A new wave of local news building a sustainable model for independent journalism on Substack. Michael MacLeod of The Edinburgh Guardian shares insights re-engaging citizens with their city, designing a payment model which rewards support, and ultimately quitting his job to focus on running the newsletter part-time.
"People tell me they wanted to stay off social media for their mental health and find this daily email is a perfect solution to stay in the loop locally."
It's just like having a real local morning newspaper over the coffee. I like Michael's approach to a focus on local news without the clickbait and irrelevance.
Maybe I'm a little skeptical, but 300+ paying subscribers in just 4 months?
He also doesn't really explain how exactly he 'monetised' his Substack or what exactly motivated his readers to become paying subscribers.
This part also bothered me: " I saw 50 new paying subscribers and a lot of kind words on social media supporting my decision"
In one day? That's incredible, but admittedly hard for me to believe. I don't have 3k free subscribers, but I do have 1.6k free subscribers, and I don't even have 1/20th the number of paying Subscribers. A 1 in 10 paying subscriber conversion rate is genuinely pretty impressive, but it is unclear to me... how he achieve such success in such an overwhelmingly short space of time?
Were they prior conversions from his previous journalism work, perhaps?
How exactly did he compel people to pay if everything is free?
"I also launched The Culture Minute newsletter that week and was fortunate enough to be featured on Substack that week."
If you were already featured by Substack back in 2023, why are you being featured again?
Shouldn't some of the feature sets go to, you know, other writers?
Hi there. Good questions! The numbers are legit and personally I put it down to two things: consistently curating so I can publish every day to help tap into readers’ daily morning routine, and keeping focused on one thing: my local city, which has a lot going on but lacked a single source to find everything. What I do won’t necessarily work for others, but I get up at 5am every single day to do it because I know people value it. The value of doing that work every day for 165 daily editions so far is proven in the numbers and DMs. I also have a strong local network of people I’ve met and kept in touch with over 18 years in various local communities as a journalist. Happy to answer any other questions you have. Thanks for reading.
I'm glad you are doing well but this "5 am every day thing" is a bit insulting to those of us who a) might be night owls and b) have worked out butts off for years and written consistently but haven't hit that sweet spot yet. A lot of people work hard on their Substacks, and have their work valued by a smaller number of people, but it does not mean what we are doing is less important or of lesser "value."
Really, you found a profitable niche and was helped out by your previous Guardian experience and Substack's promotion. Bully for you but realize that your formula cannot necessarily be replicated by those of us who haven't worked at a major news outlet and don't have the perceived credentials.
PS I used to publish daily but throttled it back because I was working myself to the bone and it wasn't paying off for me. My readers told me they didn't need me to post every day.
Hi Stephanie. Thanks for sharing your perspectives - I broadly agree and see what you're saying. I only mentioned the 5am-7am writing window because it was all I had to begin with. That, plus evenings either side of my day-job. My hope was to encourage people to follow their passion and interests, in whatever time windows we have. I definitely didn't want anyone to feel their own hard work is 'less important', which is why I didn't say that. As you suggest, listening to our readers (and learning their needs via their behaviour data) is really informative as it shows no one formula is a sure thing. What works for me won't necessarily work for you. I'm curious to learn and share about how we all find audiences though, so if you fancy talking about that, let's talk. I'd be happy to share.
I read the 5am note not as virtue signalling (ie I just work harder) but a product of the format. Michael’s got to get the edition published for that prime Edinburgh bus/tram commute period.
I'm sorry to bust your balls here - I'm not frustrated with you so much as Substack for publishing these stories making it look easy when it's not. The vast majority of publications on Substack will not enable people to quit their day jobs. The model only works for possibly the top 1% of writers here and there's a reach issue that is also a problem, especially with Twitter nixing Substack links (Matt Taibbi discusses this in a recent post on his Substack Racket.)
Oh, I definitely think the numbers are real, I'm just genuinely surprised at a 300 paying subscriber leap within 4 months.
"publish every day to help tap into readers’ daily morning routine"
It's not clear to me what their incentive is for going paid, though. I understand 3k free subscribers, and I could understand 3k free subscribers for publishing daily, but what incentivises the conversion from free to paid? Do you paywall specific articles? Specific sections of articles? Paywall the comments section? Do you use a specific psychological pitch to appeal?
