It sounds really wow until you realise this guy has a million followers across other platforms. So he can basically send a message through a fax machine and still get subscribers. Of course, he didn't do anything wrong, but also nothing outstanding: he just waited, as many other personal brand superstars, until the platform is mature and over with early adopters and in full swing (so well known enough so his tribe will move there as well.) Good for him, but nothing to learn from if you're starting and struggling to get the message and get some traction.
Nothing wrong with your article, it's just a framing that doesn't fit.
"Good for him, but nothing to learn from if you're starting and struggling to get the message and get some traction."
You can learn from others; no one can claim to have devised a winning strategy alone. I find it very difficult to believe that sitting alone in an ivory tower with deep thoughts would result in a working content strategy.
Creators learn from others and use their experiences to write their stories. Building an audience takes years of effort and consistently showing up.
I have run the numbers from Medium and Substack's top authors and analyzed their growth patterns. I've yet to see somebody build an audience of a million readers overnight from scratch. If that were to happen, my first suspicion would be the use of a fraudulent bot network or something similar.
Sure, I respect what you do. But my point wasn't about his excellent work in building audience and content strategy, it was around getting thousands of subscribers on Substack overnight, and that is not because of his 10 Notes ;)
I completely agree especially for all those who really start at zero (meaning no subscribers or followers outside of Substack). I received an email from Justin Walsh where he was telling about his move to Substack ... so please don´t tell me that you just need to post some Notes upfront to get real subscribers and even paid ones! It´s nothing to recommend for totally newbies.
I'm not suggesting that any new Substacker would get the same results.
This article focused on how Justin Welsh entered a new platform. There was only one post and 11 notes, most of which were short and to the point. I did mention his 738K followers on LinkedIn upfront.
Justin's approach offers some lessons. I've analyzed 1.3 million notes from 13,534 authors, and the data tells a clear story - writing more Notes is highly correlated with the growth in Substack. I validated this hypothesis in my small experiment; in just 30 days, I saw a dramatic increase in subscribers (41%) and traffic (30X).
You can read the details of my analysis from here:
Yes, I read it already. I know that you'ren not suggesting it to new writers. But I know that especially the newbies tend to compare their results to the ones that are much further 😊... hopefully they don't feel discouraged by creators with a huge audience in the background jumping into the water and become bestsellers immediately. It's some of the disadvantages here on Substack. But it's also a sign that Substack becomes more and more a favorite platform where the huge creators come in with all the bells and whistles.
I don't don't doubt that there is a correlation between more activity on the platform and more growth. That is not in question. The problem with drawing any conclusions in this case, though, is that nothing happens in a vacuum. He didn't start from scratch.
He's an outlier with an email list of 175,000 (and he emailed us to say he was starting a new newsletter on Substack). That may have been all it took and who knows what other posts he made on other platforms or if he's in a mastermind where the members do mutual promotion, and so on.
He's an internet celebrity in some circles. He could possibly have posted nothing at all and gotten similar results. The problem is, we don't know. Any conclusions about Notes or posts that may or may not have gotten him more traction is just speculation. Correlation, sure. Causation? How do you prove that?
"He could possibly have posted nothing at all and gotten similar results."
So your theory is that all the 8,300 free subscribers and 400 paid ones came directly from his email list of 175,000?
Yes, that is one possible scenario in which people buy a $15/month subscription without seeing what they are buying.
I got the same email on May 5th, but didn't subscribe based on that single email. I wanted to see what he was offering, read the post, and read the notes he sent during the week.
Many Substackers have complained about the missing built-in feature for sending automated email sequences, which are typically used to nudge potential buyers/subscribers to purchase or subscribe.
My interpretation (based on the data and studying this launch) was that Justin used Substack Notes to nudge his readers to click that subscribe button. I could be wrong, and only Justin can tell us his strategy. I hope somebody will interview him and ask this question.
Proving causation is challenging. If we could simulate this launch with A/B testing and collect datasets using an email list launch only and a Post/Notes-based launch, we could provide a conclusion with more confidence. As they say in statistics, "all models are wrong, but some are useful."
There are creators out there who have created working models. I'm trying to learn from them.
I get what you're getting at, I'm just not sure I could sell it to management. Calling it a theory would be giving me too much credit. 😆 It's more like "if you hear hoofbeats, think horses, not zebras." There are too many variables and unknowns to be able to assign attribution to his post and his Notes.
