These Substack metrics are eye-opening
Because I think Substack matters, I continue to note dramatic changes in my key metrics.
I generally listen to my “Spider Sense” and my intuition continues to tell me that something significant has changed on Substack. Based on feedback from fellow Substack colleagues, I’ve also picked up on the fact more “Covid Contrarian” authors are noticing the same metric changes I have.
Today’s installment on “changing Substack metrics” is particularly eye-opening, at least to myself.
I conclude this article with commentary on why I think this subject matters and make another one of my “bold predictions.”
I do appreciate the fact Substack allows me to publish articles that may not be flattering to Substack.
While recent metric changes on Substack seem curious and alarming to me, there’s no doubt the earlier iteration of Substack was a godsend for free speech.
In the past, Substack amplified the views of Contrarians or writers skeptical of the pronouncements of alleged experts. Based on an analysis of my own metrics, it appears this is no longer the case.
The metric “New-Subscribers-per-Article” - today compared to 27 and 36 months ago …
How many new subscribers my last 11 articles produced:
0, 0, 1, 4, 0, 1, 1, 3, 4, 0, 0 = 14 total subscribers
Average new subscribers per article: 1.27
5 of 11 recent articles (45.5 percent) produced no new subscribers.
3 of 11 articles produced one new subscriber
8 of 11 articles produced zero or one subscriber
3 of 11 articles produced 3 or 4 subscribers
0 stories produced more than 4 subscribers.
For purposes of comparison, of approximately 120 new articles I posted on Substack in the first nine months of my newsletter, only six of my articles (5 percent) produced no new subscribers. (As shown above, 5 of my last 11 articles produced no new subscribers.)
How many new subscribers my first 11 articles on Substack produced:
21, 167, 26, 89, 94, 89, 77, 25, 7, 18, 3 = 616 total subscribers
Average number of new subscribers per article: 56
Note: My first Substack article was published Sept. 22, 2022 - 36 months ago.
On Average, total new subscribers I produced every day in the first nine months of my Substack: + 14.5
Total (net) subscribers lost in last 12 days: 33
Total subscribers on 9-13-25: 7,945
Total subscribers on 9-25-25: 7,912
Net Subscribers lost per day: - 2.75
Main take-away: I’ve gone from averaging 56 new subscribers per article in my first 11 articles and 14.5 new subscribers per day in my first nine months … to losing 2.75 subscribers every day.
Paid subscribers lost in past five days: 3
Note: From 276 on 9-20-25 to 273 on 9-22-25. My paid subscriber metric peaked at the end of August 2024 at 308, meaning I lost 35 paid subscribers in a period of 12 months. I believe this attrition of paid and free subscribers is now common or typical among the vast majority of “Substack contrarian” authors.
My Page-View metric is, perhaps, the real stunner
Arguably, the most important metric for a writer is “page views” as this shows how many people are actually reading your articles. (An author who hopes to contribute to important society debates is very interested in reaching as many citizens as possible).
I was curious to see how many page views my articles were generating nine months into my Substack and then compare this figure to how many people are reading my articles today (three years after starting my newsletter).
From June 2, 2023 through June 28, 2023, I posted 11 new articles, which produced 51,120 cumulative page views, according to Substack-provided metrics. These 11 articles, on average, produced 4,647 Page Views.
My last 11 articles (published approximately 27 months later), produced 49,921 cumulative Page Views. These articles, on average, produced 4,538 Page Views.
Key stat/metric: On average, the number of people who read a given “Bill Rice, Jr.” article has declined by 109 readers (approximately 2.4 percent).
This is particularly curious as my number of subscribers has more than doubled - from 3,913 on June 16, 2023 to 7,912 today.
While my subscriber numbers have increased by more than 100 percent, my readership metric (“Page Views”) has declined by 2.4 percent.
Curiously to myself, this metric shows that (many) more subscribers does NOT equal more page views or readers.
Citizen Free Press dramatically increases an author’s reach:
*Note: In comparing “Page View” metrics from 27 months ago until today, I omitted three stories that were picked up by Citizen Free Press (CFP).
Stories linked by “Citizen Kane” significantly inflated my readership numbers. Since it’s been more than 18 months since CFP ran one of my stories, I chose not to include these figures in order to produce an “apples-to-apples” comparison. (That is, the CFP articles were anomalies of a sort).
I do think it’s worth noting that CFP - which in the first 18 months of my newsletter linked to approximately 20 of my Substack articles - no longer does this.
Needless to say, if I had included three stories picked up by CFP, my “Page View” numbers from 27 months ago would have been significantly higher.
Page-View numbers from three articles from June 2023 that were picked up by CFP:
6-7-23: 13,700
6-9-23: 12,700
6-22-23: 18,900
Note: it is now very rare for me to publish an article that has more than 5,000 Page Views. (My record “Page View” number is 75,000).
Commentary - What’s changed or what’s the key take-away from these metric changes …
Many readers who’ve read my articles on “changing/curious Substack metrics” have posited several plausible reasons for these changes, which include:
Substack readers are now “over-saturated” with subscriptions and, thus, are no longer inclined to add another new subscriber, even if the subscription is free.
Similarly, many readers are culling subscriptions so their email boxes aren’t flooded with unread articles.
