Said Zoë McDermott, "a 31-year-old title insurance producer from Pennsylvania, who said she streams video of Theo Von’s show on her phone while she works."
Quoted in "Who Is Watching All These Podcasts? An audio-only medium spawned a giant industry that is now largely focused on video" (NYT).
McDermott's approach describes what might be 30% of those who play the video version of podcasts. That leaves 70% actually watching what offers very little visually. What's up with these people? We're talking about shows that can be 4 or 5 hours long and just 2 people sitting around talking.
But to sit there staring at it the whole time — why? The article doesn't answer that question.
Posts
46 comments:
Most podcasts can be watched while you are doing other work. It provides a passive stream of information and you can rewind back if you need to focus on something.
Most subjects can be boiled down to 1 or 2 minutes of condensed conversation if the surrounding context is understood and agreed on. Much of these shows is building that context and every now and then something important is said.
Haven't most talk shows, especially news ones, been visually uninteresting. Like Meet the Press. I think media has gotten so visually frenetic it has forgotten a lot of people don't mind simple formats with just some interesting banter. What's But My Line is another example. TV doesnt have much of that anymore.
Humans don't just talk with their mouths. In fact, much more is said with our body. It's important and vastly more informing to watch than to just listen.
For an awful lot of podcasts and long-form (20min+) Youtube videos, I usually play them on my phone while I am doing something else, like folding laundry or painting.
The better question is what percentage of cat ladies are fucking off at work, listening and glancing at podcasts instead of producing.
I love podcasts, but I've never watched one. I've watched some linked clips, of course.
Part of the joy of podcasts is that you can listen while you're getting something done, like with radio.
Not sure the difference between watching a podcast than watching a Sunday morning talk show or Late Night talk show. Most of it is just people sitting and talking in front of a camera, but occasionally they'll put up something that is more than just talking. I'd say those occasional things aren't worth the squeeze to watch the entire bit. I do get passively paying attention and glancing at it when there is a reason to do so.
Most podcasters produce audio only versions of their podcasts. If that's what people are consuming at work, I don't think that's much different from having a talk radio station going on in the background.
Seems to me that streaming video with audio employs more resources than streaming just audio. I demand that eco-justice warriors demand that the government prevent the video streaming of two or three talking heads.
"Ira Glass, the creator of the foundational long-form radio show “This American Life,” said that the fact that the podcast tent has gotten bigger and thrown up a projector screen doesn’t threaten a program like his."
I'm a fan of "This American Life" and audio books, and don't need video because those tell stories. Long podcasts tend to be a host and a guest. Video is helpful to see body language and facial expressions.
Having a video of the speakers is just another option; Sometimes you have to rewind and watch to catch nuances that are conveyed by the human cues, the body and facial language that is subtly additive to just the words. We used to use our imagination for that, filling in the picture. Which is more entertaining, I wonder?
I usually start with the audio version of a long podcast, and then if they start referencing something to look at that interests me, I note the time stamp of the episode and open up the video version (this is extra easy in Spotify but doable elsewhere). Or if I'm on WIFI and data usage isn't an issue, I just play the video without watching it until I want to.
I’ve been reading Ann’s blog since the first year. I remember when she started doing (the newly named) podcasts for a while, which were audio only. Then she did video with the audio, and I’m trying to remember: didn’t the audio-plus-video have a different name? Videocasts? Additionally, Ann did head-to-head debates with various personalities; I think those were named after the app.
I agree with law clerk that the bigger question is how many people are wasting time at work on their phones. People should have a required amount of work to complete even if they need to stay late, and a good manager makes sure they get *just* enough work to have to hustle a little bit to not stay late. If an office has people routinely on their phones for long periods of time, even "while they're working," then layoffs are in order.
The problem with video is you have to stop what you're doing and watch it. Audio is much better. Freedom.
Why would watching an hour-long podcast be any different than watching an hour of news, TV show or movie?
What's weird is if Leo Fender just got started today we'd be calling it a Podacaster or something like that.
If you're watching what people do when they're sitting at their desk, instead of looking through the product of their efforts, then you're not managing, you're policing. If you have to police your employees, you should be replacing them by evaluating their benefit to the business through their work product and telling them to get better or be fired.
Whenever the NYT does one of these stories, I wonder what the real relationship of Zoë McDermott, "a 31-year-old title insurance producer from Pennsylvania", to the author actually is. Cousin? College roommate's ex? Acquaintance of a friend? These people come from somewhere. It's not as if the NYT has an extensive network of connections in semi-rural areas. If it did, it wouldn't need to do periodic "gorillas in the mist" articles about those all those mysterious GOP voters.
I like to listen to firearms podcasts during sex. I think it makes me a better lover.
ThreeSheets said...
Why would watching an hour-long podcast be any different than watching an hour of news, TV show or movie?
Because the Podcast environment is decentralized. The market is determined by user preference.
The NYTs does not like decentralized entertainment. You must listen to corporate media only.
For years, I would record a couple of Fox shows every day and then watch when preparing dinner, cleaning house, other miscellaneous tasks (sorting through photos). Now, with a computer or tv in several rooms, I listen/watch to favorite podcasts - Mark Halperin's 2Way, Megyn Kelly, Walter Kirn/Matt Taibbi. I couldn't have done it at work however and only a mundane, paperwork shuffling job would allow the distraction.
