goal is to make me think I wasn't losing subscribers ... or to camouflage the possibility my articles were no longer reaching as many legit subscribers?
Thank you for reading my articles!
Also, about two weeks ago, my percentage of paid subscribers dropped below 4 percent for the first time. For much of the history of my Substack - until recently - my "paid" ratio was approximately 4.7 percent.
Have to get a proper job Bill, back in the office for you.
They won't hired me, Richard. My "Contrarian" bonafides are now far too well-known. Most organizations won't hire anyone they think might "rock the boat" or challenge conventional wisdom ... or someone who has a "paper trail" of being too controversial or politically incorrect.
I now have an extensive paper trail in the form of archived stories.
Everything new is old again Bill.
If the incentive of this substack is to earn money, then the thought that you might, is an incentive in itself. Covid is yesterday's news now and although Doctor's are still injecting Covid vaccines (paid Salespeople for Big Pharma - inject or lose your job), until the next "made" pandemic comes along, people are moving on with their lives and thinking they can put the past to sleep and forget about it - because we all suffer from short term memory loss and the Sheep are still Sheep and they need to be panicked en mass, to be concerned about the next calamity they have to forego and overcome, like the last Covid one.
The Moderna Covid-19 virus made by GOF with DARPA's help and Patented in 2013 and again in 2016 by Moderna, just for you...........to get their "life saving" vaccines.
It was interesting to note that Moderna never owned up to that one, so nobody ever accused Moderna of doing anything wrong - now that Biden has given Moderna 539 Million to make a vaccine for Bird Flu which has been with us for millions of years and can't jump genetically different species, it is interesting to see how long it takes for Moderna to get around that "genetic" problem, once more, with DARPA's help. one can but wonder, again?
Noted that Cats eat Birds so it seems Cats might be in the firing line for the chop next, then dogs too presumably, re - Bird flu.
If at first you don't succeed killing off Humans, try and try again, to knock off something else instead, perhaps?
You heard the story going around in 2020 - the new Covid vaccines were injected into a Texas herd of Cattle, the Cattle all died within a few days, except one Cow which lasted 9 days before it died too - then, you will never guess where the vaccines, "untested", went next - you guessed, "us Human's" - my thinking being that those with genetics similar to Cattle all died, because we all are natural to this planet and the species on it, in some way and that might be how genetics are used to separate us for extermination.
Everything is still in flux .. my guess is places like Substack will eventually coalesce into writer alliances that resemble Magazines - both for price and reading balance .. Rolling Stone needed lots of regular, fluffier fare in order to maintain a home for the rarer Hunter Thompson gem. (My recommendation is that instead of the authors choosing themselves, that Substack offer a menu to the readers .. one in which the readers can periodically swap writers in and out. Maybe they already do - I haven't paid that much attention.)
There are a number of similar substacks around = Quora has one (I lasted 4 weeks the first time I posted anti vax there and the second time a few days) The Conservative Woman (TCW) has their own one - you have to post on it to get your articles in their online paper - and there was another one, which I posted to occasionally, can't remember what it was called and there was the Medical one too Crocus or something like that, which Steve Kirsch was also part of - I posted there too at one stage, had a following for a bit too.
Substack has always been regarded as "Anti Vax" so it always got the push from the Vax Brigade - and there is The Expose too, which was always bang on the money, so far as I was concerned - moist the stuff I got and passed on, was The Expose based - well worth a free membership.
Personally, I think everything is slowing down and moving away from Covid, because after almost 5 years, everyone's fed up with it - we survived, on to the next internet sponsored calamity.
Hey Ho Here We Go.
To Kathleen: I have installed 18 Solar Panels on the North facing roof of my home (the sunny side) and I have 3 storage batteries, so that all Solar electricity goes to power my home first and anything left over goes into the Grid, for which I get peanuts repayments.
