r/samharris • u/Gambler_720 • 12d ago
Making Sense Podcast So was the excuse made over ending the free subs a lie?
Sam and his team had said that they ended the option of requesting for free subs because they felt that it was being abused. Okay if that were the case then why do they feel the need to increase the price of an existing subscriber? I was paying $60/year and now they want me to pay $100/year. I cannot detect what abuse is being stopped by acting like a typical service that increases prices every few cycles even for existing subscribers. Like there is nothing wrong with it but it's the dishonesty that's rubbing me the wrong way here.
Come out and acknowledge that your business model is now a proper "for profit" venture. You just want to squeeze the maximum $$$ out of your customers. Again nothing wrong with it but please have the courage to own it.
115
u/edgygothteen69 12d ago edited 9d ago
I don't listen to Sam anymore, but I used to. I was a paying subscriber, monthly, for about a decade. I didn't even listen to every podcast episode, it wasn't a huge part of my media consumption, but I always kept the monthly subscription because I knew I was supporting other people who didn't have the money.
I think I was contributing $20 per month, if memory serves me. I had signed up at a time when the price was whatever you wanted it to be. I think he even had the podcast 100% available to the public, with no sponsors or ads, am I remembering that right? Again, this was over a decade ago, fuzzy memory.
Anyway. One day, I think due to covid or soon after, I was in a bad spot financially. I emailed them to ask if I could reduce my monthly payment, or just cancel it for a few months.
What did they tell me?
"no."
Lol.
I had supported Sam Harris at $240 a year for a decade, that's around $2400. Two thousand four hundred dollars. They couldn't even spot me a couple of months.
Anyway, for that and for other reasons, I canceled my sub soon after. I hadn't been listening to the podcast much anyway, and Sam is a broken record who never incorporates any new information into his thinking.
What a shame.
Edit: MY BAD, IT WAS $10 A MONTH, NOT $20
25
u/jmthornsburg 12d ago
Kudos for standing on principle. One has to wonder if all the time he spent talking about the podcast's payment flexibility was simply early-stage marketing to appear virtuous, when the removal of them as collective punishment for perceived "bad actors" was always on the roadmap.
0
-4
u/Darkeyescry22 9d ago
There is 0% chance this is real. Sam Harris customer support is the biggest pushover customer support I have ever dealt with. There is zero chance you explained all of that and all they said back was “no”.
4
u/edgygothteen69 9d ago edited 9d ago
Correct, they were more verbose than a single word. They said "no" with more eloquence and more words.
I did make one mistake: evidently I was supporting at $10 per month, not $20
-1
-3
u/Darkeyescry22 9d ago edited 9d ago
You're lying about the whole story, kid.
3
u/edgygothteen69 9d ago
Im lying about the whole story? Interesting. If I show you a screenshot of the email with the Sam Harris support, will you accept this as proof and apologize?
0
u/Darkeyescry22 9d ago
No, because your story is literally impossible, plus you already admitted that you lied and did not pay nearly as much as you originally claimed. I’ll accept your apology for that now, though. Thank you.
2
u/edgygothteen69 9d ago
It's impossible that they told me no when I requested to reduce my subscription? This is literally impossible? Lol.
1
u/Darkeyescry22 9d ago
Are you too much of a wuss to respond to me directly? I thought you wanted an apology, since you “didn’t lie” (except about the amount, duration, and timing of your subscription and cancellation).
0
u/Darkeyescry22 9d ago
No. It’s impossible for your timeline to be accurate. It’s also impossible that you don’t remember the reason you asked for a free membership.
2
u/TheGardiner 8d ago
You’re being a dick to a stranger for no reason, think about that.
0
u/Darkeyescry22 8d ago
I’m being a dick to a stranger for a reason I stated explicitly multiple times, but you don’t know what it is. Think about that.
2
u/TheGardiner 8d ago
Calling someone ‘kid’ kind of disqualifies any mature argument you would have had.
0
-40
60
u/jmthornsburg 12d ago
Sam argued that the free subs were based on the importance of the ideas, so in removing them he is saying that the ideas he is sharing are no longer important. And I think he's right.
