We need to have a talk about this:

Let's do some math. So, let's assume that, on average, each subscriber pays $70/year.

First of all, this means that each one of these 'top 10' has 10,000 subscribers (which is nice)

But...

https://www.axios.com/pandemic-spurs-journalists-to-go-it-alone-via-email-613ca2d5-e8d5-4235-9582-48cc028e9d8b.html

If we take the 250,000 subscribers, and divide that with it with what these top 10 are getting, everyone else has to share the remaining $10.5 million. (250,000 * $70/year = 17.5 million - $7 million = $10.5m) Meaning that everyone else has to share 150,000 subscribers.

So, if we assume that Substack has a total of 1,000 people creating premium newsletters on their platform, it means that everyone not in the top 10 has 152 subscribers (on average), earning them $9,192/year (when you subtract all the fees).

That's not a lot of money.

But again, this is 'on average' (and based on assumptions). What is far more likely is that the top 25 have a good amount of subscribers, and then there is a very long tail that hardly makes anything.

So... yeah.

My point is that journalists mustn't get blinded by the success of the 'top 10'. Substack does not help you to be successful. You have to build all that yourself.

The fact that the Top 10 makes up 40% of their total subscriber base is not impressive.