podcasts

RAJAR MIDAS – Winter 2016

It has been a while since I’ve properly looked at RAJAR’s MIDAS survey, and it really does bear some close attention because it gives the most accurate picture of audio consumption in the UK right now.

As a reminder, MIDAS is a separate survey to the main RAJAR measurement, in which over 2,000 respondents are asked in detail about their audio listening habits by platforms, location, device and who they’re with.

It’s there to provide additional listening information and generally add ‘colour’ to the main RAJAR survey. Over time it allows some tracking in behavioural changes.

The full dataset is only made available to RAJAR subscribers, but RAJAR publishes a very good summary, and this provides plenty to get stuck into.

The key measure is Audio Share – the percentage of time spent listening to various types of audio. This is also known as “Share of Ear”, although I believe this is trademarked by Edison Research who carry out similar research in this area in the US.

Of course, simply saying “audio” is too simplistic because, for example, watching YouTube music videos is undoubtably a competitor to traditional audio sources for some audiences. So MIDAS does measure video as well as audio, although in most of the charts below, visual media has been excluded.

Share of Audio % (excluding visual)

The topline results show that live radio accounts for 76% of all audio consumption. The next closest category is digital music (downloads) at 9%. To put this in context, here is how radio’s share has performed over the most recent MIDAS surveys:

Careful examination of this data would seem to suggest a few things:

  • Radio remains vastly important in the audio world. While the last couple of MIDAS releases showed it declining a touch, it seems to have bounced back this time around. I’d be surprised if it didn’t fall some more over time since there are such strong radio competitors. But there’s still only one gorilla in this room.
  • Online Music Streaming (OMS in the above chart – e.g. Spotify, Apple Music) is growing. They seem to be growing as digital music tracks and CD listening is declining. Do you pay 99p at iTunes for a track or £9.99 a month for as much as you like? Consumers are shifting towards the latter.
  • Listen again is growing a bit, while podcasts remain static. The latter in particular definitely suggests something different in the UK, from say, the US.
  • Vinyl and cassette is basically static (although the graph doesn’t really show that it was at less than 1% at the start of the period displayed). You can safely treat all those news stories about vinyl’s resurgence as the hyperbole they truly are. Yes, a few albums are being sold as nice to have items, but in the scheme of things, they don’t amount to much in behavioural changes.

Now this chart doesn’t show the whole story. As I say, only RAJAR subscribers get the full dataset of MIDAS, but RAJAR publishes different aspects of the data in each release. And this time around they’ve published the demographic breakdown of listening. Indeed I think some of this has been presented at the Salon de la Radio in Paris over the last couple of days.

This shows some really clear differences by age group.

  • 15-24s spend 51% of their time listening to the radio (the green bar above) compared with 88% of 55+’s time. Radio is still the clear leader, but in time spent listening there is a competitor on the block.
  • Online Music Streaming is vastly more popular amongst 15-24s than other demographic groups. 15-24s spend 21% of their audio time on these services. This drops to just 9% for 25-34s and right down to 1% for 55+. This is as clear a behavioural change by age as you’re likely to see.
  • If you’d asked me to predict which age group spends the biggest proportion of their time listening to CDs, I have definitely said it was an older group. But in fact, the actual biggest group is 15-24s! Are they borrowing others music, or perhaps they can’t yet afford a Spotify subscription?
  • Podcasts are most popular amongst 24-34s, spending significantly more time than other age groups.

One thing to be careful of is that these are percentages within each age group. It’s important to note that overall volume of time spent listening will be different by different groups. So amongst CD listening, 5% off 55+ listening might be significantly more hours than 6% of 15-24s (the data doesn’t let us see).

What will be interesting to see is future growth of streaming. While there are free/bundeled streaming options – notably Spotify, or Amazon’s free offering for Prime members – there is surely a top limit to those prepared to pay £9.99 a month for music? There are ways to reduce the cost including family plans and logins shared with others; and some will happily bounce around different services taking advantage of free three month trials, creating new disposable email accounts as necessary. But continued growth within the UK market still isn’t clear.

Hours isn’t the whole story of course, and it’s worth looking at reach too. That shows that usage is much closer for most of the platforms. So while 90% of 55+ listen to the radio accounting for 88% of their listening, 82% of 15-24s listen to the radio but it accounts for just 51% of their listening.

Audio Reach % By Age Group

A couple of other charts. Ever wonder what people are doing when they listen to the radio?

Live Radio by Activity

Most radio presenters will recall being told to broadcast as though they were speaking to a single listener. There’s a good reason for that. A slight majority of radio listening is done alone, although this changes for younger listeners who listen more socially.

Live Radio by Who Listened With

Other things of note:

  • While most services are split evenly by sex, podcasts are notable for being significantly more male than female – 61% v 39%.
  • While laptops and tablets are used a lot for live radio, on smartphones the majority of use is for digital tracks and on demand audio.

There’s more in the original presentation which you can download on the RAJAR website.

Source RAJAR/IpsosMori. Sample 2,191. Conducted November 2016.

How Podcasts are Being Listened

Podcast listening metrics have long been seen as something as a bone of contention. In the digital advertising world, they’re seen as inferior to metrics delivered by other parts of the industry, because while you can be pretty sure a podcast advert has been delivered, you can’t be sure that it has been heard.

As a consequence, the emerging podcast sector, especially in the US, has had to battle the advertising industry to gain full acceptance. This has meant that a large majority of current podcast advertising is led by direct response advertisers i.e. coupon or offer codes when you sign up to buy a product or use a service.

Advertisers are happy to go along this route because they can easily track how successful a particular campaign has been on the basis of sales made using the various coupon codes.

That’s great as far as it goes, but it leaves a large chunk of the advertising market on the table. If you watch a TV break or listen to a commercial break on the radio, you won’t normally get quite as much direct response activity, particularly from national advertisers. Ford knows that you’re not going to buy a new car right now, and in any case, the price will be a negotiation between the customer and the dealer, and probably not subject to a 20% off coupon code! They just want you to consider a Ford the next time you buy a new car.

FMCG products (Fast Moving Consumer Goods such as washing powder or chocolate bars, and often referred to as CPG products in the US) make up a significant chunk of consumer advertising, but largely go unheard on podcasts because there’s no easy way for marketers to track whether an ad for a detergent placed on a podcast has been successful and shifted product.

That’s not to say that the success of traditional television advertising is easy to track either, and advertisers continue to happily spend billions on that medium. It’s not for nothing that the most famous quote in advertising is, “Half the money I spend on advertising is wasted; the trouble is I don’t know which half.”

Of course, ironically, while digital is supposed to be the ultimate targeting device, it turns out that P&G, one of the biggest FMCG advertisers on the planet, has decided that it has been attempting to target far too much on platforms like Facebook. That’s perhaps not surprising because, well, everyone needs to buy washing powder and toothpaste, so advertising widely would seem to make the best sense (see the Ad Contrarian for lots more on this).

And it’s not as though there aren’t other problems with advertising in the digital space including fraud and ad-blocking amongst others.

Anyway, the US podcast community is trying to gain more acceptance among the advertising community by working to ensure that everyone measures podcasts the same way, which is very sensible. While this might seem straightforward, in reality, counting podcast downloads is actually a case of interpreting server log files.

This week the IAB has released its Podcast Ad Metrics Guidelines, to both explain the challenges and to ensure that everyone counts podcasts the same way.

The document itself is fairly readable and it’s has a few interesting facts that are worth examining in more detail. It’s probably a first iteration of a living document, with a working group sitting behind it.

One interesting piece of information is the detail of how podcasts are consumed. Five groups on the working party submitted data about podcast platforms, and a table was published as a result, which I’ve reproduced below. Note that the data was based on April 2016.

Platform requesting podcast fileRange of market share %
iOS - Apple Podcast App45-52%
iTunes8-13%
Browsers6-14%
Stitcher2-7%
Everything else12-30%

NB. It’s not explicitly clear if these are US-only figures, or global numbers based on a number of firms based in the US. The partners are Podtrac, Blubrry/RawVoice, WideOrbit, Libsyn and PodcastOne, all of whom I believe are available globally to podcasters.