I used to do news curations on Substack where I posted daily, but free subscribers often unsubscribed because they felt the email notifications from Substack were too frequent, considering it 'spammy'. I've switched down to a 3-day in-depth publishing model which has seen unsubscribes disappear almost completely, however I haven't quite gotten the free-to-paid conversion, and I've seen bigger Substackers than me with equal or less paying subscribers, and plenty with far fewer than yourself.
I am very curious, because you're definitely doing something right.
"Shouldn't some of the feature sets go to, you know, other writers?" Exactly... HOWEVER, I glanced at his newsletter w/o knowing the price point. I don't know about the UK but where I grew up in the central valley of California, we still have some local papers BUT increasingly no "local" news. Media consolidation means McClatchy owns most of the papers for the bigger valley cities and big towns which I don't think have local news rooms any more (consolidated in Sacramento). Their papers are getting thinner and thinner with syndicated stories and their business practices are HIGHLY ABUSIVE e.g. preying on older people who don't use the internet with outrageously costly subscriptions in the 100s of dollars a year for a product that gets thinner and thinner... There are some Facebook local news publications BUT then you can't report any news they don't like as POOF you are going to be gone + alot of people DON'T do Facebook. I would say there is tremendous demand for a local news option like what he is doing... How many people willing to pay is another question but let's say $5 a month is MUCH better price point than the garbage being produced by the traditional media where I grew up...
True, what the maintream media write is what I would call garbage, and it is certainly why my Substack has seen at least a few paying subscribers, because they recognise the power of classic journalism and original research.
However, it is a bit like video game piracy; if there's a means where a person needs not to pay, then they don't, unless they absolutely have to. And whilst people do suggest paywalls, paywalled articles don't get shared because a reader cannot go 'take a look at what I just read!' because they know most non-paying people won't be able to see it, so paywalls are antithetical to sharing within a community (which if you're a small dinky Substack, is a death sentence for growth).
I am more than eager to learn from my mistakes, but that is contingent on myself understanding what the mistake is (or rather, what the successful M.O. is).
I get there's a void in good quality local journalism, and I'm not seeking to compete with this gentleman in Edinburgh because I don't do local, but there is also a grave void in high quality independent international news. Somehow I have to square the circle that a smaller locale earns more than a broader audience of approach, which to anyone business savvy, doesn't make sense.
Either the gentleman is doing something wildly successful (maybe he writes prose in the most elegant of forms) or I'm doing something horribly wrong (maybe I bare my monster fangs at my free subscribers and scare them off?). But some disconnect is occurring.
I hope he's able to find time to answer my query. I'm not asking for his exact business model, just a rough sketch of what he does to invite people to switch free-to-paid. Maybe he offers free coupons behind a paywall, or has a treasure map of intrigue?
Depends what you write on and what you do exactly... Some of my posts are intended to make the lives of busy readers (fund managers etc.) easier e.g. on my https://emergingmarketskeptic.substack.com/p/moneycontrol-india-stock-of-the-day-august-2023 posts, you can look up the video on YouTube talking about the stock yourself BUT on my post, I have links to the IR page, quote, Wikipedia entry (if there is one), the forward P/E + dividend linked back to Yahoo! Finance stat page, and stock chart linked back to Yahoo! Finance... Not many writers are covering these stocks but then again, not many foreigners are interested in them... But with anything involving stocks, you can write-off the subscription price + one good idea will more than pay for the subscription... Much harder to charge anything other than a token amount for "news" - except perhaps for local news like what he is doing...
"I saw 50 new paying subscribers and a lot of kind words on social media supporting my decision" This absolutely makes no sense given that his engagement on his posts is far lower than mine on my most trafficked Substack - and with almost 3,000 subscribers I have about 50 paying total for a cause-related publication. The average number of likes on his posts appears to be about 10.
Those averages are correct. The open rate has been 70% all year, which is the one that matters most to me. However, what works for one Substack won't necessarily for another. There will likely be many examples of other publishers 10x more 'successful' than mine, and that's fine!
I hope I can explain the thing you say 'makes no sense': The example you quoted was about one post in particular, which caused a spike in the chart that Substack asked me to talk about. That was a different kind of post to my usual daily post format: It was 150 daily editions in and I decided it was time to talk to the audience directly about the future of the newsletter. As you saw, based on likes and comments, people responded well to it. Comparing stats isn't so constructive when our topics, audiences and and audience needs are different. But I hope this additional context explains the spike.
