You never need to apologise, dude! We subscribers know you're righteous and hardworking. We know you're trustworthy, because you've earned trust.
I've never heard the term 'IP loggers' before - what a naive world I now realise I inhabit! (I
just stay off Twitter!) It's great that you use your skills to defend others.
I don't know what to say other than please don't carry the world on your shoulders. I'll pray that God opens doors for you so you can carry on using your skills to serve truth and justice. God bless you!
So, an IP logger is a tool that allows a third party to 'log your IP' (which is just a way of saying they capture or get it).
Now, in theory, all websites see your IP, but nearly all websites are bound by GDPR, privacy and legal rules. Twitter can't just leak your location without incurring the legal wrath.
Enter IP loggers, which are a quasi-legal (mostly illegal) tool allowing third parties to see your IP address. It's a "go between" link that intercepts your connection, pulls the IP address and refers you on. The methodologies used here are actually quite sloppy and obvious.
IP addresses can then be 'traced' to get a rough idea where the person lives, unless they use some sort of web proxy tool, like a VPN or Tor, or they're like me, and live behind a NAT with an easily rotatable IP address that points to all sorts of places.
Depending, it may give a specific address (rare but possible), or an approximate area, usually accurate within 25 to 125 miles with variation.
So essentially these criminal scumbags were trying to find out where people live, which is not cool. An IP address is not like, say, a flight jet number in that it is public, but more like a semi-temporary phone number that is private-'public' (although for some people with static IP addresses, they are permanent).
"We subscribers know"
I agree, and I wholeheartedly appreciate what you guys are doing, and don't let this article seem ungrateful, I *want* the Daily Beagle to succeed, it just... can't be sustained. It's like trying to summon Captain Planet with only one of the planeteers available.
And the fault isn't really the subscribers, either, the ratios are normal. The Daily Beagle's biggest single weakness is reach (followed by consistency of article quality and consistency of article rate). The costs to advertise would bankrupt me, and online advertising rarely is viable.
"I'll pray that God opens doors"
There is a charity (it's that or I end up in the government's clutches again) who are considering sponsoring a business plan, be it software or manufacturing, but the condition is I stick to one proposal and one proposal only.
Whilst they're not issuing an ultimatum (they're actually surprisingly good natured), they're being realistic on the workloads and I know what it means (this implies the Daily Beagle gets shelved). I still have to draft a proposal, identify the best one, and present it. This isn't big money stuff either, the budget is, uh... £200.
It's an opportunity of a lifetime but I've got a hundred doors and only one contains the right answer and I only have 2 weeks to pick.
I don't have manufacturing experience or business experience. The Daily Beagle was meant to be, ultimately, a 'collate research and then mothball' project, with me only experimenting with Substack's financial settings to see if I could learn anything.
Paying subscribers threw me off-guard, so I tried to refine it to return the value, because I believe in giving people value for their money. If it became financially viable I'd be fine with that because I hate industry jobs, if I'm being honest.
But I've looked at the trajectory and it's not good. My deeper concern is, if cost of living worsens, the subscriber count will dwindle further, unless I can make a product people will want to part money with for (that benefits them financially in some way too).
Stress of it all is causing me to burn out, which kills productivity, because 'why write an article today if the Daily Beagle will close tomorrow?'; paying subscribers are the only reason right now I keep returning, because it's not fair for me to not give something back.
If I had my way, I'd manufacture things The Daily Beagle readers would want to buy that I could then sell side-by-side the main articles. But... with a budget that small and so many evil corporations, where could I sell and what could I offer?
How about a compromise here? You are tearing yourself up inside because you feel you're not giving value to your paid subscribers.
As a paid subscriber, I'd be perfectly comfortable with you publishing one or two articles a month, literally. Your articles are thoughtful and worthwhile, and worth waiting for. You are the ONLY substack I have a paid subscription to, so you know you MUST be doing something right! 😁
Provided you said that's what you're doing, I think that publishing once or twice a month would work out fine. Don't push yourself to exhaustion and burnout. No-one ever said it had to be a 'Daily' Beagle. Honestly, it's too much.
Change your strategy. The Daily Beagle won't, at present, pay the bills. You're subsidising it, in fact. So you need to put energy into work that pays, we get that, but please keep DB as a sidejob, so we don't lose you.
How about you give us one article per month, and maybe a bonus article if you have time. If you explain that's the deal, maybe a subscriber or two may leave, but others should stay. Propose it and put it to a poll? That could be one way forward? Then the income from subscribers and the work expended in writing should equalise better?
Whatever happens, we'd like to see you continue to utilise your talents and remain as a substacker but *only* at a frequency that's manageable for you. Hope that helps!
So, I liked this, but didn't immediately reply, as I wanted to take some time to think about the logistics of it all and how I would respond.
The time consuming part of The Daily Beagle is, counter-intuitively, not the article publishing.
It is the research. Research results in both accuracy and quality. Second to research is article quality itself, which is a mind bendingly hard thing to gauge; I have to determine how well a topic I already know is explained to someone who doesn't know the topic. Bad article quality and incomplete research can lead to re-writes (the ICU one took five; this topic took three).
Not all research is created equal, either. So for the Wuhan investigation I had to compile the timeline of events. For the unpublished Tor2 mouse-adapted discovery I had to manually compare genetic sequences that I have no idea if I'm comparing correctly because I'm not a geneticist; it's either 'Underdog found something with explosive implications' or 'Underdog is an idiot who misunderstands how BLAST comparisons work'.
Other times, which are more frequent, is what I'd call the "choo-choo train fallacy"; you have a 90-98% complete piece of research but you're waiting for the last train containing that complete final piece of research tying it together that *never comes*, rendering the article dead.
For example, I wanted to prove the 8 sudden deaths in County Durham were shot-related (you remember, the one I failed to do the research on?). Instead, I found the ICO invoking bad law claiming all coroners are immune to FOIA forever and breaching my privacy by leaking my ICO decision to a third party and then absolving themselves of all guilt (see: https://thedailybeagle.substack.com/p/information-commissioner-breaches).
So not only was all that time wasted, but the final piece, the last train, will never come.
It is these 80-90% projects that are toxic, but it is impossible to know what is an 80-90% "last train" project until you're already there. To give you an idea, here's a list of dead or dying articles:
1. Tor2 similarity between SARS-CoV-2 and PCR tests (read: PCR tests for the wrong virus)
2. The 4 versus 2 gene comparison issue on PCR tests (read: insufficient quantity according to patents)
3. The missing(?) Mouse-Adapted 20 and 25 variants of Ralph Baric's work which may (or may not) be SARS-CoV-2's parent
4. Explaining how vaccine shills exploit statistics
5. Book writing/here's a PDF book on how to debate/a PDF book on how to problem solve (I even have the incomplete few page drafts of the problem solving one... the irony is not lost on me)
6. "I Watched An Hour Long Ohio Press Briefing So You Don't Have To" - the article had nothing of substance to make it into an article, and the window of relevance for it long since passed
7. "What is value?" - I ask subscribers what they value, scrapped
8. "Release Into The General Population" - article on UK gov's evil plan that is obviously an evil plan that is theirs that... can't be independently verified.
9. Socky Finds A Hole In Morrisons Food Security - I tried to mix up the serious nature with a video of me doing the single worst accent impersonation discussing how bad Morrisons food security was by demonstrating on camera (whilst wearing socks on my hands). Feedback from a handful of friends was... not positive, and I did not reshoot the video again.
10. An article talking about a video demonstrating vaccine propaganda I made (see: https://rumble.com/v283u93-p-r-o-p-a-g-a-n-d-a-.-e-x-e.html) explaining why there should be no amnesty; it feel like I was flogging a dead horse and as you can see I already made the video.
