Almost everyone wants to build the next DOAC. But almost nobody should be trying.
Over the past few years, I have spent an inordinate amount of time making podcasts, launching podcasts, selling podcasts, trying to monetise podcasts and, occasionally, wondering whether anybody really understands the economics of podcasts at all.
Including me.
The industry often talks about podcasting as though it is itself a business model.
Someone has expertise, access to interesting guests or a strong point of view. They record a show, publish it consistently, grow an audience, attract sponsors and eventually the programme pays for itself.
Sometimes it even makes them rich.
That is the story everyone sees.
The problem is that it describes a tiny minority of podcasts.
Listen Notes currently indexes more than 3.7 million podcasts and approximately 188 million episodes worldwide. Creating a podcast has never been easier. Creating meaningful economic value from one remains exceptionally difficult.
How the minority actually makes money
According to the 2025 Independent Podcaster Report, 85% of independent podcasters generate no revenue at all. Only 15% make any money, and even that headline is deceptive.
Of those who do generate revenue, around a third still fail to cover their costs, almost half break even or make only a modest profit, just 13% describe podcasting as a significant secondary income, and only 8% say it is their primary source of income. In other words, across the entire sample, fewer than 2% have built something that provides a meaningful living.
But if your plan depends upon the podcast becoming financially self-sustaining, the numbers should make you stop and think.
The central mistake is simple:
A podcast is not a business model. It is a vessel for one.
The business model sits behind the content.
Podcasts are an incredibly powerful media for driving attention and engagement. They are also efficient at conveying complex ideas into conversations. That’s why they’re effective.
A podcast might build a mass audience that can be monetised through advertising, subscriptions and products. It might establish authority that helps somebody sell consulting, memberships or services. It might be funded by a company because it performs a strategic marketing or communications role. Or it might simply exist because somebody enjoys making it and is happy to pay.
These are fundamentally different businesses.
They require different hosts, different investment levels, different timelines and completely different definitions of success.
So before anyone embarks upon their podcast journey, they should decide which of the following four businesses, they are actually trying to build.
1. Creator media
Attention becomes the product
This is the model everybody imagines.
The Diary of a CEO. Joe Rogan. The Rest Is (Anything). Call Her Daddy.
The show builds a large and loyal audience. That audience is then monetised through some combination of:
- direct advertising and sponsorship;
- platform revenue;
- subscriptions and memberships;
- live events;
- merchandise;
- licensing;
- books and products;
- and the host’s wider commercial value.
This is not really a podcast-production model.
It is an audience-acquisition business.
Professional production matters, but it is nowhere near sufficient.
A beautifully lit studio does not create demand. Expensive cameras do not create relevance. A famous guest does not guarantee that anyone will watch.
The podcast is only the raw material.
The real operating system consists of positioning, distribution, packaging, experimentation, audience psychology, guest supply, marketing, data and relentless iteration.
Why 2017 was a completely different market
When people dream of The Diary of a CEO success (either publicly or privately) it is important to understand the landscape into which it launched.
The first episode appeared in 2017.
At roughly that point, Apple was reporting a catalogue of approximately 400,000 podcasts and 14 million episodes. By comparison, today’s broader market contains several million shows (see above).
That does not mean every one of those shows was active, either then or now. Catalogue size and active competition are different measures.
But directionally, the point is pretty clear:
Diary of a CEO entered a market with a fraction of today’s supply.
Podcast discovery was also far more concentrated.
In 2017, the main routes were:
- Apple Podcasts charts;
- Apple editorial placement;
- recommendations from other shows;
- press coverage;
- social sharing;
- and word of mouth.
There was no mature video-podcast discovery ecosystem. YouTube had not yet become the dominant podcast-discovery platform it is today. The creator was not expected to operate simultaneously across YouTube, Spotify video, TikTok, Instagram and every other distribution channel. There were no content ecosystems.
The Apple charts therefore carried disproportionate power.
They were not transparent download rankings. Apple did not publish a dependable formula explaining how many downloads guaranteed a particular chart position.
