This newsletter model is dead.

Matt McGarry just posted about what he’s calling Newsletters 3.0.

“If you’re running a ‘newsletter business’ the way most people do, you’re doomed to fail.”

His post could be mistaken for a summary of the topics in my book on newsletters, but his take is from an ad-based newsletter POV.

The timeline included is pretty great. I remind everyone of the Daily Candy sale, which was considered insane at the time. It was huge news that no one seems to remember now. But they were not “the first company to scale an online email newsletter.”

I also disagree with this take:

“When people think of a newsletter business or newsletter-first media company they think about a free daily newsletter that generates revenue from ads inside email. This is the model companies like Morning Brew, TheSkimm, and The Hustle used historically. That model is dead.

I agree that business model was always a short-term bet. The get-your-money-and-run model tends to lose to the relationship-building model in the long run. Not a big shock.

I disagree with the general perception throughout the post that the soon-to-be-dead ad-based newsletter is the dominant model. Maybe that isn’t Matt’s full take. He does seem to make that assumption a few times in the post, but also adds clarification a few times, including the term “newsletter-first media company,” which is more accurate.

I’m sure he knows the difference. Based on in-person conversations, I’m not sure his audience does.

I feel like newsletter creators need to be reminded pretty regularly that ordinary businesses have been publishing email newsletters for decades — sometimes for tens of millions of customers — without any ads or expectations of short-term ROI.

It’s more likely those companies have the dominant newsletter model.

Call it Newsletter 0.0, or the “hey, just keepin’ in touch” model. It sounds boring, but boring is usually where the money is.

There’s not much profit in talking about those newsletters. There’s a ton of profit in publishing them.