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

131–140 of 143 posts

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

#131

Post by ncallaway »

pembrook wrote: post #52
ncallaway wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 w…

> 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

It's a fair statement that most people won't pay, but that is totally different point that the one you made in the previous comment.

Your prior comment was clear and direct. You stated that many people are flat out lying (with your emphasis on the word "lying"). Then you linked a blog post as an example of that.

I agree with the thesis that many people will not pay for non-ad supported content. I don't know that I agree that people are lying or dishonest about it. I certainly disagree with the characterization that they are flat out _lying_ about it.

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

#132

Post by nabla9 »

nashashmi wrote: post #86
nabla9 wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

So radio should be one-sided? NPR should be partison? One sided view hurts all people.

Presenting only intelligent and fact based viewpoints and ignoring others is not being one-sided. Smart people on right are represented on NPR but they are labeled centrists in the current political climate.

The right lacks the facts and ability to argue. Representing sponsored talking points and emotion can be ignored.

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

#133

Post by dbingham »

scarface74 wrote: post #113
dbingham wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You should really distrust them equally. They're effectively one in the same in our current society. Who do you think is paying the government representatives to make business friendly choices that enrich their friends?

The difference is that I trust businesses whose motive is purely logical - make money - a lot more than I trust government run by people who either have “cultural interests” that are directly opposed to my views and very existence. Business doesn’t have the power to take money, property, liberty, or my life.

...you've never read much labor history, have you?

Business has the power to do all of those things. And has _frequently_ exercised that power through out history.

The fact that it isn't right now (or is to a lesser and less obvious degree) is the result of government exercising its power to keep business in check. Those laws that government is still (half heartedly) enforcing are a hold over of a time when the people had more control of the government, and business less.

...also, while we're here... what cultural interests are opposed to your very existence? Genuinely curious. As someone of Jewish heritage, I'm well familiar with ideologies opposed to my very existence, but I'm curious what specific interests you're referring to and on what basis you believe they are opposed to your existence.

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

#134

Post by drak0n1c »

nabla9 wrote: post #56
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…

Many of the people in your stats simultaneously hold other conservative or centrist values that both parties supported 15 years ago, like being strict on illegal immigration, crime, and late-term abortion. A large number are proud gun owners. Many union workers who like tariffs are now finding that the mainstream left has abandoned such policies in favor of soft negotiating stances on free trade deals. Remember the anti-globalism Seattle WTO protests? It wasn't conservatives doing the marching.

For their variance from the new zeitgeist they are currently being labeled racists, sexists, etc. Would you stay consistent with your argument, call them liberal, and accept them knowing that? Not many do, especially not liberal politicians and media, which is why they are voting the other way.

They didn't leave their values behind, the liberal party did.

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

#135

Post by Dylan16807 »

NickNameNick wrote: post #87
Dylan16807 wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It turns out, a vast majority of people who complain about ads will not put their money where their mouth is. Not quite. If the baseline is that ads can provide enough revenue, and you're specifically paying to remove the ads, then that's a much smaller number. He has what, two ad slots, repeated at start and end? If that's $30 CPM at two per week, that's 26 cents a month. The minimum subscription was $9.95 a month…

I think your tangent is describing youtube red. Assuming all your favorite podcasts are also on youtube.

Yeah, if they were on youtube. Youtube red is a good model, and there's a reason I've complained in the past about how the very broken 'google contributor' should just copy it.

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

#136

Post by scarface74 »

dbingham wrote: post #133
scarface74 wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The difference is that I trust businesses whose motive is purely logical - make money - a lot more than I trust government run by people who either have “cultural interests” that are directly opposed to my views and very existence. Business doesn’t have the power to take money, property, liberty, or my life.

...you've never read much labor history, have you? Business has the power to do all of those things. And has _frequently_ exercised that power through out history. The fact that it isn't right now (or is to a lesser and less obvious degree) is the result of government exercising its power to keep business in check. Those laws that government is still (half heartedly) enforcing are a hold over of a time when the peopl…

That if you are not a White Christian you don’t belong here and you are not a true American or that you are a second class citizen that shouldn’t be treated equally by the justice system. There was always the undercurrent of it - especially in the south, but in the current political environment, it’s very front and center.

