The Pay-per-Podcast Era?

[davidlidsky]

Wasn't sure whether to start a new thread about this, but I think this is the best place for it. In the last month or so, if you're a podcast fan, shows have been arriving late in iTunes, both for subscribers to podcasts as well as if you're just looking for a new episode in someone's catalog. The podcasters themselves (Chris Hardwick, Sam Seder, Dave Anthony & Greg Behrendt have all talked about it) have tended to say something to the effect of iTunes is overloaded with podcasts and it's making some changes to its system. Frankly, I thought nothing of this info every time I heard it.

Until I read this interview with Kevin Pollak late yesterday. The site interviewed Pollak because of the news of his show being part of this new AOL block of "late-night" programming at 10p ET, but he added

I’ve been working for the past 6 months with the podcast section of iTunes on a precident-setting new infrastructure, by which the most popular podcasts can charge a small fee from your iTunes account, instead of asking the audience to leave the site and link to the show’s site and sign up for a whole new subscription. In the coming days, in fact, you’ll see us roll out a new super small fee per full (over 2 hours, in most cases) version of the Chat Show on iTunes. For years now, music lovers have paid $9.99 or more for an album that’s usually an hour or less in length. This experiment of ours dares to declare that the time has come for the audience to pay 99 cents, or $1.99, for over 2 hours of entertainment in the form of a podcast. Steve Jobs and Apple didn’t change the way we get our favorite music and support our favorite artists by giving the content away for free, so why should those of us who work every day to provide a live weekly show not have the same relationship with our audience?

And there you go, folks: The innocence is over in podcasting. I support people's right to make a living, and I want the people who make my favorite podcasts to keep doing it. I donate to CaEE, WTF, MaxFun, and Sam Seder's MajorityFM. I buy all of Doug Benson's one-off specials, and I am a charter subscriber to NNF. I understand that the current system to buy a special Doug Loves Movies, for example, is clunky, because it has to be listed in albums and not with the rest of the podcasts.

But my fear is that this pay system, when considered in the light of the service problems of the last month, is going to create a caste system where the largest podcasts not only get all the promotion from iTunes (which will take 30% of these fees), but also new episodes will show up faster, they'll get premium bandwidth for faster downloads, etc. The experience for fans will be wildly different if you're a Kevin Smith fan versus a Dave Anthony fan.

I fear that it's going to be that much harder for upstart podcasts--and ones not backed by big-media companies or being made by names from mainstream Hollywood--to build an audience. Basically, I worry that the success of a Doug Benson*or Marc Maron in podcasting may not be possible, or at least it's going to be much, much harder, once this system is put in place. I hope I'm wrong. Would love for Matt or any other podcast producer or creator to weigh in here.

[davidd]

Basically, I worry that the success of a Doug Benson*or Marc Maron in podcasting may not be possible, or at least it's going to be much, much harder, once this system is put in place. I hope I'm wrong.

This is the part I'm most worried about, if this does come true. The whole reason I listen to podcasts is because of the personalities who have had success in the field who couldn't do what they do in other media.

The whole reason I like podcasts is because they represent some kind of equal opportunity entertainment. Instead of getting shows that are an executive's idea of what I should like, I get shows that seem as if they were made just for me. It's a world where Paul F. Tompkins or Andy Kindler or Jen Kirkman (rightfully) get to have an hour or more as a guest.

I can't help but feel like once competition for money or bandwith comes into play, things will change and podcast hosts will start vying for the guests who are guaranteed to generate interest. Not to mention the podcasts which aren't done done by big personalities and don't have guests.

Perhaps changes like this are inevitable, but no me gusta.

[scamboogah]

And just like that, Kevin Pollack's Chat Show goes from 'will watch if the guest is good' to 'ignored completely'.

I don't buy the 'inevitable' part of this argument at all. The 'pay per show' model ONLY works in music (because it's something you will presumably listen to multiple times). Give me a commercial free network and I'll think about it, give it to me free with commercials, and I'm fine with that too, but fuck the idea of paying per podcast episode right in it's mouth. It's greedy.

[crlygrl]

I like to think that iTunes isn't the only reason podcasts become popular, but I don't actually use iTunes. Don't people find out about these things via Facebook, Twitter, message boards, etc? Or does a main chunk of these audiences come exclusively from iTunes?

Also:

fuck the idea of paying per podcast episode right in it's mouth

[aenemaTron]

Everything else works by subscription, why can't this? NNF did it right. You get what you paid for plus bonuses. In this case, I guess you wouldn't have to pay for content you didn't want, but demand for Pollak's show is far more likely to vary with a given guest's popularity.

And yes, it's going to blow wiiide open so it definitely needs it's own thread.

[SeanX3]

fuck the idea of paying per podcast episode right in it's mouth. It's greedy.

Really don't understand how you can make that argument at all—the spinning of your consumer's righteous entitlement into a producer's "greed" is just astonishing to me.

