Phew, we’ve apparently solved 97% of the podcast measurement problem — everybody relax

MEASUREMENT BITE. Been a while since we’ve checked back into what is arguably the most important subject in the podcast business. Let’s fix that, shall we?

“The good news for podcasters and buyers is measurement challenges are 97 percent solved,” Midroll Media CRO Lex Friedman said on a podcast panel at the National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) Show last week. “What we can report now is more specific than we could before.” You can find the quote in this Inside Radio writeup on the panel.

Be that as it may, there’s still some work left to be done. I reached out to Friedman for his perspective on what constitutes the remaining 3 percent of the challenges left to be solved, and here’s his response (pardon the customary Midroll spin):

In TV today, advertisers would struggle if NBC used Nielsen ratings, and ABC used Nielsen but with a different methodology, and CBS used some other company’s measurement technology.

Today in podcasting, the measurement problem is solved; the remaining 3 percent is getting everyone standardized. It doesn’t happen often, but every once in a while, Midroll loses a show to a competitor. When we sell a show at 450,000 downloads, and the next day the same show and same feed is being sold at 700,000 downloads, that’s a problem.

The IAB’s recommended a 24-hour measurement window, while some folks still advocate for 60 minutes or two hours, and too many vendors continue to sell at 5 minutes, which we universally know is way too liberal a count. That’s unfair and confusing to advertisers, and that’s the piece that needs fixing.

That’s no small 3 percent, in my opinion.

Anyway, if you’re new to the podcast measurement problem, my column from February 2016 — back when a group of public radio stations published a set of guidelines on the best way for podcast companies to measure listenership — still holds up as a solid primer on the topic, if I do say so myself.

Fool’s gold? Something else to note from Inside Radio’s article on the NAB panel: a strong indication, delivered by Triton Digital president of market development John Rosso, that there is increasing demand for programmatic podcast advertising.

Programmatic advertising is a system by which ads are automatically bought and sold through algorithmic processes. In other words, it’s a monetization environment where the facilitation of advertising value exchange is automated away from human interaction. The principal upside that comes with programmatic advertising is efficiency: As an advertiser, you theoretically don’t have to spend a lot of time identifying, contacting, and executing buys, and as a publisher, you theoretically don’t have to spend a lot of time doing those things in the opposite direction. In theory, both sides don’t have to do much more work for a lot more money. But the principal downside is the ensuing experience on listener-side, and all the ramifications that fall from a slide in said experience: Because these transactions are machine-automated, there’s no human consideration governing the aesthetic intentionality of an advertising experience paired with the specific contexts of a given podcast.

Combine this with the core assumptions of what makes podcasting uniquely valuable as a media product — that it engenders deeper experiences of intimacy between creator and listener, that its strength is built on the cultivated simulacra of personal trust between the two parties, that any podcast advertising spot is a heavy act of value extraction from the relationship developed between the two sides — and you have a situation where a digital advertising technology is being considered for a medium to which its value propositions are diametrically opposed.

The underlying problem, put simply: Can you artificially scale up podcasting’s advertising supply without compromising its underlying value proposition? To phrase the problem in another direction: Can you develop a new advertising product that’s able to correspondingly scale up intimacy, trust, and relationship-depth between podcast creator and consumer?

The answer for both things may well be no, and that perhaps the move shouldn’t be to prescribe square pegs for round holes. Or maybe the response we’ll see will sound more like “the way we’re doing things isn’t sustainable, we’re going to have to make more money somehow” with the end result being an identity-collapsing shift in the defining characteristics of this fledgling medium. In which case: Bummer, dude.

Binge-Drop Murphies. Gimlet announced its spring slate last week, and two out of three of them, the audio drama Sandra and the Lynn Levy special The Habitat, will be released in their entirety tomorrow. When asked about the choice to go with the binge-drop, Gimlet president Matt Lieber tells me:

We decided to binge both The Habitat and Sandra because we felt that they were both so engrossing and engaging, so we wanted to give the listener the decision to either power through all the episodes, or sample and consume at their own pace. Sandra is our second scripted fiction series and we know from our first, Homecoming, that a lot of people chose to binge the series after it was out in full. With The Habitat, it’s such a unique and immersive miniseries, and we wanted to give listeners the chance to get lost in the world by listening all at once.

