Podcasts, an efficient means of content delivery?
Filed Under general · Tagged:
I’ve been following some podcasts on and off for the past six months or so, and have begun to question whether it’s an efficient use of my time. The content of the shows I listen to are generally very high. I follow my friend Patrick’s Community Admin Show, and now a new one covering communities from another angle. I also listen to some of the SEO podcasts on WebmasterRadio.fm. They’re great for picking up tips on how to spam the search engines. 
But! And this is a big issue with me. But, it begins to seem to me that this is an inefficient means of receiving information. In the time I can listen to an average podcast, I could have caught up on my 50 favorite blogs, or read a chapter in a book, or read the latest issue of Red Herring magazine. I do read super fast. It’s a habit I learned as a grad student. You learn to read fast in grad school, or you get crap for grades. Podcasts deliver information slowly.
I’m not sure I want to say that this is a flash-in-the-pan, but I think podcasting has some significant hurdles to overcome if it’s to last. It might be foolish, at this point, to jump full force into it. it certainly has the feel of a bubble-type business plan. Perhaps Google will come up with an Adsense for podcasts, but I’d be hesitant to put money into a business depending on Adsense at all, let alone something that hasn’t even been unvailed yet let alone tested and proven.
So, here’s the question. Why listen to a podcast when you can get ten times the content when you read?
Peter Davis is a web developer, investor, author, entrepreneur, and most importantly a father. 
[...] Peter Davis says: "In the time I can listen to an average podcast, I could have caught up on my 50 favorite blogs, or read a chapter in a book, or read the latest issue of Red Herring magazine." [...]
It seems like the whole podcast debate is between two groups:
1. People who commute (car, bus, etc) and love podcasts.
2. People (like me) who don’t commute and don’t see the point.
There are plenty of people out there who do commute, so I think the business models will do just fine.
As long as they can get it out of the hands of geeks and into the mainstream, but that’s another story.
Precisely the point. Podcasts are really targeted at two groups of people. Those who spend lots of time travelling (commuting, or in my case working in the field) during the day and enthusiasts (e.g. highly specific podcasts such as Pottercast or the various 1up.com podcasts). I doubt that I would listen to many podcasts if I spent more time in the office where I had net access but I don’t so instead I listen so I can keep up with those who have that luxury.
Well, sure, I bet there are a couple of people out there somewhere who’d want to listen to a podcast during their daily commute. But, I really have a feeling that this is a classic case of filling a need that very few people need filled.
How Can Anyone Not Get Podcasting
Scoble talks today about someone who still thinks podcasting is pointless. Then, in the comments, someone else agrees.
How can someone not “get” where podcasting fits in. Hint: anywhere that a radio would. Driving in the car, jogging, et…
Podcasting is inefficient
Thanks for the mention, Peter.
And a link from Robert Scoble?! What, did you slip in some holy water on the way home or something?!
I think it is efficient and helpful to someone like me that doesn’t like to read nearly as much as I like to listen. I can be working (or even reading online) while listening to a podcast. I am not big on them as I only listen to one or two shows these days, but I see them as being very efficient.
“It begins to seem to me that this is an inefficient means of receiving information.”
I’d agree, but an audio stream can be more useful than text for showing the richer experience behind the words — how a group of people develop an idea together, the personalities they bring to their ideas, more vivid detail on how someone thinks. Audio does convey more information and context than ASCII does.
I prefer speed-reading, too, particularly when the author gets to the point. Many high-profile distributors in the “podcast” scene doesn’t always summarize their regular text, so their audio can become quite expensive for listeners.
Different people have different schedules, different times when audio learning might fit in. I prefer to spend that time on language-learning; some prefer music — listening to the blogosphere might work for some, but I suspect we just haven’t figured out our best mix of media types yet.
Audio offers features text does not, but I agree with you that this doesn’t mean everything is better as audio.
My commute is about a half hour drive, so that’s 10 hours a week I spend in the car minimally.
