It hit me like a ton of bricks!

[dannywall]

I posted a message (actually it was a reply to a message) where I talked about a business model to use for podcasters (basically do it like Limbaugh and other talk radio shows). You can see that message [url=http://www.podcastalley.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=63]here[/a].

I realized however that Limbaugh's show (and for that matter all of the radio talk show hosts like him) all have sales people to find the advertisers for the show.

Podcasters don't have this "luxury" of having a sales force to get advertisers.

Further, the very nature of podcasting renders some forms of advertising worthless. You can't have a radio style advertising spot because a listener can just fast forward past it.

That means any "ads" need to be wrapped into the show itself.

Actually that's not entirely true, but I don't want this message to get too wordy about the problem, instead, lets talk about a possible solution.

My question is this ... what do you podcasters think of having a service similar to blogads? I could VERY easily come up with a TON of advertisers for this market as it hits a demographic that advertisers LOVE (mostly young, all technologically savvy, almost always fanatically loyal to the shows they listen to, and national/worldwide in scope).

You folks would be paid a certain fee based on your stats for essentially endorsing a product. As an example, lets say I got Starbucks. At some point during your podcast (in the first third of your show), you would spend roughly 30 seconds talking about Chantico (again as an example) and how choclatey it is. Like I said, you would be paid for doing that based on how widely listened to your show is.

I could get the advertisers, you pick WHICH products/companies make sense for your audience ... everybody wins.

So my question is two fold, first, do you folks like the idea in general?

Second, how much would you like to get paid per thousand listeners? (but lets not get carried away, for this to work it would have to be significantly less than radio advertising)

[Craig]

I'd be really curious to know how many of the Podcast Alley Top 50 actually have more than a thousand listeners at the moment. :o

Craig

[PBCliberal]

Adam Curry is nosing around with this (whether it came about aforethought or just happened) with the Senseo coffee maker which he has talked about, and has posted a tracking link on his site to Amazon. He's sold several.

Here's what I don't like about this. Like most new media, we have consumers which are smarter than the average bear or they wouldn't be here. It won't take them more than a few milliseconds to figure out that we're whores. in the most pernicious way.

There's a great podcast from the aussie ABC on new marketing techniques where you do things like pay attractive men and women to buy others drinks in bars to make your beer or liquor trendy. Since everything is happening faster this new marketing technique will bloom fast and die even faster when cynicism sets in. (I wanted to respond to your prediction on video to suggest you're correct, but it will take a while. Hasn't Winer said that audioblogging came from failure to implement video first thing out of the box?)

Personal endorsements are very powerful and effective. That's why, if you've listened to much radio over the last few years, you know that every station has some guy who tells you about how much weight he's lost on somebody's pill or diet. These guys are all on the take; the business has gotten so bad that most decent talent that didn't leave or get fired need to sell themselves to make ends meet.

Since I haven't been burned at the stake...yet...here's more heretical thought. Commercials don't have to be bad. How about a sponsorship announcement in the show, and a seperate spot that is downloaded in the rss feed so you can easily skip right over it.

For instance, Ipswitch sponsores WGBH morning stories. I use their products. I wouldn't last a day without WS_Ping Pro Pack because I don't run unix anywhere any more, and hate the lame Windows implementation of tracerouting, pinging, and general net prodding utilities. So I actually might LISTEN to one of their spots if they teased me right, and guess what? I might actually be a candidate to buy another one of their products.

That's the other side of today's media: while the NAB tells you what a great job radio is doing because so many people are in the cume, the fact is commercial radio couldn't give one **** less about folks who can't be influenced by advertising or have no money to spend if they were.

So the right demographics wind up being the most important, with the credibility of the source coming in second. I'd suggest that we don't trade off our credibility to the highest bidder, and seek advertisers who have things that our listeners are legitimately in the market for and use a pull model rather than a push one. And Per Inquiry or Per Sale models will work great, which means we don't need to survey our audience to death. Who cares who they are as long as they buy a lot of widgets.

Radio got to where it is today by holding people hostage and shouting at them as loudly as they can. Commercials aren't a bad thing when you go looking for them because you're making a purchasing decision. We have an asychronous medium. Let's use that to our advantage.

[bramley]

I am continually intrigued by these ideas, in part because I do food and food seems like such a natural shoe-in for sponsors, ads, and the like.

I'm also still trying to figure out how many listeners I have. Craig, I know you covered this elsewhere, but would you mind running through again how you figured that? Moreover, how would you prove to the advertiser how many listeners you have for a given show in order to be paid? Are you being paid for that show, for some average, for the previous show? I can't imagine the logistics if its based on number of listeners.

Funny you should mention Chantico specifically because I almost did an (unpaid) endorsement of it on my Chocolate show, but then I found I actually really didn't like it so I just didn't mention it at all.

[dannywall]

I'd be really curious to know how many of the Podcast Alley Top 50 actually have more than a thousand listeners at the moment. :o

Craig

You aren't getting it. Because of the way it would work, you wouldn't NEED a thousand listeners. The pay would be BY the thousand, but if you had less, then you'd simply receive that percentage less money.

What makes this so incredible is that it would allow the "grouping" of lots of podcats in much the same way that Clear Channel sells their national advertising spots across lots of different radio stations.

[PBCliberal]

Mediaweek has just broken a story saying Clear Channel has confirmed it has received a subpoena (http://www.mediaweek.com/mw/news/recent_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000808264) from Elliot Spitzer of the New York Attorney General's office.

Spitzer recently began looking into radio's use of "independent promoters" which are paid by record companies to gain airplay for their material on radio stations. It has been big-media's assertion that, since these arrangements are disclosed, they are not illegal and do not constitute payola.

Clear Channel, backtracking so fast I was dizzy just reading it, crowed that they voluntarily stopped taking the money in April of 2003 to avoid even the appearance of impropriety.

[PBCliberal]

You aren't getting it. Because of the way it would work, you wouldn't NEED a thousand listeners. The pay would be BY the thousand, but if you had less, then you'd simply receive that percentage less money.

What makes this so incredible is that it would allow the "grouping" of lots of podcats in much the same way that Clear Channel sells their national advertising spots across lots of different radio stations.

What kind of CPM do you think we could get? The 2004 Superbowl supposedly cost about $25/thousand viewers and there was lots of talk that it was overpriced. So 500 listeners comes in at about the price of two venti lattes. Maybe we could get Starbucks and they could just trade us out and throw in a slice of pound cake as a bonus for not having to cut the check.

