My feed showed the top Medium writer articles when I joined Medium in April 2019. That makes sense: Medium should show its best talent to the newbies.
There was Jessica Wildfire and Umair Haque. There was also a lady who was an evangelical Christian who had an affair with a married man. Then there was a man who spent his youth adulthood in a drunken stupor, having sex with hundreds of women. There were about 10 or so more popular writers who had their own little Medium niche. They all got at least 1000 claps per article.
At first, these writers had some appeal for me. But after five to 10 rounds with their work, I could see that they were only repeating themselves. Soon I found other writers that I preferred reading; the Medium stars got less of my attention.
Today, top writers constitute about 10% of my feed. I don’t follow them; I seldom click on their articles. I don’t understand why they show up on my feed. I believe they are somehow getting an unfair advantage. Their work is not better than many other writers here. I have often wondered what Medium sees in them to put their work front and center. This was indeed a mystery.
A few weeks ago, an article from Jessica Wildfire showed up on my feed. I was going to ignore it, but the title was intriguing. It seemed Ms. Wildfire is critical of those critics of the doomposters on Medium. I would be one of those critics. It was a year since I clicked on my last Wildfire article. I took a look:
Does It Really Help to Keep Beating Up on “Doomers?”
Besides, there might have been an angle I can use from this Wildfire article to promote my alternative democracy. I did respond with a little clickbait leading to my real reason for being on Medium.
I wasn’t expecting Ms. Wildfire to respond. And she didn’t. I didn’t get anything from her readers. But my response was a little past the stale date and I don’t think it was that effective.
This article is no longer available on Medium.
The Medium Lurkers
Around the same time, I had an interesting discussion with Sam Young. Sam is an out-of-the-box thinker. When the Medium algorithm puts a Sam Young article on my feed, I have to read it. In this article, he is comparing today’s economies to the Middle Ages — and showing us there are many similarities. Too many. (This article may not be available for non-Medium members).
Sam and I were musing about the similarities of the manor houses of medieval times and internet conglomerates of today — like Medium. Basically, there isn’t much negotiation between Medium and its writers. We just have to accept the terms offered — and those terms can change at any time.
Our discussion dovetailed into the mystery of the Medium algorithm. Sam believed that there are many “mostly readers” subscribing to Medium. They don’t write much. But they read, clap, and comment.
I believed most of the readers are active contributors — and we are reading mostly to build our writing career/hobby, using quid-pro-quo principles.
One flaw with my hypothesis is my Medium revenue. In 2022, I earned C$252 in Medium royalties. My subscription cost C$65. In other words, I — definitely a bottom writer — took out four times the money out of this forum than I had put in.
When I extrapolate my earnings-to-traction ratio to top writers’ claps, my math says the top writers seem to be earning a nice middle-class living with their daily Medium rants. Hence, they can justify writing full-time.
But if many of us contributors are earning “a profit,” then how is Medium paying all these royalties, staff, and server space while staying fiscally solvent? I cannot explain this if Medium subscribers are mostly writers who reluctantly read other writers’ works. So maybe Sam is onto something.
Then Sam divided his “mostly readers” into two groups. First are the lurkers who are coming to Medium to sample the forum. They have limited access. Second are the actual subscribers who have put some money down to get full access. They can contribute articles if they want to, but most do not. That’s just like how I use Youtube: I just watch and enjoy Youtube, I do not upload my own videos.
And I do not have the experience of being a Medium lurker. I was promoting my alternative democracy on the forum G+ in its last days. Several people were mentioning their transition to Medium. I took a quick look at Medium and subscribed almost immediately.
And Sam’s discussion led to how Medium needs to convert lurkers into paying subscribers. And this is where the top writers come in.
Top writers lob attractive softballs to the lurkers. It is easy for these lurkers to connect with these articles: well written, easy to digest, platitudinal, and not too challenging. Ms. Wildfire makes lefty-type people feel good about their current attitudes and life decisions. Mr. Haque makes his readers put all the blame for the world woes on the other political side. These two writers are masters of using confirmation bias to earn an income.
The other two top writers I mentioned share their personal sex lives to motivate lurkers to subscribers. Maybe some lurkers are in a state of schadenfreude to make them feel superior to those who have such screwed up lives. Or maybe these writers help other lurkers validate a past or present lifestyle. Think tabloid journalism!
When lurkers transition to subscribers, Medium algorithms must be keeping track of the articles these transitioners had read. Patterns are established; certain writers are identified with stronger lurker-to-subscriber ratio; they get more exposure in the feeds; their articles are seen by more lurkers; more subscriptions; then more exposure yet. This is how these writers become top writers; they can now financially justify their full-time writing career.
And Medium gets the subscriber fees to pay the bills, pay its top writers a nice income, pay its bottom writers a not-so-nice income, and maybe there’s some ROI for the original investors. If this business matrix keeps Medium financially solvent, then it seems to be effective: the lights are on!
