Short and Passionate

[cinesnob]

Paul Gillin, an independent marketing consultant, who strongly believes in the future of podcasts, recently gave his opinion on what constitutes a great podcast: "It has to be short and passionate." By short he explains that each episode should be between five and twenty minutes—thirty minutes plus is pushing the listener's attention span. Pick a subject you're really passionate about and make sure, before you begin podcasting, that you will be able to construct at least eight podcasts relating to this subject. There are a huge number of very good podcasts floating around in cyberspace. If you want your podcast to really succeed it has to transcend "very good."

[Twilight]

He has a good point. While I enjoy longer shows between 30 and 60 minutes anything more and I lose interest. I remember listening to Al Franken's show and it was really passionate but at 2 hours it was just to long to listen to regularly.

[cinesnob]

I suppose some of the worst podcasts I've ever heard sound more like a two hour cell phone conversation. Two high-schoolers going on and on about what they bought at the mall, why the vice principal is a jerk, how come that cute girl won't go to the Winter Ball with him and why he doesn't care anyway. One rad dog is on top of the mic and the other is sitting way back eating pork rinds. Who in their right mind would want to listen to this kind of podcast? To paraphrase Dr. Phil, "What are these dull normals thinking?"

[mdattilo]

I took that whole "brevity is the soul of wit" thing to heart. Actually, though, there are many, many podcasts that fit well with 30 or 40 minute lengths. However, I have yet to listen to any 'cast that is still interesting after an hour.

[psycheology]

I took that whole "brevity is the soul of wit" thing to heart. Actually, though, there are many, many podcasts that fit well with 30 or 40 minute lengths. However, I have yet to listen to any 'cast that is still interesting after an hour.

I always shoot for staying under 30. And as a listener, after 30 minutes, I either start looking for opportunities to scan ahead or I just dump the episode altogether,

[Metaphore]

Personaly I say "Screw you" to people with that attitude.

(this was directed toward the Paul guys statement Cinesnob was talking about not Psych or anyone here)

[cinesnob]

Take it easy Rev--Were're talking about audio podcasts, not your public domain 89 minute Japanese monsta videos. "Godzilla come! Everybody run!"

[psycheology]

Personaly I say "Screw you" to people with that attitude.

Dude, don't take it personally. I don't watch a whole lot of vidcasts, so I don't know about the attention/time and vidcast thing. My time limitations are more connected to the fact that I'm a married mother of three children, in grad school, working full time, volunteering several hours each week, podcasting, growing most of our own veggies this season, writing, and doing a million other things. I just don't have the time to commit to a huge long episode on a regular basis. Most of the time, if the ep is moving slowly, I might ditch out a little early on a particular episode, but stay subscribed since they don't all move that slow. There might come a weekend when I have a little more time, or a long car drive, or something, and the extra podcast time comes in handy. But as a rule, I have to be pretty protective of my time in order to stay balanced with all the other things I have on my plate.

[Metaphore]

Don't get me wrong guys, I wasnt talking to you all in particular. I totally get the conflicts and time restrictions things on a personal level. (that the problem with text, in inflection)

I was just commenting on the general attitude that (and trust me I've run across this a lot) that long podcasts be it video or audio are wastes of time as given by this Paul Gillian guy. Its a sore subject being one of the longest podcasts out there.

[kinkysex]

I watch every second of the Rev's show. But, I must admit I usually watch it in 20-30 minute segments.

Maybe you should break the movies into 20 minute chunks and put more of your skits in to give us good stopping points? Your skits are my favorite part.

Just a thought.

[Metaphore]

Thanks Tom. My show is what it is though.

/shrug

I originally started my show for the specific fact that there were no long format vidcasts and I felt that needed to be addressed especially in the movie department. My show is for the people who have long train rides or for that 5 hour flight or people like me that like to go to the bar and watch vidcasts or that have a setup like mine where they can output the computer to their living room Television.

Does this limit my viewership? yep I guess it does, but thats cool. This is a hobby not a business for me. I'm just glad those that enjoy it do. :)

[kinkysex]

Fair enough. But, I'm still lobbying for more skits.

MORE MORE MORE.

More little dancing Rev, more ninja attacks, more bad mustaches.

MORE

Ok, I'll lobby again in a few days. :D

[WyethDigital]

I suppose some of the worst podcasts I've ever heard sound more like a two hour cell phone conversation. Two high-schoolers going on and on about what they bought at the mall, why the vice principal is a jerk, how come that cute girl won't go to the Winter Ball with him and why he doesn't care anyway. One rad dog is on top of the mic and the other is sitting way back eating pork rinds. Who in their right mind would want to listen to this kind of podcast? To paraphrase Dr. Phil, "What are these dull normals thinking?"
Well, that really speaks to the quality of the podcast and seems to have nothing to do with the length. A 20 minute show of the kind you describe -- hell, a 60 second show -- would cause me to gnaw my own ears off. The only difference the legth of the show would make is whether or not I actually have the time to complete the act.

A good podcast will hold my interest. Even if it's long. And yes, sometimes I'll have to put it down and come back to it.

Eric

[BSquared]

A 20 minute show of the kind you describe -- hell, a 60 second show -- would cause me to gnaw my own ears off. The only difference the legth of the show would make is whether or not I actually have the time to complete the act.

:lol: Eric. Couldn't agree more

Size doesn't matter. I have favourite shows that run 4 minutes an episode (or as close as Clinton can get to 4 minutes) and other favourites that run 2 hours an episode. The one thing they all have in common is content that interests me for the length of the show.

