Afterword: After posting this entry thinking nobody would really read it, I received comments from five fantastic people who have all made me rethink this issue from the ground up… not to mention make me wish I had spent more time on this post in the first place!
You can read my gigantic reponse along with these comments (surprisingly!) in the comments section. Thank everyone for your help and feedback, you’ve all really helped a lot.
Isn’t the internet an amazing place? All this open dialogue with people from around the world, I’m loving it!
It seems there’s a growing number of people who aren’t impressed with the term podcast for one reason or another. From what I’ve been able to gather, these are the most common reasons why (feel free to post a comment below to add to the list):
- Techy reasons
-
- It implies you need an Apple iPod to listen to them
- They’re not "casting" because XML is a client pull system, not a server push system!
- You can’t immedietly figure out what it is when hearing the term the first time
- It’s a techy, short sighted term with no longevity
- The "don’t want to be associated with these" reasons
-
- It describes horrible shows like Dawn and Drew
- Podcasts have become too commercial
- Antonym to above: podcasts are amateur and silly, nobody takes them seriously and therefore they have no business potential
- The whole field is dominated by a few large egos
For what it’s worth, I really don’t agree with some of these points, and I’m honestly apathetic with regards to most of the others, I’m just playing devil’s advocate here.
Someone looks jealous!
In response to this, a veratable splattering of adhoc words combined to create podcast-free alternative names have been created:
- Frank Edward Nora coined the term New Time Radio even before podcasting took off and he continues to use it as an alternative
- Jimbob Kloss from Whole Wheat Radio refers to them as audio magazines, very catchy!
- Leo Laporte infamously decided to refer to them as netcasts, which other than the iPod mixup really doen’t solve any of the tech issues at all!
I’m sure a quick Google search would reveal even more such terms.
Which brings me to the Rubenerd Show. I’ve decided I’m going to distance myself from this issue once and for all by calling these shows exactly what they are:
That said, I’ll probably keep using the term podcast interchangably with it though, it’s the accepted term that everyone seems to have settled on and agreed to, and I’m fed up with explaining other new terms to people. Perhaps with time the accepted term will change, in which case I’ll change too. After all, language is an evolving beast that changes as we do, right?
Post to del.icio.us
13 Comments
I’m not sure what this means, but just as you were releasing this blog, almost to the minute, I accidentally dropped my iPod into the toilet.
Anyway I’m using “Online radio show” nowadays, except I leave the word “podcast” lying around as a link to the feed, on my website, for those who know what it means.
I’m not too worried about it being a word that’s associated with failing companies, and that sort of stuff, but I’m finding that, as I tell friends and family about my podcast, some of whom have only recently got their first computer, the question they ask first is “What the hell is that”?
I have never found the word podcast a negative one. Maybe people who have never tried the os x operating system have no clue how well it works. Their for they tend to hate the apple (ipod) name. Maybe this hatred for new unknown worlds makes people have negative feelings. either way I have discovered amazing audio talk shows and have been extremely great full for that.
This is how it usually goes:
“Check out my podcast!”
“Podcast? What’s that?”
“It’s like an Internet radio show”
“Oh! I see. When is it on?”
“You can listen anytime… it’s a file.”
“??????????????????????????????????”
Nice to see you discussing this. And now to be the Devil’s Own Advocate yet again:
“Internet Radio Show” is okay, definitely better than “podcast” … but it’s a little like hitching your star to a 1920’s Ford. If I had it to do over, we probably should have called it “Whole Wheat Webcast” instead of Radio.
I spend tons of time explaining to regular folks that no, we aren’t a terrestrial radio station. We broadcast on the internet. Blank stare. They don’t get it.
And calling it “radio” to the tech crowd is slightly embarrassing as traditional radio (Radio 1.0) is in its death throes.
But radio still has such strong emotional and historical ties that it’s better than webcast for the time being.
One other disjointed thought: calling a PRE-RECORDED / NOT LIVE / ON DEMAND file “radio” is a stretch and a tad off-putting to those of us running LIVE “radio” webcasts. Radio traditionally implied live. But that line has been blurred over the years as pre-recorded shows became the norm. A pre-recorded podcast and a live webcast create different listener emotional reactions when one is aware the show is not live - just like watching Leno live vs. a taped one (although they are all taped technically since it’s recorded early in the afternoon in NY I believe) feels different.
So, you’re right. Language is fluid and eventually these new technologies will either acquire their own distinct names (xcast etc.) or the old terms will evolve to imply the new technologies.
Anyway, dropping the commercial nod to Apple by dropping “pod” from any generic term for an audio file is a good move in my opinion.
Regarding the “cast” part and whether that relates to push or pull methodology…
I think these folks are overlooking the obvious… the “cast” comes from other traditional media words like telecast (television) and radiocast (radio)… It has nothing to do with “casting” like when you go fishing.
