logo
How Much Are We Paying for Newsletters? $50, $100 … How About $3,000 a Year.

How Much Are We Paying for Newsletters? $50, $100 … How About $3,000 a Year.

New York Times10-05-2025

Em Hermann-Johnson had been following Anne Helen Petersen's writing for years when, in 2020, Ms. Petersen quit her job at BuzzFeed News to write her newsletter, Culture Study, full time.
'I didn't hesitate to support her,' Ms. Hermann-Johnson, a 52-year-old substitute teacher in Minneapolis, said. She paid $5 a month for a Culture Study subscription. It would be the first of many.
'I don't even know how many I pay for right now,' she said. 'Five, maybe? Six?'
When she sat down to determine the actual number, it turned out to be 11. She pays between $5 and $10 a month for some and between $38 and $60 annually for others, totaling about $600 a year, she said.
In the last few years, more people are spending a significant amount of money on email newsletters from their favorite writers. As a result, some have also fallen into a familiar budgeting trap: It can be difficult to keep track of how many newsletters they've signed up for and how much they're paying for them.
Despite the surprise, Ms. Hermann-Johnson didn't consider culling her list. As she read through her paid newsletters — among them from Nora McInerny, a grief writer; Laura McKowen, a sobriety writer; and Catherine Newman, a memoirist and novelist — there were no surprises. All were writers she read, loved and felt good about giving money to.
'I just want to support them and their work, and that's how I feel like I can do it,' she said.
A Relatively New Spending Category
Hamish McKenzie, one of Substack's founders, wrote in a Substack post last year that Ben Thompson, a tech analyst who writes the blog Stratechery, had inspired an early version of his company. Mr. Thompson added a paid membership option to his blog in 2014, and within six months, 1,000 subscribers were paying him at least $100 a year for premium content. (Mr. Thompson refers to his own publication as a 'subscription-based blog, newsletter and podcast.')
When Mr. McKenzie founded Substack with his colleagues Chris Best and Jairaj Sethi in 2017, their first recruit to the platform was Bill Bishop, whose free newsletter, Sinocism, had 30,000 subscribers. On his first day publishing it on Substack, he brought in $100,000 in subscriptions. Substack, then as now, took 10 percent.
Today, many platforms and products, including Beehiiv, Kit, Memberful, Ghost, Lede and Patreon, help writers create paid publications. But Substack is widely considered to be the largest, with over 50,000 revenue-earning publications. The company reports that it has tens of millions of active subscribers and five million paid subscriptions. It declined to share concrete subscriber numbers, including the number of paid subscribers.
Because the category is relatively new, there isn't enough public data yet on who is paying for newsletters, or how many they are paying for.
Dan Oshinsky, founder of Inbox Collective, a newsletter consultancy, said the desire to support a particular person's work sets the newsletter category apart from more traditional media subscriptions, where access to the content itself is the primary driver to subscribe.
'When there is a person behind it or a small team behind it, readers will go, 'I really like you, I like your mission, I like your work, and I want to make sure that I support you in some way,'' Mr. Oshinsky said.
Jill Krupnik, a 42-year-old writer in Brooklyn who said she paid for five newsletters, described her own primary driver as a desire to help 'the people I'm in a parasocial relationship with.'
Not Keeping Track
In conversations with over 40 readers who pay for at least one subscription to an independent email newsletter or blog, many said they did not know exactly how many newsletters they were paying for or even how to check, save some tedious bank statement forensics. On Substack, for example, subscribers can see a list of publications they pay for, but not a full count. They also must click through individual invoices to see how much they are paying — a total is not available.
Of those subscribers who did check, many discovered that the total was more than they had thought.
Sari Botton, who lives in Kingston, N.Y., makes her living from two publications on Substack: Oldster Magazine and Memoir Land. She keeps her core content free, inviting readers who can to subscribe for $50 to $55 each year. 'I'm really uncomfortable asking for money,' she said.