If a hand grenade and a nuclear weapon go off at the same time in the same place, how much of the destruction caused can you assign to the grenade by examining the blast site? The answer is indeterminate.
I'm fairly sure that his presence (and his Notes and post) on the Substack platform had some impact. I'm fairly sure all the people who posted about his arrival on Substack (possibly triggered by his Notes), both positive and negative, had some impact as well.
I'm just saying there is no way to tell how much, if any. It would have been a far more interesting experiment if he had waited until after he started getting subscribers to post any content. Alas, my time machine won't be ready in time.
Right? It’s like showing Robert Downey Jr. Iron Man audition tape to a room of student actors and saying “here’s how you get a part in a Marvel movie.”
Nothing wrong with studying, everything wrong with framing.
Honestly, I don’t see how this applies to someone who’s truly starting from zero. And I wouldn’t feel right telling a complete newbie—someone with absolutely no following anywhere—that it works the same way.
For may of as it's wow, but the numbers don't lie:
->converted 1.12% of his audience to subscribes
->converted 0.054% of his audience to his new product
It's pretty good if you consider that it was not a release or something with much marketing behind it.
No matter how you calculate it, with the average engagement, conversion, or whatever rate you want, this should happen; it's the expected result of a simple move for someone with his audience.
My lessons learn:
- Audience size always matters.
- Build your audience first; then, no matter what you do, good or bad, the numbers will speak for you.
Another unsolicited bit of feedback. I like your posts and your generally analytical approach. But a post like this that doesn’t understand causality of varying types of success at a fundamental level, significantly hurts your own credibility
Hey David, I have followed Justin Welsh for several years and learned quite a few things from him. Not sure how my analysis of his first seven days on Substack provides any promise of causality. I claimed upfront that he has a vast following and wanted to understand his approach to launching on a new platform. I've studied statistics and know that proving causality based on a small set of numbers can be a complex problem.
Perhaps the use of "Unicorn" in the title is causing this uproar. On the other hand, I have also learned that just stating boring facts upfront in the headline doesn't generate any reads.
Either way, thank you for the feedback, and I hope to provide helpful posts in the future.
I’d disagree that he’s a unicorn. He has a massive following elsewhere and brand power that sells (or attracts) subscribers. I’ve posted multiple Notes a day, and consistently newsletters and am building a brand, but because I am brand new and no one has a clue who I am (obviously!) I haven’t gotten anywhere near the same traction. But I don’t expect that either. I don’t have the social proof yet. But once I do - if I stick with it and keep getting better - I may reach that level one day.
This is not a unicorn launch. Justin brought over thousands of subscribers from his other newsletter and social media. Because I am connected with him in other places, he was recommended to me here, and because I like his content, I followed, as I’m certain many of his other followers did.
Justin has over 400 paid subscribers, with a $15/month subscription price, which makes 400*15*12 = 72,000 per year. Many of his subscribers have started new chat threads, meaning they are inner circle members at $300/year (price was raised to $400/year on Sunday). My estimate could be off, but it was based on the data I had available on Saturday.
I don’t feel like a superhero - just struggling to understand our complex world using data and models. Sometimes these models are useful, and insights might help other people.
Thanks for this breakdown of his entry into Substack, Finn! I suspect that you'll have plenty of opportunities to do the same thing again with other big fish as they swim into this part of the seas of content creation. When you have this kind of momentum coming in from a long and successful history, it's really something to have a chance to see what they do on the ground floor!
Hi Vince, we have so much to learn from these top solopreneurs, especially these early steps and how they use their learnings from other platforms to apply them to Substack. Have a great weekend, and thanks for the comment!
Hey! I saw your post pop up on my homepage and wanted to show some support. If you get a chance, I’d really appreciate a little love on my latest newsletter too always happy to boost each other!
It sounds really wow until you realise this guy has a million followers across other platforms. So he can basically send a message through a fax machine and still get subscribers. Of course, he didn't do anything wrong, but also nothing outstanding: he just waited, as many other personal brand superstars, until the platform is mature and over with early adopters and in full swing (so well known enough so his tribe will move there as well.) Good for him, but nothing to learn from if you're starting and struggling to get the message and get some traction.
Nothing wrong with your article, it's just a framing that doesn't fit.
