Why Newsletter Writers Are Leaving Substack for Cheaper Platforms

A growing number of successful newsletter publishers have moved away from Substack over the past two years. The main reason isn't usually politics or disagreements over content — it's money. As their newsletters grow, writers find themselves paying significantly more to Substack than they would on competing platforms, making the financial case for switching hard to ignore.

The numbers tell a clear story. Sean Highkin moved his newsletter The Rose Garden Report from Substack to Ghost in April 2024 and cut his annual platform costs from $4,968 to $2,052. Matt Brown's Extra Points, which now has 71,000 subscribers, pays around $3,000 annually on Beehiiv — but would pay over $25,000 per year if he stayed on Substack. That's because Substack takes 10 percent of every dollar a writer earns from subscribers, whereas competing platforms charge a flat annual fee that doesn't change as you grow.

Several high-profile publishers have made the switch. The Ankler moved to Passport (a platform backed by WordPress.com and Stratechery founder Ben Thompson). Anne Helen Petersen's Culture Study left for Patreon in October 2024. The Bulwark and Mehdi Hasan's news site Zeteo have explored alternatives. These moves signal a broader frustration with Substack's pricing model.

How Substack's Payment Model Works — and Why It Breaks Down at Scale

When Substack launched in 2017, it offered a clean deal: writers keep 90 percent of subscription revenue, and Substack takes 10 percent to cover the cost of running the servers, processing payments, and sending emails. This model made sense for writers starting from scratch. But as a newsletter grows, that 10 percent becomes an increasingly expensive tax.

Consider a newsletter generating $300,000 per year from subscribers. On Substack, the writer pays $30,000 in fees. On Ghost or Beehiiv — platforms that charge a fixed annual fee regardless of revenue — that same newsletter might cost only a few thousand dollars per year for the same features.

The gap widens the more successful a writer becomes. A newsletter with $500,000 in annual revenue would cost $50,000 on Substack's percentage model but remain at a much lower fixed rate on competitors. This creates a turning point: at some level of success, it becomes financially rational to move, despite the hassle involved.

As newsletters mature, writers face a real choice. They can accept ever-higher platform costs as their audience grows, or they can undertake the technical and operational work of moving to a new platform — a process that carries real risks, like losing some subscribers during the transition.

Why Writers Who Leave Report Keeping More Money

Publishers who switched platforms in early 2024 consistently report earning more money overall, even after accounting for the cost of migration. The reason is straightforward: fixed pricing means their costs don't rise as their subscriber base and revenue increase.

This dynamic is similar to the difference between owning and renting. On Substack, you're always paying a percentage. On Ghost or Beehiiv, your costs are fixed, so your profit grows alongside your audience.

Content Disagreements Matter, But Less Than Money

Some writers have cited reasons beyond economics for leaving Substack. Sharon Hurley Hall and Sam from Roots of Change Media left because they objected to the platform's content moderation policies, feeling uncomfortable that their subscription payments helped support writers they disagreed with ideologically. Both raised these concerns in a public letter to Substack's leadership.

This points to a real tension in how platforms handle free speech and moderation. Different creators have different comfort levels with what content appears on a platform they use, and when that platform takes a cut of your revenue, those disagreements carry real financial weight. Advertising-supported platforms face similar tensions, but without the direct revenue-sharing element, disagreements feel less personal.

The pattern of creators leaving over both money and content policy isn't new. We've seen similar migrations on YouTube, Twitter, and other platforms where creators build businesses on top of the platform's infrastructure. When policy and economics collide, creators often vote with their feet.

The Technical Work of Switching

Moving an established newsletter to a new platform isn't trivial. It requires moving your subscriber list, switching payment processing, and making sure you don't lose readers in the transition. Writers report losing between 10 and 15 percent of paying subscribers when they switch, though careful execution can keep losses closer to 10 percent.

Ghost and Beehiiv have invested in making this easier. Ghost can automatically import your subscriber data and archived posts from Substack. Beehiiv offers similar tools but requires more manual setup for complex newsletter structures. Both platforms connect to major email providers, so you maintain reliable delivery and can track how readers engage with your work.

The barrier to switching has gotten much lower than it was in Substack's early years. Competing platforms now offer the core features Substack does — email sending, subscriber management, payment processing — plus extras like A/B testing for subject lines and detailed analytics about reader behavior. This feature parity means you're not sacrificing capability when you leave.

Most publishers run both platforms in parallel for 30 to 60 days during a migration, giving them time to test the new system and ensure subscribers transition smoothly. This adds extra work during the transition period but reduces the risk of losing money or readers.

What This Says About the Creator Economy

The newsletter market is maturing in ways that remind us of earlier shifts in digital media. Early platforms often win through timing and network effects — being first attracts writers, which attracts readers, which attracts more writers. But that dominance rarely lasts forever. Eventually, new competitors emerge that unbundle specific features or offer better economics, and creators migrate to those services. YouTube faced this pressure from TikTok. Twitter faces it from newer social platforms.

In this view, Substack's challenge is structural. The percentage-based revenue model works well in the growth phase, aligning the platform's interests with creators' interests — everyone benefits when a newsletter grows. But once creators achieve real scale, that same model creates friction. Fixed-price platforms sidestep this problem entirely, though they lose the built-in motivation that percentage models provide.

The exodus also reflects something broader about technology maturity. In Substack's early years, switching platforms was genuinely difficult — you'd lose your data, strand your subscribers, or face days of technical work. Those barriers have collapsed. Import tools, standardized data formats, and competing platforms' migration capabilities have all improved. This erosion of switching costs means platforms can no longer rely on inertia to keep creators locked in. They have to compete on value.

The net effect: newsletter platforms compete more directly now on what they actually offer — pricing, features, and philosophy — rather than on how hard it is to leave.