Giant Bomb Bomb-All

I would get it if I had a smart phone because the mobile stuff seems cool, but I really don't mind waiting a week for the complete Bombcast and I don't have a fast enough connection for the HD videos to even be worthwhile.

Try to get a membership to save the hostage bombcast, but my multipass login doesn't work. Looks like we are losing the half bombcast. Ack, sorry, I'm grumpy.

Crockpot wrote:

Try to get a membership to save the hostage bombcast, but my multipass login doesn't work. Looks like we are losing the half bombcast. Ack, sorry, I'm grumpy.

I think that's a bit misleading. After one week you'll still be getting two hours+ of Bombcast a week. Just the second half'll be from the week prior. I think the only part that really is time-sensitive is News of the World, which will probably be moved into the first hour (it usually was unless the first segment ran long).

Something I hadn't considered in my dismissal of the value offered: being able to listen to the podcast on my iPhone without having to eat up my storage is very, very nice.

This makes me sad, I love these guys and will probably subscribe myself but I think they might have just shot themselves in the foot.

Cobble wrote:

This makes me sad, I love these guys and will probably subscribe myself but I think they might have just shot themselves in the foot.

Seeing as how they weren't making money, I'm not sure that that's a proper analogy. Also, I listened to some of the membership podcast last night, and something Dave Snyder said makes sense: the readers and the editors at the Whiskey media sites are both after the same thing, independent content. Thus, who better to support the site? Of course, it probably won't work, because people aren't willing to pay for stuff like that, but that doesn't mean that they shouldn't try it. Their choice was either this or close up shop.

[quote=TheCounselor]

Cobble wrote:

Their choice was either this or close up shop.

Did they say that? I listened but was playing Darksiders at the time so I might've missed it. I never had the impression that their straits were so dire. You don't go opening a huge new office in a more expensive town if you're running terribly low on cash. I got the impression that Whiskey Media wants to grow and couldn't by just maintaining status quo.

TheCounselor wrote:
Cobble wrote:

This makes me sad, I love these guys and will probably subscribe myself but I think they might have just shot themselves in the foot.

Seeing as how they weren't making money, I'm not sure that that's a proper analogy. Also, I listened to some of the membership podcast last night, and something Dave Snyder said makes sense: the readers and the editors at the Whiskey media sites are both after the same thing, independent content. Thus, who better to support the site? Of course, it probably won't work, because people aren't willing to pay for stuff like that, but that doesn't mean that they shouldn't try it. Their choice was either this or close up shop.

It is definitely a proper analogy.They might have been in financial trouble but they still have a huge mind share to work with. I think that some of their decisions here will hurt that mind share. Community is everything when it comes to this market and segregating the community like this can't end well for them.

Interesting thread.. not so much for the actual site since I've never visited the site and really only have time for one podcast (GWJ) but how many people posted that they love the Podcast and spend some time on the site but have no desire to compensate those that produce the content.

Its a good look at a macro problem that plagues lots of industries right now. I'm very curious to see how it all works out for them.

TheGameguru wrote:

Interesting thread.. not so much for the actual site since I've never visited the site and really only have time for one podcast (GWJ) but how many people posted that they love the Podcast and spend some time on the site but have no desire to compensate those that produce the content.

It's not that some of us wouldn't give them something, it's just that I think they set the membership too high and lost some goodwill. Several of us would pay something less for what they are offering as well.

I think I looked at the amount of enjoyment I get on WM sites and compared it to my Xbox Live subscription. I couldn't see myself paying nearly as much for access to their content for some reason.

I know that with the Kayne and Lynch thing that went on prior to Giant Bomb's creation, they have some bias against advertising making them lose some editorial control. I get that. But I think the model they are going for here has rarely worked.

PXAbstraction

It's not that some of us wouldn't give them something, it's just that I think they set the membership too high and lost some goodwill. Several of us would pay something less for what they are offering as well.

/nod

One assumes that they had a reasonably competent financial person look at their numbers and figure out a penetration rate and then a $ amount that made sense. The big thing here is that market research supports that its a BIG step to get anyone to pay ANYTHING.. but a smaller step to get them to pay either $20/yr or $50/yr.

So they probably ran the model and came up with a couple scenarios and the $50 at X% penetration came up as having the best result.

I've looked at my budget and have decided to opt for a monthly subscription, and won't be cancelling it after one month. I can't afford $50 up front but I can afford $5 a month, and I'll actually start visiting the site more. I do like their site network, and I figure it's a small price to pay to preserve what these guys have done as a whole.

