Sage Advice, LLC

Paul Sage's Marketing Work and Observations

  • Every 0.9 seconds, another podcast episode is released into the world.

    Think about that. Roughly 67 new episodes every minute. Nearly 100,000 every day. More than 35 million a year.

    That’s a colossal amount of content for a medium that’s just a year older than legal drinking age. I started putting podcasts in my ears in 2006, when most people had never heard of them.

    In February 2013, I wrote a post on this blog titled In Praise of the Podcast. I said, “Podcasts are to media what Trefoils are to Girl Scout Cookies.” In other words, most people knew they existed, but relatively few were consuming them. I was among the early enthusiasts.

    My podcast habit began in 2006 when I downloaded one podcast at a time to my 1-gigabyte Apple iPod Nano. Yep, I connected my Nano to my laptop by the old iPod connecting cord with the huge plug. Soon I was exploring an idiosyncratic variety of free podcast programming, from business advice to comedy, news and offbeat subjects. I was hooked.

    From Nerdy Novelty to $9 Billion Industry

    On October 9, 2026, Freakonomics Radio released a fascinating episode titled It’s Show Business, Baby!. Host Stephen Dubner devoted more than an hour to examining the strange economics of podcasting, a medium that has grown enormously but still seems uncertain how to operate as a business.

    Consider the numbers presented in the episode: Podcasting began in 2004. Today, the estimated worldwide audience is 620 million people. Annual global podcast industry revenue is estimated at roughly $9 billion.

    That sounds enormous, until you hear Dubner explain that podcasting is a smaller business than bowling, American pet grooming and boarding, or American funeral homes.

    And then there’s that mind-boggling statistic about new episodes appearing every 0.9 seconds, calculated by Will Page, Spotify’s former chief economist.

    Page describes the podcast universe as a “sea of niches.” There are podcasts about everything: sports, politics, business, history, religion, true crime, science, entertainment, self-improvement and thousands of obscure interests that traditional broadcasters wouldn’t dream of serving.

    Podcasting has accomplished something extraordinary: It’s now possible for almost anyone with something to say to reach a potentially worldwide audience, without owning a broadcast license, newspaper, printing press or television station.

    Everybody Can Make a Podcast. Who’s Making Money?

    One of the more startling observations in the Freakonomics episode is the suggestion that only about 1% of podcasts are profitable. That’s a widely repeated estimate rather than a documented industry statistic, but even allowing for uncertainty, it reveals something about the industry’s economics.

    Podcasting has produced its share of celebrities and enormous financial deals. Joe Rogan, Alex Cooper and other personalities have become valuable podcasters. Spotify and Amazon have spent hundreds of millions acquiring podcast businesses and talent.

    But the vast majority of podcasters operate on an entirely different scale. Some earn modest advertising or subscription revenue. Others produce shows to promote their businesses, build reputations, cultivate communities or simply pursue personal interests.

    Plenty make nothing at all.

    Unlike traditional broadcasting, podcasting doesn’t require a large audience to justify its existence. A program attracting a few hundred devoted listeners can still be worthwhile to its creator.

    That’s one of podcasting’s great strengths. It’s also one reason its economics are so peculiar.

    A Marketing Medium We Still Can’t Properly Measure

    Here’s the part of the Freakonomics discussion that I found particularly interesting as a lifelong marketer: twenty-two years after podcasting began, the industry still lacks a universally accepted system for measuring audiences and advertising exposure.

    Advertisers can buy podcast placements, and sophisticated measurement tools certainly exist. Downloads, streaming activity, listening behavior, promotional codes, website visits and other indicators can provide useful evidence of advertising effectiveness.

    But a download isn’t necessarily a listen. A listen isn’t necessarily an advertisement heard. And an ad heard isn’t necessarily one that produces a sale.

    Complicating matters, podcast consumption takes place across Apple, Spotify, YouTube and numerous other platforms, each with its own methods of gathering and reporting data.

    Jim Bankoff, CEO of Vox Media, told Dubner that this fragmented measurement system leaves media companies struggling to combine data and demonstrate value to advertisers.

    This year, the advertising agency Oxford Road helped convene the Alliance for Measurement in Podcasting, or AMP Accords, to address these shortcomings.

    Think about the implications. Here is a global medium with hundreds of millions of listeners, advertisers eager to reach them, and an industry still working out what constitutes a reliable advertising impression.

    For marketers accustomed to standardized audience ratings and digital analytics, that’s a substantial handicap.

    It may also represent an opportunity. Podcast audiences often select programs deliberately, return regularly and develop unusually strong relationships with hosts. That combination can be attractive to advertisers, even if the precise value of the exposure remains difficult to quantify.

    In my 2013 blog article, I suggested that podcast advertising could work because it offered an uncluttered environment and an opted-in audience.