[dannywall]

Adam Curry is nosing around with this (whether it came about aforethought or just happened) with the Senseo coffee maker which he has talked about, and has posted a tracking link on his site to Amazon. He's sold several.

What I'm talking about is more than that. What adam curry is doing is much more like "traditional" affiliate selling, which is hardly anything new on the internet. What I'm talking about is the implementation of the radio sponsor ad. I'm sure you've heard them. You're listening to the show, and just as a part of the show, the hosts are talking about some story, and that story revolves around some specific product or company. These are called "host endorsements".


Here's what I don't like about this. Like most new media, we have consumers which are smarter than the average bear or they wouldn't be here. It won't take them more than a few milliseconds to figure out that we're whores. in the most pernicious way.


Two things. First, a good endorsement from someone you trust is just that. A good endorsement. That's why I'm saying there'd have to be a range of products and companies to choose from so that way the host could be endorsing something they actually do believe in.

As for being whores ... excuse my french here ... but give me an f'n break. Not one of us is doing this "for the money", but I'll bet you anything very nearly ALL OF US wouldn't mind a few extra bucks to help pay for more disk space and bandwidth. For that matter, WHAT'S WRONG with getting paid to do something you love doing?

Your implication is that the simple fact that we might be getting paid to do the podcast that it would automatically "taint" what we're doing, and frankly that sentiment is absolute crap.


There's a great podcast from the aussie ABC on new marketing techniques where you do things like pay attractive men and women to buy others drinks in bars to make your beer or liquor trendy. Since everything is happening faster this new marketing technique will bloom fast and die even faster when cynicism sets in.


Seriously, you have ZERO idea of what you are talking about on this issue. I am a long time student of marketing and marketing techniques and psychology. Do you know how the Vespa scooter was marketed? Do you know that TONS of products have been marketed that since the advent of national print publications? Do me a favor, try and find a book on marketing from Bruce Barton (he was one of the great marketers during the early 20th century, made MILLIONS right in the middle of the great depression). Then go have a look at one from Dan Kennedy or Joe Sugarman, or for that matter even Mark Joyner. Tell me how much of marketing has changed in the last ... oh, hundred years. The basic stuff works now and will continue to work FOREVER because they play on the basic makeup of people in general.


(I wanted to respond to your prediction on video to suggest you're correct, but it will take a while. Hasn't Winer said that audioblogging came from failure to implement video first thing out of the box?)


I agree that it will take SOME time for this to happen. However SMALL ... lets say thirty seconds to one minute ... spots will likely start popping up very soon after iPod and the other players support the ability to do so.



Personal endorsements are very powerful and effective. That's why, if you've listened to much radio over the last few years, you know that every station has some guy who tells you about how much weight he's lost on somebody's pill or diet. These guys are all on the take; the business has gotten so bad that most decent talent that didn't leave or get fired need to sell themselves to make ends meet.


So you're saying is that paid endorsements are a bad thing? If that's what you're saying, then we're just going to have to agree to disagree here. If you're not saying that, then I'm going to have to ask what your point is.

Podcasting can QUICKLY become mainstream if it begins to accept advertising ... and through that revenue advertise it's existence. In other words, the simple fact that you can receive a revenue stream from your podcasting gives you the ability to advertise your podcast, and through that mechanism grow your audience. This will allow you to get more advertising money, which can then be spent to grow your audience even farther. (guess what, this is exactly how cable "grew up". cable was at first this fringe thing, now "cable networks" are every bit as large and profitable as the "big three" networks)

Do you know why podcasting is still so small? NO ONE KNOWS ABOUT IT.

Want to know how it will become larger? Besides the continuous word of mouth that is currently happening, advertising will do it.

And do you know how people will be able to AFFORD said advertising?

See my point.

Not only that, I personally have a vision. I would like to see the competitive landscape make a MAJOR change. Right now, tradtional media has been "consolidated" once again so that there is actually very little real choice despite the fact that there are so many channels.

I would like to see some smaller players become big enough to prvide some real choice. THAT WON'T HAPPEN UNLESS A VIABLE BUSINESS MODEL CAN BE CREATED.

Now, while I'm not a fac of major traditional media ... there can be no doubt that there are some INCREDIBLY good business models to choose from as long as you pay attention to the "shortcomings" of the format we are working under and play to the strengths of that format.

We as a community have the chance to "strike hard and fast" BEFORE traditional media has a chance to really see and react to what is happening.

If we do not, this will simply become a major media dominated landscape and our "chance" will be lost.


Since I haven't been burned at the stake...yet...here's more heretical thought. Commercials don't have to be bad. How about a sponsorship announcement in the show, and a seperate spot that is downloaded in the rss feed so you can easily skip right over it.


And I fail to see why a paid sponsorship is bad or why it would be "whoring" yourself.


That's the other side of today's media: while the NAB tells you what a great job radio is doing because so many people are in the cume, the fact is commercial radio couldn't give one **** less about folks who can't be influenced by advertising or have no money to spend if they were.


I hate to point this out to you, but the NAB represents business. Business as a general rule doesn't care about people without money. Having said that, smart business do provide A LOT of money to charitable causes to help those that don't have money in the hopes that they'll pick themselves back up.

In other words, helping the downtrodden is actually a sound business practice. The more people with money, and the more they have, the more money a business can make. It is therefore only logical that a business tries to help people (again, at least smart ones).


So the right demographics wind up being the most important, with the credibility of the source coming in second.


Again, you obviously have ZERO idea of what you're talking about. I'll bet you didn't know that advertisers pay quite a bit more to do a "host endoresment" than they do for a "regular" thirty second radio spot. Further, hosts with very loyal followings cost even more than those without hugely loyal followings. Do me a favor, find out how much a host endorsement costs on the Rush Limbaugh show, then find out how much one costs from your local radio show. You'll find that per unit a Rush host endorsement is SIGNIFICANTLY more expensive.


I'd suggest that we don't trade off our credibility to the highest bidder, and seek advertisers who have things that our listeners are legitimately in the market for and use a pull model rather than a push one.


I have to wonder if you actually read my initial post. Didn't I say that? I specifically mentioned have products and companies that would make sense for your audience. Lets face it, an advertisement for Trojan might go a long ways on the Dawn and Drew show but would probably be DISASTROUS on yours. I never suggested that we as a community go with an advertiser simply because they're paying us. It would have to make sense for not only our demographic, but also for our show ... probably even our personality as well.


