Oh, you like podcasts?
Save this article to read it later.
Find this story in your accountsSaved for Latersection.
Those tools are expected to roll out to the general public next month.
However, Apples actual podcast subscription features are somewhat surprising in their shape and terms.
The cut drops down to 15% the following year onward.
Similarly tough is Apples stance towards who owns listener relationship.
Some podcast creators will likely find other points of concern in the offering.
Things are better these days, with some vendors offering smart-linking solutions, i.e.
tap the icon of the app you use and well automatically set it up.
Still, theres better flow, and then theresbutterflow, which is what Apple is offering here.
One semi-counterargument to consider at this point.
Okay, so, thats Apple and its subscription play.
Lets move on to the Swedes.
Which maybe they are, at least to some extent.
On a separate note, the Car Thinglooks pretty interesting.)
They throw out a lot!
There are three other key points of differentiation worth noting.
The first is price-setting.
Thats pretty constraining, frankly, and in contrast, Apple offers more flexibility.
The second is the fees.
This was confirmed this morning.
The third has to do with listener ownership.
The company has also set up a waitlist to gradually open access to more creators and publishers moving forward.
What does a podcast-creator ecosystem thats more dependent on Spotify from a facilitation standpoint mean for the open standard?
Indeed, those are the right questions to ask.
Its similarly easy to identify successful individual podcasts operating off membership support, a prominent example beingChapo Trap House.
A few reasons apply.
Podcast advertising seems likely to remain the dominant revenue channel for the industry.
Not all podcasts or podcast publishers are built for direct revenue.
But I do think they will bring change, likely of a more incremental or iterative sort.
Subscriptions werent Apples only podcast-related announcement of note last week.
A lifeline, perhaps?
One last thing on Spotify…
Which makes Ashley Carmansscoop over at The Vergeyesterday a little awkward.
Spotify declined to comment on this specific development.
The company will be sorted into the Stitcher brand, whichthe satellite radio giant acquired from E.W.
Scripps last year for around $300 million.
(For now, I should say.
This free flow could very well change in the future, should strategic imperatives shift.)
(RIP, my inbox.)
Is the podcast space losing something with this?
Mars reasons for selling to Stitcher were spelled out pretty clearlyin The New YorkTimes write-upfrom yesterday.
He told theTimess Reggie Ugwu:
What does it mean thatFacebook is getting into audio?
I dont know and I dont want to figure it out.
I feel at sea in this business in a way that I havent up to this point.
If the bag presents itself, and you feel this way, take the damn bag.
But the decision to sell to SiriusXMin particularis surprising to many, given Mars past indie ethos.
Inhis own Twitter threadannouncing the move yesterday, Mars seemed to preempt this read.
His belief here will have to stand up to corporate history.
SiriusXM is about creating cheap content with high marketability.
Thats a model that works for them.
But they will look at Romans operation which they now own, and gut it.
This is the first sports partnership for Clubhouse.
According to the email, two main product ideas are at the heart of this effort.
Together, Apple and Spotify represent more than half of NPR podcast listening.
This subscription effort marks a crucial shift for public radio.
(Ive written about this at length in the past; starthere.)
This interview, conducted last Friday, has been edited and condensed for clarity.
Hot Pod: Walk me through the big idea behind this subscription effort.
Joel Sucherman: Lets start at the very top.
HP: Could you explain what the subscription products embedded in this move will actually look like?
We think theres room for both those cases.
The stations will be receiving almost the entire amount of that membership.
I also want to reinforce the idea that this is not a hard and fast paywall.
We continue to feel very strongly that the content we produced should be freely available.
We continue to believe in the RSS standard and the open podcast economy.
And perhaps you should really think about the benefits of membership to that station.
HP: How are you determining the revenue splits?
Sucherman: Weve been working with the board on formulas that would deliver money to the right place.
HP: Im curious about your thoughts on the terms around Apple Podcasts Subscriptions.
How do you view that tradeoff?
Sucherman: So, Apple has been a great partner to NPR over the years.
They also have years of experience of processing back-end payments, satisfying frictionless transactions, dealing with customer service.
Thats no small thing.
Now, you also asked about the data.
Certainly, data is the lifeblood of membership.
Our goal is to reach as many people as we can.
That is still the public radio mission.
The fact that the [Apple] data will be opaque to us… Sucherman: This is a really important point we dont consider them different distribution points.
Would Apple have its own way of doing it?
Would Spotify have its own way?
HP: Whats the rollout timeline for these offerings?
Sucherman: Were pretty clear in terms of determining details on the cuts between NPR and member stations.
And by the end of the year, we hope to be ready with the NPR podcast membership bundle.
Lets say Im a small-to-middle-sized public radio station.
Lets say Im skittish about these shifts.
How would you assure me about my place in the public radio universe?
Its expensive to cover the world the way NPR does.
Calling all this an experiment is exactly right.
