I know you barely mentioned your growth, because the numbers aren’t important to you, but over 600 subs in 5 months is an amazing accomplishment. So grateful to be able to watch you take off here!
Great story of perspective of what this D.A.I.C is about. Substack is not a social media site yet it has social media elements. The crux from a writer/podcaster perspective is engagement not just numbers. Data is cool. It can people to investigate but it can't get people to stay. Substack is about quality over quantity and connecting with individuals who wish to connect and collaborate. Then the real magic happens. At the end of the day Mladena is doing something correct and deserves to be acknowledged for that.
616 subscribers and 2,347 followers, is amazing, especially in 5 months. Wow. Those are people who are eager to be in a relationship with you and the business development will keep growing. Happy for you, Mladena!
Yes, what's the point? That really is something to ask oneself when writing and publishing like this, out into the open space of blog posts and newsletters. Writing for everybody or nobody, just writing and seeing what happens.
You have found a point, or several, in your sense of connection and mutual interest, and in your wish to put the extra efforts into offering a course, this way connecting even more with your readers.
The statistics really do not matter, for the most situations, as they merely tell who accidentally or deliberately managed to click on something, at some point in time, not about the actual, current interest in the writing. It looks like many Substack readers have clicked on something hundreds of times, thereby subscribing to quite a lot – much more than they can pay attention to in reality.
However, the statistics do tell the story of a potential: If your post is being distributed to 600 people, then chances are bigger that some of them will actually read it, than if it was being distributed to, say, 50 people.
People want to see that potential. They dream about being on the mind of more readers, and the subscribers and followers are part of what makes that possible on a platform like Substack.
A traditional, paper-based, magazine is different. There must be subscribers or casual buyers as well, but the individual writer may not need an individual following – it is the magazine as such that attracts the readers, and these may then, all of a sudden, discover a writer or their article inside, making it a hit.
Somehow, this has not been easy to recreate online. Here, we are all on our own. Looking for solutions... :)
@Jorgen Winther, thanks for the excellent analysis and perspective! I agree that Substack is great and has opened up many possibilities! Everyone uses it according to their ideas of why it is there.
And yes, of course, your text is more likely to be recognized by someone with the same inclinations if you "swim in a bigger pond."
I know you barely mentioned your growth, because the numbers aren’t important to you, but over 600 subs in 5 months is an amazing accomplishment. So grateful to be able to watch you take off here!
Thank you so much, @Mack Collier!
I don’t actually see my followers anymore. I need to have a dig around but well done Mladena.
Thank you @Colin Durrant!
Great story of perspective of what this D.A.I.C is about. Substack is not a social media site yet it has social media elements. The crux from a writer/podcaster perspective is engagement not just numbers. Data is cool. It can people to investigate but it can't get people to stay. Substack is about quality over quantity and connecting with individuals who wish to connect and collaborate. Then the real magic happens. At the end of the day Mladena is doing something correct and deserves to be acknowledged for that.
616 subscribers and 2,347 followers, is amazing, especially in 5 months. Wow. Those are people who are eager to be in a relationship with you and the business development will keep growing. Happy for you, Mladena!
Thank you @Reputation Intelligence for your support!
Yes, what's the point? That really is something to ask oneself when writing and publishing like this, out into the open space of blog posts and newsletters. Writing for everybody or nobody, just writing and seeing what happens.
You have found a point, or several, in your sense of connection and mutual interest, and in your wish to put the extra efforts into offering a course, this way connecting even more with your readers.
The statistics really do not matter, for the most situations, as they merely tell who accidentally or deliberately managed to click on something, at some point in time, not about the actual, current interest in the writing. It looks like many Substack readers have clicked on something hundreds of times, thereby subscribing to quite a lot – much more than they can pay attention to in reality.
However, the statistics do tell the story of a potential: If your post is being distributed to 600 people, then chances are bigger that some of them will actually read it, than if it was being distributed to, say, 50 people.
People want to see that potential. They dream about being on the mind of more readers, and the subscribers and followers are part of what makes that possible on a platform like Substack.
A traditional, paper-based, magazine is different. There must be subscribers or casual buyers as well, but the individual writer may not need an individual following – it is the magazine as such that attracts the readers, and these may then, all of a sudden, discover a writer or their article inside, making it a hit.
Somehow, this has not been easy to recreate online. Here, we are all on our own. Looking for solutions... :)
@Jorgen Winther, thanks for the excellent analysis and perspective! I agree that Substack is great and has opened up many possibilities! Everyone uses it according to their ideas of why it is there.
And yes, of course, your text is more likely to be recognized by someone with the same inclinations if you "swim in a bigger pond."
Thank you for the support!
Thank you so much, dear Anthony!