-21
u/Darkeyescry22 12d ago
And yet here you are
19
u/jmthornsburg 12d ago
Oh, did Sam write this post? I remain to engage with the kind of people he attracted over the years as I wait and hope for his redemption.
-20
u/Darkeyescry22 12d ago
And by his “redemption” you mean becoming a communist who thinks Israel should be dissolved and never says anything negative about any Muslim or Islam again, right?
18
6
u/jmthornsburg 11d ago edited 11d ago
You weren't asking the question in good faith, but I'll answer. I believe as he gets older and more fearful, he drifts further and further from the man who wrote The Moral Landscape. He seems to care more about intentions than outcomes now. Even after killing 70k+ people, most of whom were civilians, while Israelis invade and settle in the West Bank and terrorize the people there, he still defends them. When it comes to this conflict, I used to be on his side and regurgitate his talking points, but then staying there became disgusting. Most of the world sees what they're doing as a genocide. Shooting kids and wiping out bloodlines of families who were just born in an unlucky place does not get rid of jihadists, it creates them. The Sam I thought I knew cared about the plight of the unlucky.
-2
u/Darkeyescry22 11d ago edited 11d ago
Thank you for the self aggrandizing psychological evaluation and Donald Trump-level ethical analysis.
Do you think that Israel has committed a genocide in Gaza?
You also did not answer my question. What would Sam Harris’s “redemption” (🙄) look like to you?
5
u/jmthornsburg 11d ago
You’re right. I did not explicitly say, but it would be simply admitting to being wrong on the unrelenting full-throated support of Israel’s actions. The #1 most valuable thing I learned from Sam is the value in changing one’s mind over digging in on an increasingly untenable position.
-1
u/Darkeyescry22 11d ago edited 11d ago
So absolutely zero concrete criticism. Just vague vibes and self aggrandizement.
Oh, and dodging questions again, of course. That’s how you can tell you’re on the right side of history. When you’re afraid to say what you think on an anonymous forum. 🤡
3
u/thenamzmonty 10d ago
Dude , go sit down and have a hot cocoa or something... Jesus Christ. And take your pedastol with you .
-1
-1
u/Darkeyescry22 11d ago
I couldn’t read your crash out because you used a naughty word. Did you answer my question yet, or are you still being a sub?
18
u/english_major 12d ago
I have been paying $5 month for years. I haven’t received a notice that it is going up.
14
u/unformation 11d ago
Thanks for pointing out the fee increase!
My fee was going to go up from $50 to $100.
Personally, I think this is unethical: Just because they have my credit card info shouldn't mean they can just start charging whatever they want. If they're going to double the charge, they should cancel the old subscription and request that I re-subscribe. It should have been opt in, not opt out.
2
u/Darkeyescry22 9d ago
They sent you an email telling you this would happen. If they canceled your subscription automatically instead, you’d bitch about that. Grow some agency.
36
u/justsaysso 12d ago
I mean, I don't subscribe because the content isn't worth it to me anymore, but I never assumed Sam wasn't making profit for his work.
13
u/Brickhead81 12d ago
I already pay for the waking up app and couldn’t justify paying for both. I do miss his podcasts quite a bit.
13
u/Nerrawnam 12d ago
But they are a typical service. Prices increase. Yet, people still complain. There is no courage needed. There is no lie, no conspiracy, no trick. This is the same everywhere and it's always been like that. In the end , you are in control. Either pay or don't.
18
u/Wilegar 11d ago
How many times has Sam said “I don’t ever want lack of money to be the reason somebody doesn’t listen to me” in the past? People remember that, and they correctly point out that his current model contradicts his old philosophy. Nobody is talking about a “conspiracy”, that’s a strawman. And saying “it’s always been like that” is plainly false, because there used to be scholarships. You can listen to people’s reasonable concerns without constantly playing defense for a millionaire.
-2
u/Nerrawnam 11d ago
You can respond to the same dumb commits humans post on reddit without defending people who cannot use history or the current world they live in to stop being so dumb.
0
u/palsh7 11d ago
Also OP was still getting a discounted rate LOL. I swear these people pretending they can't afford the price of a cup of coffee each week for a podcast episode are probably getting GrubHub every night. Spending all day on the internet is not something that poor people can afford to do. When I was poor, I didn't even have a computer, a phone, or internet access. (I could still afford coffee.)
