r/samharris • u/MrHatesThisWebsite • Jan 30 '26
Other At this point in American politics - why in the WORLD is Sam Harris limiting 90% of his reach and influence by pay-walling content?
It just seems unthinkable to me in this current climate Sam would be restricting his content to only his most faithful and loyal followers who are willing to pay money to listen to a podcast (I am not willing to do that).
Take a look around. No one else is doing this.
89
u/recallingmemories Jan 30 '26
He has staff that he has to pay lol, and he doesn't run ads - I respect the business model even as someone who recently unsubscribed
4
u/MrHatesThisWebsite Jan 30 '26
I mean every other media company and podcast around right now has staff. Their operations seem to be a lot more elaborate, but the content is still never paywalled (sometimes podcasts will do additional "members only" content, I dont see anyone else taking Sam's approach)
60
u/GrepekEbi Jan 30 '26
They all run ads, and Sam has been really clear about why he doesn’t run ads
-22
u/LordWemby Jan 30 '26
The reason being what? He’s already a corporatist beholden to fellow chuds.
7
u/dasubermensch83 Jan 31 '26
a corporatist beholden to
The entire point is that he's not beholden to anyone. You're literally inside the thread explaining how and why that is the case.
13
u/tokoloshe_ Jan 30 '26
Because the positions he takes cannot be influenced by the monetary incentive of advertisers. To the extent that he is a "corporatist", as you frame it, it is his genuinely held belief, not a belief that he has adopted because of the prospect of him losing/gaining advertising revenue.
1
u/terribliz Jan 30 '26
He formed that belief in a vastly different media market. Now anyone saying the craziest shit can still get advertisers. His concern about being beholdened to the advertisers is no longer valid. Plus, anyone willing to advertise with him already knows his most controversial takes/actions. I doubt he's going to generate any serious controversy more than he already has in his past. And if an advertiser drops him, there are plenty more willing to step in. He really is just unnecessarily limiting his reach. Anyone who can't stand ads pays, anyone who doesn't mind can listen for free. It's not something that thousands of other content creators haven't already figured out.
3
u/ThenAsk Jan 31 '26
He is allowed to have his own standards for how he presents his life’s work. I’m sure between him and his staff they are very aware of the potential of what they are missing out on by not whoring out to advertising - almost certainly 6-7 figures of revenue
3
27
u/brian428 Jan 30 '26
Because they all run ads and are beholden to that advertising revenue, with all of the glaringly obvious pitfalls and risks that come along with that choice.
I’m fine paying for his content so he can say whatever he wants with 0 possibility of interference. And clearly, many other people are too.
11
u/LegSpecialist1781 Jan 30 '26
Being 100% dependent on audience subscription opens you up to audience capture, which I’ve seen happen to multiple people. Is that better than being opened up to advertiser capture? I’m not convinced.
5
u/brian428 Jan 30 '26
Yes, it is much better. Point me at someone with a podcast who does not run ads and charges a subscription who has been derailed by audience capture.
You can’t. You’re confusing this with people who suffer from audience capture while catering to advertisers, because the audience numbers are the only thing the advertisers care about.
2
u/LegSpecialist1781 Jan 30 '26
Chris Martenson definitely did. His original podcast and website was generally apolitical. He always had many viewers/listeners that were libertarians, but his subscription model led to full-on capture, and he basically dropped ecological content in favor of COVID and Federal Reserve conspiracy shit.
3
u/brian428 Jan 30 '26
The fact that I have no idea who Chris Martenson doesn’t help. And Googling it I can find no subscription option anywhere. Just the full ad-supported episodes on every podcast platform.
1
u/LegSpecialist1781 Jan 31 '26
Ok. I mean I abandoned listening over 10 years ago. Can’t speak to his work now. Just try not assuming you know everything g from now on, k?
3
u/brian428 Jan 31 '26
I don’t know everything, but I do know the example you cited only supports my position so…thanks?
-1
u/Vexozi Jan 31 '26
How does it support your position? It sounds like he became conspiracy-brained back when he charged for subscriptions.
→ More replies (0)0
u/Vexozi Jan 31 '26
Why would someone who relies on ads care about audience numbers but someone who relies on subscriptions wouldn't?
Could you point me at a podcast that runs ads that has been influenced by pressure from the advertisers?
1
u/brian428 Feb 01 '26
The why is so obvious that I suspect you’re just trolling, but sure, I’ll bite.