And Per Inquiry or Per Sale models will work great, which means we don't need to survey our audience to death. Who cares who they are as long as they buy a lot of widgets.


That sales model is available now, just go to ClickBank.com

But I fail to see your beef with paid host endorsements, I really do.


Radio got to where it is today by holding people hostage and shouting at them as loudly as they can. Commercials aren't a bad thing when you go looking for them because you're making a purchasing decision. We have an asychronous medium. Let's use that to our advantage.

First, I stridently disagree that radio got where it is by "holding people hostage" or by shouting at them. Radio was really revitalized by two people, Howard Stern and Rush Limbaugh. Howard Stern got an audience by being controversial/shocking. Limbaugh by being controversial (at least by mainstream media standards).

Both of these two got where they are by simply being DIFFERENT than what existed at the time ... and by advertising their existence or through other publich relations mechanisms.

Once they began seeing success did the other copy cats come out (other "shock jocks", and other political talking heads like hannity and franken).

Secondly, I have to wonder if you even know what one of the strengths of our medium even is!

It is our ability to NOT be shackled by FCC rules. Now some (such as yours) will follow them naturally anyway. Others, like Dawn and Drew will violate them with impugnity.

Here's the end result.

I intend to do several things.

1) Mainstream podcasting
2) Break up the stranglehold the major broadcasting corporations have currently on entertainment broadcasting by providing (for once) some real choices to people. I believe that "podcasting" can do that.

But getting there isn't going to happen overnight. Somethings are going to have to happen first, and one of them is that this medium is going to HAVE to provide a reasonable profit to the people that do it.

Change is inevitable :D

[dannywall]

I am continually intrigued by these ideas, in part because I do food and food seems like such a natural shoe-in for sponsors, ads, and the like.

Food is one of the most powerful methods. You could even begin looking at ClickBank.com and promoting some of the recipie books they have and earning some money pretty much immediately.


I'm also still trying to figure out how many listeners I have.


I'd recommend just using FeedBurner. You can look at the stats on your site for number of downloads of that file too, but FedBurner will give you better info.


Moreover, how would you prove to the advertiser how many listeners you have for a given show in order to be paid? Are you being paid for that show, for some average, for the previous show? I can't imagine the logistics if its based on number of listeners.


Actually, that is a bit of a problem, especially in a "bittorrent" world. One of the ways would be an old radio method of "pay for calls". In otherwords, you would be paid on the number of calls your show generates for the advertiser. The better you do with the promotion and the more listeners you have, the more you get paid.


Funny you should mention Chantico specifically because I almost did an (unpaid) endorsement of it on my Chocolate show, but then I found I actually really didn't like it so I just didn't mention it at all.

Yeah, Chantico is really amazingly good when you first start drinking it. Before you reach the bottom however, it does get VERY rich, especially if you've had those cookie things along the way. My wife loves the stuff though.

[dannywall]

What kind of CPM do you think we could get? The 2004 Superbowl supposedly cost about $25/thousand viewers and there was lots of talk that it was overpriced. So 500 listeners comes in at about the price of two venti lattes. Maybe we could get Starbucks and they could just trade us out and throw in a slice of pound cake as a bonus for not having to cut the check.

It was overpriced because it was a single event. We could probably get $5 per thousand ... but that would be for four spots in four different shows.

Additionally, because of the difficulty in truly tracking the numbers if bittorrent grows the way I'm thinking it will, it is entirely possible that it will be closer to a pay for performance model. The upside to this is that pay for performance generally gets MUCH more money for the radio show (which means the podcaster would make more). The downside is that if you don't have a loyal fan base you can forget it.

And THAT means that if you're just going to "whore" yourself out to the highest bidder (or for that matter too many bidders) your audience will quickly go away.

Shows that have some integrity in the way they promote other products will succeed wildly.

Taking a look at Clear Channel (since they were brought up in another message) they are reducing their number of advertisers and the amount of advertising across all their various stations in favor of having more content.

[carpmtv]

Since we are on the subject i'd like to promote an up coming site,

www.podtower.com

This site has a goal of paying all podcasters a portion of the advertisement money on their site. Starting out, we are paying the top 5 as we gather advertisers. We have already talked to many companies, and have gotten responses from quite a few.
site features include:

• Voting (we keep track of monthly and overall ratings)
• User login
• Bio’s (a temporary one is in place, will be improved later)
• Forum (Only for feedback at first)
• Advanced Searching (keyword, podcast, episode, description)
• Direct Downloading, RSS, and streaming (streaming may not be available when the site first starts up)
• Podcast website links
• RSS generating service
• Categories
• Top 5 overall list
• Monthly countdown
• 5 newest podcasts list
• Monthly stats for your podcast


Future possible site features
• Podcasting gear page
• Podcast Merchandise store (we would sell t-shirts and such for your podcast on our site, and you would receive a portion of the sale)
• Chat room


There will also be many fun contests and random drawings, some of them with cash prizes. We are trying to get the site online by the end of this weekend.....feb. 20th

www.podtower.com

[dannywall]

• Direct Downloading, RSS, and streaming (streaming may not be

I'm curious ... what do you need the streaming for? Also, RSS is a direct download format so isn't saying "RSS" the same as saying direct download?

Or are you talking about using BitTorrent?

As to the rest of what you said, I'll be watching your site with a lot of interest. It'll be interesting to see how you implement your advertising model and how you can possibly pay out advertising dollars to even most participating podcasters as too many of them are so small.

Having said that I do wish you luck. I'm all for anything that helps podcasting enter mainstream awareness.

[PBCliberal]

Dannywall:

I had no idea that I was talking to a long time student of marketing and psychology, so you'll have to excuse my intemperate remarks. I guess I don't know much about this media stuff, so bear with me here, and please feel free to jump in and correct me when I expose my obvious ignorance.

What Curry has been doing (at least in a few shows I heard) was talking about how he got this coffeepot and what great coffee it made. He'd, like, sip the coffee and tell us how much he enjoyed it. And then, the next day he'd talk a little more about it and just praise this thing up one side and down the other. And then all of a sudden this amazon clickthrough showed up on his website.

What I read in your original message was that we'd have this service like blogads and we'd be paid a fee for endorsing a product. I assumed from your post that we'd suddenly start singing the praises of Chantico as if suddenly we'd all individually been visited by a band of angels.

There was this guy a long time ago named Edward R. Murrow. I think he was kinda like Walter Cronkite, but lots older? He wasn't a smart guy like Joe Sugarman who knew how to manipulate media to blur the distinction between editorial content and commercials to make a ton of money.