11. An article on heat powered chillers, which seemed... off-topic
12. An article on why transgenderism is child abuse (from Jan 2023) which was simply a 'gather together' article, now redundant given I'm late to the party I was early to
13. Constitutional Direct Democracy article, scrapped because people hate boring political articles (the other two CDD related articles absolutely tanked)
14. An article explaining a Stateless Encryption Comms system I built that, uh... isn't fully operational
There are others but you get the gist of it. And these are the ones still listed. Many more have been deleted.
If you want to do thorough deep dives and good research, then just take on a worthy topic and see it through. If your conclusion turns out to be not as exciting as you'd hoped, that's OK. Write it up briefly and move on to the next.
I'd rather see your work in progress, more frequently. Daily updates on a limited range of topics. But if you go for thorough but infrequent, that's fine too. I just suspect it's harder to make any money that way.
Look at Doomberg. Monthly articles with depth and a unique viewpoint. Less is more as the information is worth the money to subscribers. I’m not a paid subscriber for your Substack. But, I’d suggest you do write about what you enjoy in depth and post monthly. See what happens when the anxiety is reduced and good sleep is increased. Best wishes!
Love that you were protecting the quarterback - Jikky is lucky to have your support
Good on you for being honest and hopefully some brain storming will open some doors that pay the bills and also allow you to continue with this amazing work 🙏🙏🙏
I think a bigger concern that has emerged (what with the recent IP logger scandal by Xeno-associated individuals) was this was never a genuine attempt by them at debate, but instead an attempt to fish out personal information. Hence why they tried to pick me up (this would be the second attempt at DOXing).
I strongly suspect the particular voice chat platforms they wanted to use would "leak" the IP address of those involved. Discord does not use peer-to-peer for WebRTC (Discord servers handle it), and Element has an option to disable peer-to-peer and enable STUN.
If their goal was to DOX, I don't think they could accept either platform, but Jon could not say 'oh could you please move to a less secure voice chat platform for me?' and I think at that point he realised he was dead in the water. Who better to spearhead a DOX than a self-confessed ex-felon?
The other oddity was them feigning or playing to credentials they may not have. For example, pretending to be sociopolitical but 'surprise', being an Organic Chemistry PhD; pretending to be weaker than they actually are, expecting softball sociopolitical questions and trumping with detailed chemistry.
If Jon 'confirmed' the specialities, he knew that if they got sidelined by technical questions their rep is gone.
It wasn't my first rodeo. A pro-vaccine YouTuber asked me to write questions to pitch to experts, and they offered money to experts if they could meaningfully answer the questions... virologists who initially agreed fled once they saw the list (the stump money was $3,000). One tried but all they ended up doing was writing 'Irrelevant' to every question. Questions (quite old now) can be seen here:
Quite the dilemma. More than sympathetic; alas an overextended senior trying to read more than he should. Good my daughter not here to see. OTOH caught your comment on Kirsch and was intrigued by the degree of trivia involved in some really important areas. I feel we are in the middle of real turmoil of trust which leads to same walking away, others blissfully unaware, others in frustration about clarity.
I can more than appreciate the effort required to assemble well founded material using various tools. Then condensing that into readable content. Reminds me a my days of dial-in and huge long distant charges, excessive hours, complaints by wives - why are these RFC's so damn important! Full time work not done as well as it should have been, but OK. As least I had full time work, food on the table, a wife. Heady days of the 80's. Days of Usenet forums. Micronet, Fido and CIS. The armies of the past, IP-loggers, indeed have returned - a few do-gooders among paid shills.
I suspect that those who wish to affect real public thought must have financial freedom and patron support. A new publishing arena has arrived but bandwidth has never been free. The fragmentation of society and reintegration will take time as we tire of echo chambers. Musk the friend and enemy reflecting the greed of Gates on every desktop.
Best of luck with your journey. Vaya con dignidad.
Mate I never returned to say "Thanks heaps!" for digging into that stuff for Geoff Pain PHD. I get paid on Tuesday and I'll actually toss ya a year sub to help out cuz I enjoy your writing (I keep trying to cull my subscriptions for the sake of my bloated inbox but meh! I'll keep on a-sorting!)
My third dog was a beagle. I think they're too naughty to own another one, though!
I have no opinion on the Fediverse because I haven't directly experienced it. The originators of Mastodon are primarily authoritarian-left leaning and attempt to stifle speech of anyone they perceive as a threat to either government authoritarianism or whom expresses "right" leaning views.
They did things like update blocklists in the code to prevent Gab groups from joining and deplatformed one of their own coders who suggested maybe they ought to remain neutral as they're supposed to be anti-censorship.
Gab for contrast does not censor 'left' leaning views. That said, if you want to explore other social media networks, go for it. I don't know much on Fediverse besides that.
I was unaware of the things you just mentioned. I do know that Emma Best is on the Fediverse... thanks to her the public has access to the CREST database, now known as the CIA public reading room... https://mastodon.social/@NatSecGeek.
Given the nature of Fediverse, it is probably more free than Twitter, but I can't truly comment on it as a non-user, only note their interactions with Gab.
Gab does censor posts it does not like as i was when trying to post so i don't use it anymore. You are aware of the scandal torba got caught in with his browser tracking users URL visits for life, claiming various academic achievements etc.? He also bragged of his good relationship with the law enforcement community ?His browser no longer allows any add-ons to be added but no matter what no privacy can be expected or honesty either, not believable.
Oh, I'd never promote his browser. He hasn't got the scale of resources required to maintain it against possible security breaches.
"Gab does censor posts"
Such as?
"torba got caught in with his browser tracking users URL visits for life, claiming various academic achievements etc.? "
I don't quite understand this sentence. It seems very mish-mashed and incoherent. What does claiming academic achievements have to do with browser tracking? Why would academic achievements be an issue (I've personally never seen him make such claims).
Browser tracking is new to me... but I didn't suggest getting their browser. Gab.com is a website.
"He also bragged of his good relationship with the law enforcement community"
I've never seen such a claim. But even if it was true, social media isn't immune to mass surveillance or law enforcement, and that isn't why I was recommending it - I was recommending it because it is immune to censorship (and view suppression). Majority of the posts I see on Gab I would *never* see on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram or more, and I strongly doubt his relationship is as cozy as Twitter's with the FBI, who, for the record, kept their associations secret.
Gab.com banned porn a while back, much to the ire of liberal media. It was banned specifically to prohibit people trying to skirt child porn under the radar:
The Dissenter browser isn't even what is being advised here, and Gab effectively dropped it a while back (2021). So your information is pretty out-of-date.
Have you thought about Jon Guy could actually be a bot account? And how absurd is it to post a meme saying that anti-vaxxers support pharma... if that were the case why would a profit oriented industry try to sell people 1 single vaccine and cut drastically into their own profits?
There's also the issue that his "logic" doesn't stack up, given they're not trying to sell a single shot, but a reoccurring subscription fee with 'boosters' etc. Then there's the fallacy of assuming vaccinated require less medical resources than unvaccinated... who are all those defibrillator machines for?
I feel like Pfizer have either lost the plot or have become so intoxicated with power that they are going to compare their own shot versus their own shot to try to prove it doesn't kill as many people as their own shot.
I genuinely feel these shots induce brain damage because every time one of their proponents speak up their remarks get less coherent and less logical.
You do not need to "feel" like it induces brain damage. From study #185350 you can see that Pfizer knew their LNPs would travel to the brain. Once you understand how their drug works, you understand that any cell coming in contact with the LNPs get transfected and once those cells start to produce a viral protein and present it on their surface they become target of NK (Natural Killer) cells. Resulting in cells being killed by your own immune system and that results in inflammation increasing the tissue damage even further.
So yes. People have gotten brain damage from those jabs. It is 9th grade immunology/biology.
That's just classic DARVO manipulation - attack, deny, reverse victim and offender. It's used a lot and when you learn how to recognise it, you realise it's e v e r y w h e r e.
