that's confusing "subscribers" and "paid subscribers".
from Zitron's own website [0]:
> I have 84,000 subscribers and a 55-60% open rate, as well as an 8-11% clickthrough rate.
if the 84k number was all paid subscribers, then the "55-60% open rate" would mean that ~40% of his paying audience doesn't bother to read the thing they're paying for, which does not add up.
also, that's in the "Can I Advertise On Your Newsletter?" section. if there were an even higher number of non-paying subscribers, he'd have an obvious incentive to mention that, because the total number of eyeballs is what a potential advertiser cares about.
I find that completely unbelievable. There’s too much high-quality free information for me to ever consume to even think about paying for it, let alone something of mediocre quality. Are we sure the newsletter subscribership isn’t just a total fabrication? Or that it isn’t just a money laundering scheme?
Also, I would not see "making seven million dollars a year by writing" as a reason to dismiss someone. Like, sounds like that such person is doing something other writers just cant.
The reason is obviously that engagement drives his revenue, and correctness or facts have nothing to do with it. Everyone knows that content creators will maximise engagement, and clearly he has found an audience who are seeking out a certain narrative, and will write to that narrative to generate revenue.
I haven't fact checked anything here, I took the $7 million at face value. If he is generating that amount of money from his content creation, then I think my statement makes sense, right?
I don't wacth/read his content at all because I find AI-doomers really boring and tiresome.
80k * $7/month * 12 months/year = $6.7M/year
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2026/jan/19/ed-zitron...