Late to this party, but honestly, I don't think any content creator can know why any individual subscribes, unsubscribes, follows, unfollows, pays, skips the paying, whatever, at any given time. It likely has more to do with the individual than anything you personally are or are not doing. They subscribe to you when you're hibernating, sure, they probably subscribed to a shit ton of others, too. Then they realize it's too much, and start unsubscribing. You're spared that fate until you post again, they get the email notice, and bam, they unsubscribe because they're just in a headspace where they want fewer emails, fewer substacks, whatever. Tying it directly to the substance of your content is understandable, but an act of ego in its way. Suspecting an "algorithm" is too non-human, like blaming the weather. There isn't even much of an algorithm at work here in Substack. Likely, it was an act that was completely divorced from your content, and you as a creator. It's just how things roll because we're all living complex lives fuled with too many things. Welcome to humanity.
The content algorithms reward content that is familiar; if I create an 8-second video about the Sorting Hat, it will catch attention 1000 times better than something about my own creations. I don't know that this applies yet to Substack; there doesn't seem to be an algorithmic "feed" here, and instead Substack is encouraging writers to cross-pollinate their readerships through recommendations, sharing, etc. The outstanding question though is how to get new people on here on in the first place.
Regarding your lost followers, I think it is exactly a function of being top-of-mind. Every email you send out gives someone the chance to hop off. Let them show themselves out if they are not interested. It will ultimately help your open rates and you are also left with the people who read and enjoy your work.
All of this is well-said. I struggle with it myself (and I also have gained subscribers in absentia, oddly -- perhaps they just like what they see and subscribe to "set it and forget it").
It all comes back to what I can control. I can't control what the internet or algorithms respond to, or what audiences are looking for. I can control what I create, and I can control my behavior. I don't want to be a dancing fool, either. I have opinions and sometimes I share them, but people should come to me for my art, not my opinions on the Israel/Palestine conflict.
There'll always be some dovetailing. Some playing the algo game, some speaking out on causes you care about, etc. But if you let FOMO run that tricky balance, you end up doing more of the stuff you don't want to do, less of the stuff you _do_ want to do.
Utlimately, everything that passes from your mind into the world should do so when it crosses one bright, red line -- your own approval.
I know I'm just saying a bunch of stuff you already know, but, it's stuff I know too, and I still need the daily reminder.
Late to this party, but honestly, I don't think any content creator can know why any individual subscribes, unsubscribes, follows, unfollows, pays, skips the paying, whatever, at any given time. It likely has more to do with the individual than anything you personally are or are not doing. They subscribe to you when you're hibernating, sure, they probably subscribed to a shit ton of others, too. Then they realize it's too much, and start unsubscribing. You're spared that fate until you post again, they get the email notice, and bam, they unsubscribe because they're just in a headspace where they want fewer emails, fewer substacks, whatever. Tying it directly to the substance of your content is understandable, but an act of ego in its way. Suspecting an "algorithm" is too non-human, like blaming the weather. There isn't even much of an algorithm at work here in Substack. Likely, it was an act that was completely divorced from your content, and you as a creator. It's just how things roll because we're all living complex lives fuled with too many things. Welcome to humanity.
The content algorithms reward content that is familiar; if I create an 8-second video about the Sorting Hat, it will catch attention 1000 times better than something about my own creations. I don't know that this applies yet to Substack; there doesn't seem to be an algorithmic "feed" here, and instead Substack is encouraging writers to cross-pollinate their readerships through recommendations, sharing, etc. The outstanding question though is how to get new people on here on in the first place.
Regarding your lost followers, I think it is exactly a function of being top-of-mind. Every email you send out gives someone the chance to hop off. Let them show themselves out if they are not interested. It will ultimately help your open rates and you are also left with the people who read and enjoy your work.
All of this is well-said. I struggle with it myself (and I also have gained subscribers in absentia, oddly -- perhaps they just like what they see and subscribe to "set it and forget it").
It all comes back to what I can control. I can't control what the internet or algorithms respond to, or what audiences are looking for. I can control what I create, and I can control my behavior. I don't want to be a dancing fool, either. I have opinions and sometimes I share them, but people should come to me for my art, not my opinions on the Israel/Palestine conflict.
There'll always be some dovetailing. Some playing the algo game, some speaking out on causes you care about, etc. But if you let FOMO run that tricky balance, you end up doing more of the stuff you don't want to do, less of the stuff you _do_ want to do.
Utlimately, everything that passes from your mind into the world should do so when it crosses one bright, red line -- your own approval.
I know I'm just saying a bunch of stuff you already know, but, it's stuff I know too, and I still need the daily reminder.