Hey Jorgen, how are you? Any updates on your audience engagement? Maybe it’s easy for me to say this from my position, as someone who still has a moderate level of engagement… the most important thing is to create what you like the most. Whether anyone reads it or not is secondary. Writing and creating give the greatest benefit to the one who creates, and that should be the main reason to do it. Of course, we’d all love to make a living doing what we love most — and how to achieve that is a different story…
Thanks – you make me think of our past talks about your choice of direction, and it clearly worked for you :)
And, sure, creating is key, but I honestly don't enjoy seeing that something I post isn't being read by anyone. It feels like talking to people who don't answer – and who don't even listen at all. Of course, if reaching a large audience, I couldn't expect a response from everybody, but there must be a possible and achievable balance point somewhere in between.
But my post was actually quite serious, and I mean what I say: I am currently trying to decide what to do next. Previously, I sort of stopped this Substack for a while, and now I find it appropriate to decide what will be next.
Just yesterday, I finally deleted almost every article I had on Medium – nobody will miss them there, because there has hardly been any reads during the year or so since I last visited that site. The bits and pieces left are related to my publications there – deleting those will leave many other writers with orphaned articles. Still considering if I need to worry about that, or if I can just do it, to finally get completely out of Medium. Maybe you have some thoughts on that?
So, Substack is the next thing to deal with. And either it must get better, or I'll leave it. I don't like to just post things into a black hole. Also, I feel that the same energy could potentially be used more constructively, which I would like more.
My current assessment is that if I do nothing, if I don't make some kind of change, I will have zero readers and zero engagement of any kind in a year – that's the trend. Seeing myself desperately posting and posting and never getting any response is not my favorite vision.
The platform itself has already changed a lot from what I originally expected it to be, and it keeps moving – leaving my and my expectations behind.
As for Medium, I don’t open it at all, although I recently went there and saw I had hundreds of notifications — but I didn’t read them. My last experience was that the average article there gets about 30 views, and if it gets boosted, then maybe 20 dollars. With engagement that low, I’d rather be here, because at least here I can interact with other members.
Besides, here I get around 250–300 views per post. Zero dollars — but honestly, even 20 dollars is basically zero.
As for Substack, I’ll feel free to suggest the following (though I might be wrong): write shorter pieces. You write well and precisely, but compared to others, reading your text is a bit of a commitment — especially for someone who doesn’t know you yet.
Also, make it less technical, more emotional.
Of course, if that means you wouldn’t be you anymore, then forget it.
Furthermore, write 2 notes daily, preferably with photo (it doesn’t have to be good).
Make comments on others’ texts. Lets’s say 5 comments daily.
Do restacks.
And finally — remember: American IP address, attractive profile picture (female), and the narrative “ OMG, I am all over the place” 😂
That last bit: I still have the plan ready for a hit girl profile – maybe it's time to launch her? :)
Shorter and less technical – well, perhaps. I know that some want short, others want long, so it may be catching some and scaring away others. And I carefully try to avoid most exact numbers, etc., to make it more conversational, less technical. More emotional is more of a problem, because I thought that I was that. But I will think seriously about all of it.
Personally, I blame the "Notes" feature for the way Substack has transformed. Notes has basically turned it into Twitter. The only difference is that there's no rigid limit to how long a note can be, but essentially, notes embody the essence of tweets - quick, witty, clever(?!) spurts of knowledge and insight intended to appeal to short attention spans... And the occassional pet photo 🤷🏻♀️
Yes, Notes was meant to promote Substacks, but it hardly ever works this way – it has got its own life that is much like Twitter, definitely.
That makes me think of the last time I attempted using Twitter, after having been away from it for a while (leaving thousands of followers there without updates for years): I experienced the same as I now do on Notes – no response at all, on anything.
I had several accounts on Twitter, because each of my blogging sites had their own, but I don't think anybody even noticed that I deleted those accounts.
So much for calling this "social" media.