In fact, Murrow had some really stupid ideas about media that its role in society should be for better things than just selling products. Let me show you what I mean. He gave this speech to this group called the RTNDA (http://www.rtndf.org/resources/speeches/murrow.shtml). Its like famous or something because even college textbooks quote it all the time. Its the one where he talks about his voice being amplified to go from one end of the country to the other instead of one end of the bar to the other. But it gets better.

"This instrument can teach, it can illuminate; yes, and it can even inspire. But it can do so only to the extent that humans are determined to use it to those ends. Otherwise it is merely wires and lights in a box."

He said that about television. Now how dorky is that? Even I know how wonderful it is that Time-Warner owns CNN and movie studios and book publishers, so that one division of the company gets to write the reviews for the product that another division makes. That's smart like Sugarman, not dumb like Murrow. I think they call it "synergy."

And after all, Murrow always smoked the sponsor's brand of cigarettes on camera, so I guess he secretly believed in the Sugarman doctrine all the time, at least until he died of lung cancer.

So thanks again for setting me straight. Its great we have such a wonderful resource here where we can be led by experts.

[carpmtv]

Not to get in the middle of the conversation, but here's a folow up to the questions about www.podtower.com

Good questions. By direct download i mean that you can click on a button and it will download it to your computer. The makes it more convienent for a person who doesn't have an aggregator to quickly download a file. Also, if a person just wants to listen to one show before they subcribe to that podcast, they can easily.

Now to the subject of streaming. It isn't a feature that is necessary, especially if the listners have a fast internet connection. But it gives the listeners another option. Lets say that they have dial up. They may want to preview it by streaming part of it before they download it. Or maybe they're sitting at their computer and just want to stream the whole thing.

Bittorrent is something we need to do more research on, and maybe use it in the future. I've something about the possibility of using it to download podcasts onto your cell phone.

I know i said that our goal is to eventually pay all podcasters a portion of the advertisement money. I should probably address that. It is a long goal. And maybe its setting the goal to high. But i say aim big or go home. I should have said most podcasters though, because it would be a system where you have to earn what you get. If your podcast doesn't bring very many people to the site, your portion of the advertising won't be much. On the flip side, if your the number one podcaster you could earn a significant amount. However, we must start small and work our way up, adjusting the business model as we can.

Our site will also draw visitors through our contests. I'm hoping this will be effective in bringing new listeners to podcasting as well. Some of the contests could include submitting audio files such as impersonations and other fun stuff. We will have random drawings, or maybe the 5,000th person to visit the site wins a prize sort of thing too.[/quote]

[dannywall]

What Curry has been doing (at least in a few shows I heard) was talking about how he got this coffeepot and what great coffee it made. He'd, like, sip the coffee and tell us how much he enjoyed it. And then, the next day he'd talk a little more about it and just praise this thing up one side and down the other. And then all of a sudden this amazon clickthrough showed up on his website.


And was that wrong of Curry to do that? Can there be ANY doubt at this point what he was trying to do before the link showed up?


What I read in your original message was that we'd have this service like blogads and we'd be paid a fee for endorsing a product. I assumed from your post that we'd suddenly start singing the praises of Chantico as if suddenly we'd all individually been visited by a band of angels.


I wonder if you're purposely missinng the point.

1) What's wrong with Blogads? You put the ads onto your site that you want. It isn't like google's ad sense where you have no choice. You choose what you're going to be promoting. My idea was similar to that. If you like Chantico, what's wrong with saying so ... whether you're paid or not? You seem to be acting like people are children.


There was this guy a long time ago named Edward R. Murrow. I think he was kinda like Walter Cronkite, but lots older? He wasn't a smart guy like Joe Sugarman who knew how to manipulate media to blur the distinction between editorial content and commercials to make a ton of money.


Please show me EVEN ONE INSTANCE when Sugarman has "manipulated the media" to "blur the distinction between editorial content and commercials" for ANY purpose. I'd be interested in seeing this.


In fact, Murrow had some really stupid ideas about media that its role in society should be for better things than just selling products. Let me show you what I mean.


Yeah, and Murrow gave birth to Dan Rather ... we all know exactly how much he thought of his responsibilities as a journalist and how seriously he took impartiality.


"This instrument can teach, it can illuminate; yes, and it can even inspire. But it can do so only to the extent that humans are determined to use it to those ends. Otherwise it is merely wires and lights in a box."


And please explain to me exactly how it is that the implimentation of advertising suddenly precludes the possibility of "illumination" or "inspiration". Even PBS has advertising now.


He said that about television. Now how dorky is that? Even I know how wonderful it is that Time-Warner owns CNN and movie studios and book publishers, so that one division of the company gets to write the reviews for the product that another division makes. That's smart like Sugarman, not dumb like Murrow. I think they call it "synergy."


AAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

I'm sorry, but that was funny. Really, it was a riot.

Hey, captain, I've got a secret for you. Well, actually it's not a secret I've said it more than once.

THAT'S THE EXACT THING I'M TRYING TO BREAKUP.

The exact thing I'm trying to end is the current stranglehold a few corporations have on most of the content delivery worldwide.

I think I've said that already. Are you missing it on purpose to make some point? If so, I'm not seeing what that point is.


And after all, Murrow always smoked the sponsor's brand of cigarettes on camera, so I guess he secretly believed in the Sugarman doctrine all the time, at least until he died of lung cancer.

So thanks again for setting me straight. Its great we have such a wonderful resource here where we can be led by experts.

Have you actually READ anything by Sugarman or are you only saying what you think you heard someone else say about his stuff?

You seem to be dodging some questions, so let me ask again.

Are you against people making money with their podcasts? Are you against someone using podcasting to (gasp) make a profit? In your opinion do people who make money with their podcasting (e.g. Curry or that guy with the seduction book) "whoring" themselves?

I'm asking again, because right now I really can't figure out what your point is, unless you ARE against people getting some money for their podcasting and you ARE against coming up with some way of smashing the death grip folks like Time Warner have.

I want people to have more choices, not fewer. To have better, more independant reviews, access to more information, and for that matter access to information ABOUT the information.

Unless VERY high quality "shows" can be created that can compete against the broadcasters (and that will be VERY expensive to do) Time Warner is going to continue to have the stranglehold that WE BOTH believe isn't good in general.

To produce something on that calibur people WILL HAVE TO MAKE MONEY AT IT ... at least enough to break even. How do you propose that podcasting make money except by the implementation of advertising that can't be breezed over by listeners?