I'd much rather pay per episode, knowing I was supporting a person's efforts and contributing to their continued success. That's the best of what podcasting can offer, because it still breaks down the old shitty model of networks acting as middle men, skimming off the top of talented creators.

I don't see that this will inevitably bring about the end of podcasting as we know it. It'll change things of course, but the notion of expecting quality entertainment for free is insane, and completely unsustainable.

[KeithTalent]

Of course it's inevitable that iTunes would add the infrastructure to make it simple for a podcast to charge. It's sort of nuts they're only just getting around to it. Presumably this doesn't mean no podcasts will be free anymore. What I really dislike is the idea of podcasters' money going to iTunes, because it's not how I download podcasts, because it fucking sucks. For a company whose hardware is so focused on aesthetics and usability, iTunes is an impressively unwieldy and inconvenient piece of software.

[davidlidsky]

Thanks 'Tron for making this its own thread.

And just like that, Kevin Pollack's Chat Show goes from 'will watch if the guest is good' to 'ignored completely'.

Agreed.

I don't buy the 'inevitable' part of this argument at all. The 'pay per show' model ONLY works in music (because it's something you will presumably listen to multiple times). Give me a commercial free network and I'll think about it, give it to me free with commercials, and I'm fine with that too, but fuck the idea of paying per podcast episode right in it's mouth. It's greedy.

I welcome a lot of experimentation in creating models to support all this great content. And maybe the subscription or donation model is less than ideal for folks primarily organizing and downloading podcasts through iTunes. (I don't know the numbers--maybe a podcaster can speak to them--but I think iTunes drives the majority of audience for most podcasts.) But this obviously will be a hard sell for a lot of people. I buy all of Doug's specials because I am effectively "paying" him for all the free ones. I listen to them once, as I do his free episodes. If there were only paid episodes, I am not sure I would buy each one. Marc Maron has hinted that his first 50 WTF episodes will be on sale for 99 cents each on iTunes once this system is in place. I can live with that, because it rewards folks who got on board early and heard them for free. Selling your back catalog is a great idea.

But the podcasting business is still quite nascent, even for the successes. They will need to be careful not to overassume how strong their fan bases are. I also wonder if it makes sense to fork over a healthy chunk of revenue to Apple when your business is still getting its legs under it. People have been buying recorded music for a century. We knew that worked. People have not shown that they're willing to buy podcasts just yet.

[SeanX3]

Depends on what you mean by "people". Everybody? Of course not. But enough to make it worth the podcaster's time? I'd say so. I'd say a lot more people are game to pay than is generally assumed.

For quite a while it's been incredibly easy to copy and distribute music digitally but still iTunes, for all its flaws, is a huge success. Just look at how well that Beatles catalog is doing. Like we don't already have enough of The Beatles. I reckon enough people will pay for the quality shit.

I also don't understand the objection to giving Apple a cut of the action: they provide a popular infrastructure and tons of traffic. 60% of something is a ton better than 0% of nothing.

[crlygrl]

I'd rather see podcasts treated like radio shows and sponsored by ads. Stick them in a player with some ads around the sides, or even do little interruptions for ads. All that's fine. But pay-per-listen is not something I'm interested in. I've never paid for a song download... and I only subscribe to online radio/jukeboxes if I get tired of the ads. Maybe I'm just a cheap old woman...

[scamboogah]

the notion of expecting quality entertainment for free is insane, and completely unsustainable.

Unsustainable like television has been for 70 years, or unsustainable like radio has been for 90?

Like I said, I don't have a problem with paying for a network (provided that means there is no further advertising), and I don't have a problem listening to podcasts that have advertising in them, but the idea of paying for a medium that is relatively inexpensive to produce, and has VIRTUALLY NO SHELF LIFE after you've listened once, is ridiculous.

At the current rate that I listen to podcasts, if each episode was .99 cents, I would probably be looking at around $50-60 per month. That makes no sense, no matter how you present it.

Oh, and iTunes is a shitty, shitty product. There is no valid argument against this.

[SeanX3]

Stick them in a player with some ads around the sides, or even do little interruptions for ads. All that's fine.

Eh? Beholden to commercial interests? Isn't the great thing about podcasts that they're moving away from that? Commercial interests don't like it when you say "cunt" five times an episode.

You get what you pay for. And if you're not willing to pay...

[Keith Whitener]

Given what the internet has done to music, I'm not sure trying to figure out how to make money off a podcast is the right way to go. I think that what the Internet has done to music is good and that artists should go the route of Trent Reznor and figure out ways to take advantage of things such that there music is made more readily available and incentives are provided to make voluntary purchases. This infrastructure idea, however, sounds to me more like a step back than a step forward.

As Maron and Hardwick have said, the podcast audience fills seats in clubs. And I bet podcast subscribers would be willing to buy special items like T-shirts, CDs, nicknacks, etc as well, or just voluntarily give money.

