Your Paracast Newsletter — October 23, 2016

[Gene Steinberg]

Goes without saying. But we have to consider the downsides of every solution. Whatever we choose, we have to market the hell out of it to make it function. There is unrealized potential everywhere.

 

[Paul Kimball]

How so?

Paul, I know you are being helpful. You opened a discussion we have to have. But everything we consider has ups and downs and we have to look at both.

There's a model that works - subscription. It's really the only model that has any chance of working for you under the circumstances. It works for all sorts of people, in myriad sectors. Anyone who tells you otherwise is simply wrong.

Business success requires making hard decisions and moving forward, not spinning your wheels by taking public opinion polls and having prolonged online discussions (this one has been going on for years, and it's still happening here). Act in your own self-interest and do what is best for business. And in your situation (no network willing to pay you for your content), with the way the media world is structured today, that means a subscription model. Everything else is wishful thinking based on models that are dinosaurs.

 

[Gene Steinberg]

It's a matter of considering the consequences to the show, its audience, and potential guests. I'm not against subscriptions at all. We are halfway there with Paracast+. If we migrate enough listeners via that method, it could also create a climate to move the entire show in that direction. This is the sort of thing that we really have to consider the next move carefully. There is no backing out.

 

[marduk]

Goes without saying. But we have to consider the downsides of every solution. Whatever we choose, we have to market the hell out of it to make it function. There is unrealized potential everywhere.

Then what I would recommend is spinning up a new 'cast altogether. Not necessarily stopping the Paracast, but adding on.

And try out dumping the old-school format altogether. See what happens.

Maybe with a focus on current paranormal events, new research and findings, that kind of thing. Avoid having the regular folks on the show -- you know, the folks that are going to talk about who said what about an event from 50 years ago. That provides nothing new.

Use embedded ads, if you do advertising at all. Meaning, you or Chris talk about the companies that sponsor the show naturally.

Look to the future. New guests. New themes. New ideas. But with your history and wisdom that the others lack.

 

[Gene Steinberg]

Again, remember that if we go all subscription, over 99% of the listeners bail. If we give up subscriptions, we have to start from scratch and build up all over again. There's also the consequences to guest availability.

 

[Gene Steinberg]

Then what I would recommend is spinning up a new 'cast altogether. Not necessarily stopping the Paracast, but adding on.

And try out dumping the old-school format altogether. See what happens.

Maybe with a focus on current paranormal events, new research and findings, that kind of thing. Avoid having the regular folks on the show -- you know, the folks that are going to talk about who said what about an event from 50 years ago. That provides nothing new.

Use embedded ads, if you do advertising at all. Meaning, you or Chris talk about the companies that sponsor the show naturally.

Look to the future. New guests. New themes. New ideas. But with your history and wisdom that the others lack.

I'll talk to Chris about it, but there are only so many hours in the day. We don't give up what we do to start something new. But if it works, we can transition. Dumping the old altogether is risky, because if the new order fails, we're sunk — unless it's a separate venture.

 

[marduk]

I'll talk to Chris about it, but there are only so many hours in the day. We don't give up what we do to start something new. But if it works, we can transition. Dumping the old altogether is risky, because if the new order fails, we're sunk — unless it's a separate venture.

What I meant was with the new venture, don't use the old format. But keep doing the Paracast and Paracast+ as-is.

But I hear you -- there's only so many hours in the day.

That said... nothing ventured, nothing gained. If your current business model isn't working, you kinda have to try something new.

 

[Paul Kimball]

Again, remember that if we go all subscription, over 99% of the listeners bail.

You keep saying that, but how do you know? The answer is that you can't know. Maybe you lose 95%. Maybe only 90%

And you're looking at it backwards anyway. Don't view it as "losing" people, because those people aren't paying you anything anyway. Look at it as gaining an audience that will pay, and can serve as the foundation upon which you build a more successful business that can grow to your benefit.

As for guests, believe me - you'll never have a problem finding people who want to be on your show. It's the world we live in.