What I found especially interesting is that Apple isn’t quite as dominant as I’d previously thought. At least in terms of apps used to listen, with a cumulative 53-65% share of podcasts which is lower than the ~80% I had previously thought it might be.

That’s not to say that Apple isn’t vitally important in the transmission of podcasts. Many non-Apple apps use the iTunes Search API to populate their apps with a current list of podcasts. If you’re launching a new podcast, there are a lot places you want to list it. But first and foremost, it’s still the iTunes store if you’re trying to maximise audience reach.

The other interesting question is about downloads versus streams. The report goes into some detail about this, and of course different companies can do this differently. While “traditionally” an app has downloaded podcasts in the background for later playback, today apps allow you to “stream” directly as the podcast downloads.

Beyond that, there is in-browser listening where often a podcast player appears on a webpage and is played back from there. The chart above shows that as much as 16% of podcast plays are listened to this way. Depending on the technology being employed, an in-browser podcast player might be a proper streaming solution, or it might in fact be simply pulling an mp3 to a wraparound player. The user will not notice the difference.

What’s interesting is how this compares with other research on podcast listening and the emergence of the “click and listen” model. A recent Edison Research/Triton Digital report showed 59% of podcast users saying they click and listen immediately, as opposed to just 15% saying they subscribe in the traditional manner.

download

These numbers seem to suggest that although people are actually mostly listening through traditional podcast platforms like podcast apps, they’re actually choosing to download and listen at the point of consumption. It’s for that reason that so many podcasts implore listeners to subscribe, because if you’re relying on click to listen, then it’s entirely likely that listeners will miss episodes of podcasts.

But I’d also love to dig deeper into the numbers in the chart above, because the opacity to the regular podcast listener of how podcasts actually work means they may not actually know what they’re doing or how the audio is getting to them.

I say this because the chart above suggests that 38% of people either subscribe or manually download to listen later 42% of people say they listen to podcast two days or later after the podcast has downloaded. Add in a proportion of the large percentage of people who listen with 24 hours of a download, and you have a larger number of people listening via a download-and-listen-later method than say that’s what they do.

download (1)

Separately, the podcast hosting company Blubrry has crunched the numbers of how its own podcasts are delivered as best it can.

Blubrry defines four different categories of distribution:

Mobile apps – which can both download and “stream” (i.e. download to listen instantly)
Desktop apps – mostly for downloads, and most likely iTunes (accounting for 80% of listening in this category)
Desktop browsers – where you can either “stream” from the page (in this instance an HTML wrapper around a hosted mp3 file, as opposed to a properly streamed file as the BBC often provides)
Mobile browsers and TV apps

Blubrry estimate that within the 71.6% of mobile apps consumption, 39% is accounted for by the iOS Podcast app. And half of that is streaming rather downloading. Whereas of the desktop browsers, two thirds is streaming, while a third is downloaded.

All in all, bespoke podcast applications, whether on mobile or desktop platforms, account for 85% of podcast listening.

Returning to the data in the IAB paper, what it also makes clear is that bespoke podcast apps – e.g. apps created for a particular podcast or podcasting company – are not very popular. The advantage to the podcasting companies is clear – they can properly track listenership and advertising consumption. But to the listener the benefits are less clear. It means one more app on your phone, and the app probably won’t let you listen to other podcasts.

All interesting detail about how people actually listen to podcasts.

Podcasting: Data/Tech Improvements or Leave Alone?

A couple of interesting pieces on the development of podcasts, and Apple’s role, have been published recently and thought worth thinking aloud about (that’s effectively what my blog is – me thinking aloud).

The New York Times published a piece that suggests major podcasting groups have been talking to Apple asking for extra functionality from them – in particular access to data, but also the ability to better promote podcasts.

Meanwhile Marco Arment challenges the NYT, and argues that podcasting is better off as it is now.

I do understand Arment’s perspective. He argues that Apple has actually been pretty open – for example providing an iTunes API that lets apps like PocketCasts use the iTunes directory to find podcasts.

And he takes a certain purist view that the current way things work is fine. Anyone can make a podcast, submit it to stores like iTunes, and host the podcast wherever they like.

Podcasts are simple mp3 files, playable in a vast range of apps, and on a multitude of devices.

I understand all that, and yet…

The main thing the unnamed podcasters seem to be asking Apple for is more access to data. At the moment, data is very low-level and actually quite hard.

Assuming your host is capable of supplying information, the best it can really tell you about how your podcast has performed is the number of times it was downloaded (although what about partial downloads?), the IP address of the downloader (therefore some idea of location), and the platform it was downloaded by.

And that’s basically it, unless the podcast is listened to via a specific third party app.

Now I do agree that I don’t especially like the idea of Apple dictating terms of podcasting. Apple has a built in advantage in podcasting that the two articles suggest leads to around 65%-70% of the market being on Apple devices. (I suspect that’s the US market, and believe ex-US Apple may have a higher share).

While Google has soft-launched podcasting in the US via its Google Play Music app, and there are plentiful excellent Android podcast apps, the market is massively skewed towards Apple compared with overall device ownership. In any case, I’m not sure that Google has yet shown the desire to truly push podcasting as a platform.

For better or worse, Google Play Music is not every Android owner’s default audio app, and so Google doesn’t have the same power that Apple has by pre-installing a non-removable podcasting app on every Apple device.

I’m not saying anything new here, but to re-iterate previous blogs, I do think podcasting needs some work. The status quo works at an enthusiast level, but doesn’t really work for those who want to build a stronger commercially viable medium. So there are things that need “fixing” with podcasts:

1. Data

Sorry, but it’s needed. If you’re hosting your own podcast for fun, as an enthusiast or for your own pleasure, then fine. But if you’re trying to produce podcasts as a business – and they’re a form of media, so this is totally legitimate – then you need some data.

Beautifully constructed, heavily produced podcasts with excellent production values take time and money to make. In any other part of the creative industries, there’s a means to earning if you’re good enough and enough people love what you do. Podcasting needs to be no different.

Now Apple handing some more data over probably doesn’t cut it. They may still represent the majority of listening, but that should decline over time, and mean that a broader form of data is required.

That said, Apple almost certainly does know how consumers are listening to podcasts including metrics like whether a downloaded podcast was actually listened to, how much of the podcast was listened, were pre/mid-roll ads heard, and so on.

Does providing data run the risk of decreasing diversity? Actually I don’t think so. Sure, a big network like Panoply or Gimlet may decide to ditch certain types of offerings and change direction to the mass market, but that shouldn’t affect what everyone else makes. These are businesses that have to make returns to their backers or else they go under. They have to work within the advertising market place. If they don’t, they go away and we lose their podcasts.

I would look at something like YouTube to prove that a platform can be completely open to all, even if there is strong underlying data. I upload a drone video I made to YouTube and do it for the fun of it. I make no money; I expect no money. Perhaps I hit lucky with one my videos and it becomes a viral hit. There’s a mechanism that allows me to prosper a little should I choose. And then at the other end I might strike it lucky, become a YouTuber, and earn a decent crust on the platform (highly unlikely, I realise). I can use the platform for promotion.

YouTube isn’t directly analogous. It’s a closed Google-owned platform. But there’s little to stop me uploading my own work to YouTube as much as I like, incorporating a number of different commercial business models should I choose to.

Look – I know as much as anyone that much digital data is flawed, misleading or downright wrong. Data is open to manipulation, and advertising agencies are still too in awe of it. But if I buy an ad in just about any medium, the least I can aspect is you to provide me with details of who had an opportunity to hear, watch or see the ad.

Data is necessary. But it’s needed across the piece, and I’m not sure how that would work across multiple platforms. To be treated seriously by advertisers you need some data. Every advertising medium offers data, and podcasting can’t be an exception. Of course if you don’t take advertising from advertising agencies, then this perhaps isn’t an issue to you. But I’m not sure it

2. Promotion

If you’re launching a new podcast, you may be really up against it.

If you’re an existing podcast publisher, then you promote your new podcast on your existing programme. You might mention it lots, run promotional spots for it, or even include an episode in the RSS feed of your podcast. But if your new podcast is aimed at a different audience to the one your current podcast appeals to, this doesn’t really work.

