Thanks for digging into the data to publish this informative post. The inflated subscription wrinkle isn't something I knew before, and I thought the numbers next to every writer only displayed their direct subscriptions. It's a patently dishonest practice and has me wondering what the motivation is.
I doubt anyone at the top of the Substack heap knows the example writer, or anyone else benefitting from this illusion personally. Is it a ploy to appear to create a greater number of successful writers than is the reality? Is it to supercharge paying subscription growth, skewing data for associated writers to suddenly find cachet and explosive individual growth in overall and paid subscriptions, increasing Substack's hauls of tribute? Whatever the reason, it's a strange choice to elevate writers via their collaborations instead of true direct subscriber growth.
After five months of struggling to trying to even set up my profile and start writing, I have thrown up my hands in frustration and despair. I just restack articles I find of importance great interest, and excellent writing.
Cryn Johansson, I did accidentally come across your writing and you have to be among the BEST on Substack. True content with value worth reading.
I have seen the mistakes I have made by subscribing to and paying for content I have no interest in. I re- evaluate each month. I now see I should be paying for all of your content by February and drop someone who is not delivering...
This article is exceptional and could not explain how substack shifts the statistics any clearer.
I clicked because I thought you meant something like “filter bubble”. But that’s another issue completely. Still, thanks. An informative post, and good stuff to know.
Then there’s someone like me, who has really invested NOTHING in substack (at least my own acct), but still has a silly number of “followers” - most of them what I call “honey trap bots” (“honeybots”?): profiles with pics of young women with big boobs and no real content. Plus a few subscribers to a “test bed” newsletter that has never really published. (Maybe I should make it real, someday.)
Thanks for digging into the data to publish this informative post. The inflated subscription wrinkle isn't something I knew before, and I thought the numbers next to every writer only displayed their direct subscriptions. It's a patently dishonest practice and has me wondering what the motivation is.
I doubt anyone at the top of the Substack heap knows the example writer, or anyone else benefitting from this illusion personally. Is it a ploy to appear to create a greater number of successful writers than is the reality? Is it to supercharge paying subscription growth, skewing data for associated writers to suddenly find cachet and explosive individual growth in overall and paid subscriptions, increasing Substack's hauls of tribute? Whatever the reason, it's a strange choice to elevate writers via their collaborations instead of true direct subscriber growth.
After five months of struggling to trying to even set up my profile and start writing, I have thrown up my hands in frustration and despair. I just restack articles I find of importance great interest, and excellent writing.
Cryn Johansson, I did accidentally come across your writing and you have to be among the BEST on Substack. True content with value worth reading.
I have seen the mistakes I have made by subscribing to and paying for content I have no interest in. I re- evaluate each month. I now see I should be paying for all of your content by February and drop someone who is not delivering...
This article is exceptional and could not explain how substack shifts the statistics any clearer.
I clicked because I thought you meant something like “filter bubble”. But that’s another issue completely. Still, thanks. An informative post, and good stuff to know.
Then there’s someone like me, who has really invested NOTHING in substack (at least my own acct), but still has a silly number of “followers” - most of them what I call “honey trap bots” (“honeybots”?): profiles with pics of young women with big boobs and no real content. Plus a few subscribers to a “test bed” newsletter that has never really published. (Maybe I should make it real, someday.)
Lol. This mod-er-un world is a strange place.