    I still believe that, even though podcasts now have more ads than they once had. The challenge is proving their value consistently enough to attract ad spend.

    An Unlimited Supply of Content. A Limited Supply of Attention.

    Podcasting has another problem: discoverability.

    When I started listening in 2006, finding interesting podcasts was relatively easy because there weren’t that many. Today, the choices are practically limitless.

    How do you find shows you’d love that you don’t even know exist?

    Recommendations, search results, charts, social media and increasingly YouTube provide some answers. But discovery remains surprisingly imperfect for a digital medium that’s been around for more than two decades. And it takes time on the consumer’s behalf to try new podcast series and decide to stick with them or jump ship. So many podcasts, so little time.

    The Freakonomics episode also explores a development likely to make this problem considerably worse: artificial intelligence.

    Jeanine Wright, whose company Inception Point AI produces AI-generated programming, told Dubner that the company had created approximately 15,000 active shows and more than 300,000 episodes. Production costs can average around one dollar per episode.

    One dollar!

    AI could make useful audio content available on subjects too specialized to justify traditional production costs. But it could also flood the podcast universe with low-quality, repetitive or untrustworthy material, also known as slop.

    And while the supply of programming is virtually unlimited, the supply of human attention is not. Every 40 minutes spent listening to a mediocre AI-generated podcast is 40 minutes unavailable for something better.

    With a new episode appearing every 0.9 seconds even before AI production reaches its full potential, the competition for our ears will only intensify.

    The Medium That Refuses to Behave Like Other Media

    Perhaps the most intriguing insight from Freakonomics is that podcasting has succeeded partly because it developed without the tightly controlled distribution systems that characterize other media.

    For years, Apple made it possible for virtually anyone to distribute podcasts to the world without charging either producers or listeners. The open RSS (Really Simple Syndication) technology underlying podcast distribution allowed shows to appear across competing platforms.

    This open environment was wonderful for creators and consumers, but produced some peculiar financial incentives. Platforms that distribute podcasts don’t necessarily receive a share of the ad revenue those podcasts generate. Meanwhile, producers benefit from broad distribution without necessarily compensating the companies making it possible.

    As Page explains, the conventional economics of media distribution don’t always apply.

    The industry is now experimenting with video, subscriptions, live events, licensing, exclusive content and other revenue sources. YouTube has emerged as a major podcast destination, blurring the distinction between audio programming and television. See another blog story of mine, Laptop is the New TV (2018).

    Perhaps podcasting will eventually become another branch of the entertainment industry, dominated by a relatively small number of powerful companies, the way other media evolved.

    Or perhaps podcasting’s sprawling, decentralized character will remain its defining feature.

    I hope it’s the latter. That makes podcasts more fun. You never know what you’re gonna get.

    Still in Praise of the Podcast

    In 2013, I said there was a podcast on every topic. It’s even more true today. I can listen to an intelligent discussion of economics, an analysis of a soccer match, a conversation about classical music, or a lecture about an obscure episode in history, all on demand, usually free, and often with no more effort than tapping my phone.

    Podcasting has enriched my life for 20 years. I have learned an extraordinary amount from people I otherwise would never have encountered. Successful podcasters, by and large, are very smart people with endless knowledge and wisdom to share.

    And the beauty of the medium is that I choose what to hear, when to hear it and how much time to give it. That’s powerful.

    For content creators, podcasting offers unprecedented access to audiences. For advertisers, it offers potentially intimate connections with carefully defined groups of consumers. For listeners, it offers a virtually inexhaustible library of information and entertainment.

    But despite its explosive growth, podcasting remains an oddly immature business. It has yet to solve fundamental questions about measurement, discoverability, profitability and the relationship between creators and distributors.

    We have figured out how to produce and distribute more podcasts than anyone could possibly consume. We haven’t figured out how to make the economics work for most of the people producing them.

    Perhaps the next great breakthrough won’t be a new podcasting technology, superstar host or distribution platform.

    Perhaps it will be developing a better way to connect valuable content with the people who want it, and rewarding the people who create that content.

    Twenty years after I bought that little iPod Nano, I’m still listening. And I’m still fascinated by where this medium is headed.


    Further listening: Freakonomics Radio, Episode 690, “It’s Show Business, Baby!”, October 9, 2026.

    Earlier reading: Paul Sage, “In Praise of the Podcast,” February 8, 2013.

    The numerical estimates and industry observations in this draft are attributed primarily to the October 9 Freakonomics Radio episode and its published transcript, rather than treated as independently audited figures.


