Grow the pie: Podcast revenue seems to be growing fast enough for everyone to get a slice

To absolutely no one’s surprise, I agree with this. Kafka articulated something I’ve been trying to say whenever I’ve written about the related issue of programmatic podcast advertising — but obviously, a whole lot better than I ever could — which is to essentially point out that rapid growth, as well as the implementation of technology and practices that push hard for rapid growth, often come at the expense of quality and general thoughtfulness of a space.

I’ve come to feel about podcasting the way I’ve long felt about a certain up-and-coming city in the American inter-mountain west (which will remain nameless for reasons that will become clear): I love it a whole ton, and I love that loads more people are beginning to love it too, but maybe we should start shit-talking the place before the tourists get here and drive the market out of whack. Continue reading “Grow the pie: Podcast revenue seems to be growing fast enough for everyone to get a slice”

Apple’s new analytics for podcasts mean a lot of change (some good, some inconvenient) is on the way

“It may look obscure,”tweeted Gimlet’s Matt Lieber, “but this is the biggest thing to happen to the podcast business since Serial first went nuclear.” Lieber was talking about a major announcement that came out of the podcast session at WWDC, the Apple developer conference, which took place on Friday. It was a piece of business delivered with relatively little fanfare — par for the course, I think, with the nature of Apple’s historically chill relationship with podcasts —  and Lieber’s right. This is a very big deal, and a lot of change is on the way.

Here’s the headline: Apple is finally opening up in-episode analytics for podcasts. The data will be anonymized, consistent with Apple’s general stance on privacy, and the new analytics layer is scheduled to arrive with the iOS 11 update this fall. This means that podcast publishers will, at long last, receive data that tells them just how much of their episodes are actually being listening to — within the Apple Podcast app, at least, which is still largely understood to serve the majority of listening. (Estimates, however sampled, tend to range between 60 and 80 percent). Previously, podcast consumption was chiefly conceptualized based on downloads, a black box metric that’s criticized as lacking the level of granularity that are table stakes for advertisers buying on digital platforms in 2017. With this announcement, that measurement issue — long articulated as the defining problem of the medium — can finally be meaningfully interrogated, with many believing that the hurdle impeding advertisers from committing more dollars to the space can be thrown out the window.

But some are also arguing this change will bring a mixed bag of consequences, and in some ways, the new data puts the space at risk of snuffing out various dynamics that make it special. Which is to say, while there’s a hope that this will finally lead to podcasting realizing its full economic potential, the shadow of Web 2.0 looms large.

The WWDC session also contained a few other useful announcements, including a design overhaul for Podcasts app and new extensions to feed specifications that would give publishers more control over how they can present episodes within RSS feeds. Among other things, publishers will now have the ability to bundle episodes by season and signal which episodes are actual content versus extras like trailers. Noted Apple writer Jason Snell has a good rundown on this over at his blog, and you can check out the spec document here. And as I mentioned last week, this is probably what the redesign looks like, courtesy of this Reddit thread. (Once again, your mileage may vary with sourcing Reddit.)

But let’s get back to the analytics stuff. Since Friday’s announcement — which you can watch in full at this link, but only on the Safari browser, because Apple — there’s been a ton of writing appraising the matter, and in case you’d like a quick primer, I recommend this write-up by Recode’s Peter Kafka, which also contains screenshots of the upcoming analytics dashboard. (I’m going spelunking in some rabbit holes here, so a primer this is not.)

Here, we’ll attend to wonkier questions: What does this new analytics universe portend? How will the podcast business change? If so, who wins and who loses?

I wasn’t born a prophet, so I don’t know how exactly this will play out, but I do have some notes and assessments on a bunch of the key issues. This write-up is by no means comprehensive, and I’ll be exploring more questions in future issues as we deal with the consequences of announcements. For now, let’s jump in, and we’ll move through a bunch of topics.

Just double-checking: Is this really a big deal?

Yep, I’m pretty certain it’s massive, but it’s worth weighing the counter-argument. Even if Apple serves a majority of all listeners, the argument goes, it doesn’t account for the whole listening universe, and as such there might be muted effects to how this ends up moving the way business is being done. I’m not sure I’d buy much stock in that view: first, not only does most listening quantitatively happen on Apple, the company is qualitatively synonymous with the space. Second, there still doesn’t appear to be a strong alternative to Apple with a big enough consolidated market share that could meaningfully challenge (or avoid) the way Apple defines audience measurement. Which means that, in June 2017, it’s still feasible to think that whenever Apple says jump, most folks are still pretty much going to make like Durant.