It makes no sense because I've been in website development for decades and the average conversion rate ("conversion" meaning anything from a free sign-up to a sale) is 2-5% for a well-done, targeted Google ad. So let's say a reasonable conversion rate for a paid sign-up is 1-2%. My 50 paid subs for a little less than 3K subscribers (on my most frequented Substack) makes sense on standard conversion rates. Having 300+ paid subscribers at 3,800 subs is an exceptionally high conversion rate at almost 8%. I'm not saying it can't be done for the right target audience, but given the low *visible* engagement on your daily articles, the numbers seem off. You say 70% open rate but then your posts are lucky to get 10 likes and no comments. That's not making sense.
Let me make it clear I am not suggesting that you personally are lying, but perhaps you have a ton of generous friends who signed up to support you, or perhaps some unknown benefactor set up a bunch of accounts to help you out. Or maybe your local audience just doesn't engage but they are willing to pay, which seems odd but that's a rare one-off. Hey, if that's what you've got going on, lucky you, but the rest of us need to make some richer friends or something. :-)
To be clear, I'm more frustrated with Substack for posting these stories that aren't realistic for the rest of us. I'd like some better advice on how to build a publication for the average Substacker...who may not have a strong LinkedIn network of high-paid Meta execs to chip in to our sub pool.
If you think I have 4,000 rich friends, you’re wrong! It’s 4,000 people who care about where they live. And 350 who can afford to pay £5 per month. Perhaps compare your stats with those who publish on similar subjects to your own topic. By comparing yours and mine, you are comparing extremely different things. There are loads of insights I’ve shared and have said I’m willing to share, but you’re offering cynicism rather than asking anything constructive now. The numbers are real, they make complete sense to me and are my normal. I too have worked my ass off alongside a day job and am offering my time here to try to share anything useful I can. Take it or leave it but please don’t doubt the validity of the work and the community that has helped make it get to this stage. Word of mouth is a wonderful thing when the product fits the market. I hope I’ve got a long way to go and as I said, I’m open ears to sharing and listening to learnings together with everyone along the way.
I never said you have "4,000 rich friends" but I do suggest that your spike in paid subs after posting to LinkedIn was likely due to having "rich" (or at least well-off) friends/colleagues/family members able to support you with a sub that they might not even read. Which is great, if you have that, good, but I'm just saying Substack can't really tell the rest of us writers that your model is realistic.
I'm not just comparing your numbers to mine, I'm comparing them to conventional wisdom regarding conversions as well as engagement. Your visible engagement (likes/comments) is very low compared to your number of paid subscribers. What this says to me is that you may have a lot of people paying to support you who may not be reading daily or even weekly.
I'm not saying you haven't worked hard or do a bad job with your Substack. All the best to you. But forgive me for poking into it - I wasn't the one who brought it up but it is a little hard to believe at face value unless we account for some other factors.
I'll keep looking at the facts: 70% daily open rate and payments/DMs from 99% complete strangers to me, with the knowledge this is working well for them ✌️
"Perhaps compare your stats with those who publish on similar subjects to your own topic"
I personally have. The big names tend to have a 2 in 100 conversion rate, rather than the 1 in 10 rate you've got. My own conversion rate is 'above parity' for near peer Substackers, at roughly 1 in 100 (nearest peer is 1 in 200).
I get the impression you think 50 paying subscribers out of nowhere is the norm, but genuinely amongst many Substackers it isn't. You do mention if people have '£5 to spare' but with economic depression/price inflation/wage stagnation, this tends not to be the case.
So as Substackers we're curious how exactly you've broken what is a normal trend (as largely we're wanting to learn and improve ourselves).
Stephanie mentions one of your articles gets 10 likes, which is unusual for a free 3k subscriber Substacker. I'm 1.6k and my article like average is roughly 20 to 40. Of course, likes aren't as important as being paid, but I digress.
The only variable different I see you've mentioned is a "70% open rate". Mine is a mere ~30% average. Back of the envelope figures would suggest I'm seeing ~510 readers per article and you're seeing ~2100 readers per article. That wouldn't explain the like disparity but it would explain engagement differences.
The most successful Substack I'm aware of is 'Doomberg' who have an alternating free/paid financial analyst cycle (which includes preview style "free" articles). My view is their success is chalked up to being targeted at financial analysts who make bank from their forward financial predictions (so a mutualism win-win in financial terms; plus, banking sector tends to have more 'loose change' for such things).
