Putting one podcast in another's feed....

[robaustin]

Wondering how y'all feel about the practice of putting one podcast in another podcast's feed. Specifically - I'm talking about the inclusion of "NotOlderBetter" in the "Mommycast" feed.

I know that it's the podcast of the husband of one of the Mommycasters. I know they're probably trying to promote it.

But - aren't they:

1 - Wasting bandwidth (specifically Podshow's since the NotOlderBetter MP3s are in the Mommycast MP3 directory).

2 - Risking kind of ticking off Mommycast listeners who don't really care about the other show?

I don't know.... I mean building off of another show's success I think is OK - maybe once to get the other show started. But it's been three episodes by now. I personally have just clicked "delete" all three times. Seems like a waste of bandwidth - which IS limited.

--*Rob

[ElNacho]

write to them. tell them you subscribed to mommycast and thats what you want to hear, despite their connection. one cross-promotional episode is enough, i agree with you in that they're not bein smart bout that.

[kickasspodcast]

I don't think its that bad of an idea, I think that the listeners should be told ahead of time, maybe 1 or 2 shows before subscribers could expect a different enclosure in their feed. Dropping a suprise on your listeners without telling them seems needlessly risky when you can just tell them what to expect.

You are probably using an aggregator that automatically downloads the newest show to your computer. I'd make use of a basic newsreader that doesn't do that automatically so you know what your getting in each feed. I love Opera's feed management system, it even sends me my gmail in RSS.


Jack

[Steve Pinder]

This doesn't sound right to me. Maybe I just don't understand. It sounds like highjacking to me.

Steve Pinder
www.karatekast.com

[jeffoest]

Wondering how y'all feel about the practice of putting one podcast in another podcast's feed. Specifically - I'm talking about the inclusion of "NotOlderBetter" in the "Mommycast" feed.

Yea. Seems kind of 'cheesy' to me. I think El Nacho is right. Be a good listener and write them a kind email telling them that you find this inconvenient for you. It's feedback that they will, no doubt, find useful.

A more respectful way to promo a friend's podcast is, obviously, mention it and maybe put one show in the feed (if you REALLY want to promote it), but then let it go have it's own life after that...

My opinion.

[theandyman]

I don't think there's a problem with that...it's their feed they can put anything they want in it...

The nice thing is that you don't have to listen to EVERY show put out.

That's the beauty...if you don't recognise it...skip it...

Like El Nacho & Jeff say...let them know it bugs you...

[Steve Pinder]

The initial discussion wass to do this without telling them,....that's a no no in my book,....which one do you read?

Steve Pinder
www.karatekast.com

[WyethDigital]

The initial discussion wass to do this without telling them,....that's a no no in my book,....which one do you read?

Actually, the initial discussion was about Mommycast putting a completely different show in their feed, presumably to gain listenership. Here's a quote from the original post that spells that out:

Wondering how y'all feel about the practice of putting one podcast in another podcast's feed. Specifically - I'm talking about the inclusion of "NotOlderBetter" in the "Mommycast" feed.

I know that it's the podcast of the husband of one of the Mommycasters. I know they're probably trying to promote it. (emphasis mine)

So yeah, it's not technically hijacking (since they're doing it themselves), but as a listener, I would be annoyed if they did it more than once. Yes, we could manually manage our RSS readers, but that sort of defeats the purpose of RSS in my eyes: You subscribe to the shows you like, and they "automagically" download while I'm asleep or away from my computer. Very convenient!

Eric

[WyethDigital]

I had some other questions about this: If they're a PodShow show, and their being paid by PodShow, and their putting another show in their feed, are they breaking any kind of agreement with Podshow? Wouldn't this affect how the ads get placed? If it does, would you want to be an advertisier paying rates for a show with a particular ranking (or rating, or whatever), and then be attached to some show no one's heard of? I don't think I would like it, if I was the guy writing the check, and it affected where my ads went.

Eric

[videohutch]

I've noticed this quite a bit lately and it is starting to annoy me as a listener (although as a podcaster I can see where they are coming from, but I still don't like it).