If you’re a big media organisation – a radio station or web publisher – then you can promote across your own platform.

Seemingly a major issue with the big podcasting companies is that promotion on iTunes – still the best way to drive new listeners to a podcast – is at the whim of a single person in the US iTunes Store. Others are in charge of their national/regional stores.

Now podcasters may be treating those individuals as restaurateurs treat celebrity reviewers – “Pick me! Pick me! Write nice things about me!” – but surely the major issue is that we need more avenues to promote podcasts. And critically, there need to be methods to subscribe in a simpler manner. I really shouldn’t have to copy an RSS feed from a web page and paste it into a box in my podcasting software. But that’s what I have to do…

3. Android

As I’ve said again and again, it’s ridiculous that Apple has such a hold over podcasting when so many more devices are Android. You can buy a $50 Android phone that’s capable of playing podcasts, but have to pay 8 times that for a new Apple device. Look beyond the coasts of the US, and the metropolitan centres of Western Europe. There’s a massive market to reach – whoever your podcast is targeted towards.

Apple is not going to provide all the solutions, and more importantly, it shouldn’t provide them.

Yes – Apple has the whip hand now, but that’s not a sustainable position for a medium that is actually technology neutral.

4. Technology

Not really mentioned here, but perhaps underlying everything, is whether we need a kind of “Podcast 2.0” format – something that offers better data about whether a podcast was listened to and who listened to it. There are talked about hackabouts that sort of let you do things with mp3s, but they tend to work hidden pixels and the like. But an RSS feed is structurally limiting.

What I am certain is that I don’t want to see us go down a bespoke private networks route. Podcasting is a very open platform.

But as the web has developed, so do podcasts. Like many others, I don’t want podcasters to know my name and address, unless I choose to provide them (e.g. on a subscription basis). But I know that the medium is limited without some developments.

Summary

I don’t want to destroy an ecosystem that allows anyone to make a popular audio piece and serve it to millions of people around the world. It’s brilliant that anyone can produce a podcast on just about any subject and it can be made available to all. But I’m not sure that anything I hear stops or prevents this. Data and technology move hand in hand, and while Apple can help, it shouldn’t be the be all and end all. It’s worth remembering that podcasting extends well beyond the US!

Elsewhere: read this week’s Hot Pod on this whole issue.

The Tow Center Guide to Podcasting

Headphones in Studio 2

There’s a terrific new report that the Tow Center for Digital Journalism – an institute within the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism. It has published called A Guide to Podcasting. It’s an unashemedly US-centric view of the podcasting market in 2015, detailing the history of the medium, and presenting a series of case studies of big US podcasting operators.

It’s well worth a read if you’re curious to see where podcasting stands today.

The report is long, and I’m not going to go into it in full. Instead I thought I’d pull out a few key findings, and add some of my own thoughts to them. Some of them are things I’ve talked about before, but in each instance, I think they’re especially worthy of note.

The massive skew in mobile podcast consumption towards iPhones. The Tow document quotes a LibSync report that shows that there is currently a 5.4 to 1 ratio in favour of iOS devices over Android ones in the mobile market. Whereas the report notes that there something like one billion Android devices set against 470m iPhones.

I’ve stolen this wonderful (US focused) chart which illustrates this perfectly.

PODCAST15_clammrfuture_android

Note that this report seems to have been written before Google announced its entry into the podcasting market. But the report does note that there’d be likely to be developments between the report being completed and it being published. The Gimlet case study also misses out on their recent second round of funding.

67% of US podcaster are aged 18-34. They know how to use the technology. It’s not that it doesn’t appeal to other audiences as my septuagenarian father can attest, once he knew how to use the BBC iPlayer Radio app on his tablet. So it’ll be interesting to see how ages broaden out as podcasting increases. In the meantime, the 18-34 audience is one radio broadcasters are very worried about losing.

Podcasting really needs to broaden its user base. The previous two points are key parts of that – growing users beyond one type of phone, and getting those aged over 35 to listen. And the current audience can only listen to so many podcasts – something my inordinately sized PocketCasts library can attest to. Indeed the report suggests that it’s just six podcasts on average per week.

Slow and steady growth. As the report makes clear, podcasting has been around for a long time, and it’s had its moment in the sun before Serial came along (Season 2 out now!). The report includes a chart that shows podcasting as having had slow and steady growth since its inception.

The report goes on to note that the Serial phenomenom actually happened at time when the iPhone podcast app had just been separated out in iOS as its own app, and as the wider media was covering podcasts more. Both of these will have given it a healthy push.

I’d compare podcasting growth to UK DAB growth which has also been slow and steady rather than explosive as some consumer technologies have been. I wonder if this is a factor of audio? It’s not quite as sexy as video, but we still like it.

Searching for podcasts is an overall bad experience. iTunes is not great at surfacing podcasts beyond ones that are either popular according to its secret algorithm, or the handful that iTunes’ editors choose to feature on their site. Other podcast providers have similar issues.

The popular example of a company who manages this well is Netflix and its ability to aid viewer discovery. I’m not sure that’s the best answer – my experience is that all sorts of rubbish gets thrown at me. But I do hear very positive things about Spotify’s Discover playlist with regard to music listening.

Instead podcasters have to rely on social sharing and working within their own networks. Thus both Serial and Gimlet’s Startup launched by being included in the This American Life podcast feed.

That’s an opportunity only avaialble to a very limited number of podcasts and not at all available to those outside, say, US public radio circles. On the other hand it greatly aids those burgeoning podcast networks like Panoply and Gimlet. They can properly support and promote their own shows. An independent producer is going to struggle unless they have the budget to buy promotional airtime on those same shows – a route to market that others have taken.

One of the most exciting elements of Google enterting the podcasting space is what it can do with search. As well as utilising metadata, it’d be interesting to see if voice-to-text technology as utilised by Google Now, Siri and Amazon’s Fire and Echo devices, could be set to work on podcasts to provide more context for audio files, and enable discovery.

In car listening has its place. Cars are important, but it’s worth noting that while 44% of US radio listening is in car (according to a 2014 Macquarie Capital report), in other markets that aren’t as car-centric, it’s much less. For example it’s only 20% of radio listening that happens in-car in the UK. And in any case, new technology added in the car today doesn’t fully flow through the Car Parq (the industry term for all the cars on the road) for a number of years to come – 11 years on average in the US. In other words, just because a new off the assembly line car today comes with Apple CarPlay and Android Auto, it’s going to take a while before everyone has the ability to seamlessly stream audio in their cars without a combination of 3.5mm jack leads, Bluetooth connectivity or even FM re-transmitters.

Data issues. Not only are mobile podcasts disproportionately listened to by iPhones/iOS devices, but the bulk of traffic is delivered via iTunes – 70% is claimed in the report. That’s both a blessing and a curse. Apple was a very early supporter of podcasting, and therefore everyone should be thankful for them. On the other hand, they have the whip hand when it comes to data. Advertisers would like more data, as would podcast producers. I’m certain Apple could provide additional data were they to choose to, but that would involve changes in user agreements and generally it’d be doing work for little to no reward. (Plus nobody needs and even longer iTunes User Agreement!)

The report notes that Apple’s most recent iOS update actually favours streaming over download, with the latter taking an additional click to play back. Streaming, of course, provides more data than consumption of a “dumb” mp3 file.

Meanwhile, as well as adding dynamic advertising into podcasts at time of delivery, another area that is being developed according to the report, is the use of tracking pixels. Now I must admit that I’m unclear how this will work. Ordinarily such pixels are used to track digital advertising in web environments where there is live data. So a hidden pixel is delivered and the fact that it was shown means that you have some data about where and when it was delivered. But pure podcasts are simply mp3 files. While they might have “album artwork” embedded within them, I’m not aware that this would allow for any tracking. Indeed, when you’re listening to an mp3 offline, there simply isn’t a feedback mechanism.

Within bespoke apps this might be possible, and certainly platforms like Spotify employ it, although the free version of Spotify which displays advertising requires internet access.

Yet both Panoply, who have purchased the Audiometric software platform, and Acast are both talking about this technology. I’m curious to learn more.