Seriously… fighting this now is like fighting the use of terms like Kleenex (instead of “facial tissue”) and Xerox (instead of photocopy) and “Google” (instead of web search).
We “Google” for stuff, we blow our noses with Kleenex, we “Xerox” documents… These words are now part of our language and we should just move on.
Once more people actually LISTEN to “internet radio programming” (when we all own an Apple TV?) en masse, then this silly fight against using the term “Podcast” for this form of media will go away… Why aren’t you fighting the use of the term “Google for it” for web searches? That’s just putting money into the pockets of the evil Google empire, isn’t it?
I think you get my point hopefully. The audience will decide in the end… Don’t waste any brain activity over this!
—————
catch further wisdom from me via my periodic Twitters!
BTW, I don’t follow many blogs that discuss “radio” but this guy’s is exceptional as he gets what webcasting etc. is all about. Of course, I don’t agree with all his opinions and he’s sometimes too hyped-up and commercial for my tastes, but I do believe he is a visionary screaming out to get traditional radio’s attention … without much luck. And I also learn a fair amount about what’s going on behind the scenes with radio/satellite/webcasting from him:
http://www.hear2.com/
Wow, I just want to thank you all for all the useful and detailed responses you gave. I was intending to reference this post in an assingment next month and you’ve all made my work infinitely easier. You all rock!
You also raise the point about some people’s knee-jerk reaction to all things Apple, which is absolutely true. Apple do make some very nice products, but they have been up to some Ruben Schadey business practices of late. The little socialist in me tells me that’s true for all companies, but we’ll leave that for another discussion!
In a perfect world we’d all know what podcasts and NTR are, but I guess as the tech fringe we’ll always sound like we’re talking at least some gibberish to some people.
You raised a point I really hadn’t thought of, the idea of a taped show such as the Rubenerd Show, and a live broadcast like the one you do that is later distributed for people to download. I hadn’t considered that by prerecording programmes I was in some way degrading the work of people who are genuinly busting their gut to a fixed schedule and broadcasting live, with the podcast version of that show available later. In that case, internet radio show is a bit of a punch in the face! I guess it should have syndicated somewhere in there too.
There is certainly a nostalgic quality about attaching radio to the name of a show :). Unfortuntaly it doesn’t help to explain the differences in technology; in fact I can see cases now where it could cause more problems!
And thanks for the link, I remember reading The RIAA is making this stuff up as they go along on the Whole Wheat link blog. He definitely knows what he’s talking about.
I 100% agree with your pragmatic view about the evolution of words; Kleenex, Xerox and Google are all examples such words. I rememer Leo Laporte’s rebuttal was that because podcasting was still a nacent technology we have the ability to change it now before it gets too popular. Unfortunately I think that time might just have passed.
I’ll take your advice, I’ll end up just changing to what the public term ends up as anyway eventually!
Regards Leo’s choice of “netcast”… From his own web site:
Top of the page: “Netcasts you love from people you trust”
In the description for “this WEEK in TECH”:
“Your first podcast of the week is the last word in tech.”
and further:
“Winner of “People’s Choice Podcast” and “Best Technology Podcast” in the 2005 People’s Choice Podcast Awards.”
Digging further:
“Bandwidth for the The Tech Guy podcast is provided by DSL Extreme.”
and in the FLOSS Weekly description:
“Thanks to Cachefly for providing the bandwidth for this podcast.”
So, either those are just a bunch of unconscious slips, or Leo has already given up on calling everything a “Netcast”… You decide!
Lately I have started referring to my show, The Overnightscape, as a “talk show”. This sidesteps the whole nomenclature issue a bit. And I think it communicates the general concept of what I am doing… if I need to get more specific at this point, I will call it an “Internet radio show”. I am done with the word “podcast” and I hope it’s not too late to change it. We have to get rid of it. The word has too much negative baggage for me at this point.
I guess the question then becomes, has the internet become so ubiquetous that the need to specify it in such things is even nessisary anymore? Maybe not!
calgary guru - Don’t think Leo Laporte quite has the authority to rename the“People’s Choice Podcast”,“Best Technology Podcast”, and People’s Choice Podcast Awards.”, since he just receives their awards, he doesn’t own them!
Seriously, his idea seems to be to try to spread and promote the word “Netcast” in the hope that it will be adopted, rather than immediately replacing every instance of the word straight away. In the hope that it will creep in to the collective vocabulary.
(pardon the double post, I forgot something)
I think “netcast” is pretty silly too. It’s another new word that has to be explained to people. Better to use and old word, or words, that people know. Like “radio” and “online” and “Internet”. And “cat”. Okay I’m done.
I tell you what though, if I ever won any of those awards I’d be s thrilled I’d never think of changing them out of fear I’d have the honour revoked! I guess the name just has far less marketing clout than and he knows it, and is trying to use it to change things.
And as evidence of this, and to his credit, Frank Nora for example never called it instead of .
Post a Comment