I disagree with this statement:
"Good for him, but nothing to learn from if you're starting and struggling to get the message and get some traction."
You can learn from others; no one can claim to have devised a winning strategy alone. I find it very difficult to believe that sitting alone in an ivory tower with deep thoughts would result in a working content strategy.
Creators learn from others and use their experiences to write their stories. Building an audience takes years of effort and consistently showing up.
I have run the numbers from Medium and Substack's top authors and analyzed their growth patterns. I've yet to see somebody build an audience of a million readers overnight from scratch. If that were to happen, my first suspicion would be the use of a fraudulent bot network or something similar.
Sure, I respect what you do. But my point wasn't about his excellent work in building audience and content strategy, it was around getting thousands of subscribers on Substack overnight, and that is not because of his 10 Notes ;)
I completely agree especially for all those who really start at zero (meaning no subscribers or followers outside of Substack). I received an email from Justin Walsh where he was telling about his move to Substack ... so please don´t tell me that you just need to post some Notes upfront to get real subscribers and even paid ones! It´s nothing to recommend for totally newbies.
I'm not suggesting that any new Substacker would get the same results.
This article focused on how Justin Welsh entered a new platform. There was only one post and 11 notes, most of which were short and to the point. I did mention his 738K followers on LinkedIn upfront.
Justin's approach offers some lessons. I've analyzed 1.3 million notes from 13,534 authors, and the data tells a clear story - writing more Notes is highly correlated with the growth in Substack. I validated this hypothesis in my small experiment; in just 30 days, I saw a dramatic increase in subscribers (41%) and traffic (30X).
You can read the details of my analysis from here:
https://finntropy.substack.com/p/how-often-should-you-publish-notes
Yes, I read it already. I know that you'ren not suggesting it to new writers. But I know that especially the newbies tend to compare their results to the ones that are much further 😊... hopefully they don't feel discouraged by creators with a huge audience in the background jumping into the water and become bestsellers immediately. It's some of the disadvantages here on Substack. But it's also a sign that Substack becomes more and more a favorite platform where the huge creators come in with all the bells and whistles.
I don't don't doubt that there is a correlation between more activity on the platform and more growth. That is not in question. The problem with drawing any conclusions in this case, though, is that nothing happens in a vacuum. He didn't start from scratch.
He's an outlier with an email list of 175,000 (and he emailed us to say he was starting a new newsletter on Substack). That may have been all it took and who knows what other posts he made on other platforms or if he's in a mastermind where the members do mutual promotion, and so on.
He's an internet celebrity in some circles. He could possibly have posted nothing at all and gotten similar results. The problem is, we don't know. Any conclusions about Notes or posts that may or may not have gotten him more traction is just speculation. Correlation, sure. Causation? How do you prove that?
"He could possibly have posted nothing at all and gotten similar results."
So your theory is that all the 8,300 free subscribers and 400 paid ones came directly from his email list of 175,000?
Yes, that is one possible scenario in which people buy a $15/month subscription without seeing what they are buying.
I got the same email on May 5th, but didn't subscribe based on that single email. I wanted to see what he was offering, read the post, and read the notes he sent during the week.
Many Substackers have complained about the missing built-in feature for sending automated email sequences, which are typically used to nudge potential buyers/subscribers to purchase or subscribe.
My interpretation (based on the data and studying this launch) was that Justin used Substack Notes to nudge his readers to click that subscribe button. I could be wrong, and only Justin can tell us his strategy. I hope somebody will interview him and ask this question.
Proving causation is challenging. If we could simulate this launch with A/B testing and collect datasets using an email list launch only and a Post/Notes-based launch, we could provide a conclusion with more confidence. As they say in statistics, "all models are wrong, but some are useful."
There are creators out there who have created working models. I'm trying to learn from them.
I get what you're getting at, I'm just not sure I could sell it to management. Calling it a theory would be giving me too much credit. 😆 It's more like "if you hear hoofbeats, think horses, not zebras." There are too many variables and unknowns to be able to assign attribution to his post and his Notes.
If a hand grenade and a nuclear weapon go off at the same time in the same place, how much of the destruction caused can you assign to the grenade by examining the blast site? The answer is indeterminate.
I'm fairly sure that his presence (and his Notes and post) on the Substack platform had some impact. I'm fairly sure all the people who posted about his arrival on Substack (possibly triggered by his Notes), both positive and negative, had some impact as well.