Direct and foundation support is more normal in the US. Most US public television and radio is partly funded by viewers and listeners. The audience is regularly asked to dig deep and contribute. If you enjoy these programmes, then you need to pay is the message. That’s why this has been a key way a number of podcasts have supported themselves using a direct funding model.

But this is not something that’s “normal” in Britain and elsewhere. If there’s a pledge drive happening on TV or radio, it’s for charity. For some, it’s actually a bit “embarrassing” and runs against the traditional stiff-upper-lip attitude we have as a nation.

Now it’s certainly true that the landscape is changing, and more people are getting more comfortable asking for monetary support.

There is not really a history of foundations supporting radio and television services. These foundations just don’t exist in the same way in the UK, where spending of that type might instead be focused on visual or performing arts. Instead, across Europe, much public radio is supported by various forms of licence fee. Notably the UK television licence pays for all BBC Radio as well as BBC TV and other services. This is undoubtedly changing as podcast listening is not limited by borders (Hence I hear all sorts of advertising for products that are unavailable to me). And Radiotopia’s fundraising success internationally was such that it saw fit to hold supporters parties in various parts of Europe.

But philanthropy tends to reveal itself in different ways in different countries – so the US model does not necessarily work internationally.

Podcasters need to own their direct relationships with the audience. This is an important one. The case study on the Reveal podcast makes this point well. Obviously podcasts do have a relationship between themselves and their listeners, but they don’t own it. Without direct intervention, a podcast producer does not know who you are. And that places them at something of a disadvantage.

When you hear a podcast urge you to sign up for an email newsletter, like them on Facebook or even follow them on Twitter, that’s because these are they only ways they can form a relationship with you. As it stands, that relationship is actually “owned” by the podcasting platform – so Apple in all likelihood.

The reason that magazine and newspaper publishers have always been so keen on you taking out a subscription is not just that they have a guaranteed form of income, but that they get to add a name to their database. And they can develop a direct relationship from there. That could be selling additional products and services, or learning more about the audience.

Indeed a podcast producer needs to think, “What would happen if for some reason Apple shut down podcasts tomorrow?”

No, they’re not going to do it. But they could. It would be a painful, and very probably expensive business rebuilding that audience.

The only podcast I can think of that I subscribe to that knows who I am is The Cycling Podcast, because I’ve paid to become a premium member. They have my email address.

It’s the same argument some news providers have had with Apple – sometimes falling out with them. Apple owns the relationship (and takes a healthy cut of subscription revenues). The middleman has the keys to the castle.

In subscription television, the same is often true. It’s why BT Sport went around quite a convuluted route to get Sky viewers to register directly with them to enable the BT Sports channel rather than the less painful route of adding the channel via a few clicks of the remote control. Now BT knows who those Sky subscribers are. If they hadn’t taken that route, they’d have just known how many subscribers they had.

And finally, if you know who your customers are, you can also more easily shift platforms should you ever wish or need to in the future.

The ethics of podcast advertising is not straightforward. There was a very good recent episode of Gimlet’s Startup podcast looking at money and in particular what the company would and wouldn’t do. It’s really worth listening to if you’re interested in this area, as it explores many of the issues. Indeed Gimlet has always been very upfront about how they work advertising into their podcasts.

In the US, the most effective type of podcast advertising has proved to be presenter-read adverts. They tend to be delivered in the same tone as the overall podcast rather than from a specific script. The way the advertising is weaved into different podcasts can vary a good deal – the listener sometimes only belatedly realising that they’re actually hearing an ad. Sometimes specific music is used, or words along the lines of, “And now we must thank another sponsor…” But neither of these are always the case.

The presenter-read model can also lead to a lot of implied endorsement of products. Perhaps the presenter has indeed used the product and strongly recommends it. But are we certain? Indeed an earlier season one Startup episode also examined this area.

And what happens if a product maybe isn’t best-in-class? Their money is still good though…

Another “ethical” question is the use of native podcasts, or ad-funded podcasts. This kind of advertising is considered both very effective and profitable. There are clearly lots of companies now interested in having podcasts made for them.

But how do they get promoted? What’s the mechanism for launching them? Do you drop them into your regular programme feed? Or should potential subscribers be pushed in another direction?

If you ask different people these questions, the recent Startup episode suggests you’ll get different answers.

The current case to look at is The Message, which is paid for by GE and produced by Panoply. It’s an SF drama delivered in the guise of a presenter-led podcast. I’m not aware that the full podcast was placed in any other Panoply streams. Instead there were a number of promotional trails (in radio parlance) and ads promoting the series.

But it seems clear that there are no firm rules across the full podcasting environment and what some people will do, others will be uncomfortable doing.

Networks – them and us. The way things are working at the moment, the big networks are best suited to prospering. But what about smaller or independent podcasts? Is there a way through?

The beauty of podcasting originally was that it’s very cheap and easy to do. You can make a professional sounding podcast with an inexpensive microphone, a laptop and free editing software.

But in many ways podcast networks are raising the game. They have more resources, they have sales teams to sell advertising, and they can cross-promote their own new podcasts.

If you’re not part of a big network or broadcaster, you probably are at a disadvantage. You’re not out of the game – but like indie films versus studio blockbusters, or independently published books versus those from major publishers, you’ve got your work cut out for you. On the other hand, there are ways through.

More disruption in types of podcast is needed. It does feel like too many podcasts are just public radio programmes that might have previously existed given a fair wind and a friendly commissioner. There surely needs to be a wider range of podcasts dealing with a broader set of interests? Currently many of the more popular podcasts can feel very middle class. And that’s not surprising because it does seem like every half-decent producer in the US who was working for public radio has been poached by a podcast producer or network!

This isn’t necessarily true of all podcast types, but I tend to think it is true of the bigger shows in terms of listeners and awareness.

Finally the Tow Center report is also accompanied by a very smart interactive timeline telling the podcast story from a US perspective.

Why Doesn’t Audio Go Viral?

Live On Air from the Isle of Wight

I’m a regular reader of Nick Quah’s Hot Pod newsletter on Podcasts. It’s worth subscribing to if you’re interested in the medium, even if there are slightly too many animated GIFs in the emails!

A few weeks ago, Nick addressed something that goes back to a Digg piece from well over a year ago. As he rightly says, it’s still a relevant question.

The Digg piece by Stan Alcorn in essence says that it’s a visual issue. And it’s true that if someone sends you a YouTube link you can quickly see a still frame chosen to whet your appetite and hit play. An animated GIF takes no effort to see. Even a bit of text can be quickly scanned, and accompanying pictures seen.

Audio, on the other hand, takes some effort.

You have to hit play and hope that however it’s titled is an accurate description. You can’t scrub ahead to what you perceive as “the good bit,” as people do with YouTube videos.

There’s a Digg revisit up now, and Quah goes on to make his own points. And the piece was followed up the following week – I suggest going away and reading up on the subject if you’re interested.

But I’d just like to offer a few thoughts of my own on the matter, and they boil down to audio actually being harder “to do” than video.

The Oxford English Dictionary (the online version anyway) defines “viral” in the internet sense thus:

(Of an image, video, piece of information, etc.) circulated rapidly and widely from one Internet user to another:
‘a viral ad campaign’
‘the video went viral and was seen by millions’

The definition doesn’t specify it, but I would suggest also that something that goes viral is also quite short. That’s a relative term of course, but we’re not talking about longform here. Serial might be popular, but would you describe a multi-hour podcast as a “viral hit?” I’m not sure you would. I’d simply describe it as a hit.

Most commonly, when we think about something going viral, we’re thinking of video. And when it comes to a viral clip, it’s either professionally shot, by which I mean the source footage comes from a TV station, a production company or agency, or shot by an amateur – probably on their phone. (There are many other types of video of course, but I think this accounts for a substantial portion of viral videos.)

Yet even clips that are shot professionally are as often as not, spread virally by a viewer. The TV company might work hard to share their own clips and with pre-recorded programmes that’s very possible. Hence Lip Sync Battles and Carpool Karaoke. But if an amazing goal is scored, or a presenter inadvertently tells a reality show contestant that they’re out of the competition before they should have, that probably happened live, and the producers may not want to share the clip or in the case of sport, even have the rights to make it widely available in social media.

