Extremely helpful and also exhausting to even think about.
I feel like the semantic drift in the word "follower" that social media enables is too rarely remarked on. I mean, all of this bloat, fakeness, right manuevering on the Instagram page-- for what? To garner handfuls of real rather than illusory followers. Well, OK. Even in that case I don't know that a real follower is a real reader. In the end, being a good citizen on social media is engaging, and engaging is serving the purposes of this bigger machine that wants us to feed ourselves into it until there is nothing left. I guess I doubt being a good citizen on social media and being a good literary citizen are the same thing.
Not trying to crap on this piece which, truly, is informative, clarifying, smart. Just despairing a bit as I try to synch up what I imagined a literary life would be vs. what it is becoming. Has become? I don't know.
All good points. I think you're right that it's much simpler than all this, but went through all this to get tot the simplicity. But I see "engage authentically and generously" as the secret ingredient to taking part in any community, social or otherwise.
Good article and I will own up to the fact that I pay no attention to who follows who or how many followers a lit mag has or pretty much any of that algorithm shit. I pay attention to a lit mags reputation, what the 'vibe' is on their web site is and if my work would be a good fit. Maybe it's because I'm burned out on social media in general. I don't use threads, IG is nothing but ads, I obviously avoid X, and am trying to disengage from the Book of Face. I've become wary of substack, I've been using it mainly for writing updates. If anything I'm active the most on Bluesky.
This needs explaining? Sorry but I will not use what used to be a perfectly good social media platform that was ruined by that jackoff Orange Turd minion Musk.
Thank you for this post. Having read it, I recognize that I was pretty naive about the whole lit mag and social media relationship. You have opened my eyes. Much appreciated
Fascinating and depressing information. It would never occur to me to submit to a lit mag based on the number of followers it had accrued on social media. I look at the response time, the general tone of the magazine and the percentage of acceptances. On the other hand, I'm probably a lot older than the demographic that worries about followers and influences. I say, just do your best work.
Not only have I never submitted to a lit mag based on their number of “followers,” the idea has never even occurred to me. I guess I’m not part of the cool crowd.
The idea never occurred to me either. Actually, until this essay appeared I didn't even know that it was possible to check the number of a lit mag's followers. What a boring waste of time! I'd much rather spend mine reading what they publish.
I've mentioned in many conversations recently that I am unwilling to make use of tactics I've used in marketing to "leverage" people in the literary community. I don't want to force people's hand. I don't want to make people do things they don't want to do. I want people to want to read ONE ART because they want to read ONE ART, not because I've used shady tactics to get them to read ONE ART instead of whatever else they make prefer to do with their time.
This is a real human responding. 🙃 Thanks so much for the post, especially the calculations of what engagement looks like at each of those tier levels. I appreciated your candor and clarity. Saving this email for future use (and to share with others). Keep up the good work.
This is such an interesting piece. I've been using ChillSubs for some time, and not once have I sorted by social media following, let alone filtered by highest follower count. I had to log in today just to confirm that was real.
Given the bonkers problem with bots and follower farming, would it benefit folks to remove the social media follower count sorting? Or remove the checkbox for social media presences broadly?
Someone else mentioned this and it's something we think a lot about. There is our function as a database and our opinions as people. We want to share our opinions, but don't want to put too much of our own views into the tool for users. Some users may not care or feel it's an important metric. I can think that's a bad idea and write about it, but to take the option away because I think it's a flawed metric is a different sort of call. When we redesign our browse we'll be thinking about how to properly label this and try to inform without overwhelming (as you can see explaining it involves a load of context)
Thanks so much for sharing all this useful information with us. And thanks for all Chill Subs is doing to offer an alternative resource and to bring transparency to our little corner of the world.
Very cool article. Thank you. If I ran the world - or a platform - the whole display of followers / subscribers / whatever wouldn't exist. I imagine a world where people decide on their own if they like something, rather than the current state of affairs where people make their decisions based on what others [even fake others] have done. Fear of missing out is for fearful people. We can do better, we have done better.
I'm also hypocritical when I talk about numbers because I use them, too, but not in the same way as most. I tend to stay away from large followings. One, they're frequently full of fakeness, as you've pointed out. And two, they represent the middle of the bell curve, the average taste. Popular and boring are frequently synonymous.
Gosh, I know. If we ever add some element to user interaction on our website we are thinking very carefully how to reward people without this absurd like/follow system.
Very helpful! I definitely check to see if magazines promote their writers’ work on social media. If they are active on social media but not thoughtfully sharing what they publish, it’s disappointing.
Love a good crossover between two of my faves in the literary substack space! I appreciate the thoughtfulness in this article, definitely saving it for future re-reads. I especially appreciate the acknowledgement that organic audience building is a mix of hard work (Consistently create useful content that is passably designed) and luck (Be early to the party and lucky as hell).
