Slashdot Mirror
Podcasting Goes Pay-to-Play
James Draven writes "For the last year, people have been wondering - how to make money off podcasts? Some have dabbled with advertising, some with user donations, but now the most popular podcast on iTunes is moving to a subscription model. Bit-Tech is reporting that the Ricky Gervais Show will cost $7 a month starting next week."
form a union, group of like minded producers and charge 7 a month for way more than 1 product.
Of course people who produce content want to be paid. Unlike people who code in their garage and think information wants to be free...
Remove shoe, shoot self in foot.
cat
Might have been half way down the list when I was looking for tech podcasts...
Good luck getting subscriptions at that rate. HBO is only like $25.
A podcast goes pay-to-play.
The title makes it sound like all of podcasting is suddenly going to a subscription model which is ridiculous hyperbole.
This is stupid because nobody makes money for content directly off consumer in any broadcast medium. Why does the sudden addition of the Internet change this in people's minds? I pay $0 directly to the networks for their broadcast content. I pay $0 directly to the cable companies for their cable content (though the cable provider does filter some of my money back to the stations -- it's still not me paying the station; if it was, I could order just the channels I want). The only time a content provider gets money directly from me is Pay Per View, which seems limited to good boxing matches and pr0n.
The same idiocy of assuming the Net must play by different rules goes into advertising decisions too: execs get 0 click-through from TV ads, but they freak out when they don't get X% click through from Net ads that they are paying significantly less for. Consider yourself lucky for being able to shove your brand into my face for 15 seconds and then move on, dude.
All's true that is mistrusted
$7!!
This guy must think he's some sort of Howard Stern.
i have never heard the free podcasts of their shows but if i had to sit through two seconds of commercials i wouldnt pay for it. actually why i dont subscribe the xm, there would be short adverts every now and again. content all the time for me if i have to pay.
always mosh clockwise
Then again, since I don't know what the podcasts consist of: Isn't 7 bucks a month a bit high for 2 hours of combined entertainment? (and yes, I know that going to the cinema would be equivalent, ifnot higher than that ammount: But I can better qualify beforehand if a certain movie I am going to see in the cinema is worth that ammount of money in the first place)
I don't understand why people are so crazy over podcasts. We have had similar things for years now through things like realplayer. And from what I heard of them podcasts sound pretty bad- (but maybe I have havent heard enought) -- And YAYA I know its special cause its for the Ipod. But with that in mind it shows the stupidity of other companies for not jumping on the idea long ago cause the technology of it is not anything new.
The length of a
I'm suprised they are going with a subscription based model. $7 for 4 episodes and I'll get billed monthly? While I'd consider a subscription for something like the Daily Show aren't podcasts more like songs i.e. something people are willing to spend 99 cents to purchase at will?
http://nyamenation.org/
This seems like a really bad idea.. I've never heard a single podcast that I would pay for, even a few dollars a month.
No podcast is worth $7/month (at least the ones I've heard). That's more than what I used to spend on dial up Internet access.
Zing!
"Years ago, people had been wondering - how to make money off streaming? Some had dabbled with advertising, some with user donations, but then some random stream on the internet moved to a subscription model."
Just because it's on an iPod, doesn't make it new or innovative.
And shove your fancy revisionist naming up your arses, you yuppie bastards. "podcasting"... Please.
Cue 500 comments griping about how people who invest massive effort and talent always ask to be paid for some reason.
In other news, Corn Flakes are now $5 a box.
Business isn't willing to pay for products, innovation and careers, so we get brands, mortgage commercials and layoffs.
So how is this done?
Cheers,
Ian
You've been able to subscribe to NPR podcasts on Audible for quite a while - before the term podcast was widespread anyway. Recently, a few good ones like "Wait wait, don't tell me" have become free via sponsors, while others like "This American Life" are still only available for download for a fee (streaming is free).
Powered by Web3.5 RC 2
I'm very curious to see how it pans out. It would certainly see a lot of analyst attention, the first paid-for iTunes-only subscription.*
... Desperate Housewives, for the mainstream audience) for $3.98. Or I could pay double for the same amount of plain audio.
Yet this, $7, is almost 4 times the cost of a television show. I could buy two hours of Galactica (or something more popular.
They need to offer a lot more for this to be successful.
99 cents a show is simple enough. That, I'd try out.
This is an unproven medium. A good entry point is required. Individual tracks sold like songs would work well. What they're trying to do will put many people off. Then again, maybe enough people really really like Ricky Gervais. But probably not.
* (iTunes + audible, whatever -- everyone will focus on the Apple end of things; they're more newsworthy, whether or not you agree with it.)
