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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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've learned lots of ways to write better Substack posts, but nothing beats what you teach here, Wes. I definitely going to be using this in my next posts.
As one who loves analytics and strategy, I thank you for the time you put into this particular project and so graciously sharing it with the rest of us.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Personally I love bullet points! To each his own.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
I've learned lots of ways to write better Substack posts, but nothing beats what you teach here, Wes. I definitely going to be using this in my next posts.
You mentioned a post that you’d written that got you 4,000 followers if I remember right. What was that post about?
I see what you did there 👀
Thank you so much for sharing your insightful analysis with us! It truly spoke to me and always reminds me of what everyone wants - VALUE!
As one who loves analytics and strategy, I thank you for the time you put into this particular project and so graciously sharing it with the rest of us.