YES!! Finally, you're getting the recognition you deserve!! Unless I've gone completely doolally, Jessica Rose has reposted you! Well done, dear Underdog! May this be the turning point in your fortunes and may you now have all the subscribers you've worked so hard for. X
This is tough, UD. I really enjoy your articles but keeping a roof over your head is more important. One of the rough things about Substack is this is where everyone fled from the censorship during COVID. I found you through Edward Slavsquat recommending your stack. Twitter has stopped substack sharing so unless other external sites link a stack, new traffic diminishes. Normally I'd suggest listening to that quiet inner voice but I don't want to sound trite. Either way you decide, I have been greatly informed by your work and wish you the absolute best.
I guess you need to find a day job that pays the rent but doesn’t consume your whole life. There’s no point dropping TDB to take on something else speculative.
If you can find a steady paying job then there’s no reason you couldn’t also do 1-2 articles per month on the side.
I came here because Steve Kirsch mentioned your EMA leak article and I see Steve is commenting on your articles, which means he would probably help you out again in terms of a free promotion. There are plenty of others like him who might also help Margaret Anna Alice, Igor Chudov, uTobian, Robert Malone etc.
100 x 100 is 10,000 not 100,000 by the way. Connecting to 10,000 people shouldn’t be too difficult.
Don’t feel uneasy about self promotion. Upgrading to paid option should be mentioned in every article. Buymeacoffee is another option for people who can’t afford $50.
You're right about the 100 x 100, thank you for pointing out my mistake. The other numbers still apply (9 new free subs times 1000 free subscribers = 9,000).
"no reason you couldn’t also do 1-2 articles per month"
My last full time job pre-disability left me almost no free work time, and I never eat into personal decompression time because burn out lies that way. Post-disability, disability management leaves me with less free time, to the point conventional employment route is being looked at in a strictly part-time capacity.
The Daily Beagle I can, in theory, work on from anywhere. Most local jobs will want me to attend a building or office, and travel with disability management is a nightmare.
"Connecting to 10,000 people shouldn’t be too difficult."
There's a difference between views and subscriber conversions. So the EMA leak video, thanks to Kirsch, got 75k views. The video channel has... 53 free subscribers.
So the conversion ratio from views to (free) subscribers is typically even worse. Going by YouTube metrics (because public Substack metrics are basically non-existent), it can range anywhere between 10,000 views to 1 free sub (for a bad channel), to 100 views to 1 free sub (for a good one).
The Daily Beagle I believe sees a rough conversion ratio of between 1000:1 to 1000:20, with 1000:3 being the 'average' (the Brighteon video channel is 1415:1 assuming all subscribers were EMA leak video conversions).
Assuming it's the 1000:3 ratio (AKA 333 views per 1 free subscriber), I would need to clock 2,997,000 views. Assuming I got 75k views (and return rates did not dwindle) per every Kirsch shoutout, I would need 40 shoutouts from Steve Kirsch.
"Don’t feel uneasy about self promotion. Upgrading to paid option should be mentioned in every article."
Nearly every article - except this one - ends in the 'hamburger menu' (arguably one of the more successful UI layouts to spread on Substack), of which the top option should adapt to say 'Upgrade to paid' for already registered free subscribers, and 'subscribe for free' for unregistered viewers.
There's a whole slew of engineering and trial and error that has gone into the design of that hamburger menu and why it appears at the end (and not the start), and it appears deceptively simple, and if you're interested I could write an article for paying subscribers breaking down the design principles.
"there’s no reason you couldn’t also do 1-2 articles per month on the side."
The question isn't rate (user interactions paradoxically rewards a lower posting rate), but quality.
What you're thinking you'll get is something like the ICU deaths or the care home Midazolam article every 2 weeks. Those articles require many hours of invested time every day, reading and researching, stacked together for several weeks whilst compiling, organising and sorting notes. I think one person described the PCR fraud article as 'akin to a research paper'; it wouldn't be entirely amiss.
I did try to take the Daily Beagle down an automation route, where I had software grab the latest news headlines from various sites, and then I would organise it into a filtered list of 'actually news' articles (think Drudge but not partisan). It was called Daily Beagle Roundup and it absolutely tanked. I still have the tool and use it periodically to inform myself.
People can sense effort and quality, as well as expertise in a subject domain.
"Buymeacoffee is another option for people who can’t afford $50."
The Daily Beagle does have a one-time payment link registered, but it's what you'd call a 'choice conflict point' in UI design.
Essentially, it's two choices that serve similar purposes that conflict with each other; it's often a red flag for bad UI design. There's also a risk in terms of psychology that facing a conflicting choice, that they make no choice at all.
If I offer one-time, it actually discourages subscriptions because people will donate once, feel like they've done their part, and then walk away when one-time isn't sustainable.
It is better for me to therefore 'hold out' for subscriptions. If people can't afford it then they've got bigger problems than I have, and what I need to do is find a way to offer those who can't afford some sort of value return (be it software or information or similarly), that would then allow them to afford it.
For example, financial saving tips that actually work, reduction in food waste, bulkbuy, etc. I did try publishing this a while back but it was lukewarm in reception and I didn't get any feedback at the time.
So it's a combination of market research, plus market reach. I will happily adjust my strategies to help people to make money or reduce costs, but I would need to know what they need. No point building the world's best wrench if what someone needs is an okay hammer.
I really love your work, your focus and commitment, the World, indeed humanity needs the likes of yourself with the intellect, passion, drive and instinctive humanity, the desire to right wrongs, to have truths only manifest, truths embellished with unmitigated fact, truth in need of having the brightest of light shone upon, indeed, having said such and without going off on a religious tirade, I am reminded of two of my most favourite verses that seem so poignant this matter at hand namely…
- And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not
- He came unto his own and his own received him not
Both, a summation and representative of your misgivings, as written the end of your Substack… tellingly so in my view.
What little of your circumstances I do know and have learned of that you’ve kindly shared, is that it will not be enough for mere Platitudes and Bon homies, although both are nice to receive, to sustain you in terms of your endeavours as evidenced your outstanding work.
Therefore, perhaps the time has come, whereby people comprising your audience must truly decide if the truths offered them, truths for which for so many today are unobtainable and beyond reach to themselves, more so, given the limiting factors that limit such, limited as we all are the lack of real subject intellect and knowledge, together with what many consider to be the daily grind, the mundane to which most are ritually subjected, comprising… family, work, living, just surviving, alongside the best known salient that constrains us all, time.
As a result, perhaps it isn’t such a bad idea to take the next step and plunge yourself into a campaign to ask, directly for that which you need to sustain you financially …literally.
I’ve always believed and held firmly to the following which has sustained me throughout my life, something my parents oft repeated, drilling the same into me from my earliest years and which, as a consequence, having applied, has enabled me to accomplish everything I wished in life thus far… it can be I respectfully submit, applied to every aspect of your life, irrespective the need, want, goal, aspiration, simply put it is….
“If you don’t ask, you don’t get, worse you will never know, left walking through your life wondering, what if?…Hence, never be afraid to ask, better to know than not ever know, to be certain of and thus face head on what mightn’t or cannot be, to know with certainty in order to move ahead, of what could actually be… thus eliminate the doubts, whatever fear of rejection you might harbor, just ask and get to know for sure, in doing so you’ll eliminate your own uncertainties in order you can go forward to the next…. “
I guess what I’m saying is perhaps a way of achieving what you need is to set a goal, the amount you need , you’ve budgeted it all, I ask you share it, share it by the “Ask”, by seeking direct support, let those of us who truly value you, your work, your passion, who identify with and value your humanity, yourself as a person… decide what we can to in order to help you realise this goal.