The owners of Substack are happy about Notes, because they feel that it makes them more like the big guys in the business. They want activity, and as much as possible, so they promote the big accounts, and suppress the small ones. And they have this somewhat (to me) annoying idea of all the time telling about new VIPs on the platform. Personally, I'm interested in humans, not public images, but I understand that a famous person can attract thousands or even millions of users, which somehow translates to increased cashflow for a company like Substack.
Where that leaves some of us, who are not on top of that flow, is still bad. I can see that some people succeed – get a lot of dialogue, or many subscribers, or whatever success is to them, but I can't see how it should be possible for me to do the same.
Being in the USA seems to be a main criterion for taking part in any major activity flow. And also, some topics eat up all the attention – depending on what bubble you're in. For instance, some of the US bubbles are about various MAGA stuff, while others are about "boycott the world", more or less. But for me, the only existing bubbles to take part in seem to be the photo bubble and the "make a fortune on growing your Substack" – which both ask from me to read what others write, not to participate myself, because nobody will ever react on it if I do.
But where would Substack be without Notes? How would anybody know about new substacks, new writers? Social media in general seems to block or deprioritize anything related to Substack, so you can't find a following on other platforms and drag them to your substack – they'll never come. You can collect email addresses and import them, as many seem to do, but that's hijacking more than attracting.
Yes, it seems you must have success to gain success, otherwise you're ignored...
I tried logging into my Twitter accounts after it became X and was told they were suspended and I haven't returned since 🤷🏻♀️ Some users there follow so many people that they really don't notice when someone is gone, which says a lot about the level of interest they have in actual content...
Sure, I get why Notes were introduced and that all that the feature has called forth was predictable and inevitable. I try not to follow VIPs, with a couple of exceptions (one actually followed me!?), but it's becoming increasingly difficult to sustain the atmosphere that defined the platform in the beginning. The free-spiritedness that enchants and hooks so many will always ultimately be sacrificed for the sake of growth and profit. That's just the way of the world.
As with most things, there is an American dominance, although I follow and engage more with non-US authors.
I tried staying consistent with notes, but enjoy putting my energy into long-form texts more, so I no longer put pressure on myself to "show up" (as it's popularly referred to here) daily with 3 - 5 lines of drivel. I also try to read the notes of those I subscribe to before anything else.
I can see why VIPs are following you – you have an interesting page with thoughtful articles, and you speak kindly to your visitors. If any of these VIP profiles are indeed real people, that should attract them, as it attracts other people.
The big challenge is, though, how anybody will ever find a page or a profile if it's not being promoted. So I guess that some have a bit more luck than others ;)
On Notes, I have tried walking through it at times, reacting to basically whatever I saw there that seemed interesting – with a comment. In about 1/3 of the cases, the original writer would answer back with a short comment. In all other cases, nothing. And in general, nobody else would react.
This is what I don't understand. How can people decide to never react on anything that others have put there – how can they not react on others' reactions?
But it's probably what Brian said: there's too much info, too many comments, it's noisy, and nobody wants it all.
Of course, if the standard is for everyone to put some drivel there each day, I can see why nobody wants to react :) But wouldn't it be possible to put something more substantial there instead? Not to me, as nobody reacts on this either, but to those who do get reactions at times.
Well, no need to try to "fix" Notes, as I'm not going to start using it, no matter how it develops. I have posted hundreds of posts without any response – deleted them again, and decided to just leave it by that. Letting whoever can benefit from that thing enjoy it, but not me.
I can say, just to be fair, that it works more or less like this on Mastodon and Bluesky as well: I really have a hard time finding any value in these platforms. Apart from an occasional funny joke or a bit of information (sort of, as you never know if it's true) that I didn't know of already, there's nothing going on that makes sense to spend time on.
I'm glad you think so 😊 One is an actor who starred in many films that were released during my youth and now - alongside acting and producing - writes here and speaks publicly about the rise and potential dangers of AI. His Substack is not the usual self-promotion one is accustomed to from most celebrities, so I happily followed back!... And yes, I do ask myself how anyone ever finds (or comes across, since I doubt they're consciously searching) my Substack 😅
I also imagine people are overwhelmed with notes/comments and, therefore, place their focus solely on writing their own and not reading or reacting to anyone else's...
