Of course they can. That won’t make them happy though? Or attract new patrons?
I think more than you might imagine. I’ve been involved in a podcast and it’s significantly more work than the hour of content you get as the end result. Prepping content with your co-host. Faffing about with tech set-up. Generally the actual time recording is much longer than the final podcast and it’s edited down. Having to re-record parts, or sometimes even the whole thing if something fails. Promoting on social media, dealing with the replies, comments, questions you get off the back of it.
I get the impression Tom does all the editing etc, but even so for Joe I can reasonably imagine it takes up 3-4 hours of his time per podcast.
My impression from listening to the podcast is that Joe’s involvement starts 5 minutes before recording and ends when the stop button is pushed.
Tom does all the heavy lifting, sets the agenda, proposes the bullshit buster and instagram post of the week, etc. Joe rarely has got anything prepared, and if he does, it seems like it’s just something he stumbled upon when scouring the internets in his daily life.
but in fairness this is how it works famous company gets contract and subcontracts to smaller less famous company that does the work . it certainly has worked out for tom.
No question about it. Joe is the “celebrity†and hence he holds all the cards. But still all he would have to spare is an hour a week, so I call BS on the “too busy training†explanation.
I believe they discussed in a fall episode that the podcast was work, not leading to many patreon sign ups, and possibly losing money. Not surprising they’ve curtailed it. It’s also the off season with less to discuss.
No question about it. Joe is the “celebrity†and hence he holds all the cards. But still all he would have to spare is an hour a week, so I call BS on the “too busy training†explanation.
These podcasts and YouTubes are not as profitable as people think for your time and cost vs other things you could do for $$, or time with family, friends , life etc.
I think Ruth astle pointed out she spend $5000 in marketing / you tube and profited $1500.
Most of this is for sponsorship agreements to provide contain to get free stuff.
I had a shoe company offer 2 free pairs of shoes for what I added up would be 10 + hours of my time .
I decided to just work for 4 hours and buy the shoes instead.
Same with other companies cheap marketing cost for them time for those that have free time to push and media and market.
I liked the podcast though.
Be that as it may, Joe launched the Junkyard Dog collection with Purpose Performance Wear, and they were discussing doing that January camp for age groupers so recently. Looks like the camp was dead on arrival and the collection is being promoted by Joe, not the podcast. You may be right that he is looking at the podcast in a short-termist and 100% commercial manner. But I do hope you’re wrong!
These podcasts and YouTubes are not as profitable as people think for your time and cost vs other things you could do for $$, or time with family, friends , life etc.
Here’s me, naiively thinking that the podcast was (a) something they simply enjoyed doing - cue all the laughs, (b) a longer term promotional plan to build an audience to sell products to and not an attempt to make a quick buck.
In fact I was never naiive enough to imagine that such podcasts are, on their own and without sponsors/ads, profitable.
No question about it. Joe is the “celebrity†and hence he holds all the cards. But still all he would have to spare is an hour a week, so I call BS on the “too busy training†explanation.
These podcasts and YouTubes are not as profitable as people think for your time and cost vs other things you could do for $$, or time with family, friends , life etc.
I think Ruth astle pointed out she spend $5000 in marketing / you tube and profited $1500.
Most of this is for sponsorship agreements to provide contain to get free stuff.
I had a shoe company offer 2 free pairs of shoes for what I added up would be 10 + hours of my time .
I decided to just work for 4 hours and buy the shoes instead.
Same with other companies cheap marketing cost for them time for those that have free time to push and media and market.
I liked the podcast though.
Some of this may be cost neutral. Recording a podcast is just your time. They seemed to have an Audience. Ruth Astle is investing her time. But she’s able to take her statistics from youtube and that is a difference maker for her with sponsor contracts as she has better reach than many pro women who aren’t doing anything.
So there’s two ways about this, go all in and have a social platform. Or work a full time job. Frodo got old at the right time. Daniela is exiting the sport at the right time. BUT…if you’re the World Champion you don’t have to do as much. But your big time sponsors also take a lot of time.
My guess is that Skipper has moved on to other stuff like the strength training app with Valere Endurance which ties up with his recent Hyrox escapades.
really really hard to make money (or even not lose money) with a podcast
.
Why are there 25,000 useless triathlon podcasts if there is no money in it?
Does everything have to be about money?
In an indirect way, it probably helps him anyway. The podcast is what got me interested enough to follow his YT and Strava.
I see a Version 2.0 of the Podcast is coming on the 13th from their Instagram
.
https://youtu.be/dnvZhx2eEAw?si=nXMwUHl7dvwn2vnu
Looks like Tom has started his own Youtube channel.
Skipper’s favorite triathlon youtuber (as advertised on one of the podcast episodes) took his mates out for a beer marathon - they stop at every (?) bar, have a random beer and crack on. It’s hilarious.
