Why I’m skeptical of Substack’s subscriber metrics

One case study illustrates what might be many ‘non-sensical’ subscription numbers.

Anti-MAGA columnist Bob Dunning is an example of a Substacker whose Covid metrics are hard to reconcile with common sense.

I embarked on my Substack Subscription Research Project for several reasons, two of which are:

1) I’m skeptical of many of Substack’s subscriber metrics.

2) Per my observations, Substack’s PR team seems to promote the newsletters of liberal authors who always seem to protect the Status-Quo narratives.

An analysis of the metrics of Substack author Bob Dunning supports the above two points.

***

Quick Aside: Mr. Dunning is probably a very nice man, a person you wouldn’t mind babysitting your kids (as long as you aren’t a MAGA supporter or vaccine skeptic). However, his newsletter provides glaring “red flags” that support my skepticism.

(For writing samples proving Dunning’s ultra-liberal, over-the-top anti-MAGA bona fides, see today’s Reader Comments. Note: I had fun composing my “11-word essays.”)

My bigger concern is the possibility Substack is showing favoritism toward “Statist” writers … or is not giving equal and fair treatment to the roster of “Covid Contrarians” or “freedom” writers (like those I recently identified in this list.)

I also continue to wonder if the paid and total subscriber numbers of authors like myself are being suppressed or manipulated.

Background on Mr. Dunning …

Note: The following information comes from a feature story and “Q&A” written by Substack managing editor Hannah Ray, a story emailed to Substack’s 17,000+ authors in May 2024.

Mr. Dunning, then 77, was fired from The Davis (CA) Enterprise less than year ago.

Mr. Dunning, who had worked as a local journalist and columnist for 55 years, then started a Substack newsletter (“The Wary One.”)

According to this author profile, “(Dunning) published a raw piece on his new Substack … explaining what it felt like to be laid off after five and a half decades of service, and the subscribers started to pour in.

“My god, it was instant. A giant whoosh,” Dunning said.

(Note: Dunning’s first Substack effort produced approximately 400 “likes,” a figure he’s never come close to approaching since.)

“Within the first two months, it was clear to Bob that the move was the ‘golden opportunity of a lifetime.’ He has more than doubled the $26-an-hour rate he had been making at the Davis Enterprise and expects to earn around $100,000 this year.”

Dunning noted his newsletter already (has) “more subscribers than my former newspaper and (I) am on track to make at least twice my annual salary.”

Elsewhere, Dunning observes, “I don’t need tens of thousands of subscribers to be successful. Just 2,000 paid subscribers results in $140,000 a year.”

The math checks out …

If Dunning’s now making at least $53/hour - “more than double” his previous salary - this equates to an annual income of at least $110,240.

I’m a free subscriber to Mr. Dunning’s newsletter, which is available for $8/month or $70/year.

If one uses the $70/year figure and Mr. Dunning is making at least $110,240 from his Substack writing, this equates to approximately 1,571 paid subscribers.

Mr. Dunning’s also in the very small percentage of Substack authors who have an orange checkmark next to their names. This coveted badge signifies authors with “hundreds,” “thousands” or “tens of thousands” of paid subscribers.

Mr. Dunning’s checkmark tells readers his newsletter has “thousands (plural) of paid subscribers.”

(Note: I’ve never ascertained if “thousands of paid subscribers” means “at least 1,001” or “2,000+”)

For this analysis, I’ll use the conservative figure that Dunning has at least 1,571 paid subscribers.

This is the head-scratcher …

According to Substack, Mr. Dunning has only 5,500+ total subscribers.

This would mean at least 28.6 percent of Mr. Dunning’s subscribers are paying to get his newsletter content. (If Dunning has at least 2,000 paid subscribers, his “paid ratio” would be 36.4 percent, or perhaps greater.)

For me, Mr. Dunning’s orange checkmark might be changed to a red flag as I know from my own research into Substack subscriber metrics that very few authors have a paid ratio of more than 5 percent.

For example, my “paid ratio” is 4.09 percent.

While my paid ratio has plummeted (it used to be 4.7 percent), I still think my paid ratio is higher than many Substack authors.

For example, I’ve identified several veteran, well-known Substack authors who report a paid ratio of between 1 to 3.5 percent.

A comparison of my subscriber numbers to those of Mr. Dunning:

Bob Dunning

Total subscribers: 5,500+

Paid subscribers: 1,571 to 2,000+ (28.9 to 36.4 percent+)

Bill Rice, Jr.

Total subscribers: 7,060

Paid subscribers: 289 (4.09 percent)

I also note it took me 28 months to reach these figures. Mr. Dunning, apparently, reached these numbers in approximately two months (or in an “instant.”)

While this anecdote might be apropos of nothing, a study of the “growth” of my own subscriber metrics reveals that my “rate of subscriber growth” slowed dramatically at about the same time Mr. Dunning’s Substack rocketed into orbit.

For example, I reached 3,500 total subscribers in seven months. However, it took an additional 21 months to grow my subscriber numbers by another 3,500.

Based on analysis of my own metrics, I’ve come to believe “something” changed on Substack about a year ago.

