Patreon. Cleanest money in the biz. It's a John Darko opinion from a recent editorial. Implied is the existence of less clean even dirty money. That warrants a closer view. A current audio-review publication is like a corner store. You enter, look around then grab what appeals or serves your needs. But instead of paying the shopkeep for your selection, you leave scot-free. Communal self-serve at its finest. Since there was no cash register, legally there was no theft. Phew. Close call? With ad-based hifi publications it's the suppliers who pay the store owner. For the 6-pack of beer, cartons of milk and eggs you parted with, Heineken, your local Dairy and a nearby farmer paid the corner-store owner to keep his doors open and put food on his table and that of his employees. The ad-based publishing model is strange that way. Since the advent of the Internet, the notion that content is hard product like beer, milk and eggs has only further eroded. Content is everywhere, readily accessed and mostly free. Or so it seems. That content creation is a job like any other which takes time and skill; that content itself is product to require compensation—that's all too easily missed.
In 2026, a print edition of The New York Times purchased from their store cost $7 Mon-Sat, $12 for Sunday editions. A typical modern Sunday edition contains between 200-400 pages depending on specific sections and ad inserts. That's a lot of paper, ink, photos, research, writing, editing and overall manhours. At the turn of the millennium, a daily issue cost 75 cents in the metropolitan area, $1 in most other parts of the country. It's how we were trained to begin correlating content with being virtually free. In a capitalist system of sustainable business models, that of course asked for trouble in the print-media biz. Hence the sharp cost increase of physical newspapers. Even for its digital editions, a relative publishing colossus like the New York Times must install a paywall or the model wouldn't work. Compared to their ~13'100'000 subscription base, a popular hifi YouTube channel is positively insignificant. Whilst most in our sector have and solicit Patreon supporters—those readers pay a small voluntary monthly fee, sometimes in exchange for early access or special content not otherwise available—the vast majority still embed adverts. The takeaway is plain. In our sector there's insufficient Patreon money to go around to enable publishing that's 100% free of ads or other commercial links. Does that make ad revenues less clean, even dirty?
When for her popular channel Jana Dagdagan does a factory tour of Mårten in Sweden and appears in her own video, you know that she brought at least one camera man. That's transatlantic travel expenses for two across 4-5 days minimum plus easily an extra week of editing back at the office. It's obviously sponsored content. Being openly promotional to include zero performance commentary, most of her viewers have no issue though some may wish for a disclaimer¹. When writers paid by headphones.com review the very gear which their paymaster's webstore sells, nobody blinks an eye. If the same happened in print or web 'zines, many would instantly cry collusion to set up a subtext of dirty money. So print publishing and the online written word are routinely held to different standards than algorithm-aware acolytes doing the like'n'subscribe affair, affiliate links and discount codes. It's also because print mags and websites are old-school whilst YouTube is the newer kid on the block whose audience applies different sensibilities. Times do change. So do acceptable standards. Today even a hifi store owner making a living from hardware sales can openly moonlight as a reviewer, influencer or drama creator.
There's another revenue source for written content creators which I was just vaguely cognizant of since I don't use it: licensing fees for review reprints in PDF format and the right to use award seals and pull quotes for social-media promotions. Unlike adverts visible to the consumer, this revenue happens off camera. It's invisible. That's not the only difference. Prepaid ad support for longer-term promotional visibility generates cashflow to cover ongoing expenses of content creation; or if billed monthly, approaches the half upfront, half upon completion model common to other sectors. Reprint, pull quote and seal funds all happen after reviews publish. Since no manufacturer is obliged to execute a reprint option, these funds are far from certain. Yet the publisher still had production costs to cover, still had to pay the writer. With this scheme cynical observers could detect rather more potential for collusion when it's the 5-star rave that will trigger the buy-in options, not a highly critical writeup that took multiple issues with a given hardware. Because this revenue stream routes behind the scenes, it's never discussed. Even if untoward influences were to manifest, invisibility launders such monies to be as 'squeaky clean' as Patreon.
