Thank you, Dr. Robert Malone!

The key metric for subscriber growth (paid and free) is who cross-posts or re-stacks an author’s articles. Also, I document the “Citizen Free Press Effect.”

Thanks to one cross-post from this Substack Contrarian All-Star, I added more paid subscribers in five days than I have in the last 10 months.

Since this article ran longer than I planned, I’ll start with a summary of the dispatch’s main points:

• The key metric for Substack authors is cross-posts and re-stacks from established and well-known Substack authors.

• When this occurs, Substack authors can expect to experience major increases in their total subscriber numbers and (at least previously) an increase in the author’s paid subscriber numbers, which can provide dramatic boosts in Substack revenue.

• Per an analysis of my last three months’ of published articles, my ratio of “subscribers-produced-per-article” has plummeted by 87 percent, reinforcing my conviction that “something has changed on Substack.”

• No doubt due to real inflation (and assuming my observations are typical), many “Substack Contrarian” authors are now losing more new paid subscribers than they’re adding.

• Authors now need to add even more new paid subscribers to compensate for the growing number of paid subscribers they can expect to lose. (For every one new paid subscriber I add, I now lose 1.6 paid subscribers … thus, if my experience is typical, authors must produce a replacement rate of at least 1.6 to keep their number of net paid subscribers constant.)

• Except for liberal/Establishment titans like Robert Reich and Paul Krugman, adding more total subscribers apparently no longer results in an increase of net paid subscribers (and thus more income).

• While authors might see increases in total subscriber numbers, the increase in “page views” (story reads) is now increasing by a much smaller percentage. (The “Open Rate” of Substack authors continues to crater). For many authors, the number of people who actually read a story is the most-important metric and the key to, perhaps, changing dubious narratives.

• As such, the suppression of the “reach” of potentially influential authors might be the “key to the operation” for protectors of the Status Quo. (This hypothesis also explains my keen interest in the question of whether reach-suppression operations may have been employed at Substack.)

• The vast majority of a Substack author’s subscribers are generated from a very small number of articles.

• In the article’s last section, I discuss the positive effect Citizen Free Press (CFP) once had on my subscriber and readership growth and show the difference after “Citizen Kane” stopped publishing my articles. I also mention other recent changes at CFP I believe are noteworthy.

• I added an Addendum theory which I expounded on in the Reader Comments: Seemingly, when an author does reach the right prospects, these readers will still subscribe at previous and more-impressive ratios.

One cross-post can change your Substack life …

A deeper dive into my Substack subscription metrics revealed one take-away I think can help my fellow Substack “freedom fighters” and “contrarians.” The take-away: Hope that a famous, well-established Substack author one day cross-posts one of your articles.

The most eye-opening anecdote that illustrates this point comes from my analysis of what happened after Dr. Robert Malone cross-posted one of my articles on January 5, 2024.

On this date, Dr. Malone graciously cross-posted my article “And So it Begins.” (Subhead: “Is this the beginning of a concerted effort to staunch the influence of Substack?”)

Per my analysis, this one act produced 360 new subscribers for my newsletter, including 42 Paid Subscribers.

One “random act of kindness” increased my (gross) annual Substack revenue by at least $2,100.

Needless to say, it’s not every day someone gets a completely-unexpected pay raise of 21 percent. (I still need to send Dr. Malone a gift card to Outback Steakhouse as a thank-you gesture.)

Further review of my Substack subscription metrics reveals that almost all of the big boosts I’ve received in subscriber numbers came after other well-known Substack authors cross-posted or “re-stacked” one of my articles.

Expressed differently, if these shares had not happened, my current Substack trends - many already in a free-fall - would be more acute.

If one believes (as I do) that the biggest problem in the world is that “the truth” isn’t reaching enough people, one possible “solution” would be for more well-established “contrarian” authors to cross-post more articles of writers who have something meaningful to say.

With this article, I’m trying to provide high-quality Substack metrics …. but I could use some high-quality H2O about now.

The following numbers illustrate points I develop in this article:

4,946 - Number of total subscribers I had before Dr. Malone cross-posted my article.

5,306 - Total Number of subscribers I had five days later.

205 - Number of Paid Subscribers I had before Dr. Malone’s cross post.

247 - Number of Paid Subscribers I had five days later.

Note: An increase in my total subscribers of 7.27 percent produced a 20.5-percent increase in my paid subscribers … in five days!

I’m a “Context Guy” …

As noted, 13+ months ago, in a period of just five days, I added 42 new (net) paid subscribers.

In the last six months, I’ve lost 29 (net) paid subscribers (from a peak of 310 paid subscribers on September 5, 2024 to 281 as of Thursday morning).

