Why Podcasts should be shorter

[mental-escher]

The nature of the future of media consumption will drive syndicated media (podcasts and vcasts) to become small enough to allow convenient reassemble by end users with-in their personalized consumption space (vphones, vPods, etc).

http://www.mental-escher.net/images/micromedia.jpg (http://www.bubblegeneration.com/resources/mediaeconomics.ppt)

image from recent presentation on the future of media by SHANZEH

[deadwhiteguy]

In what way shorter ?

I listen to about a dozen podcasts that are all in the sub 15 minute range.

Jason

[podcastrant.com]

I disagree.

I enjoy your show mental and your length is perfect for your show. If Bibb and Yaz were to do a 30min show it wouldn't be anyway near as good of a show as it is now.

Different forms of media different formats.

I love a noise collage/spoken word podcast called Epistaxis Time. It is at 29mins and its great. If it were longer it wouldn't be as effective.

PK&J runs about an hour and that's the perfect length for their show IMO.

That's why I like Itunes. If I'm ready to go to something else I just click on the next show and then when I'm ready to go back to the previous one some future day I click on it again and it remembers where I left off.

[mental-escher]

In what way shorter ?

Relatively shorter, and not any longer than necessary. I think there is plenty of discussion about what the "appropriate" length of a podcast is, and it seems that "as long as is appropriate" for the particular podcast genre is the most sensible response.

I am not advocating any particular length, only pointing out possible reason(s) to keep a podcast only as long as necessary (1-60 min, depending on content).

BTW, yes- there is at least one 1 minute podcast that is quite effective (Microbe World (http://www.microbeworld.org/)).

[deadwhiteguy]

In what way shorter ?

Relatively shorter, and not any longer than necessary. I think there is plenty of discussion about what the "appropriate" length of a podcast is, and it seems that "as long as is appropriate" for the particular podcast genre is the most sensible response.

I am not advocating any particular length, only pointing out possible reason(s) to keep a podcast only as long as necessary (1-60 min, depending on content).

BTW, yes- there is at least one 1 minute podcast that is quite effective (Microbe WorldTrue (http://www.microbeworld.org/)).
True enough. I love, ByTheWay, TheMeyerMinute and StarDate (all in the sub 2 minute category) and download them everyday.

Really short, thought or tidbt for the day style podcasts are excellent.

Jason

[coreytronic]

Ok, I know that it's the 21st Century and all Americans are supposed to have the attention span of a meth addict humming bird, but come on already. By and large movies are still in the 90 minute to 2 hour range, and terrestrial radio shows average 3 hours. TV shows are getting shorter in favor of more advertising, but this is a constant annoyance to viewers. Are blogs any less verbose than a daily newspaper column? No they’re not since they have none of the space restrictions that paper and ink does.
I know that a certain element in pod casting is very eager to overturn the apple cart in and effort to distinguish this medium from traditional formats, but to what end? If you're doing a news show or a “thought of the day” style show, I could see keeping it shorter, but in terms of entertainment if the show is engaging and the hosts likable then I tend to want more. It’s fine to go ahead and make your casts shorter, hell make a nano cast that’s the same duration as a wasp fart, but you don’t have to do it based on a forecasting of trends or a desire to shake things up. The bottom line is that if the content is strong people will listen longer

[mental-escher]

all Americans are supposed to have the attention span of a meth addict humming bird

Don't know about all Americans, but sounds about right for most... unless of course you're already maxed out on Ritalin.


terrestrial radio shows average 3 hours

Er... who the hell listens to old fashion radio anymore??
:wink:

The point really was that digital media is rapidly converging towards individualization via personal aggregators that collect media (news, audio, video, etc) you the consumer are interested in into a single simple interface (like MyYahoo, for instance, or customized google news). As a content producer, you might want to consider this, but nobodies putting a gun to yer head.

[jeffoest]

terrestrial radio shows average 3 hours.

True - but aren't these shows that long so that they catch a 30-minute (or whatever) window of an individual in his car? I don't think (maybe I'm wrong) there are many people that sit and listen to a 3-hour radio show uninterrupted.

The bottom line is that if the content is strong people will listen longer

Some people will. But also don't forget the average attention span is typically about 45-50 minutes. People will listen to longer shows but it will usually take more than one sitting for the average person. And, you know, no matter how good YOU think your content is, I guarantee there is other 'content' that is just as good or better so, you know, all I'm saying is that if you produce more than 50 minutes per show, just put your best stuff near the beginning... some people will drop off and won't come back to it.

[rookiee]

I agree that these days the average American has a lower attention span. I think that's due to overload of the senses. They don't take into effect all that's surrounding them as clearly as what they used to (or at least from what I'm told by generations past).

All the more reason why to retain longer formats like an hour or so, per show, IMO.

It really does matter what the show's about, what the format is, what type of show, who's listening, etc.. it's all demographics. Those that would listen to a show longer, IMO, are more able to pay attention to long, drawn-out rants. :) Those that aren't, don't have to. That's one of the cool things about podcasting, really, is that there's always something out there for someone.

What a different issue is, I think, is that a longer show shouldn't draw on and on and just kinda drag its feet. If you're trying to stretch 20 minutes worth of content into an hour, you either belong on NPR or you need to shorten your shows.

[coreytronic]

You know what, I just changed my mind. Out of curiosity I just tried to download Bibb and Yaz. By the time it's done I'll have liver spots and gray pubic hair.

[Patrick]

Why don't you stop telling people what to do, and mind your own podcast?

Just a thought.

[mental-escher]

Why don't you stop telling people what to do, and mind your own podcast?


Ah, what would a forum be w/out trolls.

Nobody is telling anybody what to do except you, we're just tossing around thoughts.

[Patrick]

You've been lobbying people to make shorter podcasts forever. I'm just saying it's none of your business. If you want podcasts to be shorter, then make yours shorter. There's nothing that's going to be accomplished by telling everyone else to "shorten up" their own media.

Don't worry about it. That's my thought.

You see any opposing view as me being a troll. I'm allowed to express my side just as you are.

Go make another freaky avatar.

[Version3]

You know what, I just changed my mind. Out of curiosity I just tried to download Bibb and Yaz. By the time it's done I'll have liver spots and gray pubic hair.

That may not just be the show length... I've never gotten very good performance from their server.


NO matter how ridiculously long our show is, I can always count on Bibb and Yaz to make sure we aren't the longest one out there. :D

[kickasspodcast]

Doesn't it kinda matter how often your show comes out?

