FWIW: we don't prohibit Twitter links from being embeds; that's Twitter doing that, refusing to serve Tweet data to our servers / calls. I don't think we have done anything contra Twitter or to harm Twitter or Tweets that I'm aware of, and wouldn't; it wouldn't help us, we have no leverage against them, and we're not "mad" at them in any meaningful sense, and we don't make decisions based on that sort of thing anyway. We obviously wish they weren't crushing Substack links, but all the ad platforms are starting to murder off-platform links, so it's not even that distinct from how others operate now.
Note for example that all our share flows offer Twitter ("X") as an option, you can put it in your bio links, etc. The code on our side pulls whatever embed it can from any link; Twitter blocks us from doing so with Tweets, that's all!
The reason for the fast growth is because of a lack of supply, as you say. Blogging with consistency is just really hard for some reason. I'm a complete unknown, with no prior internet presence and I've experienced a similar growth trajectory as you - and you're already known.
One thing I’ve liked about Substack is that I’m allowed to specialize my writing. I once built up nanocelebrity fame on Twitter for a creative hobby, but the context collapse effect was too great to get into the weeds on technical stuff. I learned to write threads where each individual tweet would remain cogent when (maliciously) take out of context—but then you can’t put 500 words into a technical topic!
Whereas my Substack blog is an honest-to-God technical blog, more like a better-looking Blogspot than a Twitter feed. It definitely narrows the audience—my biggest post by an order of magnitude was a GamerGate poast unrelated to the rest of the blog. But my writing has room to breathe and to set up its own context.
I've been on Substack for about a year, and now have three publications targeting different audiences. My original Substack has approximately 750 subscribers; many of them joined from LinkedIn, where I have a network of over 10,000. Previously, I had a blog, which I started in 2014.
Substack vs. Twitter is apples and oranges. Substack is for long-form writing; Twitter is for brief shitposts. Both serve a purpose.
It boils down to why you write. I encourage young people to write and publish more. That's not to make money or to influence public opinion; it's to demonstrate that you know something worth sharing. That pays off indirectly; every job I secured over the last 10 years was the result of someone reading something I wrote and thinking I must be smart. (I'm not, but I write good.)
It doesn't matter to me whether a reader hits the "like" button. Most of the feedback I get is outside the platform.
I'll take a stab at why you experienced such growth at such an unprecedented rate. If Substack lore from countless notes going on about it are any such indication, here is what I have heard, compared with my own experience.
Substack boosts the hell out of your first post or first couple posts in the first few days/weeks you launch. This gradually decreases as time goes on.
From what it sounds like, you not only had a following somewhere else, but because you had a) the boost and b) wrote for quantity (as well as quality from what it appears) you generated enough interest to get several hundred followers very quickly. You're takes struck nerves and people followed because of the boost, but stayed because they liked your message and content.
Followers via Substack also is dependent, I think, on the kind of content you are writing. Fiction and poetry are notoriously known for not getting a lot of traffic. Part of this I think is that there's really a lot of garbage or mid/fan-fiction level literature/fiction being published. It's also not really up most people's alley. They're looking for direction, advice, that type of thing. I've been here for almost five years, and had to delete the first Substack I wrote for personal reasons; it took me two years to build to almost 150 people, and then I deleted it. Switching to cultural commentary and fiction/poetry, a year-and-a-half later, and I haven't broken 40 people, even with weekly essays/stories.
That leaves the other secret to Substack: generating interest through building community. This is done primarily (and has been my slow-going secret sauce) through commenting on essays, people see what you said, and they choose to subscribe. Also, engaging in Notes and re-stacking other people's notes -- usually to the tune of 3-10 per day, depending on how much time you have and how much you're trying to engage -- will also generate more interest in people's feeds, thus more exposure.
Ultimately, it's a combination of luck, being boosted, and a numbers game of hammering away. I frittered away my initial boost, but that's partly because I didn't understand it at the time.
You took yours and ran, and congratulations and good luck to you. It's a hard market, really and truly.