In a way its podcast spam - a method of pushing a show to subscribers who have not actually requested it - let's face it, by the time you've deleted it it's probably already downloaded to your harddrive (using your bandwidth and the podcaster's, plus your disk space), which you've paid for (as has the podcaster).

I personally would like to see this practice stopped or shunned upon.

Why not simply use promos and give them a verbal push during a number of shows? Let's face it I respect the views of the podcasters that I listen to - if they specifically endorse another show, I give it a listen - that's all that is needed.

Just my 2 scottish pennies worth ;-)

[videohutch]

I don't think there's a problem with that...it's their feed they can put anything they want in it...

The nice thing is that you don't have to listen to EVERY show put out.

That's the beauty...if you don't recognise it...skip it...


Problem is that you've already downloaded it using YOUR bandwidth - who's feed is it really - I like to think it's the listener's feed.


Like El Nacho & Jeff say...let them know it bugs you...

Absolutely - feedback is key here - let them know that this is not on.

;-)

[WyethDigital]

Problem is that you've already downloaded it using YOUR bandwidth - who's feed is it really - I like to think it's the listener's feed.

Well said! And I'm sure that would make an excellent topic around here. There's a lot of talk about what's good or bad from the Podcaster's perspective, but not a lot from the listeners. That may be because the forums here attract a lot of show producers who also listen, but not many straight listeners. And frankly, when it comes to "listener perspective," producers don't always divorce themselves very well from that role as they comment as a listener (even though they try very hard to do so :D )

Eric

[SFEley]

Problem is that you've already downloaded it using YOUR bandwidth - who's feed is it really - I like to think it's the listener's feed.

By that logic, I ought to write all of the television networks and tell them to get crappy reality television shows off of MY channels. They are all coming into my house via the cable line, after all, whether I watch them or not, wasting bandwidth that could have been used for...I don't know what. Entropy. Pictures of rocks. While I'm at it, I'll call my newspaper and tell them which sections I require them to omit each day.

Be logical. It's not the listener's feed, it's the podcaster's. The podcaster obtains all the necessary resources to create, store, and publish content. She naturally gets to choose what content those resources are going to be used for. The listener subscribes because he likes the podcaster's choices. When that changes, he's an ex-listener. But there's no entitlement, no right to demand anything at all of the podcaster. Certainly not because of "bandwidth." (For what home user is bandwidth a precious commodity? Almost nobody pays by the kilobyte these days.*)

Me, I've put out other people's episodes on my podcast twice. Once was a newbie mistake: I was giving a shoutout to the Seanachai, and linked to an MP3 file, forgetting that Wordpress creates enclosures automatically. That was dumb, but Patrick didn't mind. The other time was the Podcast 411 interview with me. I got good feedback from listeners for sharing that one.

So by all means, tell your favorite podcasters if you find something annoying... But don't present it as if they owe you anything. They've got no obligation to you, nor vice versa.


*(I only say "almost" because I do have one listener for sure who pays by the kilobyte. He lives in the middle of outback Australia, nearest town population 37, and has two satellite linkups for Internet content. If that's the exception, I feel pretty comfortable with the generalization.)

[LoveHouseRadio]

My 2 cents are against the practice- of course, any podcaster can do what they want with their feed but it just seems shaddy.

Then again, innovation is sometimes mistaken a first. Time will tell, and at the rate podcasting moves, we should know in about a week.

[WyethDigital]

Problem is that you've already downloaded it using YOUR bandwidth - who's feed is it really - I like to think it's the listener's feed.Be logical. It's not the listener's feed, it's the podcaster's. The podcaster obtains all the necessary resources to create, store, and publish content. She naturally gets to choose what content those resources are going to be used for. The listener subscribes because he likes the podcaster's choices. When that changes, he's an ex-listener. But there's no entitlement, no right to demand anything at all of the podcaster. Certainly not because of "bandwidth." (For what home user is bandwidth a precious commodity? Almost nobody pays by the kilobyte these days.*)

I don't think anyone said anything about an entitlement. Let's face it, comparing Podcasting feeds to TV broadcasting is a poor analogy. For one thing, TV "feeds" are in realtime and instantaneous. The files contained within a Podcast feed require significant time to download depending upon your bandwidth and the size of some shows. Yes, rarely do people pay based on bandwidth usage, but a lot of folks around here seem to think time is free. It's not.

