Podcasting is often described as a community, implying that we all should be good neighbours. What does that mean?
The point erupts from time to time (see Scott Roche’s podcast ep “Public Critique” from a few months ago, or John Miereu’s taking-the-Canadian-polite-hat-off, “Social Media: It’s Okay to Rock the Boat!” post), and sparked an interesting discussion on Twitter last night (look for the #podcrit tag). (Aside: if you know of more examples of this kind of discussion out there, please add them in the comments.)
(This is part one of a two-part series that sprung up from that discussion. The second part will follow.)
There were essentially four discussions that came up:
- Podcasting needs more real criticism in order to get better. Too much criticism is too soft, and really just supportive fluff.
- Podcasting needs to grow the pool of listeners, not just cross-pollinate the listeners we already have. New blood, rather than spreading old blood around.
- The notion of “podcasting standards” gets raised — not only in terms of production and content quality, but also in terms of the physical structure of podcasts, the use of tags, and other mechanical things to assist intelligent podcast discovery.
- The notion of “genre” has been abused within the podcasting arena; specifically, podcasts aren’t given genres, but “podcasting” is classified incorrectly as a single genre.
(These are my distilling points from the conversation. The discussion ranged quite a bit, and I’m sure I’ve missed something…)
What follows is my consideration of these questions, along with some ideas on what we might do.
To my mind, there are really two different areas of solution here, the human one and the technological one. For the human solution, we need more people to feed back into the community with constructive criticism if we are to improve. We need to be more honest with each other, dig a little deeper and pull out useful things to say rather than just give unquestioning support. It’s time to let the kids grow up, and stop with the unconditional love, and tell them how the world really works.
We need to set some quality standards that are reasonable and helpful, and get them used. We have to tread carefully here, of course, not only because every new podcaster goes through a learning phase and should be allowed to make mistakes (and face fair but not harsh criticism), but also because podcasting itself continues to grow, and new ways of doing things should always be encouraged, even if it breaks any arbitrary guidelines currently established.
How do we do this? Every podcaster (including me!) loves to receive any feedback, but it feels a bit like pulling teeth sometimes. It’s very, very hard to get feedback. Do we make it too hard? The standard tools of feedback are email, voicemail, voicemail-over-email, comments on posts, Twitter, forums, email lists, in-person remarks (very rare!), tip jars, subscription rates, directory ratings/comments, recommendations, promo-swapping…
Isn’t that enough? Numerically, it seems significant, but why then do people not give feedback?
I’ve had a suspicion that the distance between consuming podcasts and remarking on podcasts was too large. We listen to podcasts on our portable device, far removed from our computer or phone. But with the growth of cellphones and (often, free) voicemail lines, this seems less likely. And there’s also the fact that — at least when Uncle Seth wrote “You Don’t Need An iPod” — “68% of people just listen on their desktops”. There’s no distance there.
But then again, I look at my own behavior. I listen to a lot of podcasts — it’s my primary entertainment medium. But how many do I comment on? Um.. Well.. Very few. Even when I have a beef. Sometimes when I have something supportive to say, or a glaring error.
Why? Is it just that I’m a really nice guy, and that all podcast listeners are too nice to respond?
I think it might have something to do with the question we ask our listeners. What is that question?
“What did you think of that episode?”
You know what kind of answer you get to a broad question like that? One of two kinds: a very broad answer, or no answer.
Maybe we need to ask better questions! Maybe we need to make feedback into a little form, asking specific questions.. And then we need to put it on the device itself (somehow).
Imagine the scenario: you play a podcast, and then at the end, it asks: “Please fill out the survey you see on your screen, or press ‘No thanks’ to skip it.”
Yes, it will annoy listeners.. But they will likely provide feedback.
Now, getting this on a device is probably unrealistic… The market is dominated, for better and for worse, by Apple’s iPod. They were moved to include podcasting when it started, but have quickly taken over the marketing of it. This is bad, because Apple has demonstrated little leadership with regards to podcasting. (I’ll feel a little better if it were Google, but only a little..)
So, perhaps a survey at the end of each episode post on your website? It’s a step in the right direction, even if not in-your-face.
And let’s not fall back to the old “standard”, craptacular mechanism of asking to “rate my episode”. That’s the same question as before (“What did you think of that episode?”) only in a simple, braindead, visual, easy-to-respond method.
Beyond all of this, we need more critics in the podcasting world. We need people who will actually say: “This is bad, because …”. The because part is crucial, of course, and the reasons behind it should never be “… because I think his nose looks funny” or something equally trivial. Meaningful criticism is important.
Criticism is hard. It comes and goes. They aren’t necessarily going to be liked, especially when they say things that are negative. It’s been tried before, and there are a smattering of examples still out there. (Remember “Podholes”?)
