How to check a newsletter's real subscriber count

Subscriber counts are the most quoted and least verified numbers in newsletter advertising. A single headline figure proves nothing. What matters is where it came from, what it counts, and how old it is.

Rank your sources

Not all sources are equal. In descending order of reliability:

1. The publication's own advertise or sponsor page. This is the figure the publication itself is willing to stand behind in public. AI Weekly's 52,000+ subscribers, for example, come from its own advertise page — the strongest source short of a private send report.
2. A marketplace listing the publication maintains, such as a BuySellAds listing. These are usually self-reported too, but they are tied to an actual sales channel and tend to be updated when inventory is sold.
3. Third-party roundups and directories. These are the weakest source: they copy figures from each other, rarely date them, and sometimes confuse one publication with another. Treat any roundup-only figure as an estimate until a better source confirms it.

If only a roundup states the number, label it estimated in your own comparison — and ask the publication to confirm it before you pay.

When sources disagree, keep every figure

Conflicts are normal and informative. The Rundown AI, for instance, carries three figures in our database: an estimated 2M+ from roundups, 1.7M+ daily readers from its own ad page, and 1.6M+ from BuySellAds. Superhuman AI shows an estimated 1.5M+ claimed against 700K–720K on the ad side. These figures may measure different things — total subscribers, daily readers, or a subset of editions — at different times.

The mistake is to average them into a number no source states, or to pick the largest one because it flatters your CPM math. Keep all figures visible with their sources, and use the most conservative verified figure for budgeting. See how to compare AI newsletters before buying ads for the full checklist.

Reach is not subscribers

Some publications quote monthly reach across all channels instead of newsletter subscribers. Forward Future cites 10M+ monthly reach — but that figure combines its newsletter and YouTube audiences, and our database explicitly does not treat it as a subscriber count. Whenever a number looks surprisingly large, ask: subscribers to what, exactly? If the answer blends channels, it is reach, not subscribers, and it must not go into your CPM calculation as if it were.

Questions to ask the publication

• What is the current subscriber count, and as of what date?
• Does the figure count all editions, or one edition? Does it include free and paid readers together?
• Can you share a recent send report or a screenshot of the subscriber total?
• Has the count changed materially in the last six months, and in which direction?

A publication that answers these plainly is giving you something verifiable. One that only repeats a roundup figure is not.

Red flags

• A precise-looking number with no source and no date.
• The same figure appearing verbatim across many roundups — that is usually one copied claim, not independent confirmation.
• A "subscriber" number that turns out to count social followers, website visitors, or cross-channel reach.
• A figure that never changes across years of roundups while the publication visibly grows or shrinks.

What we do about it

Our database records every subscriber figure with its source, its verification status, and its check date, and re-checks prices and availability monthly. Where sources disagree, we show all of them side by side and never average them away. A figure labeled "estimated" in our listings is an explicit warning, not a number to build a budget on.

Disclaimer: this site is an independent database. It is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or sponsored by any publication listed here. Figures are shown with their source and verification status; where a figure is an estimate or a benchmark range, it is labeled as such and is not that publication's price.