I get you doing a separate project with separate staff and separate subscription. What I’m a bit confused about using SB staff for the Podcast. Are they going to be paid extra for the work on the podcast ? How is SB subscription not essentially subsidizing the podcast without giving us the benefit? Wouldn’t it make sense, at the very least, to offer existing subscribers a substantial discount?
We’re charging for this podcast precisely because we don’t think Slow Boring readers who aren’t interested in a podcast should have to subsidize one. And if we had to hire an entirely separate staff, we’d probably have to charge more. Your concern for staff is touching, but I can assure you that when anyone works additional hours, they are, in fact, paid for their time.
As someone who wouldn't have been bothered at all with paying a cross subsidy for a feature that I'm less likely to listen to, I nonetheless very much appreciate that the Slow Boring HQ is being considerate in this regard. I think the decision that's been made here is quite reasonable.
-hopping on the bundle bandwagon here: Not suggesting Matt and Kate give away the farm but if they're gonna give 30% off for a year prepay, at least let it be 40% or 50% for a year prepay if you already sub to SB or something.
I'd be more likely to sub for this if there was the earnest pledge to do more than one podcast a week as we get into important segments of the season - near the primaries, conventions and then in September October, etc.
But very glad to have matt coming back to the pod world!
Will definitely check it out, but would honestly be more stoked for a Slow Boring podcast. There's a glut of election podcasting, less so with sober-minded-yet-entertaining policy deep dives.
I got legit spooked when I woke up this morning and saw Trump hair on a logo at the top of the Slow Boring feed. It took me many non-caffeinated seconds to figure out that there were also aviator sunglasses, and what they meant. It's funny how seemingly bold it is to already declare Biden and Trump the nominees when it is also painfully obvious that that rematch is going to happen, due to how badly so many don't want it to be either of them.
Anyway, congrats Matt and Brian, and best of luck! I've never been much of a podcast person, but to those who are and are looking for some top level election talk, I'll forward them your way!
A subtlety: it is not clear to me how many voters want neither of Biden or Trump to be the nominee.
What I see more often reported is how many Americans are dissatisfied with a *rematch*, which is not the same thing. For example, I am dissatisfied with the rematch because I am very very very dissatisfied with the GOP sticking with Donald Trump. However, I am generally satisfied with Biden's 2024 run.
In all one-on-one Democratic polling, Joe Biden beats everybody but Michelle Obama.
The "nobody wants Biden as the Democratic nominee" thing is the same as the 3rd party thing. There are a lot of people who don't want Biden as the nominee, but prefer him over any alternative, because Gen. Eric Democrat isn't around.
Yeah, when I say "so many", I'm obviously working within a bubble here that's close to the Slow Boring bubble, but by no means limited to it. I think it's safe to say that ~40% of voters very specifically want Donald Trump to be president, and that will be borne out in the upcoming noncompetitive bloodbath of the GOP primary. I don't think there's anywhere near that percentage that specifically want Joe Biden, just someone that can defeat Trump, who they of course want to go away. That's a sizeable chunk, but not overwhelmingly so.
Are you going to include some sort of transcript for the podcastily challenged? I don’t have nearly as much listening time as reading and I feel that I miss too much with a 2x fast play.
My recommendation would be to post the transcripts as independent Slow Boring treads - so in addition to the main AM post and open PM post. That way it can consolidate the discussion (i.e., if someone listens later they can come back to the discussion vs. the PM tread becoming a defacto pod discussion thread) and also seems fair for the SB subscribers that don't end up subscribing to the new pod but want to ~ track Matt's thinking.
I'm a little reluctant, because I'm worried a podcast solely devoted to the 2024 election will end making me feel a lot of anxiety over something that realistically I can't do anything about.
Is there a sense for how much this is going to be a presidential/federal focus versus how much it might delve into state elections and ballot initiatives and such to tell me about candidates or questions I didn't even know about?
Yeah I’m out sorry, won’t be renewing my slow boring sub. I think it’s a big mistake not including the podcast in the sub. I think it’s always going to be hard for one writer to generate enough content for a stand-alone sub and writers should be looking for ways to add value rather than further split their output into other revenue streams.
Even with someone as prolific as MY, it just doesn’t feel good value to be paying a monthly sub for only a portion of a person’s output.
Obviously YMMV and it’s Matt’s decision and the market will decide.