Seems to me that if its once a week or less, a longer show would be good.
If you put a show out all the time then a bit shorter wouuld make more
sense logistically. I work full time and don't get much time to produce, makes
sense to me to make the most of my production time and kick out a show
thats an hour or so long. I have no doubt that if I wanted our show out 4-5 times a week, the length of the show would drop quickly.

Now that having been said, there are 2-5 minute shows that come out once a week, twice a month, etc... I don't get much from that sort of infrequent microcast. I guess what I am saying is: More frequent shows -> Shorter ; Less Frequent Shows -> Longer

If you have a show thats under 10 minutes, I hope you'd put it out several times a week, week after week. If your show is an hour long, please don't put it out every day- your listeners will never have time to keep up.

I get mad at myself not having time to produce a show, but I feel a bit better knowing users will get a hefty show next time and GOT a hefty show last time. Plus, the archives of microcasts can typically be listened to in one day. I'm pretty proud that it would take a full day or more to listen to the limited number or shows (35) in our archives.

I do want to add that I think all shows should break themselves up more.
Also I think anymore than 90 minutes is WAY too long. 90 min is probably too long, but if the show is 1/2 music (like KAPC) then its pretty reasonable.

Jack B.

PS- if you are listening and subscribing to Podcasts, there is nothing average about you.

[rookiee]

I do want to add that I think all shows should break themselves up more.

Like how so? Put a single show as multiple downloadable portions, you mean? Or split the varying content subjects of a large show into different podcasts?

[RED BAR RADIO]

GO LISTEN TO RED BAR RADIO.com! LIVE! EVERY SUNDAY @ 8pm CENTRAL!

IT'S A TWO HOUR SHOW - SO YOU ****IN' NERDS MIGHT NOT LIKE IT!

I KNOW HOW MUCH YOU LOVE "15 minutes of tech news" - SO WE MIGHT NOT BE YOUR STYLE.

NEVER THE LESS - RED BAR RADIO.com

[Patrick]

Gotta love Mike. Sometimes I think he really means it.

[mental-escher]

Allium cepa odi wrote You've been lobbying people to make shorter podcasts forever. I'm just saying it's none of your business. If you want podcasts to be shorter, then make yours shorter. There's nothing that's going to be accomplished by telling everyone else to "shorten up" their own media.


Again, for Allium cepa odi, I only gave a simple reasoning with what I hoped was some compelling documentation why podcast producers should consider the potential forward looking benefits of shorter vs longer. :idea:

For the people who have a goal to be on FM or AM radio one day

:lol: Oh, now thats something to aspire to (the sarcasm oozes in large lubricous droplets).

[RED BAR RADIO]

GO LISTEN TO RED BAR RADIO.com! LIVE! EVERY SUNDAY @ 8pm CENTRAL!

IT'S A TWO HOUR SHOW - SO YOU ****IN' NERDS MIGHT NOT LIKE IT!

I KNOW HOW MUCH YOU LOVE "15 minutes of tech news" - SO WE MIGHT NOT BE YOUR STYLE.

NEVER THE LESS - RED BAR RADIO.com

[RussellH]

OK, here's a slightly different take on things.

I'm thinking of doing a podcast on a specific subject, but from 3 different points of view for 3 slightly different audiences, probably on a weekly basis.

Should I put them out as 3, 5-20 minute podcasts, or 1, 30-45 minute podcast?

[kickasspodcast]

Oh, now thats something to aspire to (the sarcasm oozes in large lubricous droplets).

Am I missing something here??? Is FM and AM like, a bad thing now? Is it not cool because it's ran by "the man"???


FM/AM Radio sucks because its all commercialized BS. Lotsa people don't like that sorta commercialization. Keep in mind mike, the longer your show is, the more likely you are to make yourself look bad.


I hate people that try to be indie. Give it a rest. There are so many people being indie now a-days that it's not that indie anymore.

You don't try to be indie. That is what blowhards like you say. You either do things because you simply want to and seek no reward. Or you do it because you have some glorified, unrealistic dreams. Yours is being on FM/AM radio. Others is making loads of cash. You don't have to try to be indie. That's like trying to be cool, but you wouldn't know too much about that would ya? You prove that in just a second.


Oh yeah - and in these forums - shouldn't we all listen to the persons show first before we argue with them? I mean, for example - this guy, "mental-escher" has an incredibly BAD podcast. So why do we even take his points of view seriously?

Once again you have proven your taste to be pretty bad. Its REALLY hard doing prank phone calls on a call in show ain't it? Hard to surround yourself with goons and pretend you are popular. You say Mental Escher has a bad cast and you prove you have absolutely no understanding of what good media is. You don't have to like it, but its anything but bad. You also seem to think that a podcast would in any way prepare someone for FM/AM. Not true either guy. Have fun jerkey boy.


I think we need to be MEANER to these people.

Your specialty. Be mean without cause and think its entertaining.


And for the record - our show is 2 hours every week - and our listeners enjoy the 2 hours. In fact, a lot of them ask for it to be longer.

I am sure you have dozens of listeners who like your show. Like they guy who submitted it to be reviewed on Vox? Wait that was you!
If this is true then why do you say this on your own website...

RED BAR RADIO is a one-hour, daily talk show covering topics on current events, entertainment, politics, pop-culture, and life.....WE WILL say things we don’t mean. WE WILL lie.WE WILL encourage you to make fun of others. WE WILL play music from groups that are embarrassments to their families. WE WILL be hypocritical. WE WILL get in minor “beefs” with other people. WE WILL let you down at times. WE WILL make certain “life situations” harder for us.
**** its like a whole pack of nefarious retards worked on a website and tried to come up with the most obnoxious stuff ever. Why would anyone put this kinda garbage up on their site. Our site sucks, but even its not so bad as to be completely devoid of content. What would I expect from the master of assumed popularity. Is it really every day too?


You're never going to find a "morning show" that is 15 minutes.

Lol, such a moron.

Now go actually put something on your website ok? Its been months
and its still makes repeated apologies for its lack of content.


This is perhaps my fav gem on your site:

Please do not download our pictures and do things to them in photoshop.

seriously man... you've got to be kidding us all right? would you
prank call my mom if I did?

Jack B.

[mental-escher]

Back to my original premise...

iTunes: An example of micromedia reaggregation for personalizing your consumption habits:

http://static.flickr.com/31/53574687_6273ebf612_o.jpg

[WildeGeek]

Oh yeah - and in these forums - shouldn't we all listen to the persons show first before we argue with them? I mean, for example - this guy, "mental-escher" has an incredibly BAD podcast. So why do we even take his points of view seriously?