This recalls the discussion we had a while back about online radio. WOXY.com (The Future of Rock and Roll) is also going pay to play.
All of the podcasts of live acts playing in their lounge and also the podcasts of the unsigned band show will be available for download for subscribers, much like the example this article provides.
It looks like the reality has finally hit that nothing is free. At least though, WOXY.com is a good deal. You get the podcasts, and real DJs streaming quality music live over broadband quality streams.
I personally wish everyone the best in their efforts to make entertainment sustainable, independent, and listener supported, both with regard to the new effort via iTunes, and independent groups like WOXY.com who have seen the future of quality entertainment.
Best,
Paul Henrich
I don't think will mean much for 99,9% of podcasters out there, since these guys mentioned in the article were already famous when they started their show and, on top of that, had the benefit of being promoted by a newspaper such as The Guardian. For most podcasters, I still think that donations are the way to go. There's one problem, though. Once you subscribe to a podcast, you rarely return to the site, so I would guess "impulse" donations are harder to come by. Maybe iTunes (or other aggregators) should include a donate option. I know, it will probably never happen, or they'd get a cut, but this seems to be a fair way of compensate podcasters without creating paid subscriptions.
Rush Limbaugh charges like 5$ a month for his podcasts, and Al Franken's and Ed Schultz's are free. This guy is way over-priced. It's not that a subscription model can't work, but you can't charge way more than the market will bear.
I have to say that I find the adventures of Karl Dilkington to be pretty humorous, but there's no way I'll ever pay 7 bucks a month to listen to Ricky and Stephen make fun of him...
This guy's the limit!
Did either the submitter or the editor bother to read TFA?
The only "news" here is that a single, previously free podcast is now going to sell itself on Audible.com and remove itself from the iTunes Music Store. There is no new functionality being added to iTunes (such as a way for individual podcsters to sell their own content).
Nothing to see here. Please move along.
Jonathan
$7 for 4 x 30 min shows?
I don't know how good this show is, but by god it would have to top some heavy hitters.
$7 for 2 hours of what seems to be average comedy skits - I think someone needs to ease off the drugs a little.
Bit-Tech is reporting that the Ricky Gervais Show will cost $7 a month starting next week."
I suppose I just won't listen to the show then. Not that I've ever heard of it before anyway. Needless to say though, if Mr Gervais thinks he's going to get all his listeners to pony up $7 a month, I think he's going to have to come up witha much, much better act.
May the Maths Be with you!
Second point is that this is a small subscription - but for a half hour show. If all the shows I listened to also decided to charge a small amount then this would very quickly turn into a lot of money. Maybe it would make more sense to charge for a pick and mix channel of shows?
I enjoyed the first 3, haven't listened to the rest yet, But Can't see wanting to pay £1+ a time for thirty minutes of rambling.
Also its actually priced less (at current rate) for Americans than for Brits, only available via american outlets, which tells me the commercial broadcasts will be going for the US market, and will probably be skewed towards it. (Commercial imperatives, market forces & all that bollocks) in the same way as a lot of the BBC stuff has been in recent years (Better funded, slicker, blander)
There's plenty of good free contant around. I would be surpised if it gets 10% of the previous audience
Can you get The Ricky Gervais Show on Songbird?
I can get every podcast I download off of iTunes by another means already. I use iTunes because it is easier. I certainly don't need it. I can have the iTunes client find the podcasts I download manually and add them to my library.
Now, if they start getting exclusive content, or worse making content I can get free elsewhere only available through them I will just move on. Podcasts are successful because they are free expression. iTunes gains more by providing them for free than by attempting to charge. Hell most of the time I get a song off of iTunes is because I was there updating my podcasts! Well if they want me to pay for podcasts I will not be visiting them for those podcasts and at the same time not buying new songs or videos (both music/tv) as often as I was before.
It was inevitiable in one way or another, there was too much opportunity to make money off of them somehow.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
Music? I thought the subject was podcasts.
Another post which illustrates the desperate need for a "Dumbass" mod selection.
The submission says, "For the last year, people have been wondering - how to make money off podcasts?" But Apple said when they first released podcasting support in iTunes that there would be support for podcasts you'd have to pay for. So really, nobody's been wondering this for the last year.
"Sufferin' succotash."
I do think the market will drive the price lower than $7/mo though.
Okay, before I actually RTFA I thought this show might be every day of the week and would be at least two hours per episode considering most morning shows I like would be at least that long with all of the commercials cut out. Even if it was about 40 hours per month I don't think I would pay $7/month for something I would for the most part listen to once and never listen to again. But $7 for 2 hours of content? Give me a break, that is approaching the price of say a porn which at least I could get some fun out of and would watch more than once. Are there really people who would pay that much for 2 hours of throwaway content?