But she has no such qualms paying other writers. 'I just want to help everybody,' Ms. Botton, 59, said. 'I definitely subscribe to more than I can read on a regular basis.'
When she counted them, she found she was paying for 127 newsletters — all on Substack.
'I was stunned,' she said. 'In my mind, it was more like 35 or maybe even 50. I'm really bad at keeping track of expenses and my credit card charges.'
Ms. Botton settled in to make some hard decisions to cull her list. The easiest unsubscribes: writers who charged her despite not publishing on a regular basis.
She estimates she now pays about $3,000 a year for about 60 newsletters.
'I want to help people who are writers, who are going through what we're all going through: the decimation of our entire field,' she said.
Paying Attention
Some subscribers know exactly whom they are paying for, and even develop systems to spread their dollars around.
Phyllis Unterschuetz, 76, is a retiree in Atlanta. 'My husband and I are living on Social Security, which does not reach,' she said.
She answers paid online surveys to fund her newsletter subscriptions and can earn enough to afford three to five at a time. When she feels it's time to rotate to another publication, she sends a note to explain that she is canceling not because of the content but because she needs to free up dollars to support other writers.
Brian Keaney, a teacher in Worcester, Mass., said he had paid for three publications from independent journalists on Substack for several years, including How Things Work, by Hamilton Nolan ($50 a year), and Worcester Sucks and I Love It, by Bill Shaner ($69 a year). In the last month, he added three paid subscriptions with funds he redistributed after adjusting his longtime Boston Globe subscription from print to digital.
'If I had unlimited funds, I'd pay for all the Substacks I read,' Mr. Keaney, 61, said. 'I'm a firm believer that if you're putting in quality work, you deserve to get paid.'
For her 50th birthday two years ago, Bianca Spence, an arts administrator in Toronto, bought herself a $50 annual subscription to Culture Study after a few years as a free subscriber. It was her first time paying for a newsletter, and her next two weren't such slow burns. She began paying $5 a month for That Shakespearean Rag, by the literary critic Steven W. Beattie, 'the second he started charging,' she said, since she had read him for free for so long. When Jane Pratt, founder of the cult teen magazine Sassy, started a newsletter called Another Jane Pratt Thing, Ms. Spence immediately paid $80 a year for it.
'I still have all my old Sassy magazines and Jane magazines in a box in my closet,' Ms. Spence, 52, said. 'I would follow Jane to the end of the earth.'
Conducting an Audit
Aminatou Sow, author of the Crème de la Crème newsletter, recently did an audit of the ones she was paying for.
'I am trying to be a financially responsible person,' Ms. Sow, 40, said. Part of that work: whittling down her paid subscriptions. 'I feel bad saying that out loud, because I feel like I should say that I pay for all of them,' she said. 'But I don't.'
One way she cut back: bartering with other writers. 'I think, in general, artists should do that with each other,' she said. 'And people can say no, and that's fine.'
Comped swaps have drastically lowered the number of newsletters she pays for to a single digit.
For subscribers who can't barter, Ms. Sow recommends the hard audit.
'People are hoarding digital products, drinking from a fire hose of this content,' she said. 'Do you really need to subscribe to 100 newsletters? I don't think so. Do you need to subscribe to 20 of them? I'm not even sure.'
Ms. Sow puts about half of her content behind a paywall and charges paid subscribers $50 a year. 'I think that's a good barrier of entry for everybody,' she said.
A few weeks after our initial discussion, Ms. Hermann-Johnson's 11 paid subscriptions had increased to 15.
Here's how it happened. First, one of her favorite writers joined Substack, and it took just three clicks for her to become a paid subscriber using her credit card on file. Then, during the subscription flow, she received an offer to take 20 percent off the monthly price of several subscriptions for one year. All she had to do was click the button next to the ones she wanted. to pay for. The list included publications she already subscribed to for free that had opted in to the offer.
For Ms. Hermann-Johnson, finally upgrading them to a paid subscription was a relief. 'But I am also like, 'Oh, my gosh, I'm starting to pay a lot for these newsletters,'' she said.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