The only thing I will say about length of shows is that some of the longer shows around would/could benefit from the discipline that's involved with being succint. I do a lot of writing in my day job and the same thing applies. I could prattle on for thousands of words about a subject but if I only have 400 or 600 words at my disposal I have to use my allotment of words wisely. Often I wouldn't actually make any more/better points if I had double the space to write...but when I have more space I can be less disciplined. I observe the same phenomenon with some podcasts. There is no limit to the time they can take so they take forever to say not much at all.

I'll repeat that it's not all long podcasts that suffer from this. But I would recommend that everyone who does a long podcst to listen to Comedy4Cast or Road Rage or Quick Hitts ... 3 shows that I really like who use every minute at their disposal wisely.

[bazookajoeshow]

I'm in total agreement with podcasts that are brief and succinct.

On the other hand, some of my favorite podcasts are 30 minutes or longer. I have no problem whatsoever listening to a 30+ episode of Escape Pod. The Casual Artcast is ually 45 minutes to an hour but those guys are so engagng that the time flies. The Evil Genius chronicles definitely breaks the above rule.

I think it's about how compelling the content is. For example, a 30 minute sitcom on television would get pretty boring on television if it lasted an hour and I'd feel cheated if Lost was only 30 minutes.

The rule of thub I use for my own show is that I will expand and contract the durationof my show as I see fit. I usually aim for the 30 minute mark but usually go over five or six minutes. But if the person I'm interviewing id really interesting I have no problem going on for an hour. I recently interviewed scifi wrtier Vernor Vinge for 45 minutes but I would have been happy talking to him for two hours.

This is podcasting and not radio, after all. We're not bound by the same rules as radio so why try and emulate them?

[BSquared]

This is podcasting and not radio, after all. We're not bound by the same rules as radio so why try and emulate them?

Indeed you're not bound by those rules and please do continue not trying to emulate cookie cutter radio.

I agree that allowing your show to run for 50 minutes instead of the usual 40 because you have a great guest on or there's a really intersting news event to discuss is one of the great advantages podcasting has over mainstream media and one of the reasons I've made an almost permanent switch. However, allowing your show to run for two and a half hours just 'cos you have enough alcohol to drink to fuel your ramblings is not really an advantage from this listener's perspective. Even though it's not mainstream I do still want to be entertained or informed by this media

If I have the choice between picking out the great bits from a rambling 2-hour show or listenting to a 15 minute show that's good all the way through I'm going to choose the second option. But that's just me...I'm sure there are others who would choose the first. Another reason why podcasting is a great alternative to mainstream media - it can cater for us all in our myriad likes and dislikes.

[evilproducer]

Size doesn't matter.

Ahhhhh! The perfect woman. :twisted:

[WyethDigital]

Size doesn't matter.

Ahhhhh! The perfect woman. :twisted:
Size, no. But a presence yes.

[evilproducer]

Size doesn't matter.

Ahhhhh! The perfect woman. :twisted:
Size, no. But a presence yes.
Try bathing sometime. It'll help you with your presence. Phew! Do I smell sheep? :P

[RumorGirls.com]

We try to keep our videocasts to 20min. tops. The download time takes a while for new people just wanting to sample your product too.

[mdattilo]

For what it's worth, I've heard from listeners who ONLY listen to my podcast specifically because it's so short---in other words, 5-8 minutes is not that big an investment, but they are hesitant to spend 30-60 minutes listening to anything---or, they only listen to a few longer shows.

Back before Adam Curry was numbering the episodes of the DSC (nearly two years ago, I guess), he said that he thought the most successful podcasts would be shorter. That doesn't seem to have panned out, but those with the most listeners DO seem to be 30 or so minutes in length. There are exceptions, of course, but if I were starting something today, there's no way I would do a 60 minute show.

[jeffoest]

I listen to podcasts mostly in my car and at the gym. Length of show doesn't really matter that much to me except with the following caveat. Short shows (1 - 6 minutes) are a bit less convenient to me since it means messing about with the iPod every 1 - 6 minutes. For the short shows I listen to (like Onion Radio, NPR Story of the day, InfoWorld etc..) I'd usually prefer them if they accumulated their daily content to a week's worth of one longer uninterupted podcast.

Thus I come to the conclusion that for those with shorter but frequent shows, having an alternative less frequent cumulative feed may be a nice idea.

Another note is this: after a year and a half of podcat listening, I find that most of the shows I listen to tend to gravitate around the 30 minute mark. Interesting, huh?

[WyethDigital]

I listen to podcasts mostly in my car and at the gym. Length of show doesn't really matter that much to me except with the following caveat. Short shows (1 - 6 minutes) are a bit less convenient to me since it means messing about with the iPod every 1 - 6 minutes. For the short shows I listen to (like Onion Radio, NPR Story of the day, InfoWorld etc..) I'd usually prefer them if they accumulated their daily content to a week's worth of one longer uninterupted podcast.

Thus I come to the conclusion that for those with shorter but frequent shows, having an alternative less frequent cumulative feed may be a nice idea.

Another note is this: after a year and a half of podcat listening, I find that most of the shows I listen to tend to gravitate around the 30 minute mark. Interesting, huh?
Of course, you could make your own podcast playlists, rather than use the iPod one, and then you wouldn't have to worry about having to fuss with the iPod when a short podcast ends; it'd just start up the next one in line.

Eric

[Seuss]

Not on my (4G) iPod...

I have a playlist of just podcasts and when one ends so does the fun until I manually start the next one.

:(

[WyethDigital]

Not on my (4G) iPod...

I have a playlist of just podcasts and when one ends so does the fun until I manually start the next one.

:(
I have a 4th Gen and up-to-date iTunes (on a Mac) and I can create playlists outside of the "built-in" podcast playlist Apple provides.

Eric

[mental-escher]

Another note is this: after a year and a half of podcat listening, I find that most of the shows I listen to tend to gravitate around the 30 minute mark. Interesting, huh?