 

[Gene Steinberg]

I'm basing the 99% on Paracast+ where exclusive content and ad-free shows aren't enough to get a large audience. I'm also basing it on emails I've received, even though the vote here is in favor of paid.

We may end up going this direction. Just have to think carefully before jumping. It's a one-way street if we go all out.

 

[Paul Kimball]

Anyway, I don't really have a dog in this hunt. You have my advice, coming from the only person here, as far as I know, who is actually successfully employed in the media industry. Take it or leave it, as you see fit. Just understand that people who can't make a decision and won't embrace change as an opportunity are doomed to failure.

 

[Gene Steinberg]

Oh, we are going to make a decision soon. But I'm also waiting for the word on the podcast revenue sharing scheme to see if we can get a reliable source of income there. It's one step removed from terrestrial and networks, but still on a major network.

 

[technomage]

I like the idea of splitting content at least more evenly between Paracast and Paracast Plus. If you have more guests on Paracast Plus and make that show longer and reduce the length of the regular Paracast show, you may drop some free viewers who don't pay you anything and gain more subscribers, who would now want to pay to hear some of the guests. There are certain guests that appear infrequently or only on your show and those are great to put on Paracast Plus.

On another note, a way of having some kind of interactive session for Paracast Plus members would be nice, either through vidchat or even IM. So maybe Gene, Chris and guest are heard real-time and they look at an IM chat window answering live questions and having a more interactive discussion.

 

[marduk]

I'd go talk to these guys: 5by5 Studios - Wikipedia

They seem to put out a helluva lotta good content, and make money off of it. Not sure it's a ton, but maybe you could get on their network.

 

[Gene Steinberg]

Very niche, and not an obvious place to contact them and see if they'd consider a different sort of show. But I'm looking at all these places for ideas.

 

[Gene Steinberg]

Whatever we decide, I really need to work on the web design and the way premium shows are accessed. That way, whether Paracast+ or all-subscription, we can make it easy to sign up and easy to get the shows you want.

 

[Randall]

How so? Paul, I know you are being helpful. You opened a discussion we have to have. But everything we consider has ups and downs and we have to look at both.

Hey, I think @Paul Kimball makes some excellent points. I just think that making use of all possibilities without sacrificing the gains you've already made makes the most sense. This means a double edged approach, which is exactly what you're doing with The Paracast and The Paracast Plus. If as Paul says some dude can bring in 5K a month or more off a similar type podcast, you should be able to do the same with the P+, and even more.

I see so much potential with what you've got going, and I think all it needs is the right tweaking and promotion. I actually got an inclination a few weeks ago to start something along these lines and registered ufotalk.net to act as a promotional hub for shows like the Paracast and others. Today my horoscope says it's a bad day to enter into any joint ventures ( lol ), but given that you have no strings attached redistribution rights, I think that in the next few days we should talk about making The Paracast one of my first clients and the aim will be for us to both make some money without it having to cost you anything.

 

[Goggs Mackay]

Again, remember that if we go all subscription, over 99% of the listeners bail. If we give up subscriptions, we have to start from scratch and build up all over again. There's also the consequences to guest availability.

Not neccesarily Gene. Even though right now, a very small percentage subscribe, it is very possible that if the only way to get the main show was to subscribe, maybe there will be a sizeable number who feel obliged to actually subscribe after all - if they like the Paracast, but can no longer get it free, they may then decide that it is worth paying for - they don't currently feel the need cos they are getting it free and don't mind FF some ads.

I also think that the Paracast + members should be getting a much more substantial show for their money - as things stand, non-subscribers get access to the full main show and subscribing gets people an additional but much shorter and usually guest-less show. It should be the case that those paying get at least as much as the free show again, i.e a totally separate full-length show, of the quality of the original. Maybe ATP also thrown in.

Right now, subscribers are only getting the ads removed and ATP. They really deserve a regular ad-free full show.

Guys like Jim Harold and MU offer regular full shows and extras for subscribers, and these subscription-only shows usually keep the best stories and interviews, or 2nd half of interviews for plus members only. Bottom line, paying money every month really has to offer much more than the free show.