How will the new analytics layer change the way we currently understand podcast audiences in the aggregate?

A couple of parts to this:

(1) Many believe that an ecosystem-wide audience resizing is in the cards. Because the vast majority of podcast audience appraisal is conducted based on downloads — and because we don’t actually know what happens to an episode after it’s downloaded — the way podcast audiences are represented, understood, and sold is almost certainly going to change. Just about everyone I spoke to frames this in terms of some form of downsizing, which makes intuitive sense, because there will always be some percentage of episodes being downloaded that are left unlistened (and ads left unserved). But the positive spin I’m given is that this change nevertheless comes with a higher level of accountability, and the gains in trust from advertisers will likely lead to much greater gains over the long term.

As Matt Turck, Panoply’s chief revenue officer, puts it, “I’m assuming we will see listener numbers fall short of download numbers; however, the benefit to making analytics far less mysterious should vastly outweigh the concern.”

(2) That said, there remains the possibility that the new in-episode analytics layer might reveal inconvenient truths about audience behavior. I’ve been told there are a few non-Apple tools and platforms (like Spotify and some third-party listening apps) with in-episode analytics already in the market, and while they only supporting a minority share of listening, the consumption data they’ve been collecting suggests there’s nothing especially revolutionary hiding in those new numbers.

Aaron Lammer, of Longform and Stoner, is one among the skeptical. “I would push back against the idea that there is some great insight lurking in these analytics,” he said when we chatted over Twitter. “As people who’ve set up elaborate app-based analytics hooks where you can track everything will tell you-there isn’t that much interesting… I’d rather look [at] it as standardization rather than revolutionary shift.”

That point on standardization, I think, is really important to file away in your head.

(3) Bryan Moffett, the COO of National Public Media, made a good observation on how the proliferation of dynamic ad insertion technology might mean the transition to an in-episode analytics world would still contain tricky imprecision.

To quote him in full:

A dynamic ad server will serve up many different versions of a single episode. They could vary in length by a few minutes or even more. For example, if one user gets an episode of TED Radio Hour with four dynamic :30 sponsorships and a :30 promotion block in its hour of content, but another user for some reason gets the same episode with just two :30 sponsors, the length difference is over a minute and the content is not aligned minute by minute for each episode.

Apple’s analytics rolls up all listening to a given episode and averages, so there is bound to be some imprecision. It’s not a lot, and it’s certainly a better world than the one we live in now.

It’s never easy shifting gears.

How will the podcast business be affected?

Time will tell, obviously. But here’s the range of the thinking out there:

(1) As I mentioned, there is a sense from some bigger publishers that this new analytics layer will finally allow them to kick open conversations that may meaningfully unlock long coveted brand advertising dollars. Contrary to direct response advertisers, whose intended outcomes (and measurement methodologies) additionally revolve around conversions off promo codes, brand advertisers are generally thought to require a higher level of trust in the impressions being reported back to them. Podcasting’s black-box download-oriented measurement universe has long been described as the primary hurdle preventing brand advertisers from allocating more dollars to the medium, and it is believed that Apple’s in-episode analytics are a significant first step forward in opening up conversations between brand advertisers and podcast publishers across the system (conversations that have to do with perception as much as actualities).

(2) But how does this development affect the direct response side of the podcast advertising business? There’s a general belief among the folks I’ve talked to that direct response advertisers, or performance-based advertisers, will likely be stable, though there appears to be suspicion that the new analytics layer presents yet another horizon of opportunities for those advertisers and their respective agencies to haggle more over prices. I’m also being told that there are expectations of some oncoming turbulence/fluctuations in price points, as those advertisers go through the process of figuring out how to integrate this new data layer into their current practices.

(3) There are two versions of the apocalyptic view on the business end. The first takes the shape of some worries about ad-skipping, and what the new analytics layer is going to reveal about the extent of this behavior. (For more background on this, read this Wall Street Journal from last summer). The end-times scenario is said to be one where it’s discovered that podcast ads are skipped over at such a volume and intensity as to kill their value. On this front, the responses seem to generally track along the built-in split between brand advertising and performance-based advertising; there is a sense that, even if there is a problem, it would mostly affect the former, while the latter would remain somewhat stable, because conversions are still taken to be more important than impressions. Again, the positive spin I’m served ties back to a sense of greater accountability that the new analytics layer brings into publisher-advertiser interactions: we’ll know who is actually providing value to advertisers, and we’ll know who isn’t doing so as much. As Midroll chief revenue officer Lex Friedman said, “Podcasters who are confident that people are listening to their ads should be very happy about this.”

