Oh when they finally got the part about the blog, podcasters really has evolved. ;)) And yes, choices is the point. Because not only circumstances demand different solutions, personal preferences do too.
Will video have more audience in general? Jup. But it will not take away from the fact how mcuh audience audio has.
Ben Parr
· 1 year ago
I prefer video to audio, but I drive a lot, ride the trains, and need to get in my workouts - having the audio versions for those times is great.
Holly from mobiEnthusiast.mobi
· 1 year ago
You are right, it is about choice. I recently tuned in to a video cast where the host was eating, brushing hair, and drinking from a martini glass. That falls into the "too much information" category. This would have been a better podcast than video cast, definitely.
eric : Gardenfork.tv
· 1 year ago
This post comes at an interesting time as I am, after producing Gardenfork and Real World Green videocasts for years, am now considering adding an audio podcast version for the very reasons Ben Parr listed.
Not everyone can sit and watch a video show, but they can listen.
And yes, having a blog is important to offer follow-up and related info, it got to the point where I had to expand from a blog to a larger platform, a niche social network, The Green House www.green-house.tv
shel israel
· 1 year ago
Gotta disagree with you on this one here. ne communications for has never replaced another. Radio has survived TV. Opera has survived Rock. TV is surviving YouTube. Podcasting works quite well in place where video cannot go, such as driving and road running. If I were to start doing video again, I would offer a podcast version for wider reach.
Ben Parr
· 1 year ago
Shel, I don't claim that video will replace podcasting. Actually, I claim the opposite - that video can never replace it because of its convenience.
What I DO claim is that the trend is towards multiple mediums of broadcasting - instead of just podcasting, it's podcasting and videocasting and giving people the option to subscribe to either.
Mark "Rizzn" Hopkins
· 1 year ago
I think calling it a trend is a bit pre-mature, or possibly even myopic. Financial barrier to entry is still a major factor on the production side of video, and as such, only a few top tier producers like the ones you've mentioned are doing it.
Meanwhile, companies like Wizzard (who have only very recently decided to start focusing on video) and NPR operate highly successful audio-only podcast networks (to the tune of millions of dollars in revenue a year).
Rather than indie producers spreading themselves thinly, they should focus on the media type that best suits the content coupled with sound promotional techniques.
Ben Parr
· 1 year ago
Mark, though I gave examples of well-produced video as podcasts, that doesn't mean you can't make it cheaply. I saw a wonderful podcast/videocast by a man about astronomy at the new media expo. He had only made six episodes, and did it with no super infrastructure, but it still looked great and when I find his business card in the pile, I am going to subscribe to his videocast (I was once a physics major after all).
I don't think creating a video and a podcast means you need to spread yourself thinly - you can create a videocast and a podcast at the same time. For several hundred more, you can record both the video and the audio at the same time and distribute both.
That's what i think of when I think options.
Mark "Rizzn" Hopkins
· 1 year ago
Let's be real honest though - if you have done any video production at all made for video-distributed RSS, you know that transcoding is time-consuming, and any sort of compositing or slates (or even a subtitle!) requires another pass at the files before they get uploaded anywhere.
Unless you have expensive or dedicated machines for this, it takes time. If you have the dedicated machines for this, it takes money.
As I said before, resource intensive.
If you've done any podcast-grade videos (not a quick YouTube video) as opposed to audio, it's pretty clear which of the two requires more editing and render times.
lolshel
· 1 year ago
@shel israel
did you even read past the first half of the title?
Sarah Austin
· 1 year ago
@Ben Parr, I also prefer video to audio. I like music videos more than tracks too.
The Dog Files
· 1 year ago
I do like Video, but I need audio podcasts for driving and walking the dogs...and when I'm trying to fall asleep at night.
Steve Woolf
· 1 year ago
I often wonder whether many of the video shows out there even need video. In my view, many successful shows are really just audio podcasts that happen to have a camera rolling. This is not unlike the way some traditional radio programs roll a camera and broadcast on TV (e.g. Mike and Mike on ESPN).
I think we'll see online video go to the next level when more shows demonstrate a real understanding of the visual medium.
The Dog Files
· 1 year ago
I think you're right, Steve. A lot of them are just video of a few people talking. If I have the time I don't mind watching them. If I don't then it's audio in the car.
Agree with Steve W. - If it's just talking heads or for that matter people around a couch, I tune out. Just because you can use video doesn't mean you should. If it requires imagery, video, otherwise give me plain old audio.
Luca Mascaro
· 1 year ago
In the latest weeks we did a series of field study about podcasting usage and the first problem is that: the podcast usage scenario is first not on the computer, but the user do not think to upload their updated content on the iPod whenever leaving home. And the second problem is the numbers of available contents.
The issue from my point of view is the easyness to access podcast directly in mobility
All Comments
Will video have more audience in general? Jup. But it will not take away from the fact how mcuh audience audio has.
Not everyone can sit and watch a video show, but they can listen.
And yes, having a blog is important to offer follow-up and related info, it got to the point where I had to expand from a blog to a larger platform, a niche social network, The Green House www.green-house.tv
What I DO claim is that the trend is towards multiple mediums of broadcasting - instead of just podcasting, it's podcasting and videocasting and giving people the option to subscribe to either.
Meanwhile, companies like Wizzard (who have only very recently decided to start focusing on video) and NPR operate highly successful audio-only podcast networks (to the tune of millions of dollars in revenue a year).
Rather than indie producers spreading themselves thinly, they should focus on the media type that best suits the content coupled with sound promotional techniques.
I don't think creating a video and a podcast means you need to spread yourself thinly - you can create a videocast and a podcast at the same time. For several hundred more, you can record both the video and the audio at the same time and distribute both.
That's what i think of when I think options.
Unless you have expensive or dedicated machines for this, it takes time. If you have the dedicated machines for this, it takes money.
As I said before, resource intensive.
If you've done any podcast-grade videos (not a quick YouTube video) as opposed to audio, it's pretty clear which of the two requires more editing and render times.
did you even read past the first half of the title?
I think we'll see online video go to the next level when more shows demonstrate a real understanding of the visual medium.
I don't think my video show would work as an audio podcast.Check it out at http://www.thedogfiles.com
The issue from my point of view is the easyness to access podcast directly in mobility