Is anyone surprised if I say that traditional media is in crisis? That they haven't been able to adapt their business model to the changes brought by technology? What if I say some journalists have managed to survive without depending on a media outlet?

The problem is well-known: the advertising that once sustained media now goes massively to Google and Meta, and attempts to monetize digital content through paywalls aren't generating enough revenue to compensate for these losses either. The impact on journalists is direct: newsrooms are constantly shrinking, jobs are increasingly precarious, and frustration grows seeing how the profession is devalued in a system that prioritizes volume and clickbait over depth and quality.

But amid this complicated landscape, something interesting emerges. Some writers discovered they don't need a media outlet to connect with their audience. That they can create independent newsletters, monetize their work through subscriptions, and build a relationship of trust without intermediaries. And that you can actually make a living from it.

Today, I'm going to focus on a particular group: journalists who, after gaining experience at large media companies, have decided to make the leap toward independent publishing. It may seem simple: a specialized newsletter, a trustworthy voice, and a subscription option, but the change is huge. Not because of the tech itself (newsletters and blogs have existed since the early days of the internet), but because of the possibility of monetizing them directly. Platforms like Substack, Ghost, and Beehiiv made it easy to charge for digital content efficiently and retain most of that revenue.

In practice

Emily Sundberg was working at Meta when she started hearing rumors of mass layoffs. In this context, she created "Feed Me," a newsletter about New York business and culture that, in two years, achieved more than 50,000 subscribers and positioned itself at number six on Substack. Sundberg says she has an integral studio mentality, also expanding toward events, merch, and soon podcasts.

On the other hand, after a decade covering Silicon Valley for The Verge, CNET, and San Francisco Chronicle, Casey Newton launched "Platformer" in 2020. In less than three years, the technology newsletter reached approximately 155,000 total subscribers, with around 5% being paid subscribers, according to Nieman Lab data. While he doesn't share exact revenue figures, he has achieved sufficient sustainability to hire a team and evolve beyond the individual model toward a mini-newsroom.

Similarly, Anne Helen Petersen left BuzzFeed to launch "Culture Study," a newsletter where she analyzes contemporary cultural phenomena. After four years, Petersen reflected in a post about how this model has allowed her to write about topics without "news hooks" or explore themes without feeling obligated to reach perfectly defined conclusions, something impossible in her previous work. In that same post, she especially highlights the freedom not to be tied to repeating content that worked in the past.

Sure, there’s a common pattern: they all have a trajectory in established media where they polished their skills, developed their perspective, and built audiences. They didn't appear out of nowhere. They leveraged the reputation they created over years to generate traction with their ventures. BuzzFeed, The Verge, and Meta functioned as incubators that nurtured talent. Then, in a context of crisis, these journalists manage to capitalize on it independently of media outlets. Is having made this journey a necessary condition? I'm not sure it's exclusive, but it definitely paved the way for them.

Why does it work?

• Operational costs are very low by not having offices or large teams. Emily Sundberg started Feed Me from her apartment during the pandemic.

• By eliminating intermediaries, they get 90% of the generated value. Platforms like Substack charge approximately 10% of subscription revenue, leaving writers to keep the rest.

• Fewer but more committed readers have better results in this context. Instead of competing for massive audiences, they're in specific niches. Newton focuses exclusively on the intersection between technological platforms and democracy, Anne Helen Petersen built an audience around analyses that mix academia and pop culture.

• They combine subscriptions, premium advertising, sponsored content, events, and affiliate marketing to increase their profitability.

This transformation has been so successful that we're now seeing the opposite phenomenon: entire traditional media outlets are migrating to subscription platforms. Publications like New York Magazine and brands are joining Substack, recognizing the advantages of this monetization model and relationship with the audience.

The economy of authenticity

This phenomenon represents a fundamental change in the relationship between creators and audiences, centered on authenticity as the principal value. These creators embrace a transparency that would be unthinkable in traditional media: they openly share their processes, challenges, and even financial data, creating a sense of complicity with their audience. At the same time, they turn subjectivity into virtue, making their informed personal perspective their unique value proposition. Anne Helen Petersen specifically highlights how this model allows her to explore topics without needing perfectly defined conclusions or artificial news hooks.

The relationship with readers is radically transformed: they're no longer passive consumers but active participants in communities that form around these creators. Both Petersen and Sundberg have created interaction spaces where their subscribers don't just consume content but debate and connect. This absolute editorial freedom allows them to cover exactly what they consider relevant, without external commercial pressures or imposed editorial lines. As Petersen says, "I don't feel obligated to copy stories that have worked well in the past," freeing herself from the addictive content cycle that characterizes many digital media outlets.

The model's challenges

But like any business, this model also has challenges. Writers say they feel constant pressure to produce content without the backing of an editorial structure, while fulfilling many simultaneous roles: writer, editor, marketing manager, administrator, and customer service. Financial stability also needs time to build, and there's much discussion about burnout from depending on a personal brand. Additionally, as more journalists adopt this model, differentiation becomes more challenging and competitiveness increases.

Beyond the general challenges of the independent model, Substack itself brings particular complications. One of the main ones is that monetization isn't automatic: the platform incentivizes authors to charge for their newsletters, but without a prior audience, it's very difficult to reach a sufficient number of paid subscribers. In many cases, the strategy involves simultaneously maintaining a solid free version that functions as a marketing tool and a paid one that generates revenue, which multiplies the required effort.

The pressure of publication rhythm also appears. Emily Sundberg's case with Feed Me shows how success on Substack can be tied to a constant flow of content, with routines of reading, curation, and writing every day, even at extreme hours. This level of commitment sustains growth but can also lead to exhaustion and the feeling of always being online.

Another critical point is community building. Substack allows creating exclusive spaces for paid subscribers, which strengthens the sense of belonging, but at the same time limits the reach of public conversations. The tension between generating exclusive community and maintaining open visibility remains a dilemma for many creators.

To this are added technical limitations: although the platform is easy to use, it doesn't offer the same flexibility as a personal site in terms of customization, analytics, or integrations with other tools. Finally, Substack also functions as a social ecosystem, with features like Notes and recommendations between authors. This opens discovery possibilities, but at the same time feeds constant comparisons and competition for visibility, generating new sources of pressure in a space that presents itself as liberating.

What it means for you

The phenomenon of journalists turned into their own media implies a profound transformation in how information is produced, distributed, and monetized. In a world where trust in institutions is declining, authenticity takes on new value. Professionals who manage to build a brand based on genuine expertise, a unique perspective, and an authentic connection with their audience are discovering that the crisis of traditional media gives them the opportunity to generate another model of journalism (and business).

For today's communicators, this scenario presents at least two distinct opportunities. On one hand, it can be an interesting path to explore if you have a specific interest, an original perspective on some topic, and the desire to do independent reporting on that. It's not about becoming an influencer, but about finding a niche where your perspective adds value, and building an audience willing to pay for that unique perspective.

On the other hand, even if you don't want to become a Substack writer, understanding this mechanism is fundamental because these newsletters are becoming the new thought leaders of their respective sectors. Brands and organizations contact them for collaborations, and increasingly, their opinions influence consumers. If you work in communications, public relations, or marketing, these creators represent an emerging channel that you can't ignore. Knowing how they work, what motivates them, and how they relate to their audiences will give you a competitive advantage in designing more effective communication strategies.