Hi Karen, as always THANK YOU! But there is a BUT: One take away you mentioned is a bit, let's say not quite accurate (for me) And that is, you wrote: Takeaway: A popular and high-earning publication does not need dozens of hours of writing time each week.
NO, but it does take 60 hours of your time. And before one writes, one needs to think, ponder, absorb, download what to write - So, realistically - it is 60 hours a week. for the whole enchilada.
If I'm not mistaken, the whole Henderson process to attain the bucks is realistically 60 hours a week. Plus, he's highly passionate about what he does - I am a bit protective of my writers - and that is - you truly need at least 5 of the components you so skillfully shared with us here. But - let's stay realistic - because if we don't we will feel discouraged. BIG 5: PASSION, COMMITMENT, SUPPORT, CONSISTENCY, and TIME! (AND a drop of GEEKDOM over what you love.)
I guess I was being a little cynical about Rob's time commitment, Laura.
Absolutely agree that creating great writing involves more time than just sitting at the computer typing. For example, I just finished a 14 hour day on my paid newsletter, which included at least 7 hours of research, reading, note-taking, etc.
But I honestly don't believe that every minute of that writer's 60 hour work is devoted to creating content for his newsletter. He's also writing books, promoting books, appearing on TV, writing newspaper columns and (one would hope) having some sort of personal life.
My cynicism is partly because he appears to be crafting a pitch to readers about the high value of his work. He takes care to explain why his publication is more expensive than most Substacks and says he's going to be paywalling a much greater proportion of his content in future.
Thank you Karen for responding - and I get it, absolutely it takes a plethora of tasks to coordinate a successful product. I felt that when you said that there isn't that MUCH WRITING to do - I thought - isn't this the FUN PART? The other promotional stuff I don't car much for - but know it needs to be done. But, I have a lot to learn because I write Fiction. When Henderson is talking Science - non-fiction - it feels Non-SUBSTACKY to me......and yet.....it is! Substack is ANY kind of writing.
I also don't find you cynical - although I have called myself a CYNICAL IDEALIST! HA!
“Regular output is key. Do the work, accept that most of your work will be fair-to-middling, and be grateful for the occasional home run.”
I love that so much. This gives you the freedom to post consistently without being paralyzed by some need to be perfect. Progress over perfection always.
While it's great that he only spends 8 hours a week "writing" he does say he works 50 - 60 hours a week a on his Substack, making that a full time job,
Thank you for sharing this, but I think a major confounding variable here is TOPIC/NICHE!
You mention Rob's newsletter is not your cup of tea, but don't get into the specifics. For those who aren't familiar with his work, Rob's usual "beat" is right-leaning, pop-psychology that frequently critiques "woke" ideology (whatever that incoherent idea means to people on a given day) and progressive gender/LGBT issues. His content would fit right in with the Joe Rogan / Jordan Peterson "man-o-sphere"; indeed he recently interviewed Jordan Peterson. There are not a ton of places to get that content, certainly not on most mainstream sites and platforms, so people highly attracted to those views have less choice and greater willingness to pay.
I see similar things with newsletters that promote anti-vaccine and covid-19 denialism yet have tens to hundreds of thousands of subscribers and are well-monetized. Meanwhile, there are numerous excellent Substacks with high-quality medical information written by physicians, epidemiologists, scientists, and veterinarians that flounder with a sparse readership.
Sadly, sensationalist content sells better than sober-minded factual analysis. People also like beer and chicken wings more than eating their veggies. As David Byrne would say, "Same as it ever was."
Another wrinkle is the editorial decisions of what Substack promotes. Newsletters like Rob's and other medical/scientific misinformation newsletters often showed up in my "Top Science" / "Top Culture" recs until I repeatedly went out of my way to click "Not Interested." I'm not sure if these are algorithmic recs or if a human is putting their stamp of approval on them, but in any event, there seems to be a bias towards contrarian content on Substack.
All of this is not necessarily to invalidate what lessons you can glean from his story, but to provide more context. I would wager that about 80% of Rob's success is the specific niche he covers and ~20% actionable practices others could emulate.
Topics can make a publication really easy or really hard to monetize, for sure.
But with my diverse readership here - everyone from musicians to project managers to memoirists - I wanted to pull out lessons that are independent of topic.