Grab your space suits, fellas.

The beautiful game. The third show in Gimlet’s spring bundle is We Came To Win, the company’s first sports show, which promises to deliver stories on the most memorable soccer matches in history. The press release appears to be playing up the universal angle of the sport: “Soccer is a sport that is about so much more than goals. It’s about continents, countries, characters, and the relationships between them.” (I mean, yeah.)

In an interesting bit of mind-meld, Gimlet’s first foray into sports mirrors WNYC Studios’ own maiden voyage into the world of physical human competition. Sometime this spring, the New York public radio station will roll out its own World Cup-timed narrative podcast, a collaboration with Men in Blazers’ Roger Bennett that will look the U.S. Men’s National Soccer Team’s journey from its triumphant 1994 World cup appearance to its doomed 1998 campaign. (Yikes.)

Public radio genes run deep.

Peabody nominations. The 2017 nominations were announced last week, and interestingly enough, six out of the eight entries in the Radio/Podcast category are either podcast-only or podcast-first. The nominees are: Radiotopia’s Ear Hustle, Minnesota Public Radio’s 74 Seconds, Serial Productions’ S-Town, the Center for Documentary Studies at Duke University’s Scene on Radio: Seeing White, Gimlet’s Uncivil, and Louisville Public Media/Kentucky Center for Investigative Reporting’s “The Pope’s Long Con.

Notes on The Pope’s Long Con. It was an unbelievable story with unthinkable consequences. Produced by the Kentucky Center for Investigative Reporting (KyCIR) and Louisville Public Media, The Pope’s Long Con was the product of a seven-month long investigation into Dan Johnson, a controversial bishop-turned-Kentucky state representative shrouded in corruption, deceit, and an allegation of sexual assault. KyCIR’s feature went live on December 11, bringing Johnson’s story — and the allegations against him — into the spotlight. The impact was explosive, leading to immediate calls for Johnson to resign. He denied the allegations at a press conference. Two days later, Johnson committed suicide.

It was “any journalist’s nightmare,” as KyCIR’s managing editor Brendan McCarthy told CJR in an article about how the newsroom grappled with the aftermath of its reporting. (Which, by the way, you should absolutely read.)

In light of those circumstances, the podcast’s Peabody nomination feels especially well-deserved. It’s also a remarkable achievement for a public radio station relatively new to podcasting. “The Pope’s Long Con was the first heavy-lift podcast Louisville Public Media had undertaken,” Sean Cannon, a senior digital strategist at the organization and creative director of the podcast, tells me. “It didn’t start out as one though…Audio was planned, but it was a secondary concern. Once we realized the scope and gravity of it all, we knew everything had to be built around the podcast.”

When I asked Cannon how he feels about the nomination, he replied:

Given the situation surrounding the story, it’s still a confusing mix of emotions to see The Pope’s Long Con reach the heights it has. That said, we’re all immensely proud of the work we did. It’s necessary to hold our elected officials accountable.

In the context of the podcast industry, it taught me a lesson that can be easy to forget. I was worried the hierarchy of publishers had become too calcified, rendering it almost impossible for anyone below the top rungs to make serious waves — without a thick wallet, anyway. It’s a topic that comes up regularly in Hot Pod.

While the industry will never purely be a meritocracy, The Pope’s Long Con shattered that perception. It served as a reminder of something that gets glossed over when you’re caught up in the business of it all: If you can create compelling audio, that trumps everything else.

Tip of the hat, Louisville.

Crooked Media expands into film. According to The Hollywood Reporter, the media (political activism?) company will be co-producing a new feature documentary on Texas congressman Beto O’Rourke’s bid to unseat Senator Ted Cruz in the upcoming midterm elections. This extends on Crooked Media’s previous adventures in video, which already involve a series of HBO specials to be taped across the country amidst the run-up to midterms.

A quick nod to Pod Save America’s roots as The Ringer’s Keepin’ It 1600 here: Crooked Media will likely crib from the playbook The Ringer built around the recent Andre the Giant HBO documentary, which was executive produced by Ringer CEO Bill Simmons, where the latter project received copious promotion through The Ringer website and podcast network. What’s especially interesting about that whole situation is the way it is essentially a wholesale execution of what I took as the principal ideas from the analyst Ben Thompson’s 2015 post “Grantland and the (Surprising) Future of Publishing.”

