All this may be true, but its not what i want to read. Its like a never ending ad. Nonetheless, thanks for the research. Im going to go outside and touch some grass now and read an old fashioned book that follows a traditional structure. This post makes me sad.
Yes. People act like we all want to be sold something, convinced of something, or be taught something. I love learning new things or having a belief challenged, but I prefer to do it through emotion and relatability, connection — not be “sold” to. It’s actually a good way to get me not to read your stuff. I avoid the kind of articles that are being described here.
We live in a time where the algorithms reflect the values of their creators–satisfying the VC mindset–not anything particularly aspirational for humanity.
That's definitely a great and well-written post. The framework you provided makes so much sense.
What I want to comment on is your discussion about value. While you didn't underestimate the importance of providing value, you made it seem like it’s an inferior approach.
Honestly, when I notice viral-inducing tactics that play on someone's psychology being used on me, I tend to disregard those sources as trustworthy. I remind myself that I'm being swayed by their advanced psychological techniques.
That’s why I choose value over virality. Virality can be misused, while value rarely is.
I also suspect -- though this article's insights appear to be valid and useful -- that the types of readers who go for value over virality are better-quality readers. If they go paid, I would surmise they're more likely to stay paid over the long haul.
Anytime I've gone viral for something and amassed a great deal of new paying readers, for some months afterward, my 'churn rate' has gone through the roof. Seems to be a case of "easy come, easy go."
I think I would use this article's insights occasionally, but probably not more than once a quarter. Because I don't want to signal to my long-time readers that I've taken a turn toward "Try this ONE WEIRD TRICK!!.... Here's what EVERYONE misses about XYZ..."
If the majority shared in your approach to reading, then this writing technique should be less effective. Unfortunately, by the numbers, it seems like the psychological tricks here work in the writer’s favor to build reach and influence, even if it doesn’t specifically reach and influence you.
Thank you for your comment, Jesse. You're right. I believe that Wes's techniques are powerful and essential to the writing process; they truly work. However, my main point is that even the value of content alone can be influential. While "hypnotic" techniques may draw readers in with your style, focusing on value will attract loyal readers. People are more likely to read your work not for how it's written but for the valuable information they seek. This perspective allows "amateur" or "freestyle" writers the freedom to express themselves in a way that often aligns with real conversations.
I have a question for you and Wes: Do you use these techniques when conversing with friends, or do you apply them only in writing? Which approach better reflects your thought processes? If we were to meet in person, would you similarly engage with me, starting with a hook and then following up with a double hook?
Finally, many best-selling books do not utilize this style. For example, "The 48 Laws of Power" focused on providing value and gained recognition ten years after its publication. If the author had employed Wes's techniques, he might have achieved viral success sooner. However, the timeless value within the book ultimately established it as a classic in its genre.
Of course, I would use Wes's techniques sometimes, but I'd not prioritize them over the value of my content. Otherwise, my writing may come across as spammy or overly sales-driven. This article, which has so much engagement, is a proof that Wes is also adding so much value here. I shared his post with my friend and saved it for future reference. I'm not against this point, only adding a different perspective.
Since you’re asking, I have to say I find this “hook” idea and format off-putting and distasteful. I don’t enjoy reading it, and I have no practice writing it. I’ve *tried* this sort of thing before, and the popular tips on how to write a cover letter that appeals to recruiters and the like are similar, but in all such cases I read my own first draft in this style, get nauseated by the idea of showing it to anyone, and start over in my own voice.
However, I’m not exactly a career writer. Most of my writing is along the lines of technical documentation, with the purpose of informing my team members (and someday, my replacement) of how and why some package of code works the way it does. In this, it’s often important to note “non-goals” alongside goals, and go over past mistakes and issues to provide historical context and steer readers away from alternatives we’ve already tried or toward ideas that might work better, but zigzagging through these in an effort to surprise or “hook” the reader would be highly inefficient in this context.
What I’m trying to say is that I don’t have much of my own skin in the game when it comes to farming clicks with engagement bait. I’m just interested in trying to understand how it works, even though I have no intention of using it.
That's soulless and based on outrage metrics. People do engage with that but that's not a good reason. People should be engaged with posts and good writing includes the reader as part of the dialogue but using shock and decamping popular beliefs (right or wrong) is juvenile. It brings out the worst in us. There are better standards great authors use to keep ppl as part of the dialogue.
Unfortunately, the Algorithm is almighty on any digital platform, and the Algorithm is indeed soulless.
(In addition to the reasons outlined in this post, the Algorithm sees an article that argues for multiple sides — the “wrong/intuitive” one pre-hook and the “correct/interesting” one after the double-hook — and therefore displays the post to multiple audiences where more straightforward pieces would only be shown to the one audience likely to be receptive.)
