a16z Podcast - a16z Podcast: A Podcast About Podcasting

Episode Date: April 3, 2019

with Nick Quah (@nwquah), Connie Chan (@conniechan), and Sonal Chokshi (@smc90) It's a podcast about podcasting! About the state of the industry, that is. Because a lot has changed since we recorded "a podcast about podcasts" about four years ago: podcasts, and interest in podcasting -- listening, making, building -- is growing. But by how much, exactly? (since various stats are constantly floating around and often out of context); and what do we even know (given that no one really knows what a download is)?And in fact, how do we define "podcasts": Should the definition include audio books... why not music, too, then? So much of the podcasting ecosystem -- from editing tools to the notion of a "CD phase" to music companies like Spotify doing more audio deals -- stems from the legacy of the music industry. But other analogies -- like that of the web and of blogging! -- may be more useful for understanding the podcasting ecosystem, too. Heck, we even throw in an analogy of container ships (yes, the ocean kind!) to help out there.If we really think medium-native -- and borrow from other mediums and entertainment models, like TV and streaming and even terrestrial radio -- what may or may not apply to podcasting as experiments evolve? In this hallway-style jam of an episode, Nick Quah (writer and publisher of Hot Pod) joins a16z general partner Connie Chan (who covers consumer startups among other things) in conversation with Sonal Chokshi (who is also showrunner of the a16z Podcast) to talk about all this and more. We also discuss the obvious and the not-so-obvious aspects of monetization, discovery, search, platforms... and where are we in the cycles of industry fragmentation vs. consolidation, bundling vs. unbundling, more? And where might opportunities for entrepreneurs, toolmakers, and creators lie? The views expressed here are those of the individual AH Capital Management, L.L.C. (“a16z”) personnel quoted and are not the views of a16z or its affiliates.This content is provided for informational purposes only, and should not be relied upon as legal, business, investment, or tax advice. You should consult your own advisers as to those matters. References to any securities or digital assets are for illustrative purposes only and do not constitute an investment recommendation or offer to provide investment advisory services. Furthermore, this content is not directed at nor intended for use by any investor or prospective investor, and may not under any circumstances be relied upon when making a decision to invest in any fund managed by a16z. (An offering to invest in an a16z fund will be made only by the private placement memorandum, subscription agreement, and other relevant documentation of any such fund which should be read in their entirety.)Past performance is not indicative of future results. Any charts and graphs provided within are for informational purposes solely and should not be relied upon when making any investment decision. Please see https://a16z.com/disclosures for additional important information.

Hi everyone. Welcome to the A6 and Z podcast. I'm Sonal. So I'm super duper excited today, even way more than usual, because this episode is all about podcasting. For newer listeners, we actually did an episode called a podcast about podcasts about four years ago, which you can find on our website, A6C.com. But today we're focusing this podcast about podcasting since the podcasting ecosystem has evolved and changed quite a bit since then. By the way, I had hoped that Roman Mars, who was on that episode, would join us again, but he lost his voice so couldn't. Our special guest today is Nick Kwa, who writes Hot Pod, a newsletter that I've been following since very early on and has grown to be a go-to source all about the podcasting industry with analysis, insights, and more. He also publishes and contributes to Vulture on similar topics. Also joining us for this episode is A6 and Z general partner Connie Chan, who covers consumer, the future of media and Gen Z social as well as trends from China, and has observed the podcasting phenomenon there and shares ideas on what more platforms can do here. and the three of us do a hallway-style jam, taking a longer pulse check on where we are right now in the podcasting industry. Speaking of, since we do mention some companies, please note that the content here is for informational purposes only, should not be taken as legal business tax or investment advice, or be used to evaluate any investment or security, and is not directed

at any investors or potential investors in any A6C fund. For more details, please also see A6C.com slash disclosures. So we begin with the latest stats on the industry, touching on structural factors and more for about the first 15 minutes. Then we do a bunch of lightning round style takes on how other content and entertainment models may or may not apply to podcasting for about the next 30 minutes. And finally, we go into monetization, platforms, analytics, and more, which we also touch on throughout the episode, including impacts on creators. And we end on recent news and moves in the space, such as Spotify Gimlet, how to think about terrestrial radio, and more. But we begin by defining a podcast, which seems obvious but isn't, and is a rather

existential question. So, guys, what is a podcast? So, I mean, the real interesting thing here is we're in the midst of a really interesting moment of change, and there is internal conflict within the podcast community about that question. So historically, it's been largely tethered to the notion the RSS feed. It's basically an audio file or a medium of distribution that largely happens through, you know, the technology that was carried over from blogging. And now with the entrance of Spotify and Pandora stepping up and Google beginning to do whatever they're going to do on the search engine side. And Apple already as an entrenched player as well.

