Interesting. I started my Substack b/c I wanted to share what I had learned during my PhD research. SO many people ask me about it that I thought a newsletter would be a hit. Nope. Instead, people like my writing better when it is personal. Which has always felt to me too much like our reality-show obsessed culture. Please, I'm not that interesting and I don't want gawkers or voyeurs. I think it takes a certain ego to write about one's self. Not ego as bad necessarily, just a different emphasis, a different personality. It's taken a lifetime to feel comfortable in front of a camera - I much prefer taking the photos. So my challenge has been adapting to what my readers want (more of me and my story) vs what I really want to write - psychology, mythology, theories on home.
I also agree with the camera in your life. I had over 52,000 views on my first video of my Sicily home, over 1100 subscribers immediately. But making more videos was difficult - I don't want the camera on. I don't even think about having it on, typically, until after the action is done. My subsequent videos had significantly less viewership which has let me off the hook - making movies is not where I want to spend my energy. Though, admittedly, when I did spend the time to engage with strangers, I learned a few things - some had good suggestions. Others, definitely not :)
Navel-gazing is a good way to describe so much of what's on Substack and that's what bores me. I'm interested in your life (and others) only so much as it relates to something bigger, something outside of you. In general, that is. Once I know you, I'm interested in you. And maybe that's it: people think that reading something personal somehow connects them to that person and the people who write only navel-gazing pieces are in need of that kind of connection, superficial as it is. Ow, does that sound judgemental? Perhaps it is. But honestly, I'm interested in what you write b/c we have connected a small bit outside of your posts. My impression is that you're someone I could hang with socially. At the same time, the truth is that we really don't know each other. So, if I didn't feel like your posts expose me to something bigger than you, then I wouldn't read them. Does that make sense?
Sorry for the ramble.
The takeaway for me is that we need to remain authentic. Maybe that doesn't result in more readers, more clicks, more likes, etc, but eventually we find the people with whom we truly connect. Is it any different from high school?
Thanks for this reminder. Love the Gaudi reference.
Interesting. I started my Substack b/c I wanted to share what I had learned during my PhD research. SO many people ask me about it that I thought a newsletter would be a hit. Nope. Instead, people like my writing better when it is personal. Which has always felt to me too much like our reality-show obsessed culture. Please, I'm not that interesting and I don't want gawkers or voyeurs. I think it takes a certain ego to write about one's self. Not ego as bad necessarily, just a different emphasis, a different personality. It's taken a lifetime to feel comfortable in front of a camera - I much prefer taking the photos. So my challenge has been adapting to what my readers want (more of me and my story) vs what I really want to write - psychology, mythology, theories on home.
I also agree with the camera in your life. I had over 52,000 views on my first video of my Sicily home, over 1100 subscribers immediately. But making more videos was difficult - I don't want the camera on. I don't even think about having it on, typically, until after the action is done. My subsequent videos had significantly less viewership which has let me off the hook - making movies is not where I want to spend my energy. Though, admittedly, when I did spend the time to engage with strangers, I learned a few things - some had good suggestions. Others, definitely not :)
Navel-gazing is a good way to describe so much of what's on Substack and that's what bores me. I'm interested in your life (and others) only so much as it relates to something bigger, something outside of you. In general, that is. Once I know you, I'm interested in you. And maybe that's it: people think that reading something personal somehow connects them to that person and the people who write only navel-gazing pieces are in need of that kind of connection, superficial as it is. Ow, does that sound judgemental? Perhaps it is. But honestly, I'm interested in what you write b/c we have connected a small bit outside of your posts. My impression is that you're someone I could hang with socially. At the same time, the truth is that we really don't know each other. So, if I didn't feel like your posts expose me to something bigger than you, then I wouldn't read them. Does that make sense?
Sorry for the ramble.
The takeaway for me is that we need to remain authentic. Maybe that doesn't result in more readers, more clicks, more likes, etc, but eventually we find the people with whom we truly connect. Is it any different from high school?
I love this pre programmatic ads & affiliate writing approach.