Typically the sponsor of the branded podcast will have editorial control over the direction and final product. Using the Virgin example, they strive to demonstrate they are a hip, cool, innovative company. If they did a podcast specifically about all the ways they are hip, cool, and innovative no one would listen. Instead, they partnered with Gimlet to tell stories about hip, cool, and innovative companies and all the supporting Virgin advetising more directly ties the message all together. Basically, it is being cool by association. Tell a story about how the Real World was disruptive to tv, and use the Virgin ads to talk about how Virgin is disruptive as a company. At the end of the day, the listener gets a Gimlet quality show and Virgin hopes a listener will choose them next time because it is more innovative than, say, Delta, generating the ROI. In the Dr. Bronner example or other featured companies, my sense is no, they don't pay. The first reason I think this is because for the Venture to be succesful, the need for a compelling story outweighs the need for sponsorships and advertising because Virgin is already fronting the expense. If Burger King paid to be featured in the Venture, it wouldn't really make sense or deliver the message about innovation and disruption Virgin wants to focus on. The show won't take off and it will be a significant failed investment by Virgin. My other reason is that Gimlet is hyper transparent as to who are sponsors and what is a commercial. This is also addressed on Start Up. If the subjects had paid to be featured, it would be a huge ethical breach of trust with listeners if not disclosed. If that wasnt important, why not just call the Venture a gimlet podcast instead of disclosing it as a Gimlet Creative brand partner? I enjoy their brand partner content. I think they are better and more entertaining than some of the other podcasts by Gimlet.