Hi Caterina. This is an area that I’ve not given any attention to. A couple of Qs: (I) is this article specific to Substack or general social media algorithms? (II) Am I missing out by not paying more attention to the algorithm? As you say, it’s watching me so why worry?
The economic principles apply across all platforms—they all need to maximize attention to sell ads. The specific mechanics vary (TikTok vs. LinkedIn vs. Instagram), but the underlying business logic is identical.
The algorithm is watching, but it's not looking for what most people think it's looking for.
Most advice focuses on surface metrics (posting times, hashtags, engagement bait) when algorithms actually reward deeper human behaviors—time spent, genuine engagement, return visits, shares with intent.
The goal isn't to ignore algorithms, but to understand what they fundamentally reward, so you can adapt the format to naturally encourage those behaviors. The message stays the same, just packaged and presented differently.
Truly compelling content and success on the algorithm aren't opposites—they're the same thing.
It must get confused with me then, I pay most attention online catching up with people specific content rather than content type. The people I collaborate with have wide and varied content.
Everyone's feed is so different and people don't talk about it much, which ultimately leads people to make assumptions. The digital ecosystem is so vast, one person couldn't possibly consume all the available content in one lifetime.
Substack's algorithm is actually much less aggressive than platforms like TikTok or Instagram. It's more about quality rather than vanity metrics. Substack isn't constantly trying to maximize time-on-platform through rapid-fire content like TikTok does. It's more about helping people find publications they might want to subscribe to, rather than keeping them scrolling indefinitely. They make their profit from taking a percentage of subscriptions, not selling ad slots on the feed like other platforms.
But here's what's interesting: by consistently engaging with people-specific content over content-type, you've actually been signaling your preferences, possibly without realizing it.
When you prioritize following specific creators and engaging with their varied content, you're signaling that relationship and trust matter more to you than topic consistency.
The algorithm picks up on this pattern and start serving you more creator-focused recommendations rather than trend or topic-based content.
You've essentially done exactly what I was talking about—genuine connections over tactical content strategies :)
It was an interesting read, the knowledge was well presented but then it didn’t feel like it hit at the end, I was left wanting more. Like it built to a crescendo then had a soft close. Is there more of a follow up to this piece that you’d direct my attention to?
Thanks for your feedback, Ben! This is really insightful. I don’t have one in the works yet. Did you have any specific questions I could address now or in a future article?
Yes please. Could you expand on systematic distribution, I think that’s where my mind has anchored with what you were writing and I was looking for more about that, perhaps I missed it or didn’t understand well enough but I’ve subscribed to your newsletter and am excited to learn more from you.
Are there specific aspects you're most curious about? Like the content patterns that consistently get amplified, how to identify distribution leverage points, or something else entirely?
I'm adding this to my queue so I can go into more detail, but generally speaking, systematic distribution starts with building content architecture you can reference for years rather than chasing daily trends (I'll be diving into my version of this in another article. Benjamin wrote an article that describes what I'm talking about from his perspective. You can check it out in the mean time: https://2hourcreatorstack.substack.com/p/how-to-never-run-out-of-ideas )
The patterns that consistently work aren't about gaming mechanics—they're about human psychology and behavior at scale. Think about cultural phenomena like Harry Potter, the Beatles, Nike, or even major news publications. What do they all have in common besides their rise to fame pre-social media? They all tap into something fundamentally human that transcends the delivery mechanism.
Most content regurgitates the same viewpoints everyone else has, trying to ride the wave or get clout by association. As my favorite positioning strategist, Alex James, says, "your perspective IS your product." Perspective is the true leverage.
Systematic distribution comes from consistently offering a lens that people can't get anywhere else, which is why building genuine intellectual frameworks matters more than optimizing posting schedules.
Thank you so much for being here, Ben.
Let me know if you have any follow-up questions, I'd be happy to chat! My DMs are always open.
Systematic distribution comes from consistently offering a lens that people can't get anywhere else, which is why building genuine intellectual frameworks matters more than optimizing posting schedules. - among the rest was exactly what I hoped to understand from your first piece. Thank you so much for the kind response and for being considerate to my questions and giving such an enlightening answer. I’ll read the piece you’ve suggested and see what else I learn.
Hi Caterina. This is an area that I’ve not given any attention to. A couple of Qs: (I) is this article specific to Substack or general social media algorithms? (II) Am I missing out by not paying more attention to the algorithm? As you say, it’s watching me so why worry?
