Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Podcast sponsorship revenue continues to fuel NPR’s financial growth

current.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 143 posts

Re: Podcast sponsorship revenue continues to fuel NPR’s financial growth

#51

Post by pembrook »

nitrogen wrote: post #34
pembrook wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I try to avoid advertising as much as possible, and it's sad that they are one more place it's invading. It's unfortunate that internet people have been falsely conditioned to believe the people who create the media we consume shouldn't be paid. Oh, but you will gladly pay for quality, ad-free content, you say? Unfortunately, based on the numbers I've seen at media companies I've freelanced for, this only works out…

> I try to avoid advertising as much as possible, and it's sad that they are one more place it's invading. It's unfortunate that internet people have been falsely conditioned to believe the people who create the media we consume shouldn't be paid. Wow. I am actually amazed at the disingenuousness of that twisted interpretation of what you quoted. People will pay for what they value. The value of media has been utterl…

Show me a single study proving that "ads" are the reason consumers won't pay for journalism anymore and I will 100% change my opinion.

Re: Podcast sponsorship revenue continues to fuel NPR’s financial growth

#52

Post by pembrook »

ncallaway wrote: post #49
pembrook wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I try to avoid advertising as much as possible, and it's sad that they are one more place it's invading. It's unfortunate that internet people have been falsely conditioned to believe the people who create the media we consume shouldn't be paid. Oh, but you will gladly pay for quality, ad-free content, you say? Unfortunately, based on the numbers I've seen at media companies I've freelanced for, this only works out…

The blog post you linked appears to, in many ways, strongly undermine your argument. You say (when linking to the blog post) > When people say they will pay in surveys, most of them are flat out lying. Here's a recent example: What the blog post says is that actually, the pre-launch survey closely aligned with the outcome: > The really comical part is that I should have known, and I could have known. Actually, one co…

My point on Tim's post was that a majority of his most passionate followers (people who also follow him on twitter and would take the time to answer a survey) would not pay for his content. I have no doubt the 72% contains some overlap with "people who complain about ads."

On the lying about willingness to pay reference, I was referring to actual data I've seen, which I posted below. This was from a media company I worked at (reposted here for context):

1) we surveyed users willingness to pay for a premium, ad-free content product

2) 32% said they would pay $1 or more per month

3) we launched said product

4) under 4% converted at $1 per month

Re: Podcast sponsorship revenue continues to fuel NPR’s financial growth

#53

Post by pembrook »

ahmedalsudani wrote: post #32
pembrook wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I try to avoid advertising as much as possible, and it's sad that they are one more place it's invading. It's unfortunate that internet people have been falsely conditioned to believe the people who create the media we consume shouldn't be paid. Oh, but you will gladly pay for quality, ad-free content, you say? Unfortunately, based on the numbers I've seen at media companies I've freelanced for, this only works out…

Your parent comment said nothing about paying in order to avoid ads and made no assumptions about any of the points you responded to. It was just lamenting ads.

And I was lamenting people who lament ads.

Re: Podcast sponsorship revenue continues to fuel NPR’s financial growth

#54

Post by wahern »

xref wrote: post #10

If you want a contrary take on NPR and particularly how their political coverage is awful, Erik Loomis, a professor of union labor history and about as far left as you can get, has a number of articles on how NPR fails the national discussion http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2019/07/our-worthless-me...

The only political coverage worse than public radio is every other media outlet.

Re: Podcast sponsorship revenue continues to fuel NPR’s financial growth

#55

Post by dredmorbius »

war1025 wrote: post #38
Townley wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This wasn't the case as recently as a few years ago. I used to listen to the podcast version of Wait Wait Don't Tell Me exclusively, and remember musical interludes that immediately went right back to the show. One time I was driving in the car at just the right time and heard Wait Wait Don't Tell Me on the radio for the first time (as opposed to in podcast form) and was startled that there were ads. Now of course th…

As someone who thinks Wait Wait Don't Tell Me is the absolute worst pile of garbage NPR has ever produced, what do people see in that show? Honest question. Found this review [1] a few years ago and was glad to find I wasn't the only one who couldn't stand that apparently much beloved show. [1] http://www.imnotlaughing.com/index.php/radio/46-wait-waitI

WWDTM was amusing for its first few years. It had the "new kid on the block" vibe, and countered much of the too-serious-by-half general sense of NPR. Having the morning news announcer, Carl Kassel, as the announcer, in a very non-serious role, was also amusing. That held up for most of the show's first decade.

