Everyone is thinking about subscriptions wrong

I got a LinkedIn DM last month from one of my longtime readers.

She was asking for free advice, and specifically, my least favorite kind: “which platform should I use?” I get asked this question 10 times a day and the answer remains ANYTHING BUT Substack (because they steal audience and revenue from you.)

And then she said:

“I'll take a peek at your resources and see if there's anything that might benefit me in joining right now.”

To which I responded, “Nah, don’t bother.”

This is the wrong attitude for indie media subscriptions. I don’t want subscribers who, after many months of being in my mentions, act like paying me $9 requires the hefty consideration of purchasing a new car. Either you’re enthusiastically in or you’re not so damn pressed about it.

It’s the same energy as “How Much Are We Paying for Newsletters?” the headline of a poorly conceived New York Times article that minimized an entire movement of important writers, journalists and creators into a budget line item that no one’s actually worried about. Pay rent or pay this writer? However will I choose???

Why is the New York Times—a reader subscription publication—worried about how much people spend on newsletters? Are they feeling threatened by this new model? Also, why can’t they fact check a damn thing those bozos at Substack say? Ok, I know. I’m sorry. I won’t get on my soapbox today. This really isn’t about Substack. The problem here is much bigger than them.

Ironically, this line of thinking that subscriptions are unsustainable and too many of us are running them primarily gets propagated by writers. Many writers treat their own subscriptions as commodities, pricing and selling them ineffectively by comparing them to the wrong things. Other writers spend a lot of time policing how everyone else is operating.

This very public debate of “should writers get paid?” and “should we be the ones the pay them?” rubs off on plenty of readers too. You’ll have readers who get it and you’ll have readers who don’t, and if you can’t find a better angle than “upgrade to paid,” the buck’s gonna stop somewhere between them.

What this boils down to is a critical mindset shift that we independent media entrepreneurs need to make.

So, what is that shift?

The reason your subscribers pay is because of the relationship they have with you.

This relationship can be direct: moderating a Discord, prioritizing comments, holding AMAs on social media, mailing stuff to readers, or hosting events.

Or your reader relationships might be less direct like revealing behind the scenes or personal content that simply makes you relatable and worth spending time with.

It’s that sense of belonging that gets your audience opening their wallets to keep your project going. I’ll never forget this testimonial the team at Hell Gate received that explained this so clearly.

“I sleep a little easier knowing that the Hell Gate staff is out there pounding the pavement and toiling in the salt mines looking out for all of us regular joes trying to make it in the Big Onion.” - Rod, Hell Gate subscriber

Rod knows the New York Times and ABC 7 exist. That’s not who’s looking out for him though. It’s Hell Gate who he trusts.

For legacy media alum, this pill is tough to swallow.

Why would you pay ONE writer $9/month when you could pay the New York Times $25/month and access the work of THOUSANDS of journalists?

Because you feel a connection to that one writer. You want to be a valued part of their world. You want access to everything they make available. You want to vote for them to continue. You want to give input and shape their project. There’s no question that their work matters, either to you as an individual or to a group you care about, and you’d hate to see it go away—a very real possibility in 2025.

Indie media subscriptions are not a commodity.

They’re an investment in a different future. For the reader, as an individual who benefits from the relationship with a creator they find valuable. And for us, as a collective who cannot change our conditions without people who aren’t afraid to break free of the pack and challenge the power class.

There’s no reason to calculate how many journalists you get per dollar or to pretend a “newsletter budget” is an actual thing plaguing people hovering above the poverty line. If you don’t have the money to eat, by all means, do not pay me.

The question for the audiences of actually independent voices is not “how much are you spending on newsletters?” It’s “are you part of this movement or not?”

There is so much power in those small dollars. Every reader who puts down their credit card to back what you’re doing is funding their own media freedom too. They are handcrafting a rich and diverse media diet for themselves and for others.

Back to my ill-advised reader, usually I’d give someone a bit of grace but if you’ve been around me a couple years and you still don’t get it AND you’re in my face about it, you’re gonna get blocked. The free advice gravy train has reached its final destination. I’m now operating by Mariame Kaba’s rule:

“You really need to keep it moving. There are 1000 reasons why folks don't give and those reasons aren't your business. Thank those who do give and move on.”

Continue to invest back in the readers who get it. The ones who believe you are creating something worth paying for. The ones who see your work as an opportunity, not as an expense demanding to be justified.

Get the Paid Sub Playbook