Why is Patreon so starched? Because like other products, it's the actual consumers who pay. It's the most direct transaction without any 3rd-party 'interference' of potential conflicts of interest. The global audience interested in hifi review content is simply far too small to support the plethora of publications and channels in our current space. Anyone presently in college dreaming of becoming a 'YouTuber' and looking at the stats would never target hifi as their chosen platform. Focussing on celebrity gossip would do far bigger numbers. To segue back to the beginning, the ad-based publishing model is undoubtedly imperfect. To not blur even cross lines, it relies on the goodwill of all involved. The imperfections enter because goodwill can be a vague concept susceptible to abuse or at least, varying interpretations. If an advertiser pulls their support because they didn't like review criticism, it's their right. If a publication panders to that mechanism to keep advertisers happy, lines are getting crossed. If a publication only reviews product by advertisers, readers become suspicious. Hence such a thing is virtually unheard of. The simple upshot of common ~30% ad-supported content is that a minority of manufacturers keep a given publication afloat whilst the majority get a free ride. In John Darko's image of the village commons, three farmers do its fence and irrigation upkeep, another seven freely graze their cattle there without giving the commons' maintenance a second thought. In old Hollywood Western patois, they're free-grazers. That reads far better than freeloaders or moochers. Having sponsors tolerate this situation is a prime example of goodwill when it's not really fair. Charging a fixed nominal review fee to everyone instead neatly levels that playing field whilst still accepting long-term sponsors. Yet it triggers instant pay-to-play accusations as though getting paid for one's work was an alien concept. I should know. I caused those very ripples when I adopted that model very many moons ago. Does the perfect publishing model even exist? As I see it, if readers truly desired full independence for their content creators, they'd cover all their production and operational costs, period. In a culture where the notion of free content has become so prevalent, relying on that much goodwill in our little space seems quite impossible. Should one audio news/review outlet suddenly operate from behind a paywall, the majority of its audience would instantly migrate to where content is still free. Competitive capitalism 101. What we have instead are variations on the ad-based model; sponsored content that's openly identified as such or implied by common sense²; secondary remunerations via licensing fees; affiliate links and discount-code tie-ins; or operators who neither charge a flat fee nor accept ads but instead sell off their loaner samples³. Content monetization is key unless one had retired and just wanted something to do; or is a trust-fund baby or otherwise set up to work for the sheer fun of it. If you're not on the publishing side where you must decide which model to adopt, you're simply a content consumer with very many choices. If you apply logic, you can easily see the giveaway signs of whatever model or hybrid is in play. None of them are perfect. Yet most operators work within their imperfections with care and credibility, fully aware of where the lines are. They try their hardest to remain within their ethical confines. Just because they can't afford to work for free, does it make any of their income streams dirty especially when their MO is openly communicated?
At the end of the day, what more could you ask if you want continued free access to audio content?
______________
¹ From Google AI: "Sponsored content is a form of paid promotion where a brand pays a publisher or creator to produce material that looks like regular editorial or social media material not an interrupting ad. It aims to provide useful or entertaining information while subtly promoting a product. Consumer protection laws require transparency so audiences can tell the difference between an honest opinion and a paid advertisement. Regulatory bodies like the Federal Trade Commission mandate clear and conspicuous disclosures for any material connection between a creator and a brand."
² Unless a writer double-tasked a personal vacation with a hifi factory visit or two, it's fair to assume that his trip and associated expenses to a manufacturer's premises were paid for by his host to generate published factory-tour content. If a manufacturer gets a 15-min. video interview spot with the organizers of a hifi show, it's not unreasonable to assume that his show-exhibition invoice included that promo option. Such financial arrangements aren't unethical as such. They're examples of changing practices and new opportunities. Some consumers simply prefer if such arrangements are spelled out which isn't yet always the case.
³ This sell-at-the-side topic used to be an absolute taboo. Here too things are changing. If such arrangements between shipper and receiver are made a priori as a mutually agreeable way to eliminate return-freight even re-importation fees for no-longer-new gear whilst standing in for other ways of support like ads or licensing fees, it's solely between these parties involved. It's when this business model gets paraded around as taking zero ad or other monies for content creation that it becomes flatly dishonest. Liquidating review samples even with full permission is just another form of payment. Why couldn't that be openly acknowledged as though being compensated for one's work were in the least bit shameful? Just let readers/viewers know so they get to decide whether to them, a given business model ought to have any negative bearings on the truthfulness and usefulness of the content it enables.