I've just upgraded the system, which I installed about a year ago to 3 batteries, one was not quite enough and I'm running my home on my generated stored electricity with about 40% drained overnight and 60% left in the batteries - it takes a few hours to recover that 40% usage, the next day - so day time, I'm running 100% fully charged batteries and I do my cooking and other large expenditure electricity use, at the sunniest time of the day - heat water for 3 hours then turn off the tank water heater (hot water lasts about one week) refrigerate cooked meals to teatime and can cook multiple meals same time - I don't like cooking - etc, big refrigerator and freezer and big TV's in my home and zoned air conditioning too, ceiling fans all rooms - turned off Gas and only electric home now - big financial saving, short and longer term, free to be spent elsewhere as it pleases me. I estimate that the free electricity should pay for itself in about 5 years, then all free of course - and shop around for the cheapest Solar System with a 10 year Warranty - the most expensive one, is not always the best, but a lot like not being vaccinated, from those who have been, if you like!!
I think you'd do better on another platform. Maybe X or META. This is a left-leaning platform now.
Exactly my situation, for one, Sharon. I wonder if the Substack community, on aggregate, is trying to take out more money than it is willing to put in. A kind of authorial perpetual motion.
I still think Reich (& other leftists writers) gets lots of subscriptions from subscribers that don't pay for it, it's bought for them as a way to funnel money to Reich. If he was subsisting on subscribers, you wouldn't be able to read past the first paragraph, but you can read all his post, can't comment, but you can read & share. Somebody is buying those subscriptions for the subscribers, like the bureaucrats that were getting expensive Politico special subscriptions paid for by USAID?
Seems very plausible. The early enthusiasts for democracy may not have foreseen a time when government would be able to tax the citizens, then use some of their money to brainwash them.
Also my exact thoughts. Funded by our government somehow.
I absolutely agree. Reich just cannot be that widely followed, as his ideas are so left! I think he is getting boosted
Bill, Substack is the only place I can search to find “unapproved” news and historical narratives…BECAUSE OF WRITERS LIKE YOU! Stay strong, pray, and follow your instincts…the wisdom and common sense possessed by you and at least a handful of other “contrarian” writers here is a blessing from God. He is showing grace and mercy to us every day here in what has become a pagan country, and the prayers of the righteous (though all sinners saved by His grace) have been going forth constantly as He has brought forth fighters, truth-seekers, like you, who have begun to peel back the decades of deception…lies laid down layer after layer by our greatest enemy and the father of all lies…satan. All ultimately to God’s Glory!🙌
May God bless you and your precious family, meet all of your needs, and most of all give you His Peace. 🙏
P. S. Happy Valentines Day!💝
Thank you, Judy.
Bit of a worry, if you have been "genetically modified" by a Gene Therapy Injection, also known as a Covid vaccine and your DNA and Human Genome has been changed (which is what the vaccines do - but for the Military) if mRNA is natural to all species and by US Supreme Court Law 2013, cannot be Patented - but anything new, like ModRNA created in a laboratory can be, like the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines and all of the other ones too - they all have NanoGraphi Nanotubes in them (Google NanoGraphi) - if mRNA is the key to Heaven, what door does ModRNA open after death, I wonder?
Two ways to exterminate, kill off the living and make sure their Spirits can't ever come back either, I would have thought?
A heads up if you like, better prepared for any eventuality after death, than going in blind and The Pope said all Catholics had to be vaccinated like him, if they were really Catholics, meaning what - perhaps you should ask your vaccinated Pope?
I'm not with you on Reich's non-subscribing readers in part 2. He has 700,000 subscribers. You estimate 238,000 of those read an article. 700,000-238,000=462,000 is how many non-reading subscribers he had. NOT how many non-subscribing readers. You figured YOUR non-subscribing readers correctly, by subtracting the subscribers who read from total readers. At no point did you cite how many READERS Reich had. Unless I missed something, but I did reread it, twice. Maybe I need to again?
As far as why conversion rate of readers who are not subscribers into subscribers has plunged, I'd expect that to decline, and decline markedly over time. Two strong reasons come to mind.