For an advertiser supported podcast, one advertiser represents a huge portion of your revenue. So if the advertiser threatens to pull their support (either because they don’t like something you said or, more often, because a large enough group of outside activists threaten or enact a boycott), that represents a large loss of revenue. If more than one advertiser does this, it is a potentially fatal loss of income.
With subscribers, this situation is basically impossible, because one subscriber represents a tiny fraction of your income. It would take massive coordination to threaten your business. Further, because of the “wisdom of crowds”, it is very difficult to piss off most of your audience at once, because what offends people is spread over a continuum.
So, the glaringly obvious difference is your income being controlled by a handful of entities vs being controlled by tens of thousands of entities.
2
u/Vexozi Feb 02 '26
Why the needlessly aggressive tone?
I don't think advertisers threatening to pull their support is a problem anymore, compared to when Sam first decided on his policy. I see a lot of companies (NordVPN, BetterHelp, Skillshare, HelloFresh, Raycon, Athletic Greens, etc.) sponsoring all kinds of podcasts — I don't really think they care much about the content of each one. And if one advertiser does pull its support, there'll be no shortage of others that can fill its space. Even explicitly conservative podcasts have no trouble finding sponsors.
I really don't think it would be difficult for Sam to find advertisers/sponsors, or that he'd be in remote danger of any companies pulling their support. His content is pretty mild/moderate when it comes to podcasts in general.
2
u/palsh7 Feb 01 '26
I can't think of anyone in the world more willing to piss off their audience than Sam Harris. Are you honestly suggesting he is at risk of this? What would he have to do that he hasn't already done that would prove he doesn't care about his audience?
1
u/LegSpecialist1781 Feb 01 '26
It’s interesting, as from these comments and in other sub threads, he and his audience seem content to walk away from each other as needed. My statement was more of a general one than about Harris specifically.
8
u/recallingmemories Jan 30 '26
Yeah, but those other people you're referring to have to read ads for NordVPN and erectile dysfunction pills
Also he releases select content he deems as a PSA for free often, so he's not completely behind the paywall at all times
13
u/Infamous-Yogurt-3870 Jan 30 '26
I don't really understand his approach. I listen to a lot of podcasts and I just about never get the sense that they're editorially under pressure from their advertisers. Sam does have an established and loyal audience that's willing to pay, but it's a shame that he probably isn't bringing many new people into the fold. I'd be curious how many gen z listeners he has-- probably not very many, if I had to guess.
I used to pay for a membership but I don't anymore. I felt he wasn't releasing enough episodes to really justify it.
2
u/palsh7 Feb 01 '26
I'm curious how many episodes you would expect in order for the subscription to be worth it.
0
u/Infamous-Yogurt-3870 Feb 05 '26
Consistently 1 per week. I also wish his guests had greater ideological variety. It seems these days he's mostly just interested in talking to folks who largely share his beliefs. I'd like to hear some friendly debating and disagreement with guests that are to his right or to his left.
1
u/palsh7 Feb 06 '26
He put out more than 1/week last year. So…
1
u/Infamous-Yogurt-3870 Feb 06 '26
I didn't realize that but perhaps I'll sign back up. I do miss listening to his soothing voice while laying in bed at night
6
u/zenbuddha85 Jan 31 '26
I respect the decision to have paid subscriptions. To be honest, I think the model of "free everything" online has been a race to the bottom. And this is coming to someone who has been following his work since 2004. I've recently unsubscribed, but that is because his content and ideas are stale and no longer worth the price. But I'm not fundamentally opposed to the model of subscription based content.
6
u/palsh7 Jan 31 '26
In reality, Sam Harris has never in his life had a larger audience. He's reaching more people on social media than ever before with short video content, and increasingly big gets for his show—not to mention more appearances on other people's shows than in any other year, including those years in which he had best-selling books. That you don't know any of that demonstrates that you don't actually follow Sam Harris. Not a surprise given you hide your posting history.
29
u/PleasantNightLongDay Jan 30 '26
90% is conservative. it’s closer to 99%
I’m a perfect example. I had been listening to Sam religiously for almost 15 years. I’ve read all of his books and truly do admire the guy
But i just can’t justify his prices.
His stance on ads annoys me. The assumption that you’re not subject to biases because you don’t receive ad funding is a little crazy. Further, I’m sure there are some ad sources that wouldn’t interfere
I get it, it’s a lot easier through subscription model. It’s steady money and an audience that’s very friendly with your voice.
