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.”
I'm sure most of my readers have read that Facebook and Zuckerberg have now reconsidered their brazen censorship programs of the past four to five years. I don't believe this for a second.
As an experiment, I posted my "The World Re-Imagined" article at Substack three days ago - the first time I've posted a "Covid Contrarian" article at the site since I was last banned. In three days, the article has produced two "likes" (and I have 1,930 Facebook followers.) For months since I started The Troy Citizen Substack, I've been making harmless, non-controversial posts and get 10 to 100 "likes" with every post.
Not with this one. And this is an article that generated extremely-flattering reviews and has about 60 cross posts and re-stacks from my Substack site - so I know the article resonates with many readers.
The "reach-suppression" programs of dissident voices are still going on.
Tom has asked some of the top SS authors to cross post our posts to no avail. Sasha gave me a huge bump when she linked my stack some months ago. Kory also linked my stack in a post of many months ago. Part of the problem may be that I don’t post very often.
AMD said she would cover our latest survey results, but we haven’t heard from her.
I would bet a substantial amount of money that there indeed is a gag order on the subject of the clots. How else does one explain the fact that Tucker has never contacted us despite Tom giving him a vial of the clots 5 months ago. It makes no sense. I didn’t think Tucker answered to anyone but himself. I think I am naive in those thoughts.
Reach-suppression is still going on and some issues are far more "thermo-nuclear" than others. The embalmers' clots are definitely a taboo subject and it does seem some kind of universal gag order prevents awareness of this issue from going "mainstream" or "viral."
With my "World Re-Imagined" article, I got a huge and sudden bump (+ 34 subscribers) after Dr. Nass wrote a story linking to my article. Until you sent me her link, I didn't know she'd did that. That post by itself explains 34 of the 36 subscribers this article has generated.
Before her mention, the story had only 4,000 reads and had relatively few "re-stacks." As I note elsewhere, this "Dr. Nass tranche" of readers subscribe at a ratio of about 1-in-50 readers! With my first tranche of "readers," my "conversion ratio" was about 1-in-1,000. That's a major difference.
So the key IS getting Contrarian All-Stars like Dr. Nass - or A Midwestern Doctor - to highlight or promote our best and most-important articles.
I'm sure another point of frustration for "Substack Contrarian" authors is the articles they think are very important that lay an egg or flop in readership numbers or subscribers produced.
For example, one of the most-important articles I think I've produced so far listed 28 mechanisms I think officials have used to conceal early spread. This article took years of research and extensive "dot-connecting" to produce. It shows not only why I think "early spread" is a reality but how and why this was covered up.
The article got some of my lowest numbers of reads, cross-posts, etc.
I also think my articles showing the copious evidence that Influenza Like Illness was "widespread" and "severe" in the months before "official Covid are significant and should have generated more reads and conversation.
Yet another important series of articles I produced on "early spread" were the ones showing the huge antibody-confirmed prevalence of Covid on the USS Roosevelt aircraft carrier. The same article produced persuasive evidence that scores of sailors probably had Covid before the first official case in America.
And those articles produced virtually zero buzz and no follow-up from other citizen journalists or MSM journalists.
Lastly, I think all of my "embalmer clots" articles, for some surreal reason, are still largely taboo.
I wish Mr. Kane had published my article "The World Re-Imagined" because I think it would resonate with most people who read it. If Citizen Free Press had linked to the article, I'm confident it would have boosted the "reach" of this article by maybe 30,000 or more readers.
As it is now, the article has reached only 5,600 readers.
I can no longer add links to stories I think are worthy of CFP links since CFP no longer offers its "Open Forum" Comment section. However, I do have a direct email to Citizen Kane and for the first time ever sent him a link to this story and asked if he would consider running, which he hasn't so far.
The few significant "gate-keepers of the news" possess great power, which they can exert by running a certain story or ... by not running certain types of stories.
I will add I still enjoy reading CFP and appreciate the many interesting and important stories Mr. Kane does allow to reach far more people. And I definitely appreciate the tremendous boost he gave an unknown freelance writer from the small town of Troy, Alabama.
Addendum/Update: Metrics from ‘The World Re-Imagined’ support today’s thesis ....
The figures referenced in today's article include subscription data only through my last article through mid-afternoon Thursday.
Sometime last night, this data took an intriguing turn.
About 28 hours after I’d first posted it, my “Great Awakening” article had produced 4,000 Page Views and just two new subscribers (one paid, one free).
