Thanks! It's a curious feature, which on the surface seems quite basic and obvious (I remember in April 2022 not really understanding the point of it), but once you start digging in there's all sorts of interesting stuff going on.
“A common concern around here is that ‘the only people on Substack are writers’. I highly doubt this is true, but writers are certainly over-represented compared to other platforms.”
I have thought this also. However, even if it were true, most (if not all) writers read more than they write anyway. So in theory this should be a good thing, right?
Remember you can also write recommendation blurbs for other people's substacks which they can choose to display on their welcome page. I wrote you one ages ago, hint hint ;)
Simon, thanks for a helpful article on the reality of growing an audience that feels authentic. There’s lots of posts on Substack on growing a following, though these sometimes feel gimmicky. I started a newsletter last month and try to do all the things you outlined. Growth is slow but I’m getting a fair amount of likes on comments so my name is getting out there. This feels a lot better than the games I tried and failed on Facebook. Also, the interaction on Substack is much kinder. People are usually thoughtful and supportive. I did read the article you referenced and it appealed to my “geeky side” as my last job before retiring was in data analytics.
Keep these articles coming. They are super helpful for people like me who are new to Substack.
Thank you so much, Simon! You're a gent, and you're doing great work on here as a pioneer of this model of storytelling.
I have had a not-inconsiderable amount of luck in building my audience, but the Recommendation feature has been why it's accelerated in the last year or so - it's absurdly powerful and one of Substack's best hooks for keeping us here as the competition hots up from other, newer platforms.
For complete if tediously self-obsessed transparency, here's what it looks like from my side of things:
1) I wish I could Recommend everyone, but I don't think that'd be helpful because the shorter the list of Reccs, the more likely new subscribers are to click through to each one (beyond the initial burst of readers that's sent over after a new Recommendation is seeded). I've been trying to keep mine to around 25, and I'm currently bang on that.
2) I have 347 publications Recommending me (which massively outweighs the 25 I sent back out, so - this is a considerable source of cringe for me, and I'm always trying to look for ways to send folk towards newsletters I've just found, even if I'm not Recc'ing them. But - see 1) for why I can't see another way to do it that wouldn't water down the power of a Recc from me...
3) according to my Dashboard, Reccs have sent me 14,000 free signups, over half of my entire readership - the biggest source of them by far (behind now-defunct Twitter at around 8,000).
4) I Recommend according to 1), and organically - never as a trade. I've had quite a few "hey, if you recc me, I'll recc you and we all win" messages by email and DM, and some I haven't replied to yet because I'm still reading their newsletters and genuinely do want to give them a shout-out! But sometimes it's my first and only interaction with that person. This is...not a great way to go about things? As you say: this ain't LinkedIn, but even on LinkedIn that stuff looks cold and spammy. trying to game Reccs is a mug's game and all that energy is much better spent making genuine friends on here, with Reccs following that process as a side-product. Anything else is treating fellow writers as commodities to be exploited - and they know you're trying to do it. You can't fool readers, and you can't fool other writers. Don't play those tactics - being authentically human is one of the best assets we have to play with. If everyone knows you actually mean it, they'll listen, they'll click and they'll follow. No shortcuts required.
5) "Virality in the post-social era, which really needs a proper name (the curated era?), is rooted in choice and human connection." I couldn't agree more. And one of its roots is genuine enthusiasm. Get good at conveying your enthusiasm in a way that folk find compelling, and you'll start heading in a viralwards direction.
Great article. Great tips. I also find it frustrating when someone decides to comment and link to their stuff. I try to think about it in a positive way and think, they just want to help and support 😂
In my opinion, no. I'm generally not going to recommend someone until I have read their material and got to know them as a writer to some degree. If I haven't recommended someone already, it'll be either because I'm not familiar with their work (this could definitely change over time!), or because I don't think it's worth recommending (this is less likely to change, but it's not impossible).
Recommendation swaps grow the size of the network, sure, but not its quality.
To take the example from the article: I recommend Mike's Everything Is Amazing, but as far as I'm aware he doesn't recommend my newsletter. That's fine - I didn't recommend Mike's work because I wanted something in exchange, but because I like and enjoy what he does. That's what gives the recommendation value, and why Mike's own recommendations presumably have value, too.
Exactly — it’s both a joy to give and receive recommendations because they are genuine. As soon as it becomes transactional it becomes less honest and not as fun a process.
The problem here is the assumption hanging in the air that a link swap achieves the same thing as a genuinely heartfelt Recommendation - and the further assumption that readers can be "tricked" into clicking through. In many cases it won't and they can't, because readers will see you have no thematic overlap or no prior relationship with that writer you're link-swapping with. It'll stink of inauthenticity.
If that happens, their trust in you gets eroded, your engagement withers away, and everyone loses. That's a lose-lose scenario and the opposite of a growth hack.
Thanks for the shoutout Simon! I think I’ll link to this piece as a resource for a more detailed breakdown of Recommendations in the network post
Thanks! It's a curious feature, which on the surface seems quite basic and obvious (I remember in April 2022 not really understanding the point of it), but once you start digging in there's all sorts of interesting stuff going on.
“A common concern around here is that ‘the only people on Substack are writers’. I highly doubt this is true, but writers are certainly over-represented compared to other platforms.”
I have thought this also. However, even if it were true, most (if not all) writers read more than they write anyway. So in theory this should be a good thing, right?
Exactly, there’s no downside as far as I can see.
