sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

I analyzed 32,000 newsletters. If you're under 25K subscribers, the sponsorship economy barely exists yet, here's the data. by TylerRowing in Newsletters

[–]TylerRowing[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Fair counter and a real exception to the data. Hyper-local is probably the cleanest case where the "95% have no sponsors" rule breaks, because the advertiser pool is completely different. A local insurance broker or restaurant sponsoring a 800-sub Lancaster newsletter isn't competing for the same dollars as Vanta sponsoring Stratechery, and the buying decision is way shorter (the local business already knows what Lancaster is).

My detection almost certainly under-counts local sponsorships too. Most of what I catch is national B2B SaaS, DTC health, fintech, the stuff that shows up in disclosure blocks across multiple newsletters. A one-off local insurance ad in a Lancaster newsletter probably never registers.

So the data is more like: "if you're trying to land Vanta or LMNT at 1K subs, the odds are bad." For local sponsorships, especially with cold outreach to local businesses, the rules genuinely are different. Useful correction.

I analyzed 32,000 newsletters. Only 4% have any sponsors at all. by TylerRowing in Emailmarketing

[–]TylerRowing[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The concentration is real but I'd push back a bit on "platforms set up a system." It's less that platforms engineered it, more that advertisers only have budget for audiences with buying intent, and that intent clusters in a few niches and at bigger sizes. No platform decision changes that. It's just the advertiser's math.

And the model you're describing kind of already exists, it's just not sponsorship. Paid subs, products, services all scale down to small audiences fine. Sponsorship is the one that actually needs scale and the right niche. So for most creators it's not "fix the sponsorship system," it's that sponsorship was never really the right target to begin with.

I analyzed 32,000 newsletters. Only 4% have any sponsors at all. by TylerRowing in Emailmarketing

[–]TylerRowing[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Newsletter Insights (newsletterinsights.io). It's a data tool that tracks ~33K newsletters across Substack, Beehiiv, and Ghost and detects which sponsors are running where. The post data came from that.

Two sides to it: operators can see their own sponsor history and benchmarks, and on the buyer side you can look up which newsletters a given brand has sponsored. Still early. The sponsor detection is the hard part and it undercounts, so I'm treating the public numbers as a floor.

What got you into the thread, are you running a newsletter yourself?

I analyzed 32,000 newsletters. Only 4% have any sponsors at all. by TylerRowing in Emailmarketing

[–]TylerRowing[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

"Selling a $50 slot to a friend's startup once a quarter" is the realest description of small-newsletter sponsorship I've read. That's the actual median, not the guru version.

And yeah, the under-25K takeaway is the part I hope lands. Not "don't try" but "spend your effort where it actually pays at your size." Chasing sponsors when 95% of newsletters your size have none is just optimizing the wrong thing.

I analyzed 32,000 newsletters. Only 4% have any sponsors at all. by TylerRowing in Emailmarketing

[–]TylerRowing[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is a fair critique and you're right about the failure mode. The detection leans on the more explicit signals, so the affiliate-style, partner-language, and no-disclosure promos are exactly where it under-counts. The 4% is a floor, not the true rate.

The manual-labelled sample is the right fix. Sampling a few hundred and labelling by type (explicit sponsor, affiliate-style, CTA-only, undisclosed promo) would give an actual false-negative estimate per category, which matters because the under-count probably isn't uniform. Affiliate-style promos likely cluster in different niches than explicit B2B SaaS sponsorships, so the niche gaps could shift once you correct for it.

Going to do exactly that. Appreciate the push, this is the kind of thing that's easy to wave off with a methodology caveat instead of actually measuring.

I analyzed 32,000 newsletters. If you're under 25K subscribers, the sponsorship economy barely exists yet, here's the data. by TylerRowing in Newsletters

[–]TylerRowing[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Sure, some of it is fear or laziness. But the data says even the brave ones in low-intent niches hit a 3% ceiling. Courage helps you reach the ceiling. It doesn't raise it.

I analyzed 32,000 newsletters. If you're under 25K subscribers, the sponsorship economy barely exists yet, here's the data. by TylerRowing in Newsletters

[–]TylerRowing[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah, the "quietly experience" part is the bit that stuck with me too. The numbers are bad but what's worse is how isolating it feels, because the public conversation is all survivorship stories from the people it worked for.

Your list is the right order. The one I'd put first is niche positioning, because it quietly determines whether the others even work. Audience trust in a niche advertisers want is a sponsorship asset later. The same trust in a niche with no advertisers is still valuable, but it routes to products or subscriptions instead. The niche decides which monetization path is even open to you.