These initial “returns,” which were pretty anemic, were about par for the course from a bleak Substack month gauged by the “new subscriber” metric.
However, as of this writing, this article has found some kind of Mojo and now has 5,643 page views and has generated a total of 36 new subscribers (two paid).
In other words, an article that produced 4,000 reads and just two new subscribers in the first 28 hours of its life, produced 34 additional subscribers in the next 24 hours of its life.
Frankly, I don’t know why an extra 1,643 readers resulted in 34 new subscribers.
All I can deduce is that the article was cross-posted or “re-stacked” by one or more important or influential Substackers. (The Daily Sceptic also picked it up and produced approximately 220 additional readers).
Advanced Metrics: As of last night around 6 p.m. CST, the Open Rate for this article was 29 percent.
Since I had about 7,374 subscribers at the time and Substack told me my “Open Rate” was 29 percent, I knew that 2,138 of my current Substack subscribers had opened this article.
Since the article had been read by 4,000 people around 6 p.m. last night, I could use subtraction to tell me that 1,862 non-subscribers had found this article and presumably read it.
These 1,862 non-subscribers had generated one new free subscription. (My one new paid subscriber came from a free subscriber who upgraded to paid, which I know because he told me in a comment that he upgraded because he was impressed by this article and wanted to show his appreciation).
The question that puzzles me: Why did 1,862 readers produce only two new subscribers (or one new subscriber since the other one was a free subscriber already) but, today, 1,643 non-subscriber readers produced 34 more new subscribers?
The only answer I can come up with is that this new tranche of readers is far-more likely to hit the “subscribe” button.
My second tranche of non-subscriber readers produced 34 subscribers, which equates to a “conversion rate” of 1-in-48 readers.
My “conversion rate” for my first tranche of non-subscriber readers was 1-in-1,862.
Question: what changed in 24 hours?
This metric-analysis seems to tell me that the optimal subscriber prospects are still out there somewhere. If the right people really like a story, they will reward the author with at least a free “trial-run” subscription.
Possible Take-away: It sometimes might take 28 to 52 hours for an article to find the right audience … and a certain cohort of Substack users are far more likely to hit the “subscribe” button than others are.
These are the readers (if many don’t turn out to be “bots”) that I want and need to “reach” - and a Substack author can only reach these excellent prospects if key Substack authors cross-post or re-stack his columns.
I wouldn't be surprised at all. Reich's numbers and almost-exponential growth seems completely impossible to me. It also suggests Substack is promoting sites like his ... instead of the Covid Contrarians who put this platform on the media map.
Fwiw, CFP has pretty much become a Twitter/X curator. With MSM links thrown in for good measure, MSNBC, WSJ, WaPo, NYT. Maybe a Brietbart here or there. Very little independent media, contrarian media these days compared to just a year ago.
Kane's formula for content has gotten lazier, for whatever reason. At least 90-95% is now the sources I describe. I like it less and less each day, I can see the day coming fairly soon that I stop visiting because it's become so predictable. Just hope it doesn't go full Drudge.
Another metric nerd! There's a few of us, I guess.
I also think it's ironic my No. 1 subscriber-producing article wasn't about Covid topics, it was about my suspicions that "funny business" might be happening on Substack.
It was a Substack metric article and I'm sure many of my readers are probably saying, "Enough with the Substack metric articles."
An account with over 40,000 subscribers in the top 20 list of health politics here on Substack cross posted one of my posts last week.
I got about 200 new subscribers, which I was very grateful for, but given her following, disappointed as well. I was expecting thousands of new subscribers.
I average about 300 new subscribers per post on my own.
It’s nearly impossible to reach the top 10 without being “in the club” and having a massive following elsewhere.
You get 300 new subscribers with every article you post? Wow. That's definitely atypical.
You make a good point. I'm pretty confident authors aren't getting the "boost" they used to from cross-posts of better-known authors.
My real point is we have to do a better job of working together as a team to boost the readership of important articles ... and support writers we want to help "hang in there" until we get closer to winning this battle.
UPDATE: I've now made several edits I think improve this article. For example, I added several new bullet points in my summary of the article's main points. Anyway, those interested in this topic might go back and re-read at least the Introductory section.
My wife gets our records ready to give to the accountant, and just did that this past week; she pointed out to me how much money I was spending on SubStacks & a few other things (I am now retired & we don’t have as much income and for the first time in my adult life, my desires are constrained by my income). Long way of saying, that I have cut back to only 1 or 2 paying subscriptions, as they come up for renewal.
