Are cheap newsletter subscribers lower quality?

I ran six local newsletters at the same $50 a day. The one in the smallest market grew the fastest in raw subscribers, at 18 to 19 cents each, drifting to 22 and then closer to 30 cents. It's also the only one with a bad open rate.

"It's really the only one that has a bad open rate. It's like 28 or 30, something like that. And it's the one that grew the fastest."

After doing this 30-plus times, here's the honest caveat: when subscribers come in super cheap, the quality is often a little lower.

Does cheap mean bad?

Not necessarily. A lot of things affect open rate, and I don't claim the low cost caused the low opens. It's one data point from my own brands. But it was enough to change how I report results.

The lesson: a lower cost per subscriber doesn't always mean a better list.

Why do cheap subscribers skew lower quality?

"When things just start ripping and getting you super cheap subscribers, Meta just starts throwing it in front of more and more people, and sometimes probably not your ideal audience."

Meta also just clicks in some locations and puts the ad in front of some of the wrong people. You'll see, wow, we're getting subscribers for 20 cents. Then maybe one in three or one in four is not great.

Why do early subscribers cost less?

Meta reaches the easiest people first: the moms and older folks who are on Facebook all day and sign up in a second. Once those obvious people are taken, it gets harder and the cost climbs. That's normal, and it doesn't mean the later subscribers are better or worse.

Is it a big problem?

I don't think so. Open rates are a little worse, but on a cost basis it's still a huge win. If one in three is junk at 20 cents, you're effectively getting good ones for about 30 cents.

How do I clean them out?

1. Set up a segment of new subscribers who haven't opened after a couple of weeks.
2. Remove them.
3. Recalculate your cost per good subscriber.

Maybe your cost isn't 20 cents, maybe it's 40. If the numbers come in crazy low, be realistic that you'll probably have to remove some of those people. That's why I care so much about list hygiene.

If a cheap list falls to about 30% to 33% opens, I switch it to sending mainly to recent openers. That protects deliverability while I work out what's different about that market.

What makes list quality worse?

• Instant lead forms. One-tap forms attract people who love filling out forms, and Meta finds more of them.
• Traffic objectives. They find people who click on everything.
• Overspending in a small market. Past about $50 a day, Meta starts showing your ads all over the place.

Does market size matter?

In my experience, yes, in both directions. My Round Rock newsletter consistently got cheaper subscribers than Leander with the exact same ad. My best guess is simply that Round Rock has more people. It grew faster in four months than Leander did in six, despite starting two months later.

Meanwhile, my smallest market grew fastest at the start and opens worst. Cheap and big isn't the same as cheap and small.

What should you track instead?

Metric	Why
Cost per subscriber	What growth costs today
Open rate by brand	Whether those subscribers actually read
Survey completion	Whether they engage at the moment of signup

Paid growth and strong engagement can go together. One guest on my show scaled a seasonal shore-town newsletter with sustained Facebook spend to about 17,000 subscribers with open rates over 50%.

Around 20 cents per subscriber, I doubt anyone in local news can do much better right now anyway. Typical ranges are in what a local newsletter subscriber costs.