I believe, predicate completely on the knowledge and enjoyment that I have personally gained from your outstanding work, from your research, your writings, consisting in the main of your elaborating on things I had not an inkling of, or only a mere understanding and rudimentary, passing knowledge that you encapsulate so well is worth the “ASK”, I mean, the previously unknowns included in your articles that you have bought to my attention, all excellent, topical and being content that most of us, your audience and readership I would advance would undoubtedly appreciate knowing and having gained knowledge of vs the alternative of still being unawares, truly has enlightened those of us who care about this world we live upon, of where it is heading, where it is taking us, our children, as well as what awaits our future generations, thus we are I can attest, better for the experience of the knowledge gain achieved from the simple act of reading your work.
Thus by your doing so, setting the number, sharing that with us, then simply Asking, that we, your readers can then determine the level to which we can fiscally support you, undoubtedly, it will transpire, some able to do so more than others, but then every little bit helps, every pledge made will assist you to secure better certainty of the financial support you have identified, that you know you require.
At the very least and by doing so, you get to retain control, your freedom, to be the final arbiter, based soley upon the level of support garnered, the financial support freely given, you decide what you can do reflective the support obtained.
It might result that the support level only enables a part time commit, nevertheless with the passage of time it just might evolve that greater numbers read, learn and have the same experience as I, thus themselves wishing to subscribe or donate, perhaps you might find in your audience sufficient support to meet entirely the financial requirement you set and notify, all I can say is, get it out here amongst us, so that in turn we are able to decide the level of support affordable to us as individuals, as families, or as a business that we can give.
Set up this one off Ask campaign for pledges from your readership, time for us to determine if we take only or in times of need, can give back, moreover to a circumstance such as described above where the takeout and personal gain from doing so is inestimable.
I firmly believe it to be worth such a shot, that your worth it, but in reality it’s easier for an individual, family or business to determine what can be done to support, when in consideration of doing so, you know the actual requirement, hence, as noted above..
* Finalise and Lay out your budget
* Share it
* Don’t be effusive with the numbers, just as you’ve done so with all of your writings, lay it all out.
* ASK
As I’ve noted, I believe, as your audience… most if not all will be intellectually mature, smart and kind enough to then determine, as measured against your financial actuality, just what we can each do to help you achieve the budget you have set and advised, to achieve the goal of having you indulge your own and by default, our own vicarious passion for the subject matter you so adroitly cover.
Whatever quantum eventually pledged and that might result, giving you as ultimate arbiter, the final say and dictate in terms of what you know pursuing this vocation, that you can and are able to give in return, as will be required measured against any amount raised.
Soooooo, as I’ve noted and now know I’ve laboured, just “ASK” girl, give it a shot, after-all there’s nothing more nor less to lose, nor that is on the line or at stake, than what you already are aware of and have shared with us in your article
.
Hope this helps, it’s just the first thing I could think of in response to your call/ask for ideas.
I think there may be crossed wires, although I could be wrong. Jessica Rose reposted my Substack article to raise awareness, so the article in question is written by myself. Jessica Rose is not the one expressing financial distress. I imagine you'll be okay if I treat the message as if directed at myself?
So, in a previous article I published to free subscribers, I had included the numbers required to achieve what I'd call 'financial breakeven' (this isn't the ideal; but it would mean the Daily Beagle could become a full time job), which is approximately 110 paying subscribers.
(The conversion ratio is 90:1; so for every 90 free subscribers, I receive 1 paying subscriber; so for me a target free subscriber audience would be ~10,000 people.)
I don't publish hard figures for personal finances for a number of reasons, the biggest two being the cost of living keeps going up (so I have to keep revising upwards), and that I have prior experience of individuals abusing personal information as a means to leverage attacks, hence my usage of a nom de plume when writing (no different than when Benjamin Franklin used a nom de plume to evade the British).
I can tell you what makes break-even: £11,000 a year. That for me only maintains status quo where I am (which is less than ideal, but I wouldn't starve or go broke). £22,000 is ideal and would actually allow me to 'reform' my life, which would eventually translate into me bringing down my financial costs as I could restructure my life and implement cost-efficiency changes to better resist the financial crisis and rising food prices...
...but I am aware readers are struggling financially too. And I don't want to set a specific target goal publicly, as people will have one of three reactions to it:
1) 'That's more than I earn'
2) You should increase it
3) You should decrease it
Instead, it is easier for me to specify a paying subscriber milestone and just say 'I need 110 paying subscribers minimum'. If someone can afford the $7 subscription, then they'll buy it, if they can't, then they won't.
If people are genuinely struggling I wouldn't want them to spend it on a subscription anyway (food is more important than a journalist); that's a 'me' problem. I need to up the value of the Daily Beagle such they will want to buy in. If I can't, then I get forced into a job as an oppressed servant of the jackboot tyrants.
I don't really want to guilt trip people into buying in (but I do have to notify them of the problems so if I 'disappear' they don't wonder why), because it isn't a sustainable or worthy business model.
I do want to however reform and overhaul the Daily Beagle, both so I can increase the value of it so it becomes worthy of being subscribed to, and also reduce outgoing costs (if even possible), although to reduce outgoing costs I need funds to invest, but that will come naturally as paying subscriber figures improve.
Please forgive my 'effusive' numbers, but the truth is given the upheaval I'm undergoing, I don't strictly know what is a safe figure myself.
OK, maybe you're not ready for that. Can't bootstrap sponsorship at your current scale, material too contentious, will scare away most potential sponsors.
I'd rather you keep up the "citizen journalist" thing but make it sustainable. Igor Chudov seemed to do it. A handful of other covid-dissent substacks have blown up mostly from, as far as I can tell, entertainment value or personal charisma. I don't subscribe to any of those at present.
But even when I take extended breaks from reading my too-many substack subs, I still read Jeff Childers' "Coffee and Covid" every morning. He's annoying in some ways, but I think he has a winning format:
+ Covers a small range of topics that he's personally invested in and feels strongly about
+ Publishes every single morning, like clockwork, with paid-only "bonus posts" on Sundays
+ Cites and winnows a bunch of upstream sources that would be too tedious for me to do myself
+ Civil and professional tone throughout, light humor, abstains from speculation
I can't speculate as to whether that would work for you, but I hope you give it a shot, and I promise to chip in if your areas of interest overlap my own. I think the periodic and frequent publication criterion is essential. Just choose how much time you'll spend on it, stick to your limits, and keep plugging away at it. Might want a day job, meanwhile: JC's a practicing lawyer.
You never need to apologise, dude! We subscribers know you're righteous and hardworking. We know you're trustworthy, because you've earned trust.
I've never heard the term 'IP loggers' before - what a naive world I now realise I inhabit! (I
just stay off Twitter!) It's great that you use your skills to defend others.
I don't know what to say other than please don't carry the world on your shoulders. I'll pray that God opens doors for you so you can carry on using your skills to serve truth and justice. God bless you!
So, an IP logger is a tool that allows a third party to 'log your IP' (which is just a way of saying they capture or get it).
Now, in theory, all websites see your IP, but nearly all websites are bound by GDPR, privacy and legal rules. Twitter can't just leak your location without incurring the legal wrath.
Enter IP loggers, which are a quasi-legal (mostly illegal) tool allowing third parties to see your IP address. It's a "go between" link that intercepts your connection, pulls the IP address and refers you on. The methodologies used here are actually quite sloppy and obvious.
IP addresses can then be 'traced' to get a rough idea where the person lives, unless they use some sort of web proxy tool, like a VPN or Tor, or they're like me, and live behind a NAT with an easily rotatable IP address that points to all sorts of places.
Depending, it may give a specific address (rare but possible), or an approximate area, usually accurate within 25 to 125 miles with variation.
So essentially these criminal scumbags were trying to find out where people live, which is not cool. An IP address is not like, say, a flight jet number in that it is public, but more like a semi-temporary phone number that is private-'public' (although for some people with static IP addresses, they are permanent).
