The criticism begins today

Frank accuses me of being prepared to pollute and fence-in our podcasts by running ads in them. I expected this kind of feedback at some stage. Let's face it, with all of my hubris, someone was going to throw a tomato. Fortunately, I'm an arrogant sunufabitch, and when I'm right, I'm right.

That's right Frank. I'm personally here to kill your “podcasting season of love" by selling ads. I am pure evil. You think these sixes on my temple appeared by accident? Read The Book of Revelation buddy-boy.

Then I saw another mighty angel coming down from heaven. He was robed in a cloud, with a rainbow above his head; his face was like the sun, and his legs were like fiery pillars. He was holding a little white iPod Shuffle which lay turned on in his hand. He planted his right foot on the sea and his left foot on the land, and he gave a loud shout like the roar of a lion. When he shouted, the voices of the seven thunders spoke. And when the seven thunders spoke, I was about to write; but I heard a voice from heaven say, “Seal up what the seven thunders have said and do not write it down, for commercials have been inserted in podcasts and forever is the human race damned.”

Oh, by the way Frank, that isn't Adsense on your blog, is it? Join me brother, for we are both entering into eternal damnation.

 

Comments

[Michael Specht]

But you already "have" advertising in your shows. By the very nature of the content in many of the shows they are advertising. Here's why. After listening to Des I now know to look at Acer as a mainstream PC provider, I still had them in consumer land. Santon has me now purchasing Betsy and the Emperor for my kid. Richard on the Gadget show has me very interested in the new "Push to Share" technology for phones. I could go on all day. The challenge is to turn this into a revenue stream that does not drive your listeners away. Adam Curry has been talking about the same thing in today's (or yesterday if you are not in Oz) DSC.

But hey I am probably telling you and Mick how to suck eggs. :-)

[Phillip Malone]

Whooo, a bit touchy today.
As in other posts and on my blog, I don't have a problem with the ads, my problem is with the attitude that the current media (and radio and TV and record companies) are bad but we are going to be holyer then light. I have no problem with ads and understand if you and Mick are going to achieve what you want to, you are going need ads and not only ads but you probably have to be friendly to the people paying the ads, if you aren't they won't be around long.

Back on the being fed up with current media (I keep using media I think you know what I mean) I don't think you answered my question if you would be happy me re-publishing your podcasts with no ads (well when you have another sponsor other then "Possibly your Competitor" (can you guys clear up what this company does?)).

Just my 2 cents
Molly

[Cameron]

Molly, you aren't Frank, are you?
As for re-publishing our shows, we will license our shows under Creative Commons. You will be free to re-publish bits under certain conditions. Sign over your first-born, the usual thing.

Michael, sucking eggs is new to us, so all ideas welcome. We've been in corporate jobs sucking ass for the last ten years.

[pascoe]

I gotta say I'm with you Cam on this one. Frank talks about the ' “make it for love and give it away for free” nature of the current podcast ecosystem'.

I see podcasts far more as a 'provide intelligent, decent discussion and focus on niche or particular areas I care about' thing than a 'love and free' thing...

And of course Frank doesn't want ads in his podcasts - or is he just thinking of the old school style ads where the theory is 'blast everything to as many people as you can', as opposed to highly targeted ads to a particular demo/psychographic.

That does raise the point I guess: are you lads looking at placing ... "category" restrictions on which advertisers can advertise in which shows?

[Nicole Simon]

I think the category restrictions will be called 'ads for smart people'.

Hell, I go out surfing the web for clever made ads. They don't have to reach me, I search for them. Clever made advertisment, where clever means with benefit for me? No problem.

What most of us can't stand is this dumbed down blabla. So I assume.

[MattyT]

You can go and put ads in guys. But then I'll have to write some Tivo-like software to remove them. Shouldn't be too hard, already got most of the solution sorted out in my head! :)

The thing is, with ads, if they're interesting (amusing TV ads) or useful (Google adsense) and not overly intrusive then I'll tolerate them. I mean, I understand that they're an important revenue stream. So if you slip in short, targetted ads then it'll probably be OK, otherwise I'll create something to automatically remove them. And willingly share that software.