As shown above, in one memorable five-day period, I added 360 total subscribers - a by-product, almost exclusively, of one article I wrote and sent into the Substack universe.

For context, in February (through yesterday), I’d posted 20 articles this month - articles that, combined, produced 97 total subscribers (including seven new paid subscribers)

(Note: Producing 20 original articles in less than one month is a record for me … but this increase in output resulted in slower subscription growth for my Substack.)

Each February article (through Feb. 26) produced, on average, 4.85 new subscribers.

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

Simple division reveals I was averaging 36.6 new subscribers with every article (and this was before, and doesn’t include, the anomalous “Malone spike”).

Compared to my previous norm, my ratio of “subscribers produced per article” has plummeted by 87 percent.

By this key metric, I’ve gone backwards …

In the first three months I produced a Substack, I was averaging adding nine new (net) paid subscribers per month.

In the last three months, I am losing (on a net, average basis”) 5.67 subscribers/month.

I report these metrics not to whine … but to simply illustrate why I think - make that, know - “something has changed on Substack.”

Another major change, probably the key one …

I’ve also recently realized my metrics of new paid subscribers/month has remained fairly constant. What’s changed dramatically is the number of current paid subscribers who do not renew a paid subscription.

Per a closer look at my Substack metrics of the last three months, I realized that while I’d added 29 new subscribers, I lost 47 (which explains my net loss of 18 paid subscribers in the past 88 days).

Stated differently, for every new paid subscriber I’m adding, I’m now losing 1.6 paid subscribers.

Also, my ratio of paid-subscribers-to-total-subscribers has plummeted from 4.8 percent to 3.8 percent.

While nefarious algorithms may explain some of these trend reversals, I also have no doubt that “real inflation” might be the bigger driver of these unfortunate Substack trends. (One of the easiest inflation work-arounds is to reduce or eliminate paid subscriptions.)

Regardless of the reason(s), It seems clear it’s becoming much harder for a typical Substack author to make a decent supplementary income from his or her Substack writing and research.

Note: This trend doesn’t apply to Robert Reich & Paul Krugman.

In the past three months, Reich has doubled the number of his subscribers (now 794,000) and averages adding more subscribers in one day (approximately 5,333) than my newsletter added in two years.

Mr. Krugman recently left his job as an economics columnist at The New York Times. In a few months, he’s already reached 244,000 total subscribers - the same number as Covid Contrarian All-Star Alex Berenson, a figure that took Berenson several years to reach and, in recent months, a figure that hasn’t changed).

*** (Please share with any other Substack metric nerds. Today’s subject is the importance of sharing.) ***

Metrics Substack’s PR staff probably won’t share with aspiring Substack authors … The Good, The Bad, The Ugly … and The Curious …

Disclaimer: I’m actually a major fan of Substack and appreciate what the creators of this platform have done for “independent” writers like myself … as well as for the world’s truth-seeking citizens … by simply allowing free speech.

According to recent Substack metrics, I will earn a net income of $14,040 this year (before Uncle Sam takes his bite) … which is approximately $13,500 more than I was making from my writing before I became a Substack newsletter author.

Also, thanks to the generosity of scores of readers, every month I average about $200 to $300 from readers who routinely put “bread in my jar” via Ko-Fi “tips.”

(Aside: A new concern is this Ko-fi revenue-enhancer might be targeted for modification or removal in the future.)

Analysis of my last 53 articles …

I don’t know if fellow Substack contrarian authors can report data similar to this, but here’s what my data shows from a comprehensive analysis of 53 articles I’ve posted in the last three months (December 1, 2024 through February 26, 2025):

53 - Number of original articles I’ve posted in the past three months.

446 - Number of new subscribers (free and paid) these articles produced.

8.41 - Number of new subscribers per article.

5.06 - Number of new articles per day (88 days).

The numbers presented below reveal my subscriber numbers per article are going down.

I should note I wrote a record-number of stories in February (20, not counting this article), breaking my record of 19 articles published in January.

3.73 - Number of new subscribers produced per day in February, 2025.

5.39 - Number of new subscribers produced per day in January.

5.87 - Number of new subscribed produced per day in December.

29 - Total number of new paid subscribers added in the past 3 months (through Feb. 26).

Comment: As referenced above, this metric is interesting to me. Over the past three months, I’m adding an average of 9.66 new paid subscribers every month, which is approximately the same figure I was averaging 26 months ago in the first three months of my Substack.

The difference is I now have approximately 7,400 total subscribers when I had 1,969 subscribers at the end of my first three months. Quick conclusion: More total subscribers is NOT producing more paid subscribers.

