consistent content, whether it's a podcast, a blog, or a show, has one of the most demoralizing payoff curves in business. it's flat, genuinely flat, for a long stretch, long enough that reasonable people conclude it isn't working and stop right before it would have started compounding.
the mechanism isn't mysterious once you've watched it happen a few times. each piece of content is a small trust deposit with an audience that mostly isn't paying close attention yet. individually, none of them do much. but they stack, and at some point the accumulated stack crosses a threshold where someone finally notices, checks the archive, and realizes there's a real body of consistent thinking behind the one piece they just saw. that's when it starts compounding, and it's completely unpredictable in advance exactly which piece triggers it.
this is exactly why consistency matters more than any individual piece being brilliant. a mediocre piece published on schedule beats a brilliant piece published erratically, because the compounding depends on the stack existing at all, not on any single entry being exceptional.
the practical implication is uncomfortable: you have to keep showing up through the entire flat part with no external evidence it's working, purely on the belief that the mechanism is real even when you can't see it yet.
how long have you actually given your own consistent effort before deciding whether it's working, and was that long enough for compounding to even have a chance?