"We subscribers know"
I agree, and I wholeheartedly appreciate what you guys are doing, and don't let this article seem ungrateful, I *want* the Daily Beagle to succeed, it just... can't be sustained. It's like trying to summon Captain Planet with only one of the planeteers available.
And the fault isn't really the subscribers, either, the ratios are normal. The Daily Beagle's biggest single weakness is reach (followed by consistency of article quality and consistency of article rate). The costs to advertise would bankrupt me, and online advertising rarely is viable.
"I'll pray that God opens doors"
There is a charity (it's that or I end up in the government's clutches again) who are considering sponsoring a business plan, be it software or manufacturing, but the condition is I stick to one proposal and one proposal only.
Whilst they're not issuing an ultimatum (they're actually surprisingly good natured), they're being realistic on the workloads and I know what it means (this implies the Daily Beagle gets shelved). I still have to draft a proposal, identify the best one, and present it. This isn't big money stuff either, the budget is, uh... £200.
It's an opportunity of a lifetime but I've got a hundred doors and only one contains the right answer and I only have 2 weeks to pick.
I don't have manufacturing experience or business experience. The Daily Beagle was meant to be, ultimately, a 'collate research and then mothball' project, with me only experimenting with Substack's financial settings to see if I could learn anything.
Paying subscribers threw me off-guard, so I tried to refine it to return the value, because I believe in giving people value for their money. If it became financially viable I'd be fine with that because I hate industry jobs, if I'm being honest.
But I've looked at the trajectory and it's not good. My deeper concern is, if cost of living worsens, the subscriber count will dwindle further, unless I can make a product people will want to part money with for (that benefits them financially in some way too).
Stress of it all is causing me to burn out, which kills productivity, because 'why write an article today if the Daily Beagle will close tomorrow?'; paying subscribers are the only reason right now I keep returning, because it's not fair for me to not give something back.
If I had my way, I'd manufacture things The Daily Beagle readers would want to buy that I could then sell side-by-side the main articles. But... with a budget that small and so many evil corporations, where could I sell and what could I offer?
How about a compromise here? You are tearing yourself up inside because you feel you're not giving value to your paid subscribers.
As a paid subscriber, I'd be perfectly comfortable with you publishing one or two articles a month, literally. Your articles are thoughtful and worthwhile, and worth waiting for. You are the ONLY substack I have a paid subscription to, so you know you MUST be doing something right! 😁
Provided you said that's what you're doing, I think that publishing once or twice a month would work out fine. Don't push yourself to exhaustion and burnout. No-one ever said it had to be a 'Daily' Beagle. Honestly, it's too much.
Change your strategy. The Daily Beagle won't, at present, pay the bills. You're subsidising it, in fact. So you need to put energy into work that pays, we get that, but please keep DB as a sidejob, so we don't lose you.
How about you give us one article per month, and maybe a bonus article if you have time. If you explain that's the deal, maybe a subscriber or two may leave, but others should stay. Propose it and put it to a poll? That could be one way forward? Then the income from subscribers and the work expended in writing should equalise better?
Whatever happens, we'd like to see you continue to utilise your talents and remain as a substacker but *only* at a frequency that's manageable for you. Hope that helps!
So, I liked this, but didn't immediately reply, as I wanted to take some time to think about the logistics of it all and how I would respond.
The time consuming part of The Daily Beagle is, counter-intuitively, not the article publishing.
It is the research. Research results in both accuracy and quality. Second to research is article quality itself, which is a mind bendingly hard thing to gauge; I have to determine how well a topic I already know is explained to someone who doesn't know the topic. Bad article quality and incomplete research can lead to re-writes (the ICU one took five; this topic took three).
Not all research is created equal, either. So for the Wuhan investigation I had to compile the timeline of events. For the unpublished Tor2 mouse-adapted discovery I had to manually compare genetic sequences that I have no idea if I'm comparing correctly because I'm not a geneticist; it's either 'Underdog found something with explosive implications' or 'Underdog is an idiot who misunderstands how BLAST comparisons work'.
Other times, which are more frequent, is what I'd call the "choo-choo train fallacy"; you have a 90-98% complete piece of research but you're waiting for the last train containing that complete final piece of research tying it together that *never comes*, rendering the article dead.
For example, I wanted to prove the 8 sudden deaths in County Durham were shot-related (you remember, the one I failed to do the research on?). Instead, I found the ICO invoking bad law claiming all coroners are immune to FOIA forever and breaching my privacy by leaking my ICO decision to a third party and then absolving themselves of all guilt (see: https://thedailybeagle.substack.com/p/information-commissioner-breaches).
So not only was all that time wasted, but the final piece, the last train, will never come.
It is these 80-90% projects that are toxic, but it is impossible to know what is an 80-90% "last train" project until you're already there. To give you an idea, here's a list of dead or dying articles:
1. Tor2 similarity between SARS-CoV-2 and PCR tests (read: PCR tests for the wrong virus)
2. The 4 versus 2 gene comparison issue on PCR tests (read: insufficient quantity according to patents)
3. The missing(?) Mouse-Adapted 20 and 25 variants of Ralph Baric's work which may (or may not) be SARS-CoV-2's parent
4. Explaining how vaccine shills exploit statistics
5. Book writing/here's a PDF book on how to debate/a PDF book on how to problem solve (I even have the incomplete few page drafts of the problem solving one... the irony is not lost on me)
6. "I Watched An Hour Long Ohio Press Briefing So You Don't Have To" - the article had nothing of substance to make it into an article, and the window of relevance for it long since passed
7. "What is value?" - I ask subscribers what they value, scrapped
8. "Release Into The General Population" - article on UK gov's evil plan that is obviously an evil plan that is theirs that... can't be independently verified.
9. Socky Finds A Hole In Morrisons Food Security - I tried to mix up the serious nature with a video of me doing the single worst accent impersonation discussing how bad Morrisons food security was by demonstrating on camera (whilst wearing socks on my hands). Feedback from a handful of friends was... not positive, and I did not reshoot the video again.
10. An article talking about a video demonstrating vaccine propaganda I made (see: https://rumble.com/v283u93-p-r-o-p-a-g-a-n-d-a-.-e-x-e.html) explaining why there should be no amnesty; it feel like I was flogging a dead horse and as you can see I already made the video.
11. An article on heat powered chillers, which seemed... off-topic
12. An article on why transgenderism is child abuse (from Jan 2023) which was simply a 'gather together' article, now redundant given I'm late to the party I was early to
13. Constitutional Direct Democracy article, scrapped because people hate boring political articles (the other two CDD related articles absolutely tanked)
14. An article explaining a Stateless Encryption Comms system I built that, uh... isn't fully operational
There are others but you get the gist of it. And these are the ones still listed. Many more have been deleted.
Do I detect a tinge of perfectionism?
If you want to do thorough deep dives and good research, then just take on a worthy topic and see it through. If your conclusion turns out to be not as exciting as you'd hoped, that's OK. Write it up briefly and move on to the next.
I'd rather see your work in progress, more frequently. Daily updates on a limited range of topics. But if you go for thorough but infrequent, that's fine too. I just suspect it's harder to make any money that way.
Look at Doomberg. Monthly articles with depth and a unique viewpoint. Less is more as the information is worth the money to subscribers. I’m not a paid subscriber for your Substack. But, I’d suggest you do write about what you enjoy in depth and post monthly. See what happens when the anxiety is reduced and good sleep is increased. Best wishes!
Love that you were protecting the quarterback - Jikky is lucky to have your support
Good on you for being honest and hopefully some brain storming will open some doors that pay the bills and also allow you to continue with this amazing work 🙏🙏🙏
I'd protect all of you if you could!
People can also pitch me their real world problems (mechanical, I'm no good at emotional) that need some sort of solution for, as well.