I think we need to be MEANER to these people.
You know, some of these debates on PCA are pretty funny. Someone like RED BAR RADIO (http://www.redbarradio.com/), whose show I would classify, given my taste for radio as souce for useful information and education, as "Yacker-tainment", probably has little understanding of why some experimental, avante-garde audio performance-art like Mental Escher (http://mental-escher.net/) would interest anyone. Mental-escher probably doesn't understand the appeal of RED BAR RADIO, or perhaps even Howard Stern for that matter. I'm sure the producers of Godcast (http://www.godcast.org/) do not find Skepticality (http://www.skepticality.com/) to their liking.

You're never going to find a "morning show" that is 15 minutes.
What's your point? You're never going to find a traffic report or weather forecast aimed at the general public that lasts four hours without repeating itself. You probably won't find a podcast that's in the form of a traditional live DJ-type radio show under an hour.

But what you will find is a lot of news-magazines and other informative shows that could be broken-up into topic-relevant segments. For example, CBS's Sixty Minutes usually has three story segments, and a commentary or two at the end. In a broadcast world, this works as an hour show. In a podcast world, many people argue that it should be split up into separate stories.

Future podcatcher software could select downloads or build playlists targeted more closely to the interests of the listener. But if a producer assembles all of those different stories into one long show, he's denied the listener that freedom.

[RED BAR RADIO]

GO LISTEN TO RED BAR RADIO.com! LIVE! EVERY SUNDAY @ 8pm CENTRAL!

IT'S A TWO HOUR SHOW - SO YOU ****IN' NERDS MIGHT NOT LIKE IT!

I KNOW HOW MUCH YOU LOVE "15 minutes of tech news" - SO WE MIGHT NOT BE YOUR STYLE.

NEVER THE LESS - RED BAR RADIO.com

[mental-escher]

WildeGeek wrote: Future podcatcher software could select downloads or build playlists targeted more closely to the interests of the listener. But if a producer assembles all of those different stories into one long show, he's denied the listener that freedom.

You got it mate!

[Version3]

I wish PCA would just ban me from their site already. What more do I have to do?

Does any one know how I can remove my show from PCA?

Maybe you could register some fake profiles and hang around to insult people? :shock:

Or, you could just stop visiting the site. I'm not saying that anyone should, but 'quitting PCA' as so many claim to be doing, but actually haven't, is really not that hard... all you have to do is do it, instead of telling everyone that you are doing it or why.

That's more of a general comment on the rash of those supposedly jumping ship.

[WildeGeek]

I'm thinking of doing a podcast on a specific subject, but from 3 different points of view for 3 slightly different audiences, probably on a weekly basis.

Should I put them out as 3, 5-20 minute podcasts, or 1, 30-45 minute podcast?
I would argue that you should definitely publish them as separate audio files, if they are indeed aimed at three different audiences. Why not build more loyalty among each of those separate audiences by giving them what they came for, without forcing them to hear stuff they didn't?

If you do it right, or have the right blogging software, you can post it as one whole feed, plus three constituent feeds, and allow them to choose one or all.

[RussellH]

I would argue that you should definitely publish them as separate audio files, if they are indeed aimed at three different audiences.

Well that was my feeling too. Influencing factors are :-

1. My time - it'd be easier to do 1 longer show than 3 short ones, just from the post-production and publishing point of view. Until I do it, I'm not sure what the overhead will be.

2. Bandwidth/web sites - slightly more for 3 separate shows, probably not significant though, and do I register 3 domains (cost too much) and have 3 different web sites (too much work) - some issues, but not really concerns, I plan to put them all on one umbrella site.

3. Cross-over - some of the areas I want to cover could belong in any/all of the 3 types, so where do I put it? Unless I repeat the same content in multiple shows, I may miss content that some people would like. Guess I'll have to rely on time and listener feedback to sort this one.

[WildeGeek]

1. My time - it'd be easier to do 1 longer show than 3 short ones, just from the post-production and publishing point of view. Until I do it, I'm not sure what the overhead will be.
It depends on how you're going to be producing the shows. If it's pretty much all live, then yeah it'll be more work. If it's a show you mostly assemble with editing, as I do mine, then there's not much difference.


2. Bandwidth/web sites - slightly more for 3 separate shows, probably not significant though, and do I register 3 domains (cost too much) and have 3 different web sites (too much work) - some issues, but not really concerns, I plan to put them all on one umbrella site.
You can definitely do it on one web site under one domain -- if that's what you want. Most blogging software will allow you to publish separate sub-feeds based on the category of the post. There's also a main category that gets all of the posts.

Here's an example on my site:

All shows (http://www.wildebeat.net/index.cgi/shows/), outings shows (http://www.wildebeat.net/index.cgi/shows/outings), gear shows (http://www.wildebeat.net/index.cgi/shows/gear).


3. Cross-over - some of the areas I want to cover could belong in any/all of the 3 types, so where do I put it? Unless I repeat the same content in multiple shows, I may miss content that some people would like. Guess I'll have to rely on time and listener feedback to sort this one.
Again, it depends on how you're creating your audio files. If you're assembling your show(s) in editing, it isn't that big a deal to do some additional copy-and-paste.

[mental-escher]

Back to my original premise...

iTunes: An example of micromedia reaggregation for personalizing your consumption habits:

http://static.flickr.com/31/53574687_6273ebf612_o.jpg


Future podcatcher software could select downloads or build playlists targeted more closely to the interests of the listener. But if a producer assembles all of those different stories into one long show, he's denied the listener that freedom.

[WildeGeek]

Back to my original premise...

iTunes: An example of micromedia reaggregation for personalizing your consumption habits:

http://static.flickr.com/31/53574687_6273ebf612_o.jpg


Future podcatcher software could select downloads or build playlists targeted more closely to the interests of the listener. But if a producer assembles all of those different stories into one long show, he's denied the listener that freedom.

The next step I envision would be a way in RSS to post a podcast not as a single file, but rather as a collection of files and a play list or edit-decision-list. That would allow the listener some freedom to remix the content in a way that most suits them.

For example, if I produce three news stories in a week, someone should be able to download those in any combination with a single show opening and closing. If one story is, say, a gear review, another is a description of some wilderness area, and another is a lesson on some wilderness skill, then the listener could pick, all three any two, or just one and listen to it as if it was that week's show.

With that capability, someone producing a long-form talk show, or music show, could post it in segments that could fit any listener's interests or attention span.

[vox_monitor]

Ok, I know that it's the 21st Century and all Americans are supposed to have the attention span of a meth addict humming bird

meth addicts actually have very long attention spans, as per "tweaking out" on something.

Hummingbirds, I presume, do indeed have very short attention spans.