Here are my choices for what I can do in that time:
1. Yap on my cell phone (not desirable for a number of reasons).
2. Listen to ad-ridden talk radio (Bad idea, since I’m not sure I could resist the urge to drive my car into a tree after half an hour of Sean Hannity).
3. Listen to ad-ridden music radio (Top 40 crap).
4. Listen to my own music (great, but there’s only so many times I can listen to the same playlist).
5. Listen to (mostly) commercial-free Podcasts, on topics I’m interested in, which I can time-shift to my heart’s content.
Would I ever go to podcasts as a source of information? Heck no. But as drive time entertainment, they rock.
Because it’s no fun reading sheet music or a video podcast script (if there’s such thing). To a certain extent, it’s also not as fun to read interviews.
However, I agree that podcasts are an inefficient medium for receiving information. What I’ve sort of found is that the podcasts I listen to have become dominated by music.
I don’t listen/watch a ot of the information ones anymore (DSC, Diggnation, TWiT). But I do watch Rocketboom, which covers a whole whack of information I probably would not have found.
Disclosure: I podcast twice weekly about mobile technology with another host; I’m not putting the link here because this isn’t about gaining listeners.
I don’t believe that podcasts are the most efficent way of receiving information, but I do see them complementary to blogs simply because they offer different value. While a blog is clearly personal, what I type compared to what he/she types is just that: typewritten words. Hearing the spoken word brings additional value and a level of personal connection that’s different from a blog. That’s why we don’t just take e-mailed comments on from listeners on our show; we ask (beg, really) them to leave Skype VMs that we can play on the show and make a stronger connection.
[...] Today, techmeme has an interesting discussion on Podcasts…Guess why? Partly because of Scoble’s recent response to an earlier post from Peter T Davis. [...]
Peter:
You’re probably right that podcasting is less efficient than it can be, but the reason for that is the content structure of podcasts themselves.
However I do NOT agree that text content is better – no matter how fast you consume it. I believe strongly that web & mobile content is increasingly veering towards multi-media (audio/video) and podcasts are here to stay. But, that cannot happen without a suitable change in the format of podcasts themselves.
Let’s hope Scoble can effect changes through his new job.
- Mario Sundar
Marketing Nirvana
http://mariosundar.wordpress.com/
[...] Peter Davis has a great point when he notes that he can review 50 blogs in the same time he can listen to the average podcast. He has a great point and one worth reading in full here. But for me Alex has a more topical explaination of how podcasts can offer businesses a method for timeshifting important audio content. [...]
Likewise, watching TV is an inefficient means of receiving content. Browsing at a bookstore is an inefficient means of receiving content. Looking at artworks in a gallery is an inefficient means of receiving content. Fishing is an inefficient means of acquiring food. And, to quote Podcasting News, meeting someone and falling in love is an inefficient means of procreating.
There are other lenses to look at content besides mere assimilation and efficiency. Lenses like aesthetics and enjoyment…which still drive many millions of people to TV, radio, and even love, in a Web 2.0 world.
[...] I came across this blog post via Podcastingnews.com: I’ve been following some podcasts on and off for the past six months or so, and have begun to question whether it’s an efficient use of my time. The content of the shows I listen to are generally very high. […] [...]
[...] Robert hits a softball thrown by Peter Davis, regarding podcasting as an inefficient medium. Radio and television are therefore inefficient mediums as well, but somehow, those two industries have managed to survive . [...]
We have found that if a listner is easily able to build a list of shows that subjects that are close and dear to the persons heart and deliver those shows on a regular basis they will come and they will listen.
With several of my ventures we have seen continual growth since early 2005, people are indeed listening and providing feedback in ever increasing numbers.
I call it the power of walk away content, being able to fill you brain with content that you want to listen to. Ask me the last time I listened to the radio and I’ll give you an answer that ad executives do not want to hear.