I'm just saying there is no way to tell how much, if any. It would have been a far more interesting experiment if he had waited until after he started getting subscribers to post any content. Alas, my time machine won't be ready in time.
Right? It’s like showing Robert Downey Jr. Iron Man audition tape to a room of student actors and saying “here’s how you get a part in a Marvel movie.”
Nothing wrong with studying, everything wrong with framing.
And the strategy outlined, which might be useful, is not the cause of his success
The power of having an external audience :)
Honestly, I don’t see how this applies to someone who’s truly starting from zero. And I wouldn’t feel right telling a complete newbie—someone with absolutely no following anywhere—that it works the same way.
It is super complex and usually just glaze over to be honest 🙈 keep on keeping on
For may of as it's wow, but the numbers don't lie:
->converted 1.12% of his audience to subscribes
->converted 0.054% of his audience to his new product
It's pretty good if you consider that it was not a release or something with much marketing behind it.
No matter how you calculate it, with the average engagement, conversion, or whatever rate you want, this should happen; it's the expected result of a simple move for someone with his audience.
My lessons learn:
- Audience size always matters.
- Build your audience first; then, no matter what you do, good or bad, the numbers will speak for you.
- Math is still useful.
Powerful💪🎉
Another unsolicited bit of feedback. I like your posts and your generally analytical approach. But a post like this that doesn’t understand causality of varying types of success at a fundamental level, significantly hurts your own credibility
Hey David, I have followed Justin Welsh for several years and learned quite a few things from him. Not sure how my analysis of his first seven days on Substack provides any promise of causality. I claimed upfront that he has a vast following and wanted to understand his approach to launching on a new platform. I've studied statistics and know that proving causality based on a small set of numbers can be a complex problem.
Perhaps the use of "Unicorn" in the title is causing this uproar. On the other hand, I have also learned that just stating boring facts upfront in the headline doesn't generate any reads.
Either way, thank you for the feedback, and I hope to provide helpful posts in the future.
Really enjoyed this breakdown. Thanks mate.
I’d disagree that he’s a unicorn. He has a massive following elsewhere and brand power that sells (or attracts) subscribers. I’ve posted multiple Notes a day, and consistently newsletters and am building a brand, but because I am brand new and no one has a clue who I am (obviously!) I haven’t gotten anywhere near the same traction. But I don’t expect that either. I don’t have the social proof yet. But once I do - if I stick with it and keep getting better - I may reach that level one day.
This is not a unicorn launch. Justin brought over thousands of subscribers from his other newsletter and social media. Because I am connected with him in other places, he was recommended to me here, and because I like his content, I followed, as I’m certain many of his other followers did.
Hey Finn! Mega!
One thing: How do you know this: "And in just a week? $72,000 in annualized revenue."
Justin has over 400 paid subscribers, with a $15/month subscription price, which makes 400*15*12 = 72,000 per year. Many of his subscribers have started new chat threads, meaning they are inner circle members at $300/year (price was raised to $400/year on Sunday). My estimate could be off, but it was based on the data I had available on Saturday.
Finn you are a data superhero - what you write
always makes sense and that is your super power.
Thank you for your kind words, Rebecca.
I don’t feel like a superhero - just struggling to understand our complex world using data and models. Sometimes these models are useful, and insights might help other people.
Thanks for this breakdown of his entry into Substack, Finn! I suspect that you'll have plenty of opportunities to do the same thing again with other big fish as they swim into this part of the seas of content creation. When you have this kind of momentum coming in from a long and successful history, it's really something to have a chance to see what they do on the ground floor!
Hi Vince, we have so much to learn from these top solopreneurs, especially these early steps and how they use their learnings from other platforms to apply them to Substack. Have a great weekend, and thanks for the comment!
The main reason I'm sure is that he has a major audience on multiple social medias. People just starting out shouldn't expect this growth.
He leverages existing communities and probably used import, you should not celebrate that guy…
You should listen to Kristina's interview to get the actual details of this launch https://substack.com/@kristinagod/p-163945022
Why even invest so much time? I looked at his products and it’s feeding “how to grow on Substack”-type of content; this platform needs less of that…
I still appreciate you spreading you the word, sir 🙏🏻
Hey! I saw your post pop up on my homepage and wanted to show some support. If you get a chance, I’d really appreciate a little love on my latest newsletter too always happy to boost each other!