Latest / The Newsletter Podcast with Fexingo: Substack, Beehiiv, and Email Newsletter Business / How Newsletters Use Voice and Audio to Retain Subscribers
Transcript
- Lucas: You know that feeling when you open a long newsletter on your phone, see the scroll bar is tiny, and you just swipe it away for later? That 'later' that never comes. Luna: Literally every single day. And I subscribe to probably forty newsletters, so the guilt is real. Lucas: Right. So a growing number of newsletter operators are trying to solve that by adding an audio version of their issue — a 'listen instead of read' option. And the data so far suggests it's not just a nice to have. It's a real retention lever. Luna: I've noticed a few Substack writers adding a little play button at the top of their posts. Is that the main platform for this, or are people building their own? Lucas: Both, actually. Substack has a built-in audio feature that lets you record a version of your post directly in the editor. It's super simple — you hit record, read your piece, and it attaches an audio file at the top. Beehiiv doesn't have native audio yet, but some creators use a workaround: they record a short summary using a tool like Descript, host it on something like SoundCloud or a podcast host, and embed a player in the email. Luna: Doesn't that add a lot of production time? You're already writing the thing, now you have to record it too. Lucas: It depends on how polished you want it to be. One writer I follow — a marketing analyst named Dan Shipper — said he records his weekly essay in one take on his iPhone. No editing, no music. It takes him about fifteen minutes. And his open rates on that issue are consistently 15% higher than his text-only issues. Luna: Fifteen percent? That's significant. But is it because the audio is good, or because it's novel? Lucas: Probably a mix. But the retention piece is interesting. He also tracks 'listens to completion' — about 40% of people who start the audio finish it. For text, the average read rate on his newsletter is around 30%. So audio is actually stickier. Luna: So the audience that listens is more engaged. But you're also serving a different use case — people who can't read right now but can listen. Lucas: Exactly. The commute, the gym, cooking dinner. For a lot of subscribers, that's the only time they have. If you're not there, they'll find another newsletter that is. Luna: And this is a marketing show, so let me ask the practical question: does this actually help grow the list, or is it mainly a retention tool? Lucas: It's mostly retention, though there is a discovery angle. Some writers turn their audio into a separate podcast feed. So someone might find them on Apple Podcasts or Spotify, listen to a few episodes, and then subscribe to the email list. It's a funnel from podcast to newsletter. Luna: That's smart. But isn't maintaining both a newsletter and a podcast a lot of work? Most solo creators are already stretched. Lucas: It can be, but the key is not to overthink it. You don't need a full podcast production. A five-minute audio summary of your newsletter — just the key points in your own voice — that's enough. One creator I know, a finance writer named Nick Maggiulli, does exactly that. He records a short 'listen to this issue' clip, posts it to a separate podcast feed, and also embeds it in the email. He told me it's his highest-converting content for new subscribers. Luna: So the audio acts as a sample. Someone hears your voice, gets a sense of your thinking, and decides to read more. Lucas: Right. And there's a trust element too. Hearing someone's voice humanizes them. A lot of newsletter writers are faceless — you only know them by their writing. Audio adds a layer of personality that can deepen the relationship. Luna: That makes sense. But let's talk about the flip side. Are there any downsides? Like, does offering audio reduce the number of people who actually read the text? If some subscribers switch to audio-only, you might lose the deeper engagement that comes from reading. Lucas: That's a valid concern, and I've seen it debated. The data I've seen suggests it's not a big problem — most subscribers still read. The audio audience is often a different segment: people who wouldn't have consumed the content at all otherwise. So it's additive, not cannibalizing. Luna: Interesting. So it's about capturing the time you'd otherwise lose. And I suppose for advertisers, having both formats increases the total time spent with your content, which is a selling point. Lucas: Absolutely. Some newsletter sponsors already ask about audio stats — 'How many listens does your newsletter get per issue?' It's becoming a standard metric in media kits. Luna: Let's step back for a second. This show exists because of listeners like you who support it. And honestly, knowing that a handful of people chip in each month through buy me a coffee dot com slash fexingo — that's what keeps these conversations ad-free and allows us to dig into details like this. So if you've gotten anything useful out of episodes like this one, that's the place to pitch in. No pressure, just the truth of how this works. Lucas: Yeah, it's a small thing that adds up. And it means we don't have to run sketchy ads or sell your data. So thanks to anyone who's already part of that. Luna: Alright, back to audio. One thing I'm curious about: how do you actually track audio consumption in a newsletter? Email open rates are unreliable because of image blocking. Audio plays are a more direct signal? Lucas: They are. Substack's audio player reports plays right in the dashboard. If you host the audio yourself, you can use a tool like Simplecast or Transistor that gives you download numbers. It's much cleaner data than open rates. Some writers use that as their primary engagement metric now. Luna: So you could A/B test subject lines based on audio play rate instead of open rate. That's a different optimization game. Lucas: Exactly. And some are doing exactly that. Test subject line A vs B, see which one gets more audio plays. It's a more meaningful signal because it's an actual action, not just a pixel load. Luna: Let's talk about the bigger picture. Do you think we're heading toward a world where most newsletters are audio-first? Like, the default format is a recording, and text is secondary? Lucas: I don't think so, at least not for long-form analysis. Reading allows for scanning, skimming, and deep focus that audio doesn't. But I do think the hybrid model is here to stay. In fact, I'd bet that within two years, every major email platform will have native audio recording built in. Beehiiv is likely working on it, and Substack will keep improving theirs. Luna: What about ai generated audio? Like, using a synthetic voice to read the newsletter instead of recording yourself? Lucas: It's an option, but most successful examples I've seen use the author's real voice. The personal connection is the whole point. An AI voice might save time, but it loses the authenticity. That said, for accessibility reasons — like for visually impaired subscribers — a well-done AI voice is better than nothing. Luna: So the sweet spot is: record yourself, keep it short, embed it in the email, and optionally syndicate to podcast platforms. That's a pretty low-effort strategy for potentially big retention gains. Lucas: Exactly. And the barrier to entry is basically zero. You just need a phone and a quiet room. I think a lot of newsletter operators are overthinking it. They worry about audio quality, editing, music — none of that matters if the content is useful and the voice is genuine. Luna: Alright, I'm convinced. I'm going to try recording my next newsletter issue as a test. Let's see if I can hit that 15% open-rate bump. Lucas: Let me know how it goes. I'll link to your audio issue in the show notes for this episode — assuming you do it. Luna: Deal. And for everyone listening, if you try this, we'd love to hear your results. Drop us a note.