3 ms·
The ads currently narrated by the podcasters are gold. If I was an advertiser I would want that more than anything. The ads are generally very well suited/tar
by sonnyblarney 8y ago
The ads currently narrated by the podcasters are gold.
If I was an advertiser I would want that more than anything.
The ads are generally very well suited/targeted to the audience, and they are strongly legitimized by the podcaster.
When Joe Rogan hustles 'monthly razors' he makes it very personal, talks about his own use, emotionally slams the 'dumb alternatives'. It's 10x better than a pre-recorded spot.
It's much closer to sponsorship than ads, and it's worth it.
The issue is really one of scale ... but given the advertiser doesn't have to do anything but write a few sentences of copy and then pick some podcasts and negotiate a price ... I think the scale issue is not so bad.
- pfranz 8y agoI think it's a business evolution thing. You can see live reads from TV shows in the 50s (and radio). Later on you see "presenting sponsors," which I'm now seeing more and more in podcasts. As it becomes more of a commodity I can see it moving to pluggable ads. I like the podcasts are niche. I heard someone point out the other day that companies investing big in podcasts are putting their money in talent and content and usually have poorer encoding, metadata, and shownotes compared to the smaller podcasts.
- nil_pointer 8y agoThese type of ads aren't anything new, popular talk-radio hosts have done personalized ad spots for decades.
- sleavey 8y agoAds where the presenter speaks them and says how they have personally enjoyed the product make me suspicious. Is it really true that you enjoyed the razors or the meal kits more than any of the competition? Or are you giving it false legitimy for the sake of money? Unfortunately I feel it detracts from the professionalism and journalistic independence of the shows.
- sonnyblarney 8y ago"make me suspicious. " That's fine but they don't make most other people suspicious. Is the point.