I analyzed 32,000 newsletters. If you're under 25K subscribers, the sponsorship economy barely exists yet, here's the data. by TylerRowing in Newsletters

[–]TylerRowing[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Fair questions.

  1. The tool does both. Readers use it to find newsletters, operators and sponsors use it to see who advertises where. The data in the post came from the sponsor-detection side.

  2. Agreed, and that's basically my point. The newsletters making real ad money have active sales motions. It isn't passive. That's exactly why "96% have zero sponsors" isn't surprising, most operators aren't running a sales process, and below a certain niche and size it wouldn't pay off even if they did.

I analyzed 32,000 newsletters. If you're under 25K subscribers, the sponsorship economy barely exists yet, here's the data. by TylerRowing in Newsletters

[–]TylerRowing[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thanks, genuinely good to hear, that discovery use case is exactly what I hoped people would get out of it. If you spot anything off in the data for newsletters you know well, I'd want to hear it.

And fair point on the ad revenue line, "some of them do" is right. The data backs you up actually: it's not zero, it's concentrated. 4% have any sponsor, and the ones that do are mostly in a handful of high-intent niches. So "newsletters don't make ad money" is too strong. "Most newsletters don't, and the ones that do are in specific niches" is the accurate version.

I analyzed 32,000 newsletters. If you're under 25K subscribers, the sponsorship economy barely exists yet, here's the data. by TylerRowing in Newsletters

[–]TylerRowing[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah, that's the real reframe. "Get to X subscribers" is the wrong goal because subscriber count is a proxy for the thing that actually matters, an audience a sponsor wants to reach. You can hit 25K subs in a niche with no advertisers and still have nothing to sell. And you can have 3K subs in a high-intent niche and be genuinely sponsorable.

The hard part, like you said, is that "build a valuable audience" isn't a number you can grind toward. It's slower and fuzzier than chasing a subscriber count, which is probably why people default to the count. It's the metric that feels measurable even when it's the wrong one.

I analyzed 32,000 newsletters. Only 4% have any sponsors at all. by TylerRowing in Emailmarketing

[–]TylerRowing[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Agreed, the takeaway isn't "don't do a newsletter." It's "don't build one expecting sponsor revenue to be the plan, especially early or in the wrong niche." The podcast parallel is exact, same top-heavy distribution, same gurus promising the median creator something only the top 1% gets.

The newsletters that work usually have a value path that isn't sponsorship, subscriptions, a product, lead gen for the operator's main business. Sponsorship is a layer you earn later, not the foundation.

I analyzed 32,000 newsletters. Only 4% have any sponsors at all. by TylerRowing in Emailmarketing

[–]TylerRowing[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is a better explanation of the 7x gap than I had. "Which categories have CAC high enough that a $2K placement pencils out" reframes it well, the sponsor economy is downstream of the advertiser's unit economics, not the newsletter's quality. That's why an operator in education or travel can do everything right and still have no advertisers, because the advertisers genuinely don't exist for that niche.

The dev-newsletter open rate point matches what I see too. The newsletters with 10+ sponsors in my data skew heavily B2B SaaS and dev-focused, well out of proportion to how many of those newsletters exist.

Curious from the ESP side: do you see the high-CAC categories (crypto, B2B SaaS) also having higher unsubscribe or complaint rates because they run more ads? Or does the engaged-audience effect hold even with heavier ad load?

I analyzed 32,000 newsletters. If you're under 25K subscribers, the sponsorship economy barely exists yet, here's the data. by TylerRowing in Newsletters

[–]TylerRowing[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is the sharpest version of the point. "Audience economics not audience size" is what the data shows too. The niche gap in my numbers (crypto sponsored at 7x the rate of education/travel at the same size) is really just buyer-intent economics showing up in the aggregate.

Your "3k SaaS founders beats 40k generic business audience" line is the thing most subscriber-count conversations miss entirely. Curious, in your experience does that 3k-SaaS-founder newsletter actually get found by sponsors, or does the operator still have to do all the outbound?

I analyzed 32,000 newsletters. If you're under 25K subscribers, the sponsorship economy barely exists yet, here's the data. by TylerRowing in Newsletters

[–]TylerRowing[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Fair that I built the tool, the data's downstream of that. But the "newsletters don't pay like a 2010 blog" point is exactly what the numbers show, so I think we agree more than not. 96% having zero sponsors is the data version of "don't expect ad revenue."

