Ever since I joined Substack, the best practice I have heard was to “write short”. It started as shorter than 1,500 words, and then it reduced to 800-1,100 words. Is that good advice, though?
I like your long articles - they slow me down and give me space to better understand my response to them! I also like your shorter ones. I like most everything you write actually. ✨
As a reader, I don't care about the length of an article as long as it's good. Some people ramble and it turns me away. Others write long but rich pieces, and I read every word. You and Jeannine Ouellette come to mind for me.
I’ve been trying to find a balance between short(er) pieces and longer ones so I don’t burn people out with only long posts. That said, my most recent post about the mental load and its impact on our ambition, is 5,400 words 🫣 and just about to surpass my most popular essay to date since getting on Substack last year. I don’t have 5,400 words in me every week, but I’m happy there’s a space for them.
To your point though — it’s garnered more views but less shares. But lots of emails, texts, DMs etc. So depends on what metrics matter.
It's important to always consider things from the reader's POV. If I see a 3,000-5,000 piece, my first thought is, "Will this be worth the time?" So everything about the piece has to grab me. If the intro is rambling or self-indulgent, or if it takes too long to get to the point, I will give up on it fairly quickly.
Use the amount of space you need, but no more. But realize if you are going to write at length, the reader will be expecting more from the piece, and it's easier to lose them at any point.
I rarely see pieces on substack that I wish were longer. But I often see pieces I think are too long.
I don't think about the length of my writing unless a client has requested an article, web copy etc of a certain length. I write until I've finished what I wanted to say. As a reader, it is not the length of an article that is important to me, it is whether I find in interesting and engaging.
"Even though I am much less curmudgeonly now, I often think about how I could write an article so comprehensive nobody would have to ask me a question about it ever again. I think that’s the antithesis of social media, though, so I resist the urge." Lol.
I think time and our short attention spans are what makes short most preferable. For the algorithm it is much easier to "engage" in the moment if the moment is brief. Yes the content must be of interest to whoever is reading it but I think long reads require a commitment of time. That's why audio books are so popular. I can listen and walk, listen and drive, listen and clean. Sitting down to read with undivided attention is not always a viable option.
This is why I want Substack authors to include voiceovers, especially for their longer posts. I've included voiceovers and I try to organize my posts for easier reads. It can be overwhelming to see lines and lines of text, especially on smaller devices. My immediate reaction is "I'll come back to that later." So I try to break up the monotony of text because I don't want my readers to be overwhelmed.
But the goal post constantly moving on what is considered short is annoying. We are not serving ourselves well with this reductionist approach to communication and learning. In the end for me, my hope is to find my corner of the market where my supporters look forward to what I have to say and value it irrespective of length.
I don’t think it’s realistic for authors to be expected to run audio too. Substack provides ai narration for posts and that has to be good enough. The difference between writing and recording a post is hours of work and way too many spoons for me
The AI narrations are awful. That’s what prompted me to record my own. If AI can manage to capture my voice, then I might be agreeable. Though that is a scary proposition.
I can appreciate the work being doubled, especially for longer posts. Adding longer narration can be a tall order and perhaps not realistic. What is similarly not realistic nowadays, with the popularity of audio books, is to expect readers to commit to long reads. Our consumers have ever changing habits.
I wish Substack would provide the analytics on who is actually listening. If it turns out to be significant to engagement then authors might need to wrap their minds around incorporating it.
I know people say that, but I think people are more nuanced than that. People want lots of different experiences from lots of different people, and often from the same people. Making something sound good recorded compared to well in audio is a skill, and to do it at a high level probably means changing pieces on a per format level.
I remember the pivot to video and like…people who just write are doing fine. People like written experiences. Accessibility is the best reason to have audio available I have found.
I have lots of comorbidities that make recording things really hard. It I had to record every piece, or believe I had to in order to succeed.m, I would just drop out bc I physically am unable to do that.
Maybe that is naive but I can’t believe that is true of I would literally stop doing this work.
It’s certainly not a requirement. Perhaps those with established followings that they are satisfied with, may not have to adopt audio. Whereas those just breaking in might need to seriously consider it.
I will also add that it’s telling to me that Substack has opened up the platform beyond reading and writing. They even made the voiceover option available. To me all of those are major signals that should not be ignored. Everybody does not have to do it and I seem to be among the few that do. But I believe that number will increase.
Back to your original point, I will say that the decision to do both has created a discipline for me in keeping things short for manageable work flow.
Nowadays I spend more time listening to non-work, optional reading material rather reading it (especially books). It's something I do while biking or hiking or at the gym. I can't remember the last time I read a long piece for fun. I just don't have time for long stretches of reading so I like how audio let's me multitask.