The unfortunate thing is, I'm fairly certain there are great notes being published here everyday, but they're not supported by the algorithm, so no one sees them ☹️ That's why I prefer to read and write long-form posts and restack as much of what I can that I find has some level of depth. Hopefully more of that will then land in my feed (notes as well as long-form texts).
Jørgen, I can feel the frustration in what you’re writing. Not the dramatic kind, and not the “poor me” kind, but the honest friction that appears when a thinking person collides with an ecosystem that is no longer designed for thinking.
You’re describing something that goes far beyond Substack.
This is the shape of the modern information-field:
• Platforms PUSH content at us in an endless firehose.
• Filters don’t filter, they just rearrange the noise.
• Readers are drowning, not choosing.
• Writers are shouting into a room where everyone else is already shouting.
• Attention has become a scarce mineral, mined to exhaustion.
In that environment it’s no surprise that even excellent writers see their reach collapse. It’s not personal, and it’s not a verdict. It’s physics.
But here’s the shift I think is happening:
For years we relied on platforms to deliver what we wrote. Now we’re heading toward a world where readers won’t tolerate being pushed at. They want to pull, to actively seek the voice they trust at the moment they need it.
The real question becomes:
How do we build something people will return to intentionally, instead of stumbling upon it by accident?
Because in an oversaturated space, the algorithm is no longer your ally. Your relationship with the reader is.
A few thoughts that may help you orient:
1. Your writing has value that grows slowly, not virally.
You’re not producing dopamine pellets. You’re producing reflection, and reflection is a slow-burn medium.
2. Substack is not broken, it’s simply no longer a discovery tool.
It’s becoming a distribution tool for writers who already have a relationship with their readers.
3. Your frustration is a signal, not a problem.
It’s pointing toward a shift many thoughtful writers are experiencing: The pull toward controlled spaces rather than public platforms.
Think:
A curated newsletter, a private circle, or a library where your writing is placed intentionally, not swallowed by noise.
Adding my personal experience (your new section, improved and integrated).
By the way, I actually tried to answer your poll, but I gave up on some of the questions. The categories simply didn’t fit.
You see, I’m not really interested in “topics” as such. What I’m interested in is your reflections on your experiences in life, whatever they are. That’s how I connect to the human behind the keyboard (even though I know you in person). That’s the part that matters.
And here’s something I almost hate admitting:
These days, even though I genuinely enjoy sitting with a book, and still do, I can feel this creeping sense of impatience when I see a long text. I usually have a lot going on, and I sometimes catch myself stressing before I’ve even read the first sentence. If I sense the content is important, I sometimes run it through NotebookLM to get a condensed summary. I even do this with longer videos.
Right now, I only watch one podcast regularly on YouTube, even though I’m subscribed to several. The host goes for 20–30 minutes per episode, and that’s manageable. But it frustrates me deeply what this constant stream of information is doing to me, because at heart, I’m an in-depth kind of person, not someone who wants to live on summaries.
So there’s something important I’ve come to realise:
This oversaturated information-space is like a room full of one-armed slot machines, all flashing and chiming at once. People aren’t overwhelmed by content, they’re drowning in noise. Maybe what we actually need to offer them is something entirely different:
Silence, stillness, peace of mind, a holding space.
What if it is about taking something away, that adding something? To make room for the attention, so it can breathe again? This may be:
• A space designed for intentional reading, not random scrolling. Something people enter instead of something that jumps at them. I guess that was what the libraries around the world aimed to do.
• A rhythm that respects the nervous system. Not daily pushes, not algorithmic blasts, but writing that arrives like a deep breath: slow, steady, meaningful.
• A place without competition. No metrics, no likes, no “performative engagement”. Just presence between writer and reader.
• A library instead of a feed.
Feeds are frantic. Libraries are calm. Your writing would live better in a structure where people wander and discover at their own pace.