If you go to sign up, you'll see it's $50 for the year or $6/month. I already paid, but I hope I don't miss out on some great year-end-2024 content because I jumped the gun!
This sparked a quick thought for me. I believe Matt has talked before about how many media companies are learning is that a subscription-based model is still the best way to be profitable even in the online era (might be misremembering this a bit, but that's the gist). Seems like this is a lesson Matt is taking to the podcasting world. I'm curious if we might see other podcasters or musicians start to move towards a direct sale model rather than streaming?
I think you are already seeing this in the podcast space as the same forces that devalued web display advertising (algorithmic targeting, automatic insertion, content glut) have started to cut away at the value of podcast ads too.
Ben Thompson of Stratechery thinks that Spotify will successfully roll up the market for podcast algorithmic ads, similar to what Google did to banner ads 20 years ago. He said it's a fragmented market wide-open for a centralized platform, and that Spotify seems to have the inside track in doing so so far. Maybe that will drive down individual ad prices, not sure
Is this market segmentation? That is: will Slow Boring will now consciously avoid discussions of the election, or can I still get 2024 content (when warranted) here?
It looks like the previous version of Politix is on there now (along with some teases for 2024), so I'm assuming yes for the preview episodes at least? Maybe not full the full subscription ones, because I'm not sure how that authentication works with Spotify.
I managed to listen to the trailer episode on the private RSS feed, so it all seems to be working in Pocket Casts.
I like that substack podcasts have a private RSS feed even for non-paying subscribers, so you can be confident it all works before you put down any money, and then the paid content just drops into the same feed.
Looking forward to the two free episodes and then I'll probably drop the forty quid (which I assume is fifty bucks?) for the full year
I get you doing a separate project with separate staff and separate subscription. What I’m a bit confused about using SB staff for the Podcast. Are they going to be paid extra for the work on the podcast ? How is SB subscription not essentially subsidizing the podcast without giving us the benefit? Wouldn’t it make sense, at the very least, to offer existing subscribers a substantial discount?
We’re charging for this podcast precisely because we don’t think Slow Boring readers who aren’t interested in a podcast should have to subsidize one. And if we had to hire an entirely separate staff, we’d probably have to charge more. Your concern for staff is touching, but I can assure you that when anyone works additional hours, they are, in fact, paid for their time.
As someone who wouldn't have been bothered at all with paying a cross subsidy for a feature that I'm less likely to listen to, I nonetheless very much appreciate that the Slow Boring HQ is being considerate in this regard. I think the decision that's been made here is quite reasonable.
Good content on the internet is just going to cost money at this point. But yeah a bundle would be nice!
-hopping on the bundle bandwagon here: Not suggesting Matt and Kate give away the farm but if they're gonna give 30% off for a year prepay, at least let it be 40% or 50% for a year prepay if you already sub to SB or something.
I'd be more likely to sub for this if there was the earnest pledge to do more than one podcast a week as we get into important segments of the season - near the primaries, conventions and then in September October, etc.
But very glad to have matt coming back to the pod world!
I'm a fan of the Maximum Fun concept: You subscribe to the network, and you get to select a couple different podcasts that get your money.
Will definitely check it out, but would honestly be more stoked for a Slow Boring podcast. There's a glut of election podcasting, less so with sober-minded-yet-entertaining policy deep dives.
I got legit spooked when I woke up this morning and saw Trump hair on a logo at the top of the Slow Boring feed. It took me many non-caffeinated seconds to figure out that there were also aviator sunglasses, and what they meant. It's funny how seemingly bold it is to already declare Biden and Trump the nominees when it is also painfully obvious that that rematch is going to happen, due to how badly so many don't want it to be either of them.
Anyway, congrats Matt and Brian, and best of luck! I've never been much of a podcast person, but to those who are and are looking for some top level election talk, I'll forward them your way!
It's going to be very embarrassing for us if it turns out to be Dean Philips vs Nikki Haley
A subtlety: it is not clear to me how many voters want neither of Biden or Trump to be the nominee.
What I see more often reported is how many Americans are dissatisfied with a *rematch*, which is not the same thing. For example, I am dissatisfied with the rematch because I am very very very dissatisfied with the GOP sticking with Donald Trump. However, I am generally satisfied with Biden's 2024 run.
In all one-on-one Democratic polling, Joe Biden beats everybody but Michelle Obama.