If it is going to cost that much I will just go back to turning on the radio. Oh yeah and doing it that way is free. I would be willing to pay for shows I really like but they will have to lower the price to something like 15-25 cents per hour before I would even consider it.
Hey, there is only one Return and it's not of the King, it's of the Jedi.
I have downloaded so much podcast content (nearly 12 days worth of audio) that it will take me a while just to sift through it and get caught up. Anything that cuts this task down, such as a show going off the air, starting to suck, or starting to charge for their content, just makes this task ahead of me easier :-)
Vidi, Vici, Veni
the al franken show went subscription-only a month or so ago...
-- it's ridiculous how many people misspell ridiculous... (damn, damn, damn...)
Sounds like LiL Jimmys younger brother with super aids
OK TERRIFIC!
The Ricky Gervais podcast is the only one I listen to! Like blogs, the vast majority of podcasts are complete cack. The Ricky Gervais one though is brilliant! That's pissed me right off :(
Back when I first got my iPod (September/October 2005), the first pay-for-play podcast I found was for The Phil Hendrie Show. I was hoping to find free (as in beer) versions of his shows just to have something to laugh at while in the car (the local AM stations no longer carry him, but some of his 'episodes' are riotously funny). You have to be one of his 'Back Stage Pass' members (I'm not), but you get access to the podcasts. I first stumbled on that back in October or November and thought, 'Damn, that sucks, but man, I don't blame him.'
--
Sig monde
$2/month, yes. $4, maybe.
$7? Piss off.
I've been listening to Gervais. I can see how they'd be willing to experiment with turning his show into a pay show. I mean if I'm listening to him he must have thousands of listeners. I'm not saying I'm so tapped into what's hip as I'm saying his show was worth listening to. But not for seven bucks.
I've hit Karma 50 and gotten a Score:5, Troll... I win!
2 weeks ago, I downloaded my Al Franken show podcast, only to find a message before it saying "In one week, podcasts will only be available to Air America Premium members, please subscribe to continue." It cost me a heafty 60+ dollars, for 1 episode a day, 5 days a week. I understand the logic in Air America's decision, though; if they allow everyone to get commercial-free episodes off the internet, only 1 hour after they air, they'll lose a huge source of income. This compensates them for the cost of hosting 10 3+ hour episodes for every day of the week, the bandwidth for all the downloads, and the lost advertising revenue. Podcasts do cost money to make, host and distribute; and advertising isn't very popular. The only way a popular podcast, such as the one mentioned in the article, can stay afloat (or at least avoid becoming an enormous, gaping money pit for the maker) is by charging you, the viewer, for the privelege.
but I seem to remember a bunch of podcasts I thought I was interested in that were in the protected format != mp3 and therefore not being a pod-person was unable to listen.
"He's a real midnight golfer"
Oh man people are greedy and stupid, where did they get the idea that this would work? People barely pay for crap as it stands, much less some moron who doesn't know enough about the web to use a real webcasting tool. I will enjoy laughing my ass off as sponsorships die and people lose interest.
Please register so I can make you a friend!! I need to know when you post these!!
This is what I used to do a while back:
$ cat ~/bin/ra2pcm.sh
#!/bin/bash
mplayer -nocache -really-quiet -vo null -af resample=44100:0:1 -ao pcm -aofile $HOME/mp3/RADIO/`date +%y-%h-%d-%R`.wav $1
then I got lazy with iTunes & my iPod... If I have to go back to that, fine. It's not the end of the world.
there's no place like ~
I don't think $7/month is a reasonable amount. I wouldn't pay that personally.
Having said that, I do think it is inevitable that this happens. The cost to provide the podcasts, and the exhaustive work creating them, had to be reimbursed from somewhere.
Donations simply don't work - I removed all advertising from a popular site of mine for 6 weeks, and instead put a donations page. 6 weeks and 3,000,000 files served later, the donations totalled $0.
If the Red Cross, World Vision, Salvation Army etc struggle to get donations, having to resort to tv/radio campaigns begging for money, then I don't like any websites chance of succeeding.
Because the medium is an mp3, the advertising is limited to injecting ads like on a radio. The value of those ads (in my opinion) is less because someone might well be commuting or otherwise occupied when listening. It's not like 'traditional' web advertising where the ad is in front of you and can be clicked for an immediate response and/or roi.
Almost as crazy as people that spend $5/day each month on a latte, eh?