The second apocalyptic argument presents a scenario where podcast CPMs plummet, ultimately leading to the collapse of the market. This view generally draws on a parallel between podcasts and what happened to blogs once the format started experiencing waves of ad tech development. Personally, I can’t quite see the specifics of how this move by Apple could bring those dynamics to podcasting just yet. My understanding of the plummeting blog CPMs pegs the phenomenon to the continuous structural devaluing of blog advertising real estate brought on emerging ad technologies that gave advertisers (and ad tech companies) unchecked leverage. And while I think the broader risk of podcasts possibly going down the road of blogs is absolutely real, I don’t have a sense that this new analytics layer alone automatically leads to a devaluing of podcast advertising real estate. If anything, Acast’s recent rollout of a programmatic podcast advertising product is more likely to incur those types of effects, should the tool ever get traction — this development from Apple strikes me as a step forward that’s small enough to stop short from these effects.

Who wins, who loses?

(1) Obviously, publishers who have made a practice of inflating download numbers will get checked — though the counterargument that all metrics, without active third-party verification, can be gamed over time is certainly a prudent one.

(2) An argument can be made that this system-wide shift to a new analytics standard would usher in a weeding-out period. Podcasts delivering strong ad value will get additional data to strengthen their appeal for more advertising dollars, and podcasts not doing so will be flushed out of the ad market. It would mean that high-performing podcasts would be in a better position to extract more value, while not-so-high-performing podcasts would have a harder time accessing advertising dollars.

(3) It should be considered that whatever audience readjustments happen will probably disproportionately and negatively impact smaller podcasters’ ability to derive advertising revenue. Which is to say, just as how every publisher experiences the turbulence of discovering that its meaningful listening audience size is probably going to be smaller than its downloads, smaller podcasts will be whipped around harder, and in some (if not most) cases, that could lead to those shows falling beneath a certain threshold for advertising consideration. That’s bad for podcasts with already relatively small but meaningfully engaged audiences. In these cases, there are presumably two available moves: first, lean deeper into a niche that maintains a specific appeal for relevant advertisers, and second, pursue other non-advertising revenue streams.

I suppose, generally speaking, it’s worth keeping in mind that advertisers need to be served value too, and also, advertising isn’t necessarily the only business model available to publishers.

Content considerations. Metrics and measurements have long informed the way programs are created, and we should probably expect to see the dynamic express itself further with the new analytics layer. A couple of threads to consider:

(1) Knowing just how much of episodes are being listened to presents a much better feedback loop to improve not just editorial products, but also advertising products. And there is also the likely effect that we’ll see the blossoming of new formats, genres, and show structures that come from playing toward what the new metrics tells us.

(2) On the flip side, there should also be room for the more general worry that we’re sliding into a world where metrics outweigh creative decisions. I think there’s always room for that concern, regardless of whatever metrics are available — there will, to some extent, always be operators looking to play to the numbers rather than actually use the numbers to make better work.

(3) I’m pretty drawn to the question, raised here on Twitter by The Atlantic’s Alexis Madrigal, of whether increased data granularity within a medium would lead to the detriment of experimentation within that medium. Instinctively, I feel as if there is some truth to this, but I also suspect experimentation has less to do with the available metric universe and more to do with the ways in which compensation is structured off those metrics. (A quick tangent: I also find myself wondering how “experimental” material is defined; personally, I tend to grade experimental-ness relative to however the medium currently behaves, and think experimental programming will exist in any format regardless of where it is in its life cycle. I think the more interesting question here is about the conditions under which “experimentation” can exist within high-budget and high-scale productions.)

I’m not even close to being done, but I’ll leave it here for now. Obviously, this enormous and complex development contains many, many layers, and I’ll continue to dig around and write about them in future issues. (I mean, that’s why Hot Pod exists, right?)

Here are some of the questions I’ll be thinking about:

  • To what extent will podcasting go down the road of blogs, and what does that even mean? And should podcasting end up experiencing those same dynamics, what are the differences based on audio as a media format?
  • How will the podcast industry change? Will the professionalizing publishers benefit as they hoped for? What will happen to smaller and indie podcasters?
  • How will podcasting change for audiences?
  • Will we see the industry create more jobs for producers, developers, and assorted media folk?
  • How will the development impact what I’ve described as the bifurcation of the space, with podcasts as extension-of-blogging on one side and podcasts as extension-of-radio on the other?