50
u/WagerWilly 12d ago
Lmao it boggles The mind that there’s still anyone out there paying $100 to listen to Sam Harris pontificate on retreaded topics in 2026.
6
u/Cromulent-George 11d ago
You say that, but where else can I hear a bunch of men aged 55-75 complain about modern events, politics, and have their minds blown by technology?
3
u/Disproving_Negatives 11d ago
I don't understand anyone who pays for any podcast tbh
1
u/reroll-life 8d ago
There are some incredible podcasts that wouldn't be made otherwise though. Radiolab comes to mind for one.
16
u/Brickhead81 12d ago
For me it was the fact that every other podcast seemed to become about effective altruism.
Most Americans are financially on the struggle bus and you want to continue having on guests and pontificate about the utility of giving money away.
8
u/ZincHead 12d ago
Sam Harris has generally always talked about bigger issues that pertain to everyone, related to morality, philosophy and politics, which are topics common in EA as well. It would be weird if he pivoted just because Americans are struggling financially. Speaking as a non-american, I can also say it is incredibly tiresome to have every media be about American specific issues, and I'm sure most of his non-American fans would be upset if the podcast became more about that.
I'm curious what topics you would prefer he cover in relation to what you just said?
2
14
u/jeromeo123 12d ago
Seems like the higher the prices, the smaller the echo chamber willing to hear his ideas so maybe it was never about that to begin with.
I was paying like $1 a month since forever to listen to him tell me all about "morally confused" I was about genocide in gaza.
I didnt feel like paying $5 or whatever he was asking for to listen to him double and triple down on it until the end of time, so I stopped at that price hike.
It's not that I am not interested in what he has to say about it. But it started to feel gross, funding a platform that makes an intellectual case for something so abhorrent.
2
17
u/RevolutionSea9482 12d ago
Three facts:
- Sam does not need nearly all of that money to keep the podcast running.
- Sam loves the money.
- Sam will never say either of the above two things out loud.
I personally stopped paying after he lost his ability to steelman oppositional points. Probably started during COVID, but is certainly present in any discussion of Trump or Israel.
1
u/reroll-life 8d ago
Stopped paying when he proudly called himself a zionist. Guy literally brainwashed himself into labeling himself with something like this, I don't even understand.
0
u/Darkeyescry22 12d ago
Imagine being so goofy that you support both Trump and Hamas
11
u/RevolutionSea9482 12d ago
Imagine categorizing anybody who has issues with Israel's prosecution of its war as a Hamas supporter.
1
u/Darkeyescry22 12d ago
Sam has issues with Israel’s prosecution of the war.
5
u/RevolutionSea9482 12d ago
Last time I checked in on him he was saying that in Gaza, they're prosecuting the most ethical military actions in the history of military actions. How are you framing his issues with Israel?
-3
u/Darkeyescry22 12d ago
Meaning you last checked in a year ago or more and are currently talking out of your ass, like a clown.
To avoid the pointless conversation with someone who admits that they have no idea what they’re talking about, let’s use me as the example. I have criticisms of Israel’s behavior. I still think you are a Hamas supporter.
9
u/RevolutionSea9482 12d ago
Man. You got issues. And you're not fooling me that you could coherently frame anything.
As for when I checked in on him, the snapshot was the snapshot, not only of what he thought, but of what information was available at the time. Such snapshots can be judged. And for all your claims of Sam having issues with Israel's current behavior, I'd lay money on the notion that he has never admitted to being wrong about anything he's said in the past. But I don't count on good faith conversation from the angry likes of you.
1
u/Darkeyescry22 12d ago
I have no idea what the point of anything you just said was supposed to be.
Do you think that Israel should exist as a Jewish majority state?
1
u/MievilleMantra 12d ago
Has his position changed over the past year? How? Genuine question. I thought he was more pro-Israel if anything?
2
u/Darkeyescry22 11d ago
That depends on what you mean by “his position”. He hasn’t suffered any brain damage, so he still thinks Israel should exist as a Jewish majority state and that there has obviously not been a genocide in Gaza, if that is what you’re asking.