As my 16 years old daughter the last time she listened to the radion and she will give you an answer that the radio networks and ad executives absolutley dont want to hear as well.
[...] That’s the question Peter T Davis is asking on his blog. His main argument seems to be that [...]
we used to hear this kind of argument a lot more 12 – 18 months ago but I haven’t heard it for ages. I had assumed most people now realized that comparing podcasts to blogs was like comparing radio to a newspaper. They are different mediums servicing different needs. And yet you never hear people arguing that radio is inefficient and we should all just read newspapers. Maybe there were people making that argument back in 1920, when Westinghouse’s KDKA-Pittsburgh broadcast the Harding-Cox election returns and began their daily schedule of radio programs?
Just another demograghic.
The discussion of the day is that
I don’t really understand why people get worked up over this. I don’t view podcasts as a medium that competes with text based sites.
Let’s all forget about the name “podcast” for a second. Let’s imagine people debating radio vs TV vs magazines/newspapers. All three co-exist and all three have mainstream adoption.
Also, most users don’t even listen to podcasts on an mp3 player. They listen to them on their PC. The #1 feature we had on Pluggd was for a pop-out player so people could listen to podcasts WHILE they surf the web.
Alex Castro
CEO and Founder
http://www.pluggd.com
Podcasting; ’skip intro’
Podcasting; ’skip intro’ Robert Scoble’s at this link, responding to musings from Peter Davis about the time costs of listening to casual audio streams. (The word “podcasting” was stylish among techbloggers awhile back, but we’re really talking a…
you guys should get out more! just talk to people who aren’t anything like you…it’s simple.
“In the time I can listen to an average podcast, I could have caught up on my 50 favorite blogs, or read a chapter in a book, or read the latest issue of Red Herring magazine.”
Yes, but can you read “50 favorite blogs” while doing the house work? Or while you are going shopping? Or commmuting to work? Or even, while taking a shower?
That is the point: You can consume podcasts during the time that is otherwise wasted; during the time that you are cannot read blogs, books, newspapers, ‘Red Herring magazine’ or surf the web.
[...] It all started with “Podcasts, an efficient means of content delivery?” where Peter T Davis expresses his feeling on podcasts saying he can use the time spending listening to podcast on something more productive. [...]
I consider myself a lifelong learner. Podcasting greatly facilitates that for me. I work at home and don’t have a commute, but I have plenty of other “dead time” that podcasts fill. Podcasts haven’t replaced my blog reading, but it definitely has its place in my consumption of content.
Jason
Why listen to the radio when you can read?
Apples and oranges…and not mutually exclusive. Why read an interview when you can hear the unfiltered passion and commitment (or cynicism) in the voice of the interview subject?
And I agree with an earlier comment: I don’t want people reading when they’re driving their cars (especially when I’m on the road with them). I’d much rather they listen to a podcast.
Also, people who read magazines and blogs and listen to podcasts, watch TV, listen to radio and go to movies also get out into the real world and talk to other people. Why must some people think these media are all-or-nothing propositions?
[...] En lo de Scoble leo que según Peter Davis el “podcasting es ineficiente porque en el tiempo que escucho uno podría leer 50 blogs”. [...]
[...] Ce week end Scobleizer revenait sur un billet de Peter Davis qui disait simplement que les podcasts sont un moyen très inefficace de transmettre du contenu. des tels propos sont d’une banalité affligeante évidemment si l’on ne comprend pas comment se servir des podcasts ils sont assez inefficaces. [...]
[...] I know some of you’ve may have wondered what happened to the podcasting debate started earlier this week by Peter T. Davis and followed-up by Scoble. I added my 2 cents to it and Peter came up with another post yesterday, where he reiterated his question. [...]
[...] Peter Davis has a great point when he notes that he can review 50 blogs in the same time he can listen to the average podcast. He has a great point and one worth reading in full here. But for me Alex has a more topical explaination of how podcasts can offer businesses a method for timeshifting important audio content. [...]