What I'm curious is how a local Edinburgh guy like yourself managed to pull-off a Doomberg style success with no premium/paywall model (I presume?). I only wish I had 1/3rd the paid subscriber base you did because it'd allow me to go fully independent, so I am very curious. Even Alex Berenson struggles with free-to-paid conversions and he's a huge Substacker.
Not to step on Michael's toes here, but none of his numbers seem remotely questionable from my own experience, nor do I think his advice of comparing to others in your niche is that strange.
I don't entirely know why, but local news Substacks seem to have relatively high conversion rates, at least compared to the oft-cited 2 in 100 you've mentioned above. We're running at at nearly 1 in 5 on Local Authority using a model that is primarily based around free journalism - all of the actual news is in front of the paywall, with only parts of interviews and certain features behind.
Noting the number of likes is interesting, and we have a similar issue to what you've spotted with Michael's newsletter - our likes/comments are pretty low. We have 1500 subscribers (nearly 300 paid) with an open rate of about 65% and I can count on one hand the number of times an article has reached double digit likes.
Our analysis of our audience largely puts that down to demographics. I don't know what the average is for a Substack newsletter, but our audience skews old. Half of our readers are over 50, and most of them aren't fussed about engaging with Substack's platform features - bluntly, they want the news as an email in their inbox that they read and that's that.
I think there's a fascinating discussion to be had here, but I also think trying to apply a 'one size fits all' system to how this works doesn't apply, particularly when the topic is local news, where an audience is often looking for something very specific rather than being heavy newsletter subscribers.
Excited to see the growth in the local news scene on Substack in the UK over the past year or so, and a big thanks to Substack for the shout out above!
Only just came across the Edinburgh Guardian, but given I'm right at the other end of the country, I'd like to think that's understandable.
We launched in our corner of the country a couple of years ago and while we're no means the biggest, we've definitely proved there is an appetite for local news in a way that's different from the pretty grim local news websites we're all used to now. More importantly, people are willing to pay for it. We're running at a 19% conversion rate to paid on Local Authority, and have no idea where the ceiling is.
So many great writers and journalists are covering local journalism beats that have long since been abandoned by traditional outlets, and I can't wait to see where all of this goes.
This is so awesome! As a former journalist who has worked in both local and global news and witnessed the changes that many of my colleagues and friends endured, it's so energizing and inspiring to see journalists being valued for their hard work and commitment. Onward, Michael!
This is so awesome! As a former journalist who has worked in both local news and global news and witnessed the changes that many of my colleagues and friends endured, it's so energizing and inspiring to see journalists being valued for their hard work and commitment. Onward,Michael!
I love this a local journalism model, a professional journalist focused on local content partnering with his audience of locals to create the content they want, need and enjoy without ads and bloody headlines.
The numbers are incredible. I recently had a coaching session about writing here on Substack. One of the questions asked involved how many paid subscribers I wanted. My number was 300. I'm a (new) writer, not a journalist. That being said, someone like Michael has a drilled-down niche with contacts, he brought with him as an audience. He "is" a journalist and (for me) it's fascinating he writes on Substack about local events. This tells me there are unexplored avenues I can explore to gain subscribers, and more importantly helping me cultivate paid subscribers. The local scene is something I never thought about. Thanks for such an inspiring deep-dive into success on Substack.
Well done Michael on creating excellent curated news on Edinburgh. Local newspapers have been ruined in the past 10-15 years by being bought and owned by country wide or global companies. Their model is outdated and all they have is dwindling numbers of advertisers with adverts ruining the reader experience as well as the depth of local news reporting is poor. All the best going forward
This seems like a great opportunity for a person to serve his local city or county. Mr. MacLeod’s history offered him skills and advantages most people would lack. However, even to put together a once-per-week publication would be a benefit to people who miss their local newspaper.
"People tell me they wanted to stay off social media for their mental health and find this daily email is a perfect solution to stay in the loop locally."
It's just like having a real local morning newspaper over the coffee. I like Michael's approach to a focus on local news without the clickbait and irrelevance.
This is one of my all-time fav newsletters and as an Edinburgh local, SUCH an amazing source of local and relevant info
Thanks so much for reading Sarah! Glad to hear it’s useful. I know you’ve been spreading the word too, so thank you for that too 🙏
Maybe I'm a little skeptical, but 300+ paying subscribers in just 4 months?
He also doesn't really explain how exactly he 'monetised' his Substack or what exactly motivated his readers to become paying subscribers.