Could not disagree more. I find length unimportant, and my favorite podcasts are between 2 min and 1'15" long. Of course, I listen to podcasts instead of radio most times, so as long as my playlist is full (and it always seems to be), I'm a happy camper.

[WildeGeek]

Short shows (1 - 6 minutes) are a bit less convenient to me since it means messing about with the iPod every 1 - 6 minutes. For the short shows I listen to (like Onion Radio, NPR Story of the day, InfoWorld etc..) I'd usually prefer them if they accumulated their daily content to a week's worth of one longer uninterupted podcast.
I guess if you don't know how to create a smart playlist in the iTunes software, you would find this annoying.

I listen to shows ranging from 90 seconds to 60 minutes. All of my favorites are under 15 minutes. I just create a smart playlist (http://www.podcastalley.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=31555#31555) that sorts them by acquisition date, and removes them once they've been played. So whenever I have opportunities to listen, I just start the Unplayed Podcast playlist, and it steps through the shows I haven't heard yet.

Match all if:
genre is podcast
play count is 0
live updating

Thus I come to the conclusion that for those with shorter but frequent shows, having an alternative less frequent cumulative feed may be a nice idea.
Unless you try the trick above.

[jeffoest]

Eric and WildeBeat, You are right - I haven't really investigated the power of smart playlists on iTunes - and I appreciate the tip! This will help immensely.

Of course, I don't think it completely invalidates the original comment. Podcasts are already hard enough to get for the average joe - making them deal with smart splaylist is probably more than they really want to do. I suspect that there may be still be value in the cumulative feed for some.

[WildeGeek]

If I have the choice between picking out the great bits from a rambling 2-hour show or listenting to a 15 minute show that's good all the way through I'm going to choose the second option.
Ditto!

I sometimes start with as much as 3 hours of interviews and location sound for my show. But the version I put into the RSS feed I always edit down to under 10 minutes. The discipline that comes from having to get the point across in that time keeps me from wasting the listener's time with less than the best of the material I gathered for the show.

What I often do first is create a show that tells the story without consideration of duration. If that first rough mix is under about 16 minutes, I release it as a higher bit-rate version on my web site. If it's over 14 minutes I'll split it into two episodes, and in the blog post for the last part of that story, I'll post the entire unedited piece, again at the higher bit rate. Either way, I'll edit the individual episodes to stay under the 10 minute mark. Sometimes I can cut another 2 minutes from a first mix, and most people who compare the two versions don't feel like they've missed anything important -- often it makes the show better.

Occasionally I have people ask why I don't release the two-part shows as one long show. But I like the idea of releasing on a regular schedule. I think it shows listeners that I'm taking the effort more seriously. I also think that by being more loyal to my listeners, they'll show me more loyalty.

And I don't have the time or manpower to do a longer piece with the level of production I do on a weekly basis.

But that's just me...I'm sure there are others who would choose the first. Another reason why podcasting is a great alternative to mainstream media - it can cater for us all in our myriad likes and dislikes.
Right. But it also has a lot to do with listening style. I've played my all-talk shows (as opposed to music shows) to people, and some have talked over it the whole time and then were surprised when it was over; and they couldn't answer any questions intelligently about the content of the show. These are just people who are used to audio as background rather than foreground. (That's not a criticism, they have every right to seek the kind of content they like.)

Other people actually listen intently, and for them, 10 minutes is about as long as they can concentrate without some kind of break or interruption.

[WyethDigital]

Eric and WildeBeat, You are right - I haven't really investigated the power of smart playlists on iTunes - and I appreciate the tip! This will help immensely.

Of course, I don't think it completely invalidates the original comment. Podcasts are already hard enough to get for the average joe - making them deal with smart splaylist is probably more than they really want to do. I suspect that there may be still be value in the cumulative feed for some.
I agree. Or Apple could update the firmware so that the iPod plays more than one podcast in it's playlist. Never could figure out why they did that.

Also, you don't need to create a Smart Playlist. The barebones solution is to drag your podcasts into your Music Library. Of course, then you have to remove them all by hand when you want them off the iPod/computer. But yeah, extra steps = more work = less audience.

Eric

[mental-escher]

I just create a smart playlist that sorts them by acquisition date, and removes them once they've been played. So whenever I have opportunities to listen, I just start the Unplayed Podcast playlist, and it steps through the shows I haven't heard yet.


I thought this is what EVERYONE was doing (see some very old thread)?!

[Seuss]

My (Win) iPod doesn't like me. Stops playing after each episode regardless of whether it's in a smartplaylist or not.

:(

[WildeGeek]

My (Win) iPod doesn't like me. Stops playing after each episode regardless of whether it's in a smartplaylist or not.
Does your setup of the smart playlist within your iTunes software look (more or less) like this?

http://www.wildebeat.net/images/SmartPlaylist.png

[WildeGeek]

I'm in total agreement with podcasts that are brief and succinct.
I've said this many times before, but I haven't heard a single indie podcast that couldn't be improved by some careful (and sometimes not so careful) editing. Someone said, inside every long podcast is a better short podcast waiting to get out.

This is podcasting and not radio, after all. We're not bound by the same rules as radio so why try and emulate them?
Because in many cases, they've worked for some smart and/or successful people. Human nature, and people's attention span and interests haven't changed just because they're getting their audio on a different box.

I'm not saying that everyone should do Howard Stern knock offs (there are too many podcasters doing that already). Nor that everyone should emulate the amazingly succinct style of the 2-minute and under Pulse of the Planet (http://pulseplanet.com/), or StarDate (http://stardate.org/).

But radio is a mature industry in many ways, and the majority of "rules" that have worked to engage and reach audiences still work in podcasting. (Audio podcasting is the cultural progeny of radio.) However, there are clearly still new means to be discovered to communicate, inform, (and if you're bored) entertain an audience. These news means can only be discovered through experimentation.

