I like the Patreon idea, those that want to can donate, but it isn’t linked directly to a show, so everybody can still enjoy the show, whether they donate or not.
The world has moved on since Leo’s tip-jar. Maybe it could work this time around, now that more people are more used to paying for content.
The times are a changing. Just hope you and Lisa can find a way to navigate these changes to keep TWiT viable. Some creative thinking needed. DON’T JUST ROLL OVER AND SAY “Well, the market has spoken.”
Just a hypothetical here and if you don’t want to share this I understand. If TWiT were 100% viewer financed what would you have to charge per month assuming all current listeners/viewers subscribed? Are we talking Hulu price or Comcast cable price?
You’ve said repeatedly that “we” don’t want to be tracked. I don’t recall being asked if I wanted that or not. I really don’t care. What data do sponsors want? Can you add those questions to your survey? Can you do the survey more than once a year? How can we (the viewers) give them what they want without completely taking our clothes off (as it were.)
Lot of smart people in this community. What’s it going to take?
But it is generally a very tech aware audience and I would guess a large minority, if not a majority, wouldn’t want to be tracked.
Now’s not the time for guesses. Pretend this is your business and if you don’t change in 3-6 months it’s going down. What you going do?
What you’re NOT going to do is violate your customer’s expectations and expect them to stick with you through thick and thin. If TWiT becomes a product that requires my active participation in selling my privacy, then TWiT becomes a producer I would no longer respect or deal with. For example I stopped (as in hard stop, and block) reading Engadget because I couldn’t go to their site without accepting 3rd party cookies and scripts.
I would suggest that TWiT keep their sponsors but add a premium tier to support shows that don’t have quite enough (or any) sponsors. TWiT would get to do more shows they like, we’d all get to see them, sponsors would still get exposure… Everybody wins. Oh well, something to think about anyway.
"We have met the enemy, and they are us! We don’t want to pay, and we don’t want to be tracked. (We have forgotten there is a OFF switch)
Luckily there are other choices despite the fact you just implied it’s binary. TWiT has worked for more than a decade in one of these other choices, no paying and not tracking. The issue is not us consumers, it is the advertisers, and their INSANE belief that tracking makes advertising any more effective… when as many people can clearly relate, you have to buy a product before its f**king ads start tracking you.
@PHolder cool your jets a bit. I’m not advocating anything. Trying to get a brainstorming session going here. Totally respect your opinion. I’m not advocating anything other than knowledge. You don’t want to be tracked. Fine. I don’t care. Are there enough others that feel like me? We don’t know. Maybe there could be multiple options for us to pick from in order to help support TWiT.
I wonder if some of it is trying to split advertising dollars across too many shows.
I pretty much only listen to WW and TWiT. I used to listen to TWiG, Security Now, and HamNation more but when my available time dropped, they were the ones I cut.
But the landscape has changed and TWiT probably needs to change with it. The customer (defined as who is actually paying for the product, which is the advertiser) may be wrong, but they are still the customer.
Well… I don’t have any answers for the advertisers, hoping to improve their ad tracking to attempt to prove they are working. All I can say is “direct” advertising doesn’t work for me. I realize the advertising driven model has taken TWiT to where it is today, but it wasn’t because of me.
I find ads to be an annoyance and quickly skip them when possible or tune them out when not possible. An advertiser who finds a way to somehow track me more closely is going to find that I will INTENTIONALLY choose a different or more expensive product because I have bad blood for a company who has abused my trust. My willingness to purchase a product that Leo “recommends” in an ad is based on other factors than the content of the ad. I don’t just believe a product is great because someone tells me it is. There needs to be a preponderance of good feedback on the product. My friends might have to recommend it to me (or at least not recommend me away from it) and it has to come from a company that has a good pedigree.
I don’t often, or ever, make “snap” purchases. And when I decide to choose the product I end up choosing, if it works out well, I let others in my circle know. If it doesn’t work out well, I let anyone who will listen know. [Good] Word of mouth is the best advertising possible as far as I am concerned. I wonder how “unique” my perspective is… if most people are easily swayed by an ad, or not?
What would you think about crowd funding a mobile studio (RV) so the show could be able to move around?
(I’m kinda kidding and not…)
If most of our costs are energy perhaps a crowd-sourced solar PV system to offset the power you use at the office. (Perhaps through the power output system of an EV? excuse to get an EV with that feature or build one…) 
If i’m not mistaken didn’t you have a donate option on the site or/why is that gone? (okay i can’t find one)
Wow this thread had me worried . Twig (not really a Google show which helps it) is one of my unmissable shows every week. Jeff and Stacey and leo are great and the show stills.holds when leo goes on holiday.
Personally who ever employs the hosts (Lisa or leo) know how to employ . There’s many podcasts out there with hosts just chatting the facts with no arguments or there own take on the news
No offense to the other hosts, but Triangulation episodes weren’t the same without you. Denise had some very good episodes where she could lean into her legal background, but most of the time when you weren’t there it really felt like going to a game where the backups are getting a chance to play. I love the other hosts in their regular shows, but having someone with decades of experience in technology and media as well as the accompanying skills in interviewing made a real difference.
I think @Leo has recently quoted $12MM in revenue, so let’s say it was $10M. That would require $100 per year from 100k listeners. The last hard numbers I can recall as far as listeners was in the 1.5MM range (global monthly unique listeners) but that was probably five or so years ago. Let’s say it is 2MM now; that would mean converting 5% of monthly listeners to a $100 per year subscription. I assume TWiT could come up with tiers that would allow some super-fans to pay more (and thus some to pay less). I could see the team exploring this if ad revenue continues to be a challenge, but I don’t see it replacing ads, only supplementing lost ad revenue.
I wonder if it isn’t just less of a headache working with the ad model. You can have a few dedicated sales people, and there is a huge industry built around this in place. All you need to do is land a few deals and you’re set. Not that it is easy, but it might be preferable to building up revenue one subscriber at a time. And there is also an understood separation between the sales/ad team and the content/editorial team that advertisers understand and respect. You can buy an ad but that doesn’t mean you get to dictate the content of the shows. I wonder if it is harder to draw that line when you rely on individual subscribers.
Excellent scenario as long as you can see the light at the end of the tunnel I don’t see it given that ad people have salivated forever for the kind of data they now have.
That was for TWiT???
I’d pay $100/year for TWiT especially if it meant if I didn’t it would go away.
Remember Paul Allen threw in the towel on us many years ago. Our numbers did not support that business model. I know we are comparing apples to oranges, however I still believe its worth keeping in mind.