I’m not sure if I’d personally watch a Beto O’Rourke doc — the dude has been a particularly vibrant entry into the “blue hope in red country” political media subgenre for a long while now, and I’m tapping out — but Pod Save America listeners most definitely would.

Empire on Blood. My latest for Vulture is a review of the new seven-part Panoply podcast, which I thought was interesting enough as a pulpy doc but deeply frustrating in how the show handles its power and positioning. It’s a weird situation: I really liked host Steve Fishman’s writing, and I really liked the tape gathered, but the two things really shouldn’t have been paired up this way.

The state of true crime podcasts. You know you’re neck-deep in something when you can throw out random words and land close to an actual example of that something: White Wine True Crime, Wine & Crime, Up & Vanished, The Vanished, Real Crime Profile, True Crime Garage, Crimetown, Small Town Murders, and so on. (This is a general observation that goes well beyond true crime pods. Cryptocurrencies: Sumokoin, Dogecoin, PotCoin. Food startups: Plated, Pantry, PlateIQ. Names: Kevin.)

Anyway, I’ve said it once, and I’ll say it again: True crime is the bloody, bleeding heart of podcasting, a genre that’s proliferating with a velocity so tremendous it could power a dying sun. And in my view, true crime podcasts are also a solid microcosm of the podcast universe as a whole: What happens there, happens everywhere.

When it comes to thinking about true crime podcasts, there are few people whose opinions I trust more than crime author, podcaster, and New Hampshire Public Radio digital director Rebecca Lavoie. As the cohost of the indispensable weekly conversational podcast Crime Writers On… — which began life as Crime Writers On Serial, a companion piece to the breakout 2014 podcast phenomenon — Lavoie consumes and thinks a lot about true crime and true crime podcasts specifically.

I touched base with Lavoie recently to get the latest on what’s been going on in her neck of the woods:

[storybreak]

[conl]Hot Pod: In your view, how has the true crime podcast genre evolved over the past four years or so?[/conl]

[conr]Rebecca Lavoie: It’s evolved in a few directions — some great, some…not so much.

On the one hand (and most wonderfully), we have journalism and media outlets who would never have touched the true crime genre a few years ago making true crime podcasts based on the tenets of great reporting and production. And when it comes to the “never would have touched it” part, I know what I’m talking about. Long before I was a podcaster, I was the coauthor of several mass-market true crime books while also working on a public radio show. Until Criminal was released and enjoyed some success, public radio and true crime never crossed streams, to an extent where I would literally avoid discussing my true crime reporting at work — it was looked down upon, frankly.

Today, though, that kind of journalistic snobbery is almost non-existent, and podcasts (especially Criminal and Serial) can claim 100 percent responsibility for that. Shows that exist today as a result of this change include Accused from the Cincinnati Enquirer, West Cork from Audible, Breakdown from the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, In the Dark from APM reports, and the CBC’s recent series Missing & Murdered. (And yes, even the public radio station where I still work — now on the digital side — is developing a true crime podcast!)

Credit is also due to Serial for the way journalism podcasts are being framed as true crime when they wouldn’t have been in a pre-Serial era. Take Slow Burn from Slate, which is the best podcast I’ve heard in the past year or two. While the Watergate story would have been so easy to frame as a straight political scandal, the angles and prose techniques used in Slow Burn have all the hallmarks of a great true crime narrative — and I’m pretty sure the success of that show was, at least in part, a result of that.

Of course, where you have ambitious, high-quality work, you inevitably have ambitious terrible work, right? It’s true, there are very big and very bad true crime podcasts being produced at an astonishing rate right now, and because they have affiliation with established networks, these shows get a lot of promotion. But as much as I might personally love to hate some of these terrible shows (I’m talking to YOU, Atlanta Monster!) I do see some value in their existence.