I started listening to podcasts only recently on a flight back to Australia from the US. All in all I had about 25 hours of flying time + airport downtime (Chicago to LA to Sydney to Cairns). I don’t sleep on planes, and for much of the flight from LA to Sydney, the plane is in darkness – turning on a light to read is not really an option as it disturbs the sleep of others. The movies were a mixed bag and there was nothing I wanted to see. So what do you do while flying through the night? Well, I listened to an entire book (all 12 chapters), a few podcasts from our national public radio service, and sundry others. Not once did my activity disturb fellow passengers. And I could lie back and shut my eyes while getting entertained and educated! Since then, I’ve listened to various podcasts on the 15 min drive too and from work, thus adding 30 mins of productive ‘reading’ time to my day. Currently I’m listening to the “History of Science: 1700-1900″ – not for everybody, and NOT a book I would’ve chosed, but it was available as a lecture series. Would I have attended the lecture series? No. But I am enjoying the lectures as audio on my daily commute. There’s nothing quite the same as learning about Des Cartes’ view of the world at 7am!
[...] En este articulo tambien aparecen como referencias articulos como el de un Peter Davis, el que argumentan que los podcast pueden ser ineficientes por el tiempo que te lleva escucharlos, para esto compara un podcast de 25 minutos y dice que como leer 25 paginas de un libro. Pero tambien aparece Scobleize defendiendo los Podcast, donde el argumento es que si sales a correr, estas cocinando, o leyendo algunas cosas puedes al mismo tiempo escuchar un podcast. Asi que es como quedar en cero segun estos mismos argumentos. Pero creo que los podcast si pueden ser una perdida de tiempo, lo digo porque he escuchado algunos que realmente me hicieron perder el tiempo, porque no me aportaron nada, en esto me he encontrado con relatos, conversaciones o entrevistas que me dejaron con la pregunta ?y para que hicieron de esto un podcast?. Bajo esa premisa SI los podcast pueden ser una perdida de tiempo. Por lo mismo deberia existir una forma de poder clasificarlos de mejor manera, de tal forma que los que lo ecuchen le pongan nota o algo parecido (y que si a mis amigos les gusto o no tenga una valoracion distinta), pensando en ir mas alla de los comentarios, ya que asi podriamos filtrar que queremos escuchar y que no. Si hacemos Podcast en este blog es para que no pierdas tu tiempo, es para compartir conversaciones que creemos te pueden aportar una mirada diferente, que explore temas nuevos, que creen debate o una reflexion de temas que queremos destacar, ademas de que escuches “buena musica” (jejejejejeje, segun nuestros extranios gustos). [...]
[...] If you are revolutionary, make sure that a revolution is coming. Tagging social networks into podcasting clouds sure sounds fancy, but where is the wave to jump on? Evidence mounts that podcasting is not monetizable in ways many Web 2.0 businesses are counting on. If you are banking on podcasting being a daily activity by 150 million Americans in three years, you should be able to trace the path between now and then and explain clearly what are the causes of this change. Tagging is important and will be a component of the future of finding and categorizing information online, but its just keywords with a little spicy sauce on top. That’s an evolution, and must be addressed differently. [...]
Some valid discussion. At the end of the day though, we only have a limited amount of time.
Do I blog, do I watch TV, do I listen to CDs, etc.?
(Sure you can always multi-task as kids now do without blinking), but splitting time among three different forms of media dillutes the individual enjoyment of any one of them.
And why does anything that becomes hot or the next ‘it’ thing have to be judged successful on the basis of whether it generates income or not? If it didn’t, it’s viewed a failure.
Weave stole my words. There’s a reason we listen to casts or watch TV that aren’t about trying to make a buck off them. In fact, aren’t advertisers making a buck off the consumers like us, watching all their content?
Maybe the question needs to be, how do we stop being monetized?
[...] Peter Davis, via Scoble, asks “Why listen to a podcast when you can get ten times the content when you read?” [...]