Viewing: Notes » We're only in it for the money?
We're only in it for the money?
(2 minute read.)
A question of balance.
Page 1 2
Is there a case for show hosts to be paid?
As we've said before… yes, of course.
Certainly for those who have good content of their own, or an existing audience (which'll help build ours). And also those whose shows become popular and develop a regular audience.
It's something we'll introduce as soon as we can. (So if you're interested, let's speak.)
A less-than-straightforward issue, relevant factors include…
Our airtime can't be free to hosts because it has value in providing them with exposure and kudos.
And the curated content we provide increases this.
But good content has value too… so when provided by hosts that shouldn't be free either, and we should pay.
Likewise if they're bringing an audience.
Simplistically… we (hosts and ourselves) should both pay and be paid for the value of whatever each other is providing.
There's a trade-off which will vary with specific circumstances.
And it's something I don't yet know how to do fairly. Which is why we're opening with this 'pay to play' thing… oriented toward would-be hosts who don't have existing content or audience, and hence will benefit from what we're offering.
This 'curated' service maintains quality and is good for listeners, and provides hosts with good content and exposure at a cost that's so-low as to be almost insignificant.
Hell, at a notional $50 for an hour of airtime the value is clear…
Even with cpm-rates as low as $10, hosts would have to pay that-and-more for ads which bring much less exposure and recognition. (With as few as 5,000 listeners, just a single 15-second slot would cost what they'll pay for an hour airtime, and even with a thousand listeners a host would pay more for a minute-and-a-half ad than for a whole show.)
Added October 18 2018 by g.
NEXT: Let's make a deal?
PREVIOUS: Feed me.
ARCHIVE: View all (95) »
Never miss a Note… get updates by email or rss.