And don't forget there will be many other content providers out there. And some of them won't use ads. Given two media, one with ads, one without, which would you consume?

Cheers,
Matt

[Nicole Simon]

The one with the better content.
But that is probably just me.

[pascoe]

Amen Nicole. It's all about the content in media that cater to niche topics/audiences.

Related Nicole to your comment about interesting ads, I just ran some Roy Morgan (Asteroid) data to see if there's any difference in attitudes to advertising between heavy vs light vs non internet users.

Surprisingly, there wasn't much difference between any of the groups.

the only significant difference was 'heavy internet users - defined as using 8 times or more a week' were a bit LESS likely than All People to find TV ads more interesting than TV programs (in the order of 8% less likely), while non internet users were 16% MORE likely to find the ads more interesting than the programs.

Not too surprisingly (I think) is that approx 58% of ALL groups agreed with 'nearly all TV advertising annoys me', with around 80% of all groups agreeing that 'some tv advertising is devious' (whatever THAT means).

(all of these figures apply to Australian popln only)

[Richard Giles]

Speaking as a host of one of the shows, the way I see it, people will want to listen to a show, with or without adverts, if the content is really worth listening to. In fact, if it's really good, you might even be prepared to pay for it.

My plan is to make my shows worth while, and to achieve that I spend many hours a week trying my damnedest with this in mind. I send out emails teeing up interviews. I scour the internet looking for current news that I think will be interesting. I spend some time researching my subjects, whether they be people or gadgets, and then I spend a few hours recording and re-listening to make the show notes.

I'm hoping that a few small targeted interesting adverts (I like Nicole's 'ads for smart people' description) will be worth listening to, given the hours I've spent trying to make the show worthwhile to the listener.

[Marc Orchant]

Phillip/Molly:

"...and not only ads but you probably have to be friendly to the people paying the ads, if you aren't they won't be around long."

That may be the silliest thing I've read all day. Advertisers don't buy editorial if they have a product worth selling. They buy the right to reach an audience they believe will be interested in their product or service. Self-serving suck-up editorial is a smelly fish with an aroma most listeners will detect a mile away. It never works (for long anyway).

If you've actually listened to and read Mick and Cam's stuff you'd know that they're not "for sale" this way. They have a vision of finding a way to create a sustainable business around podcasting and that means creating a revenue stream that is also sustainable.

At the Weblogs, Inc. network where I write two blogs and contribute to a number of others, we sell ads, create great content, and exercise ethical behavior in keeping the two separate, just as it's always been done in successful media companies. We have 70+ blogs written by professionals who have passion for their subject matter and not one of them is "for sale".

I have come to know Cameron pretty well and nothing he has ever said or done suggests he has anything other than the same in mind. Instead of assuming the worst, with nothing to support your suspicions or conjecture, why don't you reserve judgment and see what The Podcast Network does to create an ad-supported model?

[Ewan]

Simples maths means that with 100 shows, at 1mb each, with 100,000 listeners is... AUS$$$$$$$. So either the hosts pay (nope), the end listener pays (which is possible, and something a lot of people missed) or a third party pays for time with the listener. On balance, more people will hear more words on more mp3 players using method three.

The trick is balance serving those ads with the irritation factor. Given that the switching cost to move to another 'cast is virtually zero for the ened user, Cam and Mick HAVE to do this right, or they don;t get anyone listening to Show Plus One.

[Rob Barac]

Put the ads in.

Make some money but don't piss me off with more than 1:10 ratio of ads to conetent per minute.

To the altruists... stop living on your trust fund or in your parents basement.

[Christian Payne]

My wife loves junk mail. She loves going through all the trashy catalogues we get in our letterbox.

Why? Because its non invasive and its in a format she can easily absorb.

Why do google ads work? Similar, non invasive and easily digested.

Maybe Frank doesn't want it, but I don't mind listening to ads if its done in a passive format...