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."
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.
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.)
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.
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.
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?
It's capitalism. Deal with it.
I think he is dealing with it... By um... Not purchasing the services... And spending the money on something else of more value.
That is capitalism too ya know.
"I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
-Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
people who produce content want to be paid.
Before human culture became subsumed under the term "content," these used to just be called "people." As the existence of the Internet attests, there are plenty of people who contribute to culture and couldn't care less whether they get paid for it.
But, you might have a point. The next time I have a conversation with someone, I think I'll suggest to them that I'm "providing content" and ask for a small fee.
// This is not a sig.
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?