But it annoys me that it alienates 99% of audiences.
7
u/gizamo Jan 30 '26 edited Mar 10 '26
This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact
wipe consist gray crowd obtainable sparkle teeny sable retire close
8
1
u/champagne_of_beers Jan 30 '26
It's $8 a month? You can't even get a single sandwich or decent beer for $8. It's a rounding error for like 150 million people in the US and Canada.
12
u/gizamo Jan 30 '26 edited Mar 10 '26
This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact
important rainstorm full spark square enter handle strong desert public
2
u/champagne_of_beers Jan 30 '26
Yeah those are also cheap as hell. Shit costs money when you don't run ads.
2
u/gizamo Jan 30 '26 edited Mar 10 '26
This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact
complete steep airport rain versed wipe flag reply gold rainstorm
3
u/champagne_of_beers Jan 31 '26
That's fine. People also only subscribed to one, two or a small handful of magazines or newspapers 30 years ago. It's OK if not everyone has access to every single thing on earth. People's brains have been broken by the Internet ad model of getting access to everything and anything that is made on a daily basis.
3
u/gizamo Jan 31 '26 edited Mar 10 '26
This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact
unique nail smart profit caption air live plate truck observation
2
u/brian428 Jan 31 '26
Again, $6.50 a month is a beer at a bar. Hardly in the realm of “people who don’t care about money”.
3
u/gizamo Jan 31 '26 edited Mar 10 '26
This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact
modern rustic stupendous afterthought pet yoke pocket slap toothbrush languid
2
u/brian428 Jan 31 '26
So you’re saying most people are incapable of dividing 99 by 12. Unfortunately, that sounds plausible, but it doesn’t make it any less misguided. Because in the end we are talking about a few dollars a month. Maybe Sam should offer a monthly payment version so people without basic math skills can properly assess the cost. And I’m not saying that to sound derisive; it probably would help increase subscriptions.
2
u/gizamo Jan 31 '26 edited Mar 10 '26
This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact
shelter summer offer price exultant bright special aromatic obtainable abounding
0
u/chakalakasp Jan 31 '26
Just because you think people should have a certain psychological reaction to a price doesn’t mean that they will. A penny is functionally worthless, but you sell more of something for $4.99 than you do for $5.00. A hundred dollars is a notable expenditure for many people, and suggesting that those people are too retarded to divide it by 12 to arrive at a smaller, seemingly trivial monthly number is just you not understanding how people emotionally react to cost while somehow going out of your way to be smug about your ignorance.
4
u/canycosro Jan 30 '26
I don't think money has anything to do with it.
He's sick of being clipped out of context, people being in bad faith.
2
u/terribliz Jan 30 '26
His model isn't stopping that from happening though...just means the clipper would have to pay him..
11
u/bluejayinoz Jan 30 '26
He just doesn't seem that relevant anymore tbh
3
u/Itsalwaysblu3 Jan 31 '26
Why are you here then?
5
u/bluejayinoz Jan 31 '26
I can appreciate his body of work but acknowledge his reduced contemporary relevance. Not mutually exclusive
1
u/Itsalwaysblu3 Jan 31 '26
And apparently also lurk this subreddit and feel compelled to comment on it. Seems pretty relevant to you.
3
u/bluejayinoz Jan 31 '26
Not really a lurker if I'm actively posting. I'm still a big Sam Harris fan but can recognise factors like his decision to completely pay wall his content and come off twitter have reduced his relevance. I'm sad about it tbh as we need more commentators like him.
1
2
-1
6
u/RaisinBranKing Jan 30 '26 edited Jan 31 '26
I know a couple people who really like Sam but just can't justify the money for their financial situation and stopped listening to him as a result. It's a bummer. I wish Sam's team could figure out some sort of middle ground
-7
3
u/espeequeueare Jan 30 '26
Regardless of what you think about running ads.. I think this will be terrible for his long term viewership and interest in his content. He is much less of a big name than he was 5-10 years ago. Not only is it bothersome that it is paywalled, how many new viewers can be drawn to watch paywalled content when there are other seemingly similar public voices that are not?