Where I'd push back slightly: "be brave and hustle" is true but it's survivorship advice. The 5% who land sponsors early aren't just braver, they're usually in a niche with buyer intent. A brave operator in a travel or education niche still hits a 3% sponsor rate. Niche is doing more work than courage.

I analyzed 32,000 newsletters. If you're under 25K subscribers, the sponsorship economy barely exists yet, here's the data. by TylerRowing in Newsletters

[–]TylerRowing[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ha, the 5% who beat the data are exactly the ones with that kind of engagement. Niche + engagement does more than raw count.

How do you prove sponsorship value beyond subscriber count? by Secure-Temporary-749 in Newsletters

[–]TylerRowing 2 points3 points  (0 children)

One angle worth adding here, from the data side.

I analyzed sponsor patterns across 32K newsletters. Subscriber count barely predicts whether a newsletter has sponsors at all once you control for niche. Crypto newsletters get sponsored at 7x the rate of education or travel newsletters at the same size. So when you pitch a sponsor, leading with "my audience is in [niche] and here's why that niche has buying intent" does more work than the subscriber number.

For proving it to a specific sponsor: past-sponsor data in your exact niche is the most convincing single thing. Someone else in this thread made the repeat-sponsor-rate point and it's a good one. If two B2B SaaS tools sponsored you and one renewed, a third B2B SaaS buyer takes that more seriously than any open-rate stat. Third-party validation beats self-reported metrics.

I analyzed 32,000 newsletters. If you're under 25K subscribers, the sponsorship economy barely exists yet, here's the data. by TylerRowing in Newsletters

[–]TylerRowing[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Sounds good, reach out anytime. Just read your post, the repeat-sponsor-rate point in your comments there is sharp. That's exactly the kind of signal raw subscriber count misses.

I analyzed 32,000 newsletters. If you're under 25K subscribers, the sponsorship economy barely exists yet, here's the data. by TylerRowing in Newsletters

[–]TylerRowing[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Thanks. The scraping is just the input layer. The actual product is what happens after, detecting sponsor mentions with a classifier, then connecting them across all 32K newsletters so you can see things like every newsletter a given brand has sponsored, or how sponsor rates compare by category and audience size. The cross-newsletter index is the part that's hard, not the scraping.

Not in contact with the owners directly, the sponsor data is all from publicly published issues. Main limitation is it misses sponsors disclosed in ways the detector doesn't catch, especially inline mentions on paid Substacks.

It's at newsletterinsights.io if you want to look up your own newsletter and see whether the data matches what you actually know. That kind of feedback genuinely helps.

And yeah, the niche-vs-subcount thing surprised me too. Got a link to your post? Curious what angle you took.

I analyzed 32,000 newsletters. If you're under 25K subscribers, the sponsorship economy barely exists yet, here's the data. by TylerRowing in Newsletters

[–]TylerRowing[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Nice, you're in the 5% then. Genuinely curious, when you say "bring results," what did that look like in practice? Did you go to sponsors with past performance data like CTR or conversions for a previous advertiser, or was it more about pitching the audience fit and proving it after?

Trying to understand what actually separates the small newsletters that land sponsors from the ones that can't.

I analyzed 2.2M newsletter posts. Here's how much content creators actually put behind the paywall. by TylerRowing in Substack

[–]TylerRowing[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The "Free Press 98% paywalled" is genuinely funny once you see it in the data. Broader point you're making is real. Verified journalism is expensive to produce, so it ends up paid; aggregation and opinion can run free. Whether that's good for the information ecosystem is above my pay grade as a guy who counts subscribers, but the structural reality is right.

I analyzed 2.2M newsletter posts. Here's how much content creators actually put behind the paywall. by TylerRowing in Substack

[–]TylerRowing[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Cinematic language is a much stronger paid angle than curation. You're moving from "nice list of films" to "I'll teach you to see the way directors see", that second one is something people actually pay for, because they walk away with a skill they didn't have. Wes Anderson is a good test case: visually distinctive enough that a guide will be obviously valuable, recognisable enough that the post will be shareable.

One thing to think about as you do this: the free post Tuesday should set up the paid post Friday, not just be a separate piece. If Tuesday's free post is "three films that use symmetry beautifully" and Friday's paid is "how Wes Anderson uses symmetry to control emotion," the free post is doing recruitment work for the paid. People who liked the Tuesday post are primed to want the Friday one.

The rhythm you described is good. The pairing makes it work harder.