I'm not saying you can easily make $184K per year with any old topic on Substack, but I am saying that there are some aspects of Mr Henderson's publication which are relevant to all publications - stuff like plateaus, consistency and clear offers are common to every niche.
I feel with the hours he puts into substack, he doesn’t deserve anything less. Most people want to put a total of 10-20hrs a week and expect result of 40-80hrs. Thanks for sharing your perspective
I really appreciate inside looks at what other Substacks are doing and how. I think genres like science and tech will always attract bigger readership because of their specialized nature. But there's hope and room for everyone!
I have the feeling every success story is different when I see Rob's chart. I'm thinking of Lenny's newsletter growth for instance, in which he had huge spikes due to the new recommendation feature.
Rob's a beautiful example of consistency. So many ways seem to work.
Thanks so much for sharing this, Karen. I have a real resistance to charging for my newsletter but I really like seeing different approaches to it and how different Substack writers handle it.
8 hours writing so roughly 40 hours a week working on Substack not writing. I’m assuming that’s time spent promoting.
Consistency is key to develop a connection with readers, but quality is hit or miss.
Sounds to me like this is about making money primarily through promotion rather than providing real value to readers based on the quality of the content. Maybe there’s some value to readers feeling “part” of something, but part of what exactly? Part of a money-making strategy?
I appreciate this inside look into how one person is earning good money on Substack. It’s not a strategy I’d want to model myself on.
I think you're right about Rob's readers paying to feel "part" of something, Dan, and Eric Fish touched on that in his comment. I think they might be paying to feel 'heard' and recognised in a world that they feel alienated from. And I suspect that readers of that publication are strongly motivated to pay to be able to comment and share their views with like minded men.
Hi Karen, as always THANK YOU! But there is a BUT: One take away you mentioned is a bit, let's say not quite accurate (for me) And that is, you wrote: Takeaway: A popular and high-earning publication does not need dozens of hours of writing time each week.
NO, but it does take 60 hours of your time. And before one writes, one needs to think, ponder, absorb, download what to write - So, realistically - it is 60 hours a week. for the whole enchilada.
If I'm not mistaken, the whole Henderson process to attain the bucks is realistically 60 hours a week. Plus, he's highly passionate about what he does - I am a bit protective of my writers - and that is - you truly need at least 5 of the components you so skillfully shared with us here. But - let's stay realistic - because if we don't we will feel discouraged. BIG 5: PASSION, COMMITMENT, SUPPORT, CONSISTENCY, and TIME! (AND a drop of GEEKDOM over what you love.)
Love LA from Flying Bra
I guess I was being a little cynical about Rob's time commitment, Laura.
Absolutely agree that creating great writing involves more time than just sitting at the computer typing. For example, I just finished a 14 hour day on my paid newsletter, which included at least 7 hours of research, reading, note-taking, etc.
But I honestly don't believe that every minute of that writer's 60 hour work is devoted to creating content for his newsletter. He's also writing books, promoting books, appearing on TV, writing newspaper columns and (one would hope) having some sort of personal life.
My cynicism is partly because he appears to be crafting a pitch to readers about the high value of his work. He takes care to explain why his publication is more expensive than most Substacks and says he's going to be paywalling a much greater proportion of his content in future.
Thank you Karen for responding - and I get it, absolutely it takes a plethora of tasks to coordinate a successful product. I felt that when you said that there isn't that MUCH WRITING to do - I thought - isn't this the FUN PART? The other promotional stuff I don't car much for - but know it needs to be done. But, I have a lot to learn because I write Fiction. When Henderson is talking Science - non-fiction - it feels Non-SUBSTACKY to me......and yet.....it is! Substack is ANY kind of writing.
I also don't find you cynical - although I have called myself a CYNICAL IDEALIST! HA!
Have a lovely day!
Flying bra to the mooooon!!!!! Lets go
“Regular output is key. Do the work, accept that most of your work will be fair-to-middling, and be grateful for the occasional home run.”
I love that so much. This gives you the freedom to post consistently without being paralyzed by some need to be perfect. Progress over perfection always.
Thanks for the breakdown, very great context to have.
Although, I wouldn’t discard the 50 hours. That’s definitely part of his writing process.