Great questions, Will!
The economic principles apply across all platforms—they all need to maximize attention to sell ads. The specific mechanics vary (TikTok vs. LinkedIn vs. Instagram), but the underlying business logic is identical.
The algorithm is watching, but it's not looking for what most people think it's looking for.
Most advice focuses on surface metrics (posting times, hashtags, engagement bait) when algorithms actually reward deeper human behaviors—time spent, genuine engagement, return visits, shares with intent.
The goal isn't to ignore algorithms, but to understand what they fundamentally reward, so you can adapt the format to naturally encourage those behaviors. The message stays the same, just packaged and presented differently.
Truly compelling content and success on the algorithm aren't opposites—they're the same thing.
I hope that answers your questions!
It must get confused with me then, I pay most attention online catching up with people specific content rather than content type. The people I collaborate with have wide and varied content.
I'm really glad you mentioned this!
Everyone's feed is so different and people don't talk about it much, which ultimately leads people to make assumptions. The digital ecosystem is so vast, one person couldn't possibly consume all the available content in one lifetime.
Substack's algorithm is actually much less aggressive than platforms like TikTok or Instagram. It's more about quality rather than vanity metrics. Substack isn't constantly trying to maximize time-on-platform through rapid-fire content like TikTok does. It's more about helping people find publications they might want to subscribe to, rather than keeping them scrolling indefinitely. They make their profit from taking a percentage of subscriptions, not selling ad slots on the feed like other platforms.
But here's what's interesting: by consistently engaging with people-specific content over content-type, you've actually been signaling your preferences, possibly without realizing it.
When you prioritize following specific creators and engaging with their varied content, you're signaling that relationship and trust matter more to you than topic consistency.
The algorithm picks up on this pattern and start serving you more creator-focused recommendations rather than trend or topic-based content.
You've essentially done exactly what I was talking about—genuine connections over tactical content strategies :)
It was an interesting read, the knowledge was well presented but then it didn’t feel like it hit at the end, I was left wanting more. Like it built to a crescendo then had a soft close. Is there more of a follow up to this piece that you’d direct my attention to?
Thanks for your feedback, Ben! This is really insightful. I don’t have one in the works yet. Did you have any specific questions I could address now or in a future article?
Yes please. Could you expand on systematic distribution, I think that’s where my mind has anchored with what you were writing and I was looking for more about that, perhaps I missed it or didn’t understand well enough but I’ve subscribed to your newsletter and am excited to learn more from you.
Are there specific aspects you're most curious about? Like the content patterns that consistently get amplified, how to identify distribution leverage points, or something else entirely?
I'm adding this to my queue so I can go into more detail, but generally speaking, systematic distribution starts with building content architecture you can reference for years rather than chasing daily trends (I'll be diving into my version of this in another article. Benjamin wrote an article that describes what I'm talking about from his perspective. You can check it out in the mean time: https://2hourcreatorstack.substack.com/p/how-to-never-run-out-of-ideas )
The patterns that consistently work aren't about gaming mechanics—they're about human psychology and behavior at scale. Think about cultural phenomena like Harry Potter, the Beatles, Nike, or even major news publications. What do they all have in common besides their rise to fame pre-social media? They all tap into something fundamentally human that transcends the delivery mechanism.
Most content regurgitates the same viewpoints everyone else has, trying to ride the wave or get clout by association. As my favorite positioning strategist, Alex James, says, "your perspective IS your product." Perspective is the true leverage.
Systematic distribution comes from consistently offering a lens that people can't get anywhere else, which is why building genuine intellectual frameworks matters more than optimizing posting schedules.
Thank you so much for being here, Ben.
Let me know if you have any follow-up questions, I'd be happy to chat! My DMs are always open.
Systematic distribution comes from consistently offering a lens that people can't get anywhere else, which is why building genuine intellectual frameworks matters more than optimizing posting schedules. - among the rest was exactly what I hoped to understand from your first piece. Thank you so much for the kind response and for being considerate to my questions and giving such an enlightening answer. I’ll read the piece you’ve suggested and see what else I learn.
Thank you.
I think this is a really helpful article—it reframes how the algorithm works in such a clear way.
That said… I do have one question: how do I go viral?
Don’t get me started😂