Yes, the Podcaster has to set up the feed, and they produce the shows, and it all takes a lot of effort. And we wouldn't have the awesome pleasure of letting you entertain us if it weren't for all your hard work. I don't think that's lost on any of the listeners. But the good shows, the ones with a following, recognize that it's a two way street. They work with their listeners to generate loyalty and an audience. Dumping a lot of unexpected flotsam into the feed is inconsiderate. And I'm not talking about once or twice. I'm talking about the example that began this thread. I'm sorry, but if that sounds illogical to you, I think we may end up having to agree to disagree.

Eric :)

[SFEley]

Yes, the Podcaster has to set up the feed, and they produce the shows, and it all takes a lot of effort. And we wouldn't have the awesome pleasure of letting you entertain us if it weren't for all your hard work. I don't think that's lost on any of the listeners. But the good shows, the ones with a following, recognize that it's a two way street. They work with their listeners to generate loyalty and an audience. Dumping a lot of unexpected flotsam into the feed is inconsiderate. And I'm not talking about once or twice. I'm talking about the example that began this thread. I'm sorry, but if that sounds illogical to you, I think we may end up having to agree to disagree.

Oh, definitely. I don't think we disagree here. I went to the Mommycast site to see what they'd done, and yeah, it looks like they're being dumb on a number of fronts. Not just copying the other show in (for which one episode would've been fine), but also scattering their focus far beyond their core interest area. I think this is going to lose them audience, and that's as it should be.

What I took exception to was simply the implied attitude that this was some sort of transgression against the listener. That the Mommycast hosts didn't just make a poor content decision, they violated some sort of unspoken trust. I don't buy that. Listeners can -- and should -- have expectations, but they're not binding on anyone. If they were, it'd be wrong to try anything new. If we all took the idea that "It's the listeners' feed" to its logical conclusion, then content becomes a matter of consensus, and podcasters must pitching to the lowest common denominator. Individual choices fade to gray, and then art fades to black. That's why I don't like that idea.

The Mommycast wasn't committing any kind of breach here, other than common sense. They were dumb, perhaps -- and if it loses them audience, well and good -- but they weren't wrong.

[videohutch]

Just to clarify my comment earlier on it being the "listeners feed" - I said that I like to think of it as the listeners feed - from a podcasters perspective. i.e I respect and value my audience - the old adage the customer is king applies.

On the bandwidth issue - don't forget that there are listeners out there with narrow connections - I'm only on a 1/2meg ADSL for instance - but I have some friends who listen to podcasts who are still using dial-up and they are very precious about what they download, due to the time it takes.

I personally don't think the analogy with TV applies as essentially the bandwidth issues are completely different, but I hear where you are coming from. Let's not try to replicate what traditional media fousts on us however - Isn't that one of the core ideals of podcasting - listen different?

:)

[SFEley]

I personally don't think the analogy with TV applies as essentially the bandwidth issues are completely different, but I hear where you are coming from. Let's not try to replicate what traditional media fousts on us however - Isn't that one of the core ideals of podcasting - listen different?
Very good point. And yes, I see you're right, my example was poorly chosen.

I think we're cool here. It's easy to get hung up on philosophy (well, okay, easy for me) >8-> but we probably don't disagree on all that much in practice.

[WyethDigital]

The Mommycast wasn't committing any kind of breach here, other than common sense. They were dumb, perhaps -- and if it loses them audience, well and good -- but they weren't wrong.

I agree. I think if you read back, no one ever really said they were wrong, but rather were being inconsiderate. From the thoughtful posts that you write, I can see that you can tell the difference!

I just thought VideoHutch had an interesting point for Podcast producers to consider: That Podcasters are not in a vacuum, and what they do affects their listeners. I think it's sometimes easy for a producer to forget that, like when they have their next Big Idea for cross promotion, as the Mommycasters did. But their regular audience should be able to overlook their brain fart. That's the nice thing about us Podcast listeners: The real fans are usually intensely loyal and forgiving!