As this snapshot reveals, I was averaging adding 656 new subscribers/month in the first 3 months of my Substack and have added, on average, 148 in the last three months (a decline of 77. 5 percent).

The “Page-View metric” …

I also analyzed how many “reads” or page views each of my last 53 articles had produced.

February: 4,813 page views/article.

January: 5,276 page views/article.

December: 5,439 page views/article.

Comment: On average, each article I produced in February was read by 13 percent fewer people than the articles I published in December.

Note: Although I had more subscribers in February, this subscriber growth did not produce an increase in the number people who read each story. (As noted in other articles, the “reach” of a journalist’s articles is, arguably, his most-important metric).

A few stories produce the vast majority of new subscribers …

The analysis below shows the vast majority of my stories produce from 0 to 4 new subscribers and 64 percent of my recent articles didn’t produce one new paid subscriber.

This analysis confirms that, with most articles, Substack authors like myself can expect to receive no compensation via new subscriptions.

This confirms a point I made in my “Top 140 Contrarian Author” article - i.e. the vast majority of Substack authors are not working for “the money” and are often working for free.

Take-away from the below numbers: If my experience is common, Contrarian Substack authors might generate one new paid subscriber with a new article … but they probably won’t get more than this …

Articles and Subscribers produced (paid and free) by Bill Rice, Jr:

53 - Number of articles I published in last 3 months.

19 - Number of articles that generated at least one paid subscriber (35.8 percent).

34 - Number of articles that did not generate a single new paid subscriber. (64.2 percent).

***

0 - Out of 20 published articles, articles in February that produced more than 1 paid subscriber.

3 - Out of 19 published articles, articles in January that produced more than 1 paid subscriber.

3 - Out of 14 published articles, articles in December that produced more than 1 paid subscriber.

***

53 - Number of articles I published in last three months.

33 - Number of articles that produced 0 to 4 total new subscribers (62.3 percent)

20 - Number of my articles in the last three months that produced more than four total subscribers (37.7 percent).

8 - In February, out of 20 articles, the number that produced zero new subscribers (5 articles) or just one subscriber (3 articles). For context, Robert Reich adds, on average, 5,333 new subscribers with every article he publishes.

Bottom line: 60.3 percent of my new subscribers came from just five (5) articles.

Break down of the 446 New Subscribers I’ve added in the past 88 days:

Subscribers added/Article title:

90 - “Everything is a lie” (12-2-2024)

76 - “Top 140 Contrarian Substack authors” (1-10)

45 - “The Battle to Kill Freedom of Reach” (2-1)

42 - “Why the placebo nation of Sweden didn’t matter” (12-28-24)

16 - “Ding dong, Paul Krugman is gone” (12-7-24)

= 269 of my 446 new subscribers.

Re-stated: 9.4 percent of my articles produced 60.3 percent of my new subscribers.

Significantly, all five of these articles were either cross-posted or “re-stacked” by established Substack authors with much-higher or equal Substack audiences than my own newsletter. (For example, Dr. Meryl Nass, Sasha Latypova and Jenna McCarthy shared one or more of the above “home-run” articles).

Take-away: When it comes to new subscribers produced, the key variable isn’t necessarily the merits or superlative features of one article; instead who cross-posts or re-stacks an author’s articles seems to be the key variable for significantly growing subscriber numbers.

The above metrics should explain why I’m constantly adding plugs encouraging readers to share my articles (but, more importantly, other Substack authors).

Again, if more-established Substack authors want to help other Substack authors, they can and will do this by sharing articles.

Note: This is one reason I cross-post so many articles.

***

Here’s another By-the-Numbers:

53 - Original articles I posted in the last 88 days.

49 - Articles originally published at other Substack newsletters I cross-posted in the last 88 days.

= 102 total articles I emailed to my subscribers (more than one per day).

***

Circling back to the article Dr. Malone cross-posted, I would note that one key cross-post begets other cross-posts and shares:

1 - Cross-post (from Dr. Malone) that paid for a Rice family beach trip to Destin.

112 - Other Substack authors who cross-posted the same article.

218 - Number of times this article was “shared” by readers.

Note: For context, most of my articles, on average, generate from 4 to 20 shares and maybe 10 cross-posts.

This was also very interesting (or curious) to me …

Based on Substack-provided metrics, my research revealed that 1,998 of my subscribers opened my article “And so it begins” (an Open Rate of 40 percent). However, this article ultimately produced 11,700 “page views” (the most I’ve ever received from an article that wasn’t picked up by Citizen Free Press).

The massive increase in readership was clearly explained by the huge number of cross-posts and reader shares.