I don't think it would be. We consider Joyce a classic for reasons and the algorithm is only as good as we are. In any case, I think we can develop a more reader inclusive style. We see the engagement with pop writes like Gladwell. As a Christian I think hope particularly engages everyone. Getting that into sentence formation would be important and epochal.
You're certainly correct, but by the same token, if you can produce quality work and use tactics like Mr. Pearce's to amplify the reach of that work -- there might be something to that.
I agree of course that going for pure virality and metrics edifies no one, and is probably a poor strategy over the long arc of time.
Sure but I mean there are other engaging styles. Technological or scientific futurism are less a style but still are engaging. Pop sociology books are easy page turners. I think the self-help books (like Rich Dad, Poor Dad) can honestly be garbage junk food that still makes you feel engrossed. I think we've maybe lost a lot of these other styles of engagement that were lost during the DEI which took out a lot of subcultures.
1. “But here's what everyone misses:” feels very ChatGPT-y. It’s something I notice it likes to add to my posts when I am asking it to refine what I’ve written. And it’s something I prefer to take out. So is that whole piece of advice somehow started / created by ChatGPT?
2. Your subheadline says: “The surprising reason why some newsletters explode in growth while others plateau.” What’s that ONE reason? That’s didn’t come through for me. There was a lot in the post.
3. Your post did get me to comment. Bravo for that.
It's always so surprising to see people comment here that provide absolutely no value. You'll never succeed on Substack with your type of attitude. But good luck.
i don’t think it’s anyone’s main goal in life to succeed on substack except you. not everyone joins social media to try and crack the algorithm, some people just genuinely just want to write and read
I think you’re getting honest feedback. You’re peddling nonsense and people know it. If you don’t want negative feedback, try actually writing. In other words, if you choose to be a dishonest snake oil salesman, expect some negative feedback.
I appreciate you trying to make sense of it. But Im still not fully convinced. Had someone start the same time as me blow up with subscribers while posting very little. And also no outside audience. Just all internal. More going on.
except you didn't show the research. in this article/ad, we are meant to just believe you, based on psychological communication hacks out of a neo-NLP framework. lots of bullet points and narrative open-loops and promises of increased influence/power/money/reputation.
I do not write to make my reader look or feel smart.
My expertise is for them to do their inner work to make better decisions and that requires someone who is willing to challenge their current thoughts so they start examining where they are operating from their own biases.
I do appreciate your approach and what you shared as a retired CMO. It’s well thought out and written.
Folks need to have a solid understanding of who they want their audience/readers/subscribers to be.
This article was written by AI, I am willing to bet quite a bit of money on this. I studied the top 1% of the posts on substack and I found that they are all written by the leftist liberal hacks who have "resigned" from the mainstream presstitution jobs. They are now being astroturfed by the same Censorship Industrial Complex that funds the mainstream prestitution rings like the NYT, Wapo, The Atlantic, CNN, Fox, ABC, BBC etc etc. Now these hacks are "exploding" here on substack, with million-subscriber audiences and almost uniformly locked comment sections. The top articles or top accounts on substack are mind-numbingly boring, filled with propaganda talking points, deep insights like "Trump is Hitler", and often just copy-pasted from government websites or "authoritative news" sources.
Sasha please get a life and stop trolling people on Substack. So many great, smart people I’ve met on Substack. Also been very surprised at the amount of arrogant trolls who have 0 subscribers but love to bash other people.
What you describe as the “double-hook method” is classic magazine feature writing: tip over the conventional wisdom. “Everyone thinks this, but here’s why they’re wrong” (or what they’re missing). “What I found shocked me” is also a standard trope. It works up to point - I read far enough into your post to comment. But as other commenters have noted, the success strategy you advise can become a gimmick fast or seem artificial (chatbots can replicate the format). It’s not what I’m on Substack to read, and the material that I engage with most has to do with a capaciousness of mind and heart - and the courage to address difficult topics - that can’t be easily quantified. I don’t want it to be, anyway.
All this may be true, but its not what i want to read. Its like a never ending ad. Nonetheless, thanks for the research. Im going to go outside and touch some grass now and read an old fashioned book that follows a traditional structure. This post makes me sad.
for real.
Well said!
Yes. People act like we all want to be sold something, convinced of something, or be taught something. I love learning new things or having a belief challenged, but I prefer to do it through emotion and relatability, connection — not be “sold” to. It’s actually a good way to get me not to read your stuff. I avoid the kind of articles that are being described here.
We live in a time where the algorithms reflect the values of their creators–satisfying the VC mindset–not anything particularly aspirational for humanity.
That's definitely a great and well-written post. The framework you provided makes so much sense.
What I want to comment on is your discussion about value. While you didn't underestimate the importance of providing value, you made it seem like it’s an inferior approach.