How Much the Average Middle-Class American Has Gained in the Stock Market Since Trump Announced His Tariffs
How Much the Average Middle-Class American Has Gained in the Stock Market Since Trump Announced His Tariffs

Yahoo

time26 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

How Much the Average Middle-Class American Has Gained in the Stock Market Since Trump Announced His Tariffs

According to Gallup, 71% of middle-income Americans are invested in the stock market, and they've watched their fortunes rise and fall repeatedly during the volatile period since President Donald Trump announced his trade tariffs on April 2. But as the official start of summer approaches, those who resisted the urge to panic-sell during the frightening declines have largely seen their discipline pay off. Check Out: Read Next: It's impossible to gauge what the average middle-class investor might have gained or lost because the concept is a construct, regardless of the investor's socioeconomic class. Even if it were possible to put a dollar amount on the mean middle-class earner's stock investments, that would ignore critical variables like that investor's: Type, size and number of stock or fund holdings Portfolio makeup Portfolio diversity Degree of leverage from options trading or margin borrowing Trade frequency Fees and expenses Discover More: For context on just how differently two otherwise similar middle-class investors can perform, consider that Warner Bros Discovery Inc. (WBD) cratered on April 2 and retained a 24% overall loss through June 10. Conversely, Palantir Technologies Inc. (PLTR) has been one of the top performers in the post-tariff era, adding most of its 74% year-to-date gains since April 2. Two middle-class stock pickers with identical incomes and backgrounds who rolled the anti-diversification dice by purchasing identical amounts in either stock on April 1 would have had radically different outcomes between then and mid-June. A more reliable metric might be the major indices that so many middle-class households invest in through their 401(k)s, IRAs, index funds and ETFs. Between April 2 and June 10: The S&P 500, the benchmark index for the U.S. stock market, gained 6.16%. The Dow Jones Industrial Average, which tracks the blue chips, gained 1.31%. The tech-heavy and more volatile Nasdaq gained 11.57%. The FTSE All Cap Index, which includes much of the global stock market with 10,000 small-, mid- and large-cap companies in both developed and emerging markets, gained 7.22%. The average among all four is 6.57%, which is roughly what typical middle-class earners might have gained since April 2 if they followed the conventional advice of diversifying their portfolios with a blend of blue chips, growth stocks and foreign equities, and holding their positions regardless of market behavior. More From GOBankingRates 3 Luxury SUVs That Will Have Massive Price Drops in Summer 2025 Clever Ways To Save Money That Actually Work in 2025 7 Tax Loopholes the Rich Use To Pay Less and Build More Wealth This article originally appeared on How Much the Average Middle-Class American Has Gained in the Stock Market Since Trump Announced His Tariffs

NHS faces paying more for US drugs to avoid future Trump tariffs
NHS faces paying more for US drugs to avoid future Trump tariffs

Yahoo

time40 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

NHS faces paying more for US drugs to avoid future Trump tariffs

Britain faces paying more for US drugs as part of a deal to avoid future tariffs from Donald Trump. The NHS will review drug pricing to take into account the 'concerns of the president', according to documents released after a trade agreement was signed earlier this year. White House sources said it expected the NHS to pay higher prices for American drugs in an attempt to boost the interests of corporate America. A Westminster source said: 'There's an understanding that we would look at the drug pricing issue in the concerns of the president.' The disclosure is likely to increase concerns about American interference in the British health service, which has long been regarded as a flashpoint in trade talks. It comes after Rachel Reeves announced a record £29 billion investment in the NHS in last week's spending review. The Chancellor's plans will drive spending on the health service up towards 50 per cent of all taxpayer expenditure by the mid-2030s, according to economists at the Resolution Foundation. The Telegraph has also learnt that under the terms of the trade deal with America, the UK has agreed to take fewer Chinese drugs, in a clause similar to the 'veto' given to Mr Trump over