What I can’t fully understand today is why my figure of article “opens” has remained almost unchanged in the ensuing 13 1/2 months.

For example, my “The World Re-Imagined” article published two days ago was opened by 2,270 readers - 272 more “opens” than the article Dr. Malone cross-posted 13 1/2 months ago.

While I’m laboring 8 to 10 hours every day seeking to increase my subscriber numbers, the more-important number (people who open and read my articles) is barely increasing.

Expressed differently, in 13 1/2 months, I added approximately 2,500 new subscribers (a 50 percent increase in total subscribers), but the number of subscribers who actually read my articles has increased by only 11 percent.

The ‘Citizen Kane Effect’ …

My Substack newsletter benefited significantly from either fluke luck, providence or the generosity of “Citizen Kane,” the anonymous proprietor of the news aggregator Citizen Free Press (CFP).

For some reason, in the second month of my Substack, “Citizen Kane” discovered my articles and starting routinely linking to my Substack articles. (I’d estimate the Mysterious Mr. Kane has run at least 20 of my articles).

This piece of great fortune increased the reach or readership of my articles by eye-opening numbers … and, thus, inflated the number of total subscribers and paid subscribers that resulted from these readers.

For example, from Substack metrics, I know that 369,077 of my “page views” between December 2022 and December 2024 came from readers of CFP.

Substack metrics also tell me these CFP “page views” generated 998 total subscribers, including 65 readers who became paid subscribers.

(My record number of “page views” on Substack is more than 73,000, which was produced after CFP re-published an article I wrote about a father who died after his almost-certain lethal Covid “vaccine.”)

On a gross basis, “Citizen Kane” generated approximately $3,250 in new subscriber income for my newsletter (and probably produced more revenue if one assumes some of these readers shared my writing with other people who also became paid subscribers).

Alas, CFP hasn’t published one of my articles in approximately one year. I’m not sure if I did anything to anger or offend Mr. Kane or, perhaps, for whatever reason, he’s decided to curtail linking to Substack authors. (In recent months, I have noticed far fewer CFP links to other “Substack contrarians.”)

I share this information to simply illustrate the importance of “gatekeepers of the news,” of which Kane and CFP is one of the most important in the world and, since Matt Drudge sold out, easily the No. “conservative” Internet aggregator in the world.)

In the “Unknown Unknowable” Category, I don’t know how many subscribers and readers I might have today if CFP had kept publishing my articles.

Several Substack colleagues have asked me how I got so many articles published at CFP.

All I did was post links and a brief synopsis of my articles in the Reader Comments at CFP. Kane, I quickly figured out, apparently reads his Reader Comments and ends up re-publishing some of these articles. … Or he used to.

Another trend/development that strikes me as interesting is the fact Kane no longer publishes his daily “Open Threads” where readers can make comments and share links.

(Note: The disappearance of the Reader Comments Sections - or Reader Comments that are screened by moderators - will be the subject of a future essay as I view this change as yet another sinister way to block dissident commentary).

In conclusion …

Speaking for myself, I now realize the only way I can possibly grow my “reach” as a Substack author is, largely, via shares from other Substack authors who think like I do.

Significantly, I have almost no control over who who might link to my articles or doesn’t. I can simply thank those who have done this in the past, like Dr. Malone.

As a concluding Thought Exercise … if Dr. Malone cross-posted one of my articles again and it generated the same percentage of subscribers as his prior Random Act of Kindness produced, I’d now have approximately 800 new total subscribers and approximately 58 new paid subscribers.

Instead of having my current 283 paid subscribers, I’d have 341. I’d have $3,500 in new revenue to pay for an even nicer family get-away to Destin.

Today, however, I seriously doubt one cross-post - even from Dr. Malone -would produce nearly the same rate of paid subscribers as it once did … Which is another reason I think “something has changed on Substack.”

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Bonus Analysis:

In the Reader Comments Section, I added an Addendum that shows very-interesting results that, belatedly, followed my last article (“The World Re-Imagined”).

This article, which I think is one of the more important I’ve ever written, has now produced 36 new subscriptions, but oddly, 34 of these subscribers came 28 hours after I published the article (after I had compiled my February subscription numbers).

Based on this analysis, I’ve developed a new hypothesis: Some Substack readers are far-more likely to subscribe to an article than other readers. In this case study, the “second tranche” of readers were clearly much-better subscription prospects. Conclusion: If an author does reach the right prospects, he or she can still experience impressive increases in subscribers - but the key is reaching the right people.

**** (This was a lot of words dealing with the importance of one little red button.) ***

Writer gratuities via Ko-Fi.