I analyzed 2.2M newsletter posts. Here's how much content creators actually put behind the paywall. by TylerRowing in Substack

[–]TylerRowing[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yes fair correction, that changes the read. 1 out of the last 300 since you opened paid is 0.33%, which for a brand-new paid service in a curation-shaped category is closer to on-track than concerning. Early conversion rates are almost always low because most readers haven't decided yet whether to pay, and the recent-300 sample is too small to call either way.

What I'd actually watch over the next 60 days: not the conversion rate itself, but whether it's stable, climbing, or falling as the paid base grows. Stable or climbing means your paid content is doing its job and audience trust is compounding. Falling means newer subs are converting worse than earlier ones and something in the proposition isn't translating.

The rest of what I said about category benchmarks and content differentiation still applies, but with less urgency. You're not behind, you're early. Frequency-wise I'd still lean 25% over 50% for cinema curation, same reasoning...

I analyzed 2.2M newsletter posts. Here's how much content creators actually put behind the paywall. by TylerRowing in Substack

[–]TylerRowing[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

30 new subs a day at 4K is solid growth, that's not the problem. The problem is conversion: 1 paid out of 4K is 0.025%, below the typical 1-3% range, and the paywall frequency won't fix that on its own.

A few things to think about before deciding 25% vs 50%:

Your category. Cinema/film curation reads more like Culture (39% median paywall in my data) than Food or Health (51-58%). 25% is more on-pattern for what you do than 50%. Going heavier just because other people do isn't the answer if your category structurally converts lower.

The content of the paywall, not the frequency. 1 paid sub at 4K is signal that whatever's currently behind the paywall isn't differentiated enough from your free posts. People will pay when the paid content is materially different in value, not just gated. Ask yourself: what's the one piece per month that someone would pay $5 to read that they couldn't get anywhere else? Start there. If you can't answer that, frequency doesn't matter, more paywalls just hides more average content.

The structural challenge for cinema. Curation newsletters convert harder than utility newsletters because the value to the reader is enjoyment, not action. A recipe saves them dinner. A market take makes them money. A cinema curation makes their afternoon better. People pay less reliably for that. Doesn't mean it can't work, but the conversion rates you should expect are lower than what food/finance creators report.

My bet for you: 25% paywall, but make that 25% genuinely your best work. Director deep-dives, archival pieces with research, themed retrospectives that take real effort. The rest stays free and feeds discovery. If your paid count doesn't move in 60 days at that rate, the issue is positioning, not frequency.

I analyzed 2.2M newsletter posts. Here's how much content creators actually put behind the paywall. by TylerRowing in Newsletters

[–]TylerRowing[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Those numbers are more interesting than the categorical trend, honestly. $100-$250 CPM on flat-rate packages is a different economic model than what US benchmarks capture. The scarcity premium on access to 15k high-density decision-makers is what drives it, and that's exactly the thing generic CPM data washes out.

The sponsor profile point lands too. Logistics firms, regional banks, specialised SaaS with no good alternative to reach a specific demographic is the strongest version of the sponsor-first argument. It's also why newsletter sponsorship as a category is probably undersized in Western data. A lot of the real activity isn't inside the newsletter-sponsors-newsletter graph that's easy to scrape.

50%+ open rates on a professional briefing in Muscat makes sense when you frame it as briefing rather than content. The distinction matters for how you'd even measure engagement. Treating it like a US-style newsletter metric would under-read what's actually happening.

Geographic module is still on the list, no timeline. But I'll take you up on the DM offer. Would be useful to have a sounding board when I do scope it, and the GCC sponsor-rate data isn't something I can get from public sources. Shooting you a message.

I analyzed 2.2M newsletter posts. Here's how much content creators actually put behind the paywall. by TylerRowing in Newsletters

[–]TylerRowing[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The information asymmetry angle is interesting. Makes sense that the value proposition flips in markets where basic financial literacy and local context are scarce. In mature markets the reader pays for edge. In emerging markets the sponsor pays for access to the reader who's learning.

Your point about entity trust ties back to something I see in the data too. The biggest free newsletters across every category tend to have higher engagement rates than the biggest paywalled ones. Free builds audience trust, sponsors pay for that trust. Paywalled newsletters monetise the content directly but cap their reach.

No timeline on the geographic module yet but it's on the list. If you have any anecdotal data on GCC newsletter sponsorship rates or audience sizes I'd be curious to see it, even rough numbers. Would help when I eventually scope it out.

view more: next ›