But for the viewer, sending that clip to the internet is easy. Somewhere a viewer hits rewind on their PVR. They point their phone at their TV and record the action. Within a couple of clicks, they’ve sent it to Twitter/YouTube/Facebook/wherever and it’s out there. There are better ways to do it, and in higher quality, but this is instant and it works.

Sure, the Premier League/ITV/Sky/HBO/Disney might get the clip taken down in due course, but someone’s put a copy up, or they’ve shot their TV from an odd angle and talked over the audio. The clip gets out there. If it goes viral, it’s watched by millions.

Maybe a couple of days later, the rights owner gets YouTube to replace to the unofficial video with their official one. But it’s probably too late by then.

Meanwhile, if the video is of your mate doing a silly stunt, or you hearing a racist outburst heard on a bus, or seeing a horrific terrorist attack in a city, then a phone is all that’s needed. Again, you get viral success if all the planets are aligned.

Now consider making audio into a viral hit.

Suppose Nick Grimshaw says something funny on his Radio 1 Breakfast Show. It’s really entertaining and you want to share it instantly.

Well Radio 1 might put it up themselves – indeed they might share some video. A producer or someone in charge of station’s social media is probably sharing a few clips, and they might be doing it really well, perhaps with visualisations. There are some excellent examples of this where studio video or even animations have been used. And there are a number of platforms available to radio stations that allow them to share audio clips E.g. Omny.

But the station gets to choose what goes up. And they might not choose to share the clip you’re interested in. Social media managers on radio shows and stations are wary of posting too much in social media over too short a time. They ration what they post so as not to overwhelm their social media followers.

And anyway, a radio clip “going viral” should not solely be in the hands of the show’s production team. As mentioned, that’s not what always happens in video, and indeed it’s a limiting factor on sending audio viral if only the original producer gets to choose.

If a listener wants to share something they heard on the radio with their friends and followers, how do they do that? They can’t just hit rewind on your radio. Yes – a handful of DAB sets do have this function. But most don’t.

For the large part, broadcast radio disappears into the ether.

A listener might be able to get the audio by waiting until the programme has finished and grab either a podcast, or rip the audio from Listen Again if it’s available. The latter in particular is not a straightforward process, with the majority of stations simply not offering it. But if it is available, and the listener has the technical knowhow to rip that audio, then they can pop that audio into an audio editor. Because everyone has access to one of those and knows how to use it don’t they..?

Then they edit their viral clip – now probably at least two hours after it went out – and share it on YouTube accompanied with a still image, since they’ve actually made a “video” because that’s what the most obviously site for sharing clips – YouTube – wants. Otherwise the likely candidates for hosting the clip are perhaps Soundcloud, Audioboom or someone else.

That’s all really quite hard and the spontaneity has gone.

A good piece of audio is still a good piece of audio. But for those, “I don’t believe that just happened moments,” the impetus is gone.

There is a service called Rewind Radio which would seem to create a solution. They’re effectively an online radio clipping service, allowing you to find an audio segment on your chosen service, and clip the audio. The resulting clips can be embedded or posted in social media. E.g.


I’m not sure whether the service is designed for consumers or radio stations themselves. Nonetheless, I was able to make the above clip without registering.

The main problem is that again, it’s down to stations to get themselves listed and therefore recorded into their system. I could find BBC Radio 1 for example, but couldn’t find BBC Radio 2 or BBC Radio 4. And there is also a bit of a time-delay issue. In my test, I couldn’t link to audio newer than that from nine hours earlier.

[And I hate to mention it, but we have to think about copyright. Can I just embed or tweet a single song clip? Music is a big part of most radio after all.]

How about someone wanting to share a podcast?

Well it’s possible. But an iTunes link doesn’t cut it because not everyone has an iPhone (see previous blogs by me ad nauseum). And some podcasts don’t have a site for streaming them. They should. But they don’t.

Even if they do, it’s remarkably rare for those players to have functionality to allow sharing to a specific point in a show – something that’s essential if you’re pointing someone to a moment in a three hour breakfast show.

There are companies like Overcast and Acast who can do the job for you with podcasts, and even let you link to a specific spot in a podcast (e.g. Here are Tom Hanks and Steven Spielberg in interview on the a recent Kermode and Mayo podcast, with a timestamp to take you directly to the interview). But you have to know about Overcast or Acast to make that work. Acast’s link will also deliver an embedded player in social media which is smart, but at time of writing, Overcast links don’t do that. Overall, YouTube again has an advantage here.

In the end, many more people have YouTube accounts than Soundcloud or Audioboom ones. So sharing audio on YouTube is still the easiest place to go, even though that does mean making a quasi-movie first by adding a still and exporting a movie file to upload to the site.

WNYC in New York has been experimenting with “videos” of audio in Facebook feeds. But long-form podcasts feel wrong in such an environment. There are exceptions, but most shared video is a few minutes at most.

But what about amateur recordings? Those moments you deem interesting or newsworthy enough to share, and which might turn viral depending on what is being captured.

Well the truth probably is that if something amusing or noteworthy is happening around you and you have your smartphone to hand, you’re more likely to start the video camera rolling on it rather than the audio recording function.

Yes, if you’re getting nowhere in attempting to cancel your cable TV subscription and are recording the call, then you might go for the audio recorder functionality on your phone. But otherwise, unless you’re trying not to make it obvious you’re recording something, you’re going to reach for the video camera function.

In summary then, making audio go viral is hard because we are visual creatures, so that’s our first port of call. But audio is enormously powerful, so we need better tools to allow listeners to share audio – from radio, podcasts and life. And importantly, it needs to be shareable on the listener’s terms, not the service provider’s.

[Finally a top-tip: There used to be functionality direct in iPlayer to deeplink to a specific timecode in a given programme when sharing that link. That was taken out at some point, but you can still do it!

All you have to do is append #playt=xxmyys where xx is the number of minutes into the programme and yy is the number of seconds. So I might link to a point in this week’s Infinite Monkey Cage using this link: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b06r4wg9#playt=9m07s

So as long as you wait for a BBC programme to finish and be made available on the iPlayer, then that allows you to share a specific point in a programme. That’s not a wider solution by any means.

Thanks to Nommo for details.]

Google and Podcasts – More Thoughts

Google Play Terms of Service

This is a follow up to the post I wrote a few days ago when it was first announced that Google was getting into podcasts.

Go away and read that if you’ve not already done so!

A few things are worth noting that I hadn’t quite understood initially.

Google Serving Podcasts and Metrics

It’s very much worth noting that Google will host your podcast for you. They will take a single copy from the server you use to host your audio, and they’ll re-encode it to meet their needs (which may in itself be an issue for some podcasters), before serving files to Google Play Music users.

I imagine that there will actually be a range of differently encoded versions available, perhaps based on bandwidth of the user. But this will really only become clear when the service is live.

As mentioned previously, this does mean that Google will be the only source for downloads of podcasts from Google Play Music. I know that operators like LibSyn will be able to pull these metrics back into their own system to provide a better overview, but it’s worth noting that there will be differences. Will Google have a different view on what is and isn’t a “play” for example? We’ll have to wait and see.

Advertising

I foolishly suggested previously that Google might be somehow sharing revenues with podcasters either in terms of advertising or perhaps a share of subscriptions as a music artist would get for a curated listening experience via Google Play Music.

That really doesn’t seem to be the case.

Here’s the key passage from Google’s Terms of Service for the Google Play Music Podcast Portal:

7. Google Advertising/No Revenue Share. For the avoidance of doubt, Google has the right to present audio, video and/or display advertisements in connection with Google’s distribution of the Podcast Content on Google Play. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Google acknowledges and agrees that Google will not display any pre-roll or mid-roll advertisements in connection with the Podcast Content and will not sell or target advertisements directly against specific Podcast Content or any particular Podcast Creator. For the avoidance of doubt, Podcast Creator shall not be entitled to any royalties, revenue or any other any monetary compensation in connection with Google’s distribution of the Podcast Content in accordance with these Podcast Terms, including, without limitation, any monies Google may receive (including, without limitation, advertising and subscription revenues) in connection with Google’s display of advertising pursuant to these Podcast Terms. [Taken from the October 7, 2015 version.]