I think about it the same way I think about movies: Not every successful big budget blockbuster is a good movie, but ultimately, those films can serve to raise the profile and profitability of the movie industry as a whole, and help audiences discover other, higher-quality content.[/conr]

[conl]Hot Pod: What do you think are the more troubling trends in how true crime podcasts have evolved?[/conl]

[conr]Lavoie: One is what I see as a glut of podcasts that are, quite frankly, building audience by boldly recycling the work of others. Sword & Scale is a much-talked-about example of that, but it’s not even the worst I’ve come across. There was a recent incident in which a listener pointed me to a monetized show in which the host simply read, word for word, articles published in magazines and newspapers — and I can’t help but wonder how pervasive that is. My hope is that at some point, the transcription technologies we’re now seeing emerge can somehow be deployed to scan audio for plagiarism, similar to the way YouTube scans videos for copyright infringement.

But there’s another trend that, for me, is even more troubling. There’s been a recent and massive growth of corporate podcast networks that are building their businesses on what I can only compare to the James Patterson book factory model — basically saying to creators, “Hey, if you think you have a story, partner with us and we’ll help you make, distribute, and monetize your podcast — and we’ll even slap our name on it!”

This, unfortunately, seems to be what’s behind a recent spate of shows that, in the hands of a more caring set of producers, could have (maybe?) been good, but ultimately, the podcasts end up being soulless, flat, “why did they make it at all” experiences.

Why is this the most upsetting trend for me? First, because good journalists are sometimes tied to these factory-made shows, and the podcasts aren’t doing them, or their outlets, or the podcast audience as a whole any favors.

The other part of it is that these networks have a lot of marketing pull with podcast platforms that can make or break shows by featuring them at the top of the apps. These marketing relationships with Apple etc. mean factory networks have a tremendous advantage in getting their shows front and center. But ultimately, many of the true crime podcasts getting pushed on podcast apps are very, very bad, and I can’t imagine a world in which a lot of bad content will end up cultivating a smart and sustainable audience.[/conr]

[conl]Hot Pod: In your opinion, what were the most significant true crime podcasts in recent years?[/conl]

[conr]Lavoie: In the Dark by APM Reports is up there. What I love about that show is that they approached the Jacob Wetterling story with an unusual central question: Why wasn’t this case solved? (Of course, they also caught the incredibly fortunate break of the case actually being solved, but I digress…) Theirs is a FAR more interesting question than, say, “What actually happened to this missing person?” Or “Is this person really guilty?” Of course, In the Dark also had the benefit of access to a talented public media newsroom, and I really enjoyed how they folded data reporting into that story.

I most often tell people that after Serial season one, my favorite true crime podcast of all time is the first season of Accused. Not only do I love that show because it looks at an interesting unsolved case, but I love it because it was made by two women, seasoned newspaper journalists, with no podcasting experience. Amber Hunt is a natural storyteller and did an amazing job injecting a tremendous amount of humanity and badass investigative journalism skills into that story. It’s not perfect, but to me, its imperfections are a big part of what makes it extraordinary.

More recently, I’ve really enjoyed the shows I mentioned above, including West Cork and Missing & Murdered. But when it comes to significance, Slow Burn is the most understated and excellent audio work I’ve heard in a long time. I loved every minute of it. I think that Slate team has raised the bar on telling historical crime stories, and we’re the better for it.[/conr]

[conl]Hot Pod: What do you generally want to see more of from true crime podcasts?[/conl]

[conr]Lavoie: I want to see more new approaches and formal risk-taking, and more integrity, journalistic and otherwise.

One of my favorite podcasts to talk about is Breakdown from the AJC. Bill Rankin is the opposite of a radio reporter — he has a folksy voice and a writing style much more suited to print. But beginning in season one, he’s been very transparent about the challenges he’s faced while making the show. He’s also, as listeners quickly learned, an incredible reporter with incredible values. That show has embraced multiple formats and allowed itself to evolve — and with a couple of exceptions, Bill’s voice and heart have been at the center of it.

I’d also love to see some trends go away, most of all, this idea of podcast host as “Hey, I’m not a podcaster or a journalist or really anyone at all but LET’S DO THIS, GUYS” gung-ho investigator.