This part also bothered me: " I saw 50 new paying subscribers and a lot of kind words on social media supporting my decision"
In one day? That's incredible, but admittedly hard for me to believe. I don't have 3k free subscribers, but I do have 1.6k free subscribers, and I don't even have 1/20th the number of paying Subscribers. A 1 in 10 paying subscriber conversion rate is genuinely pretty impressive, but it is unclear to me... how he achieve such success in such an overwhelmingly short space of time?
Were they prior conversions from his previous journalism work, perhaps?
How exactly did he compel people to pay if everything is free?
"I also launched The Culture Minute newsletter that week and was fortunate enough to be featured on Substack that week."
If you were already featured by Substack back in 2023, why are you being featured again?
Shouldn't some of the feature sets go to, you know, other writers?
Feels kinda nepotism-ish to me.
Hi there. Good questions! The numbers are legit and personally I put it down to two things: consistently curating so I can publish every day to help tap into readers’ daily morning routine, and keeping focused on one thing: my local city, which has a lot going on but lacked a single source to find everything. What I do won’t necessarily work for others, but I get up at 5am every single day to do it because I know people value it. The value of doing that work every day for 165 daily editions so far is proven in the numbers and DMs. I also have a strong local network of people I’ve met and kept in touch with over 18 years in various local communities as a journalist. Happy to answer any other questions you have. Thanks for reading.
I'm glad you are doing well but this "5 am every day thing" is a bit insulting to those of us who a) might be night owls and b) have worked out butts off for years and written consistently but haven't hit that sweet spot yet. A lot of people work hard on their Substacks, and have their work valued by a smaller number of people, but it does not mean what we are doing is less important or of lesser "value."
Really, you found a profitable niche and was helped out by your previous Guardian experience and Substack's promotion. Bully for you but realize that your formula cannot necessarily be replicated by those of us who haven't worked at a major news outlet and don't have the perceived credentials.
PS I used to publish daily but throttled it back because I was working myself to the bone and it wasn't paying off for me. My readers told me they didn't need me to post every day.
Hi Stephanie. Thanks for sharing your perspectives - I broadly agree and see what you're saying. I only mentioned the 5am-7am writing window because it was all I had to begin with. That, plus evenings either side of my day-job. My hope was to encourage people to follow their passion and interests, in whatever time windows we have. I definitely didn't want anyone to feel their own hard work is 'less important', which is why I didn't say that. As you suggest, listening to our readers (and learning their needs via their behaviour data) is really informative as it shows no one formula is a sure thing. What works for me won't necessarily work for you. I'm curious to learn and share about how we all find audiences though, so if you fancy talking about that, let's talk. I'd be happy to share.
I read the 5am note not as virtue signalling (ie I just work harder) but a product of the format. Michael’s got to get the edition published for that prime Edinburgh bus/tram commute period.
I'm sorry to bust your balls here - I'm not frustrated with you so much as Substack for publishing these stories making it look easy when it's not. The vast majority of publications on Substack will not enable people to quit their day jobs. The model only works for possibly the top 1% of writers here and there's a reach issue that is also a problem, especially with Twitter nixing Substack links (Matt Taibbi discusses this in a recent post on his Substack Racket.)
Oh, I definitely think the numbers are real, I'm just genuinely surprised at a 300 paying subscriber leap within 4 months.
"publish every day to help tap into readers’ daily morning routine"
It's not clear to me what their incentive is for going paid, though. I understand 3k free subscribers, and I could understand 3k free subscribers for publishing daily, but what incentivises the conversion from free to paid? Do you paywall specific articles? Specific sections of articles? Paywall the comments section? Do you use a specific psychological pitch to appeal?
I used to do news curations on Substack where I posted daily, but free subscribers often unsubscribed because they felt the email notifications from Substack were too frequent, considering it 'spammy'. I've switched down to a 3-day in-depth publishing model which has seen unsubscribes disappear almost completely, however I haven't quite gotten the free-to-paid conversion, and I've seen bigger Substackers than me with equal or less paying subscribers, and plenty with far fewer than yourself.
I am very curious, because you're definitely doing something right.
On another note, I wonder if you would be interested in a personal profile specialist?
I love people and would be happy to interview someone for your readers.
Let me know.
I would definitely assume that some of his subs from his personal work. Local audiences remember voices that deliver the goods.
Because he's a prop and a plant.
Discerning readers know who this guy is and what this article is.
