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.
NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!
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.
Then what I would recommend is spinning up a new 'cast altogether. Not necessarily stopping the Paracast, but adding on.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.
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.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.
What I meant was with the new venture, don't use the old format. But keep doing the Paracast and Paracast+ as-is.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.
Again, remember that if we go all subscription, over 99% of the listeners bail.
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.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.
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.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.
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 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....
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!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.