Don’t get me wrong, some really good podcasts have started with people without a lot of audio or reporting experience, but they aren’t good because the person making them celebrates sounding like an amateur after making dozens of episodes.[/conr]

[storybreak]

Again, you can find Lavoie on Crime Writers On…, where she is joined every week by: Kevin Flynn, her true crime coauthor (and “former TV reporter husband,” she adds); Toby Ball, a fiction writer; and Lara Bricker, a licensed private investigator and fellow true crime writer. Lavoie also produces a number of other podcast projects, including: …These Are Their Stories: The Law & Order Podcast, HGTV & Me, and Married With Podcast for Stitcher Premium.

On a related note: The New York Times’ Jonah Bromwich wrote a quick piece on the Parcast network, described as “one of several new networks saturating the audio market with podcasts whose lurid storylines play out like snackable television.” The article also contains my successful effort at being quoted in ALL CAPS in the Times.

Bites:

  • This year’s Maximum Fun Drive has successfully accrued over 28,000 new and upgrading members. (Twitter) Congrats to the team.
  • WBUR is organizing what it’s calling the “first-ever children’s podcast festival” on April 28 and 29. Called “The Mega Awesome Super Huge Wicked Fun Podcast Playdate” — shouts to whoever came up with that — the festival will be held at the Coolidge Corner Theatre in Brookline, Massachusetts and will feature shows like Eleanor Amplified, Story Pirates, But Why, and Circle Round, among others. (Website)
  • “Bloomberg expands TicToc to podcasts, newsletters.” For the uninitiated: TicToc is Bloomberg’s live-streaming video news channel that’s principally distributed over Twitter. On the audio side, the expansion appears to include podcast repackages and a smart-speaker experiment. (Axios)
  • American Public Media is leaning on Westwood One to handle advertising for the second season of its hit podcast In The Dark. Interesting choice. The new season drops next week. (AdWeek)
  • I’m keeping an eye on this: Death in Ice Valley, an intriguing collaboration between the BBC and Norway’s NRK, debuted yesterday. (BBC)
  • Anchor rolls out a feature that helps its users find…a cohost? Yet another indication that the platform is in the business of building a whole new social media experience as opposed to something that directly relates to podcasting. (TechCrunch)
  • On The New York Times’ marketing campaign for Caliphate: “The Times got some early buzz for the podcast before its launch; 15,000 people have signed up for a newsletter that will notify them when a new episode is ready, twice as many as expected.” (Digiday)
  • “Alexa Is a Revelation for the Blind,” writes Ian Bogost in The Atlantic.

[photocredit]Photo of a tape measure by catd_mitchell used under a Creative Commons license.[/photocredit]

As more podcasts become TV shows, can their founders retain creative control?

Adaptation. Let me start by saying this: There are very few things in the world that I love more than watching and obsessing about television. And I don’t care that John Landgraf, CEO of cable channel FX, complained not too long ago that we’re hitting “peak TV.” (The combined total of scripted series on all TV distribution formats in 2015 was 409, nearly double the total in the past six years, according to the LA Times.) I say, what of it, my man! Give me more dragons, more zombies, more weeping costumed British people, more cops. Drown me in your linear video content!

But we’re here today to talk about podcasts, and I’m here to say, gladly, that more and more podcasts have begun contributing to the peak TV problem. At risk of writing what is essentially a trend piece, here are three things that were announced over the past two weeks that struck me as fortuitously close together:

  • Last Wednesday, The Hollywood Reporter dropped an exclusive reporting that Lore is currently being developing into a TV show. Lore is an independent horror podcast created by writer Aaron Mahnke, with each episode featuring a different story in the anthological style of Nate DiMeo’s The Memory Palace. Among the team heading up the adaptation process is Gale Anne Hurd, an executive producer on The Walking Dead, that wildly popular zombie apocalypse TV show that’s steadily shepherding AMC through the post-Mad Men era. No network is attached to the project yet.
  • The Lore news comes about a day after Two Up Productions, the studio behind the audio drama Limetown, announced through a newsletter that they, too, were working on a television pilot based on the podcast. “We have nearly completed a first draft of the pilot, and we feel pretty great about it somehow,” wrote Zack Akers and Skip Bronkie, the duo behind Two Up. “But this doesn’t mean anything, because there are so many steps between a draft and your television.” (Akers and Bronkie also mentioned that they’re still hard at work developing the second season of the podcast, along with “a completely new and separate podcast series which will probably really surprise you.”)
  • And a week before that, The Hollywood Reporter (again) reported that the TV adaptation of Throwing Shade, a comedy podcast that originally launched in 2011 and has since become a web video series on Funny or Die, has received a series pickup by TV Land. The network is hoping for a January 2017 premiere date for the show, which will feature ten episodes. News of the podcast being adapted for television first surfaced in December 2015.

