WAS: What Adults are Saying about the Underwhelming Podcast
A mash up the eye, ear and narrative creates too much boring (mostly) content.
In the halls of the Edward R. Murrow Communications College at Washington State University echoes from a previous time can be plainly heard. From an era of silo, legacy media when the lines were clearly drawn. One could pursue the electronic media outlet’s of the college’s namesake in aural or visual forms, conventional written journalism or even (horrors), the burgeoning craft of Public Relations. As students toiled, learned and even competed they traded a common wisecrack that went something like”..you have a face for radio, a voice for newspapers and you can’t write.”
This bit of snarky collegiate play underscored how media were then arrayed, professional parochialism, available technology and a dozen other things that drove conception of professional media and its workers. A “breakthrough” was something like when USA Today started publishing in 1982—to be freely distributed from containers shaped like television sets. My god the heresy, a newspaper acting like television!
This history might be worth remembering for the five million American Podcasters and the 125 million who read, listen or watch them. Like so much information “content” crowding our brains, technology has driven it. From just recent times it is so much easier for every man and woman to share their voices because roadblocks to do so are now so low. This is both good and bad around the same thing. The low “barriers to market entry” make all media more democratic. On the other hand this call has been heeded by many, many folk whose ambition exceeds their talent. In Podcast form this becomes painfully evident in many cases.
To be sure there are some fabulously successful Podcasts that are influential information and news outlets that move the needle. The current top 100 reveals that the majority of them, however, are from journalists and networks that have simply transferred from legacy media and brought its many advantages. This includes a lot of production and promotion heft available to only the tiniest tip of all Podcasters. For on-a-shoestring-budget amateurs, leveraging the medium for whatever purposes is a far more solitary effort. That’s when the echoes from the Murrow school matter and perhaps another intonation from national broadcaster Jim Rome. In the days when he was still a disruptive force in sports radio, Rome constantly reminded callers to “have a take and don’t suck.” Oh how this tandem of direction might make so many Podcasts better.
If it stands certain visual Podcasters truly do have a face for radio and can’t write then what about staring into a Zoom link while sitting behind a microphone with something looking like a Princess Leia hairdo on your ears makes what is said important? The appeal of what follows in these cases is often dreadful and self-reflection about why such an underwhelming effort is made seems seldom pondered.
When you consider the vast majority of episodes from those five million Podcasts are consumed less than 30 times, then new media parading in the same economic form and pecking order as old media becomes evident. This is double-trouble for a ton of reasons. If the ‘24 election taught us nothing else its that legacy media has failed miserably at its historic role and occasional public service responsibility. It also tells us—like in many things—new media finds money to follow money inviting retreaded legacy media personalities to push aside the heightened “democracy” of Podcasts showing new talent and voices who aren’t simply shilling for ratings and raises. What might be the most disheartening is that sincere Podcasting newbies may inaccurately judge themselves as making a contribution to the topic at hand on a far broader scale than is real.
But with a static picture or plain audio track stripped of all production values the typical amateur Podcast is often non-discernible from a senior class project. Regardless how low the entry cost, the communicator bears a certain responsibility to heighten the appeal of the communication. Not the message necessarily, but the manner and format in which points and premises are presented. Of course Podcaster’s are motivated by many things and not all aim to be an influential needle mover or commercially viable. That’s perfectly fine. But to the degree one wants to be heard or seen as widely as possible the following might be considered:
If content is best treated in written word form then why is a Podcast the medium of choice in the first place? If one wants to write—then write. Platforms like Substack here are perfectly suited for this purpose. Those with visions of the written narrative carrying their voice have no place in using a Podcast to present such views.
If the content is best presented in audio form then heed the benefits of the aural communication medium for maximum impact. Firs,t make the Podcast audio only. Second, make sure the content (if not scripted) is at least outlined to facilitate speech communication without pauses and stutters. Third, add some production values to the track. Things like a simple music intro (if you desire paid subscriptions make sure to check copyright rules) or a in-cast music bed that signals a break or change of topic is a great way to give a listener a break from their one-dimensional experience.
If one wants a podcast to be presented in visual form then exploit the benefits of the “tele” medium. There is nothing worse than watching a podcast with folks yapping into mikes viewed through a static shot of those speaking. There is a name for media gab like that. It’s called radio—or in new media—an audio only Podcast. Bringing visual to Podcasts requires production values that exploit it—otherwise the episode becomes a sleeping pill. There’s no reason for this to occur. Nominal production values, like cuts, change of angles, graphics and even other embedded visual items are just as easily obtained and deployed as to post the Podcast itself.
Lastly, and most importantly, do not use the Podcast form if your communication intent is solely in a social media style. Though some would-be “influencers” might consider this heresy, Podcasts are most effective when they delivered in a conventional news and information form. Social media—for better or worse has only one form—informality to the point of chaos. It is the chosen medium for when folks desire to document community gossip—something at times relevant—but mostly just cognitive lint that clogs synapses. A Podcaster has a responsibility to offer something more than that.
All of this is meant to propel the Podcaster to find their sense of “why”? Why does a Podcaster say something and to what degree is it sincerely felt? To what degree does a Podcaster want to promote audience thinking or consideration? What should an audience gain from a Podcast and why will it return for the next installment? All of these questions are as old as media itself and new media forms certainly do not erase their import. Otherwise, to have a take and suck will become even more common.