As for my own normative view on all of this, I’m still figuring it out. I do think that the podcast industry is indeed still comparatively tiny, as Recode’s Peter Kafka points out, with podcast ad spending projected to only be about $250 million this year. While it’s growing at a solid and steady rate, it’s still peanuts compared to where radio (about $14.1 billion) is today, and there’s more to be gained and lost from changing how business is being done today. And like Kafka, I do think change was going to happen no matter what.

Also, as I mentioned on Twitter, I find myself skeptical about the nostalgia and privileging of the status quo. But that’s a story for another day.

Roman Mars, Esquire. New Hampshire Public Radio’s Civics 101 has some new competition in the form of a somewhat surprising side project from the 99% Invisible chief: “What Trump Can Teach Us About Con Law” is an explainer podcast that features Mars being taught the basics of constitutional law by UC Davis professor Elizabeth Joh based on ongoing developments in the current iteration of the White House. I’m told that the podcast is officially produced under the Radiotopia banner, which brings the number of Radiotopians with two podcasts up to two (the other is Hrishikesh Hirway, who makes both Song Exploder and the West Wing Weekly for the indie podcast collective). Mars’ new podcast comes mere days before the launch of another new Radiotopia podcast, Ear Hustle. That’s scheduled to roll out later this week.

Career spotlight. Spend enough time in the New York podcast scene — or any major city with a podcast scene, really — and you’re bound to bump into someone who came up through WNYC, which was once the city’s only major institution dealing with narrative radio. In this week’s Career Spotlight, we’re bumping into Leital Molad, who currently leads podcast development for the Pierre Omidyar-backed First Look Media.

Hot Pod: What do you do?
Leital Molad: I’m the executive producer of podcasts at First Look Media. In a nutshell, I develop and produce podcasts for The Intercept (First Look’s investigative news site) and Topic (our entertainment studio). Right now we have two podcasts in production, Politically ReActive and Intercepted. I oversee those shows week to week, working with the producers, giving editorial notes, and liaising with our business team on the marketing side. The other big part of my job is taking pitches for new shows, creating pilots, and bringing projects to launch. Since I got to First Look last October, we launched three shows: Maeve in America, Intercepted and Missing Richard Simmons.
HP: Where did you start, and how did you end up in this position?
Molad: I started as an intern at WNYC in 2000. The next year I got a full time job as a production assistant for Studio 360 with Kurt Andersen, and spent the next 15 years working on that show, ultimately running it as senior producer. My last year at WNYC I launched and EP’ed a health podcast, Only Human. I started thinking about my next career move and figured that this podcast renaissance was a great time to break out of my cozy public radio cocoon and try something new. So I took the leap and went to First Look — a media startup that was just getting into podcasting.
HP: How did you learn to do the job?
Molad: WNYC was an amazing place to learn everything I know about radio and audio. I got to wear many hats, ranging from basic show production — booking guests, writing scripts, cutting tape — to reporting my own stories, producing documentaries, and running live events. And I learned a ton about launching new shows after working on Only Human, which has been very helpful in my new job. Also, having been in the trenches with audio production (which I love), I can be a better manager of producers and engineers. Getting new shows off the ground at a startup often means being able to jump in on production when needed, and that’s been invaluable.
HP: When you started out, what did you think wanted to do?
Molad: After college, I didn’t land on what I wanted to do until I was brainstorming with a family friend who offered to help with some career advice. He asked me, “If you could have anyone’s job, who would it be?” Right away I said, “Terry Gross.” He said, “Well, that’s what you need to do!” I had been a DJ at my college station and an avid listener of public radio, and those two things just clicked. I wasn’t sure how to become the next Terry Gross; eventually I figured I should go to journalism school. So I came to New York for grad school at NYU, and then, very luckily, landed the internship at Studio 360. My dream of hosting evolved into an appreciation and desire for producing, which I fell in love with.  Maybe I’ll still host a show some day, we’ll see!  (You know, they say anyone can start a podcast with a laptop and a microphone…)

Molad adds that she’s on the lookout for more female voices, and that interested parties should get in touch. You can find Leital on Twitter at @leitalm.