All three podcasts join a steadily growing list of podcasts that, through various means and configurations, have been developed or are currently being adapted for the small screen. A partial list of examples: Comedy Bang Bang, Maron, Stuff You Should Know. We also know that a TV adaptation of Serial is being developed by Phil Lord and Christopher Miller, who in the past have demonstrated a knack for pulling off improbable adaptations like The Lego Movie and Cloudy With A Chance of Meatballs.

My reading of the TV industry has consistently led me to perceive it as a remarkably conservative creature — albeit one capable of rather great feats — and the fact that we’re seeing that industry’s adaptation funnel expand to include podcasts a lot more is a completely expected development that builds upon the processes it has established with books, graphic novels, movies, and so on.

And we’re going to see a lot more of these, I reckon, whether it means just picking up intellectual property (for narrative and fiction podcasts, in particular) or breaking out talent in the vein of The Nerdist’s Chris Hardwick, Throwing Shade, and Men in Blazers. However, as it is the case with startups, actors, science experiments, and first dates, most of these pod-to-TV adaptations will fail. But the opportunity is here for podcast folk — for more money, more exposure, more creative frontiers. And as an avid television viewer, I’m just glad for the opportunity to have more stuff to slap my eyeballs with.

However, as someone who is both an avid television viewer and a podcast obsessive, my main query is whether these podcast talents will get the opportunity to flex their creative muscles in the way they want to — and the extent to which they should be allowed to do so. Television is an notoriously difficult industry that trades in a lot of money, and I’m sympathetic to arguments that such enterprises should be left up to the folks who have devoted their lives to the form. But yet, what’s the point of a creative industry if it does not allow for creators to create?

In any case, it’s a blindingly rare occasion that television affords the audio-native talent full creative control. And when that happens, well, it sure is something. A prominent example: in 2007, the team at This American Life launched a TV show on the Showtime channel which ran for two seasons before they called it quits. They explained in a blog post that “it was too much work doing both the radio and television shows.” In that same post, the team mentioned that they still held out hope of returning to television someday, perhaps as a special.

You can now find both seasons of the TV show on Amazon Video. I went through a bunch of the episodes over the weekend for the first time, and it’s an utterly remarkable watch. Not because it’s particularly great television — I mean, it’s good, it’s solid, it won two Primetime Emmys — but rather, because it was able to perfectly capture the feel of the radio show itself while evading any sort of “adaptation uncanny valley.” Still, for me, the pleasure came less from the show itself than the meta-show — in knowing that the team had such freedom to make whatever it wanted.

And maybe that’s enough.

As an aside: for certain digital media companies — particularly the ones thinking about linear television — the concept of adaptation probably means much less. We recently saw digital media enfant terrible Vice roll out Viceland, a whole new cable channel, and we’re months away from seeing whether Bill Simmons will be able to develop a permeable membrane-like relationship between his HBO show and his digital media baby, The Ringer.

The past couple of months have yielded whispers of Vox and BuzzFeed looking to get into TV as well. With that in mind, one could easily imagine a future in which Vox moves to cycle its talent base — Ezra Klein, Sarah Kliff, Matt Yglesias, et. al. — further beyond their basic text, YouTube-style video, and podcast output into television. Likewise, one could imagine BuzzFeed spinning Heben Nigatu and Tracy Clayton out to television in addition to their work with Another Round.

For these companies — which have control over a pool of talent and have significant control access to the various means of production for all these different platforms — crossing over from digital to linear and back again would be considerably easier and, to be honest, expected. #Content is fluid, man, and it’s especially so for these companies.

Additional reading: Ira Glass’s 1997 diary entries on Slate covering an early adaptation opportunity.