[WyethDigital]

But radio is a mature industry in many ways, and the majority of "rules" that have worked to engage and reach audiences still work in podcasting. (Audio podcasting is the cultural progeny of radio.) However, there are clearly still new means to be discovered to communicate, inform, (and if you're bored) entertain an audience. These news means can only be discovered through experimentation.
Yes, but radio and television have also been engaged in social engineering for the sake of ad dollars for the last several decades. There are reasons attention spans are so short, and one of the primary ones is training.

And then there's also the commodity element in entertainment. Tell the masses what you want them to watch, how you want them to watch it, and then give them what the largest or most desirable demographic wants (or should I say "expects") to watch; and everyone else has to watch the same thing, or go do something else.


Eric

[WildeGeek]

Yes, but radio and television have also been engaged in social engineering for the sake of ad dollars for the last several decades. There are reasons attention spans are so short, and one of the primary ones is training.
And is that an excuse for not getting to the point, for prattling on aimlessly, for not having a point at all?

Whether attention spans are short or not, you have to earn people's attention. They have other things they can do. I figure it's extremely rude and counter-productive to waste my listener's time with stuff that's not strictly on-topic for what my show is supposed to be about.

Many of podcasts I audition, I can play for 2-3 minutes and still not know why they bothered. With almost a hundreds of thousands of options to choose from, I'll move on and listen to something else.

And then there's also the commodity element in entertainment. Tell the masses what you want them to watch, how you want them to watch it, and then give them what the largest or most desirable demographic wants (or should I say "expects") to watch; and everyone else has to watch the same thing, or go do something else.
And they're already going to do something else in droves. The fragmentation of media audiences, the explosion of available content, whether educational, informational, or diversionary, has alreay taken most of that control away from the mainstream media — except for control over those who haven't discovered the alternatives yet.

What makes good writing hasn't changed since the invention of computers, or even typewriters. Likewise, the qualities that comprise engaging audio content haven't changed with the advent of digital audio production, or internet or podcast distribution.

You can point to a lot of schlock in commercial media, but don't paint all professional production efforts with that brush. As a wise person in public broadcasting once said, the main message of commercial media is, "Ha-ha! Made you look!"

[WyethDigital]

Yes, but radio and television have also been engaged in social engineering for the sake of ad dollars for the last several decades. There are reasons attention spans are so short, and one of the primary ones is training.
And is that an excuse for not getting to the point, for prattling on aimlessly, for not having a point at all?
So who says a long podcast is a waste of time? That just because it's long, it means the host is prattling on aimlessly? In some cases, it's fun to hear a little "prattle," as you call it. An immediate case in point would be Air Out my Shouts, where the "prattle" is sometimes funnier than the stories they read (and the stories are hilarious)!

You can point to a lot of schlock in commercial media, but don't paint all professional production efforts with that brush. As a wise person in public broadcasting once said, the main message of commercial media is, "Ha-ha! Made you look!"
I'll make a deal with you. I won't paint all commercial media with a "broad brush," if you don't paint all longer podcasts with one ;)

That "made you look" quote also works with podcasts.

Eric

[Seuss]

Might be podcast = true rather than genre = podcast

[WildeGeek]

So who says a long podcast is a waste of time?
I didn't.

That just because it's long, it means the host is prattling on aimlessly?
Well, I look at it this way: I do a 10 minute show, on which I spend an average of 25 hours a week working on. I've spent half that on some editions, twice that on others. I collect at least an hour of material for each show, sometimes as much as 3 hours.

I'd love to do a weekly, hour newsmagazine-type show on the topics I cover in my show. But there's no way I could sustain the same level of quality. I'd have to have a staff of 6 or more people to do that. So another option would be to make the show less well focused, use a larger percentage of the interview and location material I collected to make a less to-the-point, more rambling show that fills more of the listener's time with no more useful information. Or I can do what I do now, and make a 10-minute show.

You can point to a lot of schlock in commercial media, but don't paint all professional production efforts with that brush. As a wise person in public broadcasting once said, the main message of commercial media is, "Ha-ha! Made you look!"
I'll make a deal with you. I won't paint all commercial media with a "broad brush," if you don't paint all longer podcasts with one ;)
Professional does not equal commercial. There's plenty of excellent, innovative stuff being done by people who do it for a living, but not for play on commercial outlets.

But no, I do listen to shows that run an hour. Granted the ones I like take staffs of half a dozen or more to put together an engaging hour. I haven't found any that consist of one or two people talking about their life or trying to be comedians that can hold my attention for nearly that long.

That "made you look" quote also works with podcasts.
It works for any media who's main goal is to collect ears or eyeballs for advertisers.

[Metaphore]

Honestly though Wildegeek, if podcasting turned into a land of produced professional shows that were well thought out and streamlined to produce the most advertising ears possible i'd stop listening.

Im sick of radio and the produced style, the slick well editted and thought out interviews. I WANT to hear people rambling on and on about their problems of the day if I think those particular people are interesting.

Podcasting is about real people delivering content because they want to , not to procure the most ears/eyes for advertising dollars. And thank goodness, cause I was sick of that.

[WildeGeek]

Honestly though Wildegeek, if podcasting turned into a land of produced professional shows that were well thought out and streamlined to produce the most advertising ears possible i'd stop listening.
Woah! You're mixing too many thoughts there (and maybe putting words in my mouth). Is there any reason why you might prefer to watch the nightly news (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/) instead of spending all day in front of C-SPAN (http://www.cspan.org/), or a live webcam of the line at MacDonalds? Is there a reason you might want to rent a DVD of Spiderman (http://imdb.com/title/tt0145487/) or Star Wars (http://imdb.com/find?s=all&q=star+wars) instead of borrowing some random person's VHS tape of their trip to Adventureland, Des Moines (http://www.adventureland-usa.com/)? I think there's still a place for the skills of writing and editing.

