Slow Podcasting Adoption
One of my Google News alerts pointed me to this article on CBC.ca that says that the growth in podcasting has been a lot slower that many were anticipating. When poled, 13% of Americans have downloaded a podcast "ever" up from 11% last year. Considering the initial explosive growth of podcast listening in the past couple of years, with estimates as high as 25% of Americans listening, this seems like pretty anemic growth. Have we already reached the point where everyone who's interested has started downloading, or are we just in the lull before mass adoption?
There's an idea outlined in a book called Crossing the Chasm that says there's a difficult point in any product's adoption where early adopters are happily using whatever it is but use hasn't made the "leap" to the early majority yet. Countless products have gotten enthusiastic, even rapturous, receptions from the early adopters and bleeding edge technologists and then totally failed to capture a significant share of the majority of consumers. Think Tivo: no one I know who has lived with Tivo or another DVR says they could ever go back, and yet Tivo has yet to breach into truly widespread adoption.
So, the real question is whether podcasting is going to "cross the chasm" and start getting into 20, 30, or even 50% adoption. And of course, does it matter? One of the great things about the Internet is the ability for groups of people to thrive in "micro niches" that wouldn't possibly be big enough to support a local store, activity club, or music scene but the wide access on the Internet makes it possible. Can podcasting still be revolutionary if only 15% of people ever listen? And is requiring a revolution too heavy a burden? Is it enough for a new technology to be merely interesting?
Comments
Cornelia Fales said "90% of podcasts, like everything, are crap" and I'm inclined to think that she's got a point. If you look at the amount of effort you have to go to to produce half and hour of decent, broadcastable, speech radio, and compare this to the amount of time and effort that appears to go into quite a few of the podcasts I've listened to - well, it's pretty obvious that we are not talking about the same level of commitment to the podcasts at all.
Being realistic about it, if you are going to create that half-hour of stuff yourself, and have it truly interesting, it's going to take you a significant amount of time to achieve this just in research time, never mind actually creating the output. And if you are going to do this once a week, you are going to have to be pretty dedicated to your cause, and probably be of independent means as well!
Yes the technology is all there, and now it's truly converged as well - you can use exactly the same tools that the broadcasters use, thanks originally to Syntrillium, and now Adobe. But that doesn't alter the basic issues with content in the slightest - they remain pretty much as they have always been. The last thing that anybody wants to hear in a podcast is the same voice over and over again, however interesting that person is - you need variety. And you probably need to be good at interviewing as well - something else that seems to be in rather short supply.
If we consider Hart's figures and Cornelia's comments together, I wouldn't be surprised if the uptake figure goes down, not up. This market, if there is one, hasn't matured yet. You could argue that the whole thing is still in the honeymoon period, in fact. And like any marriage, it's going to take some effort to keep it alive, and a lot of that effort has to go into understanding what it is you have to do to achieve this - and it sure as heck isn't about technology in the long run; It's about content creation - and at present there's no way around this that doesn't require some old-fashioned effort.
If you like, it's about Genre. I have for a long time defined this as being the implied 'contract' between the producer and the audience - the audience expecting a original Wild West movie isn't really going to be too happy if it's set in the local suburbs - the contract is not fulfilled, and the audience is rather less likely to turn up for the same producer's next Wild West epic - unless they now understand the new genre! But, the genres for speech broadcasting are well defined, and if speech podcasts don't conform to them, or come up with an acceptable alternative (which I feel is unlikely), then ultimately the market will fail - because the alternatives will remain more acceptable.
Posted by: Steve Garnett | May 5, 2007 06:34 AM
Hi Hart,
I am sorry to post this as a comment, but I've been all over the Adobe/Audition/etc. website and found no way to contact you.
My lab has a proposal regarding Audition to make to you &/or other Adobe personnel, but I find no phone or email address that seems appropriate. Can you send me some contact info?
Thanks,
Nina Fales
Posted by: Cornelia Fales | March 27, 2007 08:53 AM
Here's the things about podcasts from my crabby POV: 1) I don't want to set aside dead time to sit and listen to/watch someone talking; 2) 90% of podcasts, like everything, are crap. Oh and 3) I'm not much of a passive consumer; sitting still and watching or listening to something makes me itch after awhile.
Painting with a very broad brush, podcasts are glorified blabfests like those on radio only without the ads (so far). Even on topics in which I have an interest I'd rather just read something and get it out of the way than listen to someone else yelping about it.
I think the acceptance problem is time: anyone can scan a blog or news site esp. with an RSS reader and move on quickly, but you can't do that with a podcast, even when it's cranked up to chipmunk speed.
Posted by: 42 | March 26, 2007 01:48 PM