Time-shifted cable television. Speaking of TV and podcasts, here’s something that I’ve been keeping an eye on: cable news channels that reach some audiences through (free!) podcasts. Look, I’m one of those pesky Brooklyn-occupying ~snake people~ working in media with an erratic income stream. My personal finance game is laughable, but I still managed to decide that getting a cable bundle is ridiculous. I get my sports fix at the bar down the street. I watch The Bachelor vicariously through Twitter and Bachelor recap podcasts.

And I love me some Brian Stelter, and if I’m ever going to get my grubby hands on CNN’s Reliable Sources — and not through indirect means like clips off the website, the newsletter, or Twitter — it’s going to be through the podcast, which is basically the show stripped of its video. Which is completely fine; I don’t really see the point for the visual elements of that show’s reporting anyway. (I’m sure other people do; I personally think it’s superfluous.)

CNN serves a bunch of its other, more magazine-style news programming this way as well: Amanpour, Anderson Cooper 360, State of the Union. And so do the other two major cable news channels: MSNBC — with Morning Joe, Rachel Maddow, Hardball, and others on tap — and Fox News, in case you just need your O’Reilly Talking Points during your, oh I don’t know, morning jog or something.

I tried to get a general sense of how CNN currently feels about its podcast strategy — and if it could share some ballpark audience numbers. I reached out to Tyler Moody, CNN’s VP of sales and affiliate relations, who also happens to be fairly involved with the audio arm. He wrote back:

Several CNN shows have been available as audio podcasts for many years now, and we continue to add more and more. We’ve found that fans of CNN seek out our programming across platforms including live streaming audio and video. We’re happy with the performance and look forward to doing more with on-demand audio as it continues to grow.

No numbers, but that’s still interesting to hear. Moody’s response here contextualizes CNN’s podcast strategy as a pure audience engagement play. Which makes sense: even if the cable channel chose to monetize these podcasts with ads, the revenue it would generate would probably be a mere pittance compared to what it typically wants from a new channel, at least for now. Plus, an ad load would add significantly more friction to an experience that’s able to highlight an audience segment with a very specific monetizable potential: the type of individual who finds a cable bundle cost too high a barrier, but who still wants the content enough to seek out a hacked-up audio version of it that isn’t actually optimized for the ear.

Those individuals (and I’m one of them, mind you) are slightly below the top of the funnel, and should cable costs go down — or if we finally see the Great Cable Unbundling at scale — they’ll slide all the way to conversion easily, I imagine. Of course, the problem with figuring out the exact size of that potential audience type is being able to discern between these folks and the cable subscribers who also listen to these stripped-down audio versions.

Those people, though…man, talk about engaged.

MTV News launches its first podcast slate. Here’s the trouble with writing a piece about MTV: it’s a media institution with so much history, baggage, and cultural detritus that the instant temptation is to kick a corresponding news item off with some dad-friendly pun. “I Want My PodTV,” perhaps, or “Digital Killed The Radio Star.” The alternative, of course, is to do what I just did, which is to comment on said temptation without having to actually commit to the dad-core, even though, privately, I really like those puns and just want to share them widely.

Anyway.

Last week, MTV News — the digital arm of the wider Viacom-owned cable channel operation — announced the lineup of its first batch of podcast programming. There are five shows in this initial slate, and they run the gamut you would expect from a culture and entertainment-oriented digital media company in 2016: Three pop culture shows, a politics show (it is an election year, after all), and a film podcast. It’s a rollout strategy that’s remarkably similar to that of other digital media orgs dabbling in podcasts, and each MTV News podcast would fit quite comfortably into a genre that’s packed with dozens of equivalent shows.

But the revived music news operation has a distinct competitive advantage: the company hired very, very well. This is true for a good portion of the front-of-mic talent — which includes Molly Lambert and Alex Pappademas, formerly of Grantland (RIP), and film critic Amy Nicholson, co-host of Earwolf’s The Canon — and it is uncommonly for the staff that make up the production team. According to Deadline, it’s a list of four: former Marketplace producer Mukta Mohan, former Pitchfork Radio station manager Michael Catano, former This American Life producer Jane Marie, and The Memory Palace’s Nate DiMeo.