Now as far as, streamlined to produce the most advertising ears possible, that's a totally separate and totally unrelated thought. Some things are just streamlined to get a point across, to make the whole thing less tedious for the listener, or to communicate succinctly. Not everything that's produced using writing and editing skills is crafted to promote advertising.

I note a lot of people making an undeserved connection between thoughtful, artful, crafted work and commercial-style production. They obviously haven't spent enough time seeking out alternative media prior to the discovery of podcasting, blogging, or whatever new media they're enamoured with.

I'm sick of radio and the produced style, the slick well edited and thought out interviews. I WANT to hear people rambling on and on about their problems of the day if I think those particular people are interesting.
So you're saying that good, clear writing, thoughtful, purposeful editing, focused story-telling, and all of the skills that have evolved for good communication throughout human history are now obsolete? Or have you just only heard schlocky commercial work and missed the stuff done as art, communication, education, or scholarly work and so you're throwing the baby out with the bathwater?

Podcasting is about real people delivering content because they want to , not to procure the most ears/eyes for advertising dollars. And thank goodness, cause I was sick of that.
So that means that once a podcaster is financially successful in any way, has the budget to do more quality production, and adds sponsors to their show, perhaps can afford a writer or a recording engineer, that they're no longer interesting to you?

Podcasting is about delivering attached media content with an RSS feed. Nothing more.

I'd write more, but as Pascal said (http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/b/blaisepasc108650.html), "The present letter is a very long one, simply because I had no leisure to make it shorter."

[Metaphore]

I'm only conveying personal preference. I like podcasting as a movement for the raw, personal communication. All i'm saying is that the more podcasting becomes a vehicle for commerical gain and the production machine of modern television and radio becomes a part of it the more it merely becomes modern television and radio.

If i want to hear slickly produced morning zoo shows or mass marketable well produced (in the standard radio/television definition) shows I'll just turn on the TV or the radio, plenty of it to go around.

So you're saying that good, clear writing, thoughtful, purposeful editing, focused story-telling, and all of the skills that have evolved for good communication throughout human history are now obsolete? Or have you just only heard schlocky commercial work and missed the stuff done as art, communication, education, or scholarly work and so you're throwing the baby out with the bathwater?

No, i'm saying that all that is already on television/radio/movies and a heck of alot easier to access. Why turn a grassroots media movement into the media that it was trying to avoid?

So that means that once a podcaster is financially successful in any way, has the budget to do more quality production, and adds sponsors to their show, perhaps can afford a writer or a recording engineer, that they're no longer interesting to you?

Yep, pretty much. There are plenty of shows that i used to watch/listen to that started putting ads in them that I now dont watch/listen to. I'm just not interested in watching or listening to ads. I bought a Tivo to cut out the commericals on television. I don't listen to any radio for that reason as well.

I look to podcasting to rage against the machine, not strive to become it. I don't go around activly campaining agaist people that go that route, but I personally wont be listening/watching. Do I claim my behavior makes any sense? Nope. Its my personal opinion on podcasting. Take it as just that.

[WildeGeek]

So you're saying that good, clear writing, thoughtful, purposeful editing, focused story-telling, and all of the skills that have evolved for good communication throughout human history are now obsolete? Or have you just only heard schlocky commercial work and missed the stuff done as art, communication, education, or scholarly work and so you're throwing the baby out with the bathwater?
No, i'm saying that all that is already on television/radio/movies and a heck of alot easier to access. Why turn a grassroots media movement into the media that it was trying to avoid?
And so are you saying that there's no room in this "movement" for a person with more advanced production skills and vision, who happens to be trying otherwise to get a message that matters, personally to him, to a grass-roots audience? Are you saying that people who already have some professional skills, who have a topic to cover or a message to express shouldn't try to distribute their work via. podcast? I already gather that the more skilled someone is and media production skills, the less you're going to be interested in their work.

I guess you're saying, bring on the bad camera-phone video, the noisy, distorted, uneven audio, the endless rambling about the garbage truck going by and how you forgot to clean the cat-box. Are those the important messages of real-people on grass-root media?

I'm just not interested in watching or listening to ads. I bought a Tivo to cut out the commericals on television.
You know, I certainly empathize with the sentiment. You might be amused by the comment by the president of Turner Broadcasting, who said something to the effect of, people who skip commercials are no better than common criminals, stealing the shows without paying for them.

My problem is that as an audience member, I do everything I can to avoid bombardment by messages crafted to persuade me into consumption behavior. But another side of me understands how much work it is to create concise and well-presented content, and that time has to be paid for somehow. (See this previous thread (http://www.podcastalley.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=36576&highlight=#36576) for a discussion of that.)

I look to podcasting to rage against the machine, not strive to become it.
So you disagree with Jello Biafra (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jello_Biafra) who said, "Don't hate/fight the media, become the media." (http://www.raptorial.com/Zine/Reviews/Biafra.html)

Its my personal opinion on podcasting. Take it as just that.
I am. But it does make for an interesting comparative discussion of viewpoints.

[Metaphore]

Did I say I wasn't a common criminal? I pirate my *** off.

I am. But it does make for an interesting comparative discussion of viewpoints.

aye, that it does. Are these my actual viewpoints or just an irrelevent internet arguement? Probably the latter.


And so are you saying that there's no room in this "movement" for a person with more advanced production skills and vision, who happens to be trying otherwise to get a message that matters, personally to him, to a grass-roots audience? Are you saying that people who already have some professional skills, who have a topic to cover or a message to express shouldn't try to distribute their work via. podcast? I already gather that the more skilled someone is and media production skills, the less you're going to be interested in their work.


