Archetypes, whether Jungian or other, are also great to revisit. Because as life moves on and we stack experiences, each time we return, we can get a new insight.
So I'm going to look into my Creator archetype now and see what's new there for me to see.
Yes the expression (dominance) and development of an archetype changes over time. As we progress through different stages an archetype develops to a higher more refined level.
I would note that you are not one archetype. That is very limiting. We are all 12 archetypes expressed to different degrees. This gives you a unique archetypal constellation (which changes over time).
I recommend my Creator Compass. It gives you a comprehensive view. I just made an update to it to give deeper insights.
It makes sense to me they would. You can probably see your past self in the former ones and you know how you reinvented yourself, now mirrored in the new ones.
"I always used to remove from my list the people who hadn’t opened emails for 2 or 3 months, and I actually enjoyed it. But I noticed that the open rate always stayed the same, no matter how much the list shrank—it was always around 40–50%. So I stopped deleting so often.
I don't delete because I also know my behaviour - I won't open someone's newsletter for a long time, but then they send something with a banger headline, it lands at the right time, I click, read, and I even ended up purchasing a high-ticket product that way.
Thank you for taking the time to communicate a message that is so under-emphasized - I wish this was talked about more. The way you’ve framed scale as liability is super helpful in helping people like me make a more conscious decision on what I actually want (quality vs quantity). Appreciate your POV as always!
It's in moments like these where I would have liked Substack's Restack capability to let me select sentences across two adjacent paragraphs as I really like the way you framed the tourist section. Alas, I cannot select both and one without the other does not hold as much context or weight. So, this is my comment to at least express my appreciation for this two lines 😋
It's the old cliche - when you try to be everything to everyone, you are no one to anyone.
The deeper question is why do we seek to chase vanity metrics? What is the purpose of our writing? Who are we wanting that writing to serve - and in what way?
I saw this pattern in startups too. Everyone has a feature request. If you solve for everyone’s pet project, you end up addressing problems for people who aren’t that engaged in the first place. It’s a waste of time and resources…and it doesn’t work long-term.
It’s most effective when you identify your power users, or in this case readers, and speak to them. Not the generalized masses.
But most of all, always come back to yourself. You are your best barometer.
The 'Drift to the Middle' is such a true description of the pressure.
Isn't it intriguing, how we subconsciously start auditioning for the people who are about to unsubscribe, rather than writing for the ones who are already leaning in.
And learning about your archetypes is indeed a profound way to figure out what being true to yourself could look like.
The situation does apply to Substack newsletters. Email providers like Gmail, Yahoo, and Apple use engagement metrics (such as open rates, click rates, and replies) as signals to determine whether emails are wanted or unwanted by recipients.
If your Substack emails have a low open rate and a large portion of your list does not engage, these platforms may start treating your messages as less relevant, which increases the likelihood that future emails land in the Promotions tab or even the Spam/Junk folder.
Interesting, Im asking because I myself looked into this topic.
I got my own list in Kit where I take care of keeping my list efficient because I send over my own domain, but when I did research on how to handle my substack list I came up with the result, that it -mostly- don’t matter since everything goes through the substack domain. Im interested to look into it again, you got any sources for your take?
It might help that it is sent through Substack domain, especially if your domain has not much reputation. But that doesn't help with the engagement metric.
Archetypes, whether Jungian or other, are also great to revisit. Because as life moves on and we stack experiences, each time we return, we can get a new insight.
So I'm going to look into my Creator archetype now and see what's new there for me to see.
Absolutely. I was Magician before and now I am Sage. 😁
Yes the expression (dominance) and development of an archetype changes over time. As we progress through different stages an archetype develops to a higher more refined level.
I would note that you are not one archetype. That is very limiting. We are all 12 archetypes expressed to different degrees. This gives you a unique archetypal constellation (which changes over time).
I recommend my Creator Compass. It gives you a comprehensive view. I just made an update to it to give deeper insights.
Thank you, I’ll do it again.
Oh, nice! I was curious if they can change as we evolve.
I've been between Magician and Creator. There might be a thin line because I get them like 50/50 each time I take one of these quizzes.
My inner dynamic has changed drastically—Magician and Rebel used to be dominant, but now Sage and Ruler prevail. Things definitely change with age. :D
It makes sense to me they would. You can probably see your past self in the former ones and you know how you reinvented yourself, now mirrored in the new ones.
"I always used to remove from my list the people who hadn’t opened emails for 2 or 3 months, and I actually enjoyed it. But I noticed that the open rate always stayed the same, no matter how much the list shrank—it was always around 40–50%. So I stopped deleting so often.
I don't delete because I also know my behaviour - I won't open someone's newsletter for a long time, but then they send something with a banger headline, it lands at the right time, I click, read, and I even ended up purchasing a high-ticket product that way.
Thank you for taking the time to communicate a message that is so under-emphasized - I wish this was talked about more. The way you’ve framed scale as liability is super helpful in helping people like me make a more conscious decision on what I actually want (quality vs quantity). Appreciate your POV as always!
Thanks Talin :)
It's in moments like these where I would have liked Substack's Restack capability to let me select sentences across two adjacent paragraphs as I really like the way you framed the tourist section. Alas, I cannot select both and one without the other does not hold as much context or weight. So, this is my comment to at least express my appreciation for this two lines 😋
And I appreciate a lot your comment Geoff. Thanks.
Funnily I have been thinking about this quoting function as well. Maybe it's time for an upgrade @Substack.
It's the old cliche - when you try to be everything to everyone, you are no one to anyone.
The deeper question is why do we seek to chase vanity metrics? What is the purpose of our writing? Who are we wanting that writing to serve - and in what way?
That is really the question we should ask. It might reveal some uncomfortable parts.
We forget that making something uncomfortable, comfortable, requires removing "un" doing them.
We set ourselves free when we are willing to feel something.
I saw this pattern in startups too. Everyone has a feature request. If you solve for everyone’s pet project, you end up addressing problems for people who aren’t that engaged in the first place. It’s a waste of time and resources…and it doesn’t work long-term.
It’s most effective when you identify your power users, or in this case readers, and speak to them. Not the generalized masses.
But most of all, always come back to yourself. You are your best barometer.
That’s actually a quite fitting story. It applies to all business and it leads back to yourself.
The 'Drift to the Middle' is such a true description of the pressure.
Isn't it intriguing, how we subconsciously start auditioning for the people who are about to unsubscribe, rather than writing for the ones who are already leaning in.
And learning about your archetypes is indeed a profound way to figure out what being true to yourself could look like.
A great read, Philipp!
"1. The Signal-to-Noise Ratio" doesn't play a role for Substack newsletters because they get sent over the Substack domain, right?
That's a great question Timo.
The situation does apply to Substack newsletters. Email providers like Gmail, Yahoo, and Apple use engagement metrics (such as open rates, click rates, and replies) as signals to determine whether emails are wanted or unwanted by recipients.
If your Substack emails have a low open rate and a large portion of your list does not engage, these platforms may start treating your messages as less relevant, which increases the likelihood that future emails land in the Promotions tab or even the Spam/Junk folder.
Interesting, Im asking because I myself looked into this topic.
I got my own list in Kit where I take care of keeping my list efficient because I send over my own domain, but when I did research on how to handle my substack list I came up with the result, that it -mostly- don’t matter since everything goes through the substack domain. Im interested to look into it again, you got any sources for your take?
It might help that it is sent through Substack domain, especially if your domain has not much reputation. But that doesn't help with the engagement metric.
https://support.substack.com/hc/en-us/articles/360043484112-How-do-I-get-my-email-out-of-the-Promotions-tab