The Terror of Numbers

Recently I came across an Instagram post from a magazine that originally covered:

• geopolitics
• investigations (including uncomfortable topics)
• non-populist perspectives on important news stories
• social battles that even caused some repercussions

Now you might imagine some deep, intellectual piece, but no, the topic covered was:

"What to do to avoid being struck by lightning"

I do not question the usefulness of telling people to avoid being the tallest thing in an empty field during a thunderstorm with lightning; on the contrary, all the better. But should a publication like that be the one spreading this news?

The question of niches

In publishing, sector publications have always existed (Vogue, for example, which covers fashion; Il Sole 24 Ore, in the economic sphere; and so on) that deal with very specific, "sector" topics; alongside generalist magazines or newspapers where on one page they tell the worst crime stories, on another politics, and on another the weekend events.

As long as the question was confined to the world of print, you accepted that if you wanted to make a magazine about lace, you would have to write about lace and your audience would buy it because they were interested in lace.

So far so good, then social media arrived and everything that followed.

The publishing world began to feel the pressure of the numbers:

• likes
• views
• comments

Exactly like all of us, at least once in life, they began to feel the anxiety of reaching as large an audience as possible and of giving the impression of always being on top of things, always first; something that at the time was essential to secure a boost in newspaper sales, but that now perhaps has lost some of its reason to exist, given the speed at which news circulates.

The problem

This "performance anxiety," for certain publications, is starting to have a significant backlash, including:

• widespread enshittification
• an audience that is too broad and therefore harder to convert and retain
• the spread (hopefully unintentional) of unverified or even false news
• flattening of the conversation
• possible loss of long-time users who perceive a change that no longer aligns with their interests

Just to name a few, without forgetting that some publications are identical even at the graphic level (only the logo changes), so much so that I often wonder whether they have the same digital team and how much they pay them, mainly because I would not be thrilled to pay someone to be identical to a direct competitor, but of course, everyone does as they please.

To make the concept more real, let us say you are big fans of Vogue: you have followed it for years and appreciate the way it approaches the world of fashion; at a certain point, alongside the articles you love so much, things start appearing like "how to avoid being struck by lightning" or "10 tips for getting started with crochet."

At first, no problem, it is one every now and then, but over time these kinds of articles take over from the ones about fashion. Would you still pay for a subscription to read Vogue at that point?

Probably not. So why should a newspaper make these kinds of decisions?

Because the numbers say more people talk about that and not about the Prada F/W 2026 runway shows, so I reach more people if I talk ALSO about those things, to the detriment of those who follow us for fashion.

When numbers are in charge

This is a problem, because if everyone talks about everything, no one talks about anything and you lose what was the heart of the magazine, its calling, what made it unique and trustworthy in the eyes of its audience.

Letting yourself be guided exclusively by the numbers is dangerous precisely because this topic is trending today and another one tomorrow, so we are forced to live in an eternal chase after the trending topic.

It becomes like running an endless 100-meter race (to borrow from athletics): you have to be extremely fast, always and forever, there is no strategy, you cannot measure your energy too carefully or afford to watch what your opponents are doing.

Help.

I am not saying you should not rely on the numbers, but you must avoid letting the anxiety of reaching more people force us to become flat, especially because, spoiler, this kind of approach does not pay off: reaching thousands of people does not absolutely guarantee higher economic conversion.

Conclusion

Quality must, always, come before quantity.

Also because then it is easy to complain that "social media sucks because everyone says the same things," if we are the first to put out content like "10 reasons not to watch the eclipse with the naked eye"...

Is it hard? Yes. Is it frustrating? Yes. But if you want to leave a mark, become a point of reference, and create a real identity, you necessarily have to make peace with yourself, choose a direction, and stay true to who you are.

Because it is better to have 10 loyal customers willing to pay our price, genuinely interested in us; rather than a million people who look at us and silently drop a like without giving us a cent.