Even though I haven’t been on Substack for long, I’ve been researching this trend, and recent platform updates seem to be amplifying the issue. Substack is increasingly adopting social media mechanics, causing its core, original purpose to drift into the background.
A clear sign of this is how “S4S” or “looking for authors in X/Y topics” notes systematically get far higher reach than substantive content. Meanwhile, the user experience has quietly shifted: for those joining via the mobile app, new subscriptions often default to “Prefer app”rather than active email notifications. (In the IOS app settings it’s called “Prefer push”, which is funny because there is no push notification if a publication I’ve subscribed to publishes a new post.) Given that media consumption is heavily moving to mobile - fueled further by podcast features - this effortless app onboarding is likely becoming the norm.
This creates a structural paradox. The line between a “Subscriber” and a “Follower” has blurred to the point of disappearing. An app-registered subscriber who doesn’t receive emails is functionally just a follower; they only see your work if they happen to scroll past it. If someone subscribes to 365 publications under this model, they’d need to read a post every day just to catch one piece per creator each year.
The platform lacks a simple way to manage this - a built-in “Favorite” feature, for instance, could easily let readers choose which publications merit direct inbox delivery versus feed-only updates. Without that, fine-tuning notifications requires navigating buried desktop settings that most mobile users will never touch.
The system relies heavily on network effects - and yes, the algorithmic distribution inside the default “For You” Notes feed and Recommendation engines - which inevitably favors larger accounts. Chasing subscriber count persists because on the one hand it remains the most visible vanity metric, and on the other hand it directly feeds those discovery mechanisms and algorithm.
It’s not necessarily a critique, but an observation: anyone looking for the “old, pure newsletter Substack” seems to chase a mirage. Tools like yours are becoming essential precisely because the platform’s default incentives now favor network volume over focused, inbox-level attention.
This may be the clearest framing yet: the meaningful distinction is no longer subscriber vs follower, but nominal subscriber vs active, reachable reader.
If Substack rewards network volume while app defaults weaken direct inbox delivery, the subscriber count becomes both a discovery advantage and a misleading health metric.
That’s exactly what I want Subshack to make visible separately: total subscribers, reachable readers, repeat readers, and people who actually convert.
I really like the “Favorite” idea too — a reader-controlled priority layer would be healthier than relying entirely on the For You feed.
How would you define an active subscriber: someone reachable by email/app, someone who read at least once in 30 days, or someone who returns repeatedly?
I think an “active subscriber” is ultimately defined by predictable, intentional engagement over time - someone who not only reads, but actively seeks out your publication at least once every 30–60 days, ensuring they don’t miss your work if the algorithm decided to drop it from their “For You” Notes feed.
Reachability alone isn't enough anymore; it’s that conscious effort from the reader to bypass the algorithmic noise that truly separates a real reader even from a casual one (we’re still not talking about passive accounts here).
But this highlights the exact paradox we're discussing: while tools like yours give writers the honest internal metrics they need to evaluate their real audience, Substack’s external mechanics still reward the “nominal” overall volume. Writers are essentially forced to play two different games at once: tracking true reader retention on the inside, while leveraging total subscriber numbers on the outside to keep the platform’s distribution engine working in their favor.
Yes, that three-tiered breakdown captures the nuances, and I’ll definitely give it a look in Subshack when I get the chance. Best of luck with the feature!
Even though I haven’t been on Substack for long, I’ve been researching this trend, and recent platform updates seem to be amplifying the issue. Substack is increasingly adopting social media mechanics, causing its core, original purpose to drift into the background.
A clear sign of this is how “S4S” or “looking for authors in X/Y topics” notes systematically get far higher reach than substantive content. Meanwhile, the user experience has quietly shifted: for those joining via the mobile app, new subscriptions often default to “Prefer app”rather than active email notifications. (In the IOS app settings it’s called “Prefer push”, which is funny because there is no push notification if a publication I’ve subscribed to publishes a new post.) Given that media consumption is heavily moving to mobile - fueled further by podcast features - this effortless app onboarding is likely becoming the norm.
This creates a structural paradox. The line between a “Subscriber” and a “Follower” has blurred to the point of disappearing. An app-registered subscriber who doesn’t receive emails is functionally just a follower; they only see your work if they happen to scroll past it. If someone subscribes to 365 publications under this model, they’d need to read a post every day just to catch one piece per creator each year.
The platform lacks a simple way to manage this - a built-in “Favorite” feature, for instance, could easily let readers choose which publications merit direct inbox delivery versus feed-only updates. Without that, fine-tuning notifications requires navigating buried desktop settings that most mobile users will never touch.
The system relies heavily on network effects - and yes, the algorithmic distribution inside the default “For You” Notes feed and Recommendation engines - which inevitably favors larger accounts. Chasing subscriber count persists because on the one hand it remains the most visible vanity metric, and on the other hand it directly feeds those discovery mechanisms and algorithm.
It’s not necessarily a critique, but an observation: anyone looking for the “old, pure newsletter Substack” seems to chase a mirage. Tools like yours are becoming essential precisely because the platform’s default incentives now favor network volume over focused, inbox-level attention.
This may be the clearest framing yet: the meaningful distinction is no longer subscriber vs follower, but nominal subscriber vs active, reachable reader.
If Substack rewards network volume while app defaults weaken direct inbox delivery, the subscriber count becomes both a discovery advantage and a misleading health metric.
That’s exactly what I want Subshack to make visible separately: total subscribers, reachable readers, repeat readers, and people who actually convert.
I really like the “Favorite” idea too — a reader-controlled priority layer would be healthier than relying entirely on the For You feed.
How would you define an active subscriber: someone reachable by email/app, someone who read at least once in 30 days, or someone who returns repeatedly?
I think an “active subscriber” is ultimately defined by predictable, intentional engagement over time - someone who not only reads, but actively seeks out your publication at least once every 30–60 days, ensuring they don’t miss your work if the algorithm decided to drop it from their “For You” Notes feed.
Reachability alone isn't enough anymore; it’s that conscious effort from the reader to bypass the algorithmic noise that truly separates a real reader even from a casual one (we’re still not talking about passive accounts here).
But this highlights the exact paradox we're discussing: while tools like yours give writers the honest internal metrics they need to evaluate their real audience, Substack’s external mechanics still reward the “nominal” overall volume. Writers are essentially forced to play two different games at once: tracking true reader retention on the inside, while leveraging total subscriber numbers on the outside to keep the platform’s distribution engine working in their favor.
That distinction is really useful: reachable doesn’t necessarily mean active; intentional return does.
I think that gives me a cleaner structure:
Reachable reader = can receive/find the content
Active reader = reads or engages within a recent window
Core reader = returns intentionally and repeatedly over time
Since you already use Subshack, I’d actually love your take on whether those three layers would be useful to see directly in the audience section.
Yes, that three-tiered breakdown captures the nuances, and I’ll definitely give it a look in Subshack when I get the chance. Best of luck with the feature!