Thursday
Sep272007
Don't Call It A Podcast
Thursday, September 27, 2007 at 3:21PM
I'm so sad that I can't make it to Podcast Expo this weekend due to schedule conflicts, but if I were there here's something I'd want to talk about with my fellow podcasters.
In my keynote last year I warned that the name "podcast" was a problem. Not only is the word "pod" closely associated with Apple's iPod in the minds of listeners, but I also felt, somehow, that the name itself is slightly demeaning. Now, a year later, I think I've pinpointed what made me so uneasy about the word "podcast." It's become clear to me that there is no such thing as podcasting!
Technically, a podcast is audio or video enclosed in an RSS feed. It's the RSS feed that magically turns audio or video into a podcast, but why do we focus on the RSS? You don't distinguish a blog from its RSS feed. There's no "blogcast." You talk about radio shows and TV shows, but no one who does a radio show says they do a "radio."
Podcasts don't exist separately from their content.
I create shows that are distributed on the Internet via download, Flash, and, oh yeah, RSS, but it's the show that's the thing. By focusing on the RSS we've confused people and limited our audience. Even the word I suggested last year, "netcast," doesn't serve. It's a show, period. It doesn't matter how it's distributed. It's all just content. Tying the content to its method of distribution is confusing our audience and holding us back.
Words are powerful. Using the right words about what you do is important. It helps you understand what you're up to and it helps the audience understand what you offer. The word podcasting worked for us in the beginning, but it doesn't work any more.
I am not a podcaster. I'm a journalist, a pundit, an entertainer. I create audio and video shows and distribute them over the Internet. Maybe that's YouTube, maybe it's my own web site, maybe it's via an RSS feed. The medium isn't the message - the message is the message. It's not a podcast, it's a show, and I plan to call my shows by the right name from now on.
Fellow podcasters, and podcast listeners, what do you think?
Have fun at PME this weekend. I'm with you in spirit!
(On a side note, I'm writing this in the Vancouver airport. It's not a good idea to blog while eating a Cinnabon®. I need a Handiwipe!)
tagged Podcasting in Blog
Podcasting in Blog
Reader Comments (73)
98% of the traffic for the RSS feed for my shows comes from iTunes. In iTunes my "show" is listed in the "Podcast" section. Not to be daft or anything but because it's there that's what I'm going to tell people it's called. However usually what I do is tell the knobs "on the iTunes Store search for beer and you'll find my show" if I don't have a business card with the show details. And if I do have a card the info to the "show" takes the potential listener to then to the web page that has relavent links and instructions.
The question that comes next (sometimes) is "I don't have an iPod...." which is answered by "you don't need one to listen to the show [there's that word again] you can listen on the web page or you can download the MP3 which will play on any player.
But no matter what it's called the "show" takes some support to get some of the potential listeners. That's why this "medium" sucks. It's not simple enough for some people. Which is why we have a limited potential listener base.
Beyond the "whatever we call this podcast, netcast, whateverCast" is an even worse problem. Which is "large media" swooping in filling the top 25 most popular. As that happens we'll see less people seeking out the speciality shows.
[...] http://leoville.com/blog/2007/09/27/1035/ [...]
I agree with the fact that we should start thinking about referring to the content as just (internet) shows. But I think podcasting still is an important recognized word as a distribution mechanism. Main stream media already uses it as this way, namely in frases like 'get our show as a podcast' as opposed to via your television/radio/... similar to 'get our blog content via rss'.
EXACTLY!
I've been broadcasting over the internet for over 5 years, always hated the word "podcast".
Hated it so much, when we put together our newest project, if you go to the site, you'll see our shows marked as they should be...
1. T.V. Show
2. RADIO Show
3. JOURNAL
When we criss-cross the USofA the last thing I'm gonna say over a beer with plumber is "I'd like to record this for my podcast".
I think new-media will die if it doesn't market ourselves outside of the existing community.