• A “quiet newsletter”. Not constant updates, but fewer, more deliberate messages, something people look forward to rather than attempt to survive.
• A sanctuary for long-form thinking. If the world is full of slot machines, you become the monastery. People will seek the place that is quiet when every other room is loud.
• Writing as a doorway, not a distraction. Your real strength isn’t producing content, it’s producing clarity. You’re not competing with noise, you’re offering an exit from it.
• The courage to let depth be depth. In a shallow world, depth is a luxury. And luxuries don’t need algorithms, they need intention.
And here’s the honest conclusion:
You don’t need a new platform. You need a new architecture.
Give people a place where they can pull your writing when they seek depth, instead of having it pushed into an overcrowded feed. Make a space that is quiet enough for your voice to be heard, a space that your real readers will return to intentionally, not accidentally.
You don’t need thousands of skimmers. You need dozens who resonate. The right readers always find the right writer — when the place they’re meant to meet is built with intention.
If Substack no longer gives you that space, maybe you’re supposed to build your own.
I guess you're right in all of it. Also the evolutional part, that I had felt but not reached a conclusion on yet – that Substack and other platforms do not stay the same for long but undergo some changes along the way, making people on the platforms behave in ways that match, shifting and adjusting over time.
This somehow leaves me with getting back to a self-hosted blog :) The revival of WordPress! I will consider this, and perhaps something else could make sense instead.
But even though we can agree on the expectation that more and more people seek a sanctuary from the blazing speed of information pushing, they still act according to this paradigm: nobody, effectively, read anything that was written just last week. Only the new articles ever get read, and only sparsely. So, creating a library of insights and depths might be an interesting project, but nobody would ever even attempt to read anything there.
Even if dozens of engaged readers is a better situation than thousands of skimmers, as you say, a situation with no readers at all is worse. And I could imagine that this is what I will be heading for, making my own platform.
Hey Jorgen, how are you? Any updates on your audience engagement? Maybe it’s easy for me to say this from my position, as someone who still has a moderate level of engagement… the most important thing is to create what you like the most. Whether anyone reads it or not is secondary. Writing and creating give the greatest benefit to the one who creates, and that should be the main reason to do it. Of course, we’d all love to make a living doing what we love most — and how to achieve that is a different story…
Thanks – you make me think of our past talks about your choice of direction, and it clearly worked for you :)
And, sure, creating is key, but I honestly don't enjoy seeing that something I post isn't being read by anyone. It feels like talking to people who don't answer – and who don't even listen at all. Of course, if reaching a large audience, I couldn't expect a response from everybody, but there must be a possible and achievable balance point somewhere in between.
But my post was actually quite serious, and I mean what I say: I am currently trying to decide what to do next. Previously, I sort of stopped this Substack for a while, and now I find it appropriate to decide what will be next.
Just yesterday, I finally deleted almost every article I had on Medium – nobody will miss them there, because there has hardly been any reads during the year or so since I last visited that site. The bits and pieces left are related to my publications there – deleting those will leave many other writers with orphaned articles. Still considering if I need to worry about that, or if I can just do it, to finally get completely out of Medium. Maybe you have some thoughts on that?
So, Substack is the next thing to deal with. And either it must get better, or I'll leave it. I don't like to just post things into a black hole. Also, I feel that the same energy could potentially be used more constructively, which I would like more.
My current assessment is that if I do nothing, if I don't make some kind of change, I will have zero readers and zero engagement of any kind in a year – that's the trend. Seeing myself desperately posting and posting and never getting any response is not my favorite vision.
The platform itself has already changed a lot from what I originally expected it to be, and it keeps moving – leaving my and my expectations behind.
As for Medium, I don’t open it at all, although I recently went there and saw I had hundreds of notifications — but I didn’t read them. My last experience was that the average article there gets about 30 views, and if it gets boosted, then maybe 20 dollars. With engagement that low, I’d rather be here, because at least here I can interact with other members.
