Despite private equity interest in 're-bundling' newsletters, top-tier A-list creators have no financial or operational incentive to join a collective because they can succeed independently. Therefore, any such bundle will likely be comprised of second-tier writers, limiting its market power.
Related Insights
Despite the lucrative potential, best-selling author Morgan Housel intentionally avoids a subscription model. He believes the pressure to consistently produce content for paying subscribers ("feed the ducks because they're quacking") creates a dangerous dynamic, forcing creators to publish even when they lack inspiration, which harms the work's quality.
Platforms like YouTube intentionally design their algorithms to foster a wide base of mid-tier creators rather than a few dominant mega-stars. This is a strategic defense mechanism to reduce the leverage of any single creator. By preventing individuals from overshadowing the platform, YouTube mitigates the risk of widespread advertiser boycotts stemming from a controversy with one top personality, as seen in past 'Adpocalypses'.
The creator economy's foundation is unstable because platforms don't pay sustainable wages, forcing creators into brand-deal dependency. This system is vulnerable to advertisers adopting stricter metrics and the rise of cheap AI content, which will squeeze creator earnings and threaten the viability of the creator "middle class."
Instead of creating everything from scratch, Klue's Compete Network began by aggregating content and partnering with existing thought leaders. They provided the production 'plumbing,' allowing creators to focus on their expertise, which accelerated the network's growth and value.
To attract top freelance talent, Escape Collective is testing a model that can pay more than Substack. They offer writers a base rate plus a share of the subscription revenue directly generated from their articles, aligning incentives and rewarding high-performing content.
Personal newsletters are resurging as a sanctuary from the exhaustion of social media. Creators crave a space for deeper context away from performative platforms, while audiences seek intentional, high-value content that respects their attention, leading to a boom in personality-driven newsletters.
Creator agencies and networks price talent efficiently. The real opportunity is in mass outreach to smaller creators (10k-50k subs) who don't know their market value. A fraction will underprice themselves so dramatically that they become a marketing arbitrage opportunity.
Platforms like X and Instagram avoid offering integrated newsletter tools because they are fundamentally opposed to creators building portable audiences. Allowing users to export their followers via email is seen as ceding control of the audience, the platform's most valuable asset. This explains why X acquired and then shut down its newsletter service, Revue.
Substack writer Emily Sundberg argues that platforms like Patreon are mistaken to poach established creators from rivals. A better growth strategy is to find underpaid, high-value talent within legacy media and provide them the support to launch their own ventures.
In the creator economy, success isn't always defined by venture-backed growth. Many top creators intentionally cap their audience size and reject outside investment to maintain full control over their business and content, defining success as a sustainable, manageable enterprise rather than a unicorn.