"You shouldn't spend a single dollar on growth until you have 1,000 organic subscribers." I just went on Letterland Live with @JPMorinChase and @louisnicholls_ to play "Spam or Star", their rapid-fire interview-style show debating hot topics in the newsletter space. Here's what I think: 1. "You shouldn't spend a single dollar on growth until you have 1,000 organic subscribers." Star. Those first thousand give you free feedback on whether people actually like what you write, and I would rather you learn that before you pay to find out. UNLESS, you have $2-$3k sitting and you want to get subs and feedback faster, in that case, have at it with some paid growth out the gate. 2. "Smart newsletter operators should optimize their Meta ads for cost per subscriber." Spam. A 60-cent subscriber can churn inside the first two weeks and never prove a thing, so I care about cost per engaged subscriber and what that cohort does 30 to 60 days after they join. 3. "Organic subscribers are always more valuable than paid subscribers." Spam. Organic wins on engagement eight or nine times out of ten, but the real value of any subscriber comes down to how good your back end is at monetizing them. 4. "Ugly Meta ads outperform pretty Meta ads." Star. I have tested this for six years, and the ugly version wins about 99% of the time, because a polished Canva graphic reads like a digital billboard the second it hits someone's feed. 5. "If you want quality subscribers, you shouldn't use Meta's lead ads tool." I said spam but misheard Louis. This is STAR as a blanket rule, since a few established media companies still run forms and do fine with them. In practice, 99% of our clients go straight to the landing page, because Meta autofills that form with whatever email someone made their Facebook account with back in 2001 and that’s not gonna be a net positive for your list at scale. Tell me which I think you got wrong, and thank you to Tyler and Louis for having me on!