Is Podcasting Evolutionary or Revolutionary?

Let me preface this post by saying I do love podcasting. I listen to and watch a lot of them. But I am getting a sense that podcasting has big pros and cons and that the latter may prevent it from leaving a mark the way blogs and communities and even gaming may.

For starters, let's look at the benefits of podcasting. Eric Schwartzman does a good job of listing these attributes. Podcasting's truly democratized, it reaches a global audience, it's time-shifted, portable, cost-effective and vertical. From a marketing point of view, you can achieve some word of mouth buzz because you're using a medium that consumers made popular.

On the other hand podcasting is a pain, as Andrew Kantor in USA Today illustrates. Worse, you need to make a certain investment in time to determine if a podcast is for you. You really can't scan them. There's very little dialogue. It's a fairly controlled medium. And they don't easily spread because they're not searchable.

So, where does that leave us? Podcasting is an important medium, no doubt. It changed how people listen to audio and where that content comes from. On the other hand, podcasting is not very social. It's largely unidirectional. It's about democratized distribution. In five years time podcasting will be seen as evolutionary while Wikipedia, social networking and blogging will be viewed as revolutionary because they are dialogue driven, scannable and searchable in mainstream Web search engines.

Comments

[Anna]

For me pod casting gives me a freedom and allows me to multi task....travel and learn, watch sport and learn...etc In that sense I find it revolutionery. It is to learning what Tivo is to TV. But I also think that it adds individuality. There is a drive for individuality and yet feel part of a community. A pod cast helps this - you pick the ones that you want and yet you feel part of a team especially if you contribute. I believe that although over the last 2 years revolutionery it now has to evolve into the next stage. What that evolution will be I am unsure!

[Donna Papacosta]

Steve, you make some excellent points about podcasting. As a podcaster of 7 months (a long time in the podcasting world?), I would disagree that podcasting is not social. People who listen to my Trafcom News Podcast show DO comment about it. And others comment on *their* comments. Also, podcasts are searchable to a limited degree. If the podcast creator produces half-decent shownotes, people can scan them to decide if a show is worth listening to, or perhaps they'll just jump in for part of a show. Also, a utility such as Podzinger allows you to scan podcast shows. Admittedly, it doesn't work perfectly.

So, it remains to be seen: evolutionary or revolutionary? ;-)

[Neville Hobson]

Steve, I'd say podcasting as we know it today is evolutionary not revolutionary. It's doing all the things you mention, enabling literally anyone with some imagination to cross an extremely low barrier to entry. Look at FeedBurner's recent report on growth to get a sense of how truly low that barrier is.

I wouldn't say podcasting isn't social unless you mean listening to podcasts tends to be a solo activity as opposed to a wholly social one. How really different is that to radio listening?

I think we're only seeing the tip of an iceberg in terms of what this medium can do and how it will develop. Even the definition is fluid no matter what purists might say (it's the consumers who will define its meaning).

What will it look like five years out? Ah, the 64K question.

[Jamie Bull]

While not all podcasts are inherently a social medium, I do think that each one has the ability.

Sure they may not be as easily searchable, but when accompanied by a blog or a website with a chat room or discussion boards, the limitations of podcasting begin eroding away.

Neville's show, FIR, is so heavily driven by listener comments that it begins to acknowledge the weaknesses of podcasting as compared to blogging, but begins working its way around them.

I have witnessed numerous occasions where listeners of podcasts have organized to meet in the real world as well as the podcasters themselves bringing together listeners to meet face-to-face. If that is not a social medium I don't know what is.

[JAbbott]

Does Podzinger count as making podcasts searchable? I've only used it a few times but it seemed to work well.

[Adam Zand]

Steve,
I agree with Neville, but I think the evolution is beyond the "missing link" stage thanks to NPR and Ricky Gervais. USA Today's Andrew Kantor missed out on some good news about subscribing to podcasts - and making them portable.

As a fairly shameless PR person, let me suggest the revolutionary step is available now for UMS-compliant MP3 players (sorry iPods). mobiBLU will be announcing a product next week that will have you running to Target and listening/subscribing out of the box. Enough tacky sales pitch from me ...

Not that anyone needs an excuse to check out the amazing Rocketboom, but you can view the revolution in action at: http://www.rocketboom.com/vlog/archives/2006/04/rb_06_apr_13.html

[James Dellow]

Interesting post, Steve. I agree with where you are coming from but I do also wonder if its not just a question of time for the technology to catch up and make audio and video media more hyperlinkable like the rest of the text-based social software world. See Jon Udell's post about his own attempts with this here http://weblog.infoworld.com/udell/2005/12/06.html

[Sean Hackbarth]

A big problem I see is the technology to make podcasts is complex and cumbersome. I've made two podcasts with Audacity. The talking part is easy; it's the editing and fine-tuning that's tiresome. One really wants to hear the sound of their own voice to keep at it. For me it's much easier to pop out my ideas by typing into my weblogging software.

[Rob Safuto]

"On the other hand, podcasting is not very social. It's largely unidirectional."

I don't think you're getting it Steve. No medium is inherently social. Each medium that gets utilized is as social as the creator wants it to be.

The act of podcasting, like the act of blogging, is about more than just a media file. It's about a process where a publisher interacts with subscribers where RSS is used as the grease for communication.

Many podcast publishers utilize comments (in text and audio forms) to include their subscribers in the conversation. Some have forums where the discussion can continue long after a podcast show is distributed. And some even solicit core content contributions from subscribers.

So if you mean to say that a media file is not social, we're in agreement. But Podcasts, like Blogs or Wikis, are as social as the creator wants them to be.

[John Furrier]

I see Steve's points valid as a snapshot today. I feel that Podcasting is revolutionary. It depends on your perpective. Steve's your perspective is as a blogger not a podcaster. As a podcaster at PodTech.net I can say that it is social but different than blogging. And certainly just as relevant. Blogging and Podcasting are cousins of the media revolution we are experiencing..

[Jamie Bull]

I think Rob Safuto worded it just like I wish I would have.
"No medium is inherently social. Each medium that gets utilized is as social as the creator wants it to be."

No blog is inherently social, just as no podcast is inherently social. Blogs, podcasts, wikis, etc are simply places where it is possible for people to gather and talk about similar topics and create digital communities. Just because a blog exists, does not make it a social medium? No. Granted the current state of podcasting is far less social than blogging is today, but the portability and the ability to communicate with pictures and movies give podcasting/vidcasting the opportunity to become far more of a social medium than blogging will ever be.

[Neville Hobson]

The survey of new media in this week's The Economist includes a report on podcasting. It's worth reading, although seasoned podcasters won't find anything extraordinary there.

In the context of everyone's comments to Steve's post, report author Andreas Kluth has this to say:

"[...] More subtly, podcasts are different from blogs and wikis in that they cannot link directly to other podcasts. This makes podcasting a less social, and probably less revolutionary, medium."

He's right with the first sentence. But does that logically lead to the second? I'm not so sure. I think Rob's point is right: each medium is as social as its creator wants it to be. I'd add to it, though: each medium is as social as its consumer wants it to be.

In which case, the answer to the question on socialibility is: it depends!

The Economist report is here (paid sub for full access) - http://www.economist.com/surveys/displaystory.cfm?story_id=6794156