By Rob Greenlee
Founder, Trust Factor Lab | Host, New Media Show | Podcast Hall of Fame Inductee and Chair
Listeners have always been able to skip podcast ads. What concerns me about Spotify’s Skip Ahead test is the platform’s decision to identify parts of a show and invite people to bypass them.
That puts Spotify in a position to change the value of a sponsorship without changing the recording, the creator’s ownership, or the agreement with the advertiser.
Podnews reported the test in August 2026. Selected Premium subscribers could use a button to jump past advertising, sponsorship messages, introductions, and promotions. The reporting described a limited test, rather than a permanent rollout. Spotify said it was exploring ways to make podcast listening and viewing more intuitive for Premium subscribers.
I can understand why a paying listener would welcome that convenience. I can also understand why a creator who has spent years building an audience would worry about a platform making the commercial parts of that relationship easier to avoid.
Losh Moodaley makes the case well in her Podnews article, “Spotify, Ad-Skipping, and the Silent Redistribution of Podcast Power.” Her argument goes beyond the fate of one ad feature. It concerns the authority to set the rules under which creators earn a living.
I agree with her. And I think the same question will become more pressing as platforms gain the ability to interpret content, advise creators, and reuse their voices and identities.
What ownership leaves out
Podcasting gives creators something valuable. You can own your recordings, control your brand, publish through an RSS feed, and change hosting providers without asking every listener to subscribe again.
You can have all of that and still depend heavily on a company whose decisions you cannot influence.
A platform decides which shows appear in recommendations. It defines a play or a view, controls access to listening data, and determines which monetization programs are available. Its interface can encourage someone to finish an episode, move to another show, or skip the sponsor.
Owning the recording does not give you control over every part of the business built around it.
James Cridland and I discussed this problem in New Media Show #688, “Podcasting’s Identity Crisis: Who Controls Podcasts Now?” A show can be available across many apps and still struggle to be discovered. Wider distribution does not resolve who controls discovery or what creators can learn about their audiences.
Spotify’s incentives help explain the tension. A subscription business wants people to stay subscribed, spend more time in the app, and feel that Premium is worth paying for. A creator needs the show to earn enough to sustain the work.
Those interests often align. When they diverge, the platform has the ability to change the experience for everyone using it.
YouTube, TikTok, and Meta present versions of the same problem. They offer reach that an independent creator would struggle to build alone. That reach is useful, but it comes with decisions made elsewhere about access, measurement, and payment.
RSS is still worth defending
When Buzzsprout’s Alban Brooke joined me for episode #681, we talked about why RSS still matters as podcast hosting expands into video and more complicated publishing workflows.
The ability to move a show without rebuilding its audience deserves more attention than it gets. It gives creators a choice of providers and keeps delivery from depending entirely on a single company’s database.
But an open feed cannot guarantee that people will find the show, that sponsors will renew, or that the creator will receive useful audience data. RSS protects an important part of the relationship. Creators still have work to do around it.
That work includes a website, an email list people have chosen to join, direct sponsor relationships, and income that does not disappear when one platform changes its terms. Memberships, events, services, products, and licensing will fit different shows differently.
I am careful with the phrase “own your audience.” People are not property. What a creator can build is a trusted relationship and a reliable way to stay in contact with someone who wants to hear from them.
My conversation with Alex Sanfilippo in episode #685 explored how those relationships develop through interviews, collaborations, and communities. The relationship can continue long after the episode that introduced two people.
Moodaley also identifies a group that deserves particular attention: creators in the middle. They have enough audience to support advertising and enough production expense to need it, but often lack the scale to negotiate favorable terms.
A major show may have live events, subscriptions, licensing, and direct brand deals. A hobbyist may have little financial exposure. For the creator between those ends, a change in ad delivery can affect whether the next month’s bills get paid.
That concern also runs through my discussion with Losh in episode #691, “Who Profits From Video?” More views and more production do not automatically add up to a healthier business.
Better sponsorships remain part of the answer. A host should believe in the product, explain why it fits, and respect the listener’s time. Creators can improve that experience. They cannot determine whether an app places a skip button over it.