Chinese investment in Britain. The White House has asked the UK for assurances that steel and pharmaceutical products exported to the US do not originate in China, amid fears the deal could be used to 'circumvent' Mr Trump's punishing tariffs on Beijing. Mr Trump is enraged by how much more America pays for drugs compared with other countries and considers it to be the same issue as he has raised on defence spending. Just as the US president has heaped pressure on European nations to increase the GDP share they allocate to defence, he thinks they should spend more on drug development. An industry source said: 'The way we've been thinking about it and many in the administration have been thinking about it, it's more like the model in Nato, where countries contribute some share of their GDP.' Britain and the US 'intend to promptly negotiate significantly preferential treatment outcomes on pharmaceuticals and pharmaceutical ingredients', the trade deal reads. Pharmaceutical companies are also pushing for reductions in the revenue sales rebates they pay to the NHS under the voluntary scheme for branded medicines pricing, access and growth (VPAG) – a mechanism that the UK uses to make sure the NHS does not overpay. Last week, Albert Bourla, Pfizer's chief executive, said non-US countries were 'free-riding' and called for a US government-led push to make other nations increase their proportionate spend on innovative medicines. He said White House officials were discussing drug prices in trade negotiations with other countries. 'We represent in UK 0.3pc of their GDP per capita. That's how much they spend on medicine. So yes, they can increase prices,' Mr Bourla said. Industry sources said there was no indication yet on what the White House would consider to be a fair level of spending. Whatever the benchmark, Britain will face one of the biggest step-ups. UK expenditure on new innovative medicines is just 0.28pc of its GDP, roughly a third of America's proportionate spending of 0.78pc of its GDP. Even among other G7 nations, the UK is an anomaly. Germany spends 0.4pc of its GDP while Italy spends 0.5pc. Most large pharmaceutical companies generate between half and three quarters of their profits in the US, despite the fact that America typically makes up less than a fifth of their sales. This is because drug prices outside of the US can cost as little as 30pc of what Americans pay. Yet, pharmaceutical companies rely on higher US prices to fund drug research and development, which the rest of the world benefits from. A month ago, Mr Trump signed an executive order titled 'Delivering Most-Favored-Nation Prescription Drug Pricing to American Patients', which hit out at 'global freeloading' on drug pricing. It stated that 'Americans should not be forced to subsidise low-cost prescription drugs and biologics in other developed countries, and face overcharges for the same products in the United States' and ordered his commerce secretary to 'consider all necessary action regarding the export of pharmaceutical drugs or precursor material that may be fuelling the global price discrimination'. Trung Huynh, the head of pharma analysis at UBS, said: 'The crux of this issue is Trump thinks that the US is subsidising the rest of the world with drug prices. 'The president has said he wants to equalise pricing between the US and ex-US. And the way he wants to do it is not necessarily to bring down US prices all the way to where ex-US prices are, but he wants to use trade and tariffs as a pressure point to get countries to increase their prices. 'If he can offset some of the price by increasing prices higher ex-US, then the prices in America don't have to go down so much.' Mr Huynh added: 'It's going to be very hard for him to do. Because [in the UK deal] it hinges on the NHS, which we know has got zero money.' Under VPAG, pharmaceutical companies hand back at least 23pc of their revenue from sales of branded medicines back to the NHS, worth £3bn in the past financial year. The industry is pushing for this clawback to be cut to 10pc, which would mean the NHS would have to spend around 1.54bn more on the same medicines on an annual basis. The Government has already committed to reviewing the scheme, a decision which is understood to pre-date US trade negotiations. A government spokesman said: 'This Government is clear that we will only ever sign trade agreements that align with the UK's national interests and to suggest otherwise would be misleading. 'The UK has well-established and effective mechanisms for managing the costs of medicines and has clear processes in place to mitigate risks to supply.'