FWIW: we don't prohibit Twitter links from being embeds; that's Twitter doing that, refusing to serve Tweet data to our servers / calls. I don't think we have done anything contra Twitter or to harm Twitter or Tweets that I'm aware of, and wouldn't; it wouldn't help us, we have no leverage against them, and we're not "mad" at them in any meaningful sense, and we don't make decisions based on that sort of thing anyway. We obviously wish they weren't crushing Substack links, but all the ad platforms are starting to murder off-platform links, so it's not even that distinct from how others operate now.
Note for example that all our share flows offer Twitter ("X") as an option, you can put it in your bio links, etc. The code on our side pulls whatever embed it can from any link; Twitter blocks us from doing so with Tweets, that's all!
Really great overview post, BTW.
That is really interesting, thanks for the info
The reason for the fast growth is because of a lack of supply, as you say. Blogging with consistency is just really hard for some reason. I'm a complete unknown, with no prior internet presence and I've experienced a similar growth trajectory as you - and you're already known.
No one is trying.
Now do LinkedIn
I'll die first
One thing I’ve liked about Substack is that I’m allowed to specialize my writing. I once built up nanocelebrity fame on Twitter for a creative hobby, but the context collapse effect was too great to get into the weeds on technical stuff. I learned to write threads where each individual tweet would remain cogent when (maliciously) take out of context—but then you can’t put 500 words into a technical topic!
Whereas my Substack blog is an honest-to-God technical blog, more like a better-looking Blogspot than a Twitter feed. It definitely narrows the audience—my biggest post by an order of magnitude was a GamerGate poast unrelated to the rest of the blog. But my writing has room to breathe and to set up its own context.
Hallo kitty
I've been on Substack for about a year, and now have three publications targeting different audiences. My original Substack has approximately 750 subscribers; many of them joined from LinkedIn, where I have a network of over 10,000. Previously, I had a blog, which I started in 2014.
Substack vs. Twitter is apples and oranges. Substack is for long-form writing; Twitter is for brief shitposts. Both serve a purpose.
It boils down to why you write. I encourage young people to write and publish more. That's not to make money or to influence public opinion; it's to demonstrate that you know something worth sharing. That pays off indirectly; every job I secured over the last 10 years was the result of someone reading something I wrote and thinking I must be smart. (I'm not, but I write good.)
It doesn't matter to me whether a reader hits the "like" button. Most of the feedback I get is outside the platform.
One feature here that I really like is the AI reader for the longer posts. Very handy for when I am driving.
I suppose it depends on what topics you are interested in, but I have found some excellent medium and long form content here.
I'll take a stab at why you experienced such growth at such an unprecedented rate. If Substack lore from countless notes going on about it are any such indication, here is what I have heard, compared with my own experience.
Substack boosts the hell out of your first post or first couple posts in the first few days/weeks you launch. This gradually decreases as time goes on.
From what it sounds like, you not only had a following somewhere else, but because you had a) the boost and b) wrote for quantity (as well as quality from what it appears) you generated enough interest to get several hundred followers very quickly. You're takes struck nerves and people followed because of the boost, but stayed because they liked your message and content.
Followers via Substack also is dependent, I think, on the kind of content you are writing. Fiction and poetry are notoriously known for not getting a lot of traffic. Part of this I think is that there's really a lot of garbage or mid/fan-fiction level literature/fiction being published. It's also not really up most people's alley. They're looking for direction, advice, that type of thing. I've been here for almost five years, and had to delete the first Substack I wrote for personal reasons; it took me two years to build to almost 150 people, and then I deleted it. Switching to cultural commentary and fiction/poetry, a year-and-a-half later, and I haven't broken 40 people, even with weekly essays/stories.
That leaves the other secret to Substack: generating interest through building community. This is done primarily (and has been my slow-going secret sauce) through commenting on essays, people see what you said, and they choose to subscribe. Also, engaging in Notes and re-stacking other people's notes -- usually to the tune of 3-10 per day, depending on how much time you have and how much you're trying to engage -- will also generate more interest in people's feeds, thus more exposure.
Ultimately, it's a combination of luck, being boosted, and a numbers game of hammering away. I frittered away my initial boost, but that's partly because I didn't understand it at the time.
You took yours and ran, and congratulations and good luck to you. It's a hard market, really and truly.