I think it needs to be pointed out that the article is incorrectly stating that you pay a monthly subscription fee. You don't pay monthly. As far as I can see from the Audible website it's a one off payment for the entire season two, which they aren't sure how long will go for. Could be four episodes, could be more. This really could work. I work in a non-tech related office, so people here aren't necessarily into podcasts etc, but already this morning 3 people have paid the subscription fee.
If you want to pimp your site on Slashdot, buy a fucking ad. Quit polluting the board with your spam.
noone wants to hear your podcast not even your 'friends' and family. /dev/null
if you could admit this to yourself, you'd be happy hosting it publicly to watch noone subscribe.
you might as well host it on
my password really is 'stinkypants'
Let me be the first to say that I've never understood why podcasting is popular. Every podcast I've ever listened to has SUCKED. This after spending HOURS looking for a good one. I'd rather pay for someone to hit me in the face. At least then I might get a day off out of it.
It's pay for through the audible subscription service people, which entitles you to tons of other premium content.
Unfortunately, when everybody starts trying to charge a subscription for their "service"...and nobody seems to have many subscriptions under $5/month...they will end up feeding off each other. I only make $X/month, and before, I would save up and purchase something. But now it seems companies want me to keep paying them month after month, and my paycheck can cover only so many subscriptions. I think companies will fast realize that not all of them can charge a subscription, and in fact they might do better not to.
Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
/wave bye Ricky
Karma: a simple way of silencing those with unpopular views regardless how correct or just that view might be.
His service was there way before podcasts, it started as video streaming (and commercial free audio feed - breaks filled with music/parodys)
What I am saying is that Limbaugh (and other Premere Radio subscribtions that I have seen) have a lot of value added, not just podcasts.
i think ricky is going to find out EXACTLY how popular he is when fans are forced to pay for his podcast. there are a ton of podcasts i listen to but i have to say that few, if any, of them i would pay for on a long term basis. i would just switch to the inevitable posers/copiers/wannabees/better-than-the-originals to show up and fill the void for free. personally i see podcasting as a single part of a brand building campaign to drive people to a subscription model for say extended or unedited postcasts or a subscription website with extra content or a newsletter etc etc. frankly i think the sponsership model for podcasts is the real end game here not subscriptions.
Okay, I've read all the posts complaining about different ways of getting funds for producing a podcast, now I would like to know what you would do to get the money necessary?
;)
Say you wanted to go full time, how would you go about it? <Why yes I do run a podcast
LA Update and LUG Roundup>
Like sex (before someone replies with it), but a tech podcast doesn't really sound like it has much that can't be gotten on one of the zillion sites on the web. They better have damn good commentary on what they discuss, or there's no way people will pay for this.
In undeveloped countries, the consumer controls the market. In capitalist America, the market controls you.
it isn't pay to play, it's pay to download. Nothing to do with playing.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
...require me to hit Fast Forward at least SIX times to skip his whole 'cast? I subscribed to it once, and foudn it on my "recently added" playlist. Didn't feel like listening to it, so I hit FF, nope, still on his podcast. Hit FF, nope, still on his podcast. I noticed tickmarks on the overall progress meter. His show is the only one I know of that does that(and it's irritating). Any reason why?
Here's a semi-rhetorical question... how much of the $7 goes towards bandwidth costs? You know that these are going to pop up on public torrent trackers, so if I'm not using Guardian's bandwidth (or whoever will host the paid versions) to snag these, is it that big of a deal?
The Gervais experiment will give analysts an answer to the question - will people pay for radio shows on the net?
Funny thing is that it got listed on some questionable websites which are still referring hits to the site, even though I took the cam and archive down years ago. Now all those missing hits go to my haiku movie review.
The CB App. What's your 20?
Great isn't it. Maybe Rickys Ego has just got just that little bit too big.
I really hope this bombs big time, however it's likely to be a comfortable success.
According to
http://www.journalism.co.uk/news/story1665.shtml
380,000 people downloaded his first podcast from guardian unlimited, later shows where less successful and more people prefered to download an individual episode than decided to subscribe.
looks like the first series is available as a torrent in the usual places.
each show is about 15meg in size.
However you might try the BBC's website for some alternative shows to download for free. Radio2 and Radio4 have some pretty good shows available.
Plenty of radio stations stream shows from station websites.
I'm pretty sure slashdot readers can list thier favourite
shows and where they are available legal and free.
how many subscribers does he need to make this subscription viable 2000? is $14,000 a month enough...
I'm hoping his subscription based show fails just because if it doesnt we will see more of this.
I guess if your an idiot with more money than sense you might subscribe and get the 5 minute advert free, I just wonder how many idiots are signing up right now.
