Phuein Posted April 21, 2014 Posted April 21, 2014 inb4 "no annoying commercial breaks"... How come you, Stefan, don't advertise for products and companies you support? For example, Joe Rogan does it for a few minutes in the beginning of each podcast, without interfering with the rest of the show. It makes sense to start the call-in shows with a quick minute (half a minute?) of advertising for a specific product, or author, which you generally support, and want their success. This would be beneficial to them, and gain the show more funds.
sagiquarius Posted April 21, 2014 Posted April 21, 2014 I dunno how effective that would be. As a long time listener to podcasts and all sorts of media, I generally ignore advertising, even in the form you mention, because it's almost always not something that interests me or relevant. If Stef needs to seek financial support from sponsors (because donations aren't enough or whatever), what message do you think the listeners are sending to Stef about the importance of the work he is doing? If donations are "enough", but Stef still seeks financial support from sponsors, what message do you think that might send to the listeners? Personally, I don't want to hear 30-60 second ad spots on the podcasts or call-in shows. If I were Stef, I wouldn't feel comfortable doing that. I think I'd struggle with a feeling of it almost cheapening the importance of the conversation vs the benefit of the money from the sponsors.
dsayers Posted April 21, 2014 Posted April 21, 2014 How come you, Stefan, don't advertise for products and companies you support? I think he does this all the time as relevant. From being open about hardware/software he uses, to promoting other people's alternative media outlets, to inviting the philosophy-minded to make use of the FDR community, to flat out offering to pay for somebody's therapy.
nathanm Posted April 21, 2014 Posted April 21, 2014 • Unfair to existing donators (double dipping) • Makes FDR beholden to advertisers rather than listeners • Does not fit into the long-established model of get free stuffdonate voluntarily • Aesthetically would feel cheap and weird But like dsayers said (he's a sayer, he says things) there is already built-in advertising for various stuff which is the best kind of advertising. But then, it wouldn't hurt to wear an ACME Scalp Wax t-shirt every now and then I suppose.
Freedomain Posted April 21, 2014 Posted April 21, 2014 • Unfair to existing donators (double dipping) • Makes FDR beholden to advertisers rather than listeners • Does not fit into the long-established model of get free stuffdonate voluntarily • Aesthetically would feel cheap and weird But like dsayers said (he's a sayer, he says things) there is already built-in advertising for various stuff which is the best kind of advertising. But then, it wouldn't hurt to wear an ACME Scalp Wax t-shirt every now and then I suppose. This. Also what would you rather I work on, trying to sell advertisments or producing a video that will do 200,000 views which will lead to X number of people parenting peacefully?
dsayers Posted April 22, 2014 Posted April 22, 2014 This. Also what would you rather I work on, trying to sell advertisments or producing a video that will do 200,000 views which will lead to X number of people parenting peacefully? Peaceful parenting please. I probably won't be around to see a free society, but I want it anyways.
ribuck Posted April 22, 2014 Posted April 22, 2014 The ads are already there, for Bitcoin, for his books, for peaceful parenting, etc.
Phuein Posted April 22, 2014 Author Posted April 22, 2014 If this is really an action that would detract from the show, as it is, then I agree it would be a bad move. But, I don't quite see the proof. Donors would enjoy Stef' getting more funding. This is why they donated, in the first place. To support the show. Keeping the commercializing minimal, unobtrusive (if indeed possible), and passive (by request), means that it will not detract from the show. Actually getting paid for his promotions would be more viable, than free promotions. If I am misunderstanding, and the voluntaristic business model of the show is strictly on purpose (putting ads' on a new show makes less sense, after all), then the other arguments would seem irrelevant (for both sides), and that would be it for this question.
Melissa McWilliams Posted April 23, 2014 Posted April 23, 2014 Agreed with the other guys. I make most of my living off graphics design, and the purpose of my site is to bring in high quality business. When I see ads on another designer's website, it tells me one of two things: I am not a successful designer and need to rely upon scraping up pennies from occasional ad leads to others' businesses. I am a successful designer but am willing to sacrifice my professional aesthetic image and my clients' tastes to rake in a tiny amount of extra money.
kalmia Posted May 11, 2014 Posted May 11, 2014 There is a way to monetize without advertising. It's through upselling some other service. This is a model many Internet businesses use. They offer a free service and use it to build a base of potential customers to sell some paid service to. I think Stefan only sees advertising and pay per download as the only way to monetize, although to be fair, he does offer premium podcasts for subscribers. I think there are other upsells he could make. Eventually have paid private sessions for example.
Recommended Posts