"Shouldn't some of the feature sets go to, you know, other writers?" Exactly... HOWEVER, I glanced at his newsletter w/o knowing the price point. I don't know about the UK but where I grew up in the central valley of California, we still have some local papers BUT increasingly no "local" news. Media consolidation means McClatchy owns most of the papers for the bigger valley cities and big towns which I don't think have local news rooms any more (consolidated in Sacramento). Their papers are getting thinner and thinner with syndicated stories and their business practices are HIGHLY ABUSIVE e.g. preying on older people who don't use the internet with outrageously costly subscriptions in the 100s of dollars a year for a product that gets thinner and thinner... There are some Facebook local news publications BUT then you can't report any news they don't like as POOF you are going to be gone + alot of people DON'T do Facebook. I would say there is tremendous demand for a local news option like what he is doing... How many people willing to pay is another question but let's say $5 a month is MUCH better price point than the garbage being produced by the traditional media where I grew up...
True, what the maintream media write is what I would call garbage, and it is certainly why my Substack has seen at least a few paying subscribers, because they recognise the power of classic journalism and original research.
However, it is a bit like video game piracy; if there's a means where a person needs not to pay, then they don't, unless they absolutely have to. And whilst people do suggest paywalls, paywalled articles don't get shared because a reader cannot go 'take a look at what I just read!' because they know most non-paying people won't be able to see it, so paywalls are antithetical to sharing within a community (which if you're a small dinky Substack, is a death sentence for growth).
I am more than eager to learn from my mistakes, but that is contingent on myself understanding what the mistake is (or rather, what the successful M.O. is).
I get there's a void in good quality local journalism, and I'm not seeking to compete with this gentleman in Edinburgh because I don't do local, but there is also a grave void in high quality independent international news. Somehow I have to square the circle that a smaller locale earns more than a broader audience of approach, which to anyone business savvy, doesn't make sense.
Either the gentleman is doing something wildly successful (maybe he writes prose in the most elegant of forms) or I'm doing something horribly wrong (maybe I bare my monster fangs at my free subscribers and scare them off?). But some disconnect is occurring.
I hope he's able to find time to answer my query. I'm not asking for his exact business model, just a rough sketch of what he does to invite people to switch free-to-paid. Maybe he offers free coupons behind a paywall, or has a treasure map of intrigue?
Depends what you write on and what you do exactly... Some of my posts are intended to make the lives of busy readers (fund managers etc.) easier e.g. on my https://emergingmarketskeptic.substack.com/p/moneycontrol-india-stock-of-the-day-august-2023 posts, you can look up the video on YouTube talking about the stock yourself BUT on my post, I have links to the IR page, quote, Wikipedia entry (if there is one), the forward P/E + dividend linked back to Yahoo! Finance stat page, and stock chart linked back to Yahoo! Finance... Not many writers are covering these stocks but then again, not many foreigners are interested in them... But with anything involving stocks, you can write-off the subscription price + one good idea will more than pay for the subscription... Much harder to charge anything other than a token amount for "news" - except perhaps for local news like what he is doing...
"I saw 50 new paying subscribers and a lot of kind words on social media supporting my decision" This absolutely makes no sense given that his engagement on his posts is far lower than mine on my most trafficked Substack - and with almost 3,000 subscribers I have about 50 paying total for a cause-related publication. The average number of likes on his posts appears to be about 10.
Those averages are correct. The open rate has been 70% all year, which is the one that matters most to me. However, what works for one Substack won't necessarily for another. There will likely be many examples of other publishers 10x more 'successful' than mine, and that's fine!
I hope I can explain the thing you say 'makes no sense': The example you quoted was about one post in particular, which caused a spike in the chart that Substack asked me to talk about. That was a different kind of post to my usual daily post format: It was 150 daily editions in and I decided it was time to talk to the audience directly about the future of the newsletter. As you saw, based on likes and comments, people responded well to it. Comparing stats isn't so constructive when our topics, audiences and and audience needs are different. But I hope this additional context explains the spike.
It makes no sense because I've been in website development for decades and the average conversion rate ("conversion" meaning anything from a free sign-up to a sale) is 2-5% for a well-done, targeted Google ad. So let's say a reasonable conversion rate for a paid sign-up is 1-2%. My 50 paid subs for a little less than 3K subscribers (on my most frequented Substack) makes sense on standard conversion rates. Having 300+ paid subscribers at 3,800 subs is an exceptionally high conversion rate at almost 8%. I'm not saying it can't be done for the right target audience, but given the low *visible* engagement on your daily articles, the numbers seem off. You say 70% open rate but then your posts are lucky to get 10 likes and no comments. That's not making sense.