    A Note About This Article: In 2013, I wrote about how a relatively new technology called podcasting was changing the way we consume information. Thirteen years later, I used another transformative technology, artificial intelligence, to revisit the subject. I provided ChatGPT with my original article, the recent Freakonomics Radio episode, and my observations about the evolution of podcasting. ChatGPT drafted this article, which I reviewed and edited before publication. The experiences, opinions and editorial direction are mine; much of the writing was generated by AI.

    Paul Sage

  • Yesterday we said goodbye to Winnie. She had cancer. We knew this day was coming, and it didn’t come as soon as we expected, but the finality of losing her is still very difficult to accept.

    Losing any dog is a heartache, but losing a super-loving Golden Retriever like Winnie is heartbreaking in a big way. She came to us as a wild little fuzzball and left us ten years later as our best friend. We knew from the start, from the day we brought that cute puppy home, that her last day would come in our lifetime. It just hurts like hell when that last day is today.

    Winnie was famous — the most popular dog in our neighborhood. Nobody knew my name, but everybody knew Winnie: the kids at the school bus stop, the parents at the playground, the lifeguards at the pool, the walkers of other dogs at our neighborhood pond. I was just a delivery system: the old man on the other end of Winnie’s leash. She loved everyone and expected a warm greeting from all she met. She never understood why any human or animal was not her friend, and most of them were. How could anyone ignore that sweet face?

    Farewell, dear Winnie. You were perfect.

  • Pip: Sage Advice, LLC — where the advice is occasionally about whether you still remember how to use software you abandoned three years ago.

    Mara: Paul Sage – Marketing tackles exactly that this episode — returning to a tool left behind, rebuilding confidence, and what the whole experience says about how we actually learn things now.

    Pip: Let's start with the InDesign comeback story.

    Brushing Up on My InDesign

    Pip: The question at the center of this post is one a lot of working creatives quietly dread — you step away from a professional tool for a few years, and you genuinely don't know if the muscle memory is still there.

    Mara: The post frames it plainly from the start: "I had been away from Adobe InDesign for three years, and I was beginning to worry if I had lost my basic skill level in this industry-standard layout tool."

    Pip: That word "worry" is doing real work there. This isn't casual rustiness — it's the specific anxiety of someone whose professional identity is partly tied to knowing this stuff.

    Mara: And the recovery method is worth noting. YouTube videos, Perplexity for questions, and deliberate hands-on time with the platform. No course, no bootcamp, no certification. The conclusion drawn is direct: "If you want to learn something, the training is out there, and it's usually free."

    Pip: Which is either very liberating or a quiet indictment of every expensive software training program ever sold.

    Mara: The post lands somewhere genuinely encouraging, though. The result wasn't just returning to a prior baseline — the assessment is that the rebuilt skill level may actually exceed where things stood in 2022.

    Pip: So the time away, combined with better free resources and more intentional practice, produced a net gain. That's not nothing.

    Mara: The post also includes a finished InDesign page as proof of work — a tribute to a Navy SEAL veteran nephew. It's a personal piece, and it gives the abstract claim about skill recovery something concrete to point at.

    Pip: Showing the output alongside the process is the right move. The argument lands harder when there's something to look at.


    Mara: The throughline here is really about what it takes to stay current — and the answer turns out to be less intimidating than most people assume.

    Pip: Free tools, a real question, and enough stubbornness to just get back in the pool. More of that next time.

  • Two days ago, I posted a photo and question on my LinkedIn page. I have already achieved a personal record for impressions and engagement. Everyone has an opinion.

    Here is the link to my LinkedIn post.

    What do you think? The older packaging on the left, or the newer one on the right? Which one will fly faster off a shelf at Walmart or Target?

  • Super Bowl LX on February 8, 2026, crowned the NFL champion, but its true American hallmark was the barrage of prescription drug ads—a spectacle impossible anywhere else. Only the U.S. and New Zealand allow direct-to-consumer TV ads for pharmaceuticals, a policy most nations reject to prevent overprescribing, inflated costs, and hype over hard science.

    At least five pharma spots aired during the Big Game:

    • Novartis spotlighted prostate cancer awareness, urging men to discuss treatments with doctors for early intervention.
    • Boehringer Ingelheim drove home the uACR urine test’s role in spotting kidney damage early, targeting risks from diabetes and hypertension before symptoms strike.
    • Novo Nordisk promoted Wegovy, their GLP-1 pill for weight management. 
    • Hims & Hers pitched telehealth access to compounded GLP-1s, making weight loss meds convenient via app and mail.
    • Ro, another GLP-1 weight-loss drug, aired an ad starring tennis legend Venus Williams. 

    In countries where “football” is a 90-minute game without helmets and shoulder pads, DTC pharmaceutical ads are out-of-bounds. Their philosophy is that this ban on big pharma hype safeguards patients and quells demand for fancy drugs with hidden risks. Here in America we make up our own games and play each other for “World” championships.