The moment you start charging money, methinks, will be the moment people start torrenting your podcasts.

[crlygrl]

How is that beholden to commercial interests to have some ads in the perimeter? If the advertisers don't like it, they don't go on there. I'm sure there are plenty who don't mind it... Audible doesn't seem to have a problem with anything Marc is saying... It's a good model.

And as far as getting what I pay for, I'm fine having ads included with online content if it's free. No problem with that at all.

[SeanX3]

Unsustainable like television has been for 70 years, or unsustainable like radio has been for 90?

See my point above about commercial interests.

but the idea of paying for a medium that is relatively inexpensive to produce, and has VIRTUALLY NO SHELF LIFE after you've listened once, is ridiculous.

You simply don't understand what it takes to make a podcast, week after week. You place no value on human intelligence and skills, but see them as fungible commodities, like salt or coal. $50-$60 a month for quality niche programming? You want it for less but you call other people greedy?

[SeanX3]

The moment you start charging money, methinks, will be the moment people start torrenting your podcasts.

Well, it wouldn't be hard to test on a limited basis. We won't know until we know. I can torrent any music I like, but I don't. And there's something to be said for the argument that what iTunes is really selling is convenience. One stop shopping, simple organization, and syncing with iPods. That's what that's about. Power users have no problem with torrents and the like, but the general public does. The general public finds iTunes acceptable and useful.

But I do take your point about filling theaters, because that probably does depend to a fair extent on making content freely available.

I'm system agnostic about how it all pans out. I just get offended by people who simply expect quality goods and services for free as some kind of natural birthright, and have that air of righteous entitlement about it. Ugh.

[KeithTalent]

boy Sean, you're mad enough to fight a side of grits eh

I'm not sure this is such a big deal.

I imagine it going like this: podcasts that were going to find a way to charge regardless will now use the built-in iTunes system instead of coming up with their own thing like Belknap did, giving stupid Apple a bunch of money for their stupid shitty iTunes program shit.

Most podcasts will stay free.

Some podcasts will start charging, get zero downloads for the next episode and revert back to being free.

Best of all, Kevin Pollak will learn that people don't really like him.

[crlygrl]

Are we paying for the production of these or so someone can make a living soley doing podcasts? If someone has 10k listeners and each one pays 99 cents, and keeps 60% of it, that's almost $6K per episode. Really? You think it's worth that much for some of these free podcasts?

Let's not start throwing around the accusation that because someone doesn't want to pay $60 bucks a month -- in addition to all the other ways we pay for our entertainment -- that they place NO value on human intelligence and skills.

[scamboogah]

You simply don't understand what it takes to make a podcast, week after week. You place no value on human intelligence and skills, but see them as fungible commodities, like salt or coal. $50-$60 a month for quality niche programming? You want it for less but you call other people greedy?

How is thinking that it would be dumb to spend more than Sirius and HBO combined for a few individual shows in a medium that requires a laptop and at most about $500 worth of equipment, and one that has already been shown to benefit the entertainer in other ways already, 'greedy' on my part?

And stop accusing me of wanting it for free. I have said twice now already that either through advertising, or grouping of many podcasts into a network, that I am willing to pay.

You're not making any sense to me.

[davidlidsky]

Depends on what you mean by "people". Everybody? Of course not. But enough to make it worth the podcaster's time? I'd say so. I'd say a lot more people are game to pay than is generally assumed.

For quite a while it's been incredibly easy to copy and distribute music digitally but still iTunes, for all its flaws, is a huge success. Just look at how well that Beatles catalog is doing. Like we don't already have enough of The Beatles. I reckon enough people will pay for the quality shit.

I also don't understand the objection to giving Apple a cut of the action: they provide a popular infrastructure and tons of traffic. 60% of something is a ton better than 0% of nothing.

Most web services that have a free version and a paid one convert less than 1% or 2% of them to the premium service. Jesse Thorn (another person I'd love to see join this conversation) has said that his donor base is a tiny fraction of his total audience. Can that model work? Sure. But when comics who do the road can use a podcast as a promotional tool to drive fans to see them live, that's just much more lucrative (do the math on a door deal where you're charging $20 a head and filling a 300-seat room twice a night. I'll do it: $12,000). And it alienates no one.

To reiterate, my concern is not what happens to Kevin Pollak's download numbers or how many podcasts he or anyone else sells. It's that iTunes is a powerful promotional platform, and now that it has skin in the game, it will inevitably promote those things that make it the most money rather than the things that have been the most downloaded, or that get the most positive feedback (thats' why podcasters ask you to leave a nice comment on iTunes--it helps their rankings) or that the iTunes editorial staff just thinks are good. It reinforces the big players rather than the more meritocratic nature of podcasts that has attracted many of our favorites to the medium and that has led us to listen to them.