So I suppose the metaphor might still work. Even a long attentioned span hummingbird is likely to have a short attention span compared to a human.

[Barefoot Radio.com]

Hummingbirds, I presume, do indeed have very short attention spans.

What about Hummingbirds on Meth?? Huh? What about them?

Wait, what was I asking?

[maryandkarla]

Humming birds on meth is that legal ?

Karla

[bazookajoeshow]

Let's not forget sloths on smack.

Bazooka Joe

[yaz]

we usually do at least two hours, we have done up to three and a half, we have heard complaints about the length, we kinda really don't care about the complaints or most of the complainers...

a fifteen to sixty minute show doesn't work for us because one of the main parts of our show is the music we play, we do at least three songs now and in most cases that is about nine to twelve minutes alone...then the promo stuff would add up to at least fifteen minutes...so we would have forty five minutes of talk if we just did that...that won't work, some of you might want us to talk as little as possible, if so go download something else...

we're going to keep with a three hour average, maybe down to two and a half, and besides, i downloaded our show today and the download time was about three minutes...i don't think that is that long, i don't know what kind of pc you're using that will allow time for liver spots, but it must be pretty ****ed up...

what are people gonna do when we do twenty four hours???

[kickasspodcast]

You should see geese on glass, now thats pretty wild.

[coreytronic]

Ok, can we please get off this topic already? Look Mental Escher’s take on this subject is pretty well understood by now, but to my mind it’s a fairly short sided perspective for such a “visionary”. Just two years ago many of the tools used in pod casting either didn’t exist or weren’t readily available, and until broadband and high speed connections became prevalent the whole magillah wasn’t really feasible. A few years ago nobody was thinking about video on cell-phones, so who knows what formats or forms of compression are around the corner. Also the issue of show length is a deeply personal, highly suggestive notion, like boxers or briefs or Corned beef vs. Pastrami. There is no right way.

Now please, go fight the power, re- read 2600 or jerk off to the Matrix again. Just leave it be.

[johngon]

Now please, go fight the power, re- read 2600 or jerk off to the Matrix again. Just leave it be.

Are these the only options? What about punching puppies?

[coreytronic]

Now please, go fight the power, re- read 2600 or jerk off to the Matrix again. Just leave it be.

Are these the only options? What about punching puppies?

Hey, whatever floats your dinghy dude.

[yaz]

if you don't like the topic, don't click on it in the forum...duh....

[paulyb]

if you don't like the topic, don't click on it in the forum...duh....

I like it!

We keep our podcast (Punky!) under twenty minutes long because punk doesn't drag!

...And frankly my cohost would bore the tits off me if he talked for any longer - and I had a pair in the first place.

Apparently I've got the attention span of an American as well, which I'm rather pleased about.

[SFEley]

The next step I envision would be a way in RSS to post a podcast not as a single file, but rather as a collection of files and a play list or edit-decision-list. That would allow the listener some freedom to remix the content in a way that most suits them.
That's an interesting idea, but I don't think the application you describe is compelling enough for it to catch on. It's really not that different from simply posting a number of separate items. The only thing you want to add is instructions to tell the listener how you think they should listen to it. Is that important enough to drive software development in every podcatcher?


For example, if I produce three news stories in a week, someone should be able to download those in any combination with a single show opening and closing.
Much simpler, just include your show opening and closing with each story, but keep the repeating content down to 10-20 seconds on each end. Then release them as separate podcasts.

The real flaw in this plan is that you're expecting a listener will review your "menu" of content, decide what to download in advance, and push some buttons to enact his decision. That's too much work for delayed gratification. Podcatchers succeed because they allow us to be lazy: they grab whatever's available, without us having to think about each file. Listeners who download directly from your Web site do make decisions about what to download in advance, but they're perfectly capable of doing it without some sort of advanced auto-content-stitching interface.

I'm trying to envision a scenario in which someone's life is made easier or better with this idea, and I can't think of one. Therefore I don't see it happening.

However, shorter shows are still a good idea.

[vox_monitor]

I think that what M.E. and Outdoors-Steve are getting at is the following:

The Thesis:

An app ought to exist that enables people who do want to build playlists of micro casts to have that option. And in the process such an app would encourage/enable a sort microcasting that is crafted for this kind of "build your own NPR show" consumption.

I think there is definitely a market for this product. Not everybody is going to consume it. But I can see how nice it would be.

I visualize a world in which I might:

1.
Have "RSS bookmarked" three or four different producers that feature menus of short segments to choose from. The app in question would download the feeds from these.

2.
Have a favored "Cast filter" site "rss bookmarked". This site would produce a feed of filtered individual segments, under a certain length probably. The app would download this feed.

3.
Have a couple of specific shows that I like a lot, and the app would get those feeds too.

4.
Then the app would present me with a menu that has brief explanations of all the selections it has downloaded for me, as well as their durations.

5.
I then would check them off in the order I want to here them. In the first box I check would appear a 1. In the second, a 2, etc. There's no need, obviously, to check every box. If something doesn't interest me, I don't check it.

6.
When I'm done, I push "done." The app then stitches my selections together, in order, with chapters, and puts it on my Ipod.

Sure I could select an hour long show. But with a huge menu of little items to choose from, it had better be stunning if it is going to displace 20 other possible 3 minute things.

The Viability of Longer material:

The reality will prove to be, I suspect, that the best long shows exploit the the substance and power that longer narrative forms can bring to the table. Those shows aren't in any trouble. If a media product is good enough, I'll find room for it, even if it's a two hour show.

Length is ambitious. And there is nothing wrong with wanting to do ambitious stuff. But people ought to remember that it's like a loan from the listener bank.

Analogy:

You are saying, "gimme 100 million bucks. I'm going to build this huge thing. The bank might say ok. Because the biggest payoff often require the biggest investments.

And if you do indeed have a genius plan, and your masterpiece was worth the 100 million and more, then all will laud the scope of your vision.

But if you spend your 100 million bucks just buildng a bunch of random stuff, as part of a project that could easily have been scaled down and have been just as, and probably much more effective for much less money, then you can be **** sure the bank's not going to give you the benefit of the doubt again.

So, bottom line:

Our angry comedy friends? Long meandering conversation casts? Those who model their cast after a dinosaur morning radio format? They're in trouble.

[speechless]

The duration of a podcast depends on two things:

* Listener demand.
* How long it takes to get your message across.

Based on your goals for podcasting, one will be more influential than the other.

There is no "right length" rule that can be applied in a general fashion.

[Patrick]

You forgot one:

* What Mental Escher thinks it should be.

[Big Mike]

Let's not forget sloths on smack.
Bazooka Joe

That was my original show name.