The funny part is im finishing up a honors Graduate degree in Professional Communications. 4.0 baby.

and as far as Jello is concerend, becoming the establishment for change is an old and outdated philosophy. Its the retoric of the establishment and the opiate for the undereducated.

But then again, I'm a loon.

[WyethDigital]

Its the retoric of the establishment and the opiate for the undereducated.
Hey! I represent that remark! N'uk, n'yuk, n'yuk!

Seriously, I couldn't agree more. It's the establishment's way to promise something that it has very little intention of giving, while maintaining as much of the status quo as possible, without all the unpleasantness and upheaval that real change brings with it.

But then again, I'm a loon.
Me, too!

Eric

[Metaphore]

Thanks Eric!

So far this is a great argument. I'm enjoying it.

My problem is that as an audience member, I do everything I can to avoid bombardment by messages crafted to persuade me into consumption behavior. But another side of me understands how much work it is to create concise and well-presented content, and that time has to be paid for somehow.

I realize that its a great effort to produce content and that it would be great if we could be paid for it, but at what point is that burden put upon the viewer/listener? It really breaks down into two different viewpoints. Do we see podcasting as a business or a hobby? Either can be produced to be a statement. I personally see podcasting as a hobby and a personal outlet, thus noncommercial. I've asked for donations and had contests to generate money to support my habit, but I feel dirty even thinking of true mainstream media advertising.

Here in lies the crutch. What is mainstream advertising? Personally, for me, its the attribution of monitary gain with no attention to market. If say.. Troma films or Archie Mcphee wanted to advertise on my show, I might concider it. Merely for the fact that it would actually appeal to my audience. Its stuff I would buy myself (and do). I wouldn't be advertising to merely gain revenue for my show, but actually provide a service to my viewers. That point I might actually conciede. but advertising just to reimburse me for a hobby that I would do anyway (no matter the effort involved) seems to be sell out to me.

All my high and mighty ideas of course would crumble in the wake of a multimillion dollar deal. I'd sell out in a second.

[WyethDigital]

Here's the thing about podcasting:

• Some people think you have to have a no-holds barred production in order to be recognized, listened to/watched, or to monetize your efforts. Dawn and Drew are a good example of a mediocre production, but with the right content for their audience.

• Some people think that just because you podcast, you want to either make money, or gain a large audience.

• Some people think that a listener/viewer automatically craves the production values they're used to over the new content that can find via podcasts.

The thing is, not all people believe all of those things. Hell, some people don't believe in any of them! And with 40,000 to 50,000 podcasts out there, it'd be kind of tough to say that they're wrong!

Now, unlike the good Reverand, my partner and I did start a podcast with the goal to monetize it. Since that was a goal from the start (along with having fun, being creative, and maintaining control of our production), I think it's safe to say that we either haven't sold out, or that we already did (although if it's the latter case, I haven't gotten my check yet)!

So yes, Wildebeat makes an excellent point and a good case for production quality as it relates to the podcast-as-business -- after all, we try our best with the resources we have to compete with the quality and content of the "Big Boys." In some cases, I'd say we succeed, and in others, I'd say we have some catching up to do yet. But I also think Wildebeat is kind of missing the point on the amateur or the hobby podcasts. In many cases, the type of content (imperfect though it is) trumps the production values of the mainstream, often cookie-cutter media market.

Eric

[WildeGeek]

I like podcasting as a movement for the raw, personal communication.
I guess I get enough of that from my real-life friends.

If i want to hear slickly produced morning zoo shows...
Does that ever happen? I never want to hear those things.

...or mass marketable well produced (in the standard radio/television definition) shows I'll just turn on the TV or the radio, plenty of it to go around.
The set of audio/video productions that are mass marketable only partially coincides with the set that are well produced.

No, i'm saying that all that is already on television/radio/movies and a heck of alot easier to access. Why turn a grassroots media movement into the media that it was trying to avoid?
Because the podcasting mechanism is too attractive to not become a distribution vehicle for mainstream content. And it does level the playing field a little between the little guys and the mainstream media.

Look at what I'm doing from a motivation point of view:

I produce a show about wilderness recreation. I started this partly because there's a marked decline in the interest of people in backcountry recreation -- especially in those a generation or two younger than me. This is bad from the point of view of there being a constituency for the protection and preservation of wild places.

So I created a podcast to start conveying the message that getting deeper into the outdoors is enjoyable. I tell my audience that it's not such an extreme and radical thing and that the average person, with a little bit of interest to learn some basic skills, can do it safely to the enhancement of their physical and emotional health. I believe in this passionately.

I also happen to have some reasonably good journalism skills and some better audio production chops. If the right sponsors also believe in what I'm doing, I'd like to make a livable wage off doing this, rather than at the job I've grown tired of after 20 years.

Now would you say I'm doing this as a business or a hobby? I haven't tried to seek any revenue for my work yet, but I think what I'm doing is important.

I realize that its a great effort to produce content and that it would be great if we could be paid for it, but at what point is that burden put upon the viewer/listener?
In your communications classes, have you had any classes or units on the history of arts as a profession?

I gave a one-page synopsis of such a class I took in THIS POST (http://www.podcastalley.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=36576#36576).

It really breaks down into two different viewpoints.
I think that dichotomy is artificial. There are plenty of points on the continuum in between.

Do we see podcasting as a business or a hobby? Either can be produced to be a statement. I personally see podcasting as a hobby and a personal outlet, thus noncommercial. I've asked for donations and had contests to generate money to support my habit, but I feel dirty even thinking of true mainstream media advertising
I see what I'm doing as more worthy of a non-profit organization model. The message matters most, but in order to continue to convey it, I'll eventually need to find some funding somewhere.