So I'm going to type free form without editing or thinking heavily about what all this data suggests to me (as a starting point). Here are key points in my mind...
1. A few posts provide the most "pop" - this is what I'd expect. Consider the mental process a reader goes through to subscribe and, especially, pay. First, the article's subject has to be very important. Second, the insights have to provide great emotional value, likely by matching (emphatically) the reader's world view or by providing something of great value (insight, resources, etc.). Third, the content and value have to be unique enough for the action. I suspect there are two types of unique here, first of value to the reader and second of desire to support the author.
2. Most posts are not going to meet the criteria in #1. There just aren't that many topics and perspectives that will generate that kind of response. Once you've provided the key insight, how long before you have another one?
3. The biggest names on Substack benefit from a large reader base that wants to ensure their success and can afford the paid sub price. And they likely already have lots of large-scale marketing options available (like Kane or others...).
In the end, I don't think it's any different than becoming a best selling author. You need skill, exposure, winning topics, large fan base that can afford to spend, and a style of writing that matches what folks with the will to spend want to read.
It's just long odds, honestly. Anyone has a chance at big success, but most will not have the combination of skills and perseverance to win big.
Have you researched how Mr. Beast learned to own the internet? He relentlessly reviewed all the YouTube videos that went viral and harshly compared those traits to his videos. And he got better after years of that effort.
So maybe ask WHY particular posts generate the surge and how many of those "wow" posts the other big names have.
And realize that Matt Taibbi and Naomi Wolff and others earned their loyal supporters with huge efforts in decades prior.
Don't know if any of this helps or hinders. It's a tough gig.
OK, I read and had an editorial type thought. Dr. Mercola has lots of sub's, and he has one advantage that you so far do not: his audience craves understanding of medical issues that they can't seem to find or trust from any other source. The number of medical subjects and supplements and such is vast - he will likely have something of interest to every subscriber several or more times a year. And they trust him.
So, content, trust, exposure... somewhere in there are the magic beans to grow by... maybe.
I myself came here to you via Citizen Free Press which I still use as my go to news aggregator. What changed in the last year is VERY VERY FEW ( in fact only ONE a day) articles have comment sections. He used to have every link go to a section with comments available and the story linked at the top. Now all of them (except the daily open thread) go directly to the linked article—and I’m not a huge fan of this because I may not wish to actually go to that particular site and give it a “hit”—-I’d prefer to know where I’m going first. I’m still using it out of respect for Kane, he’s fellow Gen X and all, plus I prefer his headlines to theirs. About 1/3 of them link to his X account which is fine as I follow him on X—-but you can’t link substack stuff there which has also hurt metrics for substack as well. And that was over a year ago that started too. I very rarely go to the daily open thread at CFP but I do miss the folks that comment there as they were generally a rowdy bunch I enjoyed reading.
Hey Bill! I am a fairly new subscriber of yours and found you when Robert Malone shared your piece. I really appreciate your transparency in your SubStack publication growth. As an avid SubStack reader and an author in my own right, I published my book with Hay House in 2016, I just started my own SubStack with the hope of growing my audience faster. My blog posts used to get 100,000+ views/month back 6-10 years ago and then with changes to Google’s algorithm many of my articles dropped from the first page of search results to 3rd page and it killed my traffic. This post and thread are helpful in understanding how to grow here. I’ve really only been publishing for 2 weeks and have gotten 18 new subscribers. I’m curious what your paid subscribers get vs free. TIA.
CFP will never link to an article or video that is remotely critical of Israel, even though there is much to be criticized, which is suspicious, even though there are many such articles and videos from conservatives like Tucker Carlson etc. I have been tracking this tendency. Drudge was the same. Some have conjectured Drudge was Mossad. He abandoned MAGA when it became clear there were anti-Zionists in that movement. We need more honest aggregators. There is an opportunity for someone.
I'm sure most of my readers have read that Facebook and Zuckerberg have now reconsidered their brazen censorship programs of the past four to five years. I don't believe this for a second.
As an experiment, I posted my "The World Re-Imagined" article at Substack three days ago - the first time I've posted a "Covid Contrarian" article at the site since I was last banned. In three days, the article has produced two "likes" (and I have 1,930 Facebook followers.) For months since I started The Troy Citizen Substack, I've been making harmless, non-controversial posts and get 10 to 100 "likes" with every post.
Not with this one. And this is an article that generated extremely-flattering reviews and has about 60 cross posts and re-stacks from my Substack site - so I know the article resonates with many readers.
