The Ankler Left Substack, but a Top-Publisher Exodus Is Still Unproven

The Ankler completed its migration from Substack in April 2026, turning a planned platform switch into an operating reality. The publisher’s migration FAQ records April 27, 2026, as the transfer date and directs readers to its independent website for full coverage.

As of August 13, 2026, the more accurate story is a split rather than an exodus: The Ankler has moved its principal publication, while another prominent outlet previously associated with departure speculation, The Bulwark, still uses Substack for publishing and paid memberships. Substack’s 10% transaction fee remains the clearest source of economic tension, yet leaving requires publishers to replace far more than a payment page.

The Ankler moved its core business but retained some Substack ties

The Ankler’s main website now handles account access, archives, subscription preferences and invoices. Newsletters arrive by email, and a Total Access membership covers several editorial products under one commercial relationship.

The separation is not absolute. The Ankler offers only limited material on its main Substack page, while Like & Subscribe remains a standalone Substack publication. Some subscriptions purchased separately through Substack also remain there until the corresponding accounts are migrated.

This distinction matters because a media company can relocate its central membership business without immediately removing every product or distribution relationship from its former platform. Migration is better understood as a sequence of operational changes than as a single on-or-off decision.

The 10% fee becomes more visible as subscription revenue grows

Substack’s economic trade-off has not materially changed. Its current payment documentation specifies a 10% share of every paid transaction, with Stripe processing and recurring-billing charges applied separately. Readers do not pay an additional Substack fee.

At that rate, a hypothetical publication collecting $1 million in gross paid transactions would pay $100,000 to Substack before Stripe costs, refunds, taxes or other business expenses. This is a direct calculation from the documented percentage, not an estimate of any named publisher’s revenue or costs.

The arithmetic explains why the fee attracts more scrutiny at scale: its dollar value rises directly with subscription revenue even when a publisher’s need for standardized hosting and onboarding may be declining. A growing publication may also want custom bundles, unified access across several products, differentiated audience segments or more control over the purchase experience.

That does not make the fee intrinsically excessive. A publisher must compare it with the full cost of leaving, including engineering, design, deliverability monitoring, customer support, analytics, account management and the operational risk of moving subscriber records. A smaller publication may reasonably prefer a variable charge to assembling and maintaining that infrastructure itself.

The calculation changes when a publication already employs a larger team and sells several products. The relevant question is not simply whether 10% sounds high, but whether Substack continues to provide services worth more than the fee and the limitations of its standardized system.

The evidence does not establish a broad top-publisher flight

The Ankler is a significant example of a successful publication moving beyond its original platform setup. It remains one confirmed company-level migration, however, and the available evidence does not establish that other frequently mentioned publishers have followed it.

The clearest counterexample is The Bulwark. Its current company page identifies Substack as the publishing platform for TheBulwark.com and the provider of paid Bulwark+ memberships; members can use The Bulwark’s branded app as well as Substack’s mobile and television apps.

A distinct website or branded application therefore does not necessarily mean that a publisher has replaced the infrastructure underneath its membership business. Substack can remain embedded in billing, access and distribution even when readers encounter a publication through its own brand.

Private dissatisfaction, consideration of alternatives and a completed migration are different statuses. Publishers can assess vendors, negotiate costs and build contingency plans without changing platforms. An outlet belongs in a confirmed departure trend only after its own publishing or subscription operation has visibly moved.

The current picture is consequently less dramatic but more useful. Substack faces credible retention pressure among sophisticated publishers because its percentage fee and standardized infrastructure invite comparison with owned systems. At the same time, the platform can remain central to media businesses that operate multiple newsletters, shows, events and branded access points.

What determines whether leaving makes business sense

A mature publisher should evaluate migration as an operating-model decision rather than merely a way to eliminate a platform fee. The financial case becomes stronger when several conditions converge:

• the annual platform charge is large enough to finance replacement infrastructure and the people needed to operate it;
• the publication needs subscription bundles, permissions or product combinations that its existing setup cannot support cleanly;
• most customers already arrive through the publisher’s reporting, brand, events, podcasts or direct marketing rather than platform discovery;
• the business can preserve email delivery, billing support and reader access throughout the transition;
• greater control over customer relationships has a defined commercial purpose rather than serving as an abstract preference for independence.

The opposite conditions strengthen the case for staying. A creator who benefits from simple setup, shared reader accounts, recommendations, app distribution and centralized community features may lose more in complexity and growth than the publication saves in fees. Independent infrastructure also converts part of a predictable variable charge into fixed costs and continuing operational responsibility.

The Ankler’s move reveals a genuine constraint for one kind of customer: a multiproduct media company may eventually want infrastructure organized around its own brand and membership design. It does not establish that every large newsletter has reached the same point or that Substack ceases to be valuable once a publisher grows.

Substack’s challenge is segmentation, not immediate collapse

Substack must serve two increasingly different customers with one core proposition. Individual writers may value speed, discovery and minimal administration, while larger publishers compare the platform with configurable membership software and owned distribution. A percentage-based charge can feel aligned with success to the first group and disproportionately expensive to the second.

The Ankler now provides a concrete example of the second group choosing greater independence. The Bulwark provides an equally important counterexample: scale, a standalone brand and several media formats do not automatically produce a departure.

The durable business question is whether Substack can offer advanced publishers enough flexibility and measurable network value to justify its continuing share of revenue. For now, the platform faces real pressure from customers that have outgrown a simple newsletter operation, but the predicted top-publisher exodus remains a hypothesis rather than an established trend.

Also read:

• VLMs Can Already Hunt for the “Interesting.” But They’re Still Bad at Walking Away from What They’ve Found
• The Great Hypocrisy: Hollywood Resists AI Publicly but Embraces It Quietly
• Subscriptions for Superfans Are Dying, But Superfans Are Here to Stay