Hacker News Reader

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 could argue that I did know.

> Pre-launch polling on social media almost perfectly predicted the outcome. Here’s the tweet I used to test the waters, which had nearly 18,000 respondents. The results were:

> 72% – No, I wouldn’t donate.

> 24% – I would give $5 per month.

> 4% – I would give $10 or more per month.

> The comments on this post are really worth reading. The feedback was almost entirely positive towards ads and almost entirely “meh” about fan-supported. In other words, the answer to my question was clear from the outset: 99% of my listeners are totally OK with ads, and many of them look forward to finding new products and services through my sponsor reads.

The blog post's conclusion very much appears to be that—in hindsight—people were honest from the outset!

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

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 the second group a paywall might make sense since you probably don't care much about total listeners or conversion rates. The metric you care about is money and it doesn't take more than a couple thousand listeners before you can pull in a livable wage from listener supported podcasts. Just check out some of the numbers for podcasts on Patreon [1].

[1] - https://graphtreon.com/patreon-creators/podcasts

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.

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.

We have to be careful when we look at isolated data points. One, uh, "trick", I've seen newspapers in particular pull which will immediately cause me to not support them are confusing subscription terms.

"Special! $1 a month for 12 months". Well, that's $1 per month, that's perfectly affordable... except it's going to auto-renew at a mystery rate that you won't tell me.

My other recently seen favorites include, "Only $X for ultra premium content". What the hell is "ultra premium content"? Is it possible for me to still be walled out of parts of the newspaper? Are these like editorials (who cares) or like major stories?

"Only $1 a week". Ok, that works out to something like $52 a year but why in the world are you giving me a batshit insane term like weekly payments?

Patreon, Nextflix, and many others have this figured out: "It's $x a month. It'll stay $x a month for the immediate future and we'll let you know about price increases in advance." Done. Don't charge me by section, don't charge me in weird terms, don't throw opaque special offers at me.

Also there's no neat way to unsubscribe, you need to convince somebody via chat that you really don't want the subscription anymore. This seems quite toxic pattern and will keep me from subscribing to services doing this, such as NYT or WaPo, even at their discount rates.

> 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.

> 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.

As somewhat of a tangent, I would like a way to pay $5 a month in a single spot and have it be apportioned to all the podcasts I listened to in that time, but that doesn't really exist as a service. Even though that's much more money than my listens are worth in ad revenue.

I'd think the apple news+ service they've started might end up being something that can go in that direction. Patreon as well, or even Spotify. I've started listening to podcasts via Spotify as the player has more fine-grained speed controls. I'm sure they could track my listens to that. letting podcast creators sign up to get paid a portion of listens would be useful, and something I'd support (maybe a $12/month price point vs $10? and split the $2 among the episodes I listen to?)

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.

> 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 utterly destroyed by ads. Ads are the problem.

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.

The entire point of ads is to lower the price and increase circulation. It's not a consumer driven decision.

Why is this something that needs a "study"? You can make corporate-funded user research come to any conclusion you want. It's obvious on the face of it that the more you rely on ads the more ads control the content and eventually become the content. No company funded by ads is going to publish a study saying people don't like ads.

Consumers will pay. The funding of newspapers is a major factor of why current journalism isn’t worth paying for: clickbait headlines, access journalism, slideshow content, listicles, opinion sections. There’s plenty of ad-independent journalism out there if you look that successfully funds itself through donations or memberships.

Yeah so social studies based on internet polls aren't science (see parents) and making decisions or drawing conclusions from them is probably worse than going off anecdotal evidence, because at least you aren't confident in how right you are when going that route.

Anymore? Advertising has been the major source of newspaper revenue forever.

> People will pay for what they value. The value of media has been utterly destroyed by ads

... because people won't pay for media. is it because they don't value them?

>"It's unfortunate that internet people have been falsely conditioned to believe the people who create the media we consume shouldn't be paid."

Nowhere did I see in the OPs post that they believe people who create content shouldn't be paid. NPR is a publicly funded non profit which also gets revenues from corporate sponsors, endowments and foundations[1] and this model has served them and their listeners well.

The OPs concerns as I understand it is one that is grounded in the excitement surrounding this new windfall of ad revenue from podcasts and it's possible effects on an organization that proudly proclaims their independence.