[shlomp]

I'm just saying it's none of your business.

It is his business - he's a listener. Feedback is important.

If you want podcasts to be shorter, then make yours shorter.

Agreed, but it still doen't mean pocasters should ignore the feedback.

There's nothing that's going to be accomplished by telling everyone else to "shorten up" their own media.

There is if the point is valid. You should't just shun feedback. Isn't is better to take in what a range of people think, and produce something that works better for your audience. If mental-escher is alone in his opinion, his feedback is still valid, just not applicable. There's no reason to just say it's none of his business.

[Patrick]

I doubt very seriously he listens to my show. That makes him a listener? Doubt it.

You can't make a blanket statement to everyone to shorten up their media and call it valid.

[mental-escher]

The original post:

The nature of the future of media consumption will drive syndicated media (podcasts and vcasts) to become small enough to allow convenient reassemble by end users with-in their personalized consumption space (vphones, vPods, etc).

Note the key "visionary" phrase: 'small enough to allow convenient reassembly'. For the flat earth types, I await your torch on the crucifix of my thoughts.



http://img154.exs.cx/img154/949/planetofapes0xl.jpg

[Patrick]

I'm done arguing about it. I'm just saying stop worrying about it.

This is me caring...

[WildeGeek]

I think that what M.E. and Outdoors-Steve are getting at is the following:

See the rest of his post HERE (http://www.podcastalley.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=31832#31832).

I annoint you, good knight, with the mighty clue-by-four (http://catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/C/clue-by-four.html), that you may wield it against the un-smacked.

[jimk]

The original post:

The nature of the future of media consumption will drive syndicated media (podcasts and vcasts) to become small enough to allow convenient reassemble by end users with-in their personalized consumption space (vphones, vPods, etc).

Note the key "visionary" phrase: 'small enough to allow convenient reassembly'. For the flat earth types, I await your torch on the crucifix of my thoughts.


And what happens when you do a show that *cannot* by it's nature be split up into chunks for "reassembly?"

I don't really think I feel comfortable with people cutting up parts of something I break my *** to create as a whole and redistributing them in some weird nanocasting style.

[Patrick]

Oh snap!

[mental-escher]

I don't really think I feel comfortable with people cutting up parts of something I break my *** to create as a whole and redistributing them in some weird nanocasting style.

You miss point. So Sorry. You seem to be referring to remixing/mashing, which is a whole 'nother (though quite interesting and controversial) topic.

[shlomp]

You can't make a blanket statement to everyone to shorten up their media and call it valid.

You shouldn't just ignore feedback because you don't like it. It ight be right. You can't say it's none of his business - what IS your podcast - a private thing to satisfy only your delicate taste, or something you actually want the public to like?

[Patrick]

It's not feedback, moron. How the **** is a blanket statement feedback? It had nothing to do with my specific podcast.

And yes, I podcast more for me than for my audience.

[WildeGeek]

And what happens when you do a show that *cannot* by it's nature be split up into chunks for "reassembly?"

I don't really think I feel comfortable with people cutting up parts of something I break my *** to create as a whole and redistributing them in some weird nanocasting style.
Any sense of right or wrong of this topic certainly boils down to who your intended audience is.

If you don't care about having an audience, then you don't have to care what they want. Ultimately, the audience will decide how much control they want over their content.

Podcasting is popular among listeners because it gives them more control over what they listen to. I assert that for the same reason, they'll prefer to assemble programming to their own tastes from smaller components.

[jimk]

And what happens when you do a show that *cannot* by it's nature be split up into chunks for "reassembly?"

I don't really think I feel comfortable with people cutting up parts of something I break my *** to create as a whole and redistributing them in some weird nanocasting style.
Any sense of right or wrong of this topic certainly boils down to who your intended audience is.

If you don't care about having an audience, then you don't have to care what they want. Ultimately, the audience will decide how much control they want over their content.

Podcasting is popular among listeners because it gives them more control over what they listen to. I assert that for the same reason, they'll prefer to assemble programming to their own tastes from smaller components.

OK, slow down, man. First of all, you're responding to me as though I said I don't care about my audience. I didn't. My audience drives my show, a lot of what I do is *reacting* rather than being proactive. Secondly, you're talking like this remixing idea is feasible and implemented today.

It's not. And it may *never* be. There are a LOT of technical hurdles that need to be overcome before it's reasonable for an early adopter to do this much less Joe or Jane Listener.

I do a show that is a lot more like a TV show thana talk show. There might be an element or two that could be excised and wiould stand alone, but for the most part the shows are scripted with a beginning, middle and end.

It's not a question of disrespecting the audience, it's a question of what if your show doesn't lend itself to this kind of mixing and matching? Who's the arbiter of "The Appropriate Show Length" then? Who gets to be the big kahuna who decides how long everything should be?

My final thought is do your show and stop worrying about what everyone else is doing. Don't like it? Don't subscribe. Problem solved.

[mental-escher]

BTW - We at the Pluri Media Group, working closely with the FCC and the NSA, have ordained that from now on, ALL podcasters must get our explicit approval on both length and content of their podcasts.

***Any violation of this decree will mean total informational erasure of your show and yourself***

Don't agree, can't take a joke, don't understand sarcasm- then contact your Congress-bot and whine like a baby!

http://opensores.thebunker.net/pub/mirrors/defcon/GRAPHICS/PICTURES/2/nsa-guy.jpg

[WildeGeek]

I don't really think I feel comfortable with people cutting up parts of something I break my *** to create as a whole and redistributing them in some weird nanocasting style.
I know musicians that won't release singles because they only want their CD-length works to be heard in whole. That's certainly their right, but they risk a much narrower exposure that way.

If you don't care about having an audience, then you don't have to care what they want. Ultimately, the audience will decide how much control they want over their content.
OK, slow down, man. First of all, you're responding to me as though I said I don't care about my audience. I didn't.
OK. I can see where you got that from my statement. My main point was in the second sentence. I could have better expressed the idea in the first sentence this way:
A producer who wants to serve their audience will be sensitive to that audience's desire if they want to be selective on a more minute scale.

Secondly, you're talking like this remixing idea is feasible and implemented today.

It's not. And it may *never* be. There are a LOT of technical hurdles that need to be overcome before it's reasonable for an early adopter to do this much less Joe or Jane Listener.
I don't think the technical hurdles are that great.

Let's take as an example CNN Headline News. Do you know how small the clips are that the news director manipulates at his keyboard? Some of them are only a few frames. Every time around their automated 12 minute loop, little things change -- stories get replaced, an update forecast gets inserted, and most importantly, stories get shortened as they age. A very smart broadcast automation system is at the heart of this.