Besides, here I get around 250–300 views per post. Zero dollars — but honestly, even 20 dollars is basically zero.
As for Substack, I’ll feel free to suggest the following (though I might be wrong): write shorter pieces. You write well and precisely, but compared to others, reading your text is a bit of a commitment — especially for someone who doesn’t know you yet.
Also, make it less technical, more emotional.
Of course, if that means you wouldn’t be you anymore, then forget it.
Furthermore, write 2 notes daily, preferably with photo (it doesn’t have to be good).
Make comments on others’ texts. Lets’s say 5 comments daily.
Do restacks.
And finally — remember: American IP address, attractive profile picture (female), and the narrative “ OMG, I am all over the place” 😂
That last bit: I still have the plan ready for a hit girl profile – maybe it's time to launch her? :)
Shorter and less technical – well, perhaps. I know that some want short, others want long, so it may be catching some and scaring away others. And I carefully try to avoid most exact numbers, etc., to make it more conversational, less technical. More emotional is more of a problem, because I thought that I was that. But I will think seriously about all of it.
Thanks for your thoughts!
Good luck☺️🥂
Personally, I blame the "Notes" feature for the way Substack has transformed. Notes has basically turned it into Twitter. The only difference is that there's no rigid limit to how long a note can be, but essentially, notes embody the essence of tweets - quick, witty, clever(?!) spurts of knowledge and insight intended to appeal to short attention spans... And the occassional pet photo 🤷🏻♀️
Yes, Notes was meant to promote Substacks, but it hardly ever works this way – it has got its own life that is much like Twitter, definitely.
That makes me think of the last time I attempted using Twitter, after having been away from it for a while (leaving thousands of followers there without updates for years): I experienced the same as I now do on Notes – no response at all, on anything.
I had several accounts on Twitter, because each of my blogging sites had their own, but I don't think anybody even noticed that I deleted those accounts.
So much for calling this "social" media.
The owners of Substack are happy about Notes, because they feel that it makes them more like the big guys in the business. They want activity, and as much as possible, so they promote the big accounts, and suppress the small ones. And they have this somewhat (to me) annoying idea of all the time telling about new VIPs on the platform. Personally, I'm interested in humans, not public images, but I understand that a famous person can attract thousands or even millions of users, which somehow translates to increased cashflow for a company like Substack.
Where that leaves some of us, who are not on top of that flow, is still bad. I can see that some people succeed – get a lot of dialogue, or many subscribers, or whatever success is to them, but I can't see how it should be possible for me to do the same.
Being in the USA seems to be a main criterion for taking part in any major activity flow. And also, some topics eat up all the attention – depending on what bubble you're in. For instance, some of the US bubbles are about various MAGA stuff, while others are about "boycott the world", more or less. But for me, the only existing bubbles to take part in seem to be the photo bubble and the "make a fortune on growing your Substack" – which both ask from me to read what others write, not to participate myself, because nobody will ever react on it if I do.
But where would Substack be without Notes? How would anybody know about new substacks, new writers? Social media in general seems to block or deprioritize anything related to Substack, so you can't find a following on other platforms and drag them to your substack – they'll never come. You can collect email addresses and import them, as many seem to do, but that's hijacking more than attracting.
Yes, it seems you must have success to gain success, otherwise you're ignored...
I tried logging into my Twitter accounts after it became X and was told they were suspended and I haven't returned since 🤷🏻♀️ Some users there follow so many people that they really don't notice when someone is gone, which says a lot about the level of interest they have in actual content...
Sure, I get why Notes were introduced and that all that the feature has called forth was predictable and inevitable. I try not to follow VIPs, with a couple of exceptions (one actually followed me!?), but it's becoming increasingly difficult to sustain the atmosphere that defined the platform in the beginning. The free-spiritedness that enchants and hooks so many will always ultimately be sacrificed for the sake of growth and profit. That's just the way of the world.
As with most things, there is an American dominance, although I follow and engage more with non-US authors.