Bites

  • ESPN has rolled out the podcast feed for its upcoming 30 for 30 audio adaptation. The first episode is set to drop on June 27. (website)
  • Malcolm Gladwell’s Revisionist History is coming back on Thursday. (NY Times)
  • WBUR is launching a storytelling podcast aimed at kids. (WBUR)
  • Looks like the Chapo Trap House team has bagged themselves a book deal with the Simon & Schuster imprint Touchstone Books. On a related note, I’m hearing that the podcast channel is increasingly fruitful prospecting ground for book publishers. (Twitter)

Apple, podcasting’s dominant (and mostly benign) middleman, is rebooting how it delivers shows

Welcome to Hot Pod, a newsletter about podcasts. This is issue 122, published June 6, 2017.

I sunk a lot of hours this weekend trying to write a column on “Peak Podcasting,” following some inspiration from a tweet by the esteemed Lizzie O’Leary — which speaks to a broad feeling that I’ve been seeing a lot of — but I’m going to postpone that discussion to next week. For now, let’s talk WWDC, Gimlet, and JSON.

WWDC. The big Apple developer’s conference — which serves as a periodic hub for major product and upgrade announcements from the tech colossus — started in San Jose yesterday, and there are two big things you probably need to know.

(1) We’re getting a redesigned Podcasts app that’ll come with the announced iOS 11 update. Official details are scant at the moment, and while your mileage may vary with sourcing Reddit, there are a couple of screenshots of the new app floating about from this thread, which also hint at potential upcoming livestreaming tool support. Meanwhile, on the WWDC schedule, there’s an Apple Podcasts session due to take place on Friday, and it notes in the description: “iOS 11 upgrades the Apple Podcasts app to support to new feed structures for serialized shows.” From screenshots coming out of Twitter, it looks as if this in part means bundling by season, and providing a little more control over how episodes are presented to listeners over the feed. (It’s the small stuff that goes a really long way.)

As a sidenote, it’s notable that these changes seem to be particularly focused on better serving serialized shows, to the point it even shows up in the official language. Such shows — like Serial, S-Town, Missing Richard Simmons, and so on — do tend to be the medium’s breakout hits, though they are merely one of many show structures that exist in the space. Anyway, there’s probably a lot more to come on this; I’ll be on the lookout.

The iOS 11 update is scheduled to drop sometime this fall, alongside the new iPhone.

(2) You might already be aware of this, given that it was the closer: Apple finally unveiled its own foray into smart speakers, which comes in the form of a bulbous appliance rather awkwardly called the HomePod. (Apropos of nothing, it might time to rename this newsletter. I’m taking suggestions.)

It goes without saying that Apple finally breaking into the smart speaker category — and bringing with it the full body of its media ecosystem — is a big, chunky story with a lot to parse out. Now, I’m no technology journalist, but I will say that I’m deeply curious to see how Apple’s move here will add competition to the market currently dominated by the Amazon Echo. Some indicators suggest that Amazon has built a pretty far lead in this category with its line of fairly affordable smart speakers, and given the fact that Apple’s HomePod is priced at $349 to start (for reference, the Echo Dot goes for about $50), it seems as if Apple will be sliding into the market on the luxury end and will at least initially play more toward its moneyed base, which was more or less what it did with the smartphone. While it’s understandable to replicate that move, it does mean that whatever improvements the smart speaker brings to the podcast listening experience — and whatever listening gains for publishers and podcasters might come from it — we’re probably not going to be seeing much of a substantial broadening of the active listening base from a demographic perspective, at least not initially. Indeed, if anything, we’re probably going to see a deepening within the category of audiences already predisposed to podcasts.

Nevertheless, it’s worthwhile to think through the big picture here: The higher aspirational register for this emerging set of products is the seeding of an audio-first computing experience, one of the alternative beachfronts for the “ambient computing” version of the consumer tech future highlighted in Walt Mossberg’s final column. To play this out further, the long-term structural value that this potential shift brings is one that ultimately liberates the growth trajectory of on-demand audio content from being principally tethered to the mobile device toward a trajectory that extends across whatever vessels audio-first computing is going to be channeled through in the future.

All right, that’s a whole lot of horizon-staring chin-stroking, so let’s kick it back a notch and talk present-day industry scuttlebutt. (Read the Nieman Lab writeup if you’re looking for more keynote takeaways for publishers.)

Gimlet makes a curious acquisition. In what is probably a sign of the times, Gimlet announced this week that it’s bringing on a new show from outside its trendy Gowanus walls: The Pitch, which is basically Shark Tank but a podcast. The show is made and hosted by Josh Muccio, a Florida-based entrepreneur.

