Why Podcasting Won’t Reach Mainstream

6 | Posted In Social Media by David

Podcasting has certainly gotten more popular as of late. I even did a podcast here on WebbyOnline for a little while. And for those of you who might be wondering where it went: yes, I did drop it out. Why?

I think that podcasting is a limited form of media and is not destined to reach mainstream. Again, why?

Too many mechanics involved. Look, when I bring you this blog post, I simply type it up and hit the Publish button. It couldn’t get easier. Now, to bring you a podcast, I have to have some equipment to record on, edit the podcast so it sounds OK, encode as an MP3, upload to my server, embed it into a blog post, and post. And before any of that will work, I have to set up my feeds to accommodate MP3 attachments. Then, the audio might sound like crap (unless, of course, I am really good at editing and have expensive audio equipment).

More importantly, let’s look at the listener side of the equation. The listener has to actively seek out the podcast and use, usually, special software like Itunes to get the podcast and stick it onto an MP3 player. The person has to have bought that MP3 player. The person would need to be technically inclined enough to know what an RSS feed is, how to subscribe to it, how to sync their MP3 player with the computer, etc. Or, if they are like the 80% or so that consume podcasts right on their computer, they either need to still know how to use RSS feeds or would need to sit there and listen without leaving the website until it is over.

In short, it’s still too technical and the barriers to entry too great for this to be mainstream. In actuality, it is much easier today to record and post a video to the web than it is to post a podcast. And that’s saying something.

Also, podcasts are, for now, not searchable. You might have great content in your podcast, but unless you accompany that show with a lot of written text, nobody is going to find the show. So, in the end, it still comes back to the written word.

The internet medium was all written and then evolved quickly to video. The whole podcasting thing got quickly skipped over. It is like going from the newspaper straight to color TV and skipping all evolutions in between.

But, again, the problem is accessibility to the masses. Sites like Youtube have made video accessible. A webcam costs $50 and you can record straight to the web if you want. Podcasting, because of the in-between barriers to entry, got lost in the mix. And I’m not sure it can recover from that. Video is a much more appealing form of content than straight audio.

I think podcasting is destined to be like ham radio – used by a few technically inclined people who enjoy it just for kicks. The exception to this would be if (and that is a big if) we see a device go mainstream that automates all of the technical matters associated with podcasts for the end reader. Something as simple to work as a clock radio, but that allows easy subscription to a podcast show. Or perhaps the same thing built into car radios. If we see something like this, perhaps podcasting has a fighting chance of becoming as prevalent as radio. Otherwise, I doubt it ever will. It is still growing, but I think it has a fairly low ceiling that it just hasn’t hit yet.

Related Articles and Sites:

Free eBook!

Like what you read?

If so, please join over 12,000 people who receive exclusive online business and blogging tips, and get a FREE COPY of my eBook, Six Figure Blogger Blueprint (PDF and MP3)! Just enter your name and email below:

  • http://aithene.net/ Aithene / Chris Wilson

    Interesting take. But a little dizzying. I feel like there’s more than one conversation in this blog entry.

    Content creation tools probably shouldn’t be in the conversation, since we’re not talking about the barrier to entry of the content creators, but rather, the audience. TV isn’t easy to create for, not to mention satellite uplinks, broadcast equipment, laws, and cable companies, but the audiences are HUGE. The two simply aren’t related in determining media growth.

    As for the listener, I agree that currently the barriers to entry can be a problem, but, as you say, that’s more to do with someone sitting down and creating a tool to distribute the content, such as YouTube has done (but better, since YouTube is currently flawed for real distribution), and not the medium itself. I’m not sure iTunes is such a reach, either. Pretty much everyone with an iPod has iTunes. That’s a pretty big install base of people who have a reason to learn that piece of technology (tho, yes, i realize a number of them will never click the ‘podcasts’ link).

    Also, video on YouTube isn’t any more searchable than podcasts. But they’re both tagable. Again, missing that YouTube-like component for podcasting.

    Arguments for podcast quality are all true, but shouldn’t they apply to YouTube as well if valid for determining growth? Seriously, a lot of the quality on YouTube is crap when it comes to production. If quality was that great a factor, YouTube would be dead.

    Also, YouTube watchers are stuck at the computer until its over, just like podcast consumers that don’t use a player.

    Finally, while video on YouTube may seem to be much more ‘searchable’ than podcasts currently are, because everything lives on YouTube, instead of on individual sites, its harder for YouTube creators to create a unique brand, control video quality, establish a series, or any number of other things. For the most part, YouTube is RANDOM content. And I think that’s key. To build any kind of audience, you need to be able to reach people easily AND consistently. While YouTube has easy accessibility, it doesn’t really allow the content creators to have a channel to reach out and build a recurring audience.