  • While I was watching Super Bowl LX on February 8, I kept a running log of all the national ads. One commercial I had seen in previews never showed up on my screen: The Kellogg’s Raisin Bran “Will Shat” ad. I know it aired but somehow I missed it. I think it was the funniest ad of the night, starring 94-year-old William Shatner as “Will Shat, Bran Ambassador” beaming in and out of slice-of-America scenes with scatological shtick. You’re a regular guy, Captain Kirk.

  • All the ads and action from pregame until the final whistle.

    Click here for the two-page timeline and advertising summary.

    The Seattle Seahawks defeated the New England Patriots in the annual game played between commercials. This year’s ads were dominated by technology and pharmaceuticals, with a lot less to eat, drink and drive. We still got our requisite Clydesdale and some good-good doggos.

  • Do you ever ask yourself, “Do I still have it?”

    I had been away from Adobe InDesign for three years, and I was beginning to worry if I had lost my basic skill level in this industry-standard layout tool. This week I jumped back into the InDesign pool and started swimming. I watched YouTube videos, asked Perplexity a lot of questions, and just played around with the platform enough until I arrived at a level of knowledge that is, perhaps, better than I had when I fell off the InDesign wagon in 2022.

    If you want to learn something, the training is out there, and it’s usually free.

    I created this page, an homage to my Navy SEALS veteran nephew, a man of many manly skills I can’t even fathom, but I don’t think he knows InDesign, so I have that going for me.

  • There’s a new breed of ball chasers stealing hearts at stadiums this summer, from The Show to the minors and even the College World Series. The golden retriever, that smiling, tail-wagging, blonde-hair-shedding variety of canis familiaris, is making headlines—not just as the bat dog or the mascot, but often as the face of a team’s brand and focal point of fan engagement.

    A Golden Wave Across Ballparks: Some Notable Goldens

    • Dizzy, the English cream golden retriever, is the beloved ballpark dog and mascot for our own Arkansas Travelers, even inspiring a weeklong “Barkansas Dizzys” rebrand and the sale of dazzling Dizzy merchandise.
    • Bruce made headlines at a Washington Nationals game before returning to his minor league duties with the Rochester Red Wings.
    • Bo, companion of LSU outfielder Derek Curiel, was a fan favorite at the College World Series in Omaha. Bo inspired the Tigers to win the national championship, and there’s a rumor that he changed the spelling of his name to the Cajunized BEAUX.
    • The Trenton Thunder, a team with a storied tradition of golden retriever batdogs, have cemented their alternate identity, the Trenton Goldens. What began as a tribute to their batdogs—Chase, Derby, Rookie, and Dash—has become a fan-favorite brand. The Thunder now wear Goldens jerseys for all dog-friendly games and offer a full line of Goldens merchandise.
    • The Hudson Valley Renegades, a minor league affiliate of the New York Yankees, the Hudson Valley Renegades, have unleashed a new alternate identity for 2025: the Hudson Valley Retrievers. For three games this season, the team will don special uniforms featuring Bella, a golden retriever mascot inspired by their original groundskeeping dog from 1999.
    • Down in Texas, the Frisco RoughRiders and the Sugar Land Space Cowboys, have also featured golden retriever mixes as ballpark dogs.
    From top left: My Winnie (red Cane’s bandana) with Dizzy, Winnie gets her Barkansas Dizzys treats, Bo Curiel of LSU at the College World Series, Bruce the Bat Dog at the Washington Nationals game, the Trenton Thunder – make that the Trenton Goldens.

    In addition to their roles as celebrities and mascots, goldens and other breeds are welcomed at many minor league parks with their humans on designated “bring your dog” nights. Here in Little Rock, I often take my nine-year-old Winnie to see our Travelers, a double-A affiliate of the Seattle Mariners. The stadium features an enclosed dog park, and local businesses sponsor doggy treats and gifts.

    There are two kinds of people: those who own a golden retriever and those who wish they did. Goldens come equipped with a personality at no extra charge. They are goofy and are guaranteed not to bite you. Their presence at ballparks amplifies the friendly atmosphere that baseball is famous for.

    And in College Football, a Family of Golden Receivers

    Baseball is not the only sport with a golden touch. Last college football season, ESPN announcer Kirk Herbstreit’s beloved Ben was a crowd favorite. Sadly, Ben passed away in November. Mr. Herbstreit has a squad of new golden boys. Look for Peter, Ben’s successor, on ESPN College GameDay and on the gridiron in the fall.

  • While the Big Game was never close on the field, the annual showcase of creative advertising on TV was full of memorable and not-so-memorable moments. This list is a complete roster of what ran, and even some ads that we thought were going to run but never got in the game.