I have a remote job. Sometimes I will turn on a podcast because I had years of office white noise. Generally it’s when I’m doing certain tasks that don’t require a lot of concentration. If I find it distracting or find it too engaging, I will likely turn it off. And turn it back on when I’m in the car or some other non-work task. I don’t think I’ve ever just watched a podcast.
It depends on the podcast. The only podcast I listen to using the Podcast app on my iPhone is “The Unauthorized History of the Pacific War”. On the vast majority of episodes the video is secondary, and half of of it is just the hosts sitting at their computers talking. On specific episodes the video is important, and the episode best watched on my 58” TV.
@bagho20 wrote: “I like to listen to firearms podcasts during sex. I think it makes me a better lover.”
I think you need to revisit the whole “This is my rifle, this is my gun” discussion…
One podcast that works well with video is "The Rest Is History" co-hosted by Tom Holland and Dominic Sandbrook. The visual way in which they interact with one another is entertaining and informative.
Achilles nails it right off. It isn’t scanning the sea for U-boat periscopes. I know lots of people who do fiddly, quite technical, work while “watching” podcasts.
For me, this applies to television generally. I read while watching TV because 90% of what’s streaming doesn’t fully engage me. Unless the accents are so thick that subtitles are required. Then I read those.
it's called second screen
"Second screen usage involves using a secondary device like a smartphone, tablet, or laptop while watching TV. This behavior potentially influences how we watch television ..
Second screen usage is about engaging more deeply with content beyond the primary screen. As this trend grows, it will shape the future of media consumption."
https://arena.im/audience-engagement/second-screen-media-consumption/
Pre-digital age, I always did my college homework while listening to the early ‘80’s equivalent of electronica. It didn’t break my concentration, it created a cone of concentration. I find the same thing happening listening to podcasts at work. The work doesn’t suffer, but I miss most of the podcast content.
justine bateman says that this 'second sceen' is WHY modern movies and tele are SO BAD..
If they were ingrossing, they'd distract viewers from their phones
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/tv/0/netflix-second-screening-more-reality-tv/
"Audiences are too distracted by their phones to focus – and execs are encouraging them. Is this the end for complex, original storytelling? "
This is not an issue, and it reveals more about commenter projection and imagination than anything else. Perhaps they describe their own habits?
Many platforms support different kinds of media in one place. I can get podcasts or music on Apple's platform. I can get those plus audio books on Amazon. I can watch videos or listen to music on Youtube music. It's simple convenience that allows vendors to produce and support fewer pieces of software. Vendors hate to maintain and synchronize half-a-dozen parallel pieces of software.
For end users, a given device in a given place with the requisite software installed is easier to use than swapping it out merely for the "intended" format. If the content has unnecessary video, just don't watch it or put it behind another application via multitasking.
We don't live in the old analog one-device, one-function era of tube TVs, cassettes, record players, and film anymore. Maybe some are stuck in pre-year-2000 ways?
"The better question is what percentage of cat ladies are fucking off at work, listening and glancing at podcasts instead of producing."
No "cat ladies" work for me, so not my problem. If it is for some employer, then guess they should do something.
Sounds similar to viewing sitcom reruns I have seen many times - Seinfeld is an example. It's mainly about listening to the dialogue, and experiencing the show visually is subordinate to that.
"Just me and my two cats...."
Count me shocked.
“ But to sit there staring at it the whole time — why? The article doesn't answer that question.”
Same reason people watch My Dinner with Andre, only Rogan’s conversations are usually more interesting, both aurally and visually.
This is a podcast which has no video, just a photograph of Julie Brown, the reporter who pursued the Epstein case for the Miami Herald. Talking to Ross Douthat, of all people. Pretty interesting.
I watch and am glued to the You'll Hear It one hour video podcast. These two guys are terrific jazz pianists, and they know jazz inside and out. When they both play, it's the best part of the day.
- Krumhorn
I had to look up what an "insurance producer" does. It's another name for insurance agent.
For several years, I didn't even know you could watch podcasts. I listened to Joe Rogan and In Our Time as I did a hell of a lot of manual labor. I can't imagine bothering to watch one.
Relatedly, there's a great series of poets from the Fifties on reading and explaining their poems. I believe it is also sight and sound, but only listened to it. Sylvia Plath is especially incisive.
Addiction to gasbaggery abides!
I can't listen to podcasts (music, books) unless I'm moving - driving, walking or riding - I can't sit still and stare at the wall or scenery. So, I watch video versions. The only exception is sitting on the beach with plenty of activity around. I don't live at or near the beach anymore, so that's out.
I listen to a fair amount of solo speaker podcasts on YouTube, usually of the fairly short variety but occasionally stretching to an hour or more. Most of them usually include some sort of decent photographs or other illustrations so watching does add some value. About the only podcast I listen to audio only is Steve Haywards Three Whiskey Happy Hour but in that case the podcasters are doing audio-only output, there's no visual of them talking. (They Zoom as a group when they are recording so they'll occasionally make references to things they see, and then have to be explained to the audience, which is a bit of a pain)
These are videos in part because they are mostly on Youtube as that is the most widely available internet distribution system, and in part because video is a universal technology. Its right there on every phone and laptop.
It's visual people listen to the long form but they watch the clips
Post a Comment
Please use the comments forum to respond to the post. Don't fight with each other. Be substantive... or interesting... or funny. Comments should go up immediately... unless you're commenting on a post older than 2 days. Then you have to wait for us to moderate you through. It's also possible to get shunted into spam by the machine. We try to keep an eye on that and release the miscaught good stuff. We do delete some comments, but not for viewpoint... for bad faith.