In other words, Google will run ads at the end of a podcast, and the podcast creator won’t see a penny of that. While it’s true that this doesn’t massively disrupt the models of those who are running their own advertising currently – mostly the bigger podcasting networks – this really doesn’t help the smaller guys who probably see no commercial revenue from their work.

Now I appreciate that not everyone in podcasting is there to make money, and are perhaps doing it for the fun of it. But it’s disappointing that Google isn’t offering a way to help make a business out of podcasting for those who’d like to be able to. (It’ll be interesting to see how this works with, say, the BBC who will not want advertising adjacent to its podcasts.)

While a direct comparison with YouTube doesn’t quite work because regardless of platform, unlike podcasts you have to use the YouTube website or app to watch videos, it’s notable that video creators do get options to monetise their videos with Google and share in the revenues earned.

Google is undoubtedly offering a massive distribution opportunity, with a chance for podcasters to grow their audiences enormously. And for many that will be enough. But as Google builds an audio advertising model, there’s no option here to share in that revenue which feels frankly quite mean.

There are other ways to earn revenue from advertising of course. Stitcher, for example, has a content provider programme that pays revenues based on listens via the Stitcher app according to a specific formula. Spotify is also carrying a selection of podcasts, but these seem to be invited onto the platform from the major providers. Although I can’t see it explicitly anywhere, you would expect that there’s some kind of revenue sharing model underlying these deals too.

Perhaps in time, as podcasting grows, Google will begin to offer pre-roll advertising that it can share with partners who choose to work with Google. I suspect that at the moment, Google is making cautionary steps into the marketplace and is trying not to rock the boat – the bigger guys all having worked out their commercialisation options. So maybe it’s a question of wait and see.

Google and Podcasts

podcasts01

This week we heard the first news that Google is starting to get into the podcast game. Recode had the first decent report on the move.

Currently, Apple dominates podcasts. Indeed, the word “podcast” might seem to imply to casual listener, that listening to a podcast means having an actual “iPod” to listen to them on. It doesn’t, although Apple’s inclusion of podcasts into iTunes fairly early on gave the medium a massive boost. At a time when you had to sync your mp3 player with some software on a PC, podcasting was technically complicated business. Tying it into the same system that got your music on your portable audio device was a smart move by Apple.

But in a mobile world with WiFi networks and 4G, podcasting should have become simpler. Apple spun out its Podcasts app, and a myriad of apps appeared on Android devices.

So why then are podcasts listened to on mobile devices still so heavily skewed towards Apple? It’s reported that Libsyn-hosted podcasts see more than five times as many iOS downloads as Android ones! That’s astonishing. And awful.

It’s so skewed because Apple fully supports podcasts, and when you turn on a new iPhone, you have the Podcasts app waiting to go. You can browse easily within the app for something to listen to, and when podcasts you might have caught because someone shared a link on social media, suggest you subscribe, they invariably mention that this podcast can be found in iTunes – where you can leave a review!

And so it becomes self-fulfilling. Indeed, too many people continue to believe that if they’ve got their podcasts in iTunes, then a simple link to that page is all they need to share. (See also my Top Tips for Podcasters.)

Yet while all of this is going on, there are more Android handset owners than iPhone owners in pretty much every market. Way more.

Podcasters are missing out. More to the point, they’re missing the opportunity to more than double their audience. But it’s not their fault. There’s just an in-built bias towards Apple in the podcasting ecosystem.

If we assume that an Android user is no more or less interested in audio than an iPhone user, then that leaves a lot of low hanging fruit ready to be picked. I’ve written about this in the past as The Android Problem. Yes, I know that iOS users buy more games and spend more money per device – maybe their more engaged with smartphones overall. But that doesn’t account for those massive discrepancies.

Earlier this year when I last wrote that piece, I was hoping that Google would get into this game, because podcasts are the obvious part of the iTunes store that the Google Play store is missing.

But what Google is talking about, as far as I can see, is something a bit different to Apple. Apple essentially allows anyone to place their podcast on iTunes. You complete a form, upload some graphics and meta data, find a host to serve your podcast and you’re away. If you have a podcast, you have to place it on iTunes.

podcasts03

But Google looks like it’s suggesting something a little beyond this. Yes, they want podcasters to upload their wares. And yes, they say that you’ll be able to search for and browse for podcasts by category – the same ones as Apple. But from what they’re talking about in their blog piece, they also want to automatically recommend appropriate podcasts – which sounds a little more like services such as Stitcher.

Since Google bought Songza, they’ve been implementing smart technologies to deliver music appropriate to the time of day and what you’re doing. Initially this was solely available in the paid-for Google Play Music subscription offering, but in the US, there’s now also a free version of this, with advertising support and limitations on how much music you can skip. (Regular readers may recall that as a UK listener, I was tortured with getting access to this, and then losing it for several weeks!)

Incorporating podcasts into this sort of thing is interesting, and listening to Google Play Music product manager Elias Roman on The Feed, it’s clear that this is a major part of what they want to offer. Indeed, it’s worth noting that as well as Android, there will be iOS and web apps to enable wide adoption of what they’re planning.

But at the moment, there’s nothing to actually listen to, and in any case, only US podcasters seem able to upload their podcasts to the site. I understand that a service that’s potentially supported by advertising may want to launch on a regional basis, but whisper it: Americans do listen to podcasts from outside America too!

podcasts02

Google also seems to pushing very hard the fact that their app – presumably Google Music – will be the default pre-installed way to listen to Podcasts.

Anyway, this all leaves lots of unanswered questions:

1. When will anyone be able to upload a podcast to Google, regardless of geography? At the moment the site geo-blocks non-US uploaders. Even if the service isn’t available outside the US, it’d be nice to be able to get international podcasts hosted there!

2. Will podcasts in Google Play be essentially open to all as with Apple, or is Google looking for premium suppliers only? It would seem to be the former.

3. Advertising – how will it work, if at all, and what might I earn? The US-only free Google Play Music service is ad-supported. There’s obviously a revenue-sharing operation currently working with music rights holders. I assume that’s why this whole thing is limited to the US at the moment as it’s the advertising market Google is most comfortable with. But what kind of deals will be on the table for podcasters, if any? Who can earn what? And in the longer term, what if anything will that mean for podcasts and podcast networks that already have very profitable ad operations? I note that the likes of Panoply and Gimlet are already on board with Google, and they are already ad-supported. The episode of The Feed I mentioned above is well worth a listen because a lot of basic questions are answered, but advertising was not – aside from the fact that Google will not be dicing or slicing your podcast or removing adverts already embedded into your podcasts. [See my follow-up post for more on this]

4. What does this all mean for other podcast app providers on Android? Is Google effectively killing them off? Do the likes of PocketCasts or Doggcatcher have enough points of difference to keep going? iOS has other podcast providers – PocketCasts is one of them. Will I be able to directly subscribe to a podcast in PocketCasts from Google Play – in the same way that I get to choose my choice for apps like browsers and music players. It doesn’t sound like it’ll work that way.

5. Are we going to end up in a messy world of platform exclusives? Let’s hope not.

6. Might this pave the way for better metrics? I think this is critically important from an advertising and accountability perspective. Google says that it will be taking a copy of your podcast from your feed, re-encoding it themselves, and then hosting it for listeners. That means that your metrics will come from Google, and at this point that sounds like a basic play count a la YouTube. What Google is talking about doing is different to iTunes. Apple does not host your podcast – you sort out your hosting requirements yourself – perhaps with a specialist like Libsyn. That provider may well offer a measurement service so you can see detailed statistics on your podcasts’ performance. Now Stitcher also caches a local copy of podcasts, but I understand that it pings your feed so that your host’s stats are broadly correct tallying Sticher plays with wider downloads (Stitcher also has a bespoke stats platform you can view). Will Google do this? I must admit, that I don’t know what happens with TuneIn, and whether it caches a copy or just redirects to your host. And there are a myriad of other places of varying scales. Some hosts provide some of this, taking account of duplicated and failed attempts to download. But if podcasts are held in multiple systems with multiple sets of metrics, coming to a cumulative picture of your podcast’s performance becomes hard. Every podcast provider would love to be able to determine whether just because a podcast was downloaded, was it actually listened to, and was it listened all the way through? That really helps support advertising. Google could potentially supply that information back to podcasters as it does to YouTube creators via their analytics platform.