“Covid fatigue” might explain the precipitous change in the readership and subscription numbers of authors who might be labeled “Covid Contrarians.”
Per one school of thought, as more writers become Substack content producers, existing writers are going to get a “smaller slice of the pie” of the market interested in content similar to our own.
*** (It will be interesting to see the metrics on this article. Some of my early articles on Substack metrics produced eye-opening readership and subscriber numbers. However, recent articles on this subject have been ratings flops.) ***
A more sinister or concerning explanation would be that writers who challenge “authorized narratives” are now being “de-amplified” by some unknown mechanism(s).
Even if the latter explanation is a figment of paranoia or is a false conspiracy theory, the fact would seem to remain that a dramatic change has occurred as it involves subscription and “Page View” numbers of “contrarian” Substack authors. (As I’ve noted many times, this is the group of content providers that actually put Substack on the “media map.”)
Whatever the reasons, it seems that Substack authors who are trying to tap into the market I’m interested in reaching are unlikely to experience significant subscriber or readership growth in the future.
As I’ve noted before, at one time in my Substack newsletter, I thought I would/might have at least 20,000 total Substack subscribers by late next year (2026). If my new metric trends (losing 2.75 subscribers per day) continue, I will likely have fewer than 7,000 subscribers by the end of 2026 - a plunge of 1,000 subscribers from my peak subscriber figure.
Another point I’ve tried to highlight is that subscriber and readership trends seem to be different for authors who identify with the Statist, Establishment or Leftist political ideology.
As I’ve highlighted in several articles, many of the best-known leftist writers who are now publishing Substack newsletters are gaining thousands of subscribers with every article they post.
That is, the trends that are troubling to myself don’t seem to be as conspicuous among the writers whose world view is the polar opposite of my own. In fact, many of these writers - based on the same metrics - seem to be experiencing great success on Substack.
Why this subject matters …
As to the question of why a typical Substack reader should be interested in these changing metrics, my best answer is that Substack is, largely, the only writers’ forum where intelligent skeptics can publish important citizen journalism, research and commentary.
If fewer “Contrarian” writers can now expect to experience notable success - or reach significant numbers of citizens - the possibility Substack will be a weapon or tool for those “seeking the truth” will diminish significantly.
If I was bold enough to make a prediction, my prediction would be that the speech/content of the narrative-protecting class of writers on Substack is going to continue to be greatly amplified, while the voices of America’s dissident class of writers will, relatively speaking, be de-amplified.
It’s possible to connect themes of today’s metric story to my recent articles on the Jimmy Kimmel issue and the Leftist view that “free speech is now being attacked” by President Trump.
Technically, or on the surface level, my right to write whatever I want has not been infringed on Substack. However, the number of people my articles are reaching seems to have peaked and seems unlikely to grow in the future.
According to my prediction, what will continue to grow on Substack is the voices or POV of writers who think exactly like Jimmy Kimmel and his employer, Walt Disney.
IMO, the recent eye-opening changes on Substack have and will increase the monetary value of Substack (if its owners ever choose to sell this platform.) That is, the people who might be interested in purchasing (and controlling) such a speech platform will be no different than the people and companies that control content on ABC, NBC and CBS.
While Substack, unlike Disney et al, does currently allow contrarian writers to publish any article an author thinks is important, it’s undeniable - based on the metrics I have documented - that Substack is no longer viewed as the great threat to the orthodoxy it was three, four or five years ago.
I believe numerous Substack authors were viewed (correctly) as a potential threat to the Establishment and I believe this threat is now being minimized or neutralized, a development that will not serve the “pubic interest.”
Lastly, because Substack is or can be very important, any changing Substack metrics that benefit the Establishment and harm the country’s much-needed dissident voices should qualify as a story that should be followed and closely monitored - which is what I am trying to do.
I’ve always been interested in writing articles about subjects that, in my opinion, are important but aren’t getting enough attention.
Bonus content.... This will probably never happen again …
On Sept. 25, 2022 I published my first long story (where I introduced myself and gave the mission of my Substack newsletter).
That article generated 2,310 Page Views and produced 167 (!) new subscribers. I should note that I was a completely unknown and obscure freelance writer from Troy, Alabama when I wrote that article.
The ratio of new subscribers produced per page view was 13.8. In other words, 1-in-14 people who read that article became a subscriber.
With one article, I produced far more new subscribers than I have in an entire month over the last nine or so months.
I now average about 4,400 Page views and, on average, 1.3 people decide to become subscribers after reading my article. So this metric has gone from 1-in-14 to 1-in-4,400.
Recently, my articles have been averaging about 4,500 Page views of which half this figure are current subscribers and half are non-subscribers. So, 2,250 people who could become new subscribers read each article. Of these 2,250 prospective subscribers, 0 to 1 become subscribers today.
As shown in my article, that ratio was once dramatically higher.
I also wrote another recent article where I posited that every decision anyone makes is made after a conscious or unconscious "risk-benefit" analysis has been performed. One could apply this maxim to Substack.
Would Substack be taking a "risk" if it was largely perceived as a media platform that catered to "Covid Contrarians" or authors who challenge every dubious narrative?
Would Substack likely "benefit" if it was now perceived as the go-to content platform for writers who champion the Status Quo, Woke or Leftist ideology?