The mancityfans.net football forum

93:20 are moving to a pay model next season. £4 a month. Blue Moon will remain free for main show but extras for a fee for patrons. There is of course generic freebie podcasts like Guardian weekly.
Does anyone think that there is enough info/entertainment that could justify £50 a year for City podcasts?

foreverblue wrote:93:20 are moving to a pay model next season. £4 a month. Blue Moon will remain free for main show but extras for a fee for patrons. There is of course generic freebie podcasts like Guardian weekly.
Does anyone think that there is enough info/entertainment that could justify £50 a year for City podcasts?

Why should people create good content for free? I bet the 93:20 guys put quite a lot of time into creating the podcasts and I, for one, am totally fine with paying them for it.

mr_nool wrote:

foreverblue wrote:93:20 are moving to a pay model next season. £4 a month. Blue Moon will remain free for main show but extras for a fee for patrons. There is of course generic freebie podcasts like Guardian weekly.
Does anyone think that there is enough info/entertainment that could justify £50 a year for City podcasts?

Why should people create good content for free? I bet the 93:20 guys put quite a lot of time into creating the podcasts and I, for one, am totally fine with paying them for it.

I don't disagree that people should be remunerated for their work it just interests me why they have moved to subscription rather than sponsorship.

foreverblue wrote:

mr_nool wrote:

foreverblue wrote:93:20 are moving to a pay model next season. £4 a month. Blue Moon will remain free for main show but extras for a fee for patrons. There is of course generic freebie podcasts like Guardian weekly.
Does anyone think that there is enough info/entertainment that could justify £50 a year for City podcasts?

Why should people create good content for free? I bet the 93:20 guys put quite a lot of time into creating the podcasts and I, for one, am totally fine with paying them for it.

I don't disagree that people should be remunerated for their work it just interests me why they have moved to subscription rather than sponsorship.

I think they will make more money. They certainly would have more listeners if they went down the Blue Moon road, but not that many people pay for something if they don't have to (or so I think).

I always used to prefer the Blue Moon podcast, but having to wait until Friday to hear their views on last weekend's game got me to switch to City Watch.

mr_nool wrote:

foreverblue wrote:

mr_nool wrote:

foreverblue wrote:93:20 are moving to a pay model next season. £4 a month. Blue Moon will remain free for main show but extras for a fee for patrons. There is of course generic freebie podcasts like Guardian weekly.
Does anyone think that there is enough info/entertainment that could justify £50 a year for City podcasts?

Why should people create good content for free? I bet the 93:20 guys put quite a lot of time into creating the podcasts and I, for one, am totally fine with paying them for it.

I don't disagree that people should be remunerated for their work it just interests me why they have moved to subscription rather than sponsorship.

I think they will make more money. They certainly would have more listeners if they went down the Blue Moon road, but not that many people pay for something if they don't have to (or so I think).

I always used to prefer the Blue Moon podcast, but having to wait until Friday to hear their views on last weekend's game got me to switch to City Watch.

So all things being equal which do you prefer?

Both

I will pay for 93:20 and listen to Blue Moon for free. If they also turn to subscription, I will probably choose between one of them. If Blue Moon up the frequency with which they broadcast, I will most likely go for them.

Same here.

foreverblue wrote:93:20 are moving to a pay model next season. £4 a month. Blue Moon will remain free for main show but extras for a fee for patrons. There is of course generic freebie podcasts like Guardian weekly.
Does anyone think that there is enough info/entertainment that could justify £50 a year for City podcasts?

I like them a lot, but that's a steep price if you ask me for such content.

Not going there. I can live without the transfer specials. I never even heard them until this past season.

We also get similar content on other podcasts that are out there. None are quite as good as the diverse and informed views you get on their podcast, which I even would argue I enjoy more than Blue Moon now. I would support them, but not for this price.

The Guardian's Football Weekly has a sponsor that surely helps cover some costs, I am gathering.

I think the 93:20 pod is quite brilliant and always look forward to the next installment. I am however disappointed at the switch, not because I don't think they should be rewarded for their efforts, but more at the actual fee.... £1-2 to me feels like more of a suitable fee. At their current asking price it's the same as what I pay for always on Amazon music, or even worse, more than I pay for the entire sporting calender (in HD) via paid streams.

It's a shame but like others have said, I didn't even know about it until the past few months anyway

mr_nool wrote:Both

I will pay for 93:20 and listen to Blue Moon for free. If they also turn to subscription, I will probably choose between one of them. If Blue Moon up the frequency with which they broadcast, I will most likely go for them.

I would pay good money not to listen to Graham Hunter and Billy Shears.