[Cookiepuss]

Well to be honest I skipped over some of the longer rants but skimmed and got the gist of it. ;)

There are some serious logistical issues with these ideas. If I am an advertiser and I pay for ads or "persoanl promotions"whatever you want to call it. Let's say I pay for 5-10 shows to advertise for me. Am I going to tell one of my employees to listen to all of the shows and make sure they mentioned my product or service? No. So how would I be assured that the people mentioned it? With blogads or other advertising on the internet you can have click-throughs and cookies to track advertising. If I download a file and walk around with it there is no way to track it. Only to know how many were downloaded. But the previous problem still remains.

So the idea of somone paying me on my word to mention them in a podcast is laughable. It would only work if they were just looking to advertise on one show. Then they could listen to it everyday to make sure it was mentioned. But that would still require contracts to cover the advertiser if you fail to mention them. etc etc.

Just my opinion on the whole topic. . .

[PBCliberal]

On Joe Sugaman's manipulation of the media:
Sugarman's use of teaser ads in the New York Times where advertising copy was set to look like editorial material describing the features of "good" electronic calculators for several days, followed by an advertisement in the same section for a calculator that just happens to have all those features.

Yes, I've read Sugarman, yes he's brilliant and I even know people who he worked for. But let's deal with the issues you raised here. Other than Frontline, I don't consider PBS to be much more than the lapdog of Congress, nor Dan Rather even remotely credible. The CBS he works for any of the greats would have walked out on..

Obviously we need to find a way to pay for this new medium, I'm only taking issue with the way you suggest we pay for it, which is taking money for personal endorsements and (I assume because that's how its most effective) not letting the listeners in on the fact that we're being "helped" to like these products because of the wonderful amolliative quality of money.. That's why I thought the Spitzer piece was appropos here.

Last year there was a big outrage in the LA market over KNX news anchors doing personal endorsements. Twenty years ago, anchors wouldn't even read live copy. It was cut by another announcer so that there was a clear distinction between editorial content and the sponsor's message. The exeption, of course, was Paul Harvey PAGE TWO!

I've already told you how we differentiate ourselves from what there is now. We make the ads easy to breeze over and select sponsors that the listeners may actually want to hear. People don't dislike big media because its big, even though that may be the easy attack. They dislike it because it lies to them in an unending roar of commercials and mutual backscratching because it makes more money and avoids government interference that way.

I suppose just getting the FCC out of the mix is a step in the right direction, but we're not much of an alternative if we do things the same way, but just can use more four-letter words to describe the products and services we're being paid under the table to pitch.

[allthewhile]

Dear Mr. Liberal,

Why does every conversation you enter turn sour? Could it be that rudeness follows you every which way you go. Let's try to keep this place congenial (less sarcasm).

Sincerely,

Concerned Citizen

[PBCliberal]

Dear Mr. Liberal,

Why does every conversation you enter turn sour? Could it be that rudeness follows you every which way you go. Let's try to keep this place congenial (less sarcasm).

Sincerely,

Concerned Citizen
I don't think its sour at all. The gentleman and I disagree on the future of this medium and how we should accomplish its growth. In 40 days I've made 30 posts and disagreed with two people.

I agree. This place should be congenial, but I hope we don't have to keep it that way by stifiling dissenting opinion. I'll be happy to STFU if that helps podcasting grow.

[allthewhile]

I was reading through the posts and your sarcasm came off as very rude. I'm not so sure that you meant it to be that way, but it seemed that way nonetheless. I enjoy your insight, but could do without the argument fishing.

And what's with the cry of suppression and oppression? I merely suggested that you're BEING RUDE, it had nothing to do with what you said. I could care less about either opinion. Advertising in podcasting and advertising in general doesn't interest me.

[notyourusualbollocks]

Why are you always so sensitive when it comes to any issues which are openly being debated and someone disagrees (politely) with your position? I don't see anything in PCLiberal's words which were meant to create personal offense. Please chill out and go with the flow.

Concerned Atheist

[bramley]

Oh, the discourse of civility vs. rhetorical effectiveness. While I would love to trail off after NYUB to talk about how the British media is more effective because it is actually less civil (or more agressive) the American media, I suppose that's some other forum altogether.

To leave the met-discussion and come back to the discussion, though, I'll just throw out "LSMFT" even though likely none of us are old enough to remember it. Forget Rush Limbaugh, he didn't invent this. Think Jack Benny, et. al. Think not only about endorsements but also the playful ribbing that went on between show host and advertiser.

[Craig]

As the other person PBCliberal has disagreed with I have to say I agree with him here and find Mr. Wall to be the abrasive one. I also think that it's Mr. Wall who "doesn't get" podcasting by trying to shoehorn it into existing business models and also assume that everyone is in this for the money.

First of all, most of us at this point are in it for the sheer love and excitement of it. We're geeks...this is what we do. We pave the way for others who then come in and take what we've started and usually take the fun away by adapting it to their business models. Often there's a split and we hold on to part of it that remains free and fun while others go off and turn it into a business (like blogging, for example). To each their own..at some point you do have to stop and pay the bills!

So, back to the business side of podcasting. The reason you're stirring up so much dissension here, Mr. Wall (apart from the condescending way you address people), is that one of the main reasons podcasting has come into existence and taken off so quickly is that it gives people an individual voice that radio doesn't. The danger in bringing advertising into podcasting that everyone is so concerned about is that it will then color that voice in the same way that commercial radio has and remove its individuality. And you're going to be hard pressed to convince anyone here that they're going to be able to plug a product in any way where the manufacturer of that product isn't going to want some say in what's OK or not in the show's content.

Craig

[dannywall]

As the other person PBCliberal has disagreed with I have to say I agree with him here and find Mr. Wall to be the abrasive one. I also think that it's Mr. Wall who "doesn't get" podcasting by trying to shoehorn it into existing business models and also assume that everyone is in this for the money.


I've never suggested ... even once ... that everyone is doing this for the money. That I'm aware of there's only a couple of folks that are. Everyone else is doing it just because it's a TON of fun (I remember hearing some talk show host saying radio was the most addictive profession on the planet).

I'm well aware of the fact that there will ALWAYS be a hobby side/element to this. I'm also well aware of the TON of podcasters that have "donation" links or "advertise with us" links on their sites now. Clearly there are a few people that wouldn't mind making at least a little cash from their podcast.

