I am new here and I don't really know how things really work, but I think the major inconvenience would be that people coming from subs=subs are from different areas of interest. That might end up confusing the algorithm about who your audience is and where your content should be shown.
Subs=subs is a breath of oxygen for newcomers. Many people who are new on Substack are great writers, with interesting ideas. They are eager not only to write, but also to read. Many of them are or could become part of your audience.
Many, many people starting on substack are genuinely determined to make it, to go one step further in their life project. It reminds me of the early days of blogging, discovering quality people and quality content.
Would these people still read your work if you never subscribed to them? - I don't really know, but I would keep reading the work of some people that I discovered via subs=subs, even I had no clue they existed before. I found interesting writers and also some interesting niches that I didn't know could catch my interest. But they did.
That’s a fair nuance. The real problem may not be reciprocal discovery itself, but treating every subscriber as proof of audience fit. If the exchange helps you find writers you genuinely keep reading, it has value — the risk starts when the number grows faster than actual interest.
Spot on. Let me leave this comment here as well if others would like to join this conversation.
I like the way you analyze both the process and the risks of the simple transactional S4S logic.
I would add that while the execution is fairly straightforward, and even a bit puritanical in most cases, it also seems to be a powerful form of communication among smaller authors. The Substack algorithm often picks up on that activity and exposes it to a much wider audience.
And if you take the time to explore these threads, you can find real gems that would probably never appear in your feed otherwise.
I am new here and I don't really know how things really work, but I think the major inconvenience would be that people coming from subs=subs are from different areas of interest. That might end up confusing the algorithm about who your audience is and where your content should be shown.
Subs=subs is a breath of oxygen for newcomers. Many people who are new on Substack are great writers, with interesting ideas. They are eager not only to write, but also to read. Many of them are or could become part of your audience.
Many, many people starting on substack are genuinely determined to make it, to go one step further in their life project. It reminds me of the early days of blogging, discovering quality people and quality content.
Would these people still read your work if you never subscribed to them? - I don't really know, but I would keep reading the work of some people that I discovered via subs=subs, even I had no clue they existed before. I found interesting writers and also some interesting niches that I didn't know could catch my interest. But they did.
That’s a fair nuance. The real problem may not be reciprocal discovery itself, but treating every subscriber as proof of audience fit. If the exchange helps you find writers you genuinely keep reading, it has value — the risk starts when the number grows faster than actual interest.
Of course, not an audience fit. 🤗
This is really 💯 accurate
Thanks appreciate !
True 👍
Spot on. Let me leave this comment here as well if others would like to join this conversation.
I like the way you analyze both the process and the risks of the simple transactional S4S logic.
I would add that while the execution is fairly straightforward, and even a bit puritanical in most cases, it also seems to be a powerful form of communication among smaller authors. The Substack algorithm often picks up on that activity and exposes it to a much wider audience.
And if you take the time to explore these threads, you can find real gems that would probably never appear in your feed otherwise.