7. How will Apple react? In some respects, they’ve never really developed podcasting beyond separating the app out of their overall music player. Will they be incorporating podcasts into their Apple Music offering?

There are just some of my initial questions.

Further down the line, it’ll be really important to see how Google promotes the very existence of podcasts in its software. This is how consumers can be motivated to at least try podcasts and see if they’re something they find interesting. I still have a feeling that Google needs to work hard to promote Google Play much more – particularly its Music offering which is where podcasts will sit. That will be key to how successful this is.

But overall it can only be fantastic news that Google is properly supporting podcasts now.

Oh, and Google is sticking with the name “Podcast.” So no need for anyone to reinvent the terminology now.

[I wrote a follow-up post covering advertising in particular]

Top Tips for Podcasters

An upfront disclaimer: I’ve never made or distributed a podcast. However, I have been listening to them for many years – from a variety of providers.

Since podcasting is suddenly the hot new thing, some ten years after the name was first coined (and yes, I’m aware that they’re older than that), I thought I’d run through a little list of simple things that people could do to make their podcasts a little better. Not so much the audio – although there’s that too – but the process around it. And yes, I’ve come across all of these things since the start of 2015.

1. Make sure you have an RSS feed.

You might not really understand what one of these is, and despite them being very smart and versatile, it feels that many others have no idea either. But they’re essential if you plan to have anyone listen to more than a single episode of your podcast. So you need one, and you should make it visible. That allows people on mobile especially to add your podcast to their podcast apps.

2. If you’re using SoundCloud to host your podcast, then get on their, still beta, podcasting programme.

This is the same as #1 really. It gives you an RSS feed, which is essential for people subscribing to your podcast. Linking to your SoundCloud page is not good enough. That just lets me listen in a browser, which is not the most convenient way of listening.

3. A link to the iTunes store page of your podcast is not good enough.

Unless your podcast is aimed solely at Apple users, you need to have a page somewhere – probably a website – that points, yes to iTunes, but also to your RSS feed. Because although you and all your friends listen on iPhones, most of the world doesn’t have one, and you might like them to listen too. In any case…

4. You probably also want to have a stream available to listen via a PC somewhere on a website.

According to one recent piece I read, 40% of popular podcasts can still be delivered via direct streams. Aside from anything else, having a website gives you a place to link to when you’re directing people to back episodes, or to put detailed show notes and relevant links. There is no easy way to share podcasts across ecosystems at the moment, so directing other users via your site is perhaps the best way. So an individual page for each podcast you make is a good idea.

And vitally, this also makes your show properly searchable. You do want people to find you via Google don’t you? (If you really wanted to go to town, then including a transcript of your show would be awesome, but also enormously time-consuming until technology can make a decent fist of it anyway, or there was a script in the first place).

5. Include show notes in your podcast.

There’s a place for them, and ideally they should say more than the name of your podcast. Different podcast players use or don’t use them to greater or lesser extents. But since you’re putting together some text for a page on the website (see #4 above), then put this in the show notes too. This should include links to other things you were talking about on your show. If you have advertisers then they’ll like you for linking to them too!

6. Make some artwork – and put some words in it.

Create a show logo for your podcast. We live in a visual world, and people will judge you a bit by your logo, so if you’re not able to make one, find someone who can make one for you. You can actually also create episode images which may be worthwhile, although not all podcast apps will make use of them. But be sure to include the name of your podcast in the logo. When a user is browsing visually in a podcasting app, they’re often presented with a sea of tiles, so ensure that your podcast is identifiable in that sea. You may think your logo is instantly identifiable, but to be honest, you’re not Coca Cola are you? So it really isn’t. For bonus points, ensure that what you call it in your logo matches what you call it in the text. This seems obvious, but you’d be surprised…

7. Unless there’s a very good reason, keep your podcasts alive in perpetuity.

To be honest, you’re probably going out of your way if you’re not making them permanently available. But it’s worth remembering that unless you’re already massive, there’s going to be a long-tail discovering your previous episodes, and depending on the timeliness of what your podcast is about, they may remain relevant for months or years.

Of course there may be rights arrangemnts that prevent this, or your may choose to monetise your back catalogue in some other way. But if you’re not doing those things, then why not make them permanently available?

8. Nobody is really happy with the name, and quite a few people aren’t happy with the technology, but don’t try to rebrand podcasts on your own.

You know who you are.

9. Can we all agree to ‘level’ our podcasts the same please?

This is getting better as production skills are improving, but nobody really wants to be dialling their volume up and down between different podcasts. There are lots of places online that will explain this.

10. Have you optimised the audio of your podcast?

Does your podcast need to be stereo? Does your mp3 need to be 320k? The answer to those questions will depend on what your podcast actually contains. But broadly speaking, if it’s simply two people speaking, then you probably don’t really need to be making a stereo podcast, so downmix it to mono, and save bandwidth for all concerned. On the other hand, if your podcast is all about music (and you have the appropriate rights to include it), then leave it as stereo and at a decent compression level.

Oh, and if you’re planning on dropping the occassional video into your podcast stream, think twice about including a 30 minute 1080p clip in your feed. It might look lovely on your tablet, but it’s going to fill a lot of your listeners’ smartphones, and they may not appreciate a 0.5GB video on their 16GB smartphone without warning.

US Podcasting Developments

Like many people since last weekend I’ve been bingeing a series since last weekend. No not the new season of House of Cards, although I will be catching up with that very soon, but Alex Blumberg’s Startup podcast about how to build a startup podcasting company. Very meta.

It’s been sitting there on my phone for many months, unlistened to. But I was pushed into listening after I listened to a recent Slate Money – possibly my favourite podcast right now.

Slate has been busily developing a burgeoning podcast business. Although they’ve been making podcasts for a long time now, in the post-Serial world, things are really taking off. The high CPMs (cost per thousand – the rate that advertisers pay) that podcasts can charge advertisers, the spin-off live events, and the flexibility that audio offers are all being snatched up.

Andy Bowers runs Slate’s podcasting business, and he was on this episode of Slate Money talking about their new “platform” – Panoply. They’re partnering with a number of blue-chip podcast providers with some big names like The New York Times Magazine and Huffington Post, to provide facilities, editorial support and I suspect mostly, advertising sales.

They’ve built a strong podcasting business, but this perhaps allows them to scale it more, and drive listening.

[Side note: I’m not sure about the word “platform”. I think of platforms as new or bespoke technologies. If they were removing mp3 versions of podcasts and using some new technology that embedded imagery, provided metrics about how much of a podcast was actually played, or other “beyond podcast” technologies, then I think “platform” would be right. In reality, I think this is a “podcasting network.” Your mileage may vary.]

And they’re not the only ones. There’s the “Startup” business that has been honestly documented in the podcast I’ve just been listening, and there’s mighty Kickstarter success, Radiotopia (who recently published some interesting numbers about their success to date). Beyond that there are a myriad of different networks of different sizes and specialisms out there.

These would seem to be good times for podcasters.

But I’d like to see more brand advertising on podcasts. The advertisers I’ve personally experienced so far have been direct response advertisers – enter a coupon code for a free trial or money off. So I know all about Audible, Square Space, Mail Chimp and Harry’s – which isn’t even available in the UK. But I’m hearing fewer advertisers who are building brands over the longer period – “You might not be buying a car now, but next time you do, you’ll want a BMW,” or “Why not try our new flavour of Coke?” Neither of these are transactions that you’re likely to complete online. Yet a vast amount of advertising is actually this sort of thing. It’s not trackable via entering a discount code on a website. It just plants the idea that next time you’re thirsty, you’ll drink a Coke rather than a Pepsi.

To help achieve this, another interesting development is that Triton Digital and Edison Research are launching metrics for podcasts. They claim that it is to precisely support this kind of advertising model than big brand advertisers need (they get it from their other media).