These critics need to be given more prominence, more celebration, more weight. They are really, really important to improving our craft, but can provide some signposts for people looking for new podcasts. They can also be made up of your existing audience.
Remember that survey? Now aggregate those results from the specific questions, and post the results in a box prominent on your podcast page. Make those who don’t have them conspicuous by their absence. Make having them a badge of honesty, a standard to which we all hold.
(As an aside, there is a problem with any weighting scheme, of course… The numbers “1” and “5” are given too much credence — very little is “all bad” or “all good” — and the numbers in between are seen as failures. This is a cultural problem, unfortunately, but if we can avoid inflated values in podcasting at least, we might have a chance.)
Of course, there is a huge problem with critics: there will never be enough of them. The number of podcasts is “huge” (I still don’t know exactly how many there are out there; it’s an ongoing problem, but estimates of “huge” aren’t going to be wrong). The number of critics will have to be equally huge.
The only way there might be enough critics is if every podcaster becomes a critic. Hey.. wait.. That might work..
Suppose there was a central area for podcast criticism, where people could post critiques and evaluations. Throw in a little Slashdot: critiques could themselves be rated and commented on by the public. Throw in a little Digg: popular reviews push to the top of the stack, get front-page views. Throw a little meta-rating: popular reviewers hold more weight. Throw in a little directory machinations…
This idea needs work, but I think it starts to address the problem. Critics are fractured, isolated, separated. They are lone voices, important, but difficult to find. They need to band together, become a force as big as podcasting, to keep it in check.
If you are on Twitter, use the #podcrit hashtag to become part of the conversation; I’ll continue to monitor it. Otherwise, feel free to comment here, email understandingpodcasting (at) gmail.com or telephone 1-206-203-2292.
I’d like to end this post with the simple “What did you think?” question, but given how much I railed against it as being the lazy way out, let’s try this questionnaire instead:
- What role do you think critics do, can and should play in podcasting?
- What standards should we try to create for podcasting? What features should we evaluate podcasts on?
- If a site specialized in podcast critics, would you visit it? What would you use it for? What features would you be looking for?
- Did you find this post to be well written? If not, where do you think it needs improving?
- Did you find this post to be factual and coherent? If not, where did the author make mistakes or make giant leaps of logic?
- Did you find this post to be too long or too short? Where did the author write too much, or where should the author expand on their ideas?
- There were no illustrations in this post. Do you feel that it could have used an illustration or two? What sort of illustrations would have helped?
- Have you subscribed to the Understanding Podcasting podcast? If so, how did you find out about it? If not, you can find the subscription button on the right hand side.
- Do you know of other blog posts or podcasts which are discussing this material? If so, please list them — specific links are really helpful, but general Google-able information also works. If not, what other material in this area do you think should be addressed?
« UP003: A Sideways Glance At History: A Conversation With Chuck Tomasi Can I get a #podcrit over here? Part 2: the tech factor »
“Numerically, it seems significant, but why then do people not give feedback?”
I think the lack of feedback is feedback. Call it the “Thumper Rule,” named for the rabbit in Bambi who recites, “If you don’t have nuthin’ good to say, don’t say nuthin’ at all.”
Podiobooker comments run from hostile to snark to complimentary to gushy, so I think people DO comment. Just not as much or as in depth as we might like.
I do think distance is a barrier. Even if you’re listening on the desktop, you’re not listening where the commenting is happening. After you’ve downloaded it, you’re listening locally but have to find the website to make a comment. I usually hold off on commenting until after the episode (or sometimes the whole podcast) is over, and then forget to do it when the next thing comes along.
1. What role do you think critics do, can and should play in podcasting?
> there are so few, I think they play little to no role at the moment. Crowdsourced comments, reviews, and “star ratings” hold sway but are often discredited because they get gamed.
2. What standards should we try to create for podcasting? What features should we evaluate podcasts on?
> i’m not sure there’s a one-size-fits-all standard here. standards for “art” podcasts like novels, audio dramas, and anthologies don’t necessarily apply to “information” podcasts.
Maybe some production standards: good quality audio, even levels, lack of pop and wind artifacts might make sense across the board. Perhaps it would interesting to reward good editing to remove the flubs, make sure the words are the right ones. ID3 tagging is an interesting idea as well. Consistent tags, cover art, and “track” numbers help keep a podcast organized for the listener.
3. If a site specialized in podcast critics, would you visit it? What would you use it for? What features would you be looking for?
> Usually I visit View from Valhalla, but I’m not really aware of other sites that do podcast reviews (other than the comments and reviews on the feeds and sites themselves). I’d use it to find new content when I finish a book, or get fed up with an old podcast.