Industry analysis suggested that the charts rewarded recent momentum, new subscriptions and rapid growth rather than simply total accumulated listening.
That opacity is important.
A show that generated enough early velocity could enter the chart. Chart visibility created discovery. Discovery generated new subscribers. Those subscribers helped maintain or improve the chart position, which created further discovery.
Early traction could create more early traction.
There is no reliable public number for how many downloads it took to reach the UK top ten in 2017, and it would be false precision to invent one.
The more useful point is that a promising new entrant was competing within a smaller market, through a discovery system where chart momentum could materially alter its trajectory.
This helps explain why many of the shows that broke through early remain prominent today. It does not mean every early success endured, but the structure of the market strongly favoured incumbents. Success created visibility, visibility created further growth, and that growth made it disproportionately harder for later entrants to compete.
It was also fundamentally an audio market
The original Diary of a CEO did not begin as the elaborate, multi-camera interview product people recognise today.
It started as a much simpler audio proposition.
That matters because the table stakes were substantially lower.
A credible independent podcast needed:
- a good microphone;
- somewhere quiet to record;
- basic editing;
- cover artwork;
- hosting and distribution;
- and something worth saying.
It did not automatically require:
- a multi-camera studio;
- cinematic lighting;
- a permanent visual set;
- specialist thumbnail design;
- YouTube retention analysis;
- platform-specific edits;
- captioned clips;
- dozens of short-form assets;
- or a team working across several algorithms at once.
Today, any show with creator-media ambitions is not simply competing against other podcasts.
It is competing for attention with:
- YouTube channels;
- TikTok creators;
- Instagram;
- Spotify video;
- streaming television;
- social video;
- and every other entertainment format available on the same screen.
Video has become increasingly central to the podcast market, with YouTube now a leading platform for podcast consumption.
The modern podcast is increasingly expected to operate as a high quality visual show, a YouTube channel, a social-media brand and a short-form content engine simultaneously.
The price of entry has therefore risen in two different ways.
First, there are far more shows competing for attention.
Second, the quality and quantity of assets required to compete have expanded dramatically.
The market was less mature, but also less demanding
The podcast market in 2017 was growing, but it had not yet developed into the highly professionalised creator economy we now recognise.
That gave early entrants an unusual combination of advantages:
- fewer competing shows;
- lower production expectations;
- concentrated discovery;
- less sophisticated incumbents;
- and several years in which to learn while the market matured around them.
None of this diminishes what The Diary of a CEO achieved.
Steven Bartlett and his team still had to turn a loose idea of an audio diary into a world-class media operation. But they were able to evolve alongside the market.
A new entrant today must compete immediately against the mature standards that DOAC and other leading shows helped establish.
That is a very different starting point.
The actual “Diary of a CEO” Journey
Steven Bartlett also did not really begin from ‘zero’.
He already had:
- a compelling story as a young successful founder;
- business credibility from Social Chain;
- extensive knowledge of social media;
- a growing public profile;
- and access to people audiences found interesting.
Even with those advantages, the show took years to build.
By 2020, those first three years saw the YouTube channel had approximately 8,000 subscribers.
It took another year to reach 100,000.
Another year to reach one million.
Another to reach five million.
In a recent milestone the channel had reached approximately 12 million subscribers across 550 episodes.
The important point is not simply that the team was consistent.
It was that it continually changed and improved. At some point the business stopped being purely about content creation and switched to being a high performing distribution engine.
The team experimented with:
- titles;
- thumbnails;
- hooks;
- guests;
- subjects;
- clips;
- production;
- distribution;
- recording environment;
- and the overall viewer experience.
The show itself also changed.
What began as founder reflections and conversations about entrepreneurship expanded into health, psychology, relationships, trauma, performance, fame and human behaviour.
The title retained the word “CEO”, but the addressable audience became almost universal.
Success then became self-reinforcing.
A larger audience attracted more important guests.
Better guests brought their own audiences.
Higher viewing numbers attracted advertisers.