1) Some people are inclined to subscribe to newsletters, as their general behavior. Some aren't You are NOT DEALING WITH A PRISTINE POOL of non-subscribing readers for each article, like you were on your very first substack. Some non-subscribing readers have never been exposed to Bill Rice before. Most have, by this point. They've read before, and already demonstrated they're uninclined to subscribe. Why expect them to change now? It will take something very, very compelling to make such people subscribe.
2) Many of the the non-subscribing readers WOULD HAVE subscribed in the earlier days. But not today. As the scamdemic unfolded, we were searching for content we liked. We find Bill Rice, like him, subscribe. Then, Mark Oshinskie, and subscribe, Meryl Nass, subscribe. Before we know it, we've got 20-100 authors showing up in our inbox. Enough, already. If we read an article by Joe Schmoe, just as good as Bill or Mark (not possible, but this is for illustrative purposes only), we won't subscribe because we've already got too many good authors filling our inbox. After all, we can just go directly to his stack via the web page whenever we want, anyway. Personally, I've passed on subscribing to a LOT of stacks I would have subscribed to in the early days because I don't want any more in my inbox unless it's some bona fide superstar much better than the excellent stacks I already subscribe to. That's a MUCH HIGHER BAR than a few years ago.
I can think of a few other reasons, but this is too long already.
Steel J, see if these revised extrapolations are more germane or better … Note: I use my own Open Rate of 34 percent, which I think is common for Substack authors and use my ratio of non-subscriber readers to readers who are current subscribers ….
Revised Bottom line: It looks like Reich’s “conversion rate” is far better than I originally calculated (and far more implausible or non-credible).
Reich now has approximately 730,000 total subscribers (a "known knowable.") At the common Open Rate of 34 percent …
- 248,200 of Reich’s readers are subscribers. (This is a “known knowable” if his open rate is 34 percent)
But, as you astutely point out, we actually don’t know how many “readers” read each of Reich’s articles (since I don’t have access to his “page view” metrics.
However, for thought-exercise purposes, I can apply my own metrics to Reich’s numbers.
My break-down of total readers gives me my recent ratio of non-subscriber “readers.” In recent weeks, each of my articles produced …
4,490 - Total Readers.
Of this number, I know that, on average …
2,467 of these readers are existing subscribers.
Math: I have 7,255 total subscribers and an Open Rate of 34 percent = 2,467 readers who are existing subscribers.
By subtracting the number of my readers who are existing subscribers (2,467) from my total readers (4,490 - my “page view” metric), I know that 2,023 of my readers are not subscribers.
My recent numbers:
4,490 - Total Readers
2,467 - Readers who are subscribers
2,023 - Readers who are not subscribers
My ratio of non-subscribers to subscribers is 82 percent
Math: 2,023 non-subscriber readers/2,467 subscribers = 82 percent.
We can now apply the same ratio to Reich’s metrics.
- 248,200 - readers who are subscribers (open rate of 34 percent)
- 203,524 - readers who are not subscribers (Math: 82 percent of his subscriber numbers.)
451,724 - Estimated Total Readers for a typical Reich article.
Note: This actually makes more sense as I don’t know how Reich would have many more non-subscriber readers than his number of "existing-subscriber" readers. For example, he’s not getting new readers from X as X doesn’t link to Substack articles. He’d have to be getting new prospective subscribers from Substack “shares.” (Although I don’t think there are as many liberal sites with big audiences to produce large numbers of potential “reads” from other liberal authors).
Now … of Reich’s estimated 203,524 non-subscriber readers, how many become “subscribers?”
Answer: I know that Reich is adding, on average, approximately 5,755 new subscribers every day (or with every article).
This equals a conversation rate of 1-in-35.26 (2.84 percent!)
Math: 203,524 non-subscriber readers produce 5,755 new subscribers (203,524/5,755 = 35.36)
Note: I’d earlier estimated this ratio as approximately 1-in-80. His “conversion rate” might be much greater/better!
Checking my math: A conversion rate of 2.84 percent
… If 203,524 non-subscribers read each of Reich’s articles and 2.84 percent become subscribers, this would be 5,780 subscribers per article … math …checks.
