I’ve been thinking about definitions of success recently, which is why I wrote Success At Last. Also, because nearly every time I wonder to myself if it’s worth continuing with my Start The Week series on Substack, at least one person will leave a comment to the effect that they look forward to reading it. That makes me remember that success is not just a numbers game.
I’ve also started to think of success in terms of longevity. As I’ve mentioned here before, I’ve been working my way through my archive of published articles, digitising them and, in some cases, republishing them or repurposing them. Something I’ve noticed when engaged in the last two activities is that almost all of the websites that I’ve linked to in my education articles are no longer active. There were all these people and organisations that presented themselves as the hero we’ve all been waiting for, and where are they now?
I started my first website in 1996 — and it’s still going. Yes, it’s been through changes in design and emphasis, but it’s still very much active. So, nearly thirty years of publishing original articles week in and week out, and for much of that period between three and five times a week, should, in my view, count as success.
Has it been successful in other, more material, ways? Yes. And moreover without a lot of self-publicity. In fact, I think I must be one of the worst self-publicists around, because I don’t like it.
These reflections have led me to formulate a theory, which is that in order to be successful, the strategies one adopts have to reflect one’s personality. For example, I’ve tried the sort of things people recommend on Substack, like sticking a Subscribe button near the top of an article, or posting a lot on Substack Notes, with no discernible effect. Someone I met on a creative writing course, someone who had done very well financially by advising companies on how to get to the top of Google’s search pages, very kindly gave me free advice on how this website could perform even better. I spent several hours implementing all the design changes he recommended. The result? I had one query, from someone who said he’d like to avail himself of my services but didn’t have any money. Well, I do a lot of voluntary stuff, but I’m not a charity. After a year of no further queries, I deleted that portion of the website. With no discernible detrimental effect, I might add. (In fact, I just did.)
Now, it may be that I am incredibly unlucky or unpopular. I can post something quite insightful on Linkedin and, despite having a lot of connections and followers, enjoy virtually no response. And yet, since 2004, when I went independent, virtually all my work has come by word of mouth or my website, with almost no self-promotion at all.
My conclusion from all this is that we live in an age that is very much extrovert-centred. People think that in order to be successful you have to shout about yourself from the rooftops. I don’t think that’s true, and my own experience tells me that it isn’t true.
So, if like me you don’t yet have 1,000 subscribers on Substack or your medium of choice, with the resultant self-doubt that that might entail, and you don’t want to go against your principles and preferences in the publicity department, I would suggest that rather than trying ideas which are very much outside your comfort zone and make you feel icky, redefine success. For example:
Posting original stuff consistently.
Giving other people pleasure when they read your stuff.
Writing to please yourself and your readers, not some algorithm whose parameters will inevitably change with no warning.
This article first appeared in my Eclecticism newsletter, here. Go there if you'd like to leave a comment.