Cathie Wood sells $9.5 million of popular AI stocks after big rally
Cathie Wood sells $9.5 million of popular AI stocks after big rally

Yahoo

time41 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Cathie Wood sells $9.5 million of popular AI stocks after big rally

Cathie Wood sells $9.5 million of popular AI stocks after big rally originally appeared on TheStreet. Cathie Wood is known for making bold bets on the future of technology, and just as known for cashing out when the timing feels right. In the past week, the chief of Ark Investment Management trimmed some high-flying stocks, including one stock that's skyrocketed more than 270% and another that's climbed over 80% year-to-date. 💵💰Don't miss the move: Subscribe to TheStreet's free daily newsletter 💰💵 Wood's funds have been through a volatile ride this year, swinging from strong gains to sharp losses, and now back to outperforming the broader market. In January and February, the Ark funds rallied as investors bet on the Trump administration's potential deregulation that could benefit Wood's tech bets. But the momentum faded in March and April, with the funds trailing the market as top holdings—especially Tesla, her biggest position—slid amid growing concerns over the macroeconomy and trade policies. Now, the fund is regaining momentum. As of June 13, the flagship Ark Innovation ETF () is up 8% year-to-date, outpacing the S&P 500's 1.6% gain. Wood had a remarkable gain of 153% in 2020, which helped build her reputation and attract loyal investors. Still, her long-term performance has made many others skeptical of her aggressive style. As of June 13, Ark Innovation ETF, with $5.5 billion under management, has delivered a five-year annualized return of 0.4%. In comparison, the S&P 500 has an annualized return of 16.2% over the same period. Wood's investment strategy is straightforward: Her Ark ETFs typically buy shares in emerging high-tech companies in fields such as artificial intelligence, blockchain, biomedical technology, and robotics. Wood says these companies have the potential to reshape industries, but their volatility leads to major fluctuations in Ark funds' Ark Innovation ETF wiped out $7 billion in investor wealth over the 10 years ending in 2024, according to an analysis by Morningstar's analyst Amy Arnott. That made it the third-biggest wealth destroyer among mutual funds and ETFs in Arnott's ranking. Wood recently said the U.S. is coming out of a three-year 'rolling recession' and heading into a productivity-led recovery that could trigger a broader bull market. In a letter to investors published in late April, she dismissed predictions of a recession dragging into 2026, as she expects "more clarity on tariffs, taxes, regulations, and interest rates over the next three to six months." "If the current tariff turmoil results in freer trade, as tariffs and non-tariff barriers come down in tandem with declines in other taxes, regulations, and interest rates, then real GDP growth and productivity should surprise on the high side of expectations at some point during the second half of this year," she wrote. She also struck an optimistic tone for tech stocks. "During the current turbulent transition in the US, we think consumers and businesses are likely to accelerate the shift to technologically enabled innovation platforms including artificial intelligence, robotics, energy storage, blockchain technology, and multiomics sequencing," she said. Investor confidence has wavered. Over the past year, the Ark Innovation ETF saw $2 billion in net outflows, as some investors grew wary of volatility and underperformance. But in a potential sign of renewed interest, the fund brought in $250 million in fresh capital between June 7 and June 12, according to ETF research firm VettaFi. On June 11, Wood's Ark funds sold 55,829 shares of Palantir Technologies () . That chunk of stock was valued at roughly $7.6 million. Palantir is known for providing AI-driven data analytics software to the U.S. government, military, and commercial clients company reported stronger first-quarter revenue in May and raised its full-year outlook as demand for AI tools increased. 'We are delivering the operating system for the modern enterprise in the era of AI,' CEO Alex Karp many tech stocks have struggled this year, Palantir has stood out. Its shares are up 81.7% in 2025 and just hit a record close of $137.40 on June 13. Much of the recent momentum comes from its government work. Back in May 2024, Palantir won a $480 million, five-year U.S. Army contract to build its Maven Smart System, which is a battlefield AI prototype. Last month, the Defense Department modified the contract, increasing the licensing ceiling from $480 million to $1.275 billion. Palantir's Foundry platform has been adopted by at least four federal agencies, including the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Health and Human Services, according to a New York Times report published May 30. Fannie Mae also announced a partnership with Palantir in May to work on AI-based fraud detection. Palantir remains a core position for Wood even after recent sales. The stock is now the 8th largest holding in the ARK Innovation ETF, accounting for 4.7%. Wood said in February that she's moving away from hardware and infrastructure and doubling down on software, with Palantir as one of her top picks. 'Palantir is a very expensive stock, but there's nothing like it in the software space,' Wood said in a CNBC interview. 'It is, we believe, going to dominate the biggest part of the tech stack when it comes to AI. And that's the platform as a service part of the stack.' Another big trade Wood made on June 11 was selling 12,728 shares of CoreWeave Inc. () , valued at roughly $1.9 million. CoreWeave is a cloud infrastructure company specializing in GPU-accelerated computing for artificial intelligence and machine learning workloads. The company has delivered explosive growth and won support from Nvidia and March 28, CoreWeave launched its initial public offering, which was one of the largest AI-related listings since 2021. Since then, the stock is up more than 277%. That company is now Nvidia's largest holding, making up more than 78% of its disclosed portfolio. In the first quarter this year, Nvidia bought 24,182,460 shares after the IPO, according to data from WhaleWisdom based on 13F filings. On May 14, CoreWeave reported better-than-expected revenue on Wednesday in the company's first earnings release since going public. CoreWeave reported a 420% year-over-year revenue increase to $981.6 million for the first quarter. Despite this growth, the company's net loss widened to $314.6 million from $129.2 million a year earlier, partly driven by $177 million in stock-based compensation linked to its IPO. Bloomberg reporter Ryan Vlastelica commented that CoreWeave and Palantir are drawing comparisons to meme stocks after sharp rallies. But unlike GameStop, both are backed by strong demand. Still, valuations are a concern. Palantir trades at 71 times estimated sales, the highest in the S&P 500. CoreWeave, despite a $315 million loss last quarter, is valued at 10 times projected sales, well above the S&P 500's average of 3, Bloomberg reported. CoreWeave is not in Ark Innovation's top 10 holdings. Wood's recent trades also include buying shares of GitLab () , selling Kratos Defense () and Roblox () .Cathie Wood sells $9.5 million of popular AI stocks after big rally first appeared on TheStreet on Jun 15, 2025 This story was originally reported by TheStreet on Jun 15, 2025, where it first appeared.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store