We need to have a talk about this:

Let& #39;s do some math. So, let& #39;s assume that, on average, each subscriber pays $70/year.

First of all, this means that each one of these & #39;top 10& #39; 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">https://www.axios.com/pandemic-...

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& #39;s not a lot of money.

But again, this is & #39;on average& #39; (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& #39;t get blinded by the success of the & #39;top 10& #39;. 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.