The Pitch was first published in 2015, when Muccio developed the show in partnership with Silicon Valley venture capitalist Sheel Mohnot. The show was able to carve out a niche audience during its initial run, and as the story goes, after the first season, Muccio decided to take it in a different direction, redeveloping the concept and raising a small production team around the enterprise that included, among others, Devon Taylor, a freelancer who worked on Radiotopia’s Millennial.

Muccio shopped the second season around different networks — a common practice these days, in case you weren’t aware — before Gimlet ultimately moved to pick it up. That happened earlier this year, and I’m told that the acquisition process took about three weeks after Gimlet officially expressed interest in the project. As part of the deal, Muccio joined the company full time in early March, and Taylor, who by the way cofounded the now defunct podcast review site The Timbre (R.I.P.), was brought in full time as well.

The Pitch marks the first independent podcast that Gimlet has absorbed into its ranks, though it isn’t the company’s first acquisition. (The network brought over Science Vs, along with host Wendy Zukerman, from the Australian Broadcasting Corporation last year.) In many ways, it’s a bit of an unexpected addition for the nearly three-year-old company, which has thus far built a strong reputation off a portfolio of highly produced, narrative-driven programming — you know, the kind of stuff you’d lump into a pile with This American Life and 99% Invisible. The Pitch feels considerably different from the rest of Gimlet’s portfolio…though, if pressed, I’m not quite sure what I mean by that. I quite enjoy the podcast, but I have a bit of trouble seeing how it fits into the Gimlet brand and house sound. And as I dig deeper into my gut reaction to the news, I can’t quite tell whether my response says more about my prejudices about reality programming — which I have a distinct palate for, by the way, one that I keep separate from the rest of my entertainment diet — or my own conceptions of what the Gimlet house style is supposed to be.

Matt Lieber, president of Gimlet, appears to hold a broader definition of that house style than I do. “I think it’s pretty consistent with our strategy,” he said when we spoke by phone Monday. Gimlet shows, according to Lieber, are largely defined by, among other things, a sense of curiosity, high production quality, and a strong point of view — all things, he argues, that The Pitch shares. Plus, the ambition of the whole reality programming dimension, and how it mingles with these core Gimlet principles, is a big part of what drew Gimlet to the project. “It combines the best of reality TV — that tension and excitement — and the best of narrative storytelling,” Lieber said. “Reality has always been a category we’ve been intrigued by. If you think about it, the first season of StartUp had some of those qualities.”

That StartUp connection, I think, is pretty meaningful. One way of reading the company’s history is to see it as having built an initial core audience off a show, StartUp, that appeals to those who are drawn to stories about entrepreneurship and technology. From this position, The Pitch, then, is an expansion of that genre offering within Gimlet’s portfolio, one that deepens the available product range for the entrepreneurship-oriented audience — and, subsequently, its extractable value for advertisers. Think about the kinds of people who listen to StartUp and podcasts about entrepreneurship, and then think about the types of advertisers who value that set of ears, and then think about capitalism and the resulting CPM rate. (Speaking of which, I’d love to tie NPR’s How I Built This into this somehow.)

One more thing before I move on. I was curious as to why Muccio decided to move onto a network, why he eschewed independence. Here’s his response:

1. The #1 way people find out about podcasts is on other podcasts. So the right network presents an opportunity for audience growth that would take years to build as an independent.

2. Advertising. Some networks have horrible CPMs and are known for really bad ads. But Gimlet is not one of them. They’re one of the best in the biz. If not the best. We sold our own ads for The Pitch. It’s really REALLY hard to do well. This wasn’t an area I was willing to compromise so I’m lucky to be joining a network that is really crushing it on the advertising front. Bottom line? Ads on The Pitch are higher quality and more profitable.

3. Focus and specialization. I wore all the hats as an independent producer. I did pretty damn well considering, but still you can only be so good at any one thing when you have 50 other things you also need to be good at. Joining a network has allowed me to focus on building a great show, refining my skills as a host and building a team that can carry the vision of the show with me. Ultimately building something with a team of amazing people is more fulfilling to me than building something in a silo.

The Pitch debuts under new management on June 14. There will also be a crossover episode with the StartUp podcast on that day.

Side note. Deadline reported a new development on the upcoming Homecoming TV adaptation: Julia Roberts is currently in talks for the lead role, which was played by Catherine Keener in the podcast. The project looks like it’s still in its pretty early stages, so fans shouldn’t get too attached to the prospect of an adaptation just yet.