Let me make it clear I am not suggesting that you personally are lying, but perhaps you have a ton of generous friends who signed up to support you, or perhaps some unknown benefactor set up a bunch of accounts to help you out. Or maybe your local audience just doesn't engage but they are willing to pay, which seems odd but that's a rare one-off. Hey, if that's what you've got going on, lucky you, but the rest of us need to make some richer friends or something. :-)
To be clear, I'm more frustrated with Substack for posting these stories that aren't realistic for the rest of us. I'd like some better advice on how to build a publication for the average Substacker...who may not have a strong LinkedIn network of high-paid Meta execs to chip in to our sub pool.
If you think I have 4,000 rich friends, you’re wrong! It’s 4,000 people who care about where they live. And 350 who can afford to pay £5 per month. Perhaps compare your stats with those who publish on similar subjects to your own topic. By comparing yours and mine, you are comparing extremely different things. There are loads of insights I’ve shared and have said I’m willing to share, but you’re offering cynicism rather than asking anything constructive now. The numbers are real, they make complete sense to me and are my normal. I too have worked my ass off alongside a day job and am offering my time here to try to share anything useful I can. Take it or leave it but please don’t doubt the validity of the work and the community that has helped make it get to this stage. Word of mouth is a wonderful thing when the product fits the market. I hope I’ve got a long way to go and as I said, I’m open ears to sharing and listening to learnings together with everyone along the way.
I never said you have "4,000 rich friends" but I do suggest that your spike in paid subs after posting to LinkedIn was likely due to having "rich" (or at least well-off) friends/colleagues/family members able to support you with a sub that they might not even read. Which is great, if you have that, good, but I'm just saying Substack can't really tell the rest of us writers that your model is realistic.
I'm not just comparing your numbers to mine, I'm comparing them to conventional wisdom regarding conversions as well as engagement. Your visible engagement (likes/comments) is very low compared to your number of paid subscribers. What this says to me is that you may have a lot of people paying to support you who may not be reading daily or even weekly.
I'm not saying you haven't worked hard or do a bad job with your Substack. All the best to you. But forgive me for poking into it - I wasn't the one who brought it up but it is a little hard to believe at face value unless we account for some other factors.
I'll keep looking at the facts: 70% daily open rate and payments/DMs from 99% complete strangers to me, with the knowledge this is working well for them ✌️
"Perhaps compare your stats with those who publish on similar subjects to your own topic"
I personally have. The big names tend to have a 2 in 100 conversion rate, rather than the 1 in 10 rate you've got. My own conversion rate is 'above parity' for near peer Substackers, at roughly 1 in 100 (nearest peer is 1 in 200).
I get the impression you think 50 paying subscribers out of nowhere is the norm, but genuinely amongst many Substackers it isn't. You do mention if people have '£5 to spare' but with economic depression/price inflation/wage stagnation, this tends not to be the case.
So as Substackers we're curious how exactly you've broken what is a normal trend (as largely we're wanting to learn and improve ourselves).
Stephanie mentions one of your articles gets 10 likes, which is unusual for a free 3k subscriber Substacker. I'm 1.6k and my article like average is roughly 20 to 40. Of course, likes aren't as important as being paid, but I digress.
The only variable different I see you've mentioned is a "70% open rate". Mine is a mere ~30% average. Back of the envelope figures would suggest I'm seeing ~510 readers per article and you're seeing ~2100 readers per article. That wouldn't explain the like disparity but it would explain engagement differences.
The most successful Substack I'm aware of is 'Doomberg' who have an alternating free/paid financial analyst cycle (which includes preview style "free" articles). My view is their success is chalked up to being targeted at financial analysts who make bank from their forward financial predictions (so a mutualism win-win in financial terms; plus, banking sector tends to have more 'loose change' for such things).
What I'm curious is how a local Edinburgh guy like yourself managed to pull-off a Doomberg style success with no premium/paywall model (I presume?). I only wish I had 1/3rd the paid subscriber base you did because it'd allow me to go fully independent, so I am very curious. Even Alex Berenson struggles with free-to-paid conversions and he's a huge Substacker.
