Podcast Advertising: What We Learned | Hacker News Reader

Podcast Advertising: What We Learned

ahrefs.com

149 pointsjger1576 comments

I listen to quite a few podcasts, and I'm increasingly annoyed by ads being repeated word for word in each episode.

There are two podcasts that do things a bit differently, which I enjoy more:

* https://risky.biz/ has short-ish interviews with the sponsors that focus not only on the product, but often on the market, insights that the advertiser gained from analytics that their products gather etc.

* https://www.acquired.fm/ has 30s spots where they ask their advertiser one question, which gives the advertiser the option to show off some special knowledge in their area, but can also be interesting to the listener. And a different question each episode.

I'd love to get some metrics on how those approaches compare to the traditional 30s to 60s ad reads (in terms of conversion).

The most unique ad readings are probably Bill Burr's, on his Monday Morning podcast.

He would often read the copy sent to him by companies advertising, criticize their terrible writing or the product itself... and he's not faking it either, as he often loses these advertisers. (but it's Bill Burr! so not running out of advertisers any time soon)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UlBreqGEQ70

The Sherry's Berries reads were hilarious. It sounds like they were annoyed with the first read, but came around to his style as they kept re-up'ing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMLn57oS9Yk

This is the best approach. In a world where every podcast has a "Skip 30s" button, he has managed to have ad reads that people deliberately listen to - and even seek them out on YouTube. It's genius.

Hands down, I've never heard anyone do ads better than Cum Town[0] (seriously). Sometimes the reads end up being upwards of 15 min & in the middle of the show but nobody skips them. In fact in live shows the crowd will cheer when an ad read starts.

The trick is they have extremely tolerant advertisers who don't mind being basically slandered every ad read, having the promo codes and discounts read wrong, having the "don't read this part out loud" parts read on accident, etc.

Close 2nd is Hollywood Handbook, who also shits on advertisers and leads to their ad reads being the most listened to clips of the show. For example when Cards Against Humanity told them to say whatever they want [1].

[0] http://shoutengine.com/CumTown/

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2VGXloYZctI

Yep; the better podcasts pull in the advertiser into their unique style. Comedy podcasts are probably the best example of this. My Brother, My Brother, and Me will write a funny song about each advertiser, or involve them in "advice" bits somehow. They had a recurring segment with an online adult toy store that involved them reading lists of what people who had clicked through to their landing page had bought.

Then again, I've never bought anything that I've heard about on a podcast, so I have to admit I remain pretty skeptical of its paying off.

> Then again, I've never bought anything that I've heard about on a podcast, so I have to admit I remain pretty skeptical of its paying off.

It's not always that, it's sometimes brand awareness.

Also, I just bought an Indochino suit primarily because I've heard the goddamned ads 100 times by now. And I'm pretty pleased with the product, honestly.

I totally agree with you, I've never skipped an ad read on CT, but when have they done one live?

I like how Pod Save America (which is quite rife with ads) riffs on their advertisers and has amusing side-commentary on their advertisements that are in-line with current events.

It breaks out of the mold of a pure ad.

In a sense this is arguably what podcast advertisers are paying for, these kind of “amusing side-commentaries” in podcast ads tread a grey area between advertisement and paid personal endorsement. The best podcasters are relatively self-aware of this grey area and avoid accepting ad money from products they don’t personally believe are worthwhile to their listeners. Podcast advertisers are effectively paying to borrow the good will that often exists between a podcaster and their fans to try and sell products/services, which I suspect must have a pretty robust conversion rate, judging by the speed at which podcast advertising has grown.

The relationship between listeners and podcasts hosts is surprisingly intimate for a broadcast medium.

True, and Lovett is generally pretty hilarious, but... then the ad breaks are 5 minutes long... If I'm able (i.e., not driving), I tend to just skip them.

Sounds you've got 5 minutes....to go download the cash app. We only use the cash app now.

I think that's a given and priced in.

Unlike traditionally advertising, most podcast ads are called to action with links and/or codes that tell the advertiser where the customer came from. If the advertising wasn’t returning the ROI that the advertiser wants, they would know.

But advertisers are willing to spend $6500+ for a spot on the most popular Apple related podcasts - The Talk Show and Accidental Tech Podcast - and they do so repeatedly so they must be effective.

Just a nitpick, most savvy advertisers know that the discount code alone isn't how they measure ROI (or more appropriately ROAS) on a media buy. You look at other things like an increase in organic search or direct traffic, social mentions, etc. to try and paint a more holistic picture.

But they can attribute that directly to an ad spend. For instance the old joke is that the definition of a podcast is two guys talking about tech sponsored by SquareSpace.