But yes, the bloom's off the rose. The show is now 21 years old, it's an institution itself, is no longer a refreshing change-up from normal programming, and comes across as increasingly crass rather than clever or irreverant. Worst was realising that several of the panelists were far better in their off-show personae than on, a fact and awareness which had failed to penetrate WWDTM's format and shtick itself.

I stopped listening years ago.

Re: Podcast sponsorship revenue continues to fuel NPR’s financial growth

#56

Post by nabla9 »

nashashmi wrote: post #48

I used to love NPR but then I realized their content is exclusively liberal. Now I am disgusted by how partison they are. It's like if you listen to the news you don't get a fair report on things but a one sided view, mainly those who suffer under conservative government.

It can be argued that large majority of Americans have liberal values. Many of them have non-liberal identity that makes them think they are non-liberal.

For example:

61 percent of Americans, 42 percent of Republicans, approve of labor unions

66 percent of Americans think money and wealth should be distributed more evenly.

80 percent of Americans think some corporations don’t pay their fair share of taxes.

78 percent think some wealthy people don’t pay their fair share of taxes.

76 percent believe the wealthiest Americans should pay higher taxes.

60 percent of registered voters believe corporations pay too little in taxes.

87 percent of Americans say it is critical to preserve Social Security, even if it means increasing Social Security taxes paid by wealthy Americans.

67 percent of Americans support lifting the cap to require higher-income workers to pay Social Security taxes on all of their wages.

https://prospect.org/power/americans-liberal-even-know/

Re: Podcast sponsorship revenue continues to fuel NPR’s financial growth

#57

Post by dredmorbius »

wahern wrote: post #50
war1025 wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't that like saying that CBS is a content provider? Obviously the big parent company is the one providing content for the local stations.

NPR isn't the only content provider. There's also Public Radio International (PRI) and American Public Media (APM), both of which were apparently founded by several public radio stations. And many public radio stations produce and syndicate their own shows independently. Suffice it to say, NPR doesn't own any of these companies or stations.

Just to fill out the confusion roster, there's CPB, NPR, APR, PRI, and PRX, at least:

CPB: Corporation for Public Broadcasting.

NPR: National Public Radio.

APM: American Public Media.

PRI: Public Radio International.

PRX: Public Radio Exchange.

I won't go into histories and distinctions, but those are the major organisations within the US.

Re: Podcast sponsorship revenue continues to fuel NPR’s financial growth

#59

Post by glenvdb »

I've been thinking for a while that the podcasting business is ripe for disruption in terms for revenue models.

From my understanding, podcast creators have to track down and get potential sponsors to sign on (if you're lucky and already have a big audience maybe they come to you). Then you splice in the audio of their ad into your podcast.

Whereas I've thought that an easier model for everyone would be to have an ad service that automatically serves ads into your podcast. Similar to how web site advertising currently works. As a creator you simply tag locations in your podcast where you want ads to appear and the duration of the ads. You also give the ad service a set of key words it uses to serve the most relevant ads to listeners. No chasing money and negotiating payments. Just sign up to the service, tag the audio stream, and provide relevant keywords.

An argument against this way of using ads in podcasts is that you lose control over the content and quality of the ads. I think we've all seen the broad range of quality in ads seen on websites...

The other revenue model is a packaged subscription model through some kind of syndicate. It's difficult to get people to pay for a single podcast, but if you packaged up a few under a small monthly fee maybe keen podcast listeners would be more willing to pay. Could be a good way to capture people who want an ad free experience, but don't want to pay for each podcast individually.

Perhaps I'm not aware and these models have been tried already?

Re: Podcast sponsorship revenue continues to fuel NPR’s financial growth

#60

Post by Fogest »

nashashmi wrote: post #48

I used to love NPR but then I realized their content is exclusively liberal. Now I am disgusted by how partison they are. It's like if you listen to the news you don't get a fair report on things but a one sided view, mainly those who suffer under conservative government.

I find politics can also be dragged into a lot of their podcasts even when they are not political in nature. With the mixing in of the heavy liberal views it can be hard to enjoy listening to some of the content, especially as a non-american :(
Post reply on HN