I think we're cool here. It's easy to get hung up on philosophy (well, okay, easy for me) >8-> but we probably don't disagree on all that much in practice.

I'd agree with that!


Eric

[LoveHouseRadio]

Podcasting via dial-up sounds painful. In the imortal words of the great Mr. T "I pity the fool" (not calling anyone a fool, just came to mind).

[robaustin]

As the person who started this thread I thought I'd chime back in.

I sent them an email about this, and received no response. After that another episode of the other show went up. At that point I left a comment on that episode's post on their site - and received a short response about their cross-promoting the show in their feed, and saying that it would only be for a few more shows (it's been three already - how many more will there be?). They also said "just delete" it if I didn't want to listen.

In my mind - it's about a respect for your listener. If you want to do it once - fine - it's kind of like throwing a free sample of one product in with another. But after that - you're disrespecting your listener. You gave them one chance to sample the show. You wasted their bandwidth once - ok that's forgiveable. After that, stop pushing it down. As for podcast listeners on dial up - I'm betting many of them just let the PC run all night to update, and in that case you really ARE wasting their bandwidth considering you are giving them something they don't want when their aggregator should be downloading something else they do want.

It was mentioned that Mommycast has been doing some other things lately that seem to have gone away from their core audience, and I agree with that assessment as well. I hate to be a basher because when they do shows that seem to be in line with their mission (which would seem to be a show for moms, by moms, about mom topics and issues - and that might interest dads as well) they are genuinely good. Being a dad I enjoy hearing about the kid stuff.

However, I've felt they had a number of shows that were disingenuous. Their March of the Penguins shows seemed like pure infomercials. Their interview with the "host" of the new show they are promoting (who is the husband of one of them) was also of little interest. Their music shows are also neither here nor there. Anyone can play DJ with the Podsafe Music Network - and unless your show has a specific musical focus or mission, or you are an entertaining person between the songs - then I think it's kind of worthless. Their Music shows are...eh. If I want a music show - I'm going to head for one that's specifically a music show. But alas, everyone now thinks they can play DJ. That's ok, as long as no one expects to get a lot of listeners.

--*Rob

The Jersey Jamcast
http://jerseyjamcast.blogspot.com

[jeffoest]

I think you guys know how I feel based on my previous post to this but I will share one more thing that your response brought to mind. When Pat and I were doing our weekly show we would also get responses from listeners about certain things they didn't like about our show or things that they wanted us to change.

Pat and I were always a bit unsure what to do about it. We would certainly process the proposals in our minds but we also didn't want to disrespect other listeners for what may be just one person's irritation. In other words, as a podcaster, how much credence do you give one or two listeners compared to the other hundredes that might really like what bothers the one or two?

That's a tough call for a podcaster to make and at the end of the day, you have to just go with your gut and intuition.

I'm not saying that leveraging a feed with something completely different is the same level but really just adding an input that sometimes it's not disrespect for the more vocal listeners that guides podcasters - sometimes it's respect for the others that are not so vocal (and perhaps not so bothered).

[WyethDigital]

I'm not saying that leveraging a feed with something completely different is the same level but really just adding an input that sometimes it's not disrespect for the more vocal listeners that guides podcasters - sometimes it's respect for the others that are not so vocal (and perhaps not so bothered).

That's a good point, and I don't think anyone takes it personally. I used to love your show by the way, and would not have changed a thing (except for it's longevity), so I was one of those non-vocal majorities out there. I also like when a Podcaster pushes certain envelopes. Eventually the change may not suit me, but I don't grudge them for trying.

Where the Mommycast thing goes overboard is the constant and overt bombardment of their Big Idea. Example: How many of you watching a show on ABC cringe when you see a completely gratuitious plug for Disneyworld or Disney movies (their parent company)? I know that it's caught the eye of critics at any rate. I think this is the territory that Mommycast is in danger of crossing into. It might be different if they gave some warning, and maybe they did, but from everything I've heard, they didn't.

Eric

[robaustin]

The other thing I think they need to think about is where age wise is their core listenership. I hate to get into demographics because it seems so non-podcast - but when you are selling advertising (and they do apparently have a big sponsor in Dixie Cups) you do need to get into this a bit.

