Amazon Wants People to Pay for Podcasts (bloomberg.com) 72
An anonymous reader shares a Bloomberg report: There are several hundred thousand podcasts available through Apple's podcast app, and all of them cost the same amount: nothing. Starting today, you can have access to a far smaller slate of podcasts for a few bucks a month over at Audible, the audio books service owned by Amazon. Audible is betting that avid podcast fans will pay $4.95 per month for Channels, an exclusive selection of ad-free original podcasts, comedy performances, and audio renditions of written articles. The subscription is free for current Audible members. While Apple has always loomed large over podcasting, other big companies like Amazon, Google, and Spotify are beginning to inch into the space. Channels is Amazon's first major foray into the business and puts it in a position to be both a platform for and creator of new shows. "They are doing to audio what they did with Prime Video -- it's vertical integration, and it puts them in a position where they can firmly participate in the larger development of culture," said Nick Quah, who writes the podcasting newsletter Hot Pod.Is the right move? Will people for it? AdAge writes:A lot of people don't think there will be a Netflix of podcasting. Andy Bowers, chief content officer of Slate's Panoply Network, said the best chance for a subscription model to work would be to offer one that offers ad-free versions of many of the most popular podcasts that exist today. "Short of that -- and I don't see anyone doing that at the moment -- I think the ad-supported version is here to stay for a while," he said. Still, a handful of other podcasting businesses have begun experimenting with paid premium services. Acast, a podcast app, created an option for its podcasters to begin charging for content earlier this year. Midroll Media charges $4.99 a month for a service called Howl that offers access to original shows and archives of popular podcasts like "WTF with Marc Maron."
Re:Sorry but (Score:4, Interesting)
People said the exact same thing about cable TV in the 1970's. "Why would I pay for something I can get for fee with an antenna?"
Amazon has to make it worth it. Time will tell. There are a ton of crappy podcasts out there. Maybe some pre-filtering would be worth it.
Not for me, mind you...I'm too cheap to pay for anything like that, but Amazon seems to think that they have something worth paying for.
Just my $0.02.
-JJS
Re: (Score:3)
Which is about the same value as a podcast.
Re: (Score:2)
Which is about what the podcast creator will get after Amazon takes its cut.
FTFY
Re: (Score:3)
The difference here is that 1970s cable TV offered vastly different programming that was previously unavailable. That was its main attraction - fans of niche TV genres could find channels that catered to specific subjects.
This appears to be moving in the opposite direction. The idea that users are paralyzed by option overload and want to pay someone to limit those options (the 'far smaller slate')? Doesn't sound like a money maker to me.
Re: (Score:2)
I would be willing to pay for the netcasts I listen to currently (well, most of them anyway) if they went to a paid subscription model.
As long as they are free with ads, I am cool with that too.
Re: (Score:3)
Most podcasts either are already ad-free, or the ads are equivalent to a commercial break... which people already deal with on television and every other form of media.
Nobody is going to pay for this.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not really into podcasts but most of the ones I have heard had ads and were pretty terrible with them. Just in the middle of content they'll launch into a ridiculous pitch like "Hey let me tell you about squarespace!" And it's always fucking Squarespace or Wix or some stupid shaving company, and the pitches are particularly annoying when the host pretends to really use and care about the product. I KNOW YOU ONLY CARE ABOUT THE MONEY JUST FINISH IT ALREADY!!