I'll post separately in more detail about the possibilities, and why I think they're coming fairly soon.

It's not a question of disrespecting the audience, it's a question of what if your show doesn't lend itself to this kind of mixing and matching?Some won't.

Who's the arbiter of "The Appropriate Show Length" then? Who gets to be the big kahuna who decides how long everything should be?
Our audiences, of course. They'll always vote with their feet (subscriptions, delete key, etc.).

My final thought is do your show and stop worrying about what everyone else is doing. Don't like it? Don't subscribe. Problem solved.
And my participation in this thread has been an attempt to explore what I believe is one likely future development, and how producers can take advantage of it. I don't think I ever said anyone must do anything. I'm saying, "these are where the trends are pointing."

[mental-escher]

And my participation in this thread has been an attempt to explore what I believe is one likely future development, and how producers can take advantage of it. I don't think I ever said anyone must do anything. I'm saying, "these are where the trends are pointing."

WildeGeek, you're dead on. But some folks here still seem to feel that Forums are no place for having discussions. Go figure. But then again, on a flat earth, I suppose there is no horizon to see over.

[WildeGeek]

The Thesis:

An app ought to exist that enables people who do want to build playlists of micro casts to have that option. And in the process such an app would encourage/enable a sort microcasting that is crafted for this kind of "build your own NPR show" consumption.
Or build your own CNN Headline News, or build your own 60 Minutes, or perhaps something that none of the producers ever intended. What if I wanted to remix my own show that interleaved Rush Limbaugh's and Al Franken's comments on the same topics. (I'm not saying I could stand to do that.)

I visualize a world in which I might: Have "RSS bookmarked" three or four different producers that feature menus of short segments to choose from. The app in question would download the feeds from these.
Have a favored "Cast filter" site "rss bookmarked". This site would produce a feed of filtered individual segments, under a certain length probably. The app would download this feed.
Have a couple of specific shows that I like a lot, and the app would get those feeds too.
Then the app would present me with a menu that has brief explanations of all the selections it has downloaded for me, as well as their durations.
I then would check them off in the order I want to here them. In the first box I check would appear a 1. In the second, a 2, etc. There's no need, obviously, to check every box. If something doesn't interest me, I don't check it.
When I'm done, I push "done." The app then stitches my selections together, in order, with chapters, and puts it on my Ipod.
The work is never "done". Think of Amazon's, "people who bought this, also bought..." iTunes and the iPod right now lets you rate a song or podcast while you're listening to it. What if you could rate on more than one scale; not just whether you liked it, but whether you liked it because it was fun, informative, heart-wrenching, exciting, relaxing, and a host of other criteria? What if you could publish those ratings to help inform the opinions of others?

In this future, there could be role for trusted taste-informers, who simply build playlists for people. And these wouldn't be so much playlists like the OPML we see now, but rather lists of preferences, search phrases, keywords, and reputation (like karma (http://slashdot.org/faq/com-mod.shtml#cm700) on slashdot (http://slashdot.org/)) scores for various producers. Perhaps we would all be the editors.

Our podcatcher apps, which by then will be built into our wirelessly-connected players themselves (which might also be our cell-phones), would filter micro-content based not just on what feed we subscribed to, but what content within our feed meets the highest priorities in our taste profiles.

To participate in this, producers would publish their components, such as intros, various stand-alone pieces, segways, outros, and their list of how they envision it as a show. The players would do the final assembly.

What if you, as a producer, create a daily show, but your listener is only interested enough to play it weekly? Wouldn't you rather give them a weekly best-of, then have them skip over most of your stuff, and not get the best, because they won't listen to it all? Wouldn't it be nice to post the components, and tag them, rather than having the listener take their chances at skipping your best work?

I was an engineer on a project very much like this. A retailer (who shall remain nameless) has video screen signs in their stores. The retailer's frequent buyer card has an RFID (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RFID) chip in it. When the shopper walks around the store, their movements are tracked, and their purchase history is known. When a shopper approaches a screen, a commercial is selected to appeal to the shopper's interests. That commercial replaces whatever is in the default playlist for that screen, and its appearance there looks seamless to the shopper. If several shoppers are in front of the screen, the system finds content for interests they have in common. This system has been operating for two years! (Knowing how pervasive this kind of thing is going to become really makes me want to get into the wilderness! (http://www.wildebeat.net/))

The technology to do this is not so expensive or difficult to implement. The trick is, is this going to be done for the benefit of the media consumer, and advertiser, or the media producer?

As early podcasters, we have some influence in how this future plays out.

(Jeeze, I could write a book on this. Sorry this is so long, but I didn't have time to make it shorter.)

[speechless]

I thought this thread was sort of thought provoking, but it's really just devolved into silliness.

Mental-escher's original post was interesting, though. :wink:

[vox_monitor]

I thought this thread was sort of thought provoking, but it's really just devolved into silliness.

Mental-escher's original post was interesting, though. :wink:

I thought wildebeat's post was totally fascinating. I'm surprised that your dismissal of the thread followed it, though certainly it wasn't necessarily a response to it.

Still. I think there's plenty of life left in this thread.

I see your point completely Wildebeat, and you seem hyper-knowledge-able about this subject.

From a practical standpoint, how do you think people can implement the obvious consumer end advantages of this envisioned future, now, before the tech is in place. Is this just a wait and see kind of a situation, or ought we be doing things differently in preperation and to push things forward?

eric

[kickasspodcast]

This whole discussion and issue has inspired me to create the KAMC. Kickass Microcast. It will be hard, but Fosco and I wanna do a somewhat regular show in 5 minutes or less. I think its challenging, the less time you have, the more thought you must put into what you say right?

Have not much more to add, but know that the KAMC is in the works.


Happy Discussion!

:)

Jack B.


http://www.cache.daz3d.com/store/item_file/290/image_tiny.jpg
Do you use this to microcast?

[mental-escher]

This whole discussion and issue has inspired me

A convert!!! Congratulations JB!

[WildeGeek]

From a practical standpoint, how do you think people can implement the obvious consumer end advantages of this envisioned future, now, before the tech is in place. Is this just a wait and see kind of a situation, or ought we be doing things differently in preperation and to push things forward?
As listeners, we're doing some of this already. A liberating feature of portable digital audio players, the iPod of course being the dominant example, is that you can listen to any collection of content in any order you as the listener choose. Let's say you have 50 CDs ripped to your player (ignoring podcasts for the moment). In the walkman days, you would stick a CD or cassette into your player and listen to the whole thing. Now, if you have a list of 30 favorite dance songs, another of mellow/relaxing songs, and another of love songs on your player, those draw from all over those 50 CDs. You're already remixing the artitst's intention.

Apple introduced a "shuffle" feature in the iPod. It plays songs selected from your iPod at random. Personally, I find this a useless feature. As an experiment just now, I tried it and got this playlist: Second movement of Debussy's La Mer
Frank Zappa's Brown Shoes Don't Make It
First movement of Beethoven's Fifth Symphony
Linda Ronstadt's Poor Poor Pitiful Me
Cheech and Chong's Dave's Not Here
Tangerine Dream's Coldwater Canyon
The final movement of Bela Bartok's Concerto for Two Pianos and PercussionThis playlist could be interesting, but I'll rarely be in the mood for that particular combination.

Clearly, this feature would be much more useful if I could have a playlist built that better fits the mood I'm in at the moment. To do this, the player would have to have some meta-data (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metadata) about each "song". If the player knew that Cheech and Chong wasn't music, or that I don't like to hear symphonies in less than their whole linear presentation, or that Tangerine Dream is hypnotically mellow, I coulds specify a mood to narrow the choices for the shuffling.

When we start talking about spoken-word entertainment, news and information, and other content that doesn't fit the song model, metadata becomes even more useful for building playlists.

So here's some practical steps that producers can take today: Think in terms of modules. Think about making your longer programs out of modules or parts that could stand on their own. You can bet, even if your vision is of a whole, that your listeners can identify parts that they might like to isolate from the whole.
Consider posting more text. Search engines will better find your individual shows if you post more text about them. (I post a complete transcript of each of my shows for that reason.)
Post timing information. Certainly, post the length of your show on your web site. If you're posting a run-down or a complete transcript, put timing information in there as well.
Post tags or keywords for each show. Some blogging software provides this as a standard feature, others make this next-to-impossible. Write to request this feature from your blogging software developer/vendor.
Use chapters in AAC/MP4 files. Though most are still using MP3, as am I for the widest compatibility, AAC/MP4 has lots of exciting features like midi, chapters, and internal playlists and mixing. Future MP4 encoding software might allow you to store your narration and music beds as separate elements in the file for example. This would help people with hearing problems, because they could turn down the music bed and understand the narration better.Listeners can start asking for these features: A smarter shuffle feature -- one that can be limited to songs in particular categories, ratings, moods, tempos, etc.
Saving more of the metadata in the player. I should be able to see all of the podcast show notes in the screen of my player, and should be able to decide from them if it's something I want to listen to. It's not such a large step from that to having the player make smart selections for me.
Smarter playlist generation in the desktop application. A lot could be done here -- lists could be built based on keywords in the podcast description, or things like reputation metadata, timeliness, news importance, ratings made by friends... The list of possibilities is endless, of course, but if people start asking for what they want, the vendors will work it out.
Wider adoption of MP4/AAC. This would allow a lot more of the kinds of things I'm talking about.Anyway... There's chapter two.

[deadwhiteguy]

Apple introduced a "shuffle" feature in the iPod. It plays songs selected from your iPod at random. Personally, I find this a useless feature.
On a side note, at least on the iPod I have, you can set the shuffle in the setting menu to songs, and then when you select a playlist it shuffles on that playlist.

I agree the whole iPod shuffle is basically useless, but the shuffle a playlist option is actually quite good.

Jason

[deadwhiteguy]

Just to chuck an extra 2c in on the length of show question. I'm sort of on the fence, although it is certianly true that I tend to shy away from longer podcasts (an hour is the top except for Stand to Reason, Apologetics.com & The Dr Demento Show, and none of these are actually podcasts, but mp3 files of regular radio shows that I have listened too since long before podcasting was invented), I don't really think that is the problem with most "long" podcasts that make them less palatable.

I think part of the problem is that (I generalise from my own limited listening sample, so keep that in mind before flaming me) as shows get longer the production value on them seems to get poorer.

It seems that for many of the talk/discussion oriented style of shows, that are around the hour or longer mark, that they basically just get recorded live and then get the tinest amount of post production done on them as possible before being stuck on a feed.

This is what I think makes them crappy, and it makes for a good reason to go towards shorter shows. Shorter shows tend to need a lot more actualy editing and production than longer shows because they need it, and also I suspect because the amount of production work required is largely proportional to the length of the show if you are doing it properly.

what do others think ?

Jason

[deadwhiteguy]

Oh, and is there an easy way to switch to something like AAC ? What are the drawbacks ?

How hard is it to make a dual mp3/aac set of streams ?

Is all this answered somewhere else ?

Jason

[SFEley]

Clearly, this feature would be much more useful if I could have a playlist built that better fits the mood I'm in at the moment. To do this, the player would have to have some meta-data (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metadata) about each "song". If the player knew that Cheech and Chong wasn't music, or that I don't like to hear symphonies in less than their whole linear presentation, or that Tangerine Dream is hypnotically mellow, I coulds specify a mood to narrow the choices for the shuffling.


The iPod does know all that, man. It's called the "genre" tag, and you can use it (along with every other tag) to set up smart playlists for just about any preference you might have. You just have to set them up in iTunes, because to do it on the iPod would complicate the interface too much. If the iPod gets complicated, Apple loses its second strongest selling point.

[WildeGeek]

The iPod does know all that, man. It's called the "genre" tag, and you can use it (along with every other tag) to set up smart playlists for just about any preference you might have. You just have to set them up in iTunes, because to do it on the iPod would complicate the interface too much. If the iPod gets complicated, Apple loses its second strongest selling point.
Where are the other genres from Apple's podcasts directory:Arts and Entertainment, Audio Blogs, Business, Education, Family, Food, Health, etc.? Not to mention many other categories that don't exist even there, such as Interview, Hard News, Environmental News, Sports News, Weather, Jokes, Radio Drama, Howard Stern Wannabe, and other categories.

It turns out that you can add any category you want in iTunes. It lets me label a podcast with the category, Astronomy, for example. That's fine as far as it goes. But there's a whole range of other information it would be nice to have so that it could make more appropriate automatic playlist selections for me.

One example: Let's say I'm fascinated by the current evolution versus intelligent design debate. I subscribe to a lot of news podcasts, so lets say I want to catch up on that particular news. I have 75 hours of podcasts to catch up on, and this topic interests me the most. Which of these genre tags are going to allow me build a smart playlist that presents me that particular news over my upcoming two-hour drive? Just choosing the Science genre tag isn't going to do it. We need the player, or at least the loading application, to have a detailed show description, either a transcript or some other qualitative tags, in some machine-readable form, and that includes timings within the show.