I’m assuming that SquareSpace by knowing what percentage of the discount codes come from different podcasts can estimate where to spend thier money.

risky.biz is brilliant for podcast advertising - but last time I asked them (around 6 months ago) the regular sponsorship slots were fully booked until 2020! Their model is quite a bit different compared to the podcasts covered by OP: typically you buy a single 12 minute interview where the host interviews you directly. Pricing was around $7K USD for that (but perhaps that's changed in last 6 months).

I actually prefer repeated ads, it makes it easier to skip them with a double click on the headset remote.

* Mixergy discusses the company with the guest.

* Masters of Scale ads are a short story about a problem. The ad is broken into parts throughout the episode.

I still skip both often but it's harder to skip than a predefined time slot. I also listen more often than ads that are the same everytime.

>I listen to quite a few podcasts, and I'm increasingly annoyed by ads being repeated word for word in each episode.

Leo from twit.tv has always been good at doing more than just following a script when it comes to adverts on his podcast. It makes them a lot less annoying

What I hoped would come through was something like:

ROI for that spend was XYZ. LTV for user acquisition was ABC compared to Adwords/FB/print etc...

Is 129 signups good compared to other efforts? Are inbound leads from podcasts more engaged or higher likelihood to pay than other channels?

I'm not sure what the value here is, other than saying something like "don't spend advertising money in an ad channel if you're unfamiliar with the details of the ad channel"

My main takeaway: it’s not always all about measurable ROI.If you look in the right places, you’re likely to see some other kind of magic at work.

Sounds like good advice if you want to waste ad money, even considering the "half of all advertising money is wasted..." koan. At the end of the day this "magic" has to turn into measurable ROI.

A significant part of marketing involves:

a) teaching people a solution to their problem exists (or even letting them know they have a problem)

b) raising brand awareness so when they do go to make a purchase they think of you first

Focusing too much on immediate ROI can miss the bigger picture. No one makes their SEO decisions based on a single FB ad impression. To think you can optimize for that is insanity.

Think about it; do you buy a car by clicking on a banner ad? Am I in the market for a new TV every week? Do people switch email systems every quarter? How likely are people to choose a brand or service they’ve never heard of when they do happen to be in the market?

yeah, i was looking for something like that too.

also, thank you for saying "waste ad money" instead of "waste ad spend". (some people think it's a good idea to use "spend" as a noun. i wish i knew why. it sounds idiotic.)

Are we ok with buying compute on AWS ?

ha! ya got me.

imho, "compute" is ok if a true technical person or nerd says it because it makes them sound cooler. and they usually need as much coolness as possible.

but ad people use "spend" to make it sound like they have a specialized, impenetrably cool language, one which alienates and excludes the rest of us. but, the thing is, ad people are already cooler than the rest of us. that's how they got their job in the first place. also "spend" is a dumb choice for that because anyone can guess what it means.

that's my lame theory and i'm pretty sure no one else buys it.

Yes, because AWS uses that term for their product, right or wrong

Is there a name for CAC÷LTV?

It's very weird that the article starts by saying that the writer had never listened to a podcast and ends without ever mentioning listening to a podcast. You'd think when spending $50k on advertising in 6 podcasts, you'd at least spend the 3 hours to listen to an episode of each one to better understand what you're doing.

Step 5: “Enjoy the shows when they air. Keep in touch to answer any final questions along the way.”

She pretty clearly said she listened to the podcasts she sponsored

I guess I missed that. I read it originally as being more about enjoying the results of the airing rather than listening to the actual show.

There's still no mention of listening to a podcast before paying them money or why this would be important in creating an effective ad. I really expected this to be one of the main points.

Sounds like typical marketing people to me.

Most media buyers do in fact verify their media buys. There's an entire cottage industry of people that actually watch tv programs to make sure commercials ran, drive out to billboards to verify the right ones were put up, etc. While I haven't bought a ton of podcast inventory I have to imagine that this is done for that medium as well.

I happened to run into a movie trailer verifier in the lobby of a theater the other day. It's something I hadn't really considered before, but really of course someone will be verifying movie trailers.

I read this as: the writer had not previously been a podcast listener, but obviously became an avid listener during this adventure.

What makes you think the writer became an avid listener? There is nothing in the article directly about listening to a podcast episode that wasn't airing one of their ads.

One of the podcasts that does sponsorships best is the Fantasy Footballers Podcast.

Every week they have a branded segment called “Pump the Brakes with O’Reilly Auto Parts”. To intro the segment they sing “O O O O’reilly Auto parts” and then keep going with the segment.

I’m surprised more shows don’t do branded segments...I always skip the 2 minute ad segments, but I sure know about O’reilly.

P.s. remember 2 years ago when every single podcast was sponsored by Squarespace? I’m glad that the market has grown a bit since then.

It like 100% ziprecruiter now.

I have this nagging belief that advertisers know well that nobody in this generation wants to be advertised to, and that ads generally don't work as a direct call to action. Something that allowing podcasters to loosely do ad reads achieves is a small sense of authenticity.