Not to step on Michael's toes here, but none of his numbers seem remotely questionable from my own experience, nor do I think his advice of comparing to others in your niche is that strange.
I don't entirely know why, but local news Substacks seem to have relatively high conversion rates, at least compared to the oft-cited 2 in 100 you've mentioned above. We're running at at nearly 1 in 5 on Local Authority using a model that is primarily based around free journalism - all of the actual news is in front of the paywall, with only parts of interviews and certain features behind.
Noting the number of likes is interesting, and we have a similar issue to what you've spotted with Michael's newsletter - our likes/comments are pretty low. We have 1500 subscribers (nearly 300 paid) with an open rate of about 65% and I can count on one hand the number of times an article has reached double digit likes.
Our analysis of our audience largely puts that down to demographics. I don't know what the average is for a Substack newsletter, but our audience skews old. Half of our readers are over 50, and most of them aren't fussed about engaging with Substack's platform features - bluntly, they want the news as an email in their inbox that they read and that's that.
I think there's a fascinating discussion to be had here, but I also think trying to apply a 'one size fits all' system to how this works doesn't apply, particularly when the topic is local news, where an audience is often looking for something very specific rather than being heavy newsletter subscribers.
Excited to see the growth in the local news scene on Substack in the UK over the past year or so, and a big thanks to Substack for the shout out above!
Only just came across the Edinburgh Guardian, but given I'm right at the other end of the country, I'd like to think that's understandable.
We launched in our corner of the country a couple of years ago and while we're no means the biggest, we've definitely proved there is an appetite for local news in a way that's different from the pretty grim local news websites we're all used to now. More importantly, people are willing to pay for it. We're running at a 19% conversion rate to paid on Local Authority, and have no idea where the ceiling is.
So many great writers and journalists are covering local journalism beats that have long since been abandoned by traditional outlets, and I can't wait to see where all of this goes.
So great to have you here Ed!
Very encouraging. Thank you Michael, and best of luck with your publication.
This is so awesome! As a former journalist who has worked in both local and global news and witnessed the changes that many of my colleagues and friends endured, it's so energizing and inspiring to see journalists being valued for their hard work and commitment. Onward, Michael!
This is so awesome! As a former journalist who has worked in both local news and global news and witnessed the changes that many of my colleagues and friends endured, it's so energizing and inspiring to see journalists being valued for their hard work and commitment. Onward,Michael!
I love this a local journalism model, a professional journalist focused on local content partnering with his audience of locals to create the content they want, need and enjoy without ads and bloody headlines.
The numbers are incredible. I recently had a coaching session about writing here on Substack. One of the questions asked involved how many paid subscribers I wanted. My number was 300. I'm a (new) writer, not a journalist. That being said, someone like Michael has a drilled-down niche with contacts, he brought with him as an audience. He "is" a journalist and (for me) it's fascinating he writes on Substack about local events. This tells me there are unexplored avenues I can explore to gain subscribers, and more importantly helping me cultivate paid subscribers. The local scene is something I never thought about. Thanks for such an inspiring deep-dive into success on Substack.
Stayed local with mine too at Hidden Japan
I'd love to have the guts to quit a job to focus on Substack, very inspiring
Well done Michael on creating excellent curated news on Edinburgh. Local newspapers have been ruined in the past 10-15 years by being bought and owned by country wide or global companies. Their model is outdated and all they have is dwindling numbers of advertisers with adverts ruining the reader experience as well as the depth of local news reporting is poor. All the best going forward
What an inspiring story!
Very encouraging. Has Substack rounded up its successful local news case studies anywhere?
Hi Nicole,
These are the more recent ones: https://on.substack.com/i/136789445/a-new-wave-of-local-news-is-building-a-sustainable-model-for-independent-journalism-on-substack
But there's more here: https://on.substack.com/p/announcing-the-winners-of-substack and here too: https://on.substack.com/p/getting-started-with-local-news-on Plus we regularly feature (case study) local news here on On Substack.
Thanks Hannah!
How to get featured:
1. Be woke / commie / progressive
2. Act as an aggregator for local propaganda outlets, censoring anything the ideology disagrees with.
3. Use commie dog whistles and fake like you care about society and not advancing your degenerate, destructive marxist inspired ideology
This seems like a great opportunity for a person to serve his local city or county. Mr. MacLeod’s history offered him skills and advantages most people would lack. However, even to put together a once-per-week publication would be a benefit to people who miss their local newspaper.