PS: Follower dialysis is an incredible phrase and a great name for a band/album 🚀
I agree this article is right, mostly. But I respectfully disagree about not following a strict 1:1 follow ratio. There is an app that identifies accounts with fake followers. Fortunately, my account on X remains healthy and organic.
A 1:1 follow ratio is like a handshake in the virtual world, showing mutual respect and building community vibes. While reciprocating follows feels perfect to me, it might not be the latest trend or the coolest move for everyone.
As a writer, I like to follow people and/or groups, businesses, writers, and influencers that follow me. I think it is elitist to act like I do not need to follow them or that I am better than them.
I am a real person, so I like engaging with everyone under the sun. I am okay with one or two likes, or people who send cat photos or like my poems. I appreciate the writing blogs and people who enjoy my work. It is okay with me if 13 people like my poems, but my poems have thousands of views naturally on X. I am not a rich celebrity, so I do not need to pretend like I can compete with The New Yorker and expect the same engagement they get. At least the followers who enjoy my little poems are real people—writers, bloggers, etc.—and, much to my surprise, a few decent literary magazines that clicked “like.” No, I do not pay any of them—they do it naturally.
On Medium, I have about 137 natural followers. I would have more if I posted more on that platform regularly. But I have other, more important writing projects to focus on. I follow all of my followers back. Why? Because they are real people—writers, editors, and people in tech who specialize in a certain niche. I appreciate that Medium goes out of their way to kick out A.I. fake writers. I have no major brags to make about Medium other than the few pennies I made on their site. I am delighted that whoever reads my work is real. Effective marketing is crucial for success; engaging a targeted audience can drive growth and increase book sales.
I don't seek fame on X. I would never equate X followers with being published in reputable literary magazines. I appreciate genuine readers even if its 9 of them.
I think that's totally fair and I think there are folks who use social media this way to be more about community than any sort of achievement metric. I wish I thought most people who do this sort of thing were motivated in the same way, but I've found it to be the exception rather than the rule. The idea of following as a handshake, I mean. I think that's a great perspective that gets abused far too often.
I wish more editors/publishers would agree to act in good faith on these issues.
We shouldn't be in the business of competing for audience. It should be a collaborative effort to lift up voices that we believe are worthy of more readership.
Extremely helpful and also exhausting to even think about.
I feel like the semantic drift in the word "follower" that social media enables is too rarely remarked on. I mean, all of this bloat, fakeness, right manuevering on the Instagram page-- for what? To garner handfuls of real rather than illusory followers. Well, OK. Even in that case I don't know that a real follower is a real reader. In the end, being a good citizen on social media is engaging, and engaging is serving the purposes of this bigger machine that wants us to feed ourselves into it until there is nothing left. I guess I doubt being a good citizen on social media and being a good literary citizen are the same thing.
Not trying to crap on this piece which, truly, is informative, clarifying, smart. Just despairing a bit as I try to synch up what I imagined a literary life would be vs. what it is becoming. Has become? I don't know.
All good points. I think you're right that it's much simpler than all this, but went through all this to get tot the simplicity. But I see "engage authentically and generously" as the secret ingredient to taking part in any community, social or otherwise.
Good article and I will own up to the fact that I pay no attention to who follows who or how many followers a lit mag has or pretty much any of that algorithm shit. I pay attention to a lit mags reputation, what the 'vibe' is on their web site is and if my work would be a good fit. Maybe it's because I'm burned out on social media in general. I don't use threads, IG is nothing but ads, I obviously avoid X, and am trying to disengage from the Book of Face. I've become wary of substack, I've been using it mainly for writing updates. If anything I'm active the most on Bluesky.
That's a great policy
Well done👌 "Book of Face" lol
Why “obviously” avoid X?
This needs explaining? Sorry but I will not use what used to be a perfectly good social media platform that was ruined by that jackoff Orange Turd minion Musk.
Thank you for this post. Having read it, I recognize that I was pretty naive about the whole lit mag and social media relationship. You have opened my eyes. Much appreciated
Glad we could help
Lots to love about this informative article. A zinger I will not soon forget: “Contest bloating is like regular bloating but with more farts.” Truth.
Haha thank you
Fascinating and depressing information. It would never occur to me to submit to a lit mag based on the number of followers it had accrued on social media. I look at the response time, the general tone of the magazine and the percentage of acceptances. On the other hand, I'm probably a lot older than the demographic that worries about followers and influences. I say, just do your best work.
You're doing it right 💯
All excellent markers to go by. And absolutely.
Not only have I never submitted to a lit mag based on their number of “followers,” the idea has never even occurred to me. I guess I’m not part of the cool crowd.
Actually to me that makes you pretty cool
The idea never occurred to me either. Actually, until this essay appeared I didn't even know that it was possible to check the number of a lit mag's followers. What a boring waste of time! I'd much rather spend mine reading what they publish.
I've mentioned in many conversations recently that I am unwilling to make use of tactics I've used in marketing to "leverage" people in the literary community. I don't want to force people's hand. I don't want to make people do things they don't want to do. I want people to want to read ONE ART because they want to read ONE ART, not because I've used shady tactics to get them to read ONE ART instead of whatever else they make prefer to do with their time.
