Substack's algo definitely recalibrates when you do a purge. I pruned over 300 subs from my list last November and my Open Rate went up as did deliverability, which was to be expected.
What shocked me was...my views went UP by 25%. Logically, this should not have happened. You can't get MORE views by reducing the list.
But I pruned about 25% off my list, and my views went up by 25%. Proves to me that Substack's algo reacted to my prune.
And my Paid conversion rate also saw a slight increase as well. Good luck with yours!
I did this back in November. I wrote a CTA email (a funny one) to about 60 ghosts: start interacting or you're off the list. I lost 11 subscribers. 11 —that's all. My delivery rate is 99% now. I have a small readership, but it's deep, and it's real, so it was worth the trouble.
I call it "subscriber bloat." I kind of blame SubStack for it, because as the site has changed they've normalized subscribing to dozens of people at once through the use of lists and recommendations, many of which you probably weren't actually interested in. I was unaware it had actual, concrete effects on how your posts performed, but it probably felt pretty good pruning that dead weight.
Interesting, something I notice about my own subscriber list is that while I don't have rapid growth and big numbers, I have a handful of regulars (affectionate) who consistently show up and engage with my stuff, and I'm pretty happy with that.
It's interesting as I thought the same both here an on other socials as like X. Probably I will follow your approach. Only one consideration bogs my mind. The more the numbers increase the less the opportunity to interact with everyone. You don't have the time to engage with hundreds of people... not speaking of thousands... ok, not my case... lol, but u got the point. Good article.
That tension is real, and I think about it more than I let on. There's a version of "success" here that would mean I couldn't have this kind of conversation anymore, and I'm not sure that's the version I'm building toward.
What I keep coming back to is that engagement quality probably matters more than engagement volume, at least at this stage. A hundred readers who actually feel something when they read the work is worth more to me, as a writer, than ten thousand who scroll past.
Maybe the goal isn't to grow until connection becomes impossible. Maybe it's to grow in a way that keeps the room small enough to hear each other.
Glad the piece landed. Thanks for reading it properly.
You have more courage than me! I'm not sure I have it in me to delete the dead ones. Although what's happened for you with the algorithm is a strong motivation to try it.
Thank you for this post. It has really got me thinking. I am a book reviewer/arcs reader, and this highlights the differences between platforms and expectations. You are wholly right on every level and it applies to all platforms. It becomes difficult on one's such as Instagram as many publishers and authors alike, only give ARCs to those woth the higher followers. Yet this doesn't reflect the engagement. What use is 2000+ if only 20 people see a post, and 6 like it. Rather than asking 'How many followers do you have' they need to ask, 'What is the engagement and disability like' because a person with 300 followers may get far greater views than someone with thousands. My second thought was also how this reflects within out mindset, and how we perceive ourselves. A lot viewer count makes us feel unseen, like the hard work is worthless, but it is a false economy, because despite the followers count, they aren't actually present. It doesn't say anything about our worth. This is why I hate offering a reader hook on my newsletter. They sign up, get it, and never open another newsletter again. Lots to think about going forward:)
The ARC thing is something I hadn't considered from the reviewer side, and it's a real problem. Publishers gatekeeping based on follower count means they're selecting for the wrong signal entirely. A reader with 300 genuinely engaged followers is more valuable to a book than someone with 5,000 ghosts.
And the reader hook situation you described is almost exactly what I was carrying. People who arrived for the incentive, not the work. They were never really here.
I had a moment in my life that I didn't have my next move planned. I liked plans. So that moment was terrifying.
That's when I started living by, "if it scares me, it's probably worth doing."
*This does not include reckless/dangerous acts*
Yes! I think it’s important to discern “what feels uncomfortable” versus “what feels wrong”. The first one probably means you need to push through it
I’ve had my own finger poised over that delete button several times, and always pulled back for the emotional reasons you so eloquently name.
It’s very liberating. Lol
Apple and others block us from knowing of emails are opened. Those metrics are useless. We wouldn't know if we're deleting active subscribers or not.
I reached out individually to each account that had zero activity or engagement. Of the 400, only two responded and re-engaged
Smart.
Interesting! Thanks for telling us what you learned! Even if it is a vanity metric, it WAS brave to delete such a large number.