This is just my guess - but I'd say their audience is mostly women - and mostly ages 22 to maybe 45 at the top end. They talk about kids up to about age 12 or so - neither has teens or kids in college yet. The people they will relate to and who will most want to listen are likely in that range.

That said - the podcast they were promoting was selling itself as a "baby boomer" podcast. A person who is 45 is pretty much on the low end of the baby boomer scale - almost not a boomer. So promoting that podcast through their feed more than once - at least to me - is probably not hitting their target audience to begin with.... Maybe someone who listens will tell someone else about it - but again - you're pushing it out multiple times rather than once and letting it go.

Maybe I'm overanalyzing here. I try and look at all angles - the business side (since they are part of PodShow), as well as the listener side and the podcaster side. None of the sides seems to work well for me in this case. My opinion, YMMV.

--*Rob

[kickasspodcast]

In defense of the Mommycast

P.S.The Mommycast Website is being upgraded and updated, so please excuse any errors you may find. Thanks!

;)

OK, a few thoughts...

How they go about including a "suprise" enclosure is everything. The audience needs to be told ahead of time and have things explained a bit, that's respect for those people who autodownload with RSS.

Yes, we could manually manage our RSS readers, but that sort of defeats the purpose of RSS in my eyes:

I'll give you 6 months, wait no, 6 weeks before you start managing your RSS reader, probably using 2 or 3 readers. Manually using an RSS reader is what its all about my friend! Yes, you can set it up so that your aggregator downloads the mp3. But what about the blogs you read, and the newspaper feeds you subscribe to, and npr, and... its too much. This is why you kinda need a newsreader (imho)......

You subscribe to the shows you like, and they "automagically" download while I'm asleep or away from my computer.

...and a podcatcher (if that is what you want, autodownloadage) I don't see any advantage to "downloading the middle of the night", with video yes if the files are alot larger, but lets face it, you can download 10 hour long podcasts at one time in about 20 minutes. Podcasting = Massive Bandwidth Usage. There is no way around it, no point (imho) in fighting the current on that one, not for a the minority that still have snailesque connections.



It's not the listener's feed, it's the podcaster's....... The listener subscribes because he likes the podcaster's choices.

YES!

This is totally true, if you trust the person you are subscribing to, then you'll trust that what they send out won't be a waste of your time. If it turns out to be crap, give them hell for it.

hey work with their listeners to generate loyalty and an audience. Dumping a lot of unexpected flotsam into the feed is inconsiderate.

I strongly agree with this, its HOW you do it, especially knowing there are people who auto DL everything.

et's face it, comparing Podcasting feeds to TV broadcasting is a poor analogy. For one thing, TV "feeds" are in realtime and instantaneous.

Its not a fair comparison because the technology behind the syndication is so very different, but we're philosophizin' right?
Because otherwise I'm not sure how true this is, I know that there is very little live TV anymore, most if it is on a 3,5,6,7,10 second delay. It definitely isn't real time. Also, how are you using REAL time when you say that a feed isn't real time an instantaneous? If I update my feed the changes are instant and upon refresh are viewable in real time. The second I upload the changed file (or the blog generates the new enclosure in the feed) all changes/updates can be seen instantly by anyone with a browser.

Could you be referring to an aggregation issue? The underdevelopment of aggregators causes lots and lots of headaches and confusing, fortunately it's gonna get better this year. *crosses fingers*

If I were Mommycast I would have told everyone ahead of time on the website and on the show. I would have done a cleaner job of including it in the feed, I would probably not have included the whole show in mp3. I'd have asked the other show (even if it was spouse's) to create a 5 minute version and let me include that in the feed along with a link to the complete episode and a link to that cast's feed. This way, you only send a tiny sampler with all the info people need if they dig it.

Just my thoughts, I'd personally only include another show if fosco or I or dave were on the show itself, I wouldn't consider doing it for just the promotion, unless it was my own project.

Jack

[ElNacho]

i think what the tv--feed analogy was supposed to be is that tv shows are on when they're on, but podcasts are played when ya want them to be. ferget tivo.