This change can be observed in the subscriber metrics of “Contrarian” authors like myself and by noting the surge of subscriber numbers for more liberal sites (like Mr. Dunning’s) that never challenge any of the world’s dubious authorized narratives.

Another curious metric: Few readers “like” Dunning’s articles …

The number of reader “likes,” comments and cross-posts is another metric that can be easily observed and supports my view that newsletters like “The Wary One” do NOT have the readership levels of “Contrarian” newsletters with similar numbers of total subscribers.

From scrolling through Mr. Dunning’s story archives, it’s easy to see that the vast majority of articles he has penned generate between 2 and 10 “likes.” (Another oddity: most of Dunning’s dispatches are sports stories about Cal-Davis’s athletic teams).

Dunning gets more “likes” when he rails against the dangers of Trump, but I found only a couple articles from the past six months with more than 30 “likes.”

Also, most articles generate only two to 34 “reader comments” (and a large number of these comments were made by Mr. Dunning himself).

By way of comparison, the vast majority of “Covid Contrarian” newsletters with similar subscriber numbers (5K to 7K), generate at least 10 to 80 times more “likes,” and far more Reader Comments and cross-posts.

An “apples-to-apples” comparison might be a comparison of Mr. Dunning’s Substack to that of my friend and “Contrarian” colleague, Mark Oshinskie. (Mark has 5,700+ subscribers compared to Mr. Dunning’s 5,500+).

I know Mark averages at least 140 “likes” per story and has produced many articles with more than 125 reader comments.

Like me, Mark’s columns are widely cross-posted by other authors while very few of Mr. Dunning’s articles are cross-posted by another Substack author.

Based on metrics such as “likes” and “reader comments,” far more readers are visiting “Contrarian” sites than newsletters like Mr. Dunning’s, which, reportedly, has far more paid subscribers than the vast majority of “Covid contrarians/Freedom” writers.

*** (I also think very few of Mr. Dunning’s fans are sharing his articles. The Share Button is vital to “our” team of writers.) ***

Why this matters …

While I hope nefarious acts aren’t happening (and can’t “prove” they are), the possibility exists that fraudulent and, perhaps, illegal mechanisms are being used to suppress the reach of at least some authors who produce content that might be perceived as a “threat” to the Status Quo.

IF this is occurring, this would violate numerous legal statutes designed to protect “free” or “fair trade” … and “free speech,” which (supposedly) is protected by the First Amendment.

If confirmed or proven in a court of law, such activities would also qualify as a form of illegal (and harmful) discrimination.

Basically, such actions would be costing authors income as well as reducing their reach and ability to influence important national debates.

I should emphasize that I admire the pro-free-speech mission of Substack, greatly appreciate the income this platform’s generated for my family, as well as any boost my “brand” as a writer may have received since I became a Substack author.

However, it is not difficult to identify media companies that participated in orchestrated/coordinated efforts to censor the speech and reach of authors with views like my own.

If Substack - or, perhaps, elements outside of the company? - have conspired to suppress the reach of certain authors and newsletters - and, perhaps, are artificially inflating the numbers (and income streams) of narrative-protecting authors, this would be a disturbing revelation.

The fact such programs were implemented at other media companies suggests the same thing could be happening at Substack, which quickly became THE “go-to” platform for writers and readers interested in alternative journalism and commentary.

The Powers that Be clearly support the Censorship Industrial Complex and have clearly made the fight against “disinformation” a global priority.

Question: If this is the case (and it is), would the same people and organizations simply ignore the growing roster of potentially-influential writers on Substack?

To me, it’s naive to think forces who posses “absolute power” wouldn’t try to use said power to block or neutralize writers who comprise their most-legitimate threat.

In short, I think it’s possible a campaign has already commenced to neutralize any threat posed by Substack’s army of “Contrarian” authors.

While Substack executives should be commended for resisting these would-be authoritarians, the commitment to follow through on the company’s founding mission could be wavering.

Conclusion:

An analysis of Bob Dunning’s non-sensical/peculiar Substack metrics … and the fact Substack makes concerted efforts to promote the platform’s liberal writers … coupled with the sudden negative change in growth metrics of many “contrarian” authors … suggest that writers like myself are, indeed, viewed as a threat - a threat that is, perhaps, now being neutralized via unknown mechanisms.

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

By the Numbers -

0 - Number of “Contrarian authors” with the same number of total subscribers as Mr. Dunning who have “thousands of paid subscribers.”

112 - From my list of 144 newsletters, per my estimate, the number of “Contrarian” Substack authors who probably have fewer “paid subscribers” than Mr. Dunning.

40,000 - At a “paid” ratio of 4 percent, estimated number of Substack subscribers a newsletter would need to reach 1,600 paid subscribers.

5,500+ - Total subscribers of Mr. Dunning.

11,900 - Median number of total subscribers in my “Top 137” list.

1,571 to 2000+ - Mr. Dunning’s total number of “paid subscribers.”

(Mr. Dunning has at least 5.5X more paid subscribers than I do although I have almost 30 percent more total subscribers than Dunning. Maybe I can also get 1,600 new paid subscribers in a few weeks?)

One-time Ko-Fi donations greatly appreciated!