The "nobody wants Biden as the Democratic nominee" thing is the same as the 3rd party thing. There are a lot of people who don't want Biden as the nominee, but prefer him over any alternative, because Gen. Eric Democrat isn't around.
Yeah, when I say "so many", I'm obviously working within a bubble here that's close to the Slow Boring bubble, but by no means limited to it. I think it's safe to say that ~40% of voters very specifically want Donald Trump to be president, and that will be borne out in the upcoming noncompetitive bloodbath of the GOP primary. I don't think there's anywhere near that percentage that specifically want Joe Biden, just someone that can defeat Trump, who they of course want to go away. That's a sizeable chunk, but not overwhelmingly so.
Honestly I thought it was an allusion to the Wallstreetbets mascot.
Are you going to include some sort of transcript for the podcastily challenged? I don’t have nearly as much listening time as reading and I feel that I miss too much with a 2x fast play.
We will!
My recommendation would be to post the transcripts as independent Slow Boring treads - so in addition to the main AM post and open PM post. That way it can consolidate the discussion (i.e., if someone listens later they can come back to the discussion vs. the PM tread becoming a defacto pod discussion thread) and also seems fair for the SB subscribers that don't end up subscribing to the new pod but want to ~ track Matt's thinking.
Have a like for “podcastly challenged”
I'm a little reluctant, because I'm worried a podcast solely devoted to the 2024 election will end making me feel a lot of anxiety over something that realistically I can't do anything about.
Is there a sense for how much this is going to be a presidential/federal focus versus how much it might delve into state elections and ballot initiatives and such to tell me about candidates or questions I didn't even know about?
Yeah I’m out sorry, won’t be renewing my slow boring sub. I think it’s a big mistake not including the podcast in the sub. I think it’s always going to be hard for one writer to generate enough content for a stand-alone sub and writers should be looking for ways to add value rather than further split their output into other revenue streams.
Even with someone as prolific as MY, it just doesn’t feel good value to be paying a monthly sub for only a portion of a person’s output.
Obviously YMMV and it’s Matt’s decision and the market will decide.
Has the price of the Podcast subscription been mentioned yet? Or is the price still to be determined?
If you go to sign up, you'll see it's $50 for the year or $6/month. I already paid, but I hope I don't miss out on some great year-end-2024 content because I jumped the gun!
Thank you!
This sparked a quick thought for me. I believe Matt has talked before about how many media companies are learning is that a subscription-based model is still the best way to be profitable even in the online era (might be misremembering this a bit, but that's the gist). Seems like this is a lesson Matt is taking to the podcasting world. I'm curious if we might see other podcasters or musicians start to move towards a direct sale model rather than streaming?
I think you are already seeing this in the podcast space as the same forces that devalued web display advertising (algorithmic targeting, automatic insertion, content glut) have started to cut away at the value of podcast ads too.
Ben Thompson of Stratechery thinks that Spotify will successfully roll up the market for podcast algorithmic ads, similar to what Google did to banner ads 20 years ago. He said it's a fragmented market wide-open for a centralized platform, and that Spotify seems to have the inside track in doing so so far. Maybe that will drive down individual ad prices, not sure
Very little I would want more than this pairing of hosts. Good luck!
Thanks!
I'm so happy
While I liked your entire run on the Weeds will SB subscribers get any "free" episodes to determine if they want to subscribe?
Jim
> But if you like Slow Boring, I hope you’ll at least check out the first two episodes, which will be free.
Is this market segmentation? That is: will Slow Boring will now consciously avoid discussions of the election, or can I still get 2024 content (when warranted) here?
Will this be able to work on Spotify? Was never able to get the private feed of the SB episodes working there
It looks like the previous version of Politix is on there now (along with some teases for 2024), so I'm assuming yes for the preview episodes at least? Maybe not full the full subscription ones, because I'm not sure how that authentication works with Spotify.
What is the expected frequency of the podcast?
As we mentioned above, new episodes will be out weekly, on Wednesdays!
I managed to listen to the trailer episode on the private RSS feed, so it all seems to be working in Pocket Casts.
I like that substack podcasts have a private RSS feed even for non-paying subscribers, so you can be confident it all works before you put down any money, and then the paid content just drops into the same feed.
Looking forward to the two free episodes and then I'll probably drop the forty quid (which I assume is fifty bucks?) for the full year
Will this work with overcast and other rss based players?
Yes all substack podcasts do. You can import the free episodes right now to verify