Triton and Edison’s aims are bold, and to be welcomed. But I wouldn’t under-estimate the technological challenges of this. The RAIN article above says that there’ll be a combination of client and server side measurements. This suggests perhaps a panel with an apps on their phones or computers to measure listening, allied with data supplied by the podcast providers. Neither is a straightforward task, and the latter suggests that only providers who sign up with the pair will be measured. (Ordinarily you might measure the non-subscribing outlets, but just not publish the data to give them a free ride).

All of this raises a few questions for me:

For these businesses to scale, podcasts need to be made easier to listen to. What are they doing to achieve that? And as I mentioned the other day, there’s the Android problem. Is there an over-arching technical solution to this? A way we can listen on a multiplicity of devices, and importantly, share that audio with others. I’m convinced that shareability is key to podcasting’s growth.

Much of what is happening is, by and large, all happening in the US. What about the rest of the world? Yes, in the UK we speak English too, but there are only so many US political gabfests or whatever that I want to hear! Podcasting is still really driven by radio broadcasters, and the BBC in particular. Crowd-funding notwithstanding, I’m not sure that there is quite the range of advertisers buying into podcasting in the UK or elsewhere in the world, as there is the US.

So the common theme, if there is one, among these developments is that these new businesses are all coming from an NPR background. Does that impact on NPR’s audiences in the longer term? At the moment many of the big podcasts air on NPR stations, but over time that will change. And the NPR audience (or Radio 4 in the UK), is only a fraction of the audio-listening audience. Yes they are wealthy, which is why everyone is clustering around them, but true scale is going to be achieved via mass-market. Who’s targeting the wider population?

I’m excited about the future of podcasting, but I wouldn’t pretend that there aren’t some big challenges.

In particular, I’d like to see more non-broadcaster activity in the UK. Audioboom has made some movements in that area, with its recent deal with Russell Brand (ironically then getting a broadcast on conventional radio via Xfm). But it’s not clear to me yet what Audioboom’s business model really is. It’s certainly changing though.

Then we had The Guardian pull out of a lot of podcasts last year, just around the time that the US podcasting boom was underway. Will they re-evaluate a bit? I note that they’ve just launched a Startup-style behind the scenes podcast documenting an attempt to properly engage the public over Climate Change.

And podcasts are certainly feeding back into radio. According to David Hepworth in his Guardian Guide radio column this week, Radio 4 is looking for its own version of Serial, although it may not be offering quite the same budgets as that series had. At an event at the BBC Radio Theatre earlier this evening, The Media Show’s Steve Hewlett asked Dana Chivvis, producer of Serial, how much it cost. She didn’t know, or wouldn’t say, but spoke of at least two full-time salaries for 15 months plus more production costs – including her own – beyond that. It was not cheap, and they were fortunate to have the backing of the behemoth that is This American Life, even if at 6 million downloads an episode, it has now overtaken its mother-brand.

The really interesting thing is just how important audio remains, with so much of what’s happening in technology revolving around it.

Podcasts: The Android Problem

Podcasting

A piece on Digiday examines the undeniable fact that listening to podcasts is heavily skewed towards Apple’s products, despite there being significantly more Android devices in the market.

Now we know that not all things are equal: iPhone owners spend more on average – probably not surprising because they tend to be more expensive devices, meaning that their owners are generally richer.

But by and large, podcasts are free, so what is there to explain the difference?

Well many podcasts are aimed at a more middle-class listener – someone, again, who’s likely to own an iPhone. But I’m not going to tar every podcast on the planet with the “middle class” brush. In any case “middle class” means different things to different people. So that’s not the answer.

No, it’s clearly the case that a 360 degree ecosystem like Apple’s, means that it’s easier for their users to enjoy podcasts. The iTunes Store kickstarted podcasts, and their very name implies that you need an iPod (or iPhone) to listen.

Consider this: listen to the average US podcast, and in the bit at the end where they urge you to subscribe, or review the podcast (sensible – you might be listening to a stream that someone has shared), they only ever talk about iTunes:

“Find on us in the iTunes Store”; “Rate us in iTunes”; “Give us a review.”

The best you might get is something like, “or listen to us via your favourite podcasting app.” Stitcher might be the only non-Apple brand that gets regularly mentioned.

While there are non-Apple podcasting apps available in iOS, their usage probably pales into insignificance compared to the default app. A bit like default email apps or browsers, users mightn’t even be aware that there are choices. Perhaps only hardcore podcast listeners seeking some significant extra functionality are seeking out the third party wares.

So with Apple it’s a one stop shop. They have the store and the app installed by default. Any self-respecting podcast must appear in iTunes.

But where does that leave Android?

There’s a suggestion in the Digiday piece that Google could launch its own podcast app, making it a default part of Android. There are some benefits:

– There’d be significant discovery in the Play store. The growth in audiences of podcasts could be significant.
– Google could sell audio advertising around podcasts. They do know how to do advertising.

But there’d be disadvantages too:

– As the Digiday piece says, some podcasts that are earning as much as $50 CPMs – personalised live-read ads go a long way. Google would probably bring those prices down. Is that helpful for a burgeoning industry that has to work to arrive at its own monetisation models?
– Would inserting skippable/unskippable ads a la YouTube, mean that you had to use the Google Podcast app to listen?
– How would that work for podcasts which already have a bigger iPhone audience? Monetising only one part of the audience doesn’t work. YouTube works the same on every platform, but podcasts in their current form are simple files.
– What about the third-party app industry? Would Google’s entry dismantle it (as it largely killed the third-party RSS feed readers when Google Reader came along, only to nearly leave everyone high and dry when they later killed it)?
– Most manufacturers install their own apps/skins, so there’s not guarantee that Google’s app would be visible.

As a massive advocate of podcasts, I think Google would do well to step carefully into this arena. I’d certainly love to see podcasts incorporated into the Google Play Store. At one stroke there’d be massive discoverability, and when directing potential listeners/subscribers, podcast-makers could just say: “Go to the iTunes or Play store to subscribe/review/download.” It’s a much neater message. (Yes, I realise that this ignores Windows Phone, Blackberry, etc.)

From the store, it would simply have to prompt you to download a podcast app if you don’t already have one, or use your favourite app. The hooks are built into Android so this should be relatively painless. I’ll leave it for others to determine the most equitable way to do this with regard to the multiplicity of podcasting apps.

As for advertising? Well that’s interesting.

On the one hand, it’d certainly help grow the online ad audio advertising market if Google was to enter the fray. I’d envisage something similar to the YouTube model of Google selling ads, and sharing revenues with the podcast producers. And having a way to monetise podcasts has long been issue that many have had with Apple.

Then there’s the age old issue of “proof” that someone has actually heard a podcast advertisement. Advertising methodologies these days have to go out of the way to prove that a consumer really experienced the ad; they didn’t fast-forward at 30x speed or whatever. Plus there could be visual elements to those ads on device screens as Absolute Radio does with its InStream proposition. Google could provide a solution to this, demonstrating that the ads were listened to, and weren’t just backed up on a phone’s micro SD card, unlistened to.

But by no means would all want to take part. If you’ve developed a valuable way to monetise your podcasts – Slate springs to mind – then it’d up to you to choose to adopt it. Furthermore, it’d be odd if I didn’t get ads listening on iOS because Apple doesn’t support them, but I do on Android (I realise that these kinds of inequalities do happen in the two ecosystems). And we’re seeing elsewhere, some apps offering “exclusive” podcasts. The financial models are manyfold. So it’s not clear to me how it could work technically across multiple platforms without creating some new kind of “Podcast v2” technology.

Furthermore, let’s not forget that many podcasts are actually streamed directly from websites. Does everyone switch to Google’s player to incorporate their advertising? Podcasts are versatile and that’s one of their strengths.

Then you have podcasts that either work on a paid subscription basis, or offer extra backer-only recordings for those who contribute. How do you work with these? (To be fair, no two set of people seem to do this the same anyway, and it’s always a bit of a technical hurdle).

In general, I think making podcasts “easier” is essential for their future. But I’ve never seen a clear way to do it. I’m not certain that fragmenting the market is the way to go.

Adding a podcast section to the Google Play Store would seem to be the first thing to do.

However I can’t see Google “just” doing that. Shipping a generic app and creating a new ad market? Well that’s a bit more complicated.