Re: (Score:2)
I think that money would take away the soul of most of the podcasts. I want to listen to people who do podcasts out of the sheer love and interest toward a topic, whatever it may be. Forcing podcasts to a pay-to-listen model would, first of all, with absolute certainty introduce DRM into the mix, and that in turn would likely limit your listening options. It would likely also take away some of that amateurish approach from the free flowing discussion and make it too formal and strict in the sense of what to
Re: (Score:2)
This is known as corporations taking over the public space. Companies move into a physical location with a park for example, put up a fence, hire security guards, close the doors at night and tell you that you cannot walk on the grass or busk. The exact same thing happens in the digital realm. The world wide web was invented and all the content was freely created by knowledgeable enthusiasts and freely available to the people. Now everything is being put behind paywalls or loaded with flash advertising. Pod
Re: (Score:2)
Relating to what you said, I found this [youtube.com] interesting piece from a few years back. No doubt this is starting to be the new norm around the world, also on the Internet. The Internet in itself is in a sense a free-for-all space, but there are indeed walled gardens where most of the content has been amassed.
Ugh (Score:1)
Why can't we call these things what they are?
"Podcasts" are audio files of people talking about shit they don't know much about and that you only listen to because you're bored out of your mind.
"Vodcasts" are video files of people talking about shit they don't know much about and that you only listen to, and occasionally glance at (even though you should be focused on driving/working), because you're bored out of your mind.
Re:Ugh (Score:4, Informative)
Not necessarily. Most of the podcasts I listen to, the people know very well what they are talking about. BBC, CBC, TVO, NPR. If you get your podcasts from good sources, they will have good content. There is nothing specific about a podcast that requires it to be of inferior quality.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Ugh (Score:5, Informative)
So what? 90% of everything [wikipedia.org] is crap.
Re: (Score:2)
Macs have roughly 10% of the computers marketshare. Guess what the other 90% is?
Re: (Score:2)
The top 20 list can be a poor guide to quality because the most popular means the most people and most people are ignorant so the shows cater for them by dumbing down. This is fine too if you too are ignorant. If you are for example looking for nerdy stuff in depth stuff about Astronomy steer clear of NASA as it's output is designed for children. The podcast you want is Cheap Astronomy Podcasts with Steve Nerlich. The same holds true for most content, e.g. listen to these advertisement free podcasts.
Bacteri
Re:Ugh (Score:4, Informative)
You are wrong.
There are plenty of good podcasts (I prefer netcast actually) where the people definitely know what they are talking about. Pretty much any NPR or TWIT netcast is worth listening to, imo.
If you want a specific example, try listening to Security Now some time.
Anyway, to the point of the article, skipping a couple of minutes of "commercials" (hit the FF button 2 times) is totally worth the price of the netcast ($0)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's completely bogus.
I learn a lot _AND_ am entertained, sometimes by the same podcasts, sometimes by different podcasts. Just like TV shows, movies, books, etc., there's far more interesting podcasts than I can keep up with (even at 2x).
There are ALSO video podcasts (which this new service isn't really).. e.g. various CNET video podcasts that I subscribe to and watch (at 2x, just like I listen to podcasts at 2x).
Re:Ugh (Score:4, Insightful)
audio files of people talking about shit they don't know much about and that you only listen to because you're bored out of your mind.
You are simply listening to the wrong ones.
Re:Ugh (Score:4, Interesting)
Why can't we call these things what they are?
"Podcasts" are audio files of people talking about shit they don't know much about and that you only listen to because you're bored out of your mind.
On the contrary Podcasts are probably the outstanding example of user-generated content (or at least non big-corporation content).
Video is extremely difficult to make look professional, but making a podcast with professional or at least decent sound quality is doable and far cheaper. Distribution is also a big advantage since you don't need to adhere to specific formats like a television or even radio program does such as being X minutes long or having planned commercial breaks.
And instead of "people talking about shit they don't know much about" you get knowledgeable experts who for once don't have to worry about meddling from corporate overlords who are ignorant or have different objectives (like promoting a corporate agenda).
Re:Ugh (Score:4, Informative)
Where were you 13 years ago when podcasts became popoular? (You know, named after the ubiquitous iPod, which only played audio at the time)/ The fight's been lost and everyone calls it podcasts.
And to be more accurate, they're really more like on-demand radio shows, which can be well produced or crap. You'll find those that have a history of broadcasting on the radio are generally of very high quality. But instead of streaming it, you download it as a file.