100% <3
That's why ONE ART and yourself are the freakin best
This is a real human responding. 🙃 Thanks so much for the post, especially the calculations of what engagement looks like at each of those tier levels. I appreciated your candor and clarity. Saving this email for future use (and to share with others). Keep up the good work.
I'm very glad we could help. Thank you!
This is such an interesting piece. I've been using ChillSubs for some time, and not once have I sorted by social media following, let alone filtered by highest follower count. I had to log in today just to confirm that was real.
Given the bonkers problem with bots and follower farming, would it benefit folks to remove the social media follower count sorting? Or remove the checkbox for social media presences broadly?
Someone else mentioned this and it's something we think a lot about. There is our function as a database and our opinions as people. We want to share our opinions, but don't want to put too much of our own views into the tool for users. Some users may not care or feel it's an important metric. I can think that's a bad idea and write about it, but to take the option away because I think it's a flawed metric is a different sort of call. When we redesign our browse we'll be thinking about how to properly label this and try to inform without overwhelming (as you can see explaining it involves a load of context)
Thanks so much for sharing all this useful information with us. And thanks for all Chill Subs is doing to offer an alternative resource and to bring transparency to our little corner of the world.
Awh, thanks for being here
Very cool article. Thank you. If I ran the world - or a platform - the whole display of followers / subscribers / whatever wouldn't exist. I imagine a world where people decide on their own if they like something, rather than the current state of affairs where people make their decisions based on what others [even fake others] have done. Fear of missing out is for fearful people. We can do better, we have done better.
I'm also hypocritical when I talk about numbers because I use them, too, but not in the same way as most. I tend to stay away from large followings. One, they're frequently full of fakeness, as you've pointed out. And two, they represent the middle of the bell curve, the average taste. Popular and boring are frequently synonymous.
"Popular and boring are frequently synonymous" love everything about this quip and whole comment really
Gosh, I know. If we ever add some element to user interaction on our website we are thinking very carefully how to reward people without this absurd like/follow system.
Very helpful! I definitely check to see if magazines promote their writers’ work on social media. If they are active on social media but not thoughtfully sharing what they publish, it’s disappointing.
Promoting their writers on social media is for sure the #1 best practice, I think
Love a good crossover between two of my faves in the literary substack space! I appreciate the thoughtfulness in this article, definitely saving it for future re-reads. I especially appreciate the acknowledgement that organic audience building is a mix of hard work (Consistently create useful content that is passably designed) and luck (Be early to the party and lucky as hell).
PS: Follower dialysis is an incredible phrase and a great name for a band/album 🚀
hahah yes it is
I agree this article is right, mostly. But I respectfully disagree about not following a strict 1:1 follow ratio. There is an app that identifies accounts with fake followers. Fortunately, my account on X remains healthy and organic.
A 1:1 follow ratio is like a handshake in the virtual world, showing mutual respect and building community vibes. While reciprocating follows feels perfect to me, it might not be the latest trend or the coolest move for everyone.
As a writer, I like to follow people and/or groups, businesses, writers, and influencers that follow me. I think it is elitist to act like I do not need to follow them or that I am better than them.
I am a real person, so I like engaging with everyone under the sun. I am okay with one or two likes, or people who send cat photos or like my poems. I appreciate the writing blogs and people who enjoy my work. It is okay with me if 13 people like my poems, but my poems have thousands of views naturally on X. I am not a rich celebrity, so I do not need to pretend like I can compete with The New Yorker and expect the same engagement they get. At least the followers who enjoy my little poems are real people—writers, bloggers, etc.—and, much to my surprise, a few decent literary magazines that clicked “like.” No, I do not pay any of them—they do it naturally.
On Medium, I have about 137 natural followers. I would have more if I posted more on that platform regularly. But I have other, more important writing projects to focus on. I follow all of my followers back. Why? Because they are real people—writers, editors, and people in tech who specialize in a certain niche. I appreciate that Medium goes out of their way to kick out A.I. fake writers. I have no major brags to make about Medium other than the few pennies I made on their site. I am delighted that whoever reads my work is real. Effective marketing is crucial for success; engaging a targeted audience can drive growth and increase book sales.
I don't seek fame on X. I would never equate X followers with being published in reputable literary magazines. I appreciate genuine readers even if its 9 of them.
I think that's totally fair and I think there are folks who use social media this way to be more about community than any sort of achievement metric. I wish I thought most people who do this sort of thing were motivated in the same way, but I've found it to be the exception rather than the rule. The idea of following as a handshake, I mean. I think that's a great perspective that gets abused far too often.
I wish more editors/publishers would agree to act in good faith on these issues.
We shouldn't be in the business of competing for audience. It should be a collaborative effort to lift up voices that we believe are worthy of more readership.
Thank you. This was a really informative and helpful post.
Thank you for taking the time to read it (: