An open letter to Odeo, PodShow.com et al [Archive]

Illinoise

Mar 16th, 2005, 12:05 PM

STOP MAKING PODCASTING EASY.

I just read my 15,000th article on people wanting to make podcasting "easy". They're all developing ways to allow anybody to become a podcaster. Hey, just talk into a phone and ... boom! You're a podcaster.

You know what else was "easy"? Blogging. I did it. He did it. They did it. It was easy. There are some great blogs out there. But there are many more awful, unkept blogs laying around. You didn't even need to have a good idea. Just a blog.

So let's make a distinction: is podcasting going to be another form of popular media (like television, newspaper, radio) or a communication vehicle? If it's all about communicating, then great. Make it possible for anyone to leave a phone message on their blog. BUT, if we want podcasting to be a viable medium that's attractive to advertisers and trusted for great content ... QUIT MAKING PODCASTING EASY!

A podcaster should have to fumble with cords and levels. They should have to write down ideas on a scrap of paper, record, cut, mix. There should be more than a phone call of thought put into each show. Shows should be consistent, coherent. Yes, you can still do them while pooping, but Chris is a good example of consistent podcasting where you get what you expect with a degree of professionalism.

People, there are 4,000 podcasts ... 10,000 by the time I finish this sentence. How will this become a medium that the world respects?

That brings me to a final point. Who are you? Are you a listener or a podcaster? If you're a listener, LISTEN! Love shows, find out what's best, tell your friends, recommend your favorites. But don't podcast because you can. If you're a podcaster, learn your craft! Take time to learn audio editing, enclosures, mixing. Invest in a good microphone and sound equipment. Be the best podcaster you can be! It won't be easy, but it will be great.

All that being said, don't forget to visit our sponsor, iPodcast Producer (http://www.industrialaudiosoftware.com/products/ipodcastproducer.html?ref=ippsponilli), software that makes podcasting easy, from recording to editing to mixing to uploading! ;)

travishoffman

Mar 16th, 2005, 12:33 PM

Amen Brotha Pete. Why I just spent three hours last night totally changing my recording setup only to find that it sucked. Therefore wasting more time changing it all back. I think that there needs to be like a certain number of hours a "hardcore" podcaster should get. Let's say if you podcast and you get more then six hours a sleep at night....then you truely aren't a "hardcore mofo" Messing and re-messing with bastard rss feed issues and other general back end podcast related jargon is just half the fun. Ok....it sucks ***. But you know what, I don't really have a point here I am just killing time at work and thought this might make the day go by faster...Right...so..uh...carry on and stuff.

jeffoest

Mar 16th, 2005, 12:39 PM

Funny stuff!

I will say this - and I suppose it's somewhat obvious - just as in blogging and even music production, there is more money to be made (at least in the short term) in the providing of enabling services (software, training, how-tos, hardware) to podcasters than actually to podcast....

OK, back to work for me.....

bigee

Mar 16th, 2005, 01:04 PM

You think there should be a test to become a podcaster?

"In 3000 words or less, describe SIBILANCE, and how to rid your broadcast of it."

I do agree. But you have to remember, that after it is all said and done, only the people who truly want to put out a quality piece of broadcasting will remain. Anyone who is in it for "trendy" reasons will soon lose interest and go on to their next fad-infatuation.

Quality content will win over all....

JakeGrim

Mar 16th, 2005, 01:09 PM

Preach on! I know that I have a craptastic little show, but it's improving. I'm up to show 13 or 14 and I'm amazed on how it's improved. I've learned to correct levels somewhat, put tracks togeather, and even *gasp* crossfade. Next up is another mic, and even a software upgrade.

Will I be as good as the Pros From Dover anytime soon? No, but I am enjoying the learning curve. I'm also moving away from doing an audioblog, and more into an actual show, which I think is the real key.

Oh look another person stopped by my desk.

Cookiepuss

Mar 16th, 2005, 01:22 PM

JackGrim mentioned the point I was going to make. People that started Odeo are just the same people pretty much who started AudioBlogger. What people keep confusing is the difference between "podcasting" and "audioblogging". Perhaps because there is no real understanding/definition in terms of content (or what is done to said content) for either.

In my opinion the calling a phone number and leaving a message is an audioblog. So dare I say. . .In my opinion Adam Curry is more of an audio blogger than a podcaster. Being that he does not really edit his show. He just "tags it and bags it". Yes he does use a mic and mixer etc. But it is still pretty much unedited. Which there is nothing wrong with.

But a "podcast" to me means you have to look and and *edit* waveforms. Add SFX, sound bites, whatever you want to call it. Then clean it all up in terms of normalizing and so forth. Then it is a podcast.

Audio Blogging has been around a long time and it is already excessable to everyone. Just get a Blogger account and call the AudioBlogger number. That is NOT podcasting (to me).

Just my 2 cents and some change. ;)

Inferno

Mar 16th, 2005, 01:29 PM

i agree with coockiepuss , escpecially about adam curry...

Illinoise

Mar 16th, 2005, 01:42 PM

You said it, Cookie. What's the difference between audioblogging and podcasting? A lot. I let Odeo know (http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=10690168&postID=110971423272729269) how I felt about them controlling both blogging and podcasting. I like Evan a lot, but he shouldn't be allowed to shape two major media platforms.[/url]

jeffoest

Mar 16th, 2005, 02:10 PM

Hmm.. guess I thought this was an ironic post.

I wouldn't make the distinction based on the input to the process. The listener doesn't know or care about wires in your studio, hours studying up on various audio engineering concepts or your knowledge of XML (unless your doing a show on XML or audio eng.!). The concept of 'podcasting' to the relatively small population of people that listen to them (right now) represents downloadable audio content from the internet. I think that's about it. They care if they are enjoying a show or not. Would you expect them to make choices based on the 'pain' of the content provider or whether it's a guy talking with no edits or someone who edits and does some post-production?

As far as making it easier for podcasters, I say make it easier. There are two skills required to make a podcast right now. Production skill and the 'on-air' skill. Right now since we must where both hats and the fact that production/distribution is pretty technical and klugey, I'll bet that most people who have gotten into podcasting up to now are more of the analytical type that have found that they can do both functions fairly well. Well - that excludes a LOT of potentially awesome talent that wouldn't know an outboard effects processer from a black box on a rack nor would they ever care to learn about impedence matching between mics and pre-amps. And writing XML? Forget about it!

I say the distinction of the 'medium' of podcasting is one of delivery and not of production. But even that will change and become more transparent as this very clunky delivery system migrates to one that is more user friendly like something that is just an on/off button and a tweak to find the preferred content - hmmm, kind of like a radio ;-)

And ultimately, when a listener has one 'box' where she chooses between a satellite radio station, a downloaded mp3 show, or a time-shifted conventional radio station - what is a podcast - would she know or care?

So, is podcasting going to become "another form of popular media"? I would say no -it's just audio content - been around for decades. The DIFFERENCE is that the cost of entry to get in is low and the number of 'channels' is somewhat unlimited - allowing for more amateur and niche content. But you will be competing with all the existing 'medias' for your customer/listener time,attention and support.

As far as "making podcasting a viable medium that's attractive to advertisers and trusted for content" - the market will decide all that - it always does and it's pretty efficient. But - If we enable non-analytical types to participate by offering near-seamless processes and methods for production and distribution, we stand a better chance for the advancement of podcasting and ultmately acceptance, excellence and success.

pzarquon

Mar 17th, 2005, 10:11 AM

Heh. I thought this was an ironic post, too.

There'll always be serious, hardcore pros, there'll always be "there goes the neighborhood" elitism, in any medium. The photocopier let any moron print a 'zine. AOL opened the floodgates on USENET. Diaryland made it too easy for teenyboppers to moon over cute guys. Blogger made it too easy for someone to play pundit. And - while frankly I think it's too early to worry about being overrun, let alone seriously expect to make money at it - now we've got folks developing tools to help folks get their voices heard... literally.

But just because the blogging world is flooded with people posting pictures of their cats or piling on Jeff Gannon, it doesn't mean that good blogs aren't out there, and that some blogs are of a high enough caliber and successful enough to make money.

So, you'll always have jokers like me stumbling around in the dark, part of the proverbial million monkeys pounding away at typewriters with a minute chance of creating Hamlet, but I think that's part of the charm of this whole thing. Meanwhile, the sound pros who invest time and energy to perfect a spectacular product will rocket ahead to millions. Or something.

Podcasting is just another form of audio, and I can see the distribution model - and not the name - just being swallowed whole by conventional radio and similar producers. NPR today, Clear Channel tomorrow. But the difference is, while audience size will differ widely, the ability to be heard won't be limited to those folks.

That's worthy of a cheer or two.

--
Ryan
HawaiiUP - Podcasting in paradise.
http://www.hawaiiup.com

Illinoise

Mar 17th, 2005, 11:50 AM

Actually, it was an ironic post. All the more ironic that some of you thought it was ironic, then later decided maybe it wasn't.

All a cheap plug for our sponsor, iPodcast Producer: making podcasting easy ... the way it should be.

"That's not ironic, that's what happened." -- Just Shoot Me

podcastnyc

Mar 17th, 2005, 12:22 PM

Shameless marketing. What do you make, like 30 cents from each click on the link to their site?

--
Rob
http://www.podcastnyc.net

DaveMiller

Mar 17th, 2005, 01:01 PM

All right ladies and germs...

First I must say... bravo Mr. Pete! You sucked me in, made me think and then dropped and ad on my head. Again, bravo!

Secondly, I hope every 'podcaster' reads this thread. This is where the discusion need to go. As many of you may know, I am a former radio broadcaster. I don't hold the sentiment that 'podcasting' should be easy.

'Podcasting', like broadcasting is all about content and personality. If your content sucks and you are a horrible communicator, your show will die a silent death. You can lump blogs into this as well. Blogs that suck don't get read, blogs that are good (Wonkette - I just love her!) get read often.

You may be wondering why I am putting 'podcasting' in quotation marks? The reason for that is simply that I don't like the term podcasting. Earlier today a story popped up in my Google Alerts. I suggest you read this story: http://www.emediawire.com/releases/2005/3/emw219424.htm. These guys are somewhat on the mark but still off. I don't like the term 'microcasting' either.

Everyone is missing it. Let me enlighten all of you.

Let us first look at the Merriam-Webster dictionary for the definition of broadcasting. MW defines broadcasting as:

1 : to scatter or sow (as seed) broadcast
2 : to make widely known
3 : to transmit or make public by means of radio or television
intransitive senses
1 : to transmit a broadcast
2 : to speak or perform on a broadcast program

To broadcast is to simply transmit or (a much better term) distribute information to the public via a receiving device. From today forth, I will no longer call my show as a podcast. Although, it is. Look at each medium, all of them are broadcasts but with television you have a telecast, with the web you have a webcast, but what about radio and satellite?

You see, the term 'podcast' works when you look at it on a micro level. But on a macro level all of us are just broadcasting.

Another word on the ease of 'podcasting'... I think many of the podcasters out there make their podcasts more complicated than they should be. So do many radio broadcasters (or better yet, radio engineers). I have redesigned a radio studio, working hand in hand with an engineer. The engineer always wanted to complicate the process. The real goal should be the end result of the audio quality, that is it. With improvement in audio consoles (digital), microphone processors and microphones, audio has never sounded better.

I like messing with mixers and wires and microphone and stuff, but I found, that the easiest way for me to do my show was to have a decent microphone ( Shure SM-58 ) and a good sound card in my laptop. With a simple xlr to eighth inch cable plugged into my mic input and I have superb audio quality. Not too complicated.

Anyway, a bit of a tangent. This topic is an interesting one for me and if anyone would like to chat further on it feel free to Skype me (davemillergf).

Lastly, just like blogs, the cream of the podcasting crop will rise to the top and the rest will be chasing the dream doing their 'hobbycasts'.

Happy 'podcasting' er broadcasting...

Ian

Mar 17th, 2005, 01:47 PM

WyethDigital

Mar 17th, 2005, 10:46 PM

I wouldn't make the distinction based on the input to the process. The listener doesn't know or care about wires in your studio, hours studying up on various audio engineering concepts or your knowledge of XML (unless your doing a show on XML or audio eng.!). The concept of 'podcasting' to the relatively small population of people that listen to them (right now) represents downloadable audio content from the internet. I think that's about it. They care if they are enjoying a show or not. Would you expect them to make choices based on the 'pain' of the content provider or whether it's a guy talking with no edits or someone who edits and does some post-production?

As a listener, I absolutely agree! I used to work on a TV show. I would spend 20-30 hours on it straight (overnight) just to make deadline. We had tight production schedules, CGI work, scoring, blah blah blah. Does that mean my brother, who was making home videos and editing them on an iMac while I was working on the TV show had any less vision or talent than I did? Or does the fact that my show aired on a local network affliliate mean I have less talent than the people who work on shows that aired at the network level?

When you begin applying tests like this, all you're doing is the geek eqivilent of measuring inseams! As a listener, let me humbly ask that you knock it the heck off! Please.

This format will live or die because of content and ideas, not someone hiding the tools or putting up barriers to people who want to try it out. If you don't want Podcasting to turn into another audioblog, support sites like this that catalog and rate Podcasts, post comments that encourage good production and content. Don't hide or discourage the tools that make it easier. That's not just wrong, it's elitist.

Eric

PS -- In defense of Adam Curry, most talk radio shows air live, and don't have post production or editing (beyond the usual seven second delay), so judging his "professionalism" by that standard is kind of silly.

oldejoe

Mar 18th, 2005, 02:34 PM

Cookiepuss

Mar 18th, 2005, 04:24 PM

Guys, the easy podcasting software has hit the market ...go to www.blogmatrix.com and check it out ...multi-tracks, automatic formating, etc ... it is in beta right now ..it is free. No need to wait around for Odeo.

So I'd guess your vote is in the make it easy for everyone column? Since you have been replying to every post regarding most anything with something similar to the above? :lol:

(j/k)

pzarquon

Mar 18th, 2005, 05:38 PM

Since you have been replying to every post regarding most anything with something similar to the above.Well, it might fit in this thread better than most, since it started off with a similar cheap plug.
Actually, it was an ironic post. All the more ironic that some of you thought it was ironic, then later decided maybe it wasn't. All a cheap plug for our sponsor, iPodcast Producer: making podcasting easy ... the way it should be.Yep, you got me. Fortunately, I found the misguided discussion that followed to be considerably more interesting than what we probably would've gotten had your cheap plug been more transparent! :wink:

--
Ryan
HawaiiUP - Podcasting in paradise.
http://www.hawaiiup.com

Version3

Mar 22nd, 2005, 02:21 PM

PS -- In defense of Adam Curry, most talk radio shows air live, and don't have post production or editing (beyond the usual seven second delay), so judging his "professionalism" by that standard is kind of silly.

I can easily see both sides of the production coin here: Quality is king, however sometimes quality in editing production can/must be sacrificed for content. The life and purpose of a podcast will dictate this. Someone putting together a world political news show really needs to both pay close attention to the person delivering the content being able to remain professional, but they better have **** good production value to keep from detracting from content. However, someone who runs a show like ours (switchedonshow.com) don't have to worry quite as much about editing and such because the show by nature is supposed to be an unscripted "hang out" with the hosts. We make sure it's audible, sounds fairly clean and presentable... but we do not edit because THAT would distract our listeners from the purpose of our show.

Content and Production value are equally important, but as podcasting (like any other medium) grows you will find that one is sometimes more important for a given production. I'm not a fan of making it easy enough that every grandma can do it... but I am a fan of making it easier than it is. It's a gray area though. I'm a website designers, and we've been dealing with the making it easier makes it shittier concept for a long time now. Companies like mine have survived simply because for many clients, the production value is AS important or possibly even MORE important than the content.

There are 256 shades of gray here... let's use them all instead of just calling things our saving grace, or the death of podcasting.

owyn

Mar 22nd, 2005, 08:16 PM

Podcasting is just another form of audio, and I can see the distribution model - and not the name - just being swallowed whole by conventional radio and similar producers. NPR today, Clear Channel tomorrow. But the difference is, while audience size will differ widely, the ability to be heard won't be limited to those folks.

Amen.

The process should be made as easy and fool-proof as possible (see my signature). It will improve the quality of all casting. The trick is going to be finding the cream. In my case I try to check out podcasts recommended by podcasters that I already like.

Working so far.

yaz

Mar 23rd, 2005, 02:08 AM

this is another one of those posts that i have no clue what its about, but i like the cookiepuss picture...

PaulCasting

Mar 23rd, 2005, 10:10 AM

This is an interesting topic... but nothing to get worked up about. I remember when learning HTML was a big feat. Then building a webpage became easy and the good sites added in scripting or animated GIF files. Eventually it became easy to do that, so the good sites all moved on to more and more difficult content to set themselves apart.

PodCasting is going to be the same way. As it becomes easy to PodCast, the true professionals will step up a notch and improve on that. But that takes time and effort. Many won't want to put in that time and effort. Heck, I still see webpages that look like they were designed back in 1995. I see commercial websites that look like that.

But, in order for anything to take off, you have to deliver it to the masses. I remember how intimidated I was when I got my first dial-up account in 1995. Wow... the internet. It was huge. Now I just hook up to my cable and poof there it is.

Can you imagine how many people would be listening to regular radio if it meant they had to build their own crystal radio? Just look at VCR's and what TiVo has done to make recording your favorite show so much easier.

The next step for PodCasting is for a major player, like Microsoft to create a built in aggrigator (sp?) for Windows Media Player. I know everyone is going to hate hearing that, but this would deliver PodCasting to the masses. If it involves more than 3 steps, most people won't do it.

So, what's going to motivate the big boys to do something like this? Money! When well produced, income generating shows it PodCasting, the players will step up to the plate.

Bad news to some... good news to others.

thefly

Mar 23rd, 2005, 10:44 AM

I think people are hung up on the "it has to be slick and pro" in order to be podcasting. Yes, there's a lot of really badly "phone-in" (literally) content out there. Let them have their fun.

I sort of like the "slice of normal life" themed shows. Ones that aren't trying to be an all-out production. If it's easy for someone to pick up an iriver or Treo and record something that's going on in their life, more people will do it.

Does that mean we have to hold it up to the entertainment standard of something like coverville or the source code? Probably not.

But I still feel it's a podcast, Timmy, whatever you're calling it this week. It's original content by normal people for normal people.

Personally, I don't listen to many of the "professinal" content out there because it sounds exactly like the same crap I get from corporate media. they might be able to drop an F'bomb every once in a while. But who cares? Their SFX and mic levels might sound beautiful. But they're still DeeJays.

Often, at first listen, I'll cringe as how badly someone's recording sounds or their voice-presence. There aren't a lot of people with good "radio" voices. But if you lsiten to their content and get a chuckle or ir evokes some emotion, you stick with it. I give them a chance and often I stick with them.

Version3

Mar 23rd, 2005, 10:51 AM

You should listen to our show then... I sound horrible! :wink:

thefly

Mar 23rd, 2005, 11:24 AM

You should listen to our show then... I sound horrible! :wink:

Worse than your avatar? :wink:

jeffoest

Mar 23rd, 2005, 11:38 AM

Heck, I still see webpages that look like they were designed back in 1995.

Yea, it's funny when you run across them especially the bad ones - do you remember? the blinking text, the background pictures that didn't allow you to read the text without really straining, completely unstructured text/content....

I think that's actually a really good analogy to production quality of podcasts. People designed websites that were annoying and unreadable because they it became really easy to make text blink and set your background as unreadable and most people aren't web designers. While they were proud of their blinking red text on a pink picture of the family, most people couldn't read their content or would make a mental note to not visit again.

But if it had been designed to be simple and clean (though not necessarily 'professional' or fancy), the "production" wouldn't get in the eway and would not be a barrier to come back again.

Sure - production can potentially enhance audio content (I think one of our funnier bits was a hastily produced 'fake' interview between Terry Gross of NPR and myself (3:56 MP3) (http://www.thisandthatpodcast.com/podcasts/JeffsInterviewWithTerryGross.mp3) on our latest show) but I don't think it's necessary to go hog wild. BUT (and this is the big BUT), annoying fuzz or really cheap mics or overuse of cheap effects can turn off listeners despite your content - just like the blinking red text!

allthewhile

Mar 23rd, 2005, 11:49 AM

I laughed out loud, several times during that terry gross bit.

Version3

Mar 23rd, 2005, 11:49 AM

You should listen to our show then... I sound horrible! :wink:

Worse than your avatar? :wink:

I set my standards high, don't I? :shock:

PaulCasting

Mar 23rd, 2005, 05:44 PM

cheap effects can turn off listeners despite your content - just like the blinking red text!

Oh SO true!

Having a background in traditional radio, I can tell you, it's not the fancy production that makes a good show. It's CLEAN production that does it.

I've heard some people say "I like to listen to real people just sitting around talking about stuff I'm interested in, not some professionally produced radio show". Well, if you do your production properly, that's exactly what you'll end up with.

Just like telling a joke. Giving the detail can make the joke more enjoyable, but giving TOO MUCH detail can make it boring. Keep it short, to the point and ask yourself if the extra banter you're having is contributing to the show.

When I worked in traditional radio, many of the new talk show hosts who came on board (usually a brokered weekend show) were SO excited about being ont he radio, they wouldn't shut up long enough to get any good information out to the people.

Howard Stern, Rush Limbaugh, etc., spend a certain amount of time talking about their personal life, but they do it right. New talk show hosts get on the air and they think they can do the same thing... but people don't have a reason to listen. People are voyeurs by nature... but they don't want to peep into YOUR bedroom or your living room... they want to peep into the private life of someone famous or someone they care about.

I still haven't seen a TV show called "Lifestyles of the ordinary and normal". People just aren't interested.

Of course, everything I've said relates to those who want to appeal to a large audience. The beauty of PodCasting is the ability to "NicheCast" if you will.

paul

Mar 24th, 2005, 08:58 AM

I agree with bigee. Those who aren't serious, or seriously suck will have little to no listenership. Eventually they will get the clue, and go find something else to do with their time. Ian

I agree Ian. Jeesh you've become a lot more pleasant since the voting thing got sorted out...

So a bunch of unvaluable data is being generated and added to the mess of cyberspace-junk...

I think the idea of invite-only directories is pretty good, but maybe podcasting has to be around a little longer. There are already too many directories for ANYONE to give a good comprehensive summary of them all...probably a new one is starting up every day or so.

Anyway I'm rambling...good discussion people.

Illinoise

Mar 24th, 2005, 09:38 AM

As the original author of this post, I feel it's my duty to attempt to wrangle in all we've said here and summarize the thread:

1) Podcasting should be hard to do. If I've heard you all correctly, we should enact some kind of legislation at the state and federal levels to begin regulating podcasting with an elaborate rating system. Also, all recording and editing should be done on quarter-inch reel-to-reel.

2) It is the general feeling of this group that the act of pooping should be incorporated into all podcasts.

3) Nobody really gets Dawn or Drew.

4) There should be no more mention or visiting iPodcast Producer (http://www.industrialaudiosoftware.com/products/ipodcastproducer.html?ref=ippsponilli), especially if you're looking for the easiest way to podcast or to download the free software demo.

Did I miss anything? Oh, yeah ...

5) The term "podcasting" will hereforeto be known as "krunkcasting".

Carry on.

Ian

Mar 24th, 2005, 10:24 AM

I agree Ian. Jeesh you've become a lot more pleasant since the voting thing got sorted out...
Ever since the new system I don't have to be as defensive against the cabal of people who were attacking my show.

I've always been pleasant, and on the up and up. Even when I publicly congratulated Dawn and Drew for regaining 1st place (http://www.podcastalley.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=433), the haters continued to level attacks against me, revealing that their dislike of my show is not because we wanted to be #1, but because we're not "true" podcasters.

Originally, the whole DND / FTL controversey was based on someone who misunderstood, and then proceeded to spread the misunderstanding around the community. I may have appeared as unpleasant because I was defending against libelous attacks. It's hard to come out looking clean when someone has **** on you!

Thanks for not holding a grudge,
Ian

jeffoest

Mar 24th, 2005, 10:33 AM

I think that's a very fair summary. The only thng I might add to it is

6) The general consensus is that production is probably more important than content. Anybody can talk or come up with 'bits' or choose music. The real talent lies in equipment selection, what happens in the control room, and post prod.

As the original author of this post, I feel it's my duty to attempt to wrangle in all we've said here and summarize the thread:

1) Podcasting should be hard to do. If I've heard you all correctly, we should enact some kind of legislation at the state and federal levels to begin regulating podcasting with an elaborate rating system. Also, all recording and editing should be done on quarter-inch reel-to-reel.

2) It is the general feeling of this group that the act of pooping should be incorporated into all podcasts.

3) Nobody really gets Dawn or Drew.

4) There should be no more mention or visiting iPodcast Producer (http://www.industrialaudiosoftware.com/products/ipodcastproducer.html?ref=ippsponilli), especially if you're looking for the easiest way to podcast or to download the free software demo.

Did I miss anything? Oh, yeah ...

5) The term "podcasting" will hereforeto be known as "krunkcasting".

Carry on.

Ian

Mar 24th, 2005, 10:42 AM

I think that's a very fair summary. The only thng I might add to it is

6) The general consensus is that production is probably more important than content. Anybody can talk or come up with 'bits' or choose music. The real talent lies in equipment selection, what happens in the control room, and post prod.
While I agree production quality is important to an extent, I have some caveats:

Equipment selection is usually left to the engineer in the broadcasting world. While some in programming have engineering ability, you sure wouldn't want to put most engineers I've met behind a mic!

To the podcasters out there that don't have spiffy equipment, and might just have a mic and a computer, don't let that bring you down. What's more important than production and content is listenership. If you've got em, that's what counts.

If you have listeners, you know *some* people like your content. Perhaps take suggestions from them as to how to improve your content. On the production side, if you keep doing your show your ability in this area will improve. Eventually you'll want to upgrade.. if you're still at it.

Podcasting is a bit of an endless marathon. Who will stay in the race, and who will go home to watch TV?