My main point: IMO very few Substack authors would have a “conversion rate” of 2.84 percent. However, at least with some articles, I used to routinely publish articles which produced a similar “conversion rate” as Reich is experiencing right now.
For example, I have found articles where my conversation rate was 1 new subscriber for every 17 non-subscriber readers, 1-in-29, etc. For the first 14 months of my Substack newsletter, I think my average conversion rate was approximately 1-in-120.
It might be illustrative to show how many new subscribers I’d produce if I had the same conversion rate as Reich today (a figure - every now and then - I used to achieve).
As the above metrics from my own newsletter show, I’ve recently been averaging 2,023 non-subscriber readers per article.
These article are producing from 0 … to 1 … to 4 new subscribers ("conversion ratios" of 0-in-2,023 to 1-in-2,023 to 1-in-506)
If I was averaging 1 new subscriber from every 35.26 non-subscribers who read my articles (a conversion rate of 2.84 percent, the same percentage as Reich if his readership metrics are the same as mine), I’d be adding 57.5 new subscribers per article!
Note: For the first seven months of my newsletter, I was averaging about 36 new subscribers per article … So, again, I once achieved subscriber growth rates somewhat similar to Reich … so, for me, “something changed.”
Recently, I’ve been writing 17 articles a month. If each article produced 57.5. new subscribers (Reich’s possible “conversion rate”), I’d be adding 977 subscribers a month!
At this rate, over 29 months, I’d now have 28,333 total subscribers (and not 7,255).
For context, In November 2024, I added (net) 40 subscribers month.
One question I have is why is Reich adding so many new subscribers? When very few of the “Contrarian” writers are producing ratios or metrics anywhere close to this?
Some of our All-Star authors used to be able to produce similar numbers … but not anymore.
Certainly, Reich’s non-subscriber conversion rate of 1-in-80 or 1-in-33 is atypical on Substack and very suspicious.
Or: Maybe many “Substack contrarians” should be producing conversion rates similar to that of Reich - or they once did - but now they are not. So what changed?
We can now apply the same ratio to Reich’s metrics.
- 248,200 - readers who are subscribers (open rate of 34 percent)
- 203,524 - readers who are not subscribers (Math: 82 percent of his subscriber numbers.)
451,724 - Estimated Total Readers for a typical Reich article.
Yes! I was thinking of the same extrapolation to Reich, based on your own numbers.
As you noted, the famous "confounding factors" may mean Reich's ratio will differ from your 82%. Maybe by a lot, maybe not. But, without speculating on those unknowns, the above seems to me to be the best we can do.
I can't do justice to reading the rest right now, but will. I have some work that pays that needs attention. But I'll get back to it. It is SO EASY to try to follow mathematical logic and make mistakes - can't rush it. And even when you think you've got it, so easy to have whiffed, especially with an aging brain.
Thanks, Steel J. Those are great points. You are correct I don't know how many "readers" Reich has with each article ... since I don't have access to his Substack metrics. I do have those metrics for my own articles.
I still think my metrics are sufficient to "prove" that my conversion rate has dropped off a cliff. I agree that the "over-subscribed" rationale is a big factor in the change in my growth rate, but my "Spider Sense" tells me it can't be the only reason. Something else is going on.
You can look at how many subscribers Reich is adding per day and compare his figures to "Covid contrarian" all-stars like Alex Berenson and Steve Kirsch. They are barely adding any new subscribers and are basically treading water. (Their numbers have remained constant for many months - unlike Reich's numbers).
It seems like if more "conservatives" or MAGA people were discovering Substack, people like Kirsch and Berenson would continue to add a good number of new subscribers - just from this new pool of prospects. But this hasn't happened.
Also, if Reich has fewer readers than he does subscribers (which he probably does), his ratio of converting non-subscribers into subscribers would be even higher, right?
Gonna have to think about your final sentence a bit. My first thought is you need to compare apples to apples. Without his data (# of readers) you can't get where you want to go. Still thinking! I used to enjoy thinking hard, always. These days, only sometimes.