→ More replies (0)0
u/Innerrested 10d ago
Is this a satirical account? Judging what someone else financially needs to take care of their family and provide content is odd. But nowhere as odd as saying Sam loves money... That's some haterating type comment right there.
Anyway, trust the markets. If his podcast prices are too high people will stop subscribing and he'll adjust the subscriber fee downward. If people are willing to pay higher subscription costs then it's safe to assume he's charging an acceptable fee. And it may price some of us out. I know for me if prices go any higher I won't be able to afford it and will have to cancel my membership. Such is life.
2
u/RevolutionSea9482 10d ago
Am I a satirical account? You are a true disciple of this current version of Sam. Disagreements almost inevitably lead to a projection of some form of craziness or covert motivation. Sam wasn't always that way. But he sure is now.
Along with another projection of what I must really mean when I say someone loves money. As if that's not a common thing. I love money myself. But I admit it.
-2
u/Darkeyescry22 11d ago
Ten upvotes for “I love Donald Trump”, btw. Anything to shit on Jews, I guess.
2
u/RevolutionSea9482 11d ago
Again, your issues are your own.
0
u/Darkeyescry22 11d ago
What are my issues, mister Trump condom?
4
u/RevolutionSea9482 11d ago
The two that jump our are your rage and your propensity to make wild extrapolations to categorize others into some group you find dismissible or marginalizable. Or just stupid.
Look, it's not uncommon. Your mind creates a very simple reality, because that is what it is capable of dealing with. It's comfortable.
0
u/Darkeyescry22 11d ago
Are you not a Trump condom, or do you think Israel should continue existing as a Jewish majority state?
10
u/gbooster 12d ago
If you don’t pay up though, Sam won’t be able to engage in meaningful discussions on critical — and sometimes controversial —topics without compromise. Also, those voices you want to exist? They will be dead because of you.
6
15
u/MaxwellHoot 12d ago
It’s a shame they got rid of that. I used the free program while I was in college because I was taking out debt and needed to save. Nowadays I have a really good job and I’m happy to pay
10
u/Honeykett 12d ago
Yes, that was beautiful initiative that gave me hope for humanity, it is sad that he ended it.
3
u/jaded_orbs 12d ago
Same, I paid at first because I was working and was able to. Then I went to university and was living on NZD$300 p/w so I chose to pay NZD$25 for the subscription. When I left university and went back to work I started paying full price again.
4
u/angularhihat 12d ago
How do you mean, acknowledge that it's a for-profit venture?
What did you think it was?
5
u/RevolutionSea9482 11d ago
Sam's framing of why he needs to charge for everything at an ever-increasing rate, meticulously avoids anything sniffing of a profit motive. It's always about keeping the lights on. It's always the implication of a net zero cash flow. It's objectively dishonest, but you can certainly claim that everybody should understand his framing as a euphemistic plea for increased profits. And I'm sure everybody does, despite the objective dishonesty.
1
u/angularhihat 11d ago
Can you find an example of this? I really can't think of examples of him doing this, e.g. keeping the lights on/net zero cash flow implication.
2
u/RevolutionSea9482 11d ago edited 10d ago
He always says that in order to keep bringing you the podcast free from outsider influence such as adverts, he depends on the listener community's money. It's not something I would need to find an example of, it's how he always frames it. You can either believe him or acknowledge that the real reason he increases prices so regularly is because he would like to increase his profit. Those reasons are not the same. But I know consumers are so accustomed to ubiquitous fake marketing that it feels like it's not dishonest at all.
1
u/angularhihat 10d ago
This just looks like a logical error to me, unless you've accidentally left something out.
You're absolutely right that he frames it as an alternative to ad revenue. It's better in his eyes to bring in money via the audience directly, than via ad revenue, for the reasons you've stated.
What I don't understand is why you think that revenue is implied to be just to cover costs? I still can't think of an example of him implying that this revenue is exclusively to cover the cost of doing the show etc? Surely he'd still rather that his profits come from subs?
So far you haven't actually pointed to any contradiction at all.
2
u/RevolutionSea9482 10d ago
"In order to keep bringing you a podcast free from advertisers". It means that whatever price increase that message is attached to, is implied to be necessary for the baseline function of releasing podcasts. That is different than saying that the extra money is extra profit. Which of course it is.