Not everything should necessarily be evergreen. The key to vitality is timeliness for instance. So if you want to take advantage of those waves you need to balance
This is great to understand, thanks so much. I did have a weekly post that wouldn’t be considered evergreen as it was for that week real time but I took a break and got out of the habit of sharing it. Time to return to it - thank you🙏
Absolutely a non-trivial reflection. I often tell myself that I should shorten issues to make them more to the point but, in my opinion, it depends a lot on the person, on their style, on what they want to do. For example, I'm thinking of writing some shorter issues with some science-related insights that fascinated me or interesting things I've read or seen. However, when there is a concept that I am particularly passionate about or intrigued by, I try to go into more detail as well to provide a better understanding of it. I think that conveying the passion of the moment or the fascination in that paradigm or concept is also part of what you write and want to convey to your voters. Thanks for sharing.
A Midwestern Doctor rarely writes an article that's less than 10,000 words ... and she/he is one of the most popular writers on Substack.
I'm like Russell. I try to mix up the lengths - keep my readers on their toes. My Substack is like a box of chocolates - you never know what you'll get.
I like longer pieces personally. I was just reading through some really old blog posts that I wrote nearly 5-6 years ago but somehow either never posted or accidentally deleted the website they were hosted on. My 500 word pieces didn't seem to have any substance compared to the longer pieces. I found myself combining a lot of them.
I agree with this. I generally only care about my longer pieces when i go back, and they are what gets me fans over time. The smaller ones don't do anything except get post hits.
Reading this post has helped me see that I've been unconsciously following the line of thought with my long-read introduction/foundation posts. I have experimented with shorter posts in another section of my Substack, and after I write my next long-read introduction/foundation post, I plan to try and scale back a bit. I plan to make most of my posts 7 to 10 minute reads, with ocassional posts no longer than 20 minute reads. A few have voiceovers, and I'm planning on going back and adding voiceovers to my intro posts.
I love that there is a reading-length time-stamp (when it says: 1 minute read, 5 minute read, etc). Mainly because, as I started writing, I realized that the one rule that I seem to not follow (because to me it doesn't seem to make sense-I honestly don't know why) is the word count. Most of my future posts will be determined by the length of time it'll take to read it, not necessarily by the word count. I write this way because, unless I copy and paste a text from a post I'm reading to Word and see how how many words there are, I'm not aware of a word count (except for the creative writing posts-those are the only times I pay attention).
(Also, I've never copied-paste any articles to Word to see the word count. I've done that with one of my articles, but that was because I had written two versions and needed to figure out what I wanted to keep and not keep-but even then, I didn't pay attention to my word count.)
My struggle is not between long and short, but topical/current vs the evergreen/cornerstone. I have a backlog of evergreen ideas I think I should write, but then I get distracted and write about something very trendy or related to current events… then I look back and stuff is irrelevant quickly as culture moves so fast.
So, with most posts, the meat is the same, right? Like, you might reference the hookiness of the event throughout the post, but in general my articles usually use a hook to get into the story, and then use more timeless examples throughout. So, if that is you, too, all you have to do is change the title, and change the open to something more timeless that fits into your existing points, and you have an evergreen article.
So, while your initial piece might be about how Sabrina Carpenter used repetition to create hooks in espresso, when you rewrite it the article might be "How to use repetition to write hooks" and then you certainly use SC for one of your examples, but you might use Kesha, or The Beatles, or more general examples that hold up more in the parlance of our time. BTW, if you have an evergreen article but you want to bump up the trendiness, you can reverse this process. Write the evergreen post, and then just change the hooks into it. You can also, say, write 3 articles that reference Olivia Rodrigo, Chappel Roan, and Sabrina Carpenter, so you get all that nice SEO traffic, and then condense it for later.
Or, one of my favorite ways is to write those three articles, and then smash them all together into one epic cornerstone post, smoothing the articles out so it feels like one piece, and write an article like "3 ways to use hookiness to write songs that are guaranteed to stick in somebody's ear."
It's a little dicier to do that with SEO and backlinks, so be careful with it, but yeah. I love all those things and do them often, or did in my younger days.
I like your long articles - they slow me down and give me space to better understand my response to them! I also like your shorter ones. I like most everything you write actually. ✨
Yay!!! Thanks buddy and same :)
I'd say people read plenty of long pieces ... just not boring ones. So back to the classic Strunk & White advice: Make every word count. ⚡️
Sure. That’s true. The only cardinal sin on the internet is being boring
Every writer’s worst fear! 😆
As a reader, I don't care about the length of an article as long as it's good. Some people ramble and it turns me away. Others write long but rich pieces, and I read every word. You and Jeannine Ouellette come to mind for me.
