[endorphone]

Podcast ads have a much more insidious problem in that they perpetuate and encourage a disingenuous, lie-for-dollars[1] culture. Hearing podcasters gushing about products that just so happen to sponsor their podcast is exactly what advertisers are paying for -- that it's "genuine" and someone who you theoretically trust is pitching whatever they're selling -- and it's just incredibly greasy and distasteful. It is the lowest form of sponsorship.

When I see ads on the NYTimes I know they're just whoever paid for the space. It isn't the NYTimes claiming to have curated the best of the best and they're only showing you the greatest products and this just happens to be The Best pickup truck out there, etc. Eh.

[1] - Every podcaster is going to claim that no, it's really what they think, what a marvelous coincidence. It's amazing what someone will "think" when their paycheque relies upon it.

[xvector]

I was about to write a snarky, contradictory response to this, but I think you have a point.

When a normal ad comes on, it's outside of the "content" you're used to. A different voice, a different presentation style, a different part of the webpage, a different section of the newspaper.

When the content producer themselves is presenting the ad, however, you feel a bit more subconsciously inclined to trust them. IMO this is why YouTube ads have taken off so well.

Obviously I know that it's just an ad, but in the back of my head I'm paying more attention to it.

[walshemj]

Not really non US listers especially in the UK find this super creepy

[metaxy2]

> Every podcaster is going to claim that no, it's really what they think, what a marvelous coincidence. It's amazing what someone will "think" when their paycheque relies upon it.

I think there's a lot of truth to this, but there are also plenty of podcasters who will literally try all the products themselves (or have some staff do so) and if the thing is no good, pick a different sponsor. The biggest shows are often in a position to do this without any real sacrifice, other than the time investment in testing: they have loads of sponsors knocking at their door that are all offering similar (large) amounts of money, so they're free to pick the one they honestly like.

Here, I feel like the gray area is that they're unlikely to have tried the alternatives to the product. So they'll give a ringing endorsement of Squarespace or Mailchimp or Purple mattresses, but all that shows is that it's probably decent stuff, not the actual highest-quality or best-price option for the listener.

Overall, though, I feel like it's practically a miracle that we have an online media industry that is free of the totally maxed-out creepiness of website advertising (tracking across media, profiling down to the individual level, etc.) And it's even making money. Just listen with a healthy skepticism about the ads. I think most people do.

[endorphone]

"they have loads of sponsors knocking at their door that are all offering similar (large) amounts of money, so they're free to pick the one they honestly like."

I profoundly doubt this. It is a tiny set of sponsors who keep the entire podcast industry afloat, and remarkably every podcaster is just a great fan of that tiny set. It's transparent and profoundly disingenuous. It's an old school friend now bothering you to buy their MLM bullshit candles or knick knacks.

But again, I have absolutely no doubt that each and every one of those podcasters have convinced themselves that they thoroughly considered every option and this foam bed (indistinguishable from any other) at a huge premium, this fear-mongering VPN, this insurance option, this piece of luggage, etc, are all simply the best for their listeners. One would have to be profoundly gullible to actually believe that.

From an ethical perspective, if a podcast is doing this tactic they deserve every skip they get.

On the scale of scumbaggery, tracking ads that pitch to my profile are a world less vile than the current podcast pitch.

[rchaud]

You're right, but is the solution to that an adblocker? Or should users simply follow the age old principle of "buyer beware"?

I'm all for adblockers on the web, due to their tracking nature, but podcast ads aren't served from some third party that eats up bandwidth, causes page jumps or autoplays video. They aren't even like Spotify ads, which seem to know when you've muted audio.

Is it really that taxing to fast forward through them?

[endorphone]

I'm not speaking for or against this product. It's just remarkable how so many see the current podcast ad tactic as somehow wholesome or less obnoxious, when really it's a world worse. And then they'll claim that it doesn't affect them, caveat emptor, etc, which is simply bullshit -- if they've bought into it being wholesome and "valuable", they are in every way the mark. They are the reason advertisers love this gimmick in podcasts.

[rchaud]

> if they've bought into it being wholesome and "valuable"

I don't know if that's a representative opinion. Ads are ads. Having the host read copy doesn't tell me anything about whether the product works for me.

There's a scene in Fight Club where Brad Pitt gestures at a bus stop men's underwear ad with a chiseled model on it and says dismissively "Is that what real men look like?"

Moments later, he is shirtless, with a perfectly chiseled body (that fitness trainers will tell you is impossible to keep year-round) fighting waiters and parking lot attendants.

The movie itself is an ad. It would never have sold well if two schlubby middle-aged actors had been cast to play it.

[lmartel]

I agree completely. My favorite podcasts are crowd-funded with no ads, but the least-bad approach to ad reads is when someone reads a script, verbatim, in a bored monotone. Especially when it's not one of the hosts reading, but a producer whose voice you don't recognize and implicitly trust. But this is really rare.