There’s been a lot of mainstream media press on churning in the last couple of weeks, and whenever that happens, there is collective trepidation in the community that this is a bad thing that is going to cause too much exposure to the hobby. 

I do get that, especially when the publications are household names like the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal. There will always be some level of journalistic interest in churning, because it’s such a niche hobby that flies directly against standard advice when it comes to credit and finances. 

However, I don’t think churners and MSers have a ton to worry about. First off, the average American isn’t cut out to churn, let alone MS. It’s really hard to succeed if you have credit card debt, a poor credit score, limited credit history, or some combination thereof (unless you love Capital One, of course!). Hell, I knew about churning for years before I could start because I couldn’t get approved with my paper thin credit file.

I also think that there is a tendency to assume that a surface level article in the NYT is going to be some huge lightbulb moment for the big banks that they’re being taken advantage of. They’re well aware – the 2025 war on happiness™ is clear evidence. 

But the big banks are loving this widespread adoption of ultrapremium credit cards. The universal praise that Amex is getting for the (actually somewhat thoughtful) refreshment of the two Platinums is helping to make up for anything they felt they needed to recoup in February. Maybe not all big banks though – Citi gonna Citi, after all.

At this point, I think that Brian Kelly could be Time Magazine person of the year and it wouldn’t really change the game all that much for people in the know. And Amex, Resy and Lululemon would be laughing all the way to the bank. 

If you still don’t agree with me, that’s fine, I won’t continue trying to convince you. The only thing you need to read to understand the gigantic chasm in understanding of what is possible is the comment section on the NYT article. 

I don’t want to paint with a broad brush, but at a very high level, you’d assume people reading and commenting on the NYT would be more likely than average to have the financial tools necessary to succeed at churning. I don’t think it matters with these attitudes.

TDC mod dan_s won the caption contest he didn’t realize he entered: “It definitely helps to read NYT comments with an image in your head of an upper middle class white person sipping their coffee with a slight face of disgust in their 2500 sq ft upper east side condo typing the comment”

Using your discretion

On the flip side – while churning has fully entered the cultural zeitgeist, that doesn’t mean we need to be reckless when discussing it. And while I’ll discuss what I think is my own responsibility as a goober “blogger”, we all have a platform with social media and need to be responsible with it. 

Anyone that is creating public content about the hobby should be using common sense when deciding how explicitly to call something out. It doesn’t matter how small your audience is, especially during an age of brainless LLM indexing. 

There are zero awards given to you for killing a play, and you stand to make way more money hitting it together with your readers or listeners. And if you think I’ve overshared, tell me. I’ll take it down, no questions asked. There’s no need to double (or triple, or quadruple, or quintuple) down that it’s ok to share. 

But we all have a voice and platform to share opinions (or plays) thanks to places like reddit and Twitter. You might think it’s innocuous to post about something that is widespread but not public due to your low readership. But when you’re responding to someone with 300k followers or on a subreddit with 500k subscribers, you’re greatly increasing the chances of blowing that play up.

There is no clout to be gained by sharing something sensitive publicly, although it is a great way to never be trusted with sensitive info again. So many things are on life support at this point that aren’t being talked about in the NYT – what do we get out of shining a light on it?

There’s a particular play I’m talking about that has been the subject of this issue in multiple places the last couple of weeks. It’s not some secret Hardbody 3.0 unicorn by any means, but it’s an important part of the profit equation for a lot of downstream plays. What is there truly to gain from talking about it in a place that is easily indexed? 

None of this is to say never publicly talk about churning, but just to use some discretion when deciding how to talk about it. It’s better for all of us that things stay alive as long as possible, lest the war on happiness claim yet another victim. 

Na zdraví!