I'm not disagreeing with you, something fishy may well be going on and you are doing exactly what you should be doing to investigate. I'm naturally inclined to shoot holes in arguments whether I agree with them or not. That's an important part of ending up with the right answer.
Yep, I'm pruning my Substack subscriptions right now.
If you are working and you have income to burn, good for you. Personally, I've always thought that anything I contributed should be free, because we were in a fight for our individual survival and if I earned income from it, then was I any better than the people who were pushing the vaccines into everyone and capitalizing from it, as well?
Until recently I've never heard of Reich - maybe it's an American thing - and I've still not read any of his articles either - Bill Rice, a few months, but not over the past 5 years or so.
I'm on a Pension and I have priorities to my survival first and foremost and everything else after that and when I go shopping I don't buy from the shelves at eye level, I buy from the cheaper shelves lower down, so I drive my money much further - and I'm disinclined to have automatic payments deducted from my already paltry Pension income, with Exchange Rates thrown in, which double the expenditure going out, if I were to let it.
Buy a book - what for - there are tons of free books on the internet and I already have many more than I could possibly read in my last few years of life - then there are the free articles on this substack - you hide behind a paywall, you don't get me, or what I have to offer either, to advance your substack cause, for your advantage, hopefully.
Sorry, it is how it is!!
Try publishing something on face book with RFK in the title! No doubt AI is being used to block the truth tellers!
I've done the "experiment" of posting "Covid contrarian" Substack articles on Facebook many times. When I shared these articles on Facebook, they typically get zero "likes" and zero comments.
I have about 1,900 Substack followers. It's hard for me to believe none of those 1,900 potential viewers would hit me with a like or add a random comment.
Now when I post a cute picture of my kids, I get 75 likes and 40 comments.
Of course, for many months I was banned from Facebook. I now no longer post or share any "Contrarian" stories on Facebook.
(I got back on Facebook and got out of FB "timeout" to promote my new, local Substack, The Troy Citizen. At that Substack, I don't run any controversial stories that might lose me subscribers or get me banned.
If Facebook had not put its algorithms to work against the Covid Contrarians, our side might have REACHED 1 billion global citizens. So they knew what they were doing and why.
I never saw a facebook post from you.
When I wasn't fully and completely banned, my posts were "shadow banned" IMO. That is, I'm not "reaching" the number of people I'd like to reach.
Suppressing the reach of "dissident" voices is the "key to the operation" IMO.
Isn't the logical next step to ask some of your individual followers whether they have seen or read your "controversial" posts, and if so why they didn't like them?
That would be a good research project.
Who would post vacation photos, or even cute animals, with RFK in the title?
You don't think bear meat is cute? (Actually I don't know. Only recently seen, and brought home for adoption, venison Jerky - Hudson Meat Market, Austin TX).
Just the photo garnered my attention”like”. Okay now I will read the whole thing. The ToC was great BTW!!!
That's me with "Pickle Jack McCoy." I tried to make Pickle Jack even more of a legend by telling his back-story in one of my Substack articles.
That story didn't even mention Covid.
P.S. Pickle Jack just got the lead "child" part in Troy University's production of "The Music Man." He's going to play the kid that Ronnie Howard once played as a child actor!
Do I detect a bit of Dad being proud? ☺️
I love TofC.
Reich's Conversion rate might be 1-in-35 not 1-in-80 ...
Steel J, see if these revised extrapolations are more germane or better … Note: I use my own Open Rate of 34 percent, which I think is common for Substack authors and use my ratio of non-subscriber readers to readers who are current subscribers ….
Revised Bottom line: It looks like Reich’s “conversion rate” is far better than I originally calculated (and far more implausible or non-credible).
Reich now has approximately 730,000 total subscribers (a "known knowable.") At the common Open Rate of 34 percent …
- 248,200 of Reich’s readers are subscribers. (This is a “known knowable” if his open rate is 34 percent)
But, as you astutely point out, we actually don’t know how many “readers” read each of Reich’s articles (since I don’t have access to his “page view” metrics.