I think Podcast is becoming the net version of 'cable access channel', which is, unfortunately, not too complimentary. However, just like cable access, there are real gems like TWit, Buzz Out Loud, Revision3, Tiki Bar, etc., and there are bound to be a much greater number of "less than engaging" shows.
Amen! Cast does not even need to be included in the name. Netshow works. RSS has nothing to do with it. You can place a show on the internet without having to use RSS. RSS is nothing more than a means to an end.
A show could be created and distributed without RSS, using email.. (I know it is slow, but it works) so NETSHOW it is!
I completely agree with you, Leo. I consider myself a content creator or even new media producer. I call my show a show and rss is just one way of delivering that content to my audience. It's not the only way by far. In fact I have more people that listen through direct downloads than through my rss feed. Whenever I've used the word podcast to describe my show and what I do in the past, I've gotten a lot of confusing looks, so I refer to it as an internet radio show. Even though internet audio show is more accurate, the word radio seems to be the easiest way for people to understand it. I feel like the word podcast is limiting and a lot of people still have these notions that it is only avaiable on an iPod or mp3 player, and I definitely think that is crippling and can possibly limit the reach of out shows.
I completely agree with this Leo.
I have been banging on about content being the most important thing, and that the delivery needs to be transparent, not a focal point.
I've been a radio producer for more than 15 years, and I just see podcasting as a delivery method - and not a very clever method at that.
When my gran can switch MBW on as easily as she can BBC 1 (we're in the UK) we'll be nearer that transparency.
"...show on the Net", "Netcast" and "(Inter)Net Show" have been my preferences for years and I encourage others to do the same.
"Podcasting" and "Podcast" should refer to shows with iTunes-only distribution or anytime you are screening a certain 1950's Don Seigel movie.
Also, I should be a billionaire with a harem.
[...] It’s a great post, so go read it. [...]
I wish this idea would catch on. Otherwise all of this great content will never be found by the more mainstream folks. And that would be a shame.
I think the word still has value, when you explain one way in which your shows are available. "I have an Internet audio show, and you can listen to it on the website or subscribe to it as a podcast." For my shows, the overwhelming majority of listeners do come in from the RSS subscriptions, so I'm still comfortable calling them podcasts, at least for now.
And the term, while still causing some confusion, is becoming mainstream enough (not as much as "blog" yet) that people at least have an idea what I'm talking about when I mention it. That has some value in itself, while just talking about an Internet-based audio or video show seems too vague, at least to me.
I'll stick with the word for now, at least in most contexts, but you have a good point.
Hear Hear Leo! Very well put.
I agree with you, sir! Netcast is the perfect name... "Netcasts you love, from the people you trust" that is my favourite line from every TWIT show.
[...] Don’t Call it a Podcast by Leo Laporte [...]
Yes, yes, yes. Standing up and applauding to your words, Leo. You nailed the problem. You do 'shows' in many formats. You, like others, are entertainers, educators, leaders and journalists. Go forth and produce!
The correct answer is Web show. It's a show that originated on the Web. To use it in a sentence: "My name is Leo, and I make quality Web shows. Learn more at my various Web sites."
Pssst... Leo, there is a "Blogcast"...
https://www.godaddy.com/gdshop/blogcast/landing.asp?isc=icann07a&app%5Fhdr=&ci=6594
It can be just the option some people need.
I have to reiterate that I think referring to them as "Internet audio show" or "Web show" or even "Netcast" is completely wrong. The method of distribution (or even production) should not in any way be included in the name. A lot of peoples eyes glaze over when they hear that. What Leo does is produce content. He has a network that produces entertainment and information content. It doesn't matter how it is produced or how it is distributed. Those technologies can change. More rapidly now than ever. Also, everyone in the world knows how to turn on a TV or a Radio. A lot of people still have no idea how subscribe to a podcast or netcast or internet show etc. Keep whatever the new name is production and distribution neutral. Just talk about the content and maybe whether it is audio or video. I can get "podcasts" on my Tivo now. That's the type of way mainstream consumers are going to get involved. Having a confusing name for the product is going to hold its acceptance back. Can anyone think of a really cool sounding synonym for "show" or "program"? Or should we just go with Show or Program?
