Richard Giles 2.0

I’ve been listening to a lot of Podcasts lately. When I say a lot, I mean a lot. Probably close to 50 shows of which I’ve listened to 5 or more Podcasts each. That’d place me close to listening to 250 Podcasts in the last couple of weeks. I’ll explain in a future post my reasons.

In doing so, I’ve come to understand what makes Podcasts great. Very quickly it becomes clear the reason for Podcasts popularity is not that it’s like radio, but exactly the opposite, that it’s the anti-radio. Here are examples of the differences which will explain why.

1. Radio is costly and difficult to set up. Costing millions to pay for a license and the required infrastructure. Podcasts are cheap, requiring a computer, internet connection and a web hosting service (the costly bit). This one’s a common example, but important.

2. Radio is aimed at a mass market. The more people that it can tar with the one brush, the better it is. That’s because of traditional marketing. The shot gun approach. Podcasts are targeted, and in most cases speak directly to The Long Tail. This is new marketing.

3. Radio hosts aren’t easily accessible to the listener. Look at the big names, they are celebrities that don’t have time for the listeners. That’s a generalization by the way, I’m sure some are very accessible, but by the sheer nature of mass markets it’s hard to communicate effectively with each listener. Podcasts and their hosts are very accessible. Almost everyone is begging for feedback and takes great joy in hearing from a listener. That’s a generalization as well, some don’t even reply to emails, but works as a general rule and is a differentiator.

4. Radio is controlled by “the man” (a Curry-ism). They must conform to regulations or lose their license. Podcasts are subversive. Quite often they fly under the radar and avoid the same rules. That’s not to say they don’t break laws, they might, but because they’re usually not a commercial organization and because of the the sheer number of Podcasts in the wild it becomes impossible to regulate. In some cases it’s a counterculture and invests energy in “sticking it to the man”.

5. That brings me to another point. Radio is a medium. Podcasts are a culture. It’s quickly becoming a community just like the blogosphere.

6. Radio is paid for by large business. In other words it’s possible to own a station and control the content. If the owner doesn’t like a product or even a political party, the whole network of stations will reflect that. They’re also supported almost solely by advertising. Podcasts aren’t owned by large business. They’re run by an individual, and because of the low barrier to entry don’t need funding.

7. Radio has a playlist. That often means it’s repetitive because it constantly loops around that list. This is an artifact of mass marketing. The stations play the most popular tunes, ad nauseum, until the next batch of popular tunes arrive. Podcasts don’t have a play list. They play what they like.

8. Radio plays what the major labels feeds them. That’s because they’re paid by the labels as a marketing exercise. Podcasts play what they like. I’ve discovered 3 new bands in the last 48 hours. Ones that I may never hear on radio.

9. Radio is scheduled. If I’m not listening or recording at a certain time, I’ll miss the event. Podcasts are on demand. I can listen when I want, as often as I want, and not at all if I don’t want.

10. Radio listenership is in decline. Podcasts are exploding.

11. There are only a few radio networks in each country. There are thousands of Podcasts. Choice is king.

I’d keep going, but I think I’ve covered the major differences and made my point. Podcasts aren’t radio, they are the opposite, and for that reason people like Rush won’t understand it’s popularity. Podcasting is the freedom of audio. Liberté d’acoustique.

Note : Linking the word Podcasts to TPN is a shameless act of Google bombing for Cameron.