A directory, a list, a market. “Podcast discovery is broken,” goes the familiar critique, the opening gambit of most product pitches that hit my inbox. And it was as true two or three years ago as it is now — though as longtime readers might know, I’m wont to think of it mostly as a secondary issue, not one that’s fatally prohibitive to the long-term fate of the space. I imagine some will disagree. In any case, I still read every email that hits my inbox on the matter.

The latest of such gambits is something called PodSearch, and there is some reason to pay attention here. A project of Patty and Dave Newmark, proprietors of Newmark Advertising and longtime audio advertising operatives with strong relationships on the advertising side of the industry, PodSearch boasts a premise that’s so straightforward as to be blunt: It’s the Yellow Pages, but for podcasts.

There isn’t a ton about PodSearch that’s interesting from a design perspective, particularly on the business-to-consumer side. A lot of its touted features — search, personalization, top-show categorizations — are table stakes as far as digital products in 2017 are concerned, and there are some things about the interface that create an unnecessarily high level of friction for potential users, like requiring visitors to make an account before being to actually use the platform.

I see the theoretical value of the product for consumers, of course. Having a consolidated point of reference for the whole space that’s marginally more organized than Apple Podcasts (née iTunes) is nice, though perhaps not quite the drop of water in the desert it’s made out to be, and I’m partial to the view that more competition on the directory and search portal-level is always good for podcast discovery. However, execution matters more than ideas, as the old adage goes, and there’s a long road ahead for PodSearch to make a good first impression. (And second, and third, and fourteenth.)

That said, here are two things to consider:

(1) PodSearch has potential to create genuine value for advertisers. In researching this story, a few people brought up the way in which it might quietly solve a discovery problem of another kind: Advertisers and agencies, I’m told, currently have to do a fair bit of manual digging around to generate a list of podcasts (and their respective contact information for sponsorship inquiries) to potentially buy spots off, and so a directory that’s able to provide an easily digestible serving of the menu on offer, with the relevant contact information, would be useful for this community. And given the Newmarks’ expertise and history, I wouldn’t be surprised if they’re able to create a decent market on the advertiser side of the equation.

(2) One way that PodSearch is interesting to me is how it can serve as a vessel to get the most utility out of search engines for its listed podcasts writ large. When I spoke with Dave last week, he spoke of a meaningful volume search queries for terms relating to podcasts on a general level — “What is a podcast?”, “How do I listen to one?”, and so on — and how there isn’t much incentive for individual publishers to aggressively capitalize on those generic paid search terms. And so, by assuming the position of a wholesale podcast directory, PodSearch is able to make those spends on behalf of publishers and extract value from those broad queries for its listing participants. There’s a lot of juice in this fruit, and I’m compelled to see if the utility here can be appropriately realized.

In sum, I really do think there’s a lot more value for PodSearch to pursue a more explicit business-to-business path than one that also tacks on a business-to-consumer dimension. Solving discovery for everyday users is a tough and deeply nuanced problem in 2017, and as far as digital media categories are concerned, we live in a world with high thresholds for user experience expectations — and it’s only going to get higher.

Two more things to mull over in your own assessment about the service:

  • There’s a cost associated with listing on the directory ($9.99 a month, which might feel steep for most that are already paying comparable amounts for hosting), and a small cost for advertisers to access the aforementioned point-of-contact information ($19.99 a year). I’m told that the costs are to qualify leads on both sides, and I imagine it also generates revenue for the platform to keep the lights on, which is fair.
  • The Newmarks are kicking off PodSearch with some major publisher partnerships already in the bag; in the press outreach email, I was informed that the company is fielding sales chiefs from National Public Media, Public Media Marketing, Midroll, and Panoply to talk on the record about the initiative. We’re talking institutional support here; let’s see how that shakes out.

Developments over at HowStuffWorks. Back in March, it was reported that Will Pearson and Mangesh Hattikudur, who founded the online curiosity Mental Floss back in 2001, were leaving the company to develop a new podcast for HowStuffWorks. That project is now public: it’s called Part Time Genius, and it appears to be some combination of game show and a piece of education media. In other words, the show sounds a lot like Stephen Dubner’s Tell Me Something I Don’t Know, and it fits into HowStuffWorks’ wheelhouse pretty neatly.

Part Time Genius will launch with four full episodes in the feed. That happens on June 7.