Edit: If you've joined, why don't you toss your account name here? Might as well friend up while we can... trueheart78 for me

TheGameguru wrote:
It's not that some of us wouldn't give them something, it's just that I think they set the membership too high and lost some goodwill. Several of us would pay something less for what they are offering as well.

/nod

One assumes that they had a reasonably competent financial person look at their numbers and figure out a penetration rate and then a $ amount that made sense. The big thing here is that market research supports that its a BIG step to get anyone to pay ANYTHING.. but a smaller step to get them to pay either $20/yr or $50/yr.

So they probably ran the model and came up with a couple scenarios and the $50 at X% penetration came up as having the best result.

I think you are ascribing more thought than this got, but who knows? To me, it looked like a WAG.

I looked at $50 and said "that's more than I pay a year for Xbox Live (with discounts I always get). That's too much." I wouldn't have had that thought about $25.

Cobble wrote:
TheCounselor wrote:
Cobble wrote:

This makes me sad, I love these guys and will probably subscribe myself but I think they might have just shot themselves in the foot.

Seeing as how they weren't making money, I'm not sure that that's a proper analogy. Also, I listened to some of the membership podcast last night, and something Dave Snyder said makes sense: the readers and the editors at the Whiskey media sites are both after the same thing, independent content. Thus, who better to support the site? Of course, it probably won't work, because people aren't willing to pay for stuff like that, but that doesn't mean that they shouldn't try it. Their choice was either this or close up shop.

It is definitely a proper analogy.They might have been in financial trouble but they still have a huge mind share to work with. I think that some of their decisions here will hurt that mind share. Community is everything when it comes to this market and segregating the community like this can't end well for them.

Community is only everything if you can find a way to turn that into a revenue stream, especially for a commercial site. I agree that there's value in having a big following, especially if you're in the media business. Unfortunately, it's tough for businesses based solely on the internet to make money on a consistent basis. Advertising doesn't pay, licensing your content to other sites can bring in some money, and people don't want to pay for that type of content. They're also in the unenviable situation where their content is the best advertising that their potential advertisers could pay for, but the advertisers can't control that content. Instead of buying an ad, you're better off making a good game, and the Giant Bomb guys will want to talk about it.

Also, I'm TheCounselor on there as well.

I signed up for a yearly membership. I can't see how this will hurt them in the long run. I can't imagine that they make a lot of money from on site ads, so the money they pull in from this would probably offset what they lose from people that stop giving them clicks.

My username there is georob.

I signed up for the annual sub for the HD videos and the availability to download them alone, especially since I'm starting to check out a lot of the Tested content as well these days.

While the split Bombcast thing doesn't really bother me that much (I'm usually at least a week behind on podcasts as it is), I do agree that it's a stupid implementation. Getting people to pay for something you offered for free for so long rarely turns out well, and they did shoot themselves in the foot by saying the current content was not going to change for non-subscribers so many times in the past.

Of course, I do realize their concern. Podcasts are money sinks, both in the editing time and bandwidth, and advertisers seem disinterested in them (which is why, years later, most ads for podcasts are still either Go Daddy or Audible). I remember a lot of the 1UP staff saying that their podcasts were hugely popular, but were extremely expensive and did a much worse job of converting people to check out the site then people assume. And we know how that turned out. Or for another perspective, This American Life is the most popular podcast in general by a huge margin, but between ads and donations they rarely manage to cover their bandwidth costs alone, making it unfeasible if it wasn't getting public money.

But still, even if they felt that charging for it was a necessity, it could be done much better. Like, give it to subscribers on Tuesday night and then everyone else on Thursday or Friday. This current plan is confusing and needlessly obtuse - including all the additional effort to edit and then seperate it into 4 different feeds.

I compare it to 50 (now 60) bucks for xbox live. Compare what you get in return for that cost. I think it speaks for itself.

Yeah, despite my general lack of interest in using the Giantbomb website, I would probably pay if there were a lesser option than $50. It's too much to pay for a membership to websites I don't use, and for HD videos my internet connection can't keep up with anyway. If it reaches a point where they want $50 to listen to the podcast at all I'd simply stop listening. It's not worth that much to me. For me I feel like the magic number is probably more like $20.

kaptainbarbosa wrote:

But still, even if they felt that charging for it was a necessity, it could be done much better. Like, give it to subscribers on Tuesday night and then everyone else on Thursday or Friday. This current plan is confusing and needlessly obtuse - including all the additional effort to edit and then seperate it into 4 different feeds.