However, for thought-exercise purposes, I can apply my own metrics to Reich’s numbers.
My break-down of total readers gives me my recent ratio of non-subscriber “readers.” In recent weeks, each of my articles produced …
4,490 - Total Readers.
Of this number, I know that, on average …
2,467 of these readers are existing subscribers.
Math: I have 7,255 total subscribers and an Open Rate of 34 percent = 2,467 readers who are existing subscribers.
By subtracting the number of my readers who are existing subscribers (2,467) from my total readers (4,490 - my “page view” metric), I know that 2,023 of my readers are NOT subscribers.
My recent numbers:
4,490 - Total Readers
2,467 - Readers who are subscribers
2,023 - Readers who are not subscribers
My ratio of non-subscribers to subscribers is 82 percent
Math: 2,023 non-subscriber readers/2,467 subscriber readers = 82 percent.
We can now apply the same ratio to Reich’s metrics.
- 248,200 - readers who are subscribers (If Reich has an open rate of 34 percent)
- 203,524 - readers who are not subscribers (Math: 82 percent of his subscriber numbers, applying my ratio.)
451,724 - Estimated Total Readers for a typical Reich article.
Note: This actually makes more sense as I don’t know how Reich would have many more non-subscriber readers than his number of "existing-subscriber" readers. For example, he’s not getting new readers from X as X doesn’t link to Substack articles. He’d have to be getting new prospective subscribers from Substack “shares.” (Although I don’t think there are as many liberal sites with big audiences to produce large numbers of potential “reads” from other liberal authors. In other words, it seems that Reich wouldn't have more non-subscriber readers than he has "subscriber" readers.
Now … of Reich’s estimated 203,524 non-subscriber readers, how many become “subscribers?”
Answer: I know that Reich is adding, on average, approximately 5,755 new subscribers every day (or with every article).
This equals a conversation rate of 1-in-35.26 (2.84 percent!)
Math: 203,524 non-subscriber readers produce 5,755 new subscribers (203,524/5,755 = 35.36)
Note: I’d earlier estimated this ratio as approximately 1-in-80. His “conversion rate” might be much greater/better!
Checking my math: A conversion rate of 2.84 percent
… If 203,524 non-subscribers read each of Reich’s articles and 2.84 percent become subscribers, this would be 5,780 subscribers per article … math …checks.
My main point: IMO very few Substack authors would have a “conversion rate” of 2.84 percent. However, at least with some articles, I used to routinely publish articles which produced a similar “conversion rate” as Reich is experiencing right now.
For example, I have found articles where my conversation rate was 1 new subscriber for every 17 non-subscriber readers, 1-in-29, etc. For the first 14 months of my Substack newsletter, I think my average conversion rate was approximately 1-in-120.
It might be illustrative to show how many new subscribers I’d produce if I had the same conversion rate as Reich today (a figure - every now and then - I used to achieve).
As the above metrics from my own newsletter show, I’ve recently been averaging 2,023 non-subscriber readers per article.
These article are producing from 0 … to 1 … to 4 new subscribers ("conversion ratios" of 0-in-2,023 to 1-in-2,023 to 1-in-506)
If I was averaging 1 new subscriber from every 35.26 non-subscribers who read my articles (a conversion rate of 2.84 percent, the same percentage as Reich if his readership metrics are the same as mine), I’d be adding 57.5 new subscribers per article!
Note: For the first seven months of my newsletter, I was averaging about 36 new subscribers per article … So, again, I once achieved subscriber growth rates somewhat similar to Reich … so, for me, “something changed.”
Recently, I’ve been writing 17 articles a month. If each article produced 57.5. new subscribers (Reich’s possible “conversion rate”), I’d be adding 977 subscribers a month!
At this rate, over 29 months, I’d now have 28,333 total subscribers (and not 7,255).
For context, In November 2024, I added (net) 40 subscribers month.
One question I have is why is Reich adding so many new subscribers? When very few of the “Contrarian” writers are producing ratios or metrics anywhere close to this?
