Podcast advertisers often fall into a category of product where name recognition is important. They are okay knowing that most of us skip the ads because they know the audience will hear the name before they have a chance to skip the ad.
Actually... now that I think about it... I think I do respond better to podcast ads. There's 5 or 6 instances, this past year, that I checked out companies because of them. I've only done that once for a tv commercial in my lifetime and... I don't think I ever clicked on a banner ad before... on purpose. Never on purpose. Accident, yes.
I think it's because they're not, "OH MY SHIT LOOK AT ME! PAY ATTENTION TO ME!" types of ads.
Advertisers care about conversions -- this is why promo codes exist. If podcast advertisers don't see a steady tick of users spending money via the promo codes they distribute, they'll stop advertising. The impressions are way less valuable than conversions are.
So is it unethical (or "un-strategic" if you prefer) to not buy from brands that are mentioned by your favorite podcaster? If people en-mass start making educated purchasing decisions and ignoring openly silly ads from WeWork or matress companies, is that harmful to the industry?
Advertising itself in its current state is harmful. People treat it like, "you listen for ads and you get the content for free." But no -- the ads manipulate you. If on average most people are not being manipulated, then the system doesn't work. The manipulation is the part that advertisers care about. It's not free. Objectively, if advertising was not manipulating your purchasing decisions in a non-optimal way, it would not be worth doing.
From that perspective, I'm more than happy to burn advertising to the ground, even if it means taking out a few podcasters.
You can also take the perspective that advertising is a zero-sum game where nobody wins and consumers aren't affected, but every business has to spend just to keep up with each other. In which case, I'm also happy to burn the industry to the ground to reduce pointless corporate waste and reduce the cost of entry for new businesses.
You just decide the transaction isn't worth it, and then not execute the transaction. I do it whenever I decide not to buy a Tesla.
Edit: meant to say I regularly don't buy a Tesla, not regularly do. College student, definitely couldn't afford one
No. It works the same way any newspaper, radio, and TV advertising work.
If advertisers sponsor a podcast and get zero return, then the advertisers stops sponsoring the podcast and the podcast dies.
Is it ethical to mute the TV when commercials come up?
I think it's just your choice, right?
> Is it ethical not to look at a billboard when you're walking down the street?
This is fine, you're in a public space where somebody paid for an ad on nearby private property, and society wouldn't be worse off if everybody ignored billboards, advertisers were no longer willing to pay for billboards, and we got rid of the lot of them.
> Is it ethical to mute the TV when commercials come up?
This is fine, you paid for the TV and you pay for cable, and there will be no consequences to many people muting the TV during commercials.
If, however, you're given something for free that could be taken away, and it is able to be offered for free due to the business model of ads, taking this concept to its conclusion where everybody automatically skips over ads will make the free and open podcast system no longer viable.
Advertisers will no longer be willing to pay for ad space on podcasts, and the podcasters will have to move to charging per episode, or more likely, getting tiny royalties from a company like Spotify.
The nature of advertising has turned the entire TV device into an advertising machine that phones home whether I mute and look away or watch "ad-supported" content, or paid-for content, or my own content. I cannot buy a TV that does not funnel my private life into someone's advertising budget thanks to Smart TVs and the normalization of surveillance capitalism.
If a podcast can not survive off its syndication, its advertising, its royalties, nor off its direct subscriptions, then the market has clearly spoken: that podcast is not providing value to listeners, and if it weren't subsidized as a channel by which advertising campaigns reach a desired market segment, it wouldn't exist at all. Clearly if this scenario causes you to shed tears, perhaps consider donating or subscribing, otherwise that podcast isn't a valuable product, it was a line item on an advertising campaign meant to reach you.
A better example would probably adblocking on either YouTube or any website. The service is otherwise free, and you're demanding it in some sense.
There are still lots of people who watch ad supported TV broadcast over the air. So I think muting commercials or recording with a DVR and skipping over later is a decent analogy.
Imagine the advertisement was not on TV but it was ringing your doorbell.
An option is ethical, one when you replace someone else's work is not. (i don't like advertisement thrown in my face either).
As much as I hate the clever marketing tactics that happen, I wouldn't want them to have one more excuse to invade me more.
This seems like one of them
it's probably not ethical to vandalize a billboard so other people can't see the ad on it.
it's definitely not ethical to sell billboard vandalism as a service, or to patronize a service that does that.
If the advertiser isn’t given any information about playback at ad time, then the revenue would not be affected.
It shouldn't take long for advertisers to realize that a) podcast listeners tend to skip over ads or b) podcast ads don't result in sales.
a.) Patronage/donation model b.) Paywalls c.) Integrated the advertising into the program rather than making it a separate ad read
OTOH, I've seen a number of youtube and podcasts where the Ads are read by the hosts as part of the show and are unique for each podcast. I heard one once recently where the host must have had 10 different versions of their travel ad, for the same place worded in slightly different ways. Maybe they were just ad'libing them. Either way, I have a hard time believing this can be easily detected. The flow and voice intonation was such that I didn't even realize it was an ad until 3/4 way through.