Honestly, when I notice viral-inducing tactics that play on someone's psychology being used on me, I tend to disregard those sources as trustworthy. I remind myself that I'm being swayed by their advanced psychological techniques.
That’s why I choose value over virality. Virality can be misused, while value rarely is.
I also suspect -- though this article's insights appear to be valid and useful -- that the types of readers who go for value over virality are better-quality readers. If they go paid, I would surmise they're more likely to stay paid over the long haul.
Anytime I've gone viral for something and amassed a great deal of new paying readers, for some months afterward, my 'churn rate' has gone through the roof. Seems to be a case of "easy come, easy go."
I think I would use this article's insights occasionally, but probably not more than once a quarter. Because I don't want to signal to my long-time readers that I've taken a turn toward "Try this ONE WEIRD TRICK!!.... Here's what EVERYONE misses about XYZ..."
Excellent input. I agree with you 100%.
If the majority shared in your approach to reading, then this writing technique should be less effective. Unfortunately, by the numbers, it seems like the psychological tricks here work in the writer’s favor to build reach and influence, even if it doesn’t specifically reach and influence you.
Thank you for your comment, Jesse. You're right. I believe that Wes's techniques are powerful and essential to the writing process; they truly work. However, my main point is that even the value of content alone can be influential. While "hypnotic" techniques may draw readers in with your style, focusing on value will attract loyal readers. People are more likely to read your work not for how it's written but for the valuable information they seek. This perspective allows "amateur" or "freestyle" writers the freedom to express themselves in a way that often aligns with real conversations.
I have a question for you and Wes: Do you use these techniques when conversing with friends, or do you apply them only in writing? Which approach better reflects your thought processes? If we were to meet in person, would you similarly engage with me, starting with a hook and then following up with a double hook?
Finally, many best-selling books do not utilize this style. For example, "The 48 Laws of Power" focused on providing value and gained recognition ten years after its publication. If the author had employed Wes's techniques, he might have achieved viral success sooner. However, the timeless value within the book ultimately established it as a classic in its genre.
Of course, I would use Wes's techniques sometimes, but I'd not prioritize them over the value of my content. Otherwise, my writing may come across as spammy or overly sales-driven. This article, which has so much engagement, is a proof that Wes is also adding so much value here. I shared his post with my friend and saved it for future reference. I'm not against this point, only adding a different perspective.
Since you’re asking, I have to say I find this “hook” idea and format off-putting and distasteful. I don’t enjoy reading it, and I have no practice writing it. I’ve *tried* this sort of thing before, and the popular tips on how to write a cover letter that appeals to recruiters and the like are similar, but in all such cases I read my own first draft in this style, get nauseated by the idea of showing it to anyone, and start over in my own voice.
However, I’m not exactly a career writer. Most of my writing is along the lines of technical documentation, with the purpose of informing my team members (and someday, my replacement) of how and why some package of code works the way it does. In this, it’s often important to note “non-goals” alongside goals, and go over past mistakes and issues to provide historical context and steer readers away from alternatives we’ve already tried or toward ideas that might work better, but zigzagging through these in an effort to surprise or “hook” the reader would be highly inefficient in this context.
What I’m trying to say is that I don’t have much of my own skin in the game when it comes to farming clicks with engagement bait. I’m just interested in trying to understand how it works, even though I have no intention of using it.
That's soulless and based on outrage metrics. People do engage with that but that's not a good reason. People should be engaged with posts and good writing includes the reader as part of the dialogue but using shock and decamping popular beliefs (right or wrong) is juvenile. It brings out the worst in us. There are better standards great authors use to keep ppl as part of the dialogue.
Appreciate your opinion Shawn 👍🏻
I think once we get past this then we'll have something really cool.
Unfortunately, the Algorithm is almighty on any digital platform, and the Algorithm is indeed soulless.
(In addition to the reasons outlined in this post, the Algorithm sees an article that argues for multiple sides — the “wrong/intuitive” one pre-hook and the “correct/interesting” one after the double-hook — and therefore displays the post to multiple audiences where more straightforward pieces would only be shown to the one audience likely to be receptive.)
I don't think it would be. We consider Joyce a classic for reasons and the algorithm is only as good as we are. In any case, I think we can develop a more reader inclusive style. We see the engagement with pop writes like Gladwell. As a Christian I think hope particularly engages everyone. Getting that into sentence formation would be important and epochal.
Agreed, this is what is killing LinkedIn. Writers are chasing empty engagement instead of becoming thought leaders.
You're certainly correct, but by the same token, if you can produce quality work and use tactics like Mr. Pearce's to amplify the reach of that work -- there might be something to that.
I agree of course that going for pure virality and metrics edifies no one, and is probably a poor strategy over the long arc of time.