Blarney Quality Restaurant, Plants
Satellite radio is a perfect economic model to replicate -- lots of content bundled together to appeal to the largest audience possible.
One show for one month at $7 is an economic model that is ultimately ridiculous. If I want to listen to a dozen shows a week, you're asking me to pay $84/month?!? No way will people do that, it simply doesn't scale.
Heck, a lot of websites tried this model and most of them fell on their face and relented to the free model. People will pay for stuff they like, but it has to be reasonable to that person's life. I pay $13/month for dozens of music and talk channels on satellite, and don't have to worry about the FCC. If you can beat that online, please do.
That's the key. I for one would gladly pay 1 dollar at iTunes for my Twit fix per week. It's a decent show and the quality (of the audio) has been improving. The show's content stumbles a bit - but it's far better than G4 or GETV. GETV's topics are great - but the host is painful to listen to. Awful.
In the latest episode Twit foreshadows that they might have gotten funding or a sponser of reasonable worth. We'll see.
"Podcast" = recording.
"Subscription" = paying for new recordings.
"Podcasting goes pay-to-play" = buying newly released audio recordings with money. Haven't we been doing that in music shops for decades?
Is this news just because the word "podcast" sounds more exciting than "a recording"?
TWW
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
Well, really, they're simply marking their show as an audible audio book... so it's not really a "podcast" anymore. It's no longer a free MP3 RSS subscription, so it can't be a podcast.
"Things are more moderner than before- bigger, and yet smaller- it's computers-- San Dimas High School football RULES!"
Haven't I paid enough in brain cells committing suicide?
Now they want money?
The subscription is for the whole of the season of podcasts, which they guarantee will be at least four episodes; but the last season was twelve episodes so that's probably what they have in mind.
Also, it's not a recurring charge, but a one-off.
I think if the content is good enough, people will pay for it.
c tion.php?pId=138&rId=3. (I am not affiliated with them in anyway).
The whole notion of "podcasts" has done audio content is huge disservice. Most podcasts I have heard really are not that good. They are filled with uhmms and ahhs, akward pauses, and often appear adhoc, unedited and unprofessional. We need a better name for properly researched, recorded and edited audio recordings which are not too long, and, as I have before, I suggest we call them "audicles" and move away from the "podcast" debacle.
Non-music audio content has a bright future. I believe though the growth will be in audio books. These must be professionally researched and written, and have high quality content, just like any other book on the market. For some interesting audiobook stats, take a look at http://www.simplyaudiobooks.com/processInterfaceA
For primarily text based books, it is relatively straight forward to create an audiobook from them. Just have someone, maybe or maybe not the author, read the text into a microphone and then do some editing. I listed to Bill Clinton's "My Life" on audiobook and quite enjoyed it, and also to the "War of the Worlds", which was also good. I also tried to listen to the Feynman lectures on audio (my academic background is in Engineering Physics), and this was where I felt the audio medium did not work well. For technical topics, it is very difficult to covert a lecture or a book to an audio only medium; instead, you really need to write from scratch specifically targeting the audio medium.
So, this is what we are currently working on, developing audiobooks for software developers. So far, the feedback has been overwhelmingly positive. We are currently allowing people to freely download them, but eventually expect people to pay for them. Many people have said that they would gladly pay for the high quality audio books we are providing. But, saying it is one thing, the ultimate test will be when we actually make the switch from free to pay and see how many sales we have.
FREE - Java, J2EE and Ajax Audiobooks for Software Developers - www.DeveloperAdvantage.com
It's been show that you can generate great interest in online content with a yearly subscription, but not with montly subs. When people think about a montly subscription they start to add the numbers in their head and quickly figure out that the thing isn't worth the money... but yearly subscriptions feel less painful. You feel like you're going to get this forever for this one price. Like you're buying the show rather than renting it.
Plus you get way more subscriptions this way from people who eventually drop out. Going for a low cost yearly is much smarter than a higher cost montly rate.
...podcast @$7 month, times how many different podcasts a day = hmm, two is 14 dollars, 3 is 21 and 4 is 28 and... I DON'T THINK SO. You are getting into cable TV prices now for just a few shows. For that kinda loot, these podcasters need to go to sirius or xm radio or even the traditional OTA broadcasters and get a real show.
