Podcasting Not "Tivo for your iPod"

[jlewin]

USA Today has published another podcasting article, calling podcasting a noteworthy alternative to plain ol' radio.

Pretty good article overall. The author, Andrew Kantor, trots out the hoary comparison of podcasting with Tivo, though. This comparison was tired six months ago, and hasn't gotten any better with time.

Podcasting is not "Tivo for your iPod":

Podcasting isn't tied to the iPod.

Podcasting isn't tied to portable media players at all - many people listen on their computers using downloads or streaming.

Podcasting isn't a piece of gear.

Podcasting isn't proprietary or tied to a specific company.

Even more important than the time-shifting potential of podcasting is that it lowers the barriers of entry to publishing audio content, it creates a new distribution method for audio shows, it makes everyone a potential "broadcaster", it supports niche content, it creates a new marketplace for music and it extends the reach of Internet publishers to times and places currently unconnected to the Internet.

It's time to bury the Tivo comparison. Anybody have a better analogy?

[Chris G]

I've tried many catch words for explanation. I've found the best way to explain it, is to say "Here, listen to this, I get it automatically delivered to my itunes every three days" I hand them a copy of a Podcast, and they say "Cool, can you set me up?"

You know, I agree with a lot of what the folks at INA say. Their business ideas are sound, (no pun). But I really think they're going to have a struggle on their hands itrying to popularize the word "Nanocasting" as a catch-all for the medium. I think the term Podcasting is here to stay. I find it interesting that in order to expalin Nanocasting, you need to use the word Podcasting. Of course that's only as it relates to people familiar with Podcasting.

I just can't see my self saying, "Hey, that was a great nanocast." I'm not pooing on INA's efforts, but until there's a better term than Podcasting, we're stuck with it.

Chris

[maethor]

I think the comparison to TiVo is simply that you set it up once to get the content you want and then forget about it.

Of course as the underlying mechanisms are very different it's not a great comparision, but it does explain one of podcasting's features in terms people might understand.

I don't think there really is anything to compare it with as podcasting is the fusion of several older technologies into a new one - it's like a blend of radio and the web with an added dash of TiVo-ness.

As for the whole podcasting vs nanocasting debate - I think a lot of the confusion comes down to marketing people and technical people using some of the same or at least similar terms for different things. Podcasting is what it is - RSS + mp3 (or some other media file). As I understand the term, nanocasting is about programmes/advertising targetted to extremely small groups of people. Thus a nanocaster could use a podcast as a way of nanocasting, but then they could use internet streaming or possibly even cable/satellite "broadcasting" to deliver their hypertargetted message. And just as not all nanocasting is podcasted, not all podcasts are nanocasts - some podcasts have quite broad appeal and don't have a hyper narrow target audience.

[TheMShow]

Before we craft a message we have to agree on the audience. "TiVo for Radio" works well for listeners because it gets the time shift idea across (but a major problem - I wouldn't call TiVo mainstream America yet...).

The other items you listed:
"Even more important than the time-shifting potential of podcasting is that it lowers the barriers of entry to publishing audio content, it creates a new distribution method for audio shows, it makes everyone a potential "broadcaster", it supports niche content, it creates a new marketplace for music and it extends the reach of Internet publishers to times and places currently unconnected to the Internet."

Are all valid but more important for the podcaster rather than the listener. Listeners don't care about barriers to entry or new distribution methods, they just want to listen to cool stuff. You did hit a major point on niche content - listeners can finally get shows about stuff that wouldn't make the radio.

Trucker Tom has kicked around "Audio Magazine" - you subscribe to the stuff you like and it just shows up for you to check out whenever you want. Any thoughts on that?
_________________
Ten Minutes of News, Talk and Entertainment
Work-Safe!
Get the feed at:
www.TheMShow.com

[elis]

The M Show said:

[jdecagna]

[jlewin]

[TheMShow]

Yeah, you're right "magazine" is a bit too low tech. As far as catchy stuff, it's easiest to stick with Podcasting, there's enough out there that anyone can google it and get a bunch of relevant stuff back. Anything new would have to start over at ground zero and cause confusion.

How about: "The stuff you want to listen to, whenever you want to listen to it."

Please spare any lame WYSIWYG comparisons...
_________________
Ten Minutes of News, Talk and Entertainment
Work-Safe!
Get the feed at:
www.TheMShow.com