The "reach-suppression" programs of dissident voices are still going on.
Bill - I feel certain an algorithm on FB is still censoring any link to Substack.
Instead of providing a link, have you tried posting, billricejr dot substack dot com - and then the title of your post?
As far as my SS growth - I got a small bump in subs due to an interview Tom did on The New American:
https://thenewamerican.com/us/healthcare/a-silent-epidemic-embalmers-spot-alarming-trend-in-clots/
Tom has asked some of the top SS authors to cross post our posts to no avail. Sasha gave me a huge bump when she linked my stack some months ago. Kory also linked my stack in a post of many months ago. Part of the problem may be that I don’t post very often.
AMD said she would cover our latest survey results, but we haven’t heard from her.
I would bet a substantial amount of money that there indeed is a gag order on the subject of the clots. How else does one explain the fact that Tucker has never contacted us despite Tom giving him a vial of the clots 5 months ago. It makes no sense. I didn’t think Tucker answered to anyone but himself. I think I am naive in those thoughts.
Reach-suppression is still going on and some issues are far more "thermo-nuclear" than others. The embalmers' clots are definitely a taboo subject and it does seem some kind of universal gag order prevents awareness of this issue from going "mainstream" or "viral."
With my "World Re-Imagined" article, I got a huge and sudden bump (+ 34 subscribers) after Dr. Nass wrote a story linking to my article. Until you sent me her link, I didn't know she'd did that. That post by itself explains 34 of the 36 subscribers this article has generated.
Before her mention, the story had only 4,000 reads and had relatively few "re-stacks." As I note elsewhere, this "Dr. Nass tranche" of readers subscribe at a ratio of about 1-in-50 readers! With my first tranche of "readers," my "conversion ratio" was about 1-in-1,000. That's a major difference.
So the key IS getting Contrarian All-Stars like Dr. Nass - or A Midwestern Doctor - to highlight or promote our best and most-important articles.
I'm sure another point of frustration for "Substack Contrarian" authors is the articles they think are very important that lay an egg or flop in readership numbers or subscribers produced.
For example, one of the most-important articles I think I've produced so far listed 28 mechanisms I think officials have used to conceal early spread. This article took years of research and extensive "dot-connecting" to produce. It shows not only why I think "early spread" is a reality but how and why this was covered up.
The article got some of my lowest numbers of reads, cross-posts, etc.
I also think my articles showing the copious evidence that Influenza Like Illness was "widespread" and "severe" in the months before "official Covid are significant and should have generated more reads and conversation.
Yet another important series of articles I produced on "early spread" were the ones showing the huge antibody-confirmed prevalence of Covid on the USS Roosevelt aircraft carrier. The same article produced persuasive evidence that scores of sailors probably had Covid before the first official case in America.
And those articles produced virtually zero buzz and no follow-up from other citizen journalists or MSM journalists.
Lastly, I think all of my "embalmer clots" articles, for some surreal reason, are still largely taboo.
I wish Mr. Kane had published my article "The World Re-Imagined" because I think it would resonate with most people who read it. If Citizen Free Press had linked to the article, I'm confident it would have boosted the "reach" of this article by maybe 30,000 or more readers.
As it is now, the article has reached only 5,600 readers.
I can no longer add links to stories I think are worthy of CFP links since CFP no longer offers its "Open Forum" Comment section. However, I do have a direct email to Citizen Kane and for the first time ever sent him a link to this story and asked if he would consider running, which he hasn't so far.
The few significant "gate-keepers of the news" possess great power, which they can exert by running a certain story or ... by not running certain types of stories.
I will add I still enjoy reading CFP and appreciate the many interesting and important stories Mr. Kane does allow to reach far more people. And I definitely appreciate the tremendous boost he gave an unknown freelance writer from the small town of Troy, Alabama.
Addendum/Update: Metrics from ‘The World Re-Imagined’ support today’s thesis ....
The figures referenced in today's article include subscription data only through my last article through mid-afternoon Thursday.
Sometime last night, this data took an intriguing turn.
About 28 hours after I’d first posted it, my “Great Awakening” article had produced 4,000 Page Views and just two new subscribers (one paid, one free).
These initial “returns,” which were pretty anemic, were about par for the course from a bleak Substack month gauged by the “new subscriber” metric.
However, as of this writing, this article has found some kind of Mojo and now has 5,643 page views and has generated a total of 36 new subscribers (two paid).