[WyethDigital]

I'll give you 6 months, wait no, 6 weeks before you start managing your RSS reader, probably using 2 or 3 readers. Manually using an RSS reader is what its all about my friend!
Actually, I've been using an auto downloader for over a year. I don't subscribe to NPR or blogs. I use Safari as my news reader. So I'm quite happy with autodownloading.

I don't see any advantage to "downloading the middle of the night", with video yes if the files are alot larger, but lets face it, you can download 10 hour long podcasts at one time in about 20 minutes. Podcasting = Massive Bandwidth Usage. There is no way around it, no point (imho) in fighting the current on that one, not for a the minority that still have snailesque connections.
While the trend is for faster and faster connections, I would point out that even with high speed bandwidth there are a range of speeds offered, or available. To assume that everyone has the same capabilities for highspeed connections is a mistake. Further, those ten 1 hour shows you mention all have different encode rates, based on what kind of Podcast they are, and the tastes of the producers, and so the files vary in size. I find your estimate to be exaggerated. Sorry!

I have 3 Meg service from my provider, and even on a good day, that 3 Megs is a peak, not a constant. I use my computers intensively in my business and for my hobbies, so to tie them up to download shows while I'm active on them, when I could schedule them to do it automatically is a far superior option in my mind. But those are my habits, and I understand not everyone feels the same way.


It's not the listener's feed, it's the podcaster's....... The listener subscribes because he likes the podcaster's choices.
YES!

This is totally true, if you trust the person you are subscribing to, then you'll trust that what they send out won't be a waste of your time. If it turns out to be crap, give them hell for it.
No problem with this, but I do have an addendum: They download your show because they like it, and you put it out because, in part, you like the attention. If producers (and the audience) don't recognize that a shows popularity and/or success is a team effort (and it is), then you risk losing your audience (or your favorite show). It is about trust. You have to work to get it, and you have to work even harder to get it back if you lose it!

I strongly agree with this, its HOW you do it, especially knowing there are people who auto DL everything.
Precisely. I think we're all in genreral agreement. Even if there may be a few philosphical exceptions here and there. (And really, isn't that why we post on forums?).

et's face it, comparing Podcasting feeds to TV broadcasting is a poor analogy. For one thing, TV "feeds" are in realtime and instantaneous.
Its not a fair comparison because the technology behind the syndication is so very different, but we're philosophizin' right? Because otherwise I'm not sure how true this is, I know that there is very little live TV anymore, most if it is on a 3,5,6,7,10 second delay. It definitely isn't real time. Also, how are you using REAL time when you say that a feed isn't real time an instantaneous? If I update my feed the changes are instant and upon refresh are viewable in real time...
...
Could you be referring to an aggregation issue? The underdevelopment of aggregators causes lots and lots of headaches and confusing, fortunately it's gonna get better this year. *crosses fingers*
Hmm... I thought about deleting more of that to help tighten things up, but then I might never get to capture the title of ÃœberPoster! ;)

Seriously, some good questions. I think I can boil them all down into a couple short-ish answers: No, I'm not intending to be philosophical. You are correct about the delay, and until we hit Star Trek levels of tech, there will always be some kind of latency when transmitting materials. Even the light raditating from your monitor to your eyes can be timed for latency. But when you compare the latency, or the time it takes, for a TV signal to reach your TV and be decoded for viewing, vs the amount of time it takes your computer to download a podcast or other large enclosure, the difference is of such a high order of magnitude compared to the TV signal that you might as well call the TV signal real time.

Now, I know there seems to be a pretty obvious flaw in that statement, because I could download a one hour audio podcast in seven minutes or less. But in reality, that's a false argument, because the data is more compressed than it's broadcast counterpart. Since we're talking about TV, let's compare Video Podcasts. Depending on the quality of the encode and the framerate (which is usually 15 fps on the 'net compared to 60 interlaced fps for broadcast), you can expect to spend 10 - 15 minutes downloading a 4 to 5 minute video. That is what I'm talking about. (So maybe an opinion versus philosophy :) ).


Nice debate!

Eric