See the entire conversation

"I've discovered how to monetize podcasts: CHARGE FOR THEM AND ONLY LET PEOPLE WHO PAY FOR THEM HEAR THEM." Yes, congratulations, Einstein. A fresh new idea indeed.
41 replies and sub-replies as of Mar 08 2019

The thing that gets to me about the way is that it is being presented as if there are only two options: ad-supported v. subscription. As if MaxFun didn't exist at all.
That said, podcasting is not broadcasting - especially when it's locked behind paywalls. Podcasting has its place - but it isn't a replacement for wide-reaching free broadcasting. It's a trade off, which should be obvious. That more refuse to accept that is frustrating.
I work at NPR, so you can feel confident that I understand where you're coming from.
(chuckle) I know you do, Linda. But not all who follow us are so lucky. As you know, sometimes it helps those who follow us to restate what may not be as obvious to them. Have a fantastic Thursday,
If it's locked behind paywalls, it's not podcasting.
Incorrect. Just as satellite radio is broadcasting that one has to pay to access, putting podcasts behind paywalls doesn't make them not podcasts. What makes them not broadcasting is that they are not a form of audio content that automatically reaches a broad audience...
If a radio show is also delivered as a podcast, that's a bonus - but it's still a radio show, just as a broadcast television show recorded to DVR, DVD, or tape is still a television show.
Broadcasting doesn't automatically reach a broad audience, they have to be listening at the time. Podcasts' audiences have to be subscribed, but then they will automatically be downloaded. Then yes, they have to listen to them.
Obviously, you seem to be having difficulty with the language. Broadcasting, by default, has a broad potential to reach a broad audience. Podcasting, by default, does not. Each has it's place, as noted previously. -30-
My husband would have a incalculably less rich sock life if it weren’t for podcast ads.
Paying creators for content?! What is this madness?!
Have they yet "discovered" toll roads? HBO? Paywalls on newspaper sites?
Although is it wrong that I’m really looking forward to @adamdavidson ?
It's not wrong to like people's work.
I am genuinely confused about this tweet. Is your point that the idea is not fresh? Because obviously it's not. Charging for things goes back a ways (at least to the babylonians). But nobody is arguing this is an exciting fresh idea. Is your point that it shouldn't happen?
The whole point of the ASCII holding-up-a-sign tweet format is to announce a truth. But I think it's safe to say we won't find agreement here, which is okay.
The point is that these are no longer podcasts. They're audiobooks. The "pay for these so other people can hear them for free" model that unites public service broadcasting and podcasting is the exciting, different one.
I would love new words. Audio book isn't right, either. But I'd happily abandon "podcast."
Podcast stuck after we called them "audio blogs" for a while, but a new term for "episodic audio that you have to pay for" would be handy.
Maybe you can call them Luminations. You'll need to distinguish them from the actual podcasts that the app plays as well.
And the Spotify ones that only their app plays can be called Spotifications.
I think most of us in the business just call them shows.
Sure, but you are going to need a distinction between the globally available ones and the siloed ones.
All of this and: if you ask them, most people will say that they pay for podcasts and public service broadcasting because they want them to exist. Patronage is actually a better fit for the need.
“Premium shows”? Paywalledcasts?
I think we do need a name per silo though, as you can't hear Luminations in Spotify or Spotifications in Luminary either. #indieweb
Walledcasts is pretty good
Since the marginal cost of an extra listen is zero, charging by the listen is grossly inefficient. Far better monetization scheme would be some variant of a broad subscription bundle--a la Spotify or Apple Music.
Now who’s being condescending? Linda, I love your twitter and your podcast, but I don’t know why you’re being so closed-minded about this issue. Last week I gave you an example of a third way that’s been working for a major podcast for ten years plus.
That's great for that podcast.
I enjoy podcasts but don’t see myself hopping on board the pay to subscribe model. That said, your tweet seems unnecessarily nasty.
I'm sorry you feel that way.
I've been spoiled my MaxFun I guess. I want content creators to get paid, but I feel like this new noise is more about corporations thinking podcasting is a cash cow, which is... misguided.
“Ads are for chumps!!” They shout down from their gated community.
does my favorite ad reads. The only ads I don't skip.
I don't even mind the paying for exclusive content/subscription stuff as much as the forcing people to access through only one app. I won't even listen to the "free" stuff exclusively available on spotify, because I find it annoying that I can't just add things to *my* playlist.
...I went through a whole bunch of different apps until I found one I really liked, and I've basically got all of my subscriptions and playlists organized just the way I like them. Listening to a new show shouldn't require *me* to jump through a bunch of extra hoops.
I’ve always thought if they were available in the music library so i could select one as my wake up alarm I’d pay for that.