Sponsor & disclosure

How this makes money, in full.

A publication that audits other people's spending should be legible about its own. This is the whole of it.

Where the money comes from

Three possible places, in the order they're likely to matter:

What a sponsor buys — and doesn't

  • A labelled placement, and the attention of people who read a newsletter about spending money
  • Honest performance numbers afterwards, including when they're bad
  • Not: influence over what gets covered
  • Not: review of a piece before it runs, or sight of it at all
  • Not: a favourable verdict. Sponsors have been reviewed unfavourably before and will be again.
  • Not: removal or softening of an existing piece

If those terms are a problem, this isn't the right newsletter, and that's a reasonable outcome for both of us.

Rates

Not yet. Astraas is new and the subscriber list is small, and quoting a rate card against an audience that doesn't exist is precisely the kind of thing this publication exists to point at.

When there's a real audience, the rate and the actual numbers behind it — list size, open rate, click rate — will be published here rather than sent selectively. If you want to be told when that happens, say so.

Standing disclosure policy

Sponsorship is always labelled, at the placement, in plain language. Not "partner content", not "in collaboration with" — the word used will be one a reader immediately understands.

Affiliate links are disclosed on the page they appear, not only here. Whether a link is affiliate has never determined a verdict, and the day it does is the day this stops being worth reading.

Editorial is never reviewed by anyone it covers. No pre-publication sight, no quote approval, no embargo trades.

Corrections are made in public, on the piece, with the change noted rather than quietly edited.

Reaching a human

hello@astraas.tech — for sponsorship, corrections, or to tell me a number is wrong. The last of those gets answered fastest.