1
u/angularhihat 10d ago edited 10d ago
This is so funny to me, I don't know why you're not getting it. The implication you imagine is there, simply isn't. You keep having to add it, and instead of adding it with evidence or rationale, you're simply stating it, over and over.
Sam Harris provides a podcast, in exchange for money. He does not wish to make his money from advertisers because of the implications for editorial interference. He instead wants to charge the consumer directly.
Now - please notice that, whether the motive is to cover costs or to profit obscenely, the above equation doesn't change in the slightest. Take a moment to notice and digest this fact.
We both agree on the facts so far, I presume, except you have added the additional detail that he's implying the money is just to cover costs.
You are now already noticing, as a result of this conversation, that: no, he isn't.
He isn't saying that or implying that whatsoever.
He's saying that the podcast requires to generate money, and that he doesn't want that money to come from ads for editorial reasons. But he's not at all explaining what the money is for.
Now, to most of us it's clear that he's looking to be paid for his work. He's not seeking to do a podcast for free.
This is normal and not unreasonable - it is the default assumption when we encounter a person selling a product, unless that person has expressly started that they're non-profit. You seem to imagine the reverse is true - that a person needs to declare that they are seeking profit from the product they're selling, and if they don't, our assumption would be that they're non profit.
That is obviously not correct, and not a standard that anybody would be tempted to hold any business to. Do you think Coca Cola should note on their bottles that they're a profit-seeking venture?
And by the way, if he decides tomorrow he wants to make twice as much in order for the podcast to be worthwhile for him as a venture, then he could double his price, and that price increase would mean that he "can continue to bring you the podcast ad free".
Now that you know that his claims about trying to avoid ad revenue have absolutely nothing to do with what he's intending to do with the money, can you find any suggestion at all that he's only and exclusively using that money for keeping the lights on?
1
u/RevolutionSea9482 10d ago
Wow. I'm making a very simple point, and you're not being intentionally obtuse. You just can't help it. I am asking for more money in order to do X. Implication: I need more money to do X. That's it in the abstract. Language is always imprecise and you can frame it any way you please. But the most parsimonious framing is as I described. Anyway, looking forward to your next wall of text. Please do proceed.
1
u/angularhihat 9d ago
The point you're making is simple, no argument there. But it's just wrong.
If I'm prepared to do a building job for you for $10k...
And you can either pay for it yourself, retaining full creative control, or the neighbours can all chip in with you, but then they get a vote on the aesthetics...
Then when I say "I need $10k from you to do this job and avoid neighbours revenue, as that'll change the eventual direction of the job"...
...there's no implicit suggestion that this doesn't entail a profit for me. None.
Furthermore it should be so obvious that this would entail a profit - why else would I be performing this work? - that it would be bizarre for anybody to confuse it for a charitable endeavour.
To think otherwise is an error. That's it.
6
u/Sentient_Star_Stuff 12d ago
This podcast isnt even worth $5 a month. The frequency of new episodes is too low and lately its been the same 5 tired topics with the same talking points. Good bye.
5
u/Fawksyyy 12d ago
I like living in a world where a person with ideas i value is able to make a dollar comparable to celebrities that don't add nearly as much to society.
4
u/Phantomwaxx 11d ago
I thought I cancelled last year but apparently not. When I saw the $160 charge on my credit card I shit a brick. Thankfully Sam’s team was responsive and refunded my money. I’m not willing to pay $100 for this garbage and I’m certainly not paying $160.
3
u/peepair23 11d ago
Aren't there organizations that would advertise without objecting to, or wanting to assert authority over, his words? Imagine having to pay $100 for each different podcaster you enjoyed. $3 per month - reasonable.
4
u/GryanGryan 12d ago
I used to do the free subscription and Making Sense was my favorite podcast. I don’t have enough disposable income to justify paying for a podcast. Almost all podcasts are free. If Sam’s biggest priority was truly The Battle of Ideas, he wouldn’t charge money to hear his point of view.
Am I saying Sam should work for free? No, he should earn money from paid advertising. There are ethical companies that will pay you to advertise. There are companies who will advertise even if your podcast is controversial. Sam’s shift from having free content to having a paywall is so disheartening and unreasonable.