Thank you so much for writing this article and documenting the abusive behavior.
I experienced something similar and ended up blocking them.
However, I'm happy to debate them 1-on-1 on any topic of their choice. Not a single one of them has accepted.
I think a bigger concern that has emerged (what with the recent IP logger scandal by Xeno-associated individuals) was this was never a genuine attempt by them at debate, but instead an attempt to fish out personal information. Hence why they tried to pick me up (this would be the second attempt at DOXing).
I strongly suspect the particular voice chat platforms they wanted to use would "leak" the IP address of those involved. Discord does not use peer-to-peer for WebRTC (Discord servers handle it), and Element has an option to disable peer-to-peer and enable STUN.
If their goal was to DOX, I don't think they could accept either platform, but Jon could not say 'oh could you please move to a less secure voice chat platform for me?' and I think at that point he realised he was dead in the water. Who better to spearhead a DOX than a self-confessed ex-felon?
The other oddity was them feigning or playing to credentials they may not have. For example, pretending to be sociopolitical but 'surprise', being an Organic Chemistry PhD; pretending to be weaker than they actually are, expecting softball sociopolitical questions and trumping with detailed chemistry.
If Jon 'confirmed' the specialities, he knew that if they got sidelined by technical questions their rep is gone.
It wasn't my first rodeo. A pro-vaccine YouTuber asked me to write questions to pitch to experts, and they offered money to experts if they could meaningfully answer the questions... virologists who initially agreed fled once they saw the list (the stump money was $3,000). One tried but all they ended up doing was writing 'Irrelevant' to every question. Questions (quite old now) can be seen here:
https://gitlab.com/TheUnderdog/general-research/-/blob/main/COVID-19-Shot-Questions/Revision-4-3/COVID19ShotQuestionsRevision4_3.odt
Quite the dilemma. More than sympathetic; alas an overextended senior trying to read more than he should. Good my daughter not here to see. OTOH caught your comment on Kirsch and was intrigued by the degree of trivia involved in some really important areas. I feel we are in the middle of real turmoil of trust which leads to same walking away, others blissfully unaware, others in frustration about clarity.
I can more than appreciate the effort required to assemble well founded material using various tools. Then condensing that into readable content. Reminds me a my days of dial-in and huge long distant charges, excessive hours, complaints by wives - why are these RFC's so damn important! Full time work not done as well as it should have been, but OK. As least I had full time work, food on the table, a wife. Heady days of the 80's. Days of Usenet forums. Micronet, Fido and CIS. The armies of the past, IP-loggers, indeed have returned - a few do-gooders among paid shills.
I suspect that those who wish to affect real public thought must have financial freedom and patron support. A new publishing arena has arrived but bandwidth has never been free. The fragmentation of society and reintegration will take time as we tire of echo chambers. Musk the friend and enemy reflecting the greed of Gates on every desktop.
Best of luck with your journey. Vaya con dignidad.
This was a great article. And screenshots rule. I cross-posted. That might help.
Thank you very much for the cross-post! Catching up with it as I speak!
Mate I never returned to say "Thanks heaps!" for digging into that stuff for Geoff Pain PHD. I get paid on Tuesday and I'll actually toss ya a year sub to help out cuz I enjoy your writing (I keep trying to cull my subscriptions for the sake of my bloated inbox but meh! I'll keep on a-sorting!)
My third dog was a beagle. I think they're too naughty to own another one, though!
Thank you very much for your support!
Great work. Thank you for what you do.
Thank you for the support!
Also, would it be helpful for people to move to the fediverse perhaps?
I have no opinion on the Fediverse because I haven't directly experienced it. The originators of Mastodon are primarily authoritarian-left leaning and attempt to stifle speech of anyone they perceive as a threat to either government authoritarianism or whom expresses "right" leaning views.
They did things like update blocklists in the code to prevent Gab groups from joining and deplatformed one of their own coders who suggested maybe they ought to remain neutral as they're supposed to be anti-censorship.
Gab for contrast does not censor 'left' leaning views. That said, if you want to explore other social media networks, go for it. I don't know much on Fediverse besides that.
I was unaware of the things you just mentioned. I do know that Emma Best is on the Fediverse... thanks to her the public has access to the CREST database, now known as the CIA public reading room... https://mastodon.social/@NatSecGeek.
Something worth mentioning in that regard: https://emma.best/2021/06/13/fbi-tried-to-ban-me-from-foia/
https://www.muckrock.com
I was also looking into Nostr but have not found any good and easy to use readers for it...
Given the nature of Fediverse, it is probably more free than Twitter, but I can't truly comment on it as a non-user, only note their interactions with Gab.
Here's the Mastodon/Gab story:
https://reclaimthenet.org/mastodon-blocks-gab
Gab does censor posts it does not like as i was when trying to post so i don't use it anymore. You are aware of the scandal torba got caught in with his browser tracking users URL visits for life, claiming various academic achievements etc.? He also bragged of his good relationship with the law enforcement community ?His browser no longer allows any add-ons to be added but no matter what no privacy can be expected or honesty either, not believable.
Oh, I'd never promote his browser. He hasn't got the scale of resources required to maintain it against possible security breaches.
"Gab does censor posts"
Such as?
"torba got caught in with his browser tracking users URL visits for life, claiming various academic achievements etc.? "
I don't quite understand this sentence. It seems very mish-mashed and incoherent. What does claiming academic achievements have to do with browser tracking? Why would academic achievements be an issue (I've personally never seen him make such claims).
Browser tracking is new to me... but I didn't suggest getting their browser. Gab.com is a website.
"He also bragged of his good relationship with the law enforcement community"
I've never seen such a claim. But even if it was true, social media isn't immune to mass surveillance or law enforcement, and that isn't why I was recommending it - I was recommending it because it is immune to censorship (and view suppression). Majority of the posts I see on Gab I would *never* see on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram or more, and I strongly doubt his relationship is as cozy as Twitter's with the FBI, who, for the record, kept their associations secret.
I feel like you're just trying to spread FUD.
Please bring back some evidence.
I’m not trying to spread anything, just providing facts. Watch this YouTube video, the printed story i can not find, but this is a video version.
I’m not a writer by nature or profession & getting old too.
Watch the entire video to see the evil including child porn.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=any5jcg4cYA
Dissenter Browser by gab.com (Andrew Torba)
New And Dangerous Opinions
97 subscribers
1,102 views Oct 6, 2019
Analysis the false claims, dangers and grift concerning the Dissenter Browser from Gab and Andrew Torba.
Not really what I'd call evidence, a vlog.
"to see the evil including child porn"
Gab.com banned porn a while back, much to the ire of liberal media. It was banned specifically to prohibit people trying to skirt child porn under the radar:
https://scottcbusiness.medium.com/does-gabs-porn-ban-go-against-free-speech-a3e652a797a1
The Dissenter browser isn't even what is being advised here, and Gab effectively dropped it a while back (2021). So your information is pretty out-of-date.
https://www.reddit.com/r/browsers/comments/ptaau2/what_happened_to_dissenter/
Have you thought about Jon Guy could actually be a bot account? And how absurd is it to post a meme saying that anti-vaxxers support pharma... if that were the case why would a profit oriented industry try to sell people 1 single vaccine and cut drastically into their own profits?
There's also the issue that his "logic" doesn't stack up, given they're not trying to sell a single shot, but a reoccurring subscription fee with 'boosters' etc. Then there's the fallacy of assuming vaccinated require less medical resources than unvaccinated... who are all those defibrillator machines for?
When it comes to wanting to sell reoccurring subscriptions, what do you make from this?
https://ghostfromthefuture.substack.com/p/reality-just-admitted-itself-to-a
I feel like Pfizer have either lost the plot or have become so intoxicated with power that they are going to compare their own shot versus their own shot to try to prove it doesn't kill as many people as their own shot.