This seems to fit in nicely with the assertion that they know people dislike ads; when a podcaster stiffly or sarcastically reads an ad and throws in a side comment, the ad-averse listener reads this as an irreverence to commercial advertising that both the podcaster and the advertiser are both acknowledging.

I truly think that the advertiser sneaks into the podcast listener's authenticity dome this way, and I feel like this must be a well-understood phenomenon for advertisers who buy ad reads on podcasts known for having a primarily gen z and millennial audience.

Incidentally there's a podcast episode by New Models that briefly discusses this idea, which they call the "authenticity dungeon". https://www.librarystack.org/new-models-podcast-episode-07-a...

I found it odd that he wanted to pay the host to completely lie about their experience with a product. I thought that violates FTC rules.

The FTC requires the sponsor relationship to be explicit, which, on podcasts, it always is.

> ... which, on podcasts, it always is.

That wasn't the question and it's out of the question.

Understood, but even if it's conspicuous, an endorser cannot lie about their experience with a product. Ahrefs included a sample script that was exactly that.

I feel like there is some real innovation to be had in the podcast monetization space. At this point, it's still basically treated like a radio ad from 1935. Surely there is some unique functionality that podcasts have over radio.

Throwing out some ideas:

- Alexa integration lets you purchase/view the product directly after hearing it advertised

- "Choose your own ad" - 5 different ads can be played, each for 5 seconds each. You can then reply to say which one you want to hear about, which then triggers a longer ad. If there is no voice reply, the default one will play.

I'm actually glad Podcasts are still like that and don't need any special interaction. I don't mind the ads, especially if they are not pre-recorded but just embedded in the show like on Gruber's Talkshow where he speaks them live and sometimes guests even say something in the ad too.

If you appreciate this style of ad delivery (and don't mind his...uh....language), comedian Bill Burr's Monday Morning Podcast and Thursday Just Before Friday Monday Morning Podcast has some hilarious ad reads. He hates doing it, he hates having to do it, and he openly mocks how silly some of the ad copy can be.

Which apparently is fine by his sponsors because apparently they convert incredibly well (it might also have to do with Andrew Themeles, producer and comic as well allegedly is very particular about who they are willing to be sponsored by since neither of them are hurting for the money).

But I agree, ads that are just naturally read and we get back to the show is preferred. The minute someone tries to get 'disruptive' with ads in podcasts I fear the whole house will come crashing down.

My impression is that the vast majority of podcast listeners skip through ads, because that's what I do. It's easy to hit the 15s forward button four times and get right back to the funny interesting stuff. It's a lot harder to skip the ad if the funny, interesting host is riffing over the entire ad read - which means that the listener is still getting the product info, even if the host is making fun of the copy the whole time. Other hosts I've seen include references to the products they're hawking in the actual show (host response to guest's story about sleeping on a mattress on the floor: "I hope that mattress was a Leesa!") and I imagine they're getting a little premium for that.

That second approach is pure product placement. I'm sure it's being monetized.

Agreed. The ads are also short enough that I'm not bothered with 3 ads over a 2 hour podcast. The breaks are also not typically forced, unlike the radio. In a podcast the current topic can come to a natural end, then a quick ad can be read.

One podcast I listen to does the ad at the very end. It should take a couple a minutes, but tends to turn into another 30 minutes of interesting content.

I do feel like we are still in the golden age of podcasting, and something is going to come along and ruin it.

I think it's starting to be ruined by ad networks that insert automated ads at download time. Then creators ask for at least a dollar per episode on Patreon to avoid these and start locking away content at even higher price points.

Podcasts are audio/video files served via RSS, a podcast app needs to know how read RSS and how to play or open your player, what you propose is something different, you would have to embed those ads somehow and extra functionality but keep backwards compatibility, if you mark the ads then you make it easy to add a function to skip the ads, then the publishers will want to lock the format with DRM so you can't skip those ads, IMO your idea will ruin the experience

Someone could make a case for ad monetization being the reason much of the web isn’t avilable through simple RSS feeds.

There are already focused platforms that do this, for example dynamically picking ads based on subscriber IP to give a local ad.

Kind of weird to hear a local car dealership ad in the middle of a popular national podcast.

Also, you have no control over the playing platform (it originally was MP3 players like iPods which have no internet connectivity), and little to no information on the subscribers except for their IP address retrieving a MP3 url (no browser involved), so standard "run ten tons of garbage javascript" tracking/monitoring to sell users as the product doesn't work (thankfully).

You could do the Alexa integration for radio ads today. The choose your own ad would only work for people listening to a podcast in an integrated player on the podcast's website. This would not work for people who subscribe to the podcast and download an mp3.

For the downloaders, you can only really target ads based on download time and IP address. I don't think this is much better than radio ad targeting for most use cases, as IP addresses aren't very good at consistently identifying an individual. I do at least hear local pre-roll and post-roll ads for non-local shows.