Amazing company to keep :)
I’ve been trying to find a balance between short(er) pieces and longer ones so I don’t burn people out with only long posts. That said, my most recent post about the mental load and its impact on our ambition, is 5,400 words 🫣 and just about to surpass my most popular essay to date since getting on Substack last year. I don’t have 5,400 words in me every week, but I’m happy there’s a space for them.
To your point though — it’s garnered more views but less shares. But lots of emails, texts, DMs etc. So depends on what metrics matter.
It’s a balancing act. This comment section is proving my own point too.
It's important to always consider things from the reader's POV. If I see a 3,000-5,000 piece, my first thought is, "Will this be worth the time?" So everything about the piece has to grab me. If the intro is rambling or self-indulgent, or if it takes too long to get to the point, I will give up on it fairly quickly.
Use the amount of space you need, but no more. But realize if you are going to write at length, the reader will be expecting more from the piece, and it's easier to lose them at any point.
I rarely see pieces on substack that I wish were longer. But I often see pieces I think are too long.
Sure. Makes sense
I don't think about the length of my writing unless a client has requested an article, web copy etc of a certain length. I write until I've finished what I wanted to say. As a reader, it is not the length of an article that is important to me, it is whether I find in interesting and engaging.
cool!
I've self-published three books that were past blog content. Recently updated and posted the essays for paid subscribers.
Most of my posts are under 500 words and I try to make the montly series posts as evergreen as possible.
Cool!
"Even though I am much less curmudgeonly now, I often think about how I could write an article so comprehensive nobody would have to ask me a question about it ever again. I think that’s the antithesis of social media, though, so I resist the urge." Lol.
I am in constant battle with my curmudgeonly self
I think time and our short attention spans are what makes short most preferable. For the algorithm it is much easier to "engage" in the moment if the moment is brief. Yes the content must be of interest to whoever is reading it but I think long reads require a commitment of time. That's why audio books are so popular. I can listen and walk, listen and drive, listen and clean. Sitting down to read with undivided attention is not always a viable option.
This is why I want Substack authors to include voiceovers, especially for their longer posts. I've included voiceovers and I try to organize my posts for easier reads. It can be overwhelming to see lines and lines of text, especially on smaller devices. My immediate reaction is "I'll come back to that later." So I try to break up the monotony of text because I don't want my readers to be overwhelmed.
But the goal post constantly moving on what is considered short is annoying. We are not serving ourselves well with this reductionist approach to communication and learning. In the end for me, my hope is to find my corner of the market where my supporters look forward to what I have to say and value it irrespective of length.
I don’t think it’s realistic for authors to be expected to run audio too. Substack provides ai narration for posts and that has to be good enough. The difference between writing and recording a post is hours of work and way too many spoons for me
The AI narrations are awful. That’s what prompted me to record my own. If AI can manage to capture my voice, then I might be agreeable. Though that is a scary proposition.
I can appreciate the work being doubled, especially for longer posts. Adding longer narration can be a tall order and perhaps not realistic. What is similarly not realistic nowadays, with the popularity of audio books, is to expect readers to commit to long reads. Our consumers have ever changing habits.
I wish Substack would provide the analytics on who is actually listening. If it turns out to be significant to engagement then authors might need to wrap their minds around incorporating it.
I know people say that, but I think people are more nuanced than that. People want lots of different experiences from lots of different people, and often from the same people. Making something sound good recorded compared to well in audio is a skill, and to do it at a high level probably means changing pieces on a per format level.
I remember the pivot to video and like…people who just write are doing fine. People like written experiences. Accessibility is the best reason to have audio available I have found.
I have lots of comorbidities that make recording things really hard. It I had to record every piece, or believe I had to in order to succeed.m, I would just drop out bc I physically am unable to do that.
Maybe that is naive but I can’t believe that is true of I would literally stop doing this work.
It’s certainly not a requirement. Perhaps those with established followings that they are satisfied with, may not have to adopt audio. Whereas those just breaking in might need to seriously consider it.
I will also add that it’s telling to me that Substack has opened up the platform beyond reading and writing. They even made the voiceover option available. To me all of those are major signals that should not be ignored. Everybody does not have to do it and I seem to be among the few that do. But I believe that number will increase.
Back to your original point, I will say that the decision to do both has created a discipline for me in keeping things short for manageable work flow.
Nowadays I spend more time listening to non-work, optional reading material rather reading it (especially books). It's something I do while biking or hiking or at the gym. I can't remember the last time I read a long piece for fun. I just don't have time for long stretches of reading so I like how audio let's me multitask.
I thought my posts might be considered as long at 1,500 words average so this is good to know. Sometimes nearer 2,500 and I thought that was long.