p.s. This kind of stuff is driving the big networks crazy. I love it!
hmm . I do a radio show on XM Radio - The Move and offer the same thing for download on my site and give people the chance to subscribe to the show via RSS .. if I all just call it the show, won't I miss the opportunity to let people know about the different ways they can access the show?
one thing I've seen on a few websites is a link to 'Automated Download' .. sorta describes a Podcast but sounds even worse imho.
radio show
tv show
internet show
simple no confusion.. make sence. I like it Leo ;)
"Independent Network Show" seems to me to be a reasonable title. It gives you the option of calling yourself an Independent Network Show Producer, Reporter, Instructor/Teacher/Educator, or other title as is appropriate for the content you create.
Leo does a great job both as a producer in the sense of directing, engineering, editing, and publishing the content, as well as being the host of most of the shows, interviewing guests discussing news, etc.
From what I've done, and talked with others about, engineering, editing, and publication uses most of the same skills, just different tools related to the medium the content is on. You package the content as appropriate for the system that will utilize that content. That may mean connecting the output of a sound card to a phone line, or a broadcast transmitter, storing the recording on a web server, or ftp server, or streaming it.
That distribution part is rarely the critical aspect of the show itself. It does affect who the audience is, and as a result may affect the content, but in most cases that's decided far enough in advance that it does not directly impact the production itself. (It may affect advertising, and expenses...)
-Rusty
I posted this over on the TWiT.tv forums, too... And I haven't read all of these responses, so I apologize if this point has been made.
To the technically non-savvy public-at-large, ANY digital music player is an iPod. So calling something a "Podcast" is building on the awareness of that. It's simply good marketing.
Yes, language is a powerful thing. But just think of the word "show." How did that come to mean anything dealing with entertainment? I'm going to "show" you something, on stage... Theater. Show was simply easier to say. We're going to a show. Then radio, ironically, adopted it. You can't "show" something on radio. But because show had come to mean a program of entertainment, the programs started being called "shows." Radio shows. Then TV eclipsed radio, and the term stuck there. By all rights, we should be calling what we're doing "PodShows." but it sounds pretty dorky.
So somebody came up with "Podcast" rather than "Broadcast." And it had a ring to it and stuck. It has a visual element to the name; "Pod." Something you can associate with sound. And "Cast," a distribution system.
Netcast on the other hand has a muddier meaning to it. The internet is pretty huge and nebulous and means many things to many people. So adding "net" to the word "cast" muddies the meaning of the phrase.
Anyway, I think Podcast is here to stay, and we have to deal with it, like it or not. And unless someone huge like Microsoft starts promoting "netcasts" or "Microcasts" or "MSCasts" we're not going to see a change anytime soon.
And I think Podcasting has reached a plateau. Without reaching that critical "Tipping Point" of popularity. (Read that book, "Tipping Point." It's fantastic) I think as content producers we're doing as much as we can. There just needs to be that little thing that pushes it over the edge to the public-at-large.
Anyway, I'm rambling. So I'm just going to say that whatever one calls it, Leo, you're a big part of the independent net/pod/web/cast industry. So keep it up! :) I listen to 4 or 5 of your shows a week. They're awesome.
Also, kind listeners, check out my humble internets show at
http://weeklyradioaddress.com
Peter, I agree with you 100%. When hosting my 'show' I refer to it as such. When pointing people to my site http://www.deepershades.net, I'll let them know about the possibility of downloading the 'show' but when it comes to the rss subscription, I refer to the 'show' also being available as a podcast.
and .. I forgot to give some props earlier .. Leo, I've been diggin' your style since I first saw Screen Savers years ago when I wasn't even living in the US yet ..
[...] commentators, with his TWiT network, advocates pulling back from the term podcast. He suggests that these are shows, by any other name, that are simply delivered using the RSS [...]