Podcasting...is it really that easy?
I've had to reload all my iTunes files recently which has been a real pain although it's been interesting to see the customer service at Apple. When you visit the Apple Store in London you get to see what great customer service really looks like...
But it's been a great opportunity to track down the regular podcasts which I used to listen into...and I've been using http://www.podcast.net/ to find some of my favourites. Clearly I've signed up again with Shel Holtz's "For Immediate Release" and most of the content from the BBC website! I've also finally got around to looking at the material that's available from the University of Warwick. There's some amazing material on there.
I'm listening to a really interesting item right now and I'm reflecting on how easy it is to put this stuff together. Warwick's Tom Abbott was raving about it about eighteen months ago to me and having downloaded a couple of free programs it's striking how right he is. Just follow the links at http://www.podcasting-tools.com/how-to-podcast.htm and you'll be producing your own files in less than an hour.
But I guess the challenge is how do you make something that actually sounds interesting. Shel Holtz, for example is either a natural talent or has some basic radio production skills but there are some people out there who are DULL.
Not everyone has an interesting voice, but they could at least try (check out some of the more specialised sections of the pod casting world)... and surely a little thought about how you order information, paint a picture with words or whether you drone on for hours about nothing much in particular.
Is anyone out there offering courses in production skills for broadcasters? Anyone got any recommendations like this one?
Liam
This puts me in mind of the NLP (neuro linguistic programming) thing about different people processing information in different ways.
I'm a visual person (which is why I talk at 90 miles an hour and wave my hands around a lot) and podcasts just don't do it for me. I get bored just thinking about having to sit and listen to someone, even if there are slides to go with what they're saying. Give me a piece of video or a face to face conversation with a real person, any day.
Sue
Posted by: Sue D | January 14, 2007 at 09:23 PM
I wonder if you're right? I'd have assumed it's part of the skill of good radio to make voice sound interesting - you know the rules...painting a picture, mixing up different voices, injecting background sounds or music.
But what you say make me wonder - is there a whole section of the world out there that doesn't listen to radio just because, for NLP reasons, it doesn't appeal...
Liam
Posted by: Liam | January 15, 2007 at 08:19 AM
I can't answer for anyone else - but I know it's true for me. Audio stuff just leaves me cold.
It absolutely is the skill of a decent presenter to paint pictures, etc. etc. and ironically I've done a fair bit of it as I did hospital radio for years. (Even more ironically for anyone who knows me, I did the sports show for three years!) But video or a real person - provided those things are both engaging of course - can get me hooked. Audio programmes don't grab me at all, unless I'm captive on a long car journey and I'm fed up of singing at the top of my voice to my CDs!
Posted by: Sue | January 15, 2007 at 08:27 AM
I think there's something in this. Didn't we start to hear that the 'yoof' of today, who are starting to come to work, inherently mistrusting f2f communication as they aren't used to it. Give them a podcast, video or interactive game any day of the week. A mix of nature (NLP) and nurture (gen X / Y / Z) perhaps.
A barrier I came across in a previous job was part of the 'who should do it' argument. While the company was British, the management were almost all American (with a Scot thrown in for good measure.) Production on one video lengthened by 3 months in order to go and find some willing execs with British accents, otherwise, what sort of message would an Americanised video put out... are we being taken over?!
The other (final!) thing we have had to combat recently is the fact I now look after support functions. Podcasting may be a brilliant idea, but we don't pay people enough (according to them of course) to be able to afford iPods or other suitable mp3/4 players. Always something to bear in mind, and from an employee point of view, yet another reason to belly-ache about pay...
Posted by: Fiona | January 15, 2007 at 11:05 AM
Firstly, thanks to Liam for the pimp!
Re: visual vs audio - I agree that the success of a particular media depends on the ability of the presenter to engage their audience. This applies whether you are talking about an audio podcast, video, blog or newsletter. I can recall many newsletters that have bored me rigid becasue the author could not write in a way that I found engaging. The same rule applies to video and audio - unless I have a very specific interest in a topic I will not tolerate a boring presentation. I have seen many dull videos as well (been responsible for a few!) so I don't necessarily think it's a one or the other type of situation.
As far as hardware is concerned I saw some stat that said the majority of podcasts never make it to an MP3 player - most are consumed on the PC. We should be making sure that PC's in organisation all have soundcards and speakers. Make it part of the standard IT build. Cheaper than buying everyone ipods.