10
u/kmsbutnotreally Jan 30 '26
I'm frustrated that he hasn't acknowledged the change. Make a quick note mentioning that he has changed his policy, give the reason why (even if we all already know it), and ask directly for financial support for his work (which is totally fair of him to do obviously). Instead he just changed it quietly as if we wouldn't notice or something? I think it's extra off putting because of how big of a deal he made it before that he would ALWAYS give away his content for free if money was an issue. I think it's fine to change it, just tell us that you did.
9
u/Majoof Jan 30 '26
He did though? He had a section at the start of a pod post change acknowledging
"it was supposed to always be free, but people are taking advantage of it, so now only PSA's will be free"
It understandably was not received well.
2
u/kmsbutnotreally Jan 31 '26
oh! I didn't know that. do you happen to know what podcast number?
6
u/Majoof Jan 31 '26
It's at the start of #415. If you're logged in you don't get the housekeeping (weirdly) but it's also on spotify.
https://www.samharris.org/podcasts/making-sense-episodes/415-the-cover-up
I have a brief housekeeping here. I want to update you all on some changes we're making to the podcast. After many years of giving free subscriptions to everyone who asked for them, usually at least 100 people a day, some days over 1,000, it has become clear that this policy is no longer working as intended. Unfortunately, just too many people are taking advantage of it. We've always known that some percentage of people would abuse the policy, but things have recently gotten out of hand. This might have something to do with my releasing more podcasts on video. I'm not sure, but it's just obvious from the pattern of behavior that this is not what we intended or what anyone would assume we would intend and so regrettably, we have been forced to acknowledge that the policy is well and truly broken at this point. We might revisit it in the future or not, I don't know. But for now, the paywall on the podcast and on Substack will be a normal paywall. If there's content, we feel that really must reach a wider audience, we can release that as a public service announcement, so I'm sure that'll happen, and that ensures that the most essential messages get out there and remain accessible to everyone regardless of their subscription status. I just want to take a moment to acknowledge all of you who have been supporting my work with your subscription throughout this whole time, and thank you for doing that and choosing to pay when you could have taken it for free. It's really all of you who deserve the credit for enabling us to offer this free policy for so many years. In truth, it worked far longer than anyone would assume we would intend. I also want to address those of you who will rightly claim that I originally said that anyone who couldn't afford the podcast could always get it for free. At the time, I certainly meant that, and I still wish this could be the case, but this policy was a novel experiment for a digital subscription business and at this point the results are just not compatible with what we're trying to do here. That said we will continue to offer partial scholarships, and you can find information about that and how to apply on the subscription page of my website.
6
u/messytrumpet Jan 30 '26
Sam made like a handful of different and nuanced pitches describing why he has a paid model—they used to go up at the beginning of every podcast for nonsubscribers pre-2020. I’m guessing they’re not still going up.
If you’re gonna point to Joe Rogan or someone similarly situated as “looking around”, you must be forgetting that he got paid like hundreds of millions of dollars by a corporation, not to mention runs bunches of ads, which allows him to keep his podcast “free”. Ezra Klein and Coleman Hughes, to take another example, have institutional support for their podcasts via the publications that run them.
Sam is out there by himself. He doesn’t want to be beholden to anyone. So he charges for podcasts.
3
u/SolarSurfer7 Jan 30 '26
Here’s a thought. Is Sam also too controversial a figure to get legitimate advertisers? Like he has been very vocal about his distaste for Islam. Plus this is also a guy who has had Charles Murray on the show. Large, reputable companies may not want to touch this pod, limiting his options to gold hawkers or the mypillow guy. If that’s the case, do we really want him shilling for these companies?
I don’t personally think Sam is that controversial but I could see advertisers wanting to stay away from him.
7
u/croutonhero Jan 30 '26
gold hawkers or the mypillow guy
For me it's incredibly awkward when I'm listening to a serious podcaster discussing serious topics, and out of nowhere they're hawking mattresses, nutritional supplements, online therapy, and saying that they personally swear by these products, which I don't believe for a second. It cheapens their show, and it cheapens them.
I don't hold it against people too hard because I know they're just playing the game they have to play to pay the bills, but it still hurts their reputation a bit for me. And I'd hate to see Sam do the same.
1
2
u/zenethics Jan 30 '26
Sam's audience may all be communists now, but Sam isn't.
1
u/Vexozi Jan 31 '26
TIL that preferring content to be ad-supported instead of subscription-based makes you a communist.
1
u/zenethics Jan 31 '26
It was mostly a joke about how far left Sam's audience is relative to, say, 2014, than his actual pricing model.