Lastly aside from a couple of programs(All Things Considered and Morning Edition) NPR is not a content creator. They purchase content from PRI, WNYC Studios, and American Public Media. They are more of distributor and reseller of content.

[1] https://www.npr.org/about-npr/178660742/public-radio-finance...

I think they are arguing for NPR to get more funding from the government, in the form of taxes. That is how public radio was traditionally funded.

> It's unfortunate that internet people have been falsely conditioned to believe the people who create the media we consume shouldn't be paid.

Most of the media we consume is probably detrimental to us, even before advertising is factored in. It's not a bad thing when people have to make a choice in whether or not something is worth the money, and end up deciding it's not. It seems like people are better able to understand monetary costs than time or brain space costs.

As an aside, some of the highest quality content I've found is free and without advertisements (for example, the Ottoman History Podcast or the Religions of the Ancient Mediterranean Podcast).

I've felt Dan Carlin (Hardcore History) has always had a very fair approach - the latest episodes are available and free with no advertisements. If you want the back catalog in it's entirety, it's a single lump sum of $50.

Wouldn't Patreon's success be a counterpoint ?

The vast majority of people don't pay, but there seem to be enough people paying that it at least balances the ad dependency of a number of creators. I might be biased, but most of the content I really didn't want to go away or bend backward to get sponsors seem to have successful followings (99pi, the whole radiotopia rooster, Hello Internet, CGP Grey, a few minor ones like rebuild.fm)

I think more and more the creative process could start by kickstarting the project and gauge how much of a public there is willing to pay for it, before going full steam ahead.

None if the podcasts I listen to have ads. I listen to about 15 distinct podcasts. There’s clearly a market.

> It's unfortunate that internet people have been falsely conditioned to believe the people who create the media we consume shouldn't be paid.

I don't think this is true at all. Nobody thinks musicians shouldn't be paid, but until Spotify everyone was downloading music.

> Oh, but you will gladly pay for quality, ad-free content, you say?

I would definitely pay. I just don't want to pay for every single article I read by having going through a signup flow. Usually I can't even pay for a single article because you need to get a subscription.

I would easily pay €10+ a month for a place where I can read all the articles I want from all the publishers I'm interested in. However, like in the video business, this doesn't seem feasible. So you end up with multiple subscriptions just to get the 1 piece of content a month that you want to consume from either of them.

> Nobody thinks musicians shouldn't be paid, but until Spotify everyone was downloading music.

This is even worse IMO. People think musicians deserve to be paid but still manage to rationalize taking from them without paying instead.

Nothing wrong with buying merch and concert tickets while pirating the discography. Fuck the record label.

Yeah there is. Taking something you shouldn't is by almost any definition wrong. Except when it comes to music and movies apparently.

Grandpa’s property rights have no weight in the digital era. If you’re going to make something free to copy the last thing you should do is get mad when people copy it. What’s the point? Just charge people to watch.

> I don't think this is true at all. Nobody thinks musicians shouldn't be paid, but until Spotify everyone was downloading music.

Spotify is hardly an example of successful funding for artists, though. They’re just as exploitative if not more so than the industry was before.

> It turns out, a vast majority of people who complain about ads will not put their money where their mouth is.

No matter how many times this pans out, people try and convince themselves all netizens are altruistic, with the means to bankroll content creators. That just doesn't measure up to reality.

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.

This remind me of when steam tried to monetize mods and the ensuing outrage forgot to mention that some of the biggest modders (as is most popular skyrim mods) receive less than 100$ for years of work in donations.

> It's unfortunate that internet people have been falsely conditioned to believe the people who create the media we consume shouldn't be paid.

I mean if I happily give away all my blog posts for free under creative commons, why is it unreasonable to expect most other people to do the same? People who derive value from the Internet should just create one or two things per year to give back, whether that's a blog post, an app or website, open source software, or something else.

I do think there is a need for a small percentage of people to create content full time. But at the same time right now there is also a huge oversupply of content, and we'd probably all be better off if 95% of it went away.

> It's unfortunate that internet people have been falsely conditioned to believe the people who create the media we consume shouldn't be paid.

Don’t get paid, not shouldn’t. The issue isn’t the reader’s lack of willingness to pay here lol.