[WildeGeek]

Here's the thing about podcasting:

• Some people think you have to have a no-holds barred production in order to be recognized, listened to/watched, or to monetize your efforts. Dawn and Drew are a good example of a mediocre production, but with the right content for their audience.

• Some people think that just because you podcast, you want to either make money, or gain a large audience.

• Some people think that a listener/viewer automatically craves the production values they're used to over the new content that can find via podcasts.

And some people seem to believe that if you've got solid production skills, and choose to use them, then you're automatically polluting this pure movement of raw self-expression. They are the ones I'm objecting to.

So yes, Wildebeat makes an excellent point and a good case for production quality as it relates to the podcast-as-business -- after all, we try our best with the resources we have to compete with the quality and content of the "Big Boys." In some cases, I'd say we succeed, and in others, I'd say we have some catching up to do yet. But I also think Wildebeat is kind of missing the point on the amateur or the hobby podcasts. In many cases, the type of content (imperfect though it is) trumps the production values of the mainstream, often cookie-cutter media market.
Some content is compelling no matter how poorly it's delivered. CNN does sometimes play camera-phone video. Heck, sometimes they do noisy, distorted phone interviews without the video if the story is important or compelling enough.

But let's get back to the hobbyist. Suppose you were into some craft -- painting, woodworking, cooking, gardening, etc. If you performed that craft in a totally amateurish way, with sloppy results, the wrong tools, and no real knowledge of how the pros or experts do it, would you be happy always doing it that way, or would you want to improve?

If it was something you loved, would you strive to be as good as you can, to try to get results as good or better than other people doing it, to try to approach or push the state of the art? Some people would, and some people wouldn't, I suppose.

But if instead of you, your friend was into this, would you cheer them on as they got more skilled and better equipped, and produced better results, or would you criticize them for no longer being pure as a hobbyist because they're using professional tools and techniques, and getting professional results?

Can you see how this scenario equally applies to amateur podcasters?

[Hittman]

I’ve always loved the Pascal Quote (paraphrased) I’m sorry I wrote you such a long letter, I didn’t have time to write a short one. Creating a compelling short podcast is a very different skill set than just opening the mike, rambeling on for an hour or three, and putting it out there with minimal editing.

The discipline that comes from having to get the point across in that time keeps me from wasting the listener's time with less than the best of the material I gathered for the show.

Exactly. I could easily ramble on for an hour about any subject I’ve done on my show. It would be boring as hell. Forcing it down to ten minutes or so forces me to throw away anything that’s marginal.

I work in a high end restruant. One of the secrets of their success is a veal stock demi glasse used in many of their sauces. It starts with 40 gallons of stock, which is boiled down to a single gallon. It’s a lot of work, and expensive (the final stock costs about a buck an ounce) but there are no shortcuts. It’s the difference between a two star restaurant and a four star restaurant.

I do a 10 minute show, on which I spend an average of 25 hours a week working on. I've spent half that on some editions, twice that on others. I collect at least an hour of material for each show, sometimes as much as 3 hours.

I'd love to do a weekly, hour newsmagazine-type show on the topics I cover in my show. But there's no way I could sustain the same level of quality.

My ten minute show only takes me about three hours to record, edit and process, but it’s just me, talking into a mike, with minimal extra production. (There’s also an hour or two of rehearsal that goes into it before I record.) But try as I might, I haven’t been able to get it down to much less than that without the quality suffering.

Most of the shows I listen to are short. There are exceptions, of course, like Free Talk Live and Point of Inquiry, but generally, I’d rather listen to a dozen short shows in three hours than one long one.

[evilproducer]

I work in a high end restruant. One of the secrets of their success is a veal stock demi glasse used in many of their sauces. It starts with 40 gallons of stock, which is boiled down to a single gallon. It’s a lot of work, and expensive (the final stock costs about a buck an ounce) but there are no shortcuts. It’s the difference between a two star restaurant and a four star restaurant.

(Off topic.)

Veal?!? You animal! Boiling cute, little, enemic calves with those wide doe eyes down to a demi glasse?!? Sounds tasty! put me down for a cup or two! :twisted:

Well, off to perpetuate the military industrial commercial food industry!

Later,
Evil.

[Hittman]

Veal?!? You animal! Boiling cute, little, enemic calves with those wide doe eyes down to a demi glasse?!?

We don’t boil the eyes.

We boil their BONES. (Evil Laugh)

And I double checked, and got the numbers wrong. It’s more like twenty gallons boiled down to two. But the idea is still the same.

[nakita]

I am new to podcasting but have been hosting talk radio for 6 years.

My shows are usually 56 minutes in length. I interview one guest during that time and divide the radio program into 4 segments with music and psa's at the breaks.

That's great for radio, however, for podcasting, (assuming that my program is passionate, compelling, entertaining, informative, as you've suggested), would it be better to split the program into these 4 shorter segments of 14 minutes each and have 4 segments per episode?

Or would it be better to air the entire interview (approx 56 minutes with short musical interludes between the segments)

I've read your comments about length not mattering if content is compelling, but I thought shorter segments might attract listeners to begin with as I launch my first few episodes.

Would 4 segments of the same program (same guest, topic) as one episode be confusing?


Thank you in advance for your comments.

[WildeGeek]

I am new to podcasting but have been hosting talk radio for 6 years.
Welcome!

My shows are usually 56 minutes in length. I interview one guest during that time and divide the radio program into 4 segments with music and psa's at the breaks.

That's great for radio, however, for podcasting, (assuming that my program is passionate, compelling, entertaining, informative, as you've suggested), would it be better to split the program into these 4 shorter segments of 14 minutes each and have 4 segments per episode?

Or would it be better to air the entire interview (approx 56 minutes with short musical interludes between the segments)
That depends very much on the organization of your interviews. The core question is, could you make each of the four segments stand alone somehow without excessive extra work?