Again, I am not saying that it is a majority of Americans but because of the electoral college and the allocation of 2 seats in the Senate regardless of population, that viewpoint has an outsized voice right now.

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

#137

Post by icebraining »

war1025 wrote: post #44
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...

Maybe I missed something, but my impression was that this guy's beef with NPR is that they attempt to be unbiased? I give them major props just for attempting. It's obvious on many of their interviews with more right wing guests that the reporters are more or less gritting their teeth to get through it, but they do attempt to let both sides make their voices heard.

I'd say his beef is that the NPR refuses to call a spade a spade, using euphemisms instead. And furthermore that using such soft language protects ignominious people.

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

#138

Post by _69x2 »

slg wrote: post #61
pembrook wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 w…

It depends what metric you are targeting. Some people create podcasts as an avenue to promote themselves, their projects, or their business. Tim Ferriss is one of those people. Other people create podcasts as their primary way to make a living. It doesn't make sense to put your podcasts behind a paywall if you are in the first group because the primary metric you care about is total listeners. However if you are in t…

I think you are confusing patrons with podcast listeners.

What you see on Graphtreon is the number of patrons, meaning podcast listeners who decided to donate to the podcast through Patreon.

I don't know what the average conversion rate is, but I think it's safe to assume that patrons only make up a small percentage of total audience, I'd be surprised if it was higher than 5%.

In fact, it's probably significantly lower than 5%, my guess would be that it's more like 1%.

So, your assumption that it doesn't take more than 2000 listeners before you can pull in a livable wage is wrong, but maybe you meant patrons.

It depends on what your definition of a livable wage is, but my guess would be that you'd probably need an audience of at least 100,000 podcast listeners to make $5000/month on Patreon (assuming 1% conversion rate and an average donation of $5).

Also, it seems to me that you are confused as to how Patreon model works, creators who use Patreon don't put their main content behind a paywall, they simply throw in some extra goodies for patrons.

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

#139

Post by slg »

_69x2 wrote: post #138
slg wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It depends what metric you are targeting. Some people create podcasts as an avenue to promote themselves, their projects, or their business. Tim Ferriss is one of those people. Other people create podcasts as their primary way to make a living. It doesn't make sense to put your podcasts behind a paywall if you are in the first group because the primary metric you care about is total listeners. However if you are in t…

I think you are confusing patrons with podcast listeners. What you see on Graphtreon is the number of patrons, meaning podcast listeners who decided to donate to the podcast through Patreon. I don't know what the average conversion rate is, but I think it's safe to assume that patrons only make up a small percentage of total audience, I'd be surprised if it was higher than 5%. In fact, it's probably significantly low…

I am very familiar with both podcasts and Patreon. I contribute to multiple podcasts on Patreon. Creators have a lot of freedom in how they setup their Patreon. It might not be the most common setup, but there are certainly some creators that keep almost everything behind the Patreon paywall. In those cases a listener is the same thing as a patron. That model isn't great for exposure and doesn't provide an easy avenue to grow the podcast without other means of promotion, but I have seen it be very successful for creators who already have a niche of fans who will support them. To repeat myself, the viability of the different approaches depends on what metric you are looking to optimize.

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

#140

Post by mateus1 »

scarface74 wrote: post #101
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 listen to mostly the economics podcasts “Planet Money” and “The Indicator”. I consider myself a bleeding heart libertarianism capitalist. (ie Don’t increase minimum wage but pay more in taxes to help people help themselves.) I don’t see any real bias in their reporting. Also, a “This American Life” episode about illegal immigrants working at a chicken plant (?) in Alabama single handedly made me see a few of the po…

Listen to the one where The Indicator ponders if the Chilean dictatorship was worth it because they now have some good capitalism going. It's awful.
Post reply on HN