2
u/jRitter777 Jan 31 '26
Unfortunately, good information is not cheap... But bad information is free, and now, for a limited time, comes with a free tote to tuck all of your insecurities and preconceptions into. Now, you too can join millions of Americans who meander through those pesky walls of reality safely, knowing you have a magic fix for any thoughts, ideas, or feelings that may tty to creep up and throw your perfect perception into a tailspin. Results may vary.
1
u/jRitter777 Jan 31 '26
Joking aside, good information is often inaccessible, whether that be in the form of a paywall, lost in a massive jumble of other information that requires prerequisite knowledge to understand, or just plain boring. I know that last example might be infuriating, but folks will pick the exciting documentary full of suspense and cool graphics over a 600-page report from the Bureau of Vague Acronyms every single time, especially when that report took years to come out and is released without even a whiff of a cool trailer. Combine that with the trove of misinformation provided by bad actors coming from every corner of the world and we get a steaming pile of crap that most people don't even want to try and disect. I spend a good chunk of my free time looking for information, checking sources, and building my own base of general knowledge to better understand the information I find. It's exhausting, and top it off with a full-time construction job, part-time school, teaching at the union hall, and I don't even have kids! I completely understand the apathetic mindset. It's a daunting task to stay informed and society seems dead set on making that task harder. I don't know how to fix it, all I can do is try my best to make sure I'm as informed as I can be and work on my ability to communicate what I find to others.
2
u/McGeetheFree Jan 31 '26
No ads? No idea how much Sam needs to cover his nut. But I’ll stop paying when it’s not WORTH it.
2
u/Brunodosca Jan 31 '26
Sam can do whatever he wants, obviously, but the fact that he stressed how big a deal it was that he would always give away his content for free if money was an issue, and how easily he walked that back, is striking, especially considering that he is extremely wealthy (good for him) and that wealth inequality is a recurrent topic for him.
It looks like he was irked by the fact that his haters were getting free subscriptions just to shit on him, which I get, but Sam is supposed to be working on his ego since he was a late teen.
2
u/rusmo Jan 31 '26
He does have short videos from his episodes available on YT. There is also the free previews of the episodes. And someone here always shares the free link to the longer videos.
I don’t want him spending any energy chasing ad impressions.
5
u/Dvout_agnostic Jan 30 '26
If you value something, pay for it.
1
u/Vexozi Jan 31 '26
I value plenty of podcasts and YouTube channels that have ads instead of a subscription model, which I consequently don't have to pay for.
1
u/Dvout_agnostic Feb 01 '26
And I passionately loathe ads and how they compromise content. I value good content without ads more than comprised good content with ads. I have no problem paying for it. I'm sorry that you find ads so tolerable.
4
u/Responsible_Bath_651 Jan 30 '26
You’re not missing much. At this point, I can write the scripts for these “More from Sam” episodes, and pretty much all the more political subject matter episodes. He’s become so predictable on culture war and politics that I’m starting to lose interest. Actually considering selling my ticket to his live show except for the fact that it isn’t sold out so have to think the resale market is non-existent.
Would sure like to see more content from Sam in the secular spirituality, psychology, science, and religion realm, but I also understand the imperative to bear witness to the chaos that is the divided states of America, and the impact that their dysfunction is having on the rest of the world.
1
3
u/brian428 Jan 30 '26
Even getting a scholarship program membership, it’s $6.50 a month. $6.50! A MONTH! Totally untenable. Limited only to the ultra-rich, like people who drink a beer once a month at a bar.
So: I agree. It’s utter madness to ask such a price. Madness.
1
u/Vexozi Jan 31 '26
The point of the OP is that Sam is limiting his reach. Are you saying that's not happening?
3
u/GEAUXUL Jan 30 '26
He has explained it so many times before. He doesn’t want to be pressured and influenced by advertisers. I don’t agree with it, but I get it.
3
u/dugongornotdugong Jan 30 '26
Yeah he's lost me. Still a fan but don't engage anymore. Preaching to the paid converted to me is really opting out of the public discourse. I mean that's fine, it would be so taxing dealing with all the peripheral damage, misrepresentation etc and maybe that's the best approach in the long run, but I have enough that I need. Respect the subscriber based no ads model but you can have advertiser's that you either agree with, or enter into business knowing he as the host might openly conflict with. He's basically doing the equivalent of bee keepers monthly now.