(Current first reported on DiMeo joining the MTV News team back in January, in one of the earliest articles discussing the shape and ambition of MTV News’ audio operations. “The truth is while everyone else is writing about Drake or whatever,” DiMeo told them, “I will probably be sitting there writing about the Brooklyn Bridge.” He will continue producing The Memory Palace in addition to his duties at MTV News.)

Alex Pappademas, who also serves as the site’s executive editor, is reportedly the person leading MTV News’s podcasting operations, according to Variety. Pappademas, by the way, was half of the great Grantland podcast Do You Like Prince Movies? (RIP, on two counts), which he co-hosted with Wesley Morris (who’s now at The New York Times and can be heard sporadically on the NYT Music Popcast.)

And speaking of Prince (RIP, again): Shortly after news of Prince’s death broke last Thursday, the team published a 30-minute podcast special reflecting on the artist’s legacy. The special featured conversations with various critics and was, to some extent, a baptism by fire. I thought it was really good, and a fine — if not raw — example of what this operation can do.

One more thing before we move on: podcasts about music and podcasts that substantially utilize popular music as part of sound design are rich, potential genres that many podcast producers and networks are simply dying to get into but that have so far been held up in the podcasting space, largely due to the legal costs associated with licensing. I reckon MTV News, with its existing licensing relationships, is uniquely positioned to do a lot more with music in podcast programming than its competitors. Which is great! But I want more Carly Rae Jepsen in my podcasts, man.

At this writing, the iTunes listings for the podcasts are not live yet, but you can find them on MTV News’ Soundcloud account.

Funding Postloudness. Last week saw the announcement of a new podcast collective coming out of Chicago called “Postloudness,” which hopes to provide a platform to bring more underrepresented voices into the podcast medium. My buddies at Nieman Lab posted a great write-up on the collective last week, and you should totally check it out in its entirety, but there was a line in there that caught my eye:

[T]he ideal advertisers for the network are niche local brands and organizations that cater to Postloudness listeners’ worldview and interests, such as women-owned book stores or independent sex-positive sex toy shops. That’s a niche where there is opportunity for growth, (co-founder Cher) Vincent believes.

At a time when all I hear about are podcast networks looking to attract big brands into the market, this struck me as refreshingly idealistic. Curious, I wrote to the founders — James Green, Cher Vincent, and Alexandra Cox — for more information.

One of the more consistent knocks I’ve heard made against podcasts is how the same kinds of advertisers keep showing up in all podcasts — Squarespace, Mailchimp, etc. What is your approach to sourcing these new advertisers?

We are finding new advertisers out of necessity. We aren’t one of the big guys, so we’re not going to get the attention of Squarespace or Mailchimp, nor do we believe that our listenership would get a lot of value from something they’ve heard many times over. Our approach has been to align with small businesses that want to support a small collective.

We are actively doing the groundwork to reach out to businesses, but each show on the network can actively seek out their own sponsorship, either for ad slots on their shows, or to share among the entire collective. We know we have to get the word out somehow, so we are organizing live events, partnerships with other organizations and festivals in the area, and other ways to get more ears acquainted with Postloudness.

Are y’all thinking about monetizing in any way beyond advertising?

Currently we are focusing on smaller advertisers, but we know there are individuals who want to support Postloudness directly. One of the great things about Simplecast, the hosting service we use, is that they offer direct donations. Along with donations, we are also investigating support through grants and residency programs.

One more question: I have my own theories, but why do you think podcasting is so white, straight, and male?

Podcasts are cis, white, and male for the same reason all emerging media throughout history has been. We all know the radio community is very small and usually produced by the same people, so an echo chamber is created and unknowingly (at times) cultivated. With jobs and new projects, people usually hire friends or those in adjacent networks. If that cycle continues, then radio (or any other field that suffers from this issue) will continue to be homogeneous. If Postloudness can even fissure this cycle by a mere margin, more voices are heard, the podcast audience grows, and everyone wins in the long run.

Cool.

This version of Hot Pod has been adapted for gentle Nieman Lab-reading eyes. For the full stuff, you can subscribe to the main newsletter here. The mother version has more news, analysis, material. And you can support the work done on Hot Pod by becoming a member. More information on the website.