4. Did you find this post to be well written? If not, where do you think it needs improving?
> Yes. I’m not sure listener feedback is really all that valuable in the long run. The problem is the difference between novice and expert thinking. Most listeners don’t really understand what they’re hearing from a technical standpoint (and I’m not so sure I do either) so getting a direct “You’d be better if you did THIS” from the listener requires a lot of filtering. On the other hand, a big collection of 1 and 2 star ratings should be telling you something.
5. Did you find this post to be factual and coherent? If not, where did the author make mistakes or make giant leaps of logic?
> Seems to match pretty much what I saw in the discussion.
6. Did you find this post to be too long or too short? Where did the author write too much, or where should the author expand on their ideas?
> It read long, but there’s a lot here to cover that you can’t do in a few words. I think there’s an unstated assumption about levels of feedback based on the anecdotal experience of the author. Personally, I get a TON of feedback, but I’m probably on the other end of the curve in that regard.
7. There were no illustrations in this post. Do you feel that it could have used an illustration or two? What sort of illustrations would have helped?
> No, gratuitous graphics would have been out of place.
8. Have you subscribed to the Understanding Podcasting podcast? If so, how did you find out about it? If not, you can find the subscription button on the right hand side.
> No, I didn’t know it existed. I’ll listen to one and see if I want to subscribe.
9. Do you know of other blog posts or podcasts which are discussing this material? If so, please list them ā specific links are really helpful, but general Google-able information also works. If not, what other material in this area do you think should be addressed?
> What kinds of directories should we be developing? How can we do a better job of promoting outside the echo chamber? How can we address issues of taste and long tail?
Thanks for the feedback!
>>Personally, I get a TON of feedback, but Iām probably on the other end of the curve in that regard.
I think that podio/audiobook authors tend to get more feedback than most other kinds (genres?) of podcasts, in part because it’s is an ongoing narrative, and in part because it _is_ a narrative. Most other types of podcasts are more episodic, self-contained and thus not overall contributing to the weight on a listener’s mind to provide feedback.
But I will admit to being somewhat in an echochamber of my own, getting relatively little feedback for any of the shows I do. Granted, my subscription numbers are likely to be nowhere near as high as yours, having not really any site which features my kind of content or really putting as much effort as I can into promotion. (UP!, for example, has not actually gotten any real promotion as of yet, because I wanted to get at least 5 episodes done before starting promotion.)
I have spoken to a number of other podcasters casually, however, and most do count the lack of feedback as one of their prime concerns. When they actually *do* get something wrong, they are more likely to get feedback. We then joke that we should do more things wrong, just to get more feedback. š
As mentioned by a few people, Odin1Eye does reviews of podcast fiction (and thus could be called a podcast critic). His blog is at http://viewfromvalhalla.com/ .
What role do you think critics do, can and should play in podcasting?
> I think there are 2 main roles. 1) to help listeners find/avoid new podcasts 2) to help podcasters improve quality and increase appeal.
What standards should we try to create for podcasting?
> Audio quality, audio format(s) and ID3 tags. Recommendations for podcast lengths and podcast formats (bumpers/ads/feedback/intros/outros) could be helpful.
What features should we evaluate podcasts on?
> Entertainment value, audio quality, tagging, regularity of schedule, if fiction – on elements of the story like in other media
If a site specialized in podcast critics, would you visit it?
> Yes, and I am a frequent reader/commenter on “View From Valhalla”.
What would you use it for?
> To discover new podcasts that I might want to listen to.
What features would you be looking for?
> For me as a podcast novel listener “View From Valhalla pretty much fits the bill. If I were a podcast author, I would want more technical feedback on both the audio and story elements. I would also love a site with “View From Valhalla” type reviews of other podcasts, and also a site with impressions of podcast novels in progress.
Did you find this post to be well written? If not, where do you think it needs improving?
> Yes. And in brief reply to Nathan’s points. Listener reviews/comments have a place. But should be weighed appropriately. Listeners may be good at saying what they don’t like; but typically won’t be a good source for advice on fixing problems (and I say that as a listener).
Did you find this post to be factual and coherent? If not, where did the author make mistakes or make giant leaps of logic?
> Wha?? (Just kidding, I thought you did fine) š
Did you find this post to be too long or too short? Where did the author write too much, or where should the author expand on their ideas?
> Length was fine for me.
There were no illustrations in this post. Do you feel that it could have used an illustration or two?
>No.
What sort of illustrations would have helped?
> Awful ones like the ones I draw š Not really, no illustrations for this one.
Have you subscribed to the Understanding Podcasting podcast?
> Yes!
If so, how did you find out about it?
> From your twitter posts.
If not, you can find the subscription button on the right hand side.