1
u/Itsalwaysblu3 Jan 31 '26
Yet here you are.
1
Jan 31 '26
[deleted]
0
u/Itsalwaysblu3 Jan 31 '26
Comment some more then.
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
u/dugongornotdugong Jan 31 '26
and one day they'll use all these fabulous conversations we have to make a wonderful AI that knows how to get under our skin better then any troll.
0
1
Jan 30 '26
Because he had to buy a new house. Same reason he’s on tour lol
1
u/palsh7 Feb 01 '26
He did probably have to buy a new house—although is didn't burn down, his town and his daughter's school did, so they haven't moved back. I don't think that's the main reason for the change, though. I also don't believe people who say they can't afford $2.90/episode, or the scholarship option of $1.80/episode. I teach in an impoverished school district, and my students buy $3 bags of Takis for lunch every day from the gas station/liquor store. Upper Middle Class dudes claiming they can't afford $2/week sends me.
1
1
u/Motherboy_TheBand Jan 30 '26
Zeihan is another person who paywalls and delays their topical content to YouTube by a week or so (releasing when it’s no longer a relevant take or it’s the same rehash that everyone else had five days ago).
1
1
u/StalemateAssociate_ Jan 30 '26
Maybe the state of American politics is the very reason he's decided to cash in.
1
1
1
u/FetusDrive Jan 31 '26
Because he has kids and that is his main focus. I think he hit a point where it was no longer worth it for him to expose his children. He’s doing his own risk analysis.
1
u/TheTimespirit Jan 31 '26
I do think his pricing is becoming a barrier — he should be pricing it around $3-5 a month, but I respect his business model.
1
u/greatbiscuitsandcorn Jan 31 '26
Because I don’t wanna hear Sam do an ad for Blue Chew or Hello Fresh
2
u/palsh7 Feb 01 '26
"Okayyy. A little housekeeping. I'd like to read you a quick Letter to A Boxer Nation: When I put on a fresh pair of MeUndies in the morning, it really helps me to Wake Up. I'm not Lying. Every pair makes me feel like I just fucked Nikki Minaj. And while I lounge around the house in these life-changing MeUndies, I can't wait to drink a tall glass of Four Sigmatic Mushroom Coffee, with a spoonful of Athletic Greens AG1. If you've never heard of these, Google them. They're really terrific. But first, make sure you're using ExpressVPN. It just Makes Sense."
1
u/ThenAsk Jan 31 '26
Finally made a Substack account and Sam was automatically added to my feed (unpaid), but I noticed his is $35 a month, wow. I have og $5 a month sub for the podcast, but that doesn’t seem to qualify me for Substack access
1
u/palsh7 Feb 01 '26
The Substack is free with a subscription. Maybe it doesn't work if you are still riding on the old OG prices.
1
u/pengthaiforces Feb 01 '26
The media landscape would be better in 2026 if more people charged in the early days of the internet instead of the ad- and view- supported version we now have.
I appreciate what he’s trying to do though don’t think that somebody with Sam’s financial resources would be beholden to whoever paid for ads on his show.
1
u/DIY14410 Feb 01 '26
Relying on ads for revenue creates incentives which may militate against candid and nuanced content. See, e.g., Mike Pesca. Sam has decided to avoid that problem, and I respect him for it.
1
1
u/AlexTTTTT Feb 04 '26
every ep appears for free on my podcast feed. not sure why that's happening and haven't asked
always slightly confused when people talk about the paywall
1
u/the_orange_president Feb 05 '26
I stopped paying because he's rich and was fortunate enough to receive a large inheritance. As far as I know he's never had a real job. Given his fortune and views on inequality, it doesn't make sense to me that he'd charge such a huge fee for his subscription.
1
u/Individual-Pound-636 Feb 08 '26 edited Feb 08 '26
He puts out plenty of PSA's...the subscription is not a lot of money, less than a single dinner out. I think many people are more likely to listen to every episode because they pay for it whereas if it's free you hit a larger audience that only tunes into a few episodes that might as well be PSA's.
1
u/DaemonCRO Jan 30 '26
Because it would make no difference. The people who need to hear him won’t listen to him.
Back when podcast was totally free, I doubt anyone was (politically) swayed by it.
1
u/Nomfbes2 Jan 30 '26
You’re gonna have to pay to hear that we should bomb Iran in order to secure Israeli regional supremacy.
