I started with a simple picture of a newsletter swap: two publishers agree to feature each other, write down what each will publish, and check that both placements actually go out. It sounded like a useful little workflow to organize, so I built Surka.
Then I looked at how publishers find partners today. The first problem I had imagined was much less open than I thought.
The old workflow is easy to see
In a 2020 Indie Hackers exchange, writers posted their newsletter, subscriber count, open rate, and audience, then invited one another to get in touch. A 2022 thread asked people to say what they could offer and what kind of partner they wanted. These threads are evidence that people arranged swaps manually. They are not evidence that the same workflow is painful enough to buy software for in 2026.
The platforms changed the first half of the job. Substack launched Recommendations in 2022, prompting writers to recommend one another. beehiiv now offers free reciprocal recommendations, including placements in the signup flow and posts. In its July 2026 product update, beehiiv said Recommendations and Boosts together had generated more than 15 million subscriptions, and that the platform had more than 60,000 active creators and publishers. Those are two different measurements. The update does not say that 60,000 publishers use Recommendations or that free swaps alone generated 15 million subscriptions.
If I pitch Surka as a way to find someone to recommend, I am competing with a free, built-in workflow and a network that already has distribution. That is a poor starting point.
There is also more independent software than I expected
InboxReads launched one-click cross-promotion pitches in February 2026. CrossPromoly lists plans from $14 to $56 a month for matching and swap tracking. It says publishers can log what they agreed to so both sides follow through. I cannot honestly say that no product tracks the deal after the handshake.
The distinction I still want to test is narrower. A recommendation that appears in a signup flow is not necessarily the same agreement as, "Put this paragraph in Tuesday's issue, above the footer, with this link, and I will do the equivalent on Thursday." The latter has a date, a placement, and something public that each side can inspect afterward. Some publishers may already manage that perfectly well in email, a spreadsheet, or one of the tools above.
I have not established that they do not.
What I am testing now
Surka can put both sides' promises on one private deal sheet, let the invited partner accept or suggest changes, and record links to the published placements. For the first pilots, follow-up is manual. Automated email delivery has not been verified in production. I do not have a verified completed customer swap to report.
That makes the next test straightforward: help one real pair run a promotion they already intend to do. Before either sends, record the exact placement and date. After both send, compare the published issues with the agreement. Then ask whether the extra coordination saved either publisher meaningful time or prevented a miss. If the answer is no, a more polished deal sheet is not a business.
If you run newsletter swaps, I would value a concrete example: In your most recent one-off, in-issue swap, what did you use to keep both sides on schedule, and did either placement need chasing or correction? "We just used email and it was fine" is as useful an answer as a horror story.
The lesson so far is not that the market is empty. It is that I built before separating three jobs: finding a partner, making a reciprocal recommendation, and delivering a specific promised placement. The first two have serious incumbents. The third is a hypothesis I have to test with an actual swap.
Top comments (1)
the split into three jobs is the useful bit here. from the few swaps i've done, the pain was never finding the partner, it was the other side's issue going out a week late with the blurb buried under the footer, and me not wanting to be the annoying one who chases. so i'd test whether people will actually pay for the awkward follow-up being someone else's problem, more than the deal sheet itself.