Sure but I mean there are other engaging styles. Technological or scientific futurism are less a style but still are engaging. Pop sociology books are easy page turners. I think the self-help books (like Rich Dad, Poor Dad) can honestly be garbage junk food that still makes you feel engrossed. I think we've maybe lost a lot of these other styles of engagement that were lost during the DEI which took out a lot of subcultures.
Way too many bullet points man.
🤷🏽♂️ guess it hasn’t bothered too many people man.
It's one of those things that you don't see until somebody points it out. And I have planted the seed. 😈
It seems like the move is to use the framework to provide value. Agreed if it’s all hook and no substance, readers will feel duped.
Not unlike the viral “one weird trick” headlines so prominent on Facebook 10 years ago.
lol. That was kinda funny.
Personally I love bullet points! To each his own.
1. “But here's what everyone misses:” feels very ChatGPT-y. It’s something I notice it likes to add to my posts when I am asking it to refine what I’ve written. And it’s something I prefer to take out. So is that whole piece of advice somehow started / created by ChatGPT?
2. Your subheadline says: “The surprising reason why some newsletters explode in growth while others plateau.” What’s that ONE reason? That’s didn’t come through for me. There was a lot in the post.
3. Your post did get me to comment. Bravo for that.
The quotes are ChatGPT 100%. “It’s not just blah blah…it’s xyz.”
Dear Wes. The only way to grow your substack is to post good content, or sell snake oil. Looks like you’ve chosen the snake oil route.
It's always so surprising to see people comment here that provide absolutely no value. You'll never succeed on Substack with your type of attitude. But good luck.
i don’t think it’s anyone’s main goal in life to succeed on substack except you. not everyone joins social media to try and crack the algorithm, some people just genuinely just want to write and read
Your goal is to be a Substack troll? You must have a lot of time in your hands.
I think you’re getting honest feedback. You’re peddling nonsense and people know it. If you don’t want negative feedback, try actually writing. In other words, if you choose to be a dishonest snake oil salesman, expect some negative feedback.
👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼
I appreciate you trying to make sense of it. But Im still not fully convinced. Had someone start the same time as me blow up with subscribers while posting very little. And also no outside audience. Just all internal. More going on.
except you didn't show the research. in this article/ad, we are meant to just believe you, based on psychological communication hacks out of a neo-NLP framework. lots of bullet points and narrative open-loops and promises of increased influence/power/money/reputation.
Well you got me reading this and taking notes, so I suppose it works brilliantly!
Here’s an interesting gap to look at.
I do not write to make my reader look or feel smart.
My expertise is for them to do their inner work to make better decisions and that requires someone who is willing to challenge their current thoughts so they start examining where they are operating from their own biases.
I do appreciate your approach and what you shared as a retired CMO. It’s well thought out and written.
Folks need to have a solid understanding of who they want their audience/readers/subscribers to be.
This article was written by AI, I am willing to bet quite a bit of money on this. I studied the top 1% of the posts on substack and I found that they are all written by the leftist liberal hacks who have "resigned" from the mainstream presstitution jobs. They are now being astroturfed by the same Censorship Industrial Complex that funds the mainstream prestitution rings like the NYT, Wapo, The Atlantic, CNN, Fox, ABC, BBC etc etc. Now these hacks are "exploding" here on substack, with million-subscriber audiences and almost uniformly locked comment sections. The top articles or top accounts on substack are mind-numbingly boring, filled with propaganda talking points, deep insights like "Trump is Hitler", and often just copy-pasted from government websites or "authoritative news" sources.
Sasha please get a life and stop trolling people on Substack. So many great, smart people I’ve met on Substack. Also been very surprised at the amount of arrogant trolls who have 0 subscribers but love to bash other people.
But did you not take help from AI in writing this article? Is that an offensive question?
I don’t think any writer actually writes like this, as opposed to someone in marketing
I just recommend people take it far less seriously and find a sense of humor. https://anniewilson.substack.com/p/how-to-substack-satire
Thank you for this insight. I just used this format for my latest post. Let's see what happens.
You mentioned a post that you’d written that got you 4,000 followers if I remember right. What was that post about?
What you describe as the “double-hook method” is classic magazine feature writing: tip over the conventional wisdom. “Everyone thinks this, but here’s why they’re wrong” (or what they’re missing). “What I found shocked me” is also a standard trope. It works up to point - I read far enough into your post to comment. But as other commenters have noted, the success strategy you advise can become a gimmick fast or seem artificial (chatbots can replicate the format). It’s not what I’m on Substack to read, and the material that I engage with most has to do with a capaciousness of mind and heart - and the courage to address difficult topics - that can’t be easily quantified. I don’t want it to be, anyway.
It’s a handy trick. But overall, people don’t want to be tricked.