TLDR: About 126 paid trial signups for about $30k.

Comes down to about $238 per signup.

Now the question is: What is the lifetime value of an ahref customer?

Say 20% of the trial signups result in a full signup. And let's say they all chose the lowest tier of $99/Month. And let's say they stay for a year on average.

Then that's ... 126 * 0.2 * 99 * 12 = $29937

That would be about break even.

As the article describes in the end of its second chapter:

Sometimes an existing user would mention that they were happy to hear about us on their favorite show; sometimes a random person (not even in marketing) would remember us from an old podcast mention. Even if they didn’t convert at the time, they thought that Ahrefs was kind of cool—and this brand recognition stayed in the back of their mind.

That’s when it all clicked.

We were going about it all wrong—rather than being a tool for lead generation, podcast advertising is a tool for gaining exposure and brand awareness.

Sometimes converting a benefit gained from service, podcasts in this case, to monetary value is a simple matter of counting gained profit. But one has to remember that not everything can be measured in dollars, such as brand awareness. Doesn't help to pay the bills but I'd think of it more of a long term investment.

Without knowing performance of other channels, if I found something that I was fairly confident was delivering break-even ROAS on a 1yr value as a SaaS marketer, I'd do this all day.

There are so many opportunities to reduce churn, increase LTV, etc. that tipping the scales to make this channel profitable are probably pretty doable. The harder part of marketing is finding a channel with strong signal, and breakeven ROAS is absolutely strong signal.

Agreed. To me it sounded like the takeaway should have been "Don't sponsor podcasts, they're a terrible investment." Now, if you're a big enough company that you can afford to blow $50k on brand awareness, maybe that's okay. But for anyone smaller it sounds like there are probably better ways to get your message out.

This is a really useful insight into podcast advertising. I've often wondered what it costs to advertise on a podcast and here is the answer (in part at least).

I think there was a time last year when a couple of mattress brands were sponsoring the entire podcasting world. Quite amazing really, it shows that even a medium priced mattress has a staggering amount of margin. Makes me wonder why I am in the software business. (!!)

Don't worry! Squarespace sponsors literally everything I listen to, so there's money in software yet!

If you just want to get those promo code without listening to podcasts, search here https://lnns.co/GCrJF9YQ-k4

I love the "Hello from the Magic Tavern" ads

Silicon Valley "disruptors" discover they're actually reinventing the wheel. Film at 11.

Welcome to radio.

Ehhhhhh. Podcasts can be much more targeted, so I'm not sure that comparison holds up. Radio hits a lot of ears, sure, but I'm not sure you can compare the quality of those impressions. YMMV if you're thinking some really niche satellite radio or something, but where I am there's only terrestrial, and I wouldn't even consider advertising on it.

Podcasts can also have global reach in a way that radio doesn't and never will.

I'm not posting this as an "advocate" of Alex Jones, however his model works well for a news site. There is no advertiser creep of the message, there is not much outside influence at all.

Its a shame something like the NY Times didn't pivot to that model early on (essentially a news site thats funded by in-house e-commerce).

Whats funny is that that model was the first model of media, and truthfully it may be the future.

A media company doesn't have a competitive advantage when making unrelated products, compared to companies that specialize in those products. The Alex Jones model is profitable because he exaggerates the benefits of his products and trades on his viewers' mistrust of other information sources. The NY Times would have to change completely to follow this strategy.

>The NY Times would have to change completely to follow this strategy.

Becoming profitable will require lots of change.

Dave Ramsey seems to do both successfully.

"news site" ?

For an audio based campaign I'd prefer a catchier and more memorable name than 'ahrefs'? Type that in slightly wrong and you get to a dead end pretty fast.

<a href="s">are hyperlinks</a> in html.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're trying to be helpful but I don't get why this makes it a good name?

What was that ad I heard the other day, hrefs.com or href.com? Ooops!

I'd always (and always do) google an advert rather than trying to remember the exact website anyway. If you search 'href sep' or 'hrefs seo' or even 'aref seo' it always still comes up as the first result for me.

That is because the whole article is just marketing fluff. Ahrefs is a marketing company with its own spiders etc.. they are not into podcasting at all.

Yes, their name sucks for podcast/radio. But it's too late for them to change that.

> From July to October 2018, we’ve seen 126 paid trial signups from “podcast.”

We all know surveys lie (even if they're required) so the conversion numbers aren't telling the whole story. If my company were burning tall coin like this and not somehow tracking micro-conversions I'd probably have to tell the marketing lead sorry no holiday bonus for the next 38 years.

Honestly they could've probably hired a temp-worker with a good voice and a lot of Podcasting buddies and gained more traction for the cost of feeding a homeless man. What a colossal waste of resources.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com