Mainstream recognition improved discovery.
More income funded a bigger and more specialist team.
The show became a compounding media system.
A new entrant today is not competing against the version of DOAC that began in 2017. It is competing against the mature global content company that those years of compounding created.
What would it take today?
To make a credible attempt at building another creator-media property similar to DOAC now, I would want to see most of the following.
A host with genuine mass potential
Not simply somebody intelligent, successful or knowledgeable.
They need:
- camera presence;
- a distinctive worldview;
- emotional openness;
- personal magnetism;
- broad rather than purely specialist appeal;
- and the resilience to make public content a central part of their life for several years.
Existing distribution
A significant and substantial social audience, mainstream recognition, a powerful newsletter or community, celebrity, or privileged access to exceptional guests.
Starting from zero is absolutely possible. It simply makes an already difficult proposition much more expensive and less likely to work.
A universally relevant editorial territory
A generic business-interview show is unlikely to be enough.
The biggest programmes repeatedly enter subjects with broad emotional pull:
- health;
- money;
- relationships;
- psychology;
- fame;
- conflict;
- identity;
- power;
- and mortality.
A specialist growth operation
The required capabilities include:
- audience strategy;
- research;
- guest booking;
- social distribution;
- thumbnails;
- titles;
- analytics;
- clipping;
- channel management;
- and constant creative experimentation.
That is a proper well-resourced team, not simply a good producer and a capable editor. The costs here are significant.
Patient capital
A serious creator-media attempt is a speculative media venture.
It may require substantial six-figure funding over 18 to 36 months, with no assurance of success.
So the questions are not:
- Do you have a good idea?
- Can you afford a professional studio?
- Can you persuade some interesting guests to appear?
They are:
- Do you already possess meaningful distribution?
- Can you fund at least 18 months with meaningful capital?
- Is an existing network prepared to fund it?
- Is the host genuinely capable of mass appeal?
- Can you secure exceptional guests repeatedly?
- Who owns audience growth full-time?
- Are you prepared for the show to earn nothing for a prolonged period?
- What evidence would cause you to stop?
If those answers are weak, you are not building a creator-media business.
You are building a professionally produced podcast and hoping that it becomes one. That’s the reality of the market.
2. Authority media
The podcast does NOT become the business. It helps the REAL business grow.
This is where many people who believe they belong in the creator category could build something far more valuable.
The authority model works like this:
Expertise creates content. Content creates trust. Trust creates commercial value somewhere else.
The podcast itself might make very little direct revenue.
Its value comes through:
- new clients;
- consulting or advisory work;
- memberships;
- books;
- courses;
- speaking;
- events;
- recruitment;
- investment opportunities;
- products;
- partnerships;
- or access to commercially valuable people.
The economic question is no longer:
How much advertising can the show sell?
It is:
What becomes possible because this person is more visible, trusted and connected?
Who is it for?
This route works best for:
- founders;
- consultants;
- lawyers and accountants;
- doctors and health experts;
- coaches;
- investors;
- authors;
- academics;
- business leaders;
- and professional-services firms.
It is particularly suitable where one commercial outcome is worth significantly more than the cost of the programme.
For example:
- one £50,000 advisory client;
- one senior hire;
- one investment opportunity;
- one speaking engagement;
- ten new members;
- or one major partnership.
How people who thought they were on the creator track can win here
The transition is from “how do I become a top-ten podcast?” to “how does this show strengthen the business proposition or career I already have?”
That changes the content strategy because instead of selecting guests solely for audience potential, you might select:
- prospective clients;
- current clients;
- potential investors;
- strategic partners;
- referral sources;
- influential industry figures;
- or people whose association strengthens credibility.
Instead of measuring only downloads, you might measure:
- target relationships created;
- inbound enquiries;
- newsletter growth;
- speaking invitations;
- client meetings;
- referrals;
- event attendance;
- qualified opportunities;
- or product conversion.