I genuinely feel these shots induce brain damage because every time one of their proponents speak up their remarks get less coherent and less logical.
You do not need to "feel" like it induces brain damage. From study #185350 you can see that Pfizer knew their LNPs would travel to the brain. Once you understand how their drug works, you understand that any cell coming in contact with the LNPs get transfected and once those cells start to produce a viral protein and present it on their surface they become target of NK (Natural Killer) cells. Resulting in cells being killed by your own immune system and that results in inflammation increasing the tissue damage even further.
So yes. People have gotten brain damage from those jabs. It is 9th grade immunology/biology.
https://ghostfromthefuture.substack.com/p/i-have-questions
And read some of Dr. Jessica Rose's posts on it....
That's just classic DARVO manipulation - attack, deny, reverse victim and offender. It's used a lot and when you learn how to recognise it, you realise it's e v e r y w h e r e.
YES!! Finally, you're getting the recognition you deserve!! Unless I've gone completely doolally, Jessica Rose has reposted you! Well done, dear Underdog! May this be the turning point in your fortunes and may you now have all the subscribers you've worked so hard for. X
She has indeed! Thank you for all your support Sarah!
This is tough, UD. I really enjoy your articles but keeping a roof over your head is more important. One of the rough things about Substack is this is where everyone fled from the censorship during COVID. I found you through Edward Slavsquat recommending your stack. Twitter has stopped substack sharing so unless other external sites link a stack, new traffic diminishes. Normally I'd suggest listening to that quiet inner voice but I don't want to sound trite. Either way you decide, I have been greatly informed by your work and wish you the absolute best.
I think this is the 'consideration' phase, the trimming of the sails in a rough, stormy sea, which will maybe pass by.
The path isn't yet clear to me, and I want to be honest with my subscribers. I hope something makes itself evident.
I guess you need to find a day job that pays the rent but doesn’t consume your whole life. There’s no point dropping TDB to take on something else speculative.
If you can find a steady paying job then there’s no reason you couldn’t also do 1-2 articles per month on the side.
I came here because Steve Kirsch mentioned your EMA leak article and I see Steve is commenting on your articles, which means he would probably help you out again in terms of a free promotion. There are plenty of others like him who might also help Margaret Anna Alice, Igor Chudov, uTobian, Robert Malone etc.
100 x 100 is 10,000 not 100,000 by the way. Connecting to 10,000 people shouldn’t be too difficult.
Don’t feel uneasy about self promotion. Upgrading to paid option should be mentioned in every article. Buymeacoffee is another option for people who can’t afford $50.
You're right about the 100 x 100, thank you for pointing out my mistake. The other numbers still apply (9 new free subs times 1000 free subscribers = 9,000).
"no reason you couldn’t also do 1-2 articles per month"
My last full time job pre-disability left me almost no free work time, and I never eat into personal decompression time because burn out lies that way. Post-disability, disability management leaves me with less free time, to the point conventional employment route is being looked at in a strictly part-time capacity.
The Daily Beagle I can, in theory, work on from anywhere. Most local jobs will want me to attend a building or office, and travel with disability management is a nightmare.
"Connecting to 10,000 people shouldn’t be too difficult."
There's a difference between views and subscriber conversions. So the EMA leak video, thanks to Kirsch, got 75k views. The video channel has... 53 free subscribers.
So the conversion ratio from views to (free) subscribers is typically even worse. Going by YouTube metrics (because public Substack metrics are basically non-existent), it can range anywhere between 10,000 views to 1 free sub (for a bad channel), to 100 views to 1 free sub (for a good one).
The Daily Beagle I believe sees a rough conversion ratio of between 1000:1 to 1000:20, with 1000:3 being the 'average' (the Brighteon video channel is 1415:1 assuming all subscribers were EMA leak video conversions).
Assuming it's the 1000:3 ratio (AKA 333 views per 1 free subscriber), I would need to clock 2,997,000 views. Assuming I got 75k views (and return rates did not dwindle) per every Kirsch shoutout, I would need 40 shoutouts from Steve Kirsch.
"Don’t feel uneasy about self promotion. Upgrading to paid option should be mentioned in every article."
Nearly every article - except this one - ends in the 'hamburger menu' (arguably one of the more successful UI layouts to spread on Substack), of which the top option should adapt to say 'Upgrade to paid' for already registered free subscribers, and 'subscribe for free' for unregistered viewers.
There's a whole slew of engineering and trial and error that has gone into the design of that hamburger menu and why it appears at the end (and not the start), and it appears deceptively simple, and if you're interested I could write an article for paying subscribers breaking down the design principles.
"there’s no reason you couldn’t also do 1-2 articles per month on the side."
The question isn't rate (user interactions paradoxically rewards a lower posting rate), but quality.
What you're thinking you'll get is something like the ICU deaths or the care home Midazolam article every 2 weeks. Those articles require many hours of invested time every day, reading and researching, stacked together for several weeks whilst compiling, organising and sorting notes. I think one person described the PCR fraud article as 'akin to a research paper'; it wouldn't be entirely amiss.
I did try to take the Daily Beagle down an automation route, where I had software grab the latest news headlines from various sites, and then I would organise it into a filtered list of 'actually news' articles (think Drudge but not partisan). It was called Daily Beagle Roundup and it absolutely tanked. I still have the tool and use it periodically to inform myself.
People can sense effort and quality, as well as expertise in a subject domain.
"Buymeacoffee is another option for people who can’t afford $50."
The Daily Beagle does have a one-time payment link registered, but it's what you'd call a 'choice conflict point' in UI design.
Essentially, it's two choices that serve similar purposes that conflict with each other; it's often a red flag for bad UI design. There's also a risk in terms of psychology that facing a conflicting choice, that they make no choice at all.
If I offer one-time, it actually discourages subscriptions because people will donate once, feel like they've done their part, and then walk away when one-time isn't sustainable.
It is better for me to therefore 'hold out' for subscriptions. If people can't afford it then they've got bigger problems than I have, and what I need to do is find a way to offer those who can't afford some sort of value return (be it software or information or similarly), that would then allow them to afford it.
For example, financial saving tips that actually work, reduction in food waste, bulkbuy, etc. I did try publishing this a while back but it was lukewarm in reception and I didn't get any feedback at the time.
So it's a combination of market research, plus market reach. I will happily adjust my strategies to help people to make money or reduce costs, but I would need to know what they need. No point building the world's best wrench if what someone needs is an okay hammer.
Hi Jessica,
I really love your work, your focus and commitment, the World, indeed humanity needs the likes of yourself with the intellect, passion, drive and instinctive humanity, the desire to right wrongs, to have truths only manifest, truths embellished with unmitigated fact, truth in need of having the brightest of light shone upon, indeed, having said such and without going off on a religious tirade, I am reminded of two of my most favourite verses that seem so poignant this matter at hand namely…
- And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not
- He came unto his own and his own received him not
Both, a summation and representative of your misgivings, as written the end of your Substack… tellingly so in my view.
What little of your circumstances I do know and have learned of that you’ve kindly shared, is that it will not be enough for mere Platitudes and Bon homies, although both are nice to receive, to sustain you in terms of your endeavours as evidenced your outstanding work.
Therefore, perhaps the time has come, whereby people comprising your audience must truly decide if the truths offered them, truths for which for so many today are unobtainable and beyond reach to themselves, more so, given the limiting factors that limit such, limited as we all are the lack of real subject intellect and knowledge, together with what many consider to be the daily grind, the mundane to which most are ritually subjected, comprising… family, work, living, just surviving, alongside the best known salient that constrains us all, time.
As a result, perhaps it isn’t such a bad idea to take the next step and plunge yourself into a campaign to ask, directly for that which you need to sustain you financially …literally.