I suspect that your archive material might not translate into the shorter form as easily. But for future material, you could start thinking about organizing your interview questions into four major sub-topics. That way, while you can still assemble them into one long show for your on-air slot, you can then record some additional lead-in and closing material, either as solo narration or with the cooperation of the guest, to make four stand-alone shows. The "meat" of the interview wouldn't have to be affected, other than a little more conscious planning and organization up front.

I've read your comments about length not mattering if content is compelling, but I thought shorter segments might attract listeners to begin with as I launch my first few episodes.

Would 4 segments of the same program (same guest, topic) as one episode be confusing?
IMHO, you'll hook more new listeners in if they have to make less of an investment in time to get the value of your show. I don't think it would be confusing if you could implement the suggestions I made above. However, some people, for various reasons, prefer longer-form content. But I think the number of people who are going to give a longer show a chance are fewer.

Several times I've split interviews into two 10-minute segments, but I make sure that each segment stands alone and is interesting or informative by itself.

[nakita]

Your suggestions were most appreciated and very helpful.

[mental-escher]

A good 30 sec promo is better than a short (<30 min) podcast in terms of getting new listeners.

And of course to keep the listeners and built base, you need to have consistently compelling (to your target audience) transmissions- whether music, audio sampling, conversation, rant, (yeh, and sundry video too ******!).

And why be myopic? Podcasts are subscription based audio, and anything can be put in the feed- so why not have, like, Nakita Interview Podcast featuring: (fill in guest of affiliate podcast here) and keep it all on one feed? Thus you use your subscription base to propagate audio that the subscribers are interested in- 2 min to 2 hr, who cares as long as it's interesting to the listener.

BTW- if you have a 60 min interview and break it up into multiple pieces, I find that really annoying based on the few (like one maybe) podcasts I've ever heard that tried that. It's would be way better to edit down a longish episode to a razor sharp 20-40 minutes that would hold a listeners attention, than to send out 3-4 separate files = clutter bordering on spam (especially if they don't like the first seg of the interview for instance!)

[WildeGeek]

A good 30 sec promo is better than a short (<30 min) podcast in terms of getting new listeners.
Good point. (I desparately have to make a new one myself.)

And why be myopic? Podcasts are subscription based audio, and anything can be put in the feed- so why not have, like, Nakita Interview Podcast featuring: (fill in guest of affiliate podcast here) and keep it all on one feed? Thus you use your subscription base to propagate audio that the subscribers are interested in- 2 min to 2 hr, who cares as long as it's interesting to the listener.
If I subscribe to a podcast which generally offers shows that are 2 minutes, and they unexpectedly dump a 2 hour show on me, I'm DEFINITELY going to unsubscribe. I might go to their web site afterwards occasionally, when I think about it, to see what they've done lately, but I'm no longer going to automatically download everything they throw at me.

I think if a podcast listener commits to subscribing to a show, they have some reasonable expectations about what they're getting. That means you shouldn't violate their expectations in terms of some kind of definition of topic (political point-of-view, music style, general focus, etc.), in terms of length and file size, and in terms of the quality of your productions.

I'll subscribe to a particular series because I'm interested in the general topic of the series. If the podcaster takes for granted that I'll be interested in anything they send, no matter how far it strays from the choice I thought I was making, I'm gone.

[pwfenton]

If I subscribe to a podcast which generally offers shows that are 2 minutes, and they unexpectedly dump a 2 hour show on me, I'm DEFINITELY going to unsubscribe. I might go to their web site afterwards occasionally, when I think about it, to see what they've done lately, but I'm no longer going to automatically download everything they throw at me.

I've never thought about this. My shows have varied between 10 and thirty minutes depending on what I needed, to say what I had to say. Is that a mistake? I haven't figured out my average but I'd guess it's around 20 to 24 minutes... in there.

[WildeGeek]

My shows have varied between 10 and thirty minutes depending on what I needed, to say what I had to say. Is that a mistake? I haven't figured out my average but I'd guess it's around 20 to 24 minutes... in there.
Not necessarily. I think it's just a matter of making sure your listeners know what to expect, and then sticking to that implied promise.

[Hittman]

I've never thought about this. My shows have varied between 10 and thirty minutes depending on what I needed, to say what I had to say. Is that a mistake?

That depends on the show. In your case, no. When I hear an episode of DF that ends sooner than I expected, my response is “Hey! I want more!”

The second law of show biz is “always leave them wanting more.”

I think if a podcast listener commits to subscribing to a show, they have some reasonable expectations about what they're getting. That means you shouldn't violate their expectations in terms of some kind of definition of topic (political point-of-view, music style, general focus, etc.), in terms of length and file size, and in terms of the quality of your productions.

Although I agree with you on quality (you should never, ever let that slip), don’t be afraid to experiment a bit.

I had an idea for an episode that was out of character with what I’ve been doing since my show started. I’ve always tried to keep the show to ten minutes (not always succeeding), present a political point of view, and present things in a somewhat flip, smart *** manner.

I wanted to do a show on understanding statistics. There was no way to do it in ten minutes, and the subject matter didn’t lend itself to a flip/smart-*** presentation. It did fit into the shows recurring theme of recalibrating your BS meter, but that was about it.

I held off on it for quite a while, then said “what the hell, this is podcasting, I can do whatever I want.” The show was a little over a half hour long. I figured the response would be about 50-50, and the people who didn’t like it would shrug it off and move on to the next show, rather than unsubscribe.

The response surprised me. I received, literally, ten times the amount of feedback I usually get and it was all so enthusiastic it was almost embarrassing. I didn’t receive a single negative comment.

So yes, you should have a format and a theme and an approximate length that is at somewhat consistent. But don’t be afraid to occasionally step outside those constraints and experiment once in a while.