Yeah, absolutely. I heard media. And Luminary just announced their sort of big 100 million fundraise and the fact that they're going to launch in July a couple days ago. With a lot of exclusive content, right? So how does like exclusive podcast fit in with? the old definition. You know, especially the luminary announcement that was like a strong pushback from parts of the community that's been around for a while and generally folks who

really believe in the open ecosystem. And so we have a situation in which like, you know, the technical definition is not the popular definition anymore. And if we go from the perspective of what the ordinary consumer thinks of a podcast, that is, it becomes a cultural question, not technical question. Which by the way, I want to say parallels the history of the web because this to me reminds me very much of early blogging and debates about what is a blog, what is an article, what is a website. And there was this almost religious existential debate between the early kind of, in fact, some of the same people, because Dave Weiner, one of the people who invented. Who also was important to the development podcast thing. Right. He's exactly. I think

he was technically the first person to do a podcast like in 2003 or something or one of the early people. And he's also who specified the RSS feed, which drives the pipes and plumbing and ecosystem of podcasting. But today, users don't even think of podcasts that way. It's like if it's just recorded audio of people talking, oftentimes we'll just call that a podcast. Yeah, one of my favorite things when people always call our videos podcasts. I mean, that's a hold of it, right? Joe Rogan still does that.

There's a lot of people who still do all video, audio, and still call it a podcast. I mean, the way I see it is that the tension has always been between people who see podcasting as the future of blogging and people who see the podcasting is the future of radio. And we've seen that tension crash many, many times. And I think we're in a place where that no longer matters because ultimately the mass consumer will lead as where do you want to go. Yes. And like the web, the analogy that I would draw is to the advent of the graphical user interface

and how browsing, computing, et cetera, there's always a phase in every technology where there's a gooey phase where once you have an interface that's user-friendly and easy to navigate. And what's interesting about this is that we're in the phase where the listening has become easy to navigate. And more accessible. More accessible. Through various kinds of hardware, too.

For example, listening to podcasts on their drive to work because the cars are enabled with podcasts. Right, like the smartphone connected car, essentially. Or AirPods making it so easy to listen to something while multitasking. And in that sense, podcasts are different than audio books, obviously, just for the sake of definition. But I would say, like, you can argue over time that even that definition may blur. Of audiobooks and podcasts.

Right. Like one day a podcast might just, be thought of as like a self-published audiobook. I have long believed that audiobooks should be central to the conversation as well, especially a couple of years ago when Audible built sort of an original programming team that took after podcast out programming. And the fact of the matter is, it's like these are all distributors and platforms of the same kind of good. It's just that we think of them and we class them differently. And they also sort of are products of different economic systems. I do want to add to this mix though that I would not confuse music into this.

And the reason is, first of all, from a creator perspective, every tool, Until now has been very music creator-centric for podcast, editing, creation, et cetera. And so there's a really bad structural legacy effect of equating podcasting. I mean, we're essentially bootstrapping tools tailored for music for podcasting. So the new wave of podcast-native tools is really important. Full disclosure, we're investors in Descript. And it democratizes the editing of podcasting because you can essentially edit audio like a word doc. But the main point here is that I do think music should be treated very differently than podcasting.

Yeah. To me, like, it's audio with spoken word. Yep. Versus sunk. Yeah. So I guess what we're agreeing on, just to recap the definition of podcasting, it is audio. It could potentially blur into including books, if not in a content perspective, then to Nick's point, then even in a distribution and business model perspective. But we agree that music should be treated differently. And the common denominator here is spoken word.

That was actually the infinite dial study, which is sort of an anal survey. conducted by Edison Research, they just announced their latest results earlier this afternoon. The most interesting thing is that there were increases in both audiobooks and podcasting. So podcasting had significantly large leap this year, but on audiobooks, like, after a couple of years of largely being flat, it's been increased again. And I think that's a sort of really interesting question, because I can't quite think of a structural reason why that would be the case other than it's a sort of like tethered effect. In addition to that, you have all kinds of really easy to set up. up wireless speakers at home that also make it more easy to... Like Alexa.

