Latest / The Newsletter Podcast with Fexingo: Substack, Beehiiv, and Email Newsletter Business / How Newsletters Are Reselling Reader Data for Profit
Transcript
- Lucas: There's a revenue stream in the newsletter world that almost nobody talks about publicly, but quietly, it is probably funding your favorite independent writer's rent. Luna: Okay I'm intrigued. Is this the thing where writers sell access to their subscriber lists? Because that sounds sketchy. Lucas: It's related, but it's not as crude as handing over a CSV. What I'm talking about is data licensing—newsletters packaging up anonymized audience insights and selling them to brands, research firms, or even hedge funds. Luna: Hedge funds? Why would a hedge fund care about a newsletter's subscriber data? Lucas: Because if you run a newsletter about, say, electric vehicle supply chains, and you've got 50,000 subscribers who are engineers and procurement managers in that industry, your audience data reveals trends before they show up in earnings reports. A hedge fund might pay you for aggregated data on which battery chemistries your readers are researching. Luna: That's fascinating and also slightly creepy. How widespread is this actually? Lucas: It's surprisingly common among mid-size and larger newsletters. According to a 2025 survey by the email platform Beehiiv, about 18 percent of newsletters with over 10,000 subscribers reported some form of data monetization. And the median revenue from data deals was around $35,000 per year. Luna: So for a newsletter that's maybe doing $100k in sponsorships, that's a meaningful chunk of change. Lucas: Exactly. And the money often comes with zero extra work. The writer just has to agree to share anonymized behavioral data—open rates, click-throughs on specific topics, survey responses—through a platform that packages it. Luna: But wait—if it's anonymized, how is it valuable? Doesn't the value in audience data come from knowing who specific people are? Lucas: That's the key tension. The most valuable data is individual-level, but that's also the most dangerous. What I've seen work well is something called cohort-based licensing. A newsletter might sell a report like 'How 5,000 Marketing VPs are Thinking About AI in Q2 2026.' That's aggregated, it's not personally identifiable, but it's still extremely specific. Luna: So it's like you're a focus group of one thousand, but nobody knows you're in it. Lucas: Right. And platforms are making this easier. Substack launched Substack Surveys last year, which lets writers poll their audience and then sell the aggregated results. Beehiiv has something similar with their Audience Insights product. Both platforms take a cut—usually around 15 to 20 percent. Luna: What about consent? Are subscribers told their data is being used this way? Lucas: This is where it gets murky. Most newsletters bury a line in their privacy policy saying 'we may share anonymized data with third parties.' But a lot of subscribers don't know that's happening. And there have been some blow-ups. Remember the OZY Media scandal back in 2021? They were inflating their subscriber numbers and selling access to their list without clear consent. Luna: Yeah, that was a disaster. The whole thing collapsed. Lucas: Exactly. So the ethical writers are very careful. They're explicit in their welcome email—'we sometimes share aggregated insights with sponsors, you can opt out at any time.' And they give subscribers control over whether their individual data is included. Luna: Does that opt-out kill the value for the buyer? Lucas: It can reduce it, but not as much as you'd think. Most people don't opt out. I've seen opt-out rates as low as 2 to 5 percent. And buyers are willing to pay a premium for data that comes with clear consent, because it de-risks their own compliance. Luna: Interesting. So it's actually a competitive advantage to be transparent. Lucas: Absolutely. There's a newsletter called 'Inside Climate News' that does this really well. They survey their readers quarterly on climate policy attitudes and then license that data to academic researchers and nonprofit think tanks. They're very upfront about it and they've built a lot of trust. Luna: What about the more controversial end of the spectrum? I've heard of newsletters that basically act as lead generation for high-ticket B2B services. Lucas: That's a different model, but it overlaps. Some newsletters will share individual subscriber contact info with sponsors, but only with explicit opt-in. Like, if you click a button that says 'I want to learn more about X software,' then your email gets forwarded. That's technically data monetization, but it's more like affiliate marketing on steroids. Luna: And that's fine as long as it's clear. But the aggregated model seems smarter for the long term, because you're not burning your list. Lucas: Exactly. The worst thing you can do is sell the trust you've built for a quick check. And some writers have done that—they do a one-time deal for $10,000 to share their full list, and then their open rates plummet because subscribers feel violated. Luna: So what's the right approach for a newsletter writer who wants to explore this revenue stream? Lucas: I'd say three things. First, start with a survey. Ask your subscribers a question that has commercial value—like 'what software tools do you use?' or 'what's your biggest challenge in your industry?' Second, aggregate the results into a report. Third, offer that report to a sponsor or a research firm for a flat fee. You're not selling people, you're selling insights. Luna: And you can do that without a platform, or you need Substack or Beehiiv? Lucas: You can do it manually with a Google Form and a PDF. But platforms make it easier because they handle the anonymization and the payment. Beehiiv's Audience Insights product, for example, lets you set a price for your data package and they match you with buyers. Luna: What's the typical price range for a small newsletter? Like 5,000 subscribers? Lucas: It varies wildly, but I've seen data packages from newsletters with 5,000 subscribers go for between $2,000 and $10,000 per deal, depending on the niche. A newsletter on 'cybersecurity for healthcare' is worth way more than a general 'productivity tips' newsletter, because the audience is so specific and high-value. Luna: So it's not just about size, it's about the quality and specificity of the audience. Lucas: Right. A newsletter about 'machine learning for drug discovery' with 3,000 subscribers could be more valuable to a pharma company than a general tech newsletter with 50,000 subscribers. Luna: That makes sense. So for a writer listening, what's the first step you'd recommend? Lucas: Look at your own subscriber base and ask: what do they have in common that someone else would pay to know? Then design a simple survey—three to five questions—and let your subscribers know exactly how you'll use the data. Transparency builds trust, and trust is what makes this model sustainable. Luna: I like that. It's a different mindset from just selling ads. It's more like you're a research firm that also happens to send emails. Lucas: Exactly. And that's probably the future: newsletters becoming full-service intelligence platforms for their niches. Not just content, but data. Luna: Speaking of value, Lucas, we should mention that this podcast itself is ad-free. We keep it that way because of listeners who choose to support us. Lucas: Yeah, exactly. We don't run ads, and that's a deliberate choice. If you find these conversations useful and want to help keep them independent and free for everyone, you can support us at buy me a coffee dot com slash fexingo. Luna: It's a simple way to say 'keep going.' And every bit helps us avoid the kind of data monetization we just talked about. Lucas: Right. So back to the data opportunity—one thing I think will grow is newsletters partnering with each other to pool their audience data. Imagine a network of ten climate newsletters combining their survey data to sell to a carbon accounting firm. Suddenly you've got a sample size of 200,000, which is much more valuable. Luna: That's a smart way to compete with the big platforms. And it keeps the writers in control. Lucas: Exactly. The key takeaway for me is this: data monetization is not inherently bad. It's how you do it. If you're transparent, if you give subscribers control, and if you deliver real insight to the buyer, it can be a win win win. Luna: And the alternative—ignoring this revenue stream—means leaving money on the table that could fund better journalism. Lucas: Exactly. So if you're a newsletter writer, don't be afraid of it. Just be thoughtful about it.