Secondly, PCBLiberal have been engaging in a lively debate, and some of it has been political in nature. That means things may appear to be more harsh than they may have been intended. Or hey, for that matter, maybe they read every bit as harsh as they are intended. But I for one have enjoyed by debate with him and he's raised some valid points.


So, back to the business side of podcasting. The reason you're stirring up so much dissension here, Mr. Wall (apart from the condescending way you address people),


To this I do take issue. About the only time I truly got condescending, and admittedly it did take up a fair amount of one of the posts, was the suggestion that accepting money for an endorsement was "whoring". It seemed to me like Liberal was taking issue with making a profit with this medium at all. Otherwise, we;ve just been debating. Sometimes to make a point, you've got to be sharp (my debate prof taught me that)


is that one of the main reasons podcasting has come into existence and taken off so quickly is that it gives people an individual voice that radio doesn't. The danger in bringing advertising into podcasting that everyone is so concerned about is that it will then color that voice in the same way that commercial radio has and remove its individuality.


What colored the individuality was all the copying that went one. Stern isn't unique anymore because there are other shock jocks. Limbaugh isn't unique anymore because every other radio host on the air is a political commentator.

[/quote]
And you're going to be hard pressed to convince anyone here that they're going to be able to plug a product in any way where the manufacturer of that product isn't going to want some say in what's OK or not in the show's content.[/quote]

Really? You don't think Trojan wouldn't fit into the Dawn and Drew show? Trojan wouldn't ask for any changes in the content of the show ... sheesh, they'd probably only ask for more "show 69s". And I'm not saying they (Dawn and Drew) would want to promote Trojan ... I haven't talked to them ... that's just an example.

And please show me how ANYTHING in Anne's EatFeed would ever be objectionable to Oster.

I don't know how you folks started creating your own podcasts, but I've been a fan of a few shows for a bit (15 so far and climbing). I'm aware that any advertising would have to mesh well with the show's content and with the personalities of the hosts.

If this medium became too commercial right out of the gate, it might kill the current fan base, but the right advertisers thrown in here and there for the right shows could do wonders for us all.

[dannywall]

On Joe Sugaman's manipulation of the media:
Sugarman's use of teaser ads in the New York Times where advertising copy was set to look like editorial material describing the features of "good" electronic calculators for several days, followed by an advertisement in the same section for a calculator that just happens to have all those features.


And those "editorials" all add "advertisement" in the top of the ad. People aren't that stupid.


Obviously we need to find a way to pay for this new medium, I'm only taking issue with the way you suggest we pay for it, which is taking money for personal endorsements and (I assume because that's how its most effective) not letting the listeners in on the fact that we're being "helped" to like these products because of the wonderful amolliative quality of money.. That's why I thought the Spitzer piece was appropos here.


The manner in which a show does it would be dependent on the show itself. Some almost certainly would talk about their new "advertiser" ... for that matter, in the beginning I bet MOST shows would talk about having an advertiser because it wold (I think) be kinda cool to have them ... and would then launch into the "ad".

[allthewhile]

I do have to admit to the feeling of being burned by advertisement. When I heard the curry was offering those coffee makers on his site, I was skeptical about whether or not he really liked the things, or had some sort of secret deal going on with them.

As long as podcasters aren't being duplicitous, I see no reason not to endorse products. And yes I do consider current talk radio to be very subversive. Most endorsements that you hear on the radio are stretching the truth at best and outright deceiving at worst. Do we really think that Michael Medved has incorporated in Nevada, or truly invests his portfolio in gold?

[bramley]

As I wrote to Danny in a private message, I already endorse two big companies on my show left and right: Whole Foods and World Market. I do this because I buy a lot of my food at these places and I like them so I am always recommending them in ways that are woven into my show. In this way, I'm already an advertiser's dream beause it isn't even a 30-second slot that is clearly an endorsement. More like when I'm rattling off a recipe and I say, "you can usually find cheap caviar at World Market, where I get mine" or "I often buy my fish at Whole Foods because they promote sustainable fishing." Does anyone else already have such a thing built into their shows. It seems analogous to product placement in a movie than the kind of advertising spots we've been discussing.

I would certainly love to get paid for doing what I already do. However, I already have a nagging feeling when I mention one of these stores too many times in a podcast that my listeners are already thinking, "Geez, again with the Whole Foods. What, are you getting some kind of kickback?" So, I sometimes edit out or record off-the-cuff recommendations. I can't imagine how I would feel if I actually WERE getting a kickback. Literally, I can't imagine. But, getting back to Jack Benny, at it isn't cigarettes, right?

[notyourusualbollocks]

From the rumours I've heard, it's Mr Curry we should be watching in the near future for an indication of how podcasting will become commercialised. He's working on something *big* apparently.

[bramley]

Also, does anyone have any answers for this this?:

Podcasts seem far more international than broadcast radio. (If you already disagree with this statement, don't read further.) I have some very loyal listeners in Trinidad and Tobago and Finland, for example. Now Starbucks or even Oster might interested in reaching them, but World Market, which doesn't even extend to the northeastern part of the US wouldn't. But maybe advertisers wouldn't realize this? Or maybe some would see it as an advantage?

Being limited to global companies seems like a drag when who I really want to endorse is the grass farmer cattle rancher in small-town USA or the Fair Trade chocolate grower in Indonesia.

[bramley]

NYUB,

What's this big thing? Any more details? Was this just on his show or elsewhere?

[radioclash]

Hmm the danger of endorsements is that they could udnermine your whole show and confidence in you as a podcaster. Unless you disclose - or do ads that are identifiable as advertising it could call into doubt your veracity and genuineness of everything else you say. I think advertising in podcasts is generally a bad idea unless it's made obvious

And PCBLiberal is quite abrasive, but as far as I can see the thing he was being abrasive about - that Craig would take his child out of school not for apparent innappropriate behaviour of not the teacher but if the partner, in the case of Daily Download. Craig, WTF?

So in that case I defend PCB's right to be abrasive, on those matters....I say: Sorry, religious nutters, keep away from mine and others right to speak. Craig you're a nice guy but if you saw that comment as being *not* a form of censorship, especially at this point in American history, then you're severly deluded, and I suspect you probably campaign against my lifestyle and others that are doing none any harm.

And in my world, if you're religious esp. born again I will treat you as a nutter...I'm very wary of those with churches and beliefs, as a non-aligned pagan gay man. Funny that...