Yeah, to consume this kind of content. It reminds me of what people say about the Kindle and romance novels. It helped sales increase because it made people more willing to buy it and consume it because nobody would judge them. Oh, the judgment side. Interesting. For me, it's actually ease of access because I used to be really embarrassed to admit this publicly. I used to subscribe to the Harleck and Romance on Demand Service where you'd get like the books a month

and you'd pay like $11 or I can't remember what it was. Because I've always been a huge reader of romance novels as a very nice, lightweight thing to do. But what's the analogy to podcasting? To me, I think it's more ease of access around better hardware. On demand. Get it quickly. So speaking of the data and you mentioned that the Edison research study came out today and that's sort of the definitive and longest running survey of digital media consumer behavior in America at least.

But I hear a lot of mixed messages. I see like people cite this stat and that stat out of context. So why don't we just do a quick pulse check on what are the key stats? And Nick, maybe you could recap for us what the key stats or big trends to know are here. So I think there are a couple of big takeaways here. One is when it comes to the familiarity of the notion of podcasting, and this doesn't mean people who heard the word actually know what it is, it's officially hit 70% of all Americans.

And when it comes to the number of people have actually tried out podcasting, you know, maybe they didn't stick around of it, but they just tried it at least, it's gone over 50%. So about an estimated 144 million Americans. Retention rates are sort of like really interesting. Like monthly podcast listening has also went up. It's now 32% of all Americans up from 26 from last year. That's a pretty big leap.

I mean, just that's one third. That's a lot. Yeah. And there's also a really interesting slide in here attributing some of the increase to Spotify. There is a stat here that shows amongst Spotify listeners between the ages of 12 to 24. Monthly podcast listening went up to 53%. And so there's there's a lot going on. I think currently we're in such a moment of flux.

It's a little unclear what the structural pillars are anymore. I think it's one of those things where we're just going to have to look back at this moment and figure out where we turn. So what's a high level recap on that summary of the stats? The high level is that this past year has seen an unprecedented growth. For the longest time, podcast growth has been steadily and slow. And now it feels like it's taken some sort of a leap. And so I feel like this past year has been the moment where it's tipped into some form of mainstream.

That's fantastic. So potentially a quote inflection point, as people like to say in the business. The usage of podcasts and the consumption of it has risen dramatically in the last year or two. But what always shocks me is that the revenue that podcasts generate is still such a small amount, given how many hours people are spending, consuming this kind of content. So there is a study out there from the IAB, that caveat being it was funded and financed by a consolation of podcast companies that puts the number, around 600 million plus plus this past last year, and it's projected to keep growing, of course. Monetization is a severe issue, and it largely has to do with the fact that podcasting is

technology hasn't quite caught up to how the rest of the internet kind of works in terms of dynamic and insertion, and it doesn't allow heavy increases in inventory and swapouts in inventory in a way that a lot of advertisers are now accustomed to getting from, you know, marketplaces like Facebook. And then even that, like from an advertiser standpoint, you're paying per download, because you aren't getting like these per listen metrics back. So from the advertising standpoint, it's still really hard for them to measure the ROI from sponsoring a podcast. Yeah.

Yeah, and that's why historically we've seen a bunch of the activity among advertising from direct response advertisers because they have a secondary metric of conversions under promo codes and whatnot. And what they're able to find is that the conversion rates are good. But when it comes to something like a brand advertiser or an advertiser that needs to, you know, lay an impression on a consumer over a five, 10-year period. They need to know that they're hitting the people that they're hitting. There are a lot of movements right now towards standardizing what even a listen means. And this will become increasingly complicated

as Spotify and Pandora. Everywhere. I mean, right now, you don't know if it's a download. Is it a click? Is it open? Is it a feat? I mean, who the fuck knows? Or like how long did you listen to it, right? Right. The engagement I care. So that's actually what I care most about as a creator. because when I was at Wired, Chartbeat changed me as an editor. And I need to know where people drop off. That is a number one thing. So I don't know if you even know this, Nick. We were in the launch set for when Spotify launched their first move into podcasting in 2015.

They selected us as part of one of their media outlets because our podcast was one of the very few that covered tech in a thoughtful way. And the reason I was so excited about Spotify, because Spotify didn't really have much of a podcasting audience back then. Yeah. Was they showed me this really beautiful dash. board that showed you the potential and where people drop off. But you don't get that from all the other places our podcasts are distributed. It's still limited because not all of our listeners are listening on Spotify. They're on SoundCloud.