I recently took a 4,500 blog and split it into a 3 part series figuring this would be easier for the reader to digest?
I hope my work is evergreen. It comes up often in conversation so I often reference it for those who want to read more.
Not everything should necessarily be evergreen. The key to vitality is timeliness for instance. So if you want to take advantage of those waves you need to balance
This is great to understand, thanks so much. I did have a weekly post that wouldn’t be considered evergreen as it was for that week real time but I took a break and got out of the habit of sharing it. Time to return to it - thank you🙏
you’re welcome!
I would answer but the words escape me.
Short and sweet
Absolutely a non-trivial reflection. I often tell myself that I should shorten issues to make them more to the point but, in my opinion, it depends a lot on the person, on their style, on what they want to do. For example, I'm thinking of writing some shorter issues with some science-related insights that fascinated me or interesting things I've read or seen. However, when there is a concept that I am particularly passionate about or intrigued by, I try to go into more detail as well to provide a better understanding of it. I think that conveying the passion of the moment or the fascination in that paradigm or concept is also part of what you write and want to convey to your voters. Thanks for sharing.
A Midwestern Doctor rarely writes an article that's less than 10,000 words ... and she/he is one of the most popular writers on Substack.
I'm like Russell. I try to mix up the lengths - keep my readers on their toes. My Substack is like a box of chocolates - you never know what you'll get.
I like longer pieces personally. I was just reading through some really old blog posts that I wrote nearly 5-6 years ago but somehow either never posted or accidentally deleted the website they were hosted on. My 500 word pieces didn't seem to have any substance compared to the longer pieces. I found myself combining a lot of them.
I agree with this. I generally only care about my longer pieces when i go back, and they are what gets me fans over time. The smaller ones don't do anything except get post hits.
Reading this post has helped me see that I've been unconsciously following the line of thought with my long-read introduction/foundation posts. I have experimented with shorter posts in another section of my Substack, and after I write my next long-read introduction/foundation post, I plan to try and scale back a bit. I plan to make most of my posts 7 to 10 minute reads, with ocassional posts no longer than 20 minute reads. A few have voiceovers, and I'm planning on going back and adding voiceovers to my intro posts.
I love that there is a reading-length time-stamp (when it says: 1 minute read, 5 minute read, etc). Mainly because, as I started writing, I realized that the one rule that I seem to not follow (because to me it doesn't seem to make sense-I honestly don't know why) is the word count. Most of my future posts will be determined by the length of time it'll take to read it, not necessarily by the word count. I write this way because, unless I copy and paste a text from a post I'm reading to Word and see how how many words there are, I'm not aware of a word count (except for the creative writing posts-those are the only times I pay attention).
(Also, I've never copied-paste any articles to Word to see the word count. I've done that with one of my articles, but that was because I had written two versions and needed to figure out what I wanted to keep and not keep-but even then, I didn't pay attention to my word count.)
You can find the word count at the bottom left of all substack posts when you are editing them
I'll go check it out, thanks for letting me know!
My struggle is not between long and short, but topical/current vs the evergreen/cornerstone. I have a backlog of evergreen ideas I think I should write, but then I get distracted and write about something very trendy or related to current events… then I look back and stuff is irrelevant quickly as culture moves so fast.
You can write current and then transform it into an evergreen. I do that often
Teach me your ways. Would dig a post on that.
So, with most posts, the meat is the same, right? Like, you might reference the hookiness of the event throughout the post, but in general my articles usually use a hook to get into the story, and then use more timeless examples throughout. So, if that is you, too, all you have to do is change the title, and change the open to something more timeless that fits into your existing points, and you have an evergreen article.
So, while your initial piece might be about how Sabrina Carpenter used repetition to create hooks in espresso, when you rewrite it the article might be "How to use repetition to write hooks" and then you certainly use SC for one of your examples, but you might use Kesha, or The Beatles, or more general examples that hold up more in the parlance of our time. BTW, if you have an evergreen article but you want to bump up the trendiness, you can reverse this process. Write the evergreen post, and then just change the hooks into it. You can also, say, write 3 articles that reference Olivia Rodrigo, Chappel Roan, and Sabrina Carpenter, so you get all that nice SEO traffic, and then condense it for later.
Or, one of my favorite ways is to write those three articles, and then smash them all together into one epic cornerstone post, smoothing the articles out so it feels like one piece, and write an article like "3 ways to use hookiness to write songs that are guaranteed to stick in somebody's ear."
It's a little dicier to do that with SEO and backlinks, so be careful with it, but yeah. I love all those things and do them often, or did in my younger days.
Oooh I love these examples! I honestly had not thought about it in this exact manner. You’ve made a lightbulb go off in my brain. Thank you!
YAy!