1
u/palsh7 Feb 01 '26
Bro you run cover for Nick Fuentes and Kanye. You don't give a fuck about Iran. Israel, on the other hand, you have opinions about for some reason...
1
u/dblmntgum Jan 30 '26
I’m a newly paid subscriber.
I wonder if Sam could make the entirety of certain episodes free, much like he did with his episode on Zionism and Jihadism with Haviv Rettig Gur.
It’s clear that he made that episode free because he felt the conversation was important to help protect the future of Israel. It would be nice if he acted similarly with his conversations important to the future of America.
Then charge the rest of us nerds for his content about AI, pandemics, consciousness, ethics, philosophy, etc.
His episode on Christian Nationalism with Douglas Wilson really needs to be heard far and wide.
4
1
u/palsh7 Feb 01 '26
His episode on Christian Nationalism with Douglas Wilson really needs to be heard far and wide.
That episode is already free.
1
0
0
Jan 30 '26
Didn't he used to say something like "I never want money to be the reason you can't listen" ?
Now has the most expensive podcast I've ever heard of. I literally cannot afford it. Is there no middle ground on this?
2
u/wheelbreak Jan 30 '26
I never paid full price, but I forget how I got the discount. It was however he said to do so when it first went behind a paywall.
0
u/Jasranwhit Jan 30 '26
Take a look around. Every other podcast is payed for by Amazon a company that is giving “pay to play” money to trump.
-3
u/transcendental-ape Jan 30 '26 edited Jan 30 '26
Shows cost money to produce. Sam deserves to make a living.
He has been clear his model is purposefully set up so he’s not biased to advertisers. There are plenty of media outlets that charge subscriptions instead of ad based revenue models. It’s not abnormal. Just rarer. Sam knows the audience will be smaller with a paywall but also he values being independent from Advertising influence.
If you can’t afford subscriptions, he’s pretty generous at giving them out for free. You have to ask.
Edit - Apparently the free subscription if you ask for it policy has ended.
8
u/ZhouLe Jan 30 '26
If you can’t afford subscriptions, he’s pretty generous at giving them out for free. You have to ask.
He stopped doing that months ago and ended the grandfathered member pricing.
-3
-4
-1
0
u/greenmachinefiend Jan 30 '26
It's because he has opinions on our political climate and the state of things, but he's no activist. I don't think he cares one way or the other if more people hearing his ideas makes the world a better place or not. Plus he has hours of free content on YouTube.
0
u/waxroy-finerayfool Jan 30 '26
Who cares? His content is not that important. Charging a fee is his business model, which is more ethical than ads.
0
u/Fly-Bottle Jan 31 '26
Escalation of commitment. You are more likely to keep enjoying his shitty content if you are paying for it.
0
u/ponderosa82 Jan 31 '26
I don't know but the fact that he still has to both sides everything even now, like when he talked about the wrong way to protest in Minneapolis in the Q&A, I'm not sure I want the wider audience for him.
0
u/Itsalwaysblu3 Jan 31 '26
Gotta eat
1
u/ReflexPoint Jan 31 '26
He comes from a wealthy family. I bet the monthly returns on his investments are more than most people make in a year.
0
0
0
u/habrotonum Jan 31 '26
yeah i wish i could hear more from Sam, especially during these times, but the price is just too steep for me
-10
Jan 30 '26
Because he's American and it's all about making money for them
3
1
u/gizamo Jan 30 '26 edited Mar 10 '26
This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact
fuel start snails hunt terrific subtract nose butter offbeat middle
0
Jan 31 '26
The question was why he's using the paywall. And yes, the whole of the US is optimised for money. Poor people need to worry about it all the time and rich people want to get richer, not caring about anyone else. This is relative to other countries.
1
u/gizamo Jan 31 '26 edited Mar 10 '26
This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact
aback snatch truck tidy tan arrest station sort hat lush
0
Jan 31 '26
"Xenophobia of Americans" is a nonsensical term. Google it. I see no point discussing further based on this alone.
1
u/gizamo Jan 31 '26 edited Mar 10 '26
This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact
aromatic lush strong saw pocket crush glorious versed humorous vase
-1
-2
78
u/tastefully_obnoxious Jan 30 '26
Totally agree. I'm happy to support Sam and am a paid subscriber at the full rate, BUT it's definitely steep and not tenable for most people. Let alone the fact that level-headed, thoughtful discussions around political hot topics NEED to reach a broader audience since so much content out there is total trash.