Meanwhile, HowStuffWorks has also relaunched its popular Stuff Your Mom Never Told You podcast, almost half a year after the show’s previous hosts, Cristen Conger and Caroline Ervin, left the show to launch their own independent media company, Unladylike Media. (You can find my story on that, which touches on questions of ownership and network arrangements, can be found here.) The new setup features Emilie Aries and Bridget Todd in the hosting seat, and they will be based in Washington, DC.

“Replacing a host or hosts is not easy, especially when you consider that so much of what makes podcasting great is the personal connection between listeners and the hosts,” wrote Jason Hoch, the chief content officer of HowStuffWorks, through a PR rep about the transition. “We really wanted to take our time finding new hosts that could continue on with the show’s message, but we also wanted to make sure we were pushing ourselves to continue to evolve the show. We felt from the get-go that it was better to take our time finding the absolute best hosts for the show instead of rushing into this.”

Hoch added: “For any podcast, it does take some time to settle into a rhythm and build chemistry between co-hosts, producers and listeners. But this is also what makes podcasting so special — it’s analogous to finding a new friend. It builds over time.”

An uptick in support for a new podcast delivery format. I don’t spend a ton of time digging into the technical and infrastructural end of podcasts, and I’d like to be clear here that I only have a pedestrian understanding of the issues. But a recent string of announcements have caught my eye: Over the past week or so, a few third-party podcast apps, including Breaker, Fireside, and Cast, have all added support for the JSON Feed format. JSON is a data-interchange format, a way in which computers exchange information with one another, and JSON Feed is an RSS-like feed format built on top of it. The trend was written up by noted technology writer John Gruber at his site Daring Fireball, which is how I initially bumped into the story.

As far as I can tell, there’s some philosophical significance here among technologists who are developing tools for the podcast space. But I wanted to get a broad sense of what it means for those outside that category of people, and so I reached out to Leah Culver and Erik Michaels-Ober of Breaker to help explain some things to me.

The main takeaway? It’s largely a matter of efficiency, as the argument goes.

“JSON is generally more compact than XML,” the team wrote back. (XML is the format that provides the foundation for RSS which, as you might know, is currently the primary format of the podcast space.) “All things being equal, the JSON Feed could be transferred between two computers 27% faster and the transmission costs would be 27% lower. In a competitive marketplace, these types of cost savings are typically distributed in one or more of three ways: (1) returned to consumers, in the form of lower prices, (2), returned to shareholders, in the form of a dividend, and (3) reinvested in the business. Each of these has either direct or indirect benefits to consumers and podcasters. Essentially, the argument here is that efficiency is an end in itself. There no reason for computers to communicate more verbosely when they could communicate more concisely.”

They added: “Beyond efficiency, there are no new capabilities unlocked by JSON Feed. If all goes according to plan for JSON Feed, consumers and podcasters won’t notice that anything has changed—other than the podcast services they use have become cheaper or better, due to improved resource utilization.”

So, what’s listed here is actually an abbreviated version of a much longer Q&A with Michaels-Ober and Culver, which gets fairly wonky and technical. You can find the full discussion in this Google Doc.

Bites:

  • NPR’s Invisibilia returned for its third season last week, and this time around it boasts a unifying season-wide structure: playfully tethered to the idea of a “concept album,” this chunk of episodes will all revolve around the theme of concepts. (NPR)
  • Feral Audio, home of Harmontown, recently launched a comedy podcast focused entirely on stories and the happenings that go on in the Los Angeles neighborhood of Los Feliz. It’s a curious take on the whole locally-minded media thread; we’ll see if they actually harvest anything interesting out of the conceit. (Feral Audio)
  • Kids Listen, the loose collective that advocates for children’s programming in the podcast space, has a website now. Watch the space for upcoming initiatives and roster expansions by the group. (Kids Listen)
  • AudioBoom recently commissioned a study with Edison Research on listener demographics. It’s worth checking out in full, but here’s a data point that caught my eye: Only 22 percent of respondents reported that they currently have mail-order subscriptions to companies like Blue Apron, Birchbox, and Barkbox. That’s a lot lower than I would ordinarily think. (LinkedIn)
  • Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel has a podcast now…and, uh, I didn’t think much of it. (WBEZ)
  • Not directly podcast-related, but I loved reading this: “In well-mannered public radio, an airwaves war,” a story about WBUR and WGBH, which have struck up a fascinating coexistence in the public radio-friendly city of Boston. (The Boston Globe)

Proudly powered by WordPress | Theme: Baskerville 2 by Anders Noren.

Up ↑