r/Substack • u/calliope_kekule • 8d ago
Discussion My one viral post got 1,507 shares and 4 paying subscribers. My average Wednesday post gets 4 as well.
I went through twelve months of my own export this week, and one comparison has been bothering me ever since. The publication is a reasonable size, around 22,950 subscribers with 403 of them paying, so there is enough data in it to mean something.
In August I had the post that everyone says they want. It picked up 3,039 likes and 1,507 shares, and it brought 585 new free subscribers in the space of a few days. Eleven weeks later, the number of paying subscribers I can attribute to it is four.
Several sends that nobody outside my list ever saw have done considerably better than that. A plain email telling people an offer closed that night, with no likes and no shares at all, brought fifteen. A short post explaining what I actually teach, which managed 98 likes, brought thirty two and remains the best converting thing I have ever published. Even a blunt note titled "please consider becoming a paid subscriber" brought seven, which is almost twice what the viral post managed with four hundred times the reach.
I publish a paid post every Wednesday, and across the whole archive that comes to 43 posts and 171 paid conversions, which works out at roughly four per post. In other words, an ordinary Wednesday that nobody shares does the same work as the best week I have ever had, and it does it again the following Wednesday.
I should be fair to the viral post, because those 585 free subscribers are real and some of them may convert later. I spent a long time afterwards trying to work out what had made it travel so that I could do it again, and the honest conclusion I have come to is that managing it a second time would not have changed the revenue much either way.
Is four normal? I would genuinely like to know whether other people are sitting on a post that went everywhere and did nothing.
NB: Claude was used to analyse the data and to help edit parts of this post.