They need to "think different" on this, like less than the cost of your connection for generic tune in and listen to whatever, all the time if you feel like it. Or not. The tech exists to share bandwith on streaming, peercast, pirate radio, etc, this is the way to go possibly. We the internet community are already paying for ALL THE BANDWITH THAT IS USED ALREADY. If it's not being used, no one is paying for it. Enough! Now who gets the cash, that's something the big providers need to figure out, but dicking it up into some weird pay here, pay there, pay constantly on top of connection is just too much. I'll pass. I predicteth that this effort will not be as popular as they might think. It's up to the ISPs to implement multicasting, that they choose not to is their fault, not ours. It's up to the government to force the big backbone guys and telcos to finish the *real* broadband rollout they got tax breaks and prices for, it's not our fault the net is still expensive, we the tax payers popped 200 billion for them to get the show on the road and finished, which would have dropped the price of netstreaming down between real cheap and extremely cheap. What they blew the cash on is their business, but they need to do it first before they start on this road of turning the net into a big glorified closed pay by the byte over paying by the byte on top of paying by the byte they want to implement.
Mr Gerbils, I've never heard of you, but I must admit to being a little curious and a little flattered. So please subscribe me to your newsletter!
I like their way of doing things because I don't HAVE to pay to listen, but I willingly pay because I know it helps them with their costs.
I'll pay a few bucks a month for something I know I'll enjoy, forcing me to pay $7/month to listen to your show will make me shy away and look elsewhere for my content.
Please think logically.
Getting paid for content and allowing information to be free are not mutually exclusive. Unless you equivocate on the word "free," that is.
Free as in speech does not mean free as in beer.
Musicians can give their songs away for free on the Internet and then charge for t-shirts, concerts, and TV contracts. It worked for They Might Be Giants, and it can work for you too!
I love the show, I was just listening to it on the way home from work, and so had just found out about the Podcast going pay-for.
But I won't be paying for it. First of all, I don't buy DRM content. With the current podcast, I can archive it and listen to it anywhere, anytime. Not with the DRM content.
But even if I did, $7?
I won't pay $12/mo for Digitally Imported ratio, despite being a huge electronic music head. Why? Because for $12/mo I could get XM or Sirius, both of which have a lot more content. And if I could get 10 channels 24/7 for a month for $12 or 100 channels 24/7 for a month for $12, there's no way I'm spending $7 for 2 hours of audio content a month, even if it is good content.
It's sad. I'll miss the show.
I can't imagine what I would have done if the show were $0.99/episode as I expected. That'd be $2/month and quite worth it. But it'd still have to be DRM-free for me to pay for it.
I like that, when I originally heard he was charging $7 a month to access the show, it's a dollar amount that's workable. If a show charges over $10 per month though, the show ain't worth subscribing to.
Checked out the podcast to see who the fuck this is, short version is this sounds like a nasal voiced brit talking about nothing.
Yes, I RTFA, and I'm still not sure what makes this newsworthy. To answer some of the rhetorical questions, yes, it's just a matter of time before iTunes incorporates "pay for podcasts." If people like the content enough, they'll buy it. And if enough people like the content, it will end up on P2P networks, DRM be damned.
Air America Radio just moved to paid podcasts. It's $7 a month for a single show, (or $11 for all shows). that's seven different shows, daily. if ricky gervais keeps doing a half hour show, weekly, $7/mo seems a little steep...
I of course don't mind free podcasts, but I would be totally happy for people if they can find a way to make money doing something they truly like. I mean, how many of you wouldnt mind doing the same?
So long as ClearChannel doesnt start buying up podcasts we should be fine.
I'm all for it if it can get rid of some of the more irritating commercials that pop up during some really popular podcasts. I wouldn't pay $7 a month for anything less than an excellent daily news source, but cheap design tutorial vids to watch while I'm at the gym would be better than trying to skip the commercials.
Audible takes the role of the cable company in this model. And even in pay per view, you're paying the cable company, not the program producer. :-)
I'd go for advertising and donations.
There is no doubt this podcast became so popular because it was provided at no cost to the listeners. Throwing advertising in is probably not going to lose them any listeners, but charging for the podcast is obviously going to cost them a lot of listeners. Maybe they'll have enough for it to still be worthwhile for them, but they could probably be making more money.
People are more generous when they are voluntarily donating money, and if you provide something that is so good that it makes people fall in love with it, they will donate regularly. This can probably work best with music. I know good music would compel me to donate.
Last time I listened there were advertisements in the show (three I think). I for one wouldn't be paying unless there's a no add guarantee. It's laugh out loud funny though.
They can eat a nob at night. I wont pay for this.
I was okay with the idea of radio style ads in podcasts, but this type of fee will cause listeners to drop off for most podcasts. It's been shown time and time again that people don't like to pay for what used to be free. I wish Ricky the best because I think he's great, but I don't know if this is a good idea.