And Apple's been down this path - earlier this year some podcasters called out Apple to update the podcast app and allow stuff like paid subscriptions and stuff...
Re: (Score:2)
Why can't we call these things what they are?
"Podcasts" are audio files of people talking about shit they don't know much about
Like how Slashdot posts [slashdot.org] are text files by people [slashdot.org] talking about shit they don't know much about?
Never could get into podcasts (Score:3)
but man listening to Art Bell on AM was awesome. What a kook but that was some good entertainment.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
but man listening to Art Bell on AM was awesome.
Yes, but did you ever buy a C.Crane radio?
Re: (Score:2)
No did you? :)
Re:Never could get into podcasts (Score:4, Informative)
If you liked Art Bell, there are a bunch of really great podcasts that would scratch that same itch. Conspiracies, paranormal stuff, UFOs, all that spooky shit. I got into a habit of putting Art Bell on very softly in my earbuds when I fell asleep. It would lead to some very fun dreams of holes to Hell and greys carrying me out of the house. I even bought a C.Crane radio, just because I'd heard the ad so many times (still have it, and it's a hell of a radio).
Podcasts you might like are The Higherside Chats (THC). Grimerica (out of Canada), Mysterious Universe (out of Australia) and Binall of America (which seems to be on some sort of hiatus). I'm even a subscriber to a couple so I don't get any advertisements, which is nice.
You know those videos of girls talking softly and brushing their hair and some people find it strangely soothing? Spooky podcasts are like that for me. Last night I fell asleep listening to a THC podcast about the history of central banking and how it comes from Knights Templar and where the idea of fractional reserves got started by goldsmiths in Europe. The night before that, it was the Oak Island mystery and mound-building civilizations in America.
The stuff can get kind of kookie, but it sure is fun and puts me right to sleep. Worth every penny.
Re: (Score:2)
As someone who never missed an episode of "In Search of..." when it was in its original syndication, I love that stuff although 99% of it is utterly unbelievable. I've tagged a bunch of episodes from your suggested list, though. Oak Island is a particular favorite (and for some reason seems actually compelling...) and I will probably listen to that one first.
My problem with most conspiracy stuff is the presentation is often so horrible.
Re: (Score:2)
With the Grimerica podcast, you usually have to fast forward through about 30 minutes of stoned rambling and grabass to get to the quite good interviews.
The best Oak Island one is in an old episode of Binall of America.
Re: (Score:2)
Problem with Arts show was I couldn't sleep, I was so addicted to it and where I was Kamloops BC the show played till 2-3am.
Re: (Score:2)
Art's voice always got me to start to drowse, but then a commercial would come on and wake me back up. Even half asleep, the topics and conversation on that show would sink in. I do remember a few nights when there was this priest from the Vatican, Malachi Martin on to talk about exorcisms and demons and stuff. I didn't sleep at all those nights.
Re: (Score:2)
I have a similar problem with audio books. Just can't get into them. Last time I tried I was driving from San Diego to Salt Lake City by myself, checked a couple out of the library. Problem I ran into was I'd be cruising down the road and realize I hadn't been paying attention to the audio book, and had to back it up a chapter or three.
Re: (Score:2)
That's my problem with Internet media. Its never really when I'm relaxed as I'm so used to multiple usage on a computer that usually I start tuning out music or any other audio. I never like talk radio in cars just music. Talk radio makes me thing too much and not pay as much attention to the road.
Also the main problem is I grew up in listening to talk radio at night. Usually my grandma had Radio Free Europe on.
SNR (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Also, DRM is guaranteed to make me not sign up. If I can't throw some MP3s on a flash drive or stream to my network connected radio, it's worthless.
Re: (Score:2)
Stuff like "50 shades of Gray" and the "The Martian" came out like that.
I follow the amateur fantasy fiction scene.
Amateur Authors release chapters on blogs/forums/sites. You find sutuff of variable quality monthly.