[dannywall]

As long as podcasters aren't being duplicitous, I see no reason not to endorse products. And yes I do consider current talk radio to be very subversive. Most endorsements that you hear on the radio are stretching the truth at best and outright deceiving at worst. Do we really think that Michael Medved has incorporated in Nevada, or truly invests his portfolio in gold?

And does ANYONE really think that Michael's endorsements aren't simply advertisements? I'm sorry but the simple fact that a "celebrity" endorses a product does not mean that said celebrity is being duplicitous.

[dannywall]

Being limited to global companies seems like a drag when who I really want to endorse is the grass farmer cattle rancher in small-town USA or the Fair Trade chocolate grower in Indonesia.

There's a UPS commercial about this. Simply because you're a small-town rancher or farmer doesn't mean you couldn't possibly have a global customer base. It boils down to Dan Kennedy's age old question "why should anyone buy from you over any other competitor in the market." As a general rule, once a business has answered that question the answer is just as valid in the same region as the business as it is for people on the other side of the globe.

-Danny

[bramley]

I'd be really curious to know how many of the Podcast Alley Top 50 actually have more than a thousand listeners at the moment.

According to Saturday's front-page NYTimes article, "some popular podcasters say they get thousands of downloads a day" and Michael Geoghegan is quoted as saying that he gets "multiple thousands" of downloads a day. I'm not citing this to challenge Craig, who I think is on the righter track with thinking even among the top 50 the numbers aren't that big yet or to challenge Danny about the unimportance of getting 1000. Rather I'm just pointing out that at least podcasters are claiming these numbers and the media is repeating it.

[Craig]

According to Saturday's front-page NYTimes article, "some popular podcasters say they get thousands of downloads a day" and Michael Geoghegan is quoted as saying that he gets "multiple thousands" of downloads a day.
I don't doubt it. (Especially with Michael, who's a friend.) But there's a big difference between thousands of downloads a day and thousands of subscribers. If I gave you my daily download count you'd be really impressed too...until I told you how many podcasts were included in that count!

Craig

[PCOSGurl]

I could get the advertisers, you pick WHICH products/companies make sense for your audience ... everybody wins.

So my question is two fold, first, do you folks like the idea in general?


Generally speaking, I like the idea of advertising in Podcasting, however, in all honesty, I have to agree with earlier posters that your way of expressing yourself is less than respectful. In considering an ad broker for my product, I would have to take that into consideration.

If a potential client had questions similar to the ones posted here, and your response to them (on my behalf) included language about how the client 'isn't getting it' or 'understanding it', I would be rather upset.

Bottom line, the idea is good, but I will be keeping an eye out for a company that would deal with my potential clients (and me) in [what I consider to be] a respectful and businesslike manner.

I believe if the ads are appropriate to the listener base, and it clear that it is an ad - everybody wins.

On my website, I have a link to a particular company in my sig line. Currently, I have a personal endorsement deal with them (that was made 'outside' of my website). I don't have a disclaimer on the link, but if the topic EVER comes up on the message board, and I participate, I will type a brief disclaimer.

My visitors/members are VERY vocal, and have not had an issue with this. (and they complain about just about anything. :wink: )

[dannywall]

Generally speaking, I like the idea of advertising in Podcasting, however, in all honesty, I have to agree with earlier posters that your way of expressing yourself is less than respectful.


Please show me where this happened where I wasn't FIRST attacked by the other person as being dishonest (or more accurately, a "whore in the most pernicious way").

Additionally, I REPEATEDLY tried to turn the conversation back to something respectful in tone, but got slammed over and over as dishonest or something else ... even when PCBLiberal was AGREEING WITH ME.


If a potential client had questions similar to the ones posted here, and your response to them (on my behalf) included language about how the client 'isn't getting it' or 'understanding it', I would be rather upset.


Two things. First, I wouldn't be representing ANYONE on your behalf. Ever.

I would find the folks interested in (lets say) a sponsorship on a podcast for a given amount of money. YOU would then either decide to accept, or not, depending on your audience, your podcast, your style.

Second, I run a business in which my reputation is of VITAL importance. I take even the INSINUATION that I am being dishonest very personally ... very quickly. And seriously, even if I were a garbageman, I'd still take any attack on me like that personally.

If someone said you were a "whore in the most pernicious way" wouldn't you find that attack on you to be more than a little objectionable?


Bottom line, the idea is good, but I will be keeping an eye out for a company that would deal with my potential clients (and me) in [what I consider to be] a respectful and businesslike manner.


This is not a business forum. The post was one of an idea. I am a VERY good sales person. Not just in closing "new" business by people that have never done business with me before either. Anyone willing to lie enough can do that. The reason I'm such a good business person is that my customers keep coming back to me, and back to me, and back to me.

I get results ... nearly 250million dollars in resultsm, all sold b2b. It simply is NOT possible to nail down that much business if you aren't professional.

I wonder, if someone walked up to you on the street, and called you a whore, and you attacked back verbally, would you expect other potential customers of yours to look badly on you?


I believe if the ads are appropriate to the listener base, and it clear that it is an ad - everybody wins.


And when I proposed the idea that is EXACTLY what I was saying. For some reason that I can't fathom, PCBLiberal kept ignoring that and ignoring it ... even when he was saying that was what we needed and I agreed with him, he ignored that I said it.

On my website, I have a link to a particular company in my sig line. Currently, I have a personal endorsement deal with them (that was made 'outside' of my website). I don't have a disclaimer on the link, but if the topic EVER comes up on the message board, and I participate, I will type a brief disclaimer.


And here's my gripe with your post. When I first posted the idea, I was slammed for being dishonest and a whore. I took what I think was justified exception to that characterization, and began to demand an explanation ... yes I was rather pointed and at times harsh about it. But the more I read what PCBLiberal has said ... and indeed reread the entire thread two more times, the more certain I am that I was more than justified in how I reacted.

Yet here you are ADMITTING that you have a link to a website in your sig line that is much less obviously a "commercial" than anything I proposed. How would you feel if someone on the group started saying that you were "a whore in the most pernicious way"?

Do you think you might get just a little "testy" with that person?

And then, after you do get mad, this person goes on to make disparaging remarks not only about you, but also about some of the best and most respected people in what you do.

In other words, the person NOT ONLY attacks you, but begins to attack the entire circle of people you respect.

Do you think you might go from "testy" to down right angry?

In short, you saw me getting upset at someone that not only attacked me personally, but then went on to attack people I know on a personal level, like, admire, respect. Some of the people he attacked have been, or are, mentors of mine.

