4 ms·

> Honestly I find an adblock for podcasts a total dick move If you expect payment for a service, give your "customers" an opportunity to support you directly.

> Honestly I find an adblock for podcasts a total dick move If you expect payment for a service, give your "customers" an opportunity to support you directly. It can be a premium account, merchandise, or even a simple donation service. Don't force your "customers" to become the product. I don't see why podcasts should get a pass.

drewg123 8y ago
The annoying thing is that I like NPR podcasts, and donate to NPR. However, they don't have any premium option AFAIK.
smilesnd 8y ago
Their is a difference between ads and forcing someone to be a product. The tracking software in JS ads is what turns someone into a product in my opinion.
the_watcher 8y ago
Many podcasts actually do offer this, either via a Patreon or something like Stitcher Premium. One podcast I listen to (and subscribe to their Patreon) has mentioned that only ~10% of their listeners subscribe and that ads are a much larger source of revenue for them (even doubling subscribers wouldn't make up for this gap).
- Marsymars 8y ago
  > One podcast I listen to (and subscribe to their Patreon) has mentioned that only ~10% of their listeners subscribe and that ads are a much larger source of revenue for them (even doubling subscribers wouldn't make up for this gap). This is interesting, but isn't be an argument against offering a pay-for option. I expect the paying subscribers are more valuable per user, so any user you convert to paying increases your revenue.
  - the_watcher 8y ago
    I agree, I like that they offer a paid option. I just also understand why they're not eliminating the ad supported version.
umvi 8y ago
> If you expect payment for a service, give your "customers" an opportunity to support you directly. ...but if that option isn't available, that makes stealing ok? "Hmm, I like this podcast but I don't like the ads. There's no premium support option. Therefore... I will consume the content of the podcast without the ads." I find this line of thinking a bit immoral, to be honest. The moral option is to not listen to the podcast. And before you jump on me asking if its immoral to go to the bathroom during a TV ad break, I'm talking strictly about algorithmic ad-blocking. It would be like if I had a place setup where you can get a copy of one of my indie video games I've been privately developing after watching an ad. My place has no option to flat out pay for copies of my indie games. But... you really like my indie games so you decide it's okay to just walk in and steal copies of my indie games until I provide you with an option to pay for them.
- nikk1 8y ago
  I agree. IMO, using an adblock is not very different from online piracy. The consumer is robbing the content creator of any kind of profit from their creative work. What is so hard about manually skipping the first 1 minute of the podcast? Or turning down the volume for a while? If we all start using audio adblockers, advertisers will then develop adblock detectors for podcasts. Then, it is likely we will get completely unskippable ads. The only moral options are to 1) Power through the ads (or fast forward through them) so that you may listen to the podcast for free 2) Become a premium user to skip the ads (unfortunately this isn't always an option) 3) Don't listen to the podcast
  - jorosp 8y ago
    I don't understand. Why is manually fast-forwarding through ads morally okay, but using an automated adblock is not?
- yoavm 8y ago
  Not listening to the ads is so far from stealing, I am almost not sure if you're serious. It's my right to decide whether to rewind a minute, to lower the volume, to skip a whole boring episode etc'. It's also my right to process the content with an app that modifies it, for my own use.

drewg123 8y ago

The annoying thing is that I like NPR podcasts, and donate to NPR. However, they don't have any premium option AFAIK.

smilesnd 8y ago

Their is a difference between ads and forcing someone to be a product. The tracking software in JS ads is what turns someone into a product in my opinion.

the_watcher 8y ago

Many podcasts actually do offer this, either via a Patreon or something like Stitcher Premium. One podcast I listen to (and subscribe to their Patreon) has mentioned that only ~10% of their listeners subscribe and that ads are a much larger source of revenue for them (even doubling subscribers wouldn't make up for this gap).

Marsymars 8y ago
> One podcast I listen to (and subscribe to their Patreon) has mentioned that only ~10% of their listeners subscribe and that ads are a much larger source of revenue for them (even doubling subscribers wouldn't make up for this gap). This is interesting, but isn't be an argument against offering a pay-for option. I expect the paying subscribers are more valuable per user, so any user you convert to paying increases your revenue.
- the_watcher 8y ago
  I agree, I like that they offer a paid option. I just also understand why they're not eliminating the ad supported version.

umvi 8y ago

> If you expect payment for a service, give your "customers" an opportunity to support you directly. ...but if that option isn't available, that makes stealing ok? "Hmm, I like this podcast but I don't like the ads. There's no premium support option. Therefore... I will consume the content of the podcast without the ads." I find this line of thinking a bit immoral, to be honest. The moral option is to not listen to the podcast. And before you jump on me asking if its immoral to go to the bathroom during a TV ad break, I'm talking strictly about algorithmic ad-blocking. It would be like if I had a place setup where you can get a copy of one of my indie video games I've been privately developing after watching an ad. My place has no option to flat out pay for copies of my indie games. But... you really like my indie games so you decide it's okay to just walk in and steal copies of my indie games until I provide you with an option to pay for them.

nikk1 8y ago
I agree. IMO, using an adblock is not very different from online piracy. The consumer is robbing the content creator of any kind of profit from their creative work. What is so hard about manually skipping the first 1 minute of the podcast? Or turning down the volume for a while? If we all start using audio adblockers, advertisers will then develop adblock detectors for podcasts. Then, it is likely we will get completely unskippable ads. The only moral options are to 1) Power through the ads (or fast forward through them) so that you may listen to the podcast for free 2) Become a premium user to skip the ads (unfortunately this isn't always an option) 3) Don't listen to the podcast
- jorosp 8y ago
  I don't understand. Why is manually fast-forwarding through ads morally okay, but using an automated adblock is not?
yoavm 8y ago
Not listening to the ads is so far from stealing, I am almost not sure if you're serious. It's my right to decide whether to rewind a minute, to lower the volume, to skip a whole boring episode etc'. It's also my right to process the content with an app that modifies it, for my own use.