After an arch is concluded the author pays an editor and illustrator, and offer's the compiled on Amazon and Amazon Unlimited.
An upper mid quality novel makes ~2000 amazon sales on
podcast==on demand radio (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The only thing that is annoying about this model is that the same endorsements end up on all the different netcasts.
So you end up hearing about Blue Apron (for example) on all your different 'casts.
Despite this, I am fine with it. I hit the skip ahead 30 seconds button twice when an ad comes up and that shoots me to the other side. No problem.
And if my favorite netcasts went to a paid model. I would definitely pay. They have become indispensable to me.
$5 here, $5 there... (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
The people working at these companies seem to think everyone has as much disposable income as themselves.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
That's the rub isn't it?
I pay for Amazon Prime, Netflix and Hulu (ad-free). That comes out to roughly $30/mo.
I am just about at the limit of what I am willing to pay per month already. In addition, I am just about at peak media consumption too. To watch/listen to more, I would have to devote more time to it. Not something I am willing to do.
So, yeah, if my favorite netcasts went to a paid model, I would fork out the cash. But I will not buy the service to listen to unknown netcasts, I just don't got time fo
How much is your time worth (Score:1)
Advertisements are not only annoying but they are actually more costly then you may think. The difference between Hulu Plus with ads vs Hulu Plan ad-free is $4. That's the best $4 I ever spent. If I make more then $12/hr then it is more cost-effective to go ad free.
So if they had a podcast that I really liked then I would buy it. I already donate more then $5/mo to pod casters anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
So wait, there's Hulu, Hulu Plus with ads and Hulus Plus with no ads? What's the point of Hulu Plus with ads?
Re: (Score:3)
Hulu is free.
Hulu Plus is $8/month, and has a lot more content than Hulu (more shows and more episodes of shows). The shows have ads.
Hulu Plus without ads is $12/month, has the same content as Hulu Plus, but without ads (in almost all cases - a few shows have a single ad at the beginning and the end, but it's only a handful).
Re: (Score:2)
You can watch it on your tv on roku or other streaming devices without needing to hook up a computer. Hulu plus is a misnomer, it has less content than hulu.com and it costs money.
I would pay for complete feeds (Score:2)
I would pay a small fee for podcasts, in some cases, not even for ad free versions, just to have a _complete_ feed of podcasts available.
Most podcasts have only a short feed (amount of podcasts currently available), even if they've been going on for years. Some others have long or even complete feeds (e.g. the "Giant Bombcast" video game podcast). If I find out about a new podcast, I'd like to be able to start at the beginning. EVEN if some of the info deals with (then-) current events, I'd still like to
I pay already (Score:3)
I have more podcasts than I can listen to, and most of them are free. I pay a subscription for an ad-free version of the Savage Lovecast, but that version also comes with extra content. I listen to the ads of the other shows and for the most part, it's actually stuff I want. I also listen to a lot of shows from the CBC, so I've kind of already paid for those.
I can't believe they can give me greater value than what I'm getting. Shows in my schedule, more plentiful than I can actually handle, and all of them finding their own way to monetise. The current hands-off system is one of the best things Apple has ever done. The only people that don't like it are advertisers that don't want to be cut out of any advertising loops. (Meanwhile, the cost per conversion that podcast advertisers pay is insanely cheap.)
the Onion called (Score:2)
Amazon Wants People to Pay for Podcasts
The Onion called. They want their headline back.
No charges will be laid if returned within 48 hours.
I already pay (Score:2)
I'm a "producer" of the No Agenda Show [noagendashow.com]. Adam Curry and John C. Dvorak often talk about the corrupting influence advertising has on modern media and so therefore can't really run ads and have any integrity. It's not always a great show, but it is good enough most of the time to get me through my long commute. They also actively engage listeners and have created a community around the show. They use custom artwork, contributed by listeners for every show. A lot of it is quite good, very professional looking a