    Imagine if everyone blogged randomly into a YouBlog site, rather than finding and subscribing to individual blogs. Would any blogger really be able to establish an audience? I’m not sure I really call that ‘accessible’. Eventually, the tools will arrive to allow podcasters to truly reach their audiences. Will it be called Podcasting by then? Who knows? But I can tell you, YouTube is NOT the answer we are looking for in ‘accessible’ content. The right platform will eventually reveal itself, and I think that the podcast community will be the ones most able to take advantage of it when it arrives.

    Just some thoughts.

    Keep up the great blog. ;)

  • http://answers-for-freelancers.com Chris

    Interesting take. But a little dizzying. I feel like there’s more than one conversation in this blog entry.

    Content creation tools probably shouldn’t be in the conversation, since we’re not talking about the barrier to entry of the content creators, but rather, the audience. TV isn’t easy to create for, not to mention satellite uplinks, broadcast equipment, laws, and cable companies, but the audiences are HUGE. The two simply aren’t related in determining media growth.

    As for the listener, I agree that currently the barriers to entry can be a problem, but, as you say, that’s more to do with someone sitting down and creating a tool to distribute the content, such as YouTube has done (but better, since YouTube is currently flawed for real distribution), and not the medium itself. I’m not sure iTunes is such a reach, either. Pretty much everyone with an iPod has iTunes. That’s a pretty big install base of people who have a reason to learn that piece of technology (tho, yes, i realize a number of them will never click the ‘podcasts’ link).

    Also, video on YouTube isn’t any more searchable than podcasts. But they’re both tagable. Again, missing that YouTube-like component for podcasting.

    Arguments for podcast quality are all true, but shouldn’t they apply to YouTube as well if valid for determining growth? Seriously, a lot of the quality on YouTube is crap when it comes to production. If quality was that great a factor, YouTube would be dead.

    Also, YouTube watchers are stuck at the computer until its over, just like podcast consumers that don’t use a player.

    Finally, while video on YouTube may seem to be much more ‘searchable’ than podcasts currently are, because everything lives on YouTube, instead of on individual sites, its harder for YouTube creators to create a unique brand, control video quality, establish a series, or any number of other things. For the most part, YouTube is RANDOM content. And I think that’s key. To build any kind of audience, you need to be able to reach people easily AND consistently. While YouTube has easy accessibility, it doesn’t really allow the content creators to have a channel to reach out and build a recurring audience.

    Imagine if everyone blogged randomly into a YouBlog site, rather than finding and subscribing to individual blogs. Would any blogger really be able to establish an audience? I’m not sure I really call that ‘accessible’. Eventually, the tools will arrive to allow podcasters to truly reach their audiences. Will it be called Podcasting by then? Who knows? But I can tell you, YouTube is NOT the answer we are looking for in ‘accessible’ content. The right platform will eventually reveal itself, and I think that the podcast community will be the ones most able to take advantage of it when it arrives.

    Just some thoughts.

    Keep up the great blog. ;)

  • David

    Interesting. A few quick responses:

    (1) Youtube video is much easier to find in a search than a podcast, simply because Google owns it and includes Youtube videos in the search results at Google.
    (2) Yes, watchers of video are “stuck” at their computers to watch, just like podcasts. The thing is that video is so much more compelling. That visual element makes video a superior form of media, even if the video is crappy.
    (3) You can create a regular show using video. It is done all the time. You have a Youtube channel, such as my own, and you post to it. All of your videos are organized right there. People can subscribe to your channel and easily view each “episode” you post. IT can be done easily, and Youtube makes it oh so much easier than having to lug out a Itunes client.

    Youtube is a great example of why video has quickly surpassed podcasts as the media of choice. It is like comparing the TV audience to the talk radio audience. Sure, talk radio might have a lot of listeners, but it doesn’t even compare to the number of people who watch television.

  • David

    Interesting. A few quick responses:

    (1) Youtube video is much easier to find in a search than a podcast, simply because Google owns it and includes Youtube videos in the search results at Google.
    (2) Yes, watchers of video are “stuck” at their computers to watch, just like podcasts. The thing is that video is so much more compelling. That visual element makes video a superior form of media, even if the video is crappy.
    (3) You can create a regular show using video. It is done all the time. You have a Youtube channel, such as my own, and you post to it. All of your videos are organized right there. People can subscribe to your channel and easily view each “episode” you post. IT can be done easily, and Youtube makes it oh so much easier than having to lug out a Itunes client.

    Youtube is a great example of why video has quickly surpassed podcasts as the media of choice. It is like comparing the TV audience to the talk radio audience. Sure, talk radio might have a lot of listeners, but it doesn’t even compare to the number of people who watch television.

  • plasticcards

    Podcasting does involve a tedious and cumbersome process before publishing. If these issues can be resolved, only then would it be a viable option for mainstream.

  • plasticcards

    Podcasting does involve a tedious and cumbersome process before publishing. If these issues can be resolved, only then would it be a viable option for mainstream.