$7 == one month of gervais podcast == 4 shows. That's $1.75 per half-hour show. That is in-line with what apple is charging for TV shows. But, but, but this is audio only. Whatever the market will bear...
Rush Limbaugh charges $7/month for 20 shows or 60 hours of programming plus, if you want, live streaming video (no I don't understand this) and a short daily video blog and some website content.
Apparently it's making great money - this seems like a fair business model. At Rush's rates this guy would be charging > $180/mo for his show.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
A man plays a violin sitting on a park bench. He is relaxing after a hard day of work, and indulging his personal hobby in a pleasant environment. People in the park pass by and enjoy his music, and he does not care whether they listen or not.
Another man plays on a street corner, an upturned hat at his feet with a few coins inside for people to get the idea. He would play no matter how many generous souls pass him by, he always did like the attention you see - but he could use some more cash and he is making a polite request that those who listen show their appreciation through payment.
Yet another man plays in a nice restaurant, lending a pleasant atmosphere for dining, and on occasion for romance. Not only does the establishment pay him, but he also receives tips from patrons that feel either obligated or grateful.
Is there not a place for all such men in the world? Is one nobler than the others? They are all performing for some reward - one for his own contentment, another for attention, and the other for money - they merely have different definitions of reward. Or should we expect all men of such talents to resign themselves to park benches and play for our delight?
That's still pretty steep. For 39 more cents, I can get a 5 minute song I'll probably listen to for about 3-4 years regularly. How often will I listen to a podcast of some guy for 15 minutes joking about stuff?
Could I get this same content, use a text to speech engine, and have that stored on my iPod for less?
It's not super outrageous, but it's not a steal. A steal would be around 3$ per season, with the option to do episodes separately for a bit of a premium.
--
Internet Explorer (n): Another bug -- that is, a feature that can't be turned off -- in Windows.
The problem here is that as soon as this practise become even remotely widespread, most of us will be getting our favorite podcasts from BitTorrent rather than iTMS or the host sites.
It's all very well to say that you may consider paying $7 for a series of shows you really enjoy, but what happens when your ten faves are all asking for $7 a season?
I think this will only give rise to a greater number of free podcasts made by people who want to be heard rather than make money.
I dont see this as huge news in the case of this one show going to a pay per month system.
As a vidcaster however, it is encouraging to see a market start to flourish. I truly am burned by the amount of crap I pay for on cable TV, having to skip ads despite having a PVR, etc. Basic cable gives me about 5 channels I care about, and about 60 that I don't.
I'd like to see a future where set top IPTV boxes allow me to subscribe and easily view and listen to web based content. I'd love to have my car radio automatically sync with my 'podcasts' and napster subscriptions (this is done now using omnifi, but I'd like more solutions).
To get there, and to get the vidcasts to have some quality, moneys needed. As a person that runs a free vidcast, I take a loss every show I produce. We've gone through 3 cameras, props, lighting fixtures, etc. With our dirt budget, we still have spent a signifigant amount, mostly in time, editing software, hosting, bandwidth, etc.
Add to this hiring actors, or paying for a bit more professional content, plus hosting of files besides torrents/free hosting solutions, and your talking a budget thats gotta come from somewhere.
taking it from the dirt budget to the level of getting 35mm cameras, real lighting rigs, etc, pushes the budget even higher.
For all of this, there needs to be a precedent and a distribution system that allows the content makers to make money. Ideally it would be very low cost, since most middlemen are gone. Again, this is where someone setting some solid precedents would come in handy.
Ironically, while the studios can do fine offereing BSG for a dollar a pop, I think that it's unfair to compare that to what an idie film maker would need to make for their videos. I know most of this thread is about audio, but videos just the next logical step.
Joe
Joe@downstairstheater.com
http://www.downstairstheater.com/
Just as long as Apple gets a cut for the use of their pipes -- people are using iTunes to listen to Gervais, and Apple isn't getting a dime!
I've been listening to the Ricky Gervais podcast, and found it highly entertaining, especially on long tedious drives down the motorway. But I'm certainly not going to pay for it, so goodbye then Mr Gervais.
Cress, cress, lovely lovely cress
I'll never charge anything for my podcast. And I'm not just saying that because it's called "The Worst Podcast In The World", I wouldn't charge for it even if I thought I could. Seriously. Because I'm a lefty hairy commie pinko, and proud of it!
Frog blast the vent core.
Episodes 1 through 12 are available free from the Guardian.
Why not just raise revenue by embedding audio adverts amongst the songs/stories in the podcast? The same way boingboing and other webblogs surrounds their stories with banner ads.