I tried staying consistent with notes, but enjoy putting my energy into long-form texts more, so I no longer put pressure on myself to "show up" (as it's popularly referred to here) daily with 3 - 5 lines of drivel. I also try to read the notes of those I subscribe to before anything else.
I can see why VIPs are following you – you have an interesting page with thoughtful articles, and you speak kindly to your visitors. If any of these VIP profiles are indeed real people, that should attract them, as it attracts other people.
The big challenge is, though, how anybody will ever find a page or a profile if it's not being promoted. So I guess that some have a bit more luck than others ;)
On Notes, I have tried walking through it at times, reacting to basically whatever I saw there that seemed interesting – with a comment. In about 1/3 of the cases, the original writer would answer back with a short comment. In all other cases, nothing. And in general, nobody else would react.
This is what I don't understand. How can people decide to never react on anything that others have put there – how can they not react on others' reactions?
But it's probably what Brian said: there's too much info, too many comments, it's noisy, and nobody wants it all.
Of course, if the standard is for everyone to put some drivel there each day, I can see why nobody wants to react :) But wouldn't it be possible to put something more substantial there instead? Not to me, as nobody reacts on this either, but to those who do get reactions at times.
Well, no need to try to "fix" Notes, as I'm not going to start using it, no matter how it develops. I have posted hundreds of posts without any response – deleted them again, and decided to just leave it by that. Letting whoever can benefit from that thing enjoy it, but not me.
I can say, just to be fair, that it works more or less like this on Mastodon and Bluesky as well: I really have a hard time finding any value in these platforms. Apart from an occasional funny joke or a bit of information (sort of, as you never know if it's true) that I didn't know of already, there's nothing going on that makes sense to spend time on.
I'm glad you think so 😊 One is an actor who starred in many films that were released during my youth and now - alongside acting and producing - writes here and speaks publicly about the rise and potential dangers of AI. His Substack is not the usual self-promotion one is accustomed to from most celebrities, so I happily followed back!... And yes, I do ask myself how anyone ever finds (or comes across, since I doubt they're consciously searching) my Substack 😅
I also imagine people are overwhelmed with notes/comments and, therefore, place their focus solely on writing their own and not reading or reacting to anyone else's...
The unfortunate thing is, I'm fairly certain there are great notes being published here everyday, but they're not supported by the algorithm, so no one sees them ☹️ That's why I prefer to read and write long-form posts and restack as much of what I can that I find has some level of depth. Hopefully more of that will then land in my feed (notes as well as long-form texts).
Jørgen, I can feel the frustration in what you’re writing. Not the dramatic kind, and not the “poor me” kind, but the honest friction that appears when a thinking person collides with an ecosystem that is no longer designed for thinking.
You’re describing something that goes far beyond Substack.
This is the shape of the modern information-field:
• Platforms PUSH content at us in an endless firehose.
• Filters don’t filter, they just rearrange the noise.
• Readers are drowning, not choosing.
• Writers are shouting into a room where everyone else is already shouting.
• Attention has become a scarce mineral, mined to exhaustion.
In that environment it’s no surprise that even excellent writers see their reach collapse. It’s not personal, and it’s not a verdict. It’s physics.
But here’s the shift I think is happening:
For years we relied on platforms to deliver what we wrote. Now we’re heading toward a world where readers won’t tolerate being pushed at. They want to pull, to actively seek the voice they trust at the moment they need it.
The real question becomes:
How do we build something people will return to intentionally, instead of stumbling upon it by accident?
Because in an oversaturated space, the algorithm is no longer your ally. Your relationship with the reader is.
A few thoughts that may help you orient:
1. Your writing has value that grows slowly, not virally.
You’re not producing dopamine pellets. You’re producing reflection, and reflection is a slow-burn medium.
2. Substack is not broken, it’s simply no longer a discovery tool.
It’s becoming a distribution tool for writers who already have a relationship with their readers.
3. Your frustration is a signal, not a problem.
It’s pointing toward a shift many thoughtful writers are experiencing: The pull toward controlled spaces rather than public platforms.