Good chat, great picture.
Thanks for this excellent overview of, well, everything about Substack recommendations and so much more from @Simon K Jones. Big thanks!
We all need more Monkey Island references in our lives. And what a stunning picture at the end.
This was a great piece.
Remember you can also write recommendation blurbs for other people's substacks which they can choose to display on their welcome page. I wrote you one ages ago, hint hint ;)
Simon, thanks for a helpful article on the reality of growing an audience that feels authentic. There’s lots of posts on Substack on growing a following, though these sometimes feel gimmicky. I started a newsletter last month and try to do all the things you outlined. Growth is slow but I’m getting a fair amount of likes on comments so my name is getting out there. This feels a lot better than the games I tried and failed on Facebook. Also, the interaction on Substack is much kinder. People are usually thoughtful and supportive. I did read the article you referenced and it appealed to my “geeky side” as my last job before retiring was in data analytics.
Keep these articles coming. They are super helpful for people like me who are new to Substack.
This article is essential!
Thank you so much, Simon! You're a gent, and you're doing great work on here as a pioneer of this model of storytelling.
I have had a not-inconsiderable amount of luck in building my audience, but the Recommendation feature has been why it's accelerated in the last year or so - it's absurdly powerful and one of Substack's best hooks for keeping us here as the competition hots up from other, newer platforms.
For complete if tediously self-obsessed transparency, here's what it looks like from my side of things:
1) I wish I could Recommend everyone, but I don't think that'd be helpful because the shorter the list of Reccs, the more likely new subscribers are to click through to each one (beyond the initial burst of readers that's sent over after a new Recommendation is seeded). I've been trying to keep mine to around 25, and I'm currently bang on that.
2) I have 347 publications Recommending me (which massively outweighs the 25 I sent back out, so - this is a considerable source of cringe for me, and I'm always trying to look for ways to send folk towards newsletters I've just found, even if I'm not Recc'ing them. But - see 1) for why I can't see another way to do it that wouldn't water down the power of a Recc from me...
3) according to my Dashboard, Reccs have sent me 14,000 free signups, over half of my entire readership - the biggest source of them by far (behind now-defunct Twitter at around 8,000).
4) I Recommend according to 1), and organically - never as a trade. I've had quite a few "hey, if you recc me, I'll recc you and we all win" messages by email and DM, and some I haven't replied to yet because I'm still reading their newsletters and genuinely do want to give them a shout-out! But sometimes it's my first and only interaction with that person. This is...not a great way to go about things? As you say: this ain't LinkedIn, but even on LinkedIn that stuff looks cold and spammy. trying to game Reccs is a mug's game and all that energy is much better spent making genuine friends on here, with Reccs following that process as a side-product. Anything else is treating fellow writers as commodities to be exploited - and they know you're trying to do it. You can't fool readers, and you can't fool other writers. Don't play those tactics - being authentically human is one of the best assets we have to play with. If everyone knows you actually mean it, they'll listen, they'll click and they'll follow. No shortcuts required.
5) "Virality in the post-social era, which really needs a proper name (the curated era?), is rooted in choice and human connection." I couldn't agree more. And one of its roots is genuine enthusiasm. Get good at conveying your enthusiasm in a way that folk find compelling, and you'll start heading in a viralwards direction.
The comments to this Notes post are perhaps a speed-dating example of your 'gaining a recommendation' method #5. We concluded the transaction via DM: https://substack.com/@shoni0/note/c-67625925?r=wtpo
Thanks for this Simon
Great article. Great tips. I also find it frustrating when someone decides to comment and link to their stuff. I try to think about it in a positive way and think, they just want to help and support 😂
Now, can you recommend me? I'm just joking😂.
Hi, Simon. Can I translate part of this article into spanish with links to you?
Why do you find requests for recommendation swaps frustrating? Isn’t it a good way for us to all grow together?
In my opinion, no. I'm generally not going to recommend someone until I have read their material and got to know them as a writer to some degree. If I haven't recommended someone already, it'll be either because I'm not familiar with their work (this could definitely change over time!), or because I don't think it's worth recommending (this is less likely to change, but it's not impossible).
Recommendation swaps grow the size of the network, sure, but not its quality.
To take the example from the article: I recommend Mike's Everything Is Amazing, but as far as I'm aware he doesn't recommend my newsletter. That's fine - I didn't recommend Mike's work because I wanted something in exchange, but because I like and enjoy what he does. That's what gives the recommendation value, and why Mike's own recommendations presumably have value, too.
Exactly — it’s both a joy to give and receive recommendations because they are genuine. As soon as it becomes transactional it becomes less honest and not as fun a process.
>>"but as far as I'm aware he doesn't recommend my newsletter."
NOT SO FAST, SIMON.
This was an oversight on my part, and it's now corrected. 😁 Sorry to destroy your argument.
You’ve ruined everything, Mike.
MY WORK HERE IS DONE. I AM DEATH.
(WHICH IS WHY I'M SPEAKING IN ALL-CAPS.)
The problem here is the assumption hanging in the air that a link swap achieves the same thing as a genuinely heartfelt Recommendation - and the further assumption that readers can be "tricked" into clicking through. In many cases it won't and they can't, because readers will see you have no thematic overlap or no prior relationship with that writer you're link-swapping with. It'll stink of inauthenticity.
If that happens, their trust in you gets eroded, your engagement withers away, and everyone loses. That's a lose-lose scenario and the opposite of a growth hack.
Best avoided.