In other words, an article that produced 4,000 reads and just two new subscribers in the first 28 hours of its life, produced 34 additional subscribers in the next 24 hours of its life.
Frankly, I don’t know why an extra 1,643 readers resulted in 34 new subscribers.
All I can deduce is that the article was cross-posted or “re-stacked” by one or more important or influential Substackers. (The Daily Sceptic also picked it up and produced approximately 220 additional readers).
Advanced Metrics: As of last night around 6 p.m. CST, the Open Rate for this article was 29 percent.
Since I had about 7,374 subscribers at the time and Substack told me my “Open Rate” was 29 percent, I knew that 2,138 of my current Substack subscribers had opened this article.
Since the article had been read by 4,000 people around 6 p.m. last night, I could use subtraction to tell me that 1,862 non-subscribers had found this article and presumably read it.
These 1,862 non-subscribers had generated one new free subscription. (My one new paid subscriber came from a free subscriber who upgraded to paid, which I know because he told me in a comment that he upgraded because he was impressed by this article and wanted to show his appreciation).
The question that puzzles me: Why did 1,862 readers produce only two new subscribers (or one new subscriber since the other one was a free subscriber already) but, today, 1,643 non-subscriber readers produced 34 more new subscribers?
The only answer I can come up with is that this new tranche of readers is far-more likely to hit the “subscribe” button.
My second tranche of non-subscriber readers produced 34 subscribers, which equates to a “conversion rate” of 1-in-48 readers.
My “conversion rate” for my first tranche of non-subscriber readers was 1-in-1,862.
Question: what changed in 24 hours?
This metric-analysis seems to tell me that the optimal subscriber prospects are still out there somewhere. If the right people really like a story, they will reward the author with at least a free “trial-run” subscription.
Possible Take-away: It sometimes might take 28 to 52 hours for an article to find the right audience … and a certain cohort of Substack users are far more likely to hit the “subscribe” button than others are.
These are the readers (if many don’t turn out to be “bots”) that I want and need to “reach” - and a Substack author can only reach these excellent prospects if key Substack authors cross-post or re-stack his columns.
Is USAID paying for thousands of subscriptions to Reich and Krugman's Substack?
I wouldn't be surprised at all. Reich's numbers and almost-exponential growth seems completely impossible to me. It also suggests Substack is promoting sites like his ... instead of the Covid Contrarians who put this platform on the media map.
See my note about the function of news aggregators too.
Fwiw, CFP has pretty much become a Twitter/X curator. With MSM links thrown in for good measure, MSNBC, WSJ, WaPo, NYT. Maybe a Brietbart here or there. Very little independent media, contrarian media these days compared to just a year ago.
Kane's formula for content has gotten lazier, for whatever reason. At least 90-95% is now the sources I describe. I like it less and less each day, I can see the day coming fairly soon that I stop visiting because it's become so predictable. Just hope it doesn't go full Drudge.
With you. There may be external "pressures" on Kane.
Great stuff! Thanks
Another metric nerd! There's a few of us, I guess.
I also think it's ironic my No. 1 subscriber-producing article wasn't about Covid topics, it was about my suspicions that "funny business" might be happening on Substack.
It was a Substack metric article and I'm sure many of my readers are probably saying, "Enough with the Substack metric articles."
Bill
I read all your stuff on my smart phone. Does that count as an open?
I think so, Ron. Thank goodness you are one of my readers. I'd be in trouble if you weren't!
I keep a drone on station over your home to ensure you are behaving.
😂😂😂
An account with over 40,000 subscribers in the top 20 list of health politics here on Substack cross posted one of my posts last week.
I got about 200 new subscribers, which I was very grateful for, but given her following, disappointed as well. I was expecting thousands of new subscribers.
I average about 300 new subscribers per post on my own.
It’s nearly impossible to reach the top 10 without being “in the club” and having a massive following elsewhere.
You get 300 new subscribers with every article you post? Wow. That's definitely atypical.
You make a good point. I'm pretty confident authors aren't getting the "boost" they used to from cross-posts of better-known authors.
My real point is we have to do a better job of working together as a team to boost the readership of important articles ... and support writers we want to help "hang in there" until we get closer to winning this battle.
Using the notes aspect of the platform has helped a lot as well.
And I agree, it’s a team effort.
UPDATE: I've now made several edits I think improve this article. For example, I added several new bullet points in my summary of the article's main points. Anyway, those interested in this topic might go back and re-read at least the Introductory section.