I’ve always believed and held firmly to the following which has sustained me throughout my life, something my parents oft repeated, drilling the same into me from my earliest years and which, as a consequence, having applied, has enabled me to accomplish everything I wished in life thus far… it can be I respectfully submit, applied to every aspect of your life, irrespective the need, want, goal, aspiration, simply put it is….
“If you don’t ask, you don’t get, worse you will never know, left walking through your life wondering, what if?…Hence, never be afraid to ask, better to know than not ever know, to be certain of and thus face head on what mightn’t or cannot be, to know with certainty in order to move ahead, of what could actually be… thus eliminate the doubts, whatever fear of rejection you might harbor, just ask and get to know for sure, in doing so you’ll eliminate your own uncertainties in order you can go forward to the next…. “
I guess what I’m saying is perhaps a way of achieving what you need is to set a goal, the amount you need , you’ve budgeted it all, I ask you share it, share it by the “Ask”, by seeking direct support, let those of us who truly value you, your work, your passion, who identify with and value your humanity, yourself as a person… decide what we can to in order to help you realise this goal.
I believe, predicate completely on the knowledge and enjoyment that I have personally gained from your outstanding work, from your research, your writings, consisting in the main of your elaborating on things I had not an inkling of, or only a mere understanding and rudimentary, passing knowledge that you encapsulate so well is worth the “ASK”, I mean, the previously unknowns included in your articles that you have bought to my attention, all excellent, topical and being content that most of us, your audience and readership I would advance would undoubtedly appreciate knowing and having gained knowledge of vs the alternative of still being unawares, truly has enlightened those of us who care about this world we live upon, of where it is heading, where it is taking us, our children, as well as what awaits our future generations, thus we are I can attest, better for the experience of the knowledge gain achieved from the simple act of reading your work.
Thus by your doing so, setting the number, sharing that with us, then simply Asking, that we, your readers can then determine the level to which we can fiscally support you, undoubtedly, it will transpire, some able to do so more than others, but then every little bit helps, every pledge made will assist you to secure better certainty of the financial support you have identified, that you know you require.
At the very least and by doing so, you get to retain control, your freedom, to be the final arbiter, based soley upon the level of support garnered, the financial support freely given, you decide what you can do reflective the support obtained.
It might result that the support level only enables a part time commit, nevertheless with the passage of time it just might evolve that greater numbers read, learn and have the same experience as I, thus themselves wishing to subscribe or donate, perhaps you might find in your audience sufficient support to meet entirely the financial requirement you set and notify, all I can say is, get it out here amongst us, so that in turn we are able to decide the level of support affordable to us as individuals, as families, or as a business that we can give.
Set up this one off Ask campaign for pledges from your readership, time for us to determine if we take only or in times of need, can give back, moreover to a circumstance such as described above where the takeout and personal gain from doing so is inestimable.
I firmly believe it to be worth such a shot, that your worth it, but in reality it’s easier for an individual, family or business to determine what can be done to support, when in consideration of doing so, you know the actual requirement, hence, as noted above..
* Finalise and Lay out your budget
* Share it
* Don’t be effusive with the numbers, just as you’ve done so with all of your writings, lay it all out.
* ASK
As I’ve noted, I believe, as your audience… most if not all will be intellectually mature, smart and kind enough to then determine, as measured against your financial actuality, just what we can each do to help you achieve the budget you have set and advised, to achieve the goal of having you indulge your own and by default, our own vicarious passion for the subject matter you so adroitly cover.
Whatever quantum eventually pledged and that might result, giving you as ultimate arbiter, the final say and dictate in terms of what you know pursuing this vocation, that you can and are able to give in return, as will be required measured against any amount raised.
Soooooo, as I’ve noted and now know I’ve laboured, just “ASK” girl, give it a shot, after-all there’s nothing more nor less to lose, nor that is on the line or at stake, than what you already are aware of and have shared with us in your article
.
Hope this helps, it’s just the first thing I could think of in response to your call/ask for ideas.
Best always from Your Kiwi Fan
Kia kaha…
Strength in unity.
Hi Peter,
I think there may be crossed wires, although I could be wrong. Jessica Rose reposted my Substack article to raise awareness, so the article in question is written by myself. Jessica Rose is not the one expressing financial distress. I imagine you'll be okay if I treat the message as if directed at myself?
So, in a previous article I published to free subscribers, I had included the numbers required to achieve what I'd call 'financial breakeven' (this isn't the ideal; but it would mean the Daily Beagle could become a full time job), which is approximately 110 paying subscribers.
(The conversion ratio is 90:1; so for every 90 free subscribers, I receive 1 paying subscriber; so for me a target free subscriber audience would be ~10,000 people.)
I don't publish hard figures for personal finances for a number of reasons, the biggest two being the cost of living keeps going up (so I have to keep revising upwards), and that I have prior experience of individuals abusing personal information as a means to leverage attacks, hence my usage of a nom de plume when writing (no different than when Benjamin Franklin used a nom de plume to evade the British).
I can tell you what makes break-even: £11,000 a year. That for me only maintains status quo where I am (which is less than ideal, but I wouldn't starve or go broke). £22,000 is ideal and would actually allow me to 'reform' my life, which would eventually translate into me bringing down my financial costs as I could restructure my life and implement cost-efficiency changes to better resist the financial crisis and rising food prices...
...but I am aware readers are struggling financially too. And I don't want to set a specific target goal publicly, as people will have one of three reactions to it:
1) 'That's more than I earn'
2) You should increase it
3) You should decrease it
Instead, it is easier for me to specify a paying subscriber milestone and just say 'I need 110 paying subscribers minimum'. If someone can afford the $7 subscription, then they'll buy it, if they can't, then they won't.
If people are genuinely struggling I wouldn't want them to spend it on a subscription anyway (food is more important than a journalist); that's a 'me' problem. I need to up the value of the Daily Beagle such they will want to buy in. If I can't, then I get forced into a job as an oppressed servant of the jackboot tyrants.
I don't really want to guilt trip people into buying in (but I do have to notify them of the problems so if I 'disappear' they don't wonder why), because it isn't a sustainable or worthy business model.
I do want to however reform and overhaul the Daily Beagle, both so I can increase the value of it so it becomes worthy of being subscribed to, and also reduce outgoing costs (if even possible), although to reduce outgoing costs I need funds to invest, but that will come naturally as paying subscriber figures improve.
Please forgive my 'effusive' numbers, but the truth is given the upheaval I'm undergoing, I don't strictly know what is a safe figure myself.
Thank You, Underdog!
Engaging-the-enemy is appreciated.
We all need to engage the enemy, and be seen doing so.
God speed...
Get yourself sponsored by a VPN provider!
OK, maybe you're not ready for that. Can't bootstrap sponsorship at your current scale, material too contentious, will scare away most potential sponsors.
I'd rather you keep up the "citizen journalist" thing but make it sustainable. Igor Chudov seemed to do it. A handful of other covid-dissent substacks have blown up mostly from, as far as I can tell, entertainment value or personal charisma. I don't subscribe to any of those at present.
But even when I take extended breaks from reading my too-many substack subs, I still read Jeff Childers' "Coffee and Covid" every morning. He's annoying in some ways, but I think he has a winning format:
+ Covers a small range of topics that he's personally invested in and feels strongly about
+ Publishes every single morning, like clockwork, with paid-only "bonus posts" on Sundays
+ Cites and winnows a bunch of upstream sources that would be too tedious for me to do myself
+ Civil and professional tone throughout, light humor, abstains from speculation
I can't speculate as to whether that would work for you, but I hope you give it a shot, and I promise to chip in if your areas of interest overlap my own. I think the periodic and frequent publication criterion is essential. Just choose how much time you'll spend on it, stick to your limits, and keep plugging away at it. Might want a day job, meanwhile: JC's a practicing lawyer.