The decisions behind the interface
Podcast hosting is already moving beyond storing files and maintaining feeds. Providers increasingly help with publishing, transcripts, analysis, and decisions about what to make next.
Skip Ahead illustrates another use for that knowledge. Whether the system relies on markers, metadata, transcripts, or automated analysis, it can identify parts of a show and change how people encounter them.
Similar capabilities could eventually influence ad placement, pricing, recommendations, search visibility, and editing. These are possibilities, not claims about what Spotify’s test currently does.
I want to know who can see the underlying data and whether the creator can take it elsewhere. I also want to know whose interests are reflected in the recommendations. Advice designed to keep people inside an app may differ from advice that helps a creator build a sustainable business.
A platform becomes harder to leave when it controls both access to the audience and the information used to plan the next move.
Useful technology should make the work easier. Creators should be able to understand its recommendations, question them, and change providers without losing everything they have learned.
Your voice is part of the asset
There is another part of this relationship that creators need to take seriously: permission to use their identity.
A show carries a person’s voice, face, performance, expertise, and reputation. Its archive may contain years of conversations and the voices of many guests. As AI makes it easier to analyze, translate, imitate, and repackage that material, the permissions attached to it matter more.
Anne Kavanagh of Royall.ai and I discussed voice and likeness rights in episode #684. One distinction is especially relevant to podcasters: owning a recording does not necessarily give the owner permission to license every guest’s voice for AI training.
I do not believe the price of distribution should be unlimited permission to use a creator’s identity in products that have not yet been developed.
An agreement should make the proposed uses understandable. What is being licensed? Where can it be used, for how long, and at what price? Does permission cover AI training, a synthetic performance, or an edited version? Can the creator inspect the use, end it, or renegotiate when the purpose changes?
These questions have economic consequences. If a company wants continuing access to a creator’s voice, archive, and commercial identity, that creator should have something to negotiate with.
Rights that can be limited, renewed, priced, or withheld give a creator more choices than a complaint after the fact.
One person may have little leverage in a standard contract. Shared licensing standards, rights registries, and collective representation could help creators negotiate clearer terms. Services such as Royall.ai are part of that developing conversation.
Platforms should be able to build useful new products. The people whose identities make those products valuable should have a continuing say in the exchange.
What would survive a platform change?
I would not tell creators to abandon Spotify, YouTube, Apple Podcasts, or other major services. The practical task is to make sure the rest of the business can withstand a change at any one of them.
Keep control of the feed and catalog. Give listeners a way to find you on your own website and hear from you directly. Understand what data can be exported and what happens to the content and permissions when a platform relationship ends.
Look at the whole business, too. Roberto Blake’s perspective in episode #687, “Don’t Just Make Videos: Build a Creator Media Company,” is useful here. A creator can build value in a brand, intellectual property, expertise, and customer relationships that extends beyond the next upload.
The test I would use is straightforward: if a major platform changed a rule tomorrow, could you still reach your audience and earn enough to keep producing? Could you move the catalog, understand performance, and show sponsors why the work matters? Could you limit or renegotiate the use of your identity?
Those answers say more about the strength of the business than a follower count alone.
Spotify’s Skip Ahead test may change, expand, or disappear. The concern it raises will remain. A company can leave creators in possession of their recordings while gaining more influence over what gets heard, how it gets measured, and where the money goes.
Creators should benefit from the reach these services provide. They should also have somewhere else to go, people they can reach directly, and rights they have not signed away.
Rob Greenlee is a longtime new media executive, 2017 Podcast Hall of Fame inductee, Chair, founder of Trust Factor Lab, and host of the New Media Show. His work focuses on podcasting, video, creator-led media, AI, platform power, and the human trust layer of emerging media systems.
AI Disclosure: AI tools assisted with research organization and editing. The thesis, editorial perspective, final judgment, and responsibility for the published version remain Rob Greenlee’s.
On the surface, this looks like a practical product update. 
Apple is not new to video podcasts, as well as the early (2007-2014) Microsoft Zune supported Video Podcasts (see image above);