My wife gets our records ready to give to the accountant, and just did that this past week; she pointed out to me how much money I was spending on SubStacks & a few other things (I am now retired & we don’t have as much income and for the first time in my adult life, my desires are constrained by my income). Long way of saying, that I have cut back to only 1 or 2 paying subscriptions, as they come up for renewal.
Buy me a Koffee occasionally may be doable.
Check for mental illness if you run across a Klugman or Reich paid subscriber, Bill.
And I restacked your 'Stack with this:
“(I still need to send Dr. Malone a gift card to Outback Steakhouse as a thank-you gesture.)”
Bill Rice, Jr. has a wonderful sense of humor. Subscribe to him!
So I'm going to type free form without editing or thinking heavily about what all this data suggests to me (as a starting point). Here are key points in my mind...
1. A few posts provide the most "pop" - this is what I'd expect. Consider the mental process a reader goes through to subscribe and, especially, pay. First, the article's subject has to be very important. Second, the insights have to provide great emotional value, likely by matching (emphatically) the reader's world view or by providing something of great value (insight, resources, etc.). Third, the content and value have to be unique enough for the action. I suspect there are two types of unique here, first of value to the reader and second of desire to support the author.
2. Most posts are not going to meet the criteria in #1. There just aren't that many topics and perspectives that will generate that kind of response. Once you've provided the key insight, how long before you have another one?
3. The biggest names on Substack benefit from a large reader base that wants to ensure their success and can afford the paid sub price. And they likely already have lots of large-scale marketing options available (like Kane or others...).
In the end, I don't think it's any different than becoming a best selling author. You need skill, exposure, winning topics, large fan base that can afford to spend, and a style of writing that matches what folks with the will to spend want to read.
It's just long odds, honestly. Anyone has a chance at big success, but most will not have the combination of skills and perseverance to win big.
Have you researched how Mr. Beast learned to own the internet? He relentlessly reviewed all the YouTube videos that went viral and harshly compared those traits to his videos. And he got better after years of that effort.
So maybe ask WHY particular posts generate the surge and how many of those "wow" posts the other big names have.
And realize that Matt Taibbi and Naomi Wolff and others earned their loyal supporters with huge efforts in decades prior.
Don't know if any of this helps or hinders. It's a tough gig.
OK, I read and had an editorial type thought. Dr. Mercola has lots of sub's, and he has one advantage that you so far do not: his audience craves understanding of medical issues that they can't seem to find or trust from any other source. The number of medical subjects and supplements and such is vast - he will likely have something of interest to every subscriber several or more times a year. And they trust him.
So, content, trust, exposure... somewhere in there are the magic beans to grow by... maybe.
I myself came here to you via Citizen Free Press which I still use as my go to news aggregator. What changed in the last year is VERY VERY FEW ( in fact only ONE a day) articles have comment sections. He used to have every link go to a section with comments available and the story linked at the top. Now all of them (except the daily open thread) go directly to the linked article—and I’m not a huge fan of this because I may not wish to actually go to that particular site and give it a “hit”—-I’d prefer to know where I’m going first. I’m still using it out of respect for Kane, he’s fellow Gen X and all, plus I prefer his headlines to theirs. About 1/3 of them link to his X account which is fine as I follow him on X—-but you can’t link substack stuff there which has also hurt metrics for substack as well. And that was over a year ago that started too. I very rarely go to the daily open thread at CFP but I do miss the folks that comment there as they were generally a rowdy bunch I enjoyed reading.
Hey Bill! I am a fairly new subscriber of yours and found you when Robert Malone shared your piece. I really appreciate your transparency in your SubStack publication growth. As an avid SubStack reader and an author in my own right, I published my book with Hay House in 2016, I just started my own SubStack with the hope of growing my audience faster. My blog posts used to get 100,000+ views/month back 6-10 years ago and then with changes to Google’s algorithm many of my articles dropped from the first page of search results to 3rd page and it killed my traffic. This post and thread are helpful in understanding how to grow here. I’ve really only been publishing for 2 weeks and have gotten 18 new subscribers. I’m curious what your paid subscribers get vs free. TIA.
CFP will never link to an article or video that is remotely critical of Israel, even though there is much to be criticized, which is suspicious, even though there are many such articles and videos from conservatives like Tucker Carlson etc. I have been tracking this tendency. Drudge was the same. Some have conjectured Drudge was Mossad. He abandoned MAGA when it became clear there were anti-Zionists in that movement. We need more honest aggregators. There is an opportunity for someone.