I get it, but authors who do this don't appear to be sharing and I have no time to do the research.
So, tell me again what moving production line did Henry Ford study before he invented the moving production line? Or which printing press did Guttenberg use as a model?
Sometimes we have to think for ourselves.
With regard to the first part, I think some of us are frustrated by assumptions being presented as fact. Having spent a large part of my professional life working 10-12 hour days on weekdays and 4-5 hours on the weekend, I totally sympathize with not having enough time. That was me for over thirty years of my life. Being a successful author obviously takes a lot of time, and we all have to deal with personal stuff on occasion. I totally get why you wouldn't have time to do a lot of research. (Although what you would research if none of the authors involved are talking, I'm not sure.)
But (yes, there's always a but!) claiming that something must be true without having the data to back it up is not especially persuasive. It reminds me a little of Aristotelean science. Aristotle created a scientific system based on what seemed logical. It's logical that heavier objects would fall faster--except that they don't. Actual experimentation proved Aristotle wrong on a number of assumptions.
As for Henry Ford,
In October 1913, Henry Ford introduced the moving assembly line at the Highland Park factory in Michigan. The moving assembly was inspired by other industrial companies that used similar production processes, which could be found in bakeries, mills, breweries, and meat packing plants.
(emphasis mine)
https://guides.loc.gov/this-month-in-business-history/October/FordIn other words, Ford applied the already existing principle of a moving assembly line to the automotive industry. But he certainly didn't dream it up out of thin air.
The printing press, too, is a product of long evolution.
https://jhfrench.com/blog/the-printing-press-invention-history-important-dates-amp-factsThat's not to say that no one ever made a big leap forward. But for every big leap forward, one can find all kinds of leaps sideways or even backwards. That's why new approaches need to be tried out. It's normally possible to find someone enthusiastic about a different approach who wants to try it out. (For example, you in this particular case.) That's a way to gather hard data which can then be reported back. That doesn't even mean a whole bunch of numbers. General trends would probably be enough. I know we are often shy about sharing our experiences, but leading and/or teaching by example is one of the most effective methods.
It's logical to think exposure on social media would be a good thing. But as the social media landscape change, such exposure became more costly, so the question naturally arises, is it worth it? The answer is sometimes. I think at least one author on here has had good results with FB ads. But that's hardly a universal experience. Before they were practically required, I used to spend a lot of time designing FB ads, testing them, etc. I found they did FB things, like getting people to like my page, very well. But for book sales, they did almost nothing in the short term. As I've mentioned, I also posted consistently and spent a lot of time curating what I posted. I gave up only when it became apparent that all that effort was getting me nothing. It had originally gotten me a fair number of people who became fans, but as Reachpocalypse continued, that effect faded to zero, so you'll understand my wanting actual data before I plunge headlong into doing the same thing that didn't work for me before.
And yes, the algorithms do have a content-based component. But that still means in practice that people need to constantly engage with my content in order to get shown more of it. And most platforms, still wanting to sell ads, will make sure that part isn't as effective as it could be.
This leaves us in the realm of opportunity costs. Every hour I spend on social media could be an hour I spend more productively doing something else. So it's not just that social media needs to demonstrate that it has some marginal benefit. It needs to demonstrate that such a benefit outweighs what other uses of my time could do (like, say, focusing on Substack, which doesn't strangle organic growth). For a better explanation of this idea, I recommend Cal Newport's
Deep Work, which explains, among other things, that social media is not as valuable as sometimes argued. To be fair, none of his examples are indie authors, but he does provide evidence that professionals and companies often do better with less social media--the assumptions about its value often overestimate its actual results.
Having worked in education for so many years had made me cynical about sweeping claims without much data. Unfortunately, education tends to be fad driven. A lot of administrators, looking toward their next job or their next promotion, want to bring the Next Big Thing to their campus or district. The Next Big Thing always
sounds logical. It gets adopted, districts spend money from their already strapped budgets to train people to use it--and then, more often than not, it does a slow and painful death because it doesn't produce the advertised results. But it's okay, because there's always another Next Big Thing to take its place. The districts that do the best tend to be the ones which wait until there's a significant amount of research supporting a new approach before going all in on it. Pilot programs have a purpose (besides alliteration).
This is why I'm skeptical about some ideas presented without real data. It's earned skepticism.