And mind you I REPEATEDLY tried to return the topic back to a respectful tone and said we were just "debating".

If you feel that I wasn't being "businesslike" in getting mad at this person ... you're right, I wasn't.


My visitors/members are VERY vocal, and have not had an issue with this. (and they complain about just about anything. :wink: )

I wonder how you would treat a listener (who is essentially a customer) that claimed you and people you liked and trusted were all a bunch of dishonest thieves and pernicious whores, simply out to bilk people out of their money.

[dannywall]

Hmm the danger of endorsements is that they could udnermine your whole show and confidence in you as a podcaster. Unless you disclose - or do ads that are identifiable as advertising it could call into doubt your veracity and genuineness of everything else you say. I think advertising in podcasts is generally a bad idea unless it's made obvious


Sensea and DailySourceCode. Please tell me where Adam's show was "undermined" by what he did or how he did it.

[jeffoest]

LOL - man, it's this kind of language that you have to be careful about using. Most people smell 'snake oil salesman' when they hear such boasting and BS. A good salesman would never use this kind of language. A good salesman moves product by making the client feel like they are going to benefit, not the salesman. yikes.... If you have to SAY you're a good salesman, most people hear 'not a good salesman'. Maybe you ARE but, my gosh, don't SAY it!

Plus your first response. Very first response to someone who was polite on this thread (Craig). You said "You don't get it". Is that selling or insulting? Hmmm....

egads... Don't mind me if I roll my eyes during your boasting...

I am a VERY good sales person. Not just in closing "new" business by people that have never done business with me before either. Anyone willing to lie enough can do that. The reason I'm such a good business person is that my customers keep coming back to me, and back to me, and back to me.

I get results ... nearly 250million dollars in resultsm, all sold b2b. It simply is NOT possible to nail down that much business if you aren't professional.

[radioclash]

Hmm the danger of endorsements is that they could udnermine your whole show and confidence in you as a podcaster. Unless you disclose - or do ads that are identifiable as advertising it could call into doubt your veracity and genuineness of everything else you say. I think advertising in podcasts is generally a bad idea unless it's made obvious


Sensea and DailySourceCode. Please tell me where Adam's show was "undermined" by what he did or how he did it.

oops the Kraken (well tis old thread) awakes!

Dunno about the Senseo but it definitely bothered me his relationship to Amazon...I could see he was testing the water and getting stats for future sponsors - it was obvious he was talking it up JUST to sell them after a while. That's annoying...thankfully he stopped - but then went onto selling his gear - again could be OK but it wasn't the best prices or best value...or what most podcasters seem to use, apart from the iRiver (behringer seems more popular and cheaper fror the mixer, for instance).

I've stopped listening to DSC - too many advertisements and talk about Boko. I don't want to be part of Adam's test market...happy to hear other promos for shows, but the podshow talk just bores me, it's a like a non-stop 'Lives of the Rich and Famous' with all the holidays and flying ATM including commercial business talk....yawn.

I like the MTV Chronicles (I LOVE Kenster J and Cindy from the KASS so like listening to him) and the PPP ones - have listened to those, probably because they focus on something other than AC subtly talking about how much money, power or business he's got, which is boring...

[dannywall]

Plus your first response. Very first response to someone who was polite on this thread (Craig). You said "You don't get it". Is that selling or insulting? Hmmm....


That was neither. I wasn't intending to be insulting nor was I trying to sell anything. This isn't the forum for that. I was asking people's opinion of the IDEA. The "You aren't getting it" statement was saying that a small show with few listeners would also benefit. It wasn't meant to be insulting, and I apologize if it was meant that way.

As for my "boasting" ... I was stating my results to point to what I had achieved. Businesses boast all the time. Is Microsoft boasting when they talk about how many units they ship?

I can obtain a specific result. As an indication of my ability to obtain a specific result, I pointed to past performance. This is not uncommon. To suggest that people that do this are all snake oil salesmen is ... not getting it :-)

[PCOSGurl]

LOL - man, it's this kind of language that you have to be careful about using. Most people smell 'snake oil salesman' when they hear such boasting and BS. A good salesman would never use this kind of language. A good salesman moves product by making the client feel like they are going to benefit, not the salesman. yikes.... If you have to SAY you're a good salesman, most people hear 'not a good salesman'. Maybe you ARE but, my gosh, don't SAY it!

Plus your first response. Very first response to someone who was polite on this thread (Craig). You said "You don't get it". Is that selling or insulting? Hmmm....

egads... Don't mind me if I roll my eyes during your boasting...

You "get it" :)

My guess is that podcasters will start seeing services targeted at them. I wouldn't be suprised if Burst Media isn't looking into it. That would be a good thing. I've been very happy with them for years as the suppliers for my banners.

They are quite professional.

[totozip]

I am offer cash money, just put code zip



http://www.affiliateer.com/member.asp?afid=21890&offerid=2503&si=

[writerpatrick]

For any sort of advertising to work, it must reach an audience. But I don't think anyone has really worked out the minimum audience necessary. It's all very well to ask for so much per thousand, yet you actually have to get those thousands.

Also, there seems to be a hierarchy as far as the value of podcasts go. One podcast may reach a thousand people but there's no way to know how many of those are the same people as listen to another podcast of a thousand people. As such an advertiser could be advertising to the same people instead of reaching a wider audience. (Half the audience could listen to both shows.) So a podcast of 20,000 listeners would be more valuable than two podcasts of 10,000 listeners each.

As such, smaller podcasts should not expect as high a CPM as larger podcasts. And there does seem to be a point at which a podcast can reach so small an audience that advertising is useless. So an advertiser might pay $50 to reach an audience of 10,000 listeners (or $100 for two podcasts of 10,000 listeners each) but be willing to pay $120 to reach an audience of 20,000 listeners. The odds of getting customers from 20,000 listeners is higher than from two podcasts of 10,000 listeners each.

If I had to guess, I would say there's a 1:10,000 ratio for ads--that is, for every 10,000 people who hear an ad, only 1 buys the product. Of course this varies with the price of the product. But it does seem as if there is some minimum audience a podcast must reach before it's worth trying to pursue ad revenue. That's why a few podcasts can make money and most can't.

And that's provided you can even find someone who's willing to pay for a podcast ad--after all, they can always create their own. And it might not take all that much work to reach 1,000 listeners. But it takes a lot of work to reach 10,000, which is why it seems to be roughly the critical point.

[jacob581]

I want the site for download the podcast.