If publishers of podcasts insist on charging subscription fees on a monthly basis, whats to stop someone from grabbing the audio and dumping it on p2p/btorrent? The rest of Ricky Gervais' The Office is on eDonkey, why wouldn't his podcast end up there?[1]
The Independent: Reverend Spooner Arrested in Friar Tuck Incident - ISIHAC, Historical Headlines
I agree that in most circumstances donations don't work.
But I think the right kind of context and solicitation does make a difference. so does the content--how unique is it?
People are more inclined to tip an individual rather than a group or organization. They are more likely to tip creative content than commentary, more likely to tip people if they know all the money is going to the right person. Also, they're more likely to tip if they know that they are receiving a stream of content, not just a single 3 minute video.
Finally, most content creators still don't don't put tipjars on their website, so they just don't know if it works.
At the moment I'm working on a tip-based community site that I think will work--at least better than what we've seen before. Check back with me in 6 months; I might have success stories to brag about!
See my guide to Tipping: A Fast and Easy Guide (which I probably need to update).
Robert Nagle, Idiotprogrammer, Houston
When marketing folks sit around a price a product, they know it is better to err on the side of "too high" than "too low". Why? Well, it is much easier to lower prices and look like you are doing right by the consumer than it is to raise the price of something the consumer was used to buying cheap.
These prices could be a case of erring on the side of "too high". I wouldn't be surprised to see them start coming down when no one signs up.
I predict that the Ricky Whatever show will no longer be iTunes' most popular podcast after they start charging $7 a month for it.
Dang that's $84 a year. Is that really worth it?
Good thought.
Is there any sort of TiVo-like application for doing this (I'm thinking Mac or Linux)? I looked at StreamRipper, and it seems fairly straightforward if you just want to capture the stream and separate it into files -- how are you scheduling it? Just with a cron job, or is there some frontend/scheduler that I'm missing?
I've actually been toying for a while with the idea of getting a Griffin Radio Shark, which basically does "TiVO for Radio," but no sense in listening to a recorded FM broadcast if I can get a MP3 feed instead. (All I'm interested in listening to is NPR, basically.)
What would really be handy is a single program that displays programming info, schedules recordings, saves them, and then adds them to an RSS feed that you can subscribe to from another computer with iTunes as a Podcast, to have it loaded on your iPod automatically. Actually I have to think somebody has already made something that does that.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
People only have so much cash. If everyone starts charging a dollar for every word, sound byte, picture, video clip then people won't participate. 7 bucks doesn't sound like much, but if in the past I got 20 podcasts for free and now they all cost 7 bucks I'll stop doing podcasts. So go ahead 'content providers' shoot yourself in the foot, I'll find free content elsewhere.
Yet another man plays in a nice restaurant, lending a pleasant atmosphere for dining, and on occasion for romance. Not only does the establishment pay him, but he also receives tips from patrons that feel either obligated or grateful.
The problem with that is that a not-insignificant number of people hate these guys. They pay him to go away so they can get back to their date. They're talking and trying to get some interest going on here, and this jerk off violin player kills that by being an annoying prick at exactly the wrong moment? The only reason anybody pays the fucker is because they can't slug him.
Or should we expect all men of such talents to resign themselves to park benches and play for our delight?
No, of course not. However, we do reserve the right to dislike the guy playing in the restaurant and to complain about him interrupting our feeble attempts at making witty and charming conversation just because he wants to make a buck.
- Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set him on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.
I mean honestly. Between Cellphones, TV, Online games, Sattelite radio, DVR/Tivo, MP3's, online radio/podcasts, and more. You get nickle and dimed to death, there is no way to be a good little consumer and actually utilize this technology without going broke.
Figure:
Home Phone: $40 (more for features like call waiting, caller id, etc.)
Cell phone: $40 (not counting ringtones, text, etc.)
TV: $40 (again not extra's like movie channels, PPV, porn, etc.)
DVR/Tivo: $15
1 online game: $15
Sattelite Radio: $15
MP3's: $15 (say for an unlimited service)
Online radio or podcast of 2 shows: $15
That is basically $200 a MONTH right there. and that is without taking advantage of any of the extras I mentioned which would easily make it $300 a month. That is almost $4000.00 a year.
Re-damn-diculous
http://teasphere.wordpress.com - A little spot of tea
That's the funniest thing on /. in years.
Interested in a Flash-based MAME front end? Visit mame.danzbb.com
Where are you getting your HBO? I have comcast which isnt exactly known for its stellar prices, yet I only pay 16/mo for HBO. :P
Joseph?
>Ricky Gervais Show will cost $7 a month starting next week...
how thoughtfull, many don't bother to give two weeks notice when they quit
Who's Ricky Gervais anyway?