Here’s an important realization to this matrix. The top writers are not top writers because they are fantastic writers writing fantastic articles on fantastic topics. Rather they have a proven formula for turning lurkers into paying subscribers.
And to keep their writing income coming, they cannot depart too far from their writing formula which has brought them financial success — just like a successful restaurant cannot tinker with its recipes too much. So the writing of the top writers — to many of us Medium readers — is quite repetitive.
Converting lurkers into subscribers is something my writing cannot do. I throw a hardball at my readers: our democracy is so broken that my readers must help build another democracy — if they really want to change the world. I don’t think I hit any confirmation bias buttons with my main topic.
Whether I have been justly or unjustly relegated to a bottom writer, I still benefit from of the transactional process between Medium and its top writers. The top writers make Medium financially solvent with new subscribers! And I — and other bottom writers — get an internet forum to find our audience.
But this transaction is not that one sided. It is we bottom writers who make Medium interesting. Once the new subscribers tire of the top writers, they can find our work and evaluate it for whatever it is worth. These new subscribers will stay subscribing when they find articles that are entertaining and educational. If Medium depended on only the works of its top writers, Medium would be boring as hell — probably failing financially within one year.
So you still want to be a top writer?
Aspiring top writers need to approach Medium as a scientific experiment. In scientific experiments, we need to identify control variables, dependent variables, and independent variables. We keep, as much as possible, the control variables the same each time. In the case of Medium top writers, the control variables are the topic and theme. The dependent variables are the individual articles. The independent variables are the signs of turning into a top writer.
As to the independent variable, understand that you will not have access to the primary statistic that shows you are becoming a top writer: your lurker-to-subscriber ratio. Relying on the claps, comments, and Medium shekels might make you stray on your path to becoming a top writer. Your article may be popular, but its lurker-to-subscriber ratio might be too low to sustain a good exposure on Medium.
Your sign of a top writer is a slowly increasing exposure because the Medium algorithms have identified your ability to attract new subscribers. You need to run the experiment until you get the right feedback.
For aspiring top writers, find a topic that you enjoy, has some degree of mass appeal, and makes a particular Medium demographic to feel good about itself. Then write daily on that topic. Do not change topic or theme. Keep the same message each time, more or less.
Do this writing for at least 30 days so you can properly evaluate whether your topic/theme does turn lurkers into subscribers. Find another topic/theme if you have not become a top writer.
When you find your niche, you can deviate a little from your topic/theme. Your current followers will probably like this change, but these deviations may not bring in the new subscribers. If your lurker-to-subscriber ratio drops, remember that whatever the Medium algorithms give, they can also take away. You could lose some exposure in the feeds. Your loyal followers will find it harder to find you.
I have encountered more than a few writers who are frustrated that their superior writing is not matching the exposure of the top writers. But their topic/theme is wandering all over the place. If they have one article that has a good lurker-to-subscriber ratio and nine that are not, then what is the algorithm supposed to think?
Study the top writers and evaluate how far they deviate from their formulaic writing.
So you want to be a creative writer?
This particular article is far off my usual Medium path, which has proven not to convert lurkers into subscribers. But this article could do well, for many Medium contributors like insights on how Medium works. If it is popular, should I not continue with this theme?
Let’s just say that trying to write 30 similar articles about my new hypothesis of the Medium algorithms does not appeal to me. And I doubt lurkers would appreciate this work anyway.
I want to be a creative writer. When I get an inspiration or intuitive feeling, I will just write in that direction.
There are many good creative writers on Medium with interesting takes on many topics. Many good writers. Unfortunately, the law of Economics 101 says that when supply is greater than demand, the price goes down.
And then the manor house comes into effect. The manor house, i.e. Medium, pays us just enough to keep coming back. It doesn’t care we have rent to pay and food to buy. If we leave because of the low pay or low recognition, other creative writers will be happy to take our place.
My advice to creative writers:
1. Write for fun!
2. Read for fun!
3. Put a limit on your Medium time.
4. Be thankful the top writers are keeping the lights on!
5. You could still find your audience to fame and fortune. But probably not!
6. Remember, there is a loss of creativity to be a top writer on Medium. You are probably not willing to pay that price in advance — and with no guarantee of success.
Published on Medium 2023
Toto, I have a feeling we aren't in the 1960s anymore
Addendum 2024: Medium abandoned its reward program for writers to convert lurkers into subscribers. So that angle seems to have not been profitable. I'm not convinced that there are a lot of subscribers who are "mostly readers" on Medium. At least 90% of us are publishing at least a few articles a month. But without the new "mostly reader" subscribers, I still can't explain how Medium can keep the lights on when this bottom writer can earn four times his subscription fees. Probably none of my business, but it would be interesting to see the business matrix.
