Why Substack Will Never Create a Platform-Wide Subscription (Like Medium Has)
And why this is a good thing!
👋 Hey, I’m Casandra. I share really good business ideas to help you start and grow a business. I also share what I’m learning about building a business on Substack.
I often see people on Substack suggesting the idea of a platform-wide subscription fee.1 The thinking is that since we can all only pay for so many subscriptions, it would be nice to be able to pay a single subscription to Substack instead. Publishers would, of course, get a cut based on readership.
This is actually how Medium works. For $5/month, you can become a paying subscriber to Medium. When writers on Medium publish a new article, they can choose whether they want to put it behind the paywall or not. The more time readers spend on their paywalled articles, the bigger the cut they get from Medium’s subscription revenue.
A platform subscription fee may work for Medium, but there are three reasons why it won’t work for Substack.
1. It’s not possible without changing the Publisher Agreement.
The current Substack Publishers Agreement explicitly states that authors may offer their publications for a subscription fee to be determined at their own discretion.
If Substack created a platform-wide subscription fee, publications would need to opt in to being included in that subscription. Otherwise, Substack would be breaking the Publishers Agreement.
The problem is, not every publication would agree. In fact, I suspect most of the publications people most want to read would not opt in. This means a platform-wide subscription fee would have uncertain value, making it hard to sell. Readers would have to cross their fingers that whenever they want to read an article, it’s actually accessible using their platform subscription. In contrast, the value of a Medium Membership is that it unlocks every single article on the platform.
2. It would destroy Substack’s primary value proposition.
Substack was created to help writers get paid directly and take back control from the publications and platforms that have traditionally held all the power.
Substack isn’t trying to create another Medium; it’s trying to create something better.
If Substack were to update its Publisher’s Agreement and force authors into a platform-wide subscription fee, it would be taking back the very power it was created to give writers. That’s the opposite of what Substack’s mission is all about.
3. It would be less profitable for Substack.
Substack recently announced that there are now more than 5 million paid subscriptions on the platform.2 Not 5 million paid subscribers, but 5 million paid subscriptions. Many people have multiple paid subscriptions (I currently have five), so the total number of paying subscribers is likely much less than 5 million.
The total number of paying subscribers would decrease.
Most of these subscriptions start at $5/month, so if Substack were to offer a platform-wide subscription for that price instead, the number of paid subscriptions would likely drop significantly.
The average value of paying subscribers would decrease.
Not only would there be fewer paid subscriptions, but the average value of those paid subscriptions would drop, too. While Substack subscriptions generally start at $5/month, many go much higher. For example,
, which has 10K+ paid subscribers, charges $20/month. , which has 1000+ paying subscribers, charges $350/month.Substack would not likely gain enough incremental subscribers to close the gap.
Since Substack would lose money through both a decrease in paying subscribers and a decrease in the value of paying subscribers, they would have to believe they would get enough incremental subscribers from a platform-wide Substack fee to offset the losses. This seems unlikely for two reasons:
Medium itself only has 1 million paying subscribers.3
Changing the Publisher Agreement would likely lead to a lot of author attrition. Many publishers have created business models that wouldn’t work with a platform-wide subscription fee. They would likely leave for other platforms that still support individually monetized publications (like Beehiiv or Kit).
What Substack could do instead.
Instead of a platform-wide subscription, there are other ways Substack could give readers access to more content.
1. Let Publishers offer cheaper subscriptions.
Many publishers would happily charge less than the required $5 minimum for their publication,4 especially those that don’t publish very often or offer additional perks. This would make it easier for readers to subscribe to more content-only publications.
I’m not a big fan of this option. I think it’s great that the $5 minimum prevents a race to the bottom in terms of pricing and if publishers really want to go lower, they can easily do so by creating discount codes.
2. Integrate ads so publishers can monetize free content.
Many publishers also keep their content free and monetize with ads instead. This is currently a manual process, but providing a platform for sponsor-based monetization (like Beehiv does) would encourage more publications to go this route by making things easier.
I’m sure there are employees at Substack who suggest this from time to time.5 I would guess it’s one of the main reasons why people leave Substack for Beehiiv. But I’m not sure if something that’s ever been seriously considered. Substack was built to give writers an alternative to advertising-driven revenue.
3. Help publishers bundle subscriptions.
Many publishers would be willing to discount their subscription if it meant getting more paid subscribers overall. This could work like Recommendations for paid upgrades. Publications on related topics could choose to support each other through bundling.
For example, three publications on Facebook marketing might each offer 25% off for readers who subscribe to all three. This is hypothetically possible right now, but it would be highly manual. For publications to consider it, it needs to be an automated process.
I like this option the best because it keeps control in the hands of creators and encourages publishers to turn competitors into collaborators. We can go further together.
In the end, attention will always be finite.
Ultimately, we all need to accept that attention is finite and that there is a limit on how much content we are each willing to pay to consume.
I don’t subscribe to every news outlet. As much as I’d love to read the Economist and the Atlantic more often, I currently subscribe to the New York Times so that’s what I usually read.
I don’t subscribe to every video streaming service. Although it’d be nice to have unlimited access to every streaming platform, I can only watch one or two shows at a time, so I only subscribe to one or two streaming services at a time.
I’m not enrolled in every online community related to growth and entrepreneurship. As much as I’d love to join them all, I barely take advantage of the one I am already a member of.
And as much as I wish I could support every Substack that publishes content I’m interested in, I don’t even read every article from the five I currently pay for. But those five provide me enough value that I’m happy to pay for.
I know not everyone will be interested in Really Good Business Ideas, but the right people can gain much more value than they pay in subscription fees. I’m glad I can set a price that enables me to offer a better product for those who will benefit from it.
If you want to start a business in 2025 (including on Substack) or you’re already growing a business, I’d love to help.
Even if you don’t need my help, I could use yours! Please consider restacking this article if you found it useful. It helps me out a lot. 🫶
To endless possibilities,
Casandra
Fantastic post Cassandra, thank you for sharing this!
🎯💯