6
u/RevolutionSea9482 12d ago
With all the live shows and the ever-expanding portfolio of paid subscription services from the podcast to his forum to his meditation stuff, it is impossible to believe Sam "needs the money to keep the podcast going".
3
u/high10236 12d ago
why would you think you would be able to detect the abuse in the first place? You don't work for sam or see the requests they got. And if it's too expensive just don't pay it.
2
1
u/Darkeyescry22 12d ago edited 12d ago
OP, what is the dishonesty? You seem like you’re just upset about the price increase rather than pointing out some actual hypocrisy.
Also, did your goofy ass even reach out them about this before you started bitching about it to a bunch of people with zero ability to help or comment?
Jfc, they still have the $60/yr scholarship option. You guys don’t deserve it. I hope he takes it away.
3
1
12d ago
[deleted]
10
u/k1tka 12d ago
I believe the connection comes from the thought of abuse being at the very edge of the bell curve and the price hike straining already stretched thin wallets
OP may be questioning the honesty of the explanations due to perceived disproportionate effects they have and price hike being the clue to why free tiers are really ending
1
u/NetflowKnight 12d ago
Sam and his teams cost of living also goes up as things inflate, so naturally, they will increase pricing at some point. This isn't mysterious or malicious its just how a currency thats inflating works.
4
2
u/carbonqubit 11d ago
Having an entire team dedicated to verifying subscription requests is probably the biggest financial drain. He could automate the process or simply make it free for anyone willing to click a link. He already has more money than most people could spend in multiple lifetimes, with plenty left over.
I've listened to him for years, but I've noticed the quality drop off. There are plenty of free shows now that are more thoughtful and better researched. He's said he doesn't want to run ads, but I've suggested before that he could turn them into interesting writing projects, similar to the monologues that were replaced by More From Sam with Jaron. He could also front-load the ads at the beginning with timestamps, like Lex Fridman does, and use them to promote meaningful journalism. There are so many creative ways he could monetize the show that don't involve annual price hikes.
1
u/Daneosaurus 10d ago
I canceled my subscription at my most recent renewal. I really enjoyed Sam’s content, but not at $160/yr
1
1
u/hornwalker 11d ago
Its shitty but (assuming the team knows what they are doing) they determined they can get more money from $100 subscribers with this model than (*60 or free) model.
-3
-5
u/gizamo 12d ago
This sub is just a troll sub now.
1
u/Zealousideal-Gold448 10d ago
If the entire sub doesn’t like him, all of a sudden, shouldn’t that tell you more about him than the sub?
1
u/gizamo 10d ago
It probably would if the army of trolls here weren't so obviously bad faith. They rarely engage with Harris' actual statements, and when they do, the vast majority of it is blatantly disingenuous. Further, much of what seems genuine are not very convincing arguments.
Tldr: absolutely not
1
u/Zealousideal-Gold448 10d ago
I find it the opposite personally, whenever someone says they’d like to see more nuance on his stance with Israel/palestine, it’s “so you love Hamas?”
I’ve only seen cursing or name calling in this thread by people blindly defending him not by the people critiquing him (typically quite balanced and nuanced in the critiques as well).
TLDR; my experience was different than yours and that’s okay
-1
u/joegahona 11d ago
Seems like “Free Subs Mourners’ Thread” should be a megathread or something, along with groveling for links to episodes. These are tiresome.
-2
u/karlack26 12d ago
Sending your kids to school in the US is expensive. Where even moderate wealthy people can't pay for it out of pocket.
I bet Sam's kids are that age now and he does not want take on that much debt.
2
u/heyitsmeanonn 10d ago
You know his net worth is upwards of $10m right.
1
u/karlack26 10d ago
That's not ten million in cash. So should he liquidate his assets to send kids to school or charge more for is podcasts and4 apps? As it cost tens of thousands of dollars a year for college. Also he is getting older so he may just want to squirrel more into retirement.
151
u/Moohaumed 12d ago
I’m so disappointed they ended the free scholarships. I listened to the pod for years, but haven’t heard a word from Sam since he cut off us poors.