Intrigued by ideas, subscribe to newsletter, etc.

Well, this was just posted on their twitter feed. Considering they are already at 4.4k within 24 hours of implementing the subscription, I think it's a done deal that they are going to scrap their podcast splitting plans. Actually, I suspect they would have done it anyways, even if they didn't meet that goal, due to the backlash they recieved.

@whiskeymedia has extended the 5k deadline to the 15th, citing technical problems, lack of paypal, and Wednesday paydays as compelling reasons.

I enjoy the videos and reviews on Giant Bomb, and their podcast is one of the better gaming podcasts. Still, I don't know if my enjoyment is equal to a $5 a month subscription fee. Honestly, I'd be more likely to do that for GWJ. Actually, I think my dream site would have the video presence of Giant Bomb while utilizing the talent pool of the GWJ crew and Idle Thumbs.

That I might pay for.

kaptainbarbosa wrote:

Well, this was just posted on their twitter feed. Considering they are already at 4.4k within 24 hours of implementing the subscription, I think it's a done deal that they are going to scrap their podcast splitting plans. Actually, I suspect they would have done it anyways, even if they didn't meet that goal, due to the backlash they recieved.

@whiskeymedia has extended the 5k deadline to the 15th, citing technical problems, lack of paypal, and Wednesday paydays as compelling reasons.

Nice find, thanks.

I've signed up for the yearly since I value the content that GB and WM in general has provided. My username over there is SirRockford.

I signed up for a yearly membership without hesitation, and after a day of trying really hard to regret the expense (I only listen to the Bombcast and watch an occasional QL) I can't help but be optimistic about Whiskey Media's new venture. I can save nearly $50 by packing my lunch for a week instead of eating out with my coworkers, and in exchange for that scanty sacrifice I support a bunch of friendly dudes whose work I've enjoyed for years.

Frankly I didn't pay for the promised content, but for the 2+ years of entertainment these guys have given me. That t-shirt is probably headed straight to the local Goodwill.

One of things with the Bombcast is that if you look at it in relation to the podcasts other Whiskey Media sites offer, it is about twice as long and for this reason costs quite a few more man-hours to produce. They are framing the 'split the Bombcast' idea as a policy decision that makes it on par with the other Whiskey Media sites in terms of the free content you get, which I don't think will work so well for them. But at least it's is an argument.

Well, I just finished listening to the Membership podcast, and I have to admit that the situation as they describe it is not as dire as I thought it was, and how I characterized it in my previous posts. That said, I'm still a bit unsettled that so many people are positively unwilling to pay for content that they freely admit they enjoy. I know everyone's different, and I'm probably a lot more willing to pay for things than most (due to my relatively high income and lack of kids/wife), but professional, quality content is a good thing. Free isn't always better.

Of course, the Conference Call is just as good (if not better) than the Bombcast, but they really are two different animals. I'd be quite sad if I lost either one of them. The CC guys don't have the access that the Bombcast guys do, so they make a different show. Of course, the CC is worlds better than any of the other podcasts out there that are done by guys who aren't in the industry on a day to day basis.

Didn't know there was a podcast for the membership stuff. I will be listening to that on the drive home tonight - thanks for the heads up!

Also note, the fact that they put out at least 4 episodes this week is awesome. At E3 there was a new podcast each night - I'm okay with this

TheCounselor wrote:

[...] I'm still a bit unsettled that so many people are positively unwilling to pay for content that they freely admit they enjoy.

I'd like to point out that there's a difference between being not wanting to pay for their content and not wanting to pay the price they're asking for their content.

bnpederson wrote:
TheCounselor wrote:

[...] I'm still a bit unsettled that so many people are positively unwilling to pay for content that they freely admit they enjoy.

I'd like to point out that there's a difference between being not wanting to pay for their content and not wanting to pay the price they're asking for their content.

True, but there are several people in this thread and elsewhere that have said they won't pay anything, while also saying how much they value that content. That's not aimed at the guys who said they'd pay $20 a year, but not $50. That's a pure value judgment on what the content is worth to you.

Of course, pay your own price models don't work, either.

trueheart78 wrote:

Edit: If you've joined, why don't you toss your account name here? Might as well friend up while we can... trueheart78 for me

Same as here, hbi2k. That's pretty much the handle I go by everywhere.

TheCounselor wrote:

Of course, pay your own price models don't work, either.

Off the top of my head, Radiohead and restaurants have had success.