Some of our All-Star authors used to be able to produce similar numbers … but not anymore.
Certainly, Reich’s non-subscriber conversion rate of 1-in-80 or 1-in-33 is atypical on Substack and very suspicious.
Or: Maybe many “Substack contrarians” should be producing conversion rates similar to that of Reich - or they once did - but now they are not. So what changed?
I've noticed something strange over the past few weeks. I keep receiving substack articles from authors I don't recognize -- probably 6 over 4 weeks. All of them are Left leaning, the subject matter nothing that interested me. More importantly, nothing I would have subscribed to. Needless to say I promptly unsubscribed. Is it possible that these authors are being subtly promoted via random sends? Just wondering.
This has actually been happening to me for years.
I never signed up to 'Letters from an American' which has millions of subscribers, yet it pops up on my alt. email account that I am 'subscribed.'
However, this has also occurred for 'right/populist/MAGA' substacks as well. Again - I never signed up to these people, it is my dummy email account, have never used Substack with that email, yet I am somehow 'subscribed.'
I believe they are government-shill run accounts using internet scrapers/AI to inflate their subscriber numbers.
Hey, now that you mention it...I read part of a SS article last week that I didn't seek out. I read as far as the word "Trumpian" in the 2nd or 3rd sentence, and realized after scanning a but further that it was a very left-leaning article.
I wouldn't be at all surprised if the algo is sending "mainstream-compliant" authors to inboxes of those who subscribe to SS'ers.
Agree ~ getting articles on ‘hot yoga’ does not fit my stack profile ~ but they are arriving at a steady pace.
There is a subtle change in Substack but difficult to pinpoint.
At one point subscribing to a new stack was maddening with ‘are you a bot’ photos/answers and somehow my choices did not please the defender against bots.
Also interesting is that friends and acquaintances have not started reading Substack but are now on X.
Interesting fact: Elon did ‘offer’ to buy Substack a few years ago.
Hi Bill! Very interesting! I wanted you to know that since Trump and Team were elected I have been soooo busy keeping up with the many “discoveries” of USAID.. etc.. I have neglected reading and “liking “ your Substack.. that’s what I’ve noticed with myself anyway.. I can now take a deep breath ….RFK jr. . Was confirmed.. so I’ll be back to reading you! 😍
1. There is over-saturation of (same/similar) content. I always have my own conclusions about what is going on and am just skimming through (way too long narratives) for some new pro/cons arguments to my own.
2. Substack is pretty obscure platform IMO, I discovered it by chance few months ago, and considering how short my attention span is I may just disapper when novelty wears off. Don't know X, or any other social platform as I am not part of "social" experiments, but their members are in billions?. I am mostly on Telegram.
3. Your metric should be based on # of comments per reads.
Bill
Something to consider in your calculus of these issues.
Correlation does not imply causation.
Many make this mistake. Understanding the difference between correlation and causation is crucial in product analytics and research. Correlation helps reveal patterns in user behavior, but without testing for causation, it's unclear whether the variables influence each other.
For example, there might be a correlation between ice cream sales and drowning incidents, but this does not mean that ice cream consumption causes drowning. Both might be related to a third factor, such as hot weather, which increases both ice cream sales and swimming activities.
That is true - and that is why statistics in the hands of nefarious forces can be a tool of harm versus a tool reveals underlying reality.
I'm pretty sure there are entities out there just now - and they have been "stifling" discourse, but now they are "halfway" running for their lives - for good reason - cause they have been stifling discourse - that offends the gods.
My advice to them is this - don't halfway run for your life when the Wolfpack is on the Hunt!
If you do - you will be Wolfpack mincemeat - and for good reason.
They would be better off disavowing their harm - otherwise - get ready for a Wolfpack that is growing in numbers - and means business. Serious business I'm talking bout - real serious.
Not kidding round!
Along with the sudden "Popularity" of the likes of the vile Reich and Krugman, there have been a lot of very nasty people who meet any differences of opinion from fellow readers with verbal bomb throwing.
I guess the two events belong together and the third may be the bomb throwers won't read you?