Thanks!!
Substack's algo definitely recalibrates when you do a purge. I pruned over 300 subs from my list last November and my Open Rate went up as did deliverability, which was to be expected.
What shocked me was...my views went UP by 25%. Logically, this should not have happened. You can't get MORE views by reducing the list.
But I pruned about 25% off my list, and my views went up by 25%. Proves to me that Substack's algo reacted to my prune.
And my Paid conversion rate also saw a slight increase as well. Good luck with yours!
Yup! All the same on this end! Likewise!
I did this back in November. I wrote a CTA email (a funny one) to about 60 ghosts: start interacting or you're off the list. I lost 11 subscribers. 11 —that's all. My delivery rate is 99% now. I have a small readership, but it's deep, and it's real, so it was worth the trouble.
I call it "subscriber bloat." I kind of blame SubStack for it, because as the site has changed they've normalized subscribing to dozens of people at once through the use of lists and recommendations, many of which you probably weren't actually interested in. I was unaware it had actual, concrete effects on how your posts performed, but it probably felt pretty good pruning that dead weight.
The difference is night and day!!
Interesting, something I notice about my own subscriber list is that while I don't have rapid growth and big numbers, I have a handful of regulars (affectionate) who consistently show up and engage with my stuff, and I'm pretty happy with that.
That’s great! Definitely the overall goal. Depth is better than a wide-casted net.
It's interesting as I thought the same both here an on other socials as like X. Probably I will follow your approach. Only one consideration bogs my mind. The more the numbers increase the less the opportunity to interact with everyone. You don't have the time to engage with hundreds of people... not speaking of thousands... ok, not my case... lol, but u got the point. Good article.
That tension is real, and I think about it more than I let on. There's a version of "success" here that would mean I couldn't have this kind of conversation anymore, and I'm not sure that's the version I'm building toward.
What I keep coming back to is that engagement quality probably matters more than engagement volume, at least at this stage. A hundred readers who actually feel something when they read the work is worth more to me, as a writer, than ten thousand who scroll past.
Maybe the goal isn't to grow until connection becomes impossible. Maybe it's to grow in a way that keeps the room small enough to hear each other.
Glad the piece landed. Thanks for reading it properly.
What an interesting read...and sooo brave!
Thanks 🙏🏼
Hi, this is very interesting. Thank you for sharinf. I am just enquiring about those that dont read the email but engage on the app.
If someone opens it via the app it counts as well!
Ok thank you for confirming that.
You have more courage than me! I'm not sure I have it in me to delete the dead ones. Although what's happened for you with the algorithm is a strong motivation to try it.
I say go for it!!
Also, not so easy to know who's who... but the stars indicating engagement is a good indicator.
I really appreciate the explanation behind the move. I looked at my list and noticed many of the same type. Food for thought.
Certainly is!
Thank you for this post. It has really got me thinking. I am a book reviewer/arcs reader, and this highlights the differences between platforms and expectations. You are wholly right on every level and it applies to all platforms. It becomes difficult on one's such as Instagram as many publishers and authors alike, only give ARCs to those woth the higher followers. Yet this doesn't reflect the engagement. What use is 2000+ if only 20 people see a post, and 6 like it. Rather than asking 'How many followers do you have' they need to ask, 'What is the engagement and disability like' because a person with 300 followers may get far greater views than someone with thousands. My second thought was also how this reflects within out mindset, and how we perceive ourselves. A lot viewer count makes us feel unseen, like the hard work is worthless, but it is a false economy, because despite the followers count, they aren't actually present. It doesn't say anything about our worth. This is why I hate offering a reader hook on my newsletter. They sign up, get it, and never open another newsletter again. Lots to think about going forward:)
The ARC thing is something I hadn't considered from the reviewer side, and it's a real problem. Publishers gatekeeping based on follower count means they're selecting for the wrong signal entirely. A reader with 300 genuinely engaged followers is more valuable to a book than someone with 5,000 ghosts.
And the reader hook situation you described is almost exactly what I was carrying. People who arrived for the incentive, not the work. They were never really here.
What I would gove for the ability to edit notes. This is a side effect of growing my nails, I cannot type for the life of me on the phone lol.
I feel your pain. 🤣
It gets worse whenever I type 🤣🤣