Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Podcasting Goes Pay-to-Play

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the get-fans-and-make-em-pay dept.

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."

15 of 277 comments (clear)

  1. internet radio by diablo6683 · · Score: 0, Interesting

    form a union, group of like minded producers and charge 7 a month for way more than 1 product.

  2. pod casts by Jonny_Madness · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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 .sig is usually in inverse proportion to the intelligence of its sender -- Jim Orsi
  3. Really stupid idea by aychamo · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

  4. How? by mccalli · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Leaving aside the debate over why for a moment - I'm interested in how. You see, I'd like to create a protected podcast which just my family and relatives could listen to, but I saw nothing in the protocol to allow me to require a password, nor anyway in iTunes to specify security information for a podcast.

    So how is this done?

    Cheers,
    Ian

    1. Re:How? by machiabelly · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I was very surprised to find out, but iTunes actually lets you access a podcast protected through the regular HTTP basic or digest authentication.

      When you subscribe to such a feed iTunes will ask you for a username and a password.

      Try subscribing to this feed in iTunes, for example: private feed

      So if your server lets you setup your own HTTP protection through .htaccess or what not, you can password protect your podcast. If you combine this with SSL, you have a pretty solid protection mechanism, but for just family stuff I would think that the digest authentication is good enough. Just don't use basic authentication because that will send the password over in cleartext.

      More on this topic in my blog

      (Disclaimer, I write podcasting software for the mac os x)
  5. Re:More Expensive Than T.V. by TubeSteak · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Yet this, $7, is almost 4 times the cost of a television show. I could buy two hours of Galactica (or something more popular. ... Desperate Housewives, for the mainstream audience) for $3.98. Or I could pay double for the same amount of plain audio.
    In England, audio comedies regularly outsell all but the biggest music hits. It's a cultural thing. Check this Guardian article. It talks about a British company that gave free iPods + comedy audiobooks to all its employees.

    However, in other news: The Ricky Gervais Show is no longer the most popular podcast on iTunes
    --
    [Fuck Beta]
    o0t!
  6. Re:More Expensive Than T.V. by That's+Unpossible! · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Yet this, $7, is almost 4 times the cost of a television show.

    $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...

    --
    Ironically, the word ironically is often used incorrectly.
  7. Re:Ok by Danga · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Cue 500 comments griping about how people who invest massive effort and talent always ask to be paid for some reason.

    I believe they should be paid, but the amount they want for this particular show seems extremely high. $7 dollars for 2 hours of a show that for the most part will be listened to once and then never touched again. Woo wee sign me up for that. I would pay say 15-25 cents per hour but no way would I pay $3.50 per hour. They deserve to get paid for their efforts, but we also deserve to pay a fair price for the content we get in return.

    --
    Hey, there is only one Return and it's not of the King, it's of the Jedi.
  8. Re:Seven dollars a month?! by Gerr · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I listen to several different podcasts; if this pay-per-listen model becomes successful, it'll cost me more to listen to four shows then I'm paying for basic cable. Instead of paying for the show, I simply won't listen; or I'll wait for my friends to download them and ask if they wouldn't mind letting me listen while they listened (is that covered by the fair use model?).

  9. Re:More Expensive Than T.V. by lawpoop · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I can listen to podcasts while I work. I cannot watch TV while I work. Therefore, audio entertainment is more valuable to me.

    --
    Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
    -- Pablo Picasso
  10. Re:Seven dollars a month?! by Ubergrendle · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Yet another strong argument in favour of micropayments. Apple might have tried something prior to now, but the licensing terms of the RIAA has really knee-capped them in this regard. RIAA sees the iPod and iTunes as a threat...what they don't realise is that as long as one body is strong enough to maintain a virtual monopoly, they only have to regulate one source. They're not having as much luck with allofmp3.com it looks like...

    --
    John Maynard Keynes: "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do?"
  11. Strange language by nagora · · Score: 3, Interesting
    I think I've got it now:

    "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"
  12. They should do YEARLY not MONTHLY subs by neo · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

  13. Re:He was great in the Office by 1u3hr · · Score: 2, Interesting
    To me, this does tend to indicate that perhaps he's not such a brilliant actor... not by the normal definitions of what makes a good (or brilliant) actor. Yes, he wrote a very funny sitcom and played a very, very funny character. But you're right: he *is* that character

    No, he's not. If you've seen him in anything else, or just being himself in an interview, you'd know that he IS NOT David Brent, though naturally he draws on aspects of his life in playing him. And if you think how despicable Brent is in many Office episodes, you could hardly imagine him revealing himself so nakedly -- that it appears to be "real life" is a testament of his skill.

  14. Re:Great Idea!!! by coolgeek · · Score: 5, Interesting

    My first exposure to cable was in Manhattan, where people welcomed it because it was damn near impossible to pull a signal. After that, it was a great idea to pay money to not see commercials, but then the commercials came anyway =( Thank god for TiVo, but I digress. My point is you are the first individual that I have ever heard saying "people thought cable was suicide".

    The jury is definitely still out on Satellite radio. You did read about how XM's loss widening this week, didn't you?

    I'll bet a few idiots will pay for their podcast, however, I don't think it's going to work very well. First, people are going to have to go seek out the audiobook version of their content on a weekly basis, instead of having it auto-sync'ed to their iPod. Second, this is going to greatly decrease their audience, which is never good for performers. Third, they've priced themselves out of the market, a podcast is not worth $3.50/hr when TV is going for 1.99/hr.

    I could see paying a subscription of about $7/month to a podcast aggregator site to gain access to all of the content new and archived for maybe a season. Like I said, some people will buy their show but most people won't. In the process, they have alienated their audience, thus the reference to shooting oneself in the foot.

    --

    cat /dev/null >sig