They're on iTunes. They're in a bunch of different apps. And iTunes, by the way, also announced this. I think what last year, James Boggs announced that you can actually have drop off? Yeah, they rolled out more granular in episode analytics. Another thing I'd push back on though is like I don't actually think advertisements are the only way you can monetize podcast. Yes, I agree wholeheartedly. I feel really, really strongly about that because even as someone who consumes podcasts, ads are extremely annoying to listen to.

And this is where I look at other business models that are working in Asia for podcasts that I think could very much translate here. Yeah, so a couple of points on that. It's a situation which there are behaviors in internet usage, in gaming, in media consumption, in China, Japan, Korea, Australia, Malaysia, Singapore. that doesn't occur here, maybe through path dependency reasons, maybe through technical habituation reasons. Yes, we've already seen a really healthy growth of the number of podcasts using Patreon as maybe not a primary, but a strong

supplementary business model. Chapo Trap House is an example of this. There are a bunch of podcasts collectives that are on Patreon for this, and there's also like Slate Plus being sort of a central model to Slate as a digital media publisher that also heavily indexes on podcasting. But, you know, I think I've always found this lack of data conversation a little interesting because whether or not advertisers feel confident in the measurement and what the data is sort of trying to reflect in terms of reality, the world continues to spin and like people do end up paying, like converting as a promo code.

And so there is a strong sense that podcasting is a very powerful driver of consumers and it's a powerful advertising driver. Oh, yeah. Even though. we're not able to tell specifically how many people that gets hit in terms of just the analytics of it. And so there's this fear, I think, among a lot of people that, you know, the analytics side will end up driving way too much of the conversation and ends up dictating the behavior of creators and publishers in a way that might end up being, you know, unhealthy or counterintuitive to the relationship between a listener and a creator. The problem with that, I think, is like, yes, analytics may skew what kinds of content they put out and how they engage with their audience. But really analytics is just a nicer way of saying revenue because at the end of the day, your analytics are a reflection of how many listeners you're getting, right? And this is where I think like-

I don't agree actually completely. I agree with you from a business perspective. But as a creator, the analytics tell me about community. And one of my favorite talks on the early days of resurgence of podcasting was Marco Arment gave a talk. I was at XOXO in 2013. And it was basically about the resurgence of, of podcasting, the early signaling of that, and podcasts as a movement. Because what's really

unique for the first time, when you think about the first wave of podcasting with all the indie bloggers, we now have brands podcasting. And sometimes they're not actually looking for direct revenue through that. It's a way to really connect intimately with your audience. I mean, it's essentially a movement rock live and audio form. So, I mean, there are types of content where it's not about monetization. But for a lot of creators, I do think revenue is one kind of proxy for how much value they're providing their listeners. And I also think that we're in such, such baby phases of how podcasters should be able to monetize. Like, honestly, they shouldn't be having to ask their listeners to go to other sites to pay them like a monthly feed. I mean, you can't do it in-app.

I mean, this is where the platforms are going to start rolling out subscriptions. I think some are going to roll out, like, other ways of paying for packages or bundles of content. And I think that's when you're going to see creators really unleash, like, much better content. where they don't have to focus on mainstream audiences, but they might focus on smaller audiences that are willing to pay for that. Actually, I'm really fascinated in terms of the concept. If analytics is being the sort of proxy for revenue here, it's strange because I've always sort of viewed analytics as a certain kind of representation of reality.

And it just so happens that advertisers at this point in time are really reliant on a certain expectation of a kind of analytics in order to discern whether a media product is effective in a way that they want to be. And there's this larger conversation about platforms in general switching metrics or tweaking metrics or in some cases ballooning them in order

to control and manage that narrative and relationship with the advertiser. No, I completely agree. Analytics matters for an advertising model, but what I'm saying is like the advertising model is actually not a good model to monetize podcasts. No, that we completely agree with.

But it's a situation in which it is it is the revenue that a lot of people, a lot of publishers and creators feel most comfortable with because that's all they know right now. I think it's actually also a legacy. This is where I think we need to think, again, very native in a new medium. This is where we make, we do ourselves a huge disservice, like the early days of the web, when media outlets would put like a freaking, you know, homepage analog on the website, right? Exactly.

Like, we need to think very natively in this medium. And we have a huge opportunity for the first time because we have such an intimacy, a slipperiness, a connection with podcasting that's visceral. That's, I mean, personally, I think it's unlike any other medium I've ever seen. I feel like I found my voice on this medium, quite honestly