Readers: How interested in video are they, really?

With the exception of listening on the computer (because most people did not have one), people could and did do all those things with cassettes. The Walkman was a cassette player long before it was an MP3 player. People jogged with it.

There is no difference -- they're both audio recordings of evergreen material, in other words, not news. The technology is new, so newspapers feel they have to use it. Even though podcasting does not help them with the key problem of newsprint's lack of immediacy, offers less to the customer than posting a video or even a written story would, and does not seem to be something advertisers would view as an effective vehicle.

 

So why wasn't the public consuming audio news content on their own time in the days of the Walkman? EASE OF DISTRIBUTION. Were cassettes/8-tracks of news shows readily available for mass public distribution on a daily basis, much less an hour after the original airing? In 1980, if you wanted to listen to a radio segment on your own time, you would've had to tape it off the radio when it first aired, which basically meant you had to be there for the original airing anyway, so that negates the convenience factor. Now, you can just go to the Web site whenever you want and access the podcast. I listen to NPR while I'm driving to work. If I'm in the middle of a particularly engrossing news report when I get to the office, before the days of podcasts, I would've had to sit there and finish listening to it. Now, I just go into the office, wait about 30-60 minutes after the report is over, and the podcast is on their site. If I only catch the tail end of a story when I get in the car, no biggie. I can find the whole thing when I get home. With the means for rapid archiving and redistribution, even news, not just evergreen content, has value in the form of podcasts b/c the recording can be accessed relatively soon after it first aired, at a more convenient time for you. Since live audio reports do trump print in terms of immediacy, rapidly archived and redistributed recordings of live audio reports also carry more immediacy than print. It also allows that content to be consumed more times than just when it aired live, and that increased opportunity for public consumption likely does play a role for advertisers. And as for what podcasts offer in comparison to video or written stories, the quality of a report is more about the skill of the person producing it. An audio report can be just as good, or better, than a video or a written story; they just focus on different senses and different ways of receiving information. NPR proves that on a daily basis. Just because some newspapers do a crappy job with podcasts, it doesn't mean podcasts can't be good.

 

I really like the Vivid videos. Much better than the amateur stuff, though it's still somewhat watchable.

 

Because it would have been a dumb idea then and it's a dumb idea now. With video just as convenient as audio-only and advertisers apparently uninterested, there is no reason to do podcasts.

 

Yeah, we threw that around, but it kind of got killed right off the bat. Don't remember why exactly..

 

Then I guess we've reached the "agree to disagree" point, since I think delivering your content in a convenient format that can be consumed while doing other things (unlike print or video, which require your visual attention) isn't a dumb idea. As for advertising, I've seen reports that predict that advertising for podcasts to rocket to $400 million by 2011. There are conflicting opinions on that figure, but considering that podcast advertising didn't even exist until around 2004, it's an indication of the potential growth of the format. Furthermore, given that many podcasts are niche products, they target very specific demographics, and in general podcast audiences are 18-34 and affluent -- why would advertisers want to market to that demographic?

Some links to information on which my opinions are based:

http://www.edisonresearch.com/2007%20Podcast%20Presentation.pdf
http://www.jackmyers.com/commentary/media-business-report/8768772.html

 

I agree with this guy:

http://www.thestandard.com/news/2008/04/11/why-podcasting-failing

 

From the article you linked to:

Tellingly, 22 of the 25 "Top Podcasts" on the front page of iTunes podcast directory are established brands from the mainstream media world, including HBO, NPR, the BBC, ESPN, The Onion, and Oprah Winfrey. In this environment, most new and smaller podcasts have to struggle to be heard.

What that tells me is that it's a lot easier for podcasts by established media to find success and audience than for those created by individual amateur enthusiast, and the article says as much. Somebody starting a podcast from scratch will have a difficult time getting an audience, but not established media outlets (such as newspapers), which already has a built-in audience. And I'm not suggesting that podcasts are the ONLY way to go online, but that it is one of several tools for an established media brand to deliver its content in an online package, with each tool having certain advantages (in podcasts' case, a dedicated audience that provides very specific demographic parameters for advertisers to target).

 

That effort could be spent far more profitably on other things. It's a waste.

 

I have to say, the points that captzulu brings up about podcasts and their potential concerning niche products (or niche sports, maybe, even?) and possible and projected advertising/listeners does excite me. It certainly indicates the potential for very fast growth, should newspapers find the right ways to tap into it.

Finding a way to niche -- something I see as being of primary importance on the web -- in an attractive, feasible and financially productive way -- has been a central issue for general newspapers in their efforts to transition to the internet.

On that note, I'd like to pass along a quick word of thanks to captzulu, who, with his links on this thread, has educated me more in terms of facts, stats and trends regarding this sort of thing than just about anybody I've ever dealt with in the course of informational/training meetings at work.

So, thanks.

 

Secondary question, and trying not to threadjack:

My kids are in middle school, do not watch any videos or Podcasts or anything of that sort. I don't know of any of their friends who are into those things, either. They send text messages but just aren't gung-ho about videos.

When the current generation of college and high school kids become 30-somethings and no longer are the targeted demographic for newspapers (or whatever they will be called then), will today's middle school and elementary school kids want videos, Podcasts, a real but slimmer newspaper, e-news on a snazzy 2020-version BlackPodBerry or something completely different?

Are newspapers killing themselves to re-invent for a group of younger people who won't care anyway in another 10 years and a still younger generation who might want something completely different?

 

I believe your point is exactly the one Frank has been arguing. He should correct me if I'm wrong.

But I'm thinking, and I think newspapers are thinking, that your kids will get more into more things as they grow older, and maybe, have more needs as far as how and why to get information.

I guess we'll see, though, won't we?