Think:
A curated newsletter, a private circle, or a library where your writing is placed intentionally, not swallowed by noise.
Adding my personal experience (your new section, improved and integrated).
By the way, I actually tried to answer your poll, but I gave up on some of the questions. The categories simply didn’t fit.
You see, I’m not really interested in “topics” as such. What I’m interested in is your reflections on your experiences in life, whatever they are. That’s how I connect to the human behind the keyboard (even though I know you in person). That’s the part that matters.
And here’s something I almost hate admitting:
These days, even though I genuinely enjoy sitting with a book, and still do, I can feel this creeping sense of impatience when I see a long text. I usually have a lot going on, and I sometimes catch myself stressing before I’ve even read the first sentence. If I sense the content is important, I sometimes run it through NotebookLM to get a condensed summary. I even do this with longer videos.
Right now, I only watch one podcast regularly on YouTube, even though I’m subscribed to several. The host goes for 20–30 minutes per episode, and that’s manageable. But it frustrates me deeply what this constant stream of information is doing to me, because at heart, I’m an in-depth kind of person, not someone who wants to live on summaries.
So there’s something important I’ve come to realise:
This oversaturated information-space is like a room full of one-armed slot machines, all flashing and chiming at once. People aren’t overwhelmed by content, they’re drowning in noise. Maybe what we actually need to offer them is something entirely different:
Silence, stillness, peace of mind, a holding space.
What if it is about taking something away, that adding something? To make room for the attention, so it can breathe again? This may be:
• A space designed for intentional reading, not random scrolling. Something people enter instead of something that jumps at them. I guess that was what the libraries around the world aimed to do.
• A rhythm that respects the nervous system. Not daily pushes, not algorithmic blasts, but writing that arrives like a deep breath: slow, steady, meaningful.
• A place without competition. No metrics, no likes, no “performative engagement”. Just presence between writer and reader.
• A library instead of a feed.
Feeds are frantic. Libraries are calm. Your writing would live better in a structure where people wander and discover at their own pace.
• A “quiet newsletter”. Not constant updates, but fewer, more deliberate messages, something people look forward to rather than attempt to survive.
• A sanctuary for long-form thinking. If the world is full of slot machines, you become the monastery. People will seek the place that is quiet when every other room is loud.
• Writing as a doorway, not a distraction. Your real strength isn’t producing content, it’s producing clarity. You’re not competing with noise, you’re offering an exit from it.
• The courage to let depth be depth. In a shallow world, depth is a luxury. And luxuries don’t need algorithms, they need intention.
And here’s the honest conclusion:
You don’t need a new platform. You need a new architecture.
Give people a place where they can pull your writing when they seek depth, instead of having it pushed into an overcrowded feed. Make a space that is quiet enough for your voice to be heard, a space that your real readers will return to intentionally, not accidentally.
You don’t need thousands of skimmers. You need dozens who resonate. The right readers always find the right writer — when the place they’re meant to meet is built with intention.
If Substack no longer gives you that space, maybe you’re supposed to build your own.
I would read it, and I suspect others would too.
Thanks for your deep thinking and sound advice.
I guess you're right in all of it. Also the evolutional part, that I had felt but not reached a conclusion on yet – that Substack and other platforms do not stay the same for long but undergo some changes along the way, making people on the platforms behave in ways that match, shifting and adjusting over time.
This somehow leaves me with getting back to a self-hosted blog :) The revival of WordPress! I will consider this, and perhaps something else could make sense instead.
But even though we can agree on the expectation that more and more people seek a sanctuary from the blazing speed of information pushing, they still act according to this paradigm: nobody, effectively, read anything that was written just last week. Only the new articles ever get read, and only sparsely. So, creating a library of insights and depths might be an interesting project, but nobody would ever even attempt to read anything there.
Even if dozens of engaged readers is a better situation than thousands of skimmers, as you say, a situation with no readers at all is worse. And I could imagine that this is what I will be heading for, making my own platform.
Nevertheless, I'll probably do it ;)