Absolutely part of the writing process. :)
Writing can be quite involved 😅
While it's great that he only spends 8 hours a week "writing" he does say he works 50 - 60 hours a week a on his Substack, making that a full time job,
Thank you for sharing this, but I think a major confounding variable here is TOPIC/NICHE!
You mention Rob's newsletter is not your cup of tea, but don't get into the specifics. For those who aren't familiar with his work, Rob's usual "beat" is right-leaning, pop-psychology that frequently critiques "woke" ideology (whatever that incoherent idea means to people on a given day) and progressive gender/LGBT issues. His content would fit right in with the Joe Rogan / Jordan Peterson "man-o-sphere"; indeed he recently interviewed Jordan Peterson. There are not a ton of places to get that content, certainly not on most mainstream sites and platforms, so people highly attracted to those views have less choice and greater willingness to pay.
I see similar things with newsletters that promote anti-vaccine and covid-19 denialism yet have tens to hundreds of thousands of subscribers and are well-monetized. Meanwhile, there are numerous excellent Substacks with high-quality medical information written by physicians, epidemiologists, scientists, and veterinarians that flounder with a sparse readership.
Sadly, sensationalist content sells better than sober-minded factual analysis. People also like beer and chicken wings more than eating their veggies. As David Byrne would say, "Same as it ever was."
Another wrinkle is the editorial decisions of what Substack promotes. Newsletters like Rob's and other medical/scientific misinformation newsletters often showed up in my "Top Science" / "Top Culture" recs until I repeatedly went out of my way to click "Not Interested." I'm not sure if these are algorithmic recs or if a human is putting their stamp of approval on them, but in any event, there seems to be a bias towards contrarian content on Substack.
All of this is not necessarily to invalidate what lessons you can glean from his story, but to provide more context. I would wager that about 80% of Rob's success is the specific niche he covers and ~20% actionable practices others could emulate.
Completely agree with you, Eric, re topic.
Topics can make a publication really easy or really hard to monetize, for sure.
But with my diverse readership here - everyone from musicians to project managers to memoirists - I wanted to pull out lessons that are independent of topic.
I'm not saying you can easily make $184K per year with any old topic on Substack, but I am saying that there are some aspects of Mr Henderson's publication which are relevant to all publications - stuff like plateaus, consistency and clear offers are common to every niche.
“Sadly, sensationalist content sells better than sober-minded factual analysis.”
Brilliantly said.
Thanks for pointing that out. I was going to follow him but now I’ve changed my mind.
Very good observation.
I feel with the hours he puts into substack, he doesn’t deserve anything less. Most people want to put a total of 10-20hrs a week and expect result of 40-80hrs. Thanks for sharing your perspective
I really appreciate inside looks at what other Substacks are doing and how. I think genres like science and tech will always attract bigger readership because of their specialized nature. But there's hope and room for everyone!
Very encouraging. Thank you, Karen!
Very helpful post, thank you.
Really insightful, thanks for sharing this!
I have the feeling every success story is different when I see Rob's chart. I'm thinking of Lenny's newsletter growth for instance, in which he had huge spikes due to the new recommendation feature.
Rob's a beautiful example of consistency. So many ways seem to work.
Thanks so much for sharing this, Karen. I have a real resistance to charging for my newsletter but I really like seeing different approaches to it and how different Substack writers handle it.
Karen, I learn a bit from almost everyone. These bits are a part of how I am growing. Slowly but up. Love, tolerance and peace, The Blieys
8 hours writing so roughly 40 hours a week working on Substack not writing. I’m assuming that’s time spent promoting.
Consistency is key to develop a connection with readers, but quality is hit or miss.
Sounds to me like this is about making money primarily through promotion rather than providing real value to readers based on the quality of the content. Maybe there’s some value to readers feeling “part” of something, but part of what exactly? Part of a money-making strategy?
I appreciate this inside look into how one person is earning good money on Substack. It’s not a strategy I’d want to model myself on.
I think you're right about Rob's readers paying to feel "part" of something, Dan, and Eric Fish touched on that in his comment. I think they might be paying to feel 'heard' and recognised in a world that they feel alienated from. And I suspect that readers of that publication are strongly motivated to pay to be able to comment and share their views with like minded men.
Interesting to see how top Substack earners do it!
Thanks, Karen. It’s always fun to see how these high performers do it!
Enjoyed the breakdown - curious why you're not a fan if the newsletter though?
... just not my cup of tea...