The programme still needs to be well-judged and editorially worthwhile. It needs to be crafted as if it were going to be the next DOAC. After all, nobody wants to watch a disguised sales meeting but the conversation itself can create commercial value before a single person presses play. The difference is the desired outcome and the focus on the metric of success.
The key warning
Authority media only works if the client genuinely values the authority outcome.
It will always fail when somebody says they want leads or influence, but emotionally continues to judge the programme through fame, chart rankings and sponsorship.
The decisive question is:
Would you still value this programme if it never became a mass-market show?
If the answer is no, you are still pursuing creator media.
3. Enterprise/ strategic media
An organisation/ brand funds the content because it performs a strategic job
Enterprise media begins with an existing organisational objective.
A company, brand, agency, publisher, institution or membership organisation commissions content because it supports:
- marketing;
- thought leadership;
- customer education;
- sales enablement;
- internal communications;
- employee engagement;
- recruitment;
- customer advocacy;
- category positioning;
- partnerships;
- or membership.
The programme is not expected to finance itself through external advertising as the organisation is effectively the sponsor.
Where the money comes from
Enterprise content may be funded through:
- marketing;
- brand;
- communications;
- customer success;
- HR;
- recruitment;
- partnerships;
- membership;
- or research.
That is the crucial distinction.
The programme does not need to find advertisers to survive because it is being paid to perform another organisational role.
What success looks like
Success may be measured through:
- campaign reach;
- brand consideration;
- stakeholder engagement;
- qualified leads;
- customer participation;
- employee usage;
- recruitment outcomes;
- sales-team adoption;
- partner satisfaction;
- content reuse;
- or membership growth.
A programme with 3,000 highly relevant viewers may work perfectly well if it reaches the exact audience the organisation needs.
The central question becomes:
What organisational job is this content being paid to perform?
If nobody can answer that clearly, it is probably not an enterprise-media proposition.
4. Passion media
It is your self-funded hobby, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that
This may be the most honest model.
Some programmes exist because the host wants them to exist.
They may provide:
- enjoyment;
- intellectual stimulation;
- access to interesting people;
- status;
- creative fulfilment;
- a body of work;
- cultural value;
- or a sense of legacy.
- release from an otherwise stressful life
They may attract an audience.
They may lead to opportunities.
They may eventually make money.
But their existence does not depend upon doing so.
The host is effectively the patron of their own media.
We accept this model in almost every other field.
People fund:
- books;
- films;
- restaurants;
- theatre;
- art;
- racehorses;
- collections;
- and innumerable other projects because they value the experience and the output.
Podcasting becomes problematic when a passion project disguises itself as an emerging commercial media business because nobody wants to admit they are paying for something they simply enjoy.
That turns a good creative experience into a perceived commercial failure.
The relevant question is:
Would you happily continue to fund this because you value making it, even if it never pays for itself?
If the answer is yes, success should be judged through quality, satisfaction and personal value.
If the answer is no, it has to satisfy the requirements of one of the other three routes.
Choose the business model before you choose the format
These four models can overlap and of course grow into each other.
An authority show might eventually attract sponsorship.
An enterprise programme might build a public audience.
A passion project may unexpectedly become creator media.
A creator may develop products, subscriptions, memberships and events.
But one route must be primary.
The economics cannot depend upon a secondary outcome eventually arriving, and they certainly shouldn’t be based on the hope that it might just become a breakout DOAC-style success.
Before production begins, six questions should be answered:
- Which economic model is the primary one?
- Who will ultimately fund it?
- What needs to happen in order for the model to work?
- What budget and timeline does it genuinely require?
- What evidence determines whether we continue, change direction or stop?
- What is the producer explicitly responsible/ not responsible for?
Without those clear answers, expectations drift almost immediately.
The most common mismatch is probably this:
Creator-media ambitions, authority-media budgets, enterprise-media expectations and passion-project evidence.
Almost everybody wants the creator outcome, but almost nobody begins with the inputs required to achieve it.
That does not mean they should abandon podcasting.
It means they should decide what business they are actually building before they make the first episode.
Because the podcast is only the vessel.
The business model has to come first.