I am definitely not well-versed in this stuff, never mind being an expert and I only have my own opinion but what Paul K is saying makes sense; that in business when something isn't working, pretty drastic changes may be required, even if it upsets the applecart and risks a lot. The fact is, the current arrangement isn't fair to you and Chris - especially as you both give so much time to the show. If you aren't making even a living, you don't really have much to lose by trying something radically different?

I'll support the show no matter what. Also, as much as I do love the UFO topic, I think the show loses possible listeners because the ratio of UFO shows to crypto/ghost/parnormal investigation type stuff is pretty lop-sided. There are thousands of listeners wanting quality podcasts but for many, UFOs are a passing interest. Most of the current shows on TV are ghost-themed. Give the people a good what of what they want?

 

[Christopher O'Brien]

...I think another HUGE question is what product you can provide that isn't offered FOR FREE all over the internet today. UFO & Paranormal content is EVERYWHERE and totally free on the internet from the USA and the UK, plus Canada. So how do you differentiate YOUR show so that people want to subscribe? You now have so much free competition out there. Is the market saturated? What could you provide that others do not? Certainly it is NOT the After the Podcast segment which I honestly don't think enhances the show much at all.

We could tighten up the show accentuate the 'hard-hitting' interview approach. Ask questions that nobody else asks, no free passes, hit hard and challenge the guests more. Since many of the guests are my friends, it's hard to throw nasty fast balls, inside and tight to people you've known for years, but that is what has separated us from the pack for the past 10 years. We can go in that direction more---kinda accentuate the CBS "60-Minutes" hardball approach... Nobody else is using (or has used) this approach. Of course, getting guests for the show will prove more & more difficult....

 

[technomage]

We could tighten up the show accentuate the 'hard-hitting' interview approach. Ask questions that nobody else asks, no free passes, hit hard and challenge the guests more. Since many of the guests are my friends, it's hard to throw nasty fast balls, inside and tight to people you've known for years, but that is what has separated us from the pack for the past 10 years. We can go in that direction more---kinda accentuate the CBS "60-Minutes" hardball approach... Nobody else is using (or has used) this approach. Of course, getting guests for the show will prove more & more difficult....

I think you can ask good questions without the guests feeling like they're being grilled. I think you actually do that already. Harassing a guest causes them to shut up and turns the discussion into a debate, and then they never come back, which is not what I think you want.

 

[SheaOlmsford]

If all you want are fans that's great. But if you treat it as a business, often times being a bigger fish in a smaller pond (especially if you own the pond) is the way to go. I guess it's a question of whether you're doing it as a for-profit venture, because if you are the model you're using and the metrics you're using aren't working.

I would rather have 1,000 dedicated listeners pay me $7 a month than 100,000 listeners who paid me nothing, unless, as is the case for me, it's just a hobby.

I confess I just don't understand the attraction Gene appears to have for a large listener base when only a tiny percentage are contributing to their income. That is like a car dealership boasting about all the people who come on weekends to look at their cars and take test drives, even though only 1% ever buy anything. I've heard the argument that a large listening base attracts better guests, but is that true? Stanton Friedman is everywhere in podcast land on the internet. And can I be brutally honest? What has Stanton said that he hasn't said 10,000 times before? You could prepare a software program to randomly say "My Grey Basket", "Noisy Negativists", "My mind is made up, don't confuse me with facts", "MJ 12 documents", etc. Not to pick on Stanton. Browse the internet podcasts of your competitors. Steal their guests. Many of them are relatively unknown but entertaining. Consider giving up on the good old boys from the good old days. Very few people care about what happened in the 1950's. If you want to do a specialty show featuring ancient icons of the field, then do so and reminisce to your heart's content. Anyway, If your intent is to make money, then focusing on the large numbers that listen to the free version doesn't make much sense. If my local IMAX theater didn't charge for their movies, the place would be full constantly, but they would go bankrupt while boasting that they were the most popular theater in town!