Yes you’ve guessed it, they’re Aussies. The youtuber’s name is Lachlan Earnshaw and I swear he earned my attention with the show he put on.
https://youtu.be/…?si=B9gmoZYebhfbb6se
Joe Skipper had a hot take in the latest episode about how equal prize money for men and women is not fair especially when the women’s field is a lot smaller. He mentioned that there are women’s races where just showing up guarantees prize money. So he’s suggesting that the prize money should depend on how many are racing in each field at least from what I recall. He said that T100 or WTCS races are okay to have equal purses since the number of athletes showing up are more or less the same.
Joe Skipper had a hot take in the latest episode about how equal prize money for men and women is not fair especially when the women’s field is a lot smaller. He mentioned that there are women’s races where just showing up guarantees prize money. So he’s suggesting that the prize money should depend on how many are racing in each field at least from what I recall. He said that T100 or WTCS races are okay to have equal purses since the number of athletes showing up are more or less the same.It’s called Tri Mockery for a reason (and also listen to the caveat at the beginning of Pro Tri News: exactly the same applies). Justification for unequal prize money is a point of view with which I don’t agree, but perfectly reasonable to share/argue it. I hope they don’t get unreasonable ‘hate’ for saying it.
Pro women triathletes over the decades are fortunate that from early days ‘equal prize money’ has been established and sustained.
Joe Skipper had a hot take in the latest episode about how equal prize money for men and women is not fair especially when the women’s field is a lot smaller. He mentioned that there are women’s races where just showing up guarantees prize money. So he’s suggesting that the prize money should depend on how many are racing in each field at least from what I recall. He said that T100 or WTCS races are okay to have equal purses since the number of athletes showing up are more or less the same.It’s called Tri Mockery for a reason (and also listen to the caveat at the beginning of Pro Tri News: exactly the same applies). Justification for unequal prize money is a point of view with which I don’t agree, but perfectly reasonable to share/argue it. I hope they don’t get unreasonable ‘hate’ for saying it.
Pro women triathletes over the decades are fortunate that from early days ‘equal prize money’ has been established and sustained.
Agree that it’s a misogyny issue. But women’s participant is important and what he’s saying will only make it worse in the pro field.
Skipper just commented on a post by Sam Twine from Triathlon Insights: “To clarify we weren’t sayint women should get less than men we were saying that prize money should be tiered where field sizes aren’t capped”.
Races with no pro entry limits will most likely have more male than female pros and will guarantee lower prize money to women.
I think it makes sense to have some kind of minimum performance requirement to get prize money. It’s true and sad that in some races you go away with money just from finishing, even though it is hours away. It happens more often with women because the field is usually weaker but there should be no difference. Just as in cycling, where if you finish 30% off the winner’s time you’re out of the race, there should be something similar. Also in marathons the prize is capped when the winner’s time goes above some limit.
I have this opinion but also understand those who don’t. It’s professional sport and there should be some limitations
Probably not the best hill to die on to essentially cut women’s prizes (no matter how you word it), but the point is understood. The only issue is Joe hasn’t taken it far enough. We’ve got mostly men competing and equal prizes going to women, which means the men are paying for the women. But we also have mostly age groupers racing, and a select group of pros getting the prizes. We could just as easily argue as age groupers that there is too much money going to such a small amount of pros, be they male or female, doesn’t matter. The T100 has shown us that money is important to influence behavior, but it’s not the primary driver, as many athletes are still working in other low paying races and skipping T100, etc. The point here is that if prize packages were cut in half across the board in Ironman next year, how many pros would refuse to race and how many elite age groupers would still be excited to step up and race pro?
Ironman could redo the pro field to the following next year:
Top 3 overall in a race automatically become Elite and must race elite (the following year).
Elite races free (no license fee)
No Elite prizes outside of North American/EU Champs and World Champ races.
Every race has an Elite wave. Bottom 30% of elite racers get dropped at the end of every year unless they qualify for some kind of exemption.
And it would still have plenty of excited elite racers, and the careerist pros would either go away or find a way to make it work.
So Joe, how’s that for a hot take? The value you add to a race is not any greater than the value a Justin Riele or Miguel Mattox adds (probably Joe adds less in the case of the latter). Sure, I’m sure these guys want to get paid too now that they are close. But they raced and paid out of pocket essentially as elite age groupers for their personal pride and passion. Ironman doesn’t need to reduce the age grouper experience to add to the pro one.
All that said, I sense that some people are going to be about to cancel Joe for his provocative arguments. He’s playing a little bit of argument absurdum as the devil’s advocate to get some attention to the discussion. We shouldn’t cancel people for engaging in vigorous debate, even if we disagree with them and think they are wrong.
Just replying in general, but there are more men than women who work in my office…does that mean that as a woman, I should make less than the men?