Leo LaPorte explains podcast economics: $350,000 expenses, $1.5 million rev | Hacker News Reader

Leo LaPorte explains podcast economics: $350,000 expenses, $1.5 million rev

buzzmachine.com

59 pointschuck_taylor20 comments

He is doing some stellar revenue. I am impressed. Though, just like Kevin Rose cashed in on his cred from TechTV and made Digg immensely popular Leo is as well. I would wager that he would not be anywhere near that revenue without the initial infusion of celebrity.

the initial infusion of celebrity

Leo wasn't famous on the day he was born, was he?

The only reason he seems to have had an "initial infusion" of celebrity is that you're telling his story starting in the middle.

I think his point is that Leo was famous from traditional media before he started an online podcast.

I was talking about his current venture being fueled by his celebrity as a kind of warning to people to not get too excited about starting a "new media" company and expect that kind of revenue. Having celebrity and leveraging it is not a bad thing and can be very lucrative while it lasts.

A trick I learnt from infomercial makers: Look for 2 out of 3:

* Star

* Story

* Solution

3 out of 3 is best. But 2 out of 3 also makes a good recipe for added fame.

He does touch on that a bit towards the end. For the most part, he seemed to view that sort of success as an artifact of the transition between traditional mass media and internet media. In particular, his view seemed to be that the mechanisms for filtering out good content weren't/aren't fully developed, giving people in his position a head start.

He mentions, advertisers don't believe its worth advertising to smart people because they don't make decisions based on brand, but rather they make decisions based on research.

Interesting and true.

It may be true that advertisers believe that, but that statement (advertising to smart people is a waste of time) is not.

Buying based on brand recognition is just one facet of a multitude of ways advertising affects buying habits. There are a lot of advertisers that already have a great product, but just need to get the word out (i.e. many YC startups). From the article, "Laporte said he charges $70 CPMs for ads." Clearly advertising to smart people is in demand.

"Clearly advertising to smart people is in demand."

I think the point is that advertising to smart people is not effective; they will research and find the best product regardless of advertising.

I think that point is highly focused on the decisions people would self report. I've seen studies where perception of a fictional brand is significantly increased through repeated banner advertising. I'm sure some high IQ participants in the study would report no impact, but have been influenced at a pre-verbal level. The psychology of repeated exposure is well documented.

If you view advertising as subversive and dishonest, then yes, advertising to smart people is less effective.

Not all advertising is dishonest, and instead informative. Hopefully the new media technologies will let this type of advertising thrive.

The main reason I perceive advertising as 'dishonest' is that most of it is talking at the consumer, rather than communicating with. Once more companies figure out how to do this, then smart people will evaluate that advertisement with as much value as a fellow community member's dis/approval. Plus the trust factor comes into play heavily. Leo Laporte has a huge level of trust in the tech community, and we all know he is here because he truly loves what he does and would never compromise his community. (And I specifically chose 'community', not 'audience'.)

Whether your notional smart person ultimately chooses a given product or not, based on the results of their research, advertising may still be the thing that makes them aware of the product in the first place.

I thought he ascribed that view to the folks who run traditional television media.

"... smart people because they don't make decisions based on brand, but rather they make decisions based on research. ..."

Is this counter-intuitive with Mac purchases?

This is why pharmaceutical companies don't advertise to doctors, right?

(Cue joke about doctors' intelligence.)

What impresses me is what is left out of the link title on this and what Leo says in the video.

"We have about $350,000 in expenses and $1.5 in revenue and that's doubling every year. The revenue, not the expenses the costs in this are fairly static." (Emphasis Mine)

That's amazing, when I heard this it made my jaw drop.

Jeebus... I always sort of figured TWiT was more investment for the future and wasn't making money yet - I had no idea they were doing so well. Awesome to hear it, though.

I would also mention the most important part: Leo works his ass off to a degree that would shock most podcasters dead. His operation is very small, and he does a huge amount of work all by himself, from production to editing to ad sales, new product development and more. He's a one man army.

The same work ethic was in evidence at TechTV that I could see in my limited experience doing segments with him. He's also a hugely nice person, something you don't see much in TV people...

Wow, TWiT is going to get on the Netflix Roku box. That is a fantastic strategy.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com