Right now, adding these features to the players would hadd a lot of complication to the UI, I agree, so it should be in the scheduling application on the computer that loads the player.

[WildeGeek]

Just to chuck an extra 2c in on the length of show question. I'm sort of on the fence, although it is certianly true that I tend to shy away from longer podcasts (an hour is the top except for Stand to Reason, Apologetics.com & The Dr Demento Show, and none of these are actually podcasts, but mp3 files of regular radio shows that I have listened too since long before podcasting was invented), I don't really think that is the problem with most "long" podcasts that make them less palatable.
And people should understand that I'm not against long-form content. I'd rather listen to symphonies in their entirety for example, rather than just a randomized movement here and there.

This isn't a battle between long-form and short-form content: There's still a place for epic films and animated shorts, novels and short stories, great lengthy symphonies and little ditties.

My point is that a lot of the stuff presented in podcasts (and over conventional radio and television, for that matter) could be offered up in more and smaller chunks, giving the listener more control over what they hear.

[SFEley]

Where are the other genres from Apple's podcasts directory:Arts and Entertainment, Audio Blogs, Business, Education, Family, Food, Health, etc.?
Different subject. In your prior post you were talking about music. Yes, I agree that Apple could do a better job representing the metadata it already knows about for smart playlist purposes.


One example: Let's say I'm fascinated by the current evolution versus intelligent design debate. I subscribe to a lot of news podcasts, so lets say I want to catch up on that particular news. I have 75 hours of podcasts to catch up on, and this topic interests me the most. Which of these genre tags are going to allow me build a smart playlist that presents me that particular news over my upcoming two-hour drive? Just choosing the Science genre tag isn't going to do it. We need the player, or at least the loading application, to have a detailed show description, either a transcript or some other qualitative tags, in some machine-readable form, and that includes timings within the show.
But in order to make that possible, a large number of human podcasters would have to do a lot of work preparing that metadata, and they'd have to do it consistently, thoroughly, and repeatably.

Given what I know about humans, and podcasters in particular, I'm rather doubtful that these cats can be herded.

[WildeGeek]

One example: Let's say I'm fascinated by the current evolution versus intelligent design debate. I subscribe to a lot of news podcasts, so lets say I want to catch up on that particular news. I have 75 hours of podcasts to catch up on, and this topic interests me the most. Which of these genre tags are going to allow me build a smart playlist that presents me that particular news over my upcoming two-hour drive? Just choosing the Science genre tag isn't going to do it. We need the player, or at least the loading application, to have a detailed show description, either a transcript or some other qualitative tags, in some machine-readable form, and that includes timings within the show.
But in order to make that possible, a large number of human podcasters would have to do a lot of work preparing that metadata, and they'd have to do it consistently, thoroughly, and repeatably.

Given what I know about humans, and podcasters in particular, I'm rather doubtful that these cats can be herded.
If a few do it, and the listeners like the freedom to remix their own content, it'll catch-on, and the tools to do it more easily will come around.

[shlomp]

It's not feedback, moron.

Have you ever seen a dictionary? When you find one, look up feedback.

Where's the blanket statement by the way? Don't tell me you've taken the topic title "podcasts should be shorter" to include all podcasts, even 4 minute ones? Maybe you should also look up "literal" and "interpretation" in the dictionary too.

[yaz]

no wonder craig used to lock down all the freakin stupid posts like this one, this is turning into an episode of seinfeld...and boy did that show suck donkeyass...

[Fueled By Beer Radio]

no wonder craig used to lock down all the freakin stupid posts like this one, this is turning into an episode of seinfeld...and boy did that show suck donkeyass...

I think he should get back onto locking them. People bitchin about podcast length are only advertising that they have a short attention span. Much like a gopher does.


Or maybe the content of the shows they listen to are so bad they want it to be over but are afraid to say it? Hmm.....

[vox_monitor]

people complaining about those discussing the value of brevity are only advertising the fact that they never edit.

e

I mean really, you might as well wear a neon sign that says "I feel threatened!"

[podcastrant.com]

I think what most people are griping about now is that both sides made their points 4 pages ago. Why would anyone in the podcasting community feel threatened? I know Bibb and Yaz don't. Why would they?

You should do what you like and your audience will come to you. If you want to cowtow to the audience then do a Harry Potter cast. Not being condescending to the guys at MuggleCast or the girls at PotterCast. That's what is most popular the past month or so. That or a tech podcast.

Mental Escher you must know that regardless of how long or short your cast is you are going to have a limited audience. I am one of them. I subscribe to your show and look forward to each new episode. But you must realize that your show will unfortunately never reach a wide audience.

Does that mean you should throw it in? Of course not. You have a great show and have a following that likes it. To be honest if your show was longer I probably wouldn't like it as much. And I know that you were just trying to get debate started but it has ended up in a long vs short debate (no fault of yours).

If Bibb and Yaz or Switched:On were shorter I wouldn't like it as much. In my opinion they are the perfect length and I enjoy every lull as well as every hilarious moment.

I have totally gotten off track as usual. My initial point was that I disagree with Eric and that podcasters at this moment have no reason to feel threatened about anything. I think we're all saying, "OK, it's six pages into this and we're still saying the same things we were on page 2."

Really I don't know what the **** I'm talking about now, but since I took the time to type it I'll hit submit anyway.

[vox_monitor]

I ought to have quoted in my last post.

I was replying specifically to the following statement:

"People bitchin about podcast length are only advertising that they have a short attention span. Much like a gopher does. "

as posted by the beer person. I meant nothing more general than that in my post, and it was an oversight on my part not to have made that more clear.

e

[podcastrant.com]

Yeah I noticed that after I hit submit. I missed it the first time around. I was dazzled by the signature. Just kidding beer :wink:

[mental-escher]

Mental Escher you must know that regardless of how long or short your cast is you are going to have a limited audience. I am one of them. I subscribe to your show and look forward to each new episode. But you must realize that your show will unfortunately never reach a wide audience.

Right on dude. I do what I do because it gives me enjoyment. That I have ANY listeners is cool by me. I don't follow any convention, but fill a podcast with an idea or two and then publish it.

My original post related to a general concept in a possible future trend in syndicated media (i.e., media chunk length). It seems to have pushed more than a few buttons here, but that’s tangential to my original premise of considering (not demanding) for the future targeting digestable media length chunks that might better serve (on average) consumers' media consumption.

[podcastrant.com]

I'm with you escher. I was just saying that you started with that and unfortunately it's boiled down to a short vs. long.

And Eric check out the new show announcements. Yeah that's right. I'm putting pressure on ya for a new one.