But think about key audiences - for example, a sales team might be a great group to setup with podcasts. A daily update from the team leader downloaded every morning and played in the car whilst heading to the next customer. Or perhaps technical reviews you can listen to in teh plane on your way to that major client in the US. There are plenty of opportunities here.
Posted by: Tom Abbott | January 15, 2007 at 12:08 PM
When you got started Tom, did you just go for it or did you do a course or anything on radio production etc? Some of the people you interview are potentially a bit "dry" so you must do something to keep it interesting? Or do you have the scars of trial and error????
Liam
Posted by: Liam | January 15, 2007 at 12:16 PM
I did some radio training about 10 years ago which has been useful but not anything like a formal course. The key skills are very similar to those for video or audio production - how to conduct an interview, how to construct narrative, how to edit. There is a great deal to be said about preperation and planning - research is critical if you are to engage your interviewee and audience.
I have been surprised at how few podcasts have been what I would term 'dull'. I think the challenge for the presenter is to guide the academic and build a structure and interview that is interesting. That is why we chose to go down the interview route rather than just record a lecture or a monologue. the interview format gives you an degree of control that you can use to keep the podcast moving.
The other critical element is good editing. We do not publish au naturel as it were. Everything is edited and I would suggest that in many respects it is the editors role that makes or breaks a podcast. Good editing can rescue the most dull interview but bad editing will render even the most engaging subject incoherent.
Finally, we stick rigidly to the Golden Rule - no podcast over 30 minutes. Keeping it to around 20-25 minutes is about enough for people's attention span, and a good length for a commute or bus ride! It also keeps people focussed but gives enough time to explore a topic in enough depth. over 30 mins and it becomes waffle and too much to ask someone to give up valuable time for.
Finally finally, to keep things really interesting, we are naked when we record.
I may have made that last bit up!
Posted by: Tom Abbott | January 15, 2007 at 04:33 PM
If you want a masterclass Liam, come and visit - I'll give you the tour - fully clothed of course...
Posted by: Tom Abbott | January 15, 2007 at 04:41 PM
Liam,
You are exactly right about podcasts: They can be horribly boring, or they can be wonderfully illuminating. They are only as good as the presenter.
AS the old saying goes, "garbage in, garbage out."
The same can be said of blogs and videos. If a CEO writes a blog, but his posting is as boring as those old print columns he once wrote for the employee publication, what's the point? We'll simply go from one piece of content that no one reads to another.
In order for a podcast to work, it must be compelling, entertaining, thought-provoking, funny--or all of the above.
Mark Ragan
Posted by: Mark Ragan | January 16, 2007 at 03:18 PM
The point about "funny" is quite interesting... Why would someone bother to listen to some thing if it wasn't at least entertaining? I have to say I've been pretty guilty in the past of producing stuff that was simply "worthy" - it's easy to fall into the trap of thinking "This is about our organisation so it must be interesting in itself..."
When Marconi was in serious trouble we used to arrange quarterly calls with the CEO explaining what happened next - he was naturally quite interesting and good at explaining complex corporate finance issues, but few people ever listened to the playbacks for more than a few minutes.
I'm not suggesting we should have turned serious financial reporting into a stand-up routine (there aren't many good gags about EBITDA and gross margin), but I think you can get surprised at how thin people's motivation is to listen to something - even if it's giving them important clues about whether they'll have a job at the end of the month!.
Liam
Posted by: Liam | January 16, 2007 at 06:18 PM
The secrets of a good podcast? Entertainment and enlightenment. Ideally both.
The BBC has got this down to a tee. Chris Moyles is the "saviour of Radio One" because he's interesting, controversial, silly, irreverent, topical and opinionated. He’s entertainment. That's why more than 6 million people tune in each day.
Radio 4’s Today programme still sets the news agenda and influences public opinion because it’s enlightening – based on classic BBC journalism and rock solid reporting.
Most communication podcasts are a far cry from either. With a few notable exceptions, they’re poorly executed, dull, dreary and boring – the audio equivalent of watching paint dry.
If only we could find a podcaster who combines the entertainment value of Chris Moyles with the integrity of John Humphreys. Now that would be worth the download....
Posted by: Lee Smith | January 16, 2007 at 08:26 PM
In case any non-brits are reading - check out John Humphreys at http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/downloadtrial.shtml
Actually he's the most annoying man on radio, interrupts his guests to the point of hectoring, often misunderstand the points being made but thinks hes a rockstar of radio journalism - however....
It's incredibly compelling to listen to....
Liam
Posted by: Liam | January 16, 2007 at 09:04 PM