Lessee how closing USAID affect subsidized subscriptions. Chemtrails already appear gone; at least for now.
Featured Writer Eric Topol(otron) does not allow comments.
I’m not an author but if you don’t subscribe but just read it in some way without subscribing, don’t you have to search out the substack on the internet because no email. I have no idea about the app as I don’t use it because it annoys me. But the way I use substack is online browser exclusively. I subscribe, I get the email and in the browser it’s easy to edit and manipulate when I comment. I usually go for the free option but slowly adding a few paid. I do put some in my FEEDLY app that aggregates via search words. I just get a list of what I have asked FEEDLY to capture including substacks. . These I have not subscribed to but only want to read without a fuss finding them or subscribing. I get to decide who I want to read and it varies. Confusing and what I said is probably confusing as well. Like I said, I don’t use the app. Reich’s is very suspicious.
Reich getting all those readers... Suss as hell.
Apparently, a significant number of Substack readers maintain lists of interesting Substacks; bookmarks or something. I keep them in an email to myself.
I tried that but it just gets confusing so other interesting ones I put in Feedly until I decide if I want to subscribe.
I would not consider using my phone for anything with alerts .. I even use a separate phone as my GPS.
That’s nice. I use my iPad for reading comfortably. I get no alerts for anything my interests sit in my feedly until I go look at them. I don’t know that substack knows I aggregate them. Because I get treated like an unsubscribed reader and if I wanted to comment while reading on substack , substack wants me to sign in. Which I don’t do. I still can read the comments. Works for me.
I use my Windows Computer and Monitor to read my emails. I delete them all, after I've read what interests me, then when I sign in, it's all new posts and hopefully, nothing for anyone else to find, if I get someone looking over my shoulder, to see what I've been getting up to.
I don't like my Mobile and I only use it to verify a purchase when it needs my Bank's "verification code" to go through - all "digital" here - coming your way soon and with older age, we tend to find ourselves "left out" more and more..........
What, you still here?
I thought you died years ago...
If you live long enough, you might find out personally, what I mean.
It helps to have kids, if they as Adults have time for you - I never did, so no kids, no company either, as older age kicks in.
This substack helps to keep my feet on the ground and waste a few hours of being on my own much of the time.
Much Laughter!!
Fwiw, this metric change seems to have coincided with cessation of comment reply notification.
I noticed that!
As a librarian and Wikipedian I have watched Substack as an information source. No writer on Substack can be cited in Wikipedia because it is self-published-- they deem it not a reliable source. This might change as more legacy media people start their own Substacks.
Search engines do not pull up hits to Substack articles. Academic articles do not cite Substack. This is true regardless of the size of the Substack. I write a free Substack (free because I have a FT job that doesn't permit outside work). I have about 1100 subscribers. Truthfully, I think people wouldn't subscribe for a fee, but my topic (library history) means a lot to me. My open rate is about the same as yours. And hardly anyone clicks on my so carefully crafted links and citations. Most of my new Subscribers are from other Substacks recommending.
I'm sure you work to be accurate and beneficial. Maybe you are an exception. Wikipedia is not a reliable source imho.
Decent high schools don't accept it as a source in papers.
It's a shame wikipedia seems to have no methodology or desire to fact check. At least that is how it looks to me.
It's an aggregator. More useful on "giraffe" topics.
Yeah, they do. But exact phrasing is required. Perhaps also site:substack.com. Difficult, since not all substacks have the string substack.com. E.g., https://www.midwesterndoctor.com/
An interesting article stuffed with facts and figures. As a newcomer to Substack, I wonder if the relentless focus on marketing metrics isn't rather self-defeating past a certain point. I prefer the idea that a writer has something to say and says it, whoever is paying attention - or even if no one is. Of course that doesn't take into account that many people hope to earn some kind of income from Substack - and that's where I fear the whole thing may have become rather self-obsessed and self-defeating. It's as if we were all trying to get rich by taking in each other's washing. A given society has enough leisure and spare cash to support a given number of writers - but there is a limit.