> Wha?? (Just kidding again)
****
And I am the podcaster of “Geek Out! with Mainframe” at http://gowmainframe.blogspot.com/
It’s kind of mediocre, but some people seem to like it so…
[…] (This is the second part of a two-part series of posts inspired by the #podcrit discussion on Twitter of 2010-06-05/06. The first part is here.) […]
1. What role do you think critics do, can and should play in podcasting?
-Critics should be listened to, but not given too much credence. Case in point: Roger Ebert. Now, I know he’s a film critic, but the only movie I’ve ever heard of him making (“Valley of the Dolls”) is so horrifically BAD that I think it somewhat invalidates his opinion regarding th medium. I think that we, as podcasters, critiquing EACH OTHER is far more valuable. Someone who knows what they’re talking about is usually more informative. of course, that does have to be balanced by outside ideas, or else we make our own bubble…
2. What standards should we try to create for podcasting? What features should we evaluate podcasts on?
– When I critique auditions for audio dramas, I break them into two parts: Tech and Performance. I often find myself evaluating podcasts in the same manner.
Tech is often something a newbie or hobbyist can’t do anything about, aside form slight tweaking (though we should all know better than to record in our laundry room with the dryer running). Tech review is basically: quality of the sound (warm and rich, or low and tinny), clarity (mic technique, lack of popping p’s or general noise) and work (how much work am I going to need to get this person sounding like the rest of the cast tech-wise).
Performance is a bit less definable. How does the person sound, are they slurring words, a lot of ums and uhhs, are they reading off a card or are they SPEAKING to me?
Either of these criteria can absolutely RUIN a good podcast. Both have equal credence in my opinion.
3. If a site specialized in podcast critics, would you visit it? What would you use it for? What features would you be looking for?
– I would, but as I said above, it would depend on who was critiquing who. I’d love to get constructive feedback from you, Pip, Jim P., etc… Someone who is risking nothing themselves and only says “You, suck!” not so much…
4. Did you find this post to be well written? If not, where do you think it needs improving?
– I did.
5. Did you find this post to be factual and coherent? If not, where did the author make mistakes or make giant leaps of logic?
– It’s hard to evaluate facts in what is essentially an opinion piece, but I didn’t see anything that struck me as odd.
6. Did you find this post to be too long or too short? Where did the author write too much, or where should the author expand on their ideas?
-Good length, but I did read it in two chunks.
7. There were no illustrations in this post. Do you feel that it could have used an illustration or two? What sort of illustrations would have helped?
-If you ever figure out how to DRAW a podcast, then more power to you… ^_~
8. Have you subscribed to the Understanding Podcasting podcast? If so, how did you find out about it? If not, you can find the subscription button on the right hand side.
– I found it on your twitter feed. At first I thought UP! was going to be about Pixar movies, I felt cheated in the beginning… j/k. ^_~
9. Do you know of other blog posts or podcasts which are discussing this material? If so, please list them ā specific links are really helpful, but general Google-able information also works. If not, what other material in this area do you think should be addressed?
Jim Perry has talked about quality issues a few times, once on his podcast and on a few forums (though that was more about good product leading to increased listeners).
1. What role do you think critics do, can and should play in podcasting?
There need to be as many podcast reviewers as there are book/tech reviewers at least percentage-wise. Right now, to my knowledge there aren’t. Also listeners should realize that they do have something to bring to the podcast. While they may not feel qualified, their participation via comments/surveys would be invaluable.
2. What standards should we try to create for podcasting? What features should we evaluate podcasts on?
That’s tricky. There are so many different kinds of podcasts that it’s hard to say. Audio quality for sure. Otherwise it comes down to almost completely subjective stuff.
3. If a site specialized in podcast critics, would you visit it? What would you use it for? What features would you be looking for?
I do use such a site, View From Valhalla. He’s not the only one, but he’s a good one. I’d use it to look for new casts and to take his critiques and lay them against what I’m doing.
4. Did you find this post to be well written? If not, where do you think it needs improving?
Yes I did.
5. Did you find this post to be factual and coherent? If not, where did the author make mistakes or make giant leaps of logic?
Yes I did.
6. Did you find this post to be too long or too short? Where did the author write too much, or where should the author expand on their ideas?
It was a bit long as blog posts go, but worth it.
7. There were no illustrations in this post. Do you feel that it could have used an illustration or two? What sort of illustrations would have helped?
By illustrations I assume you mean examples? No.
8. Have you subscribed to the Understanding Podcasting podcast? If so, how did you find out about it? If not, you can find the subscription button on the right hand side.
Not yet and via your Tweets.
9. Do you know of other blog posts or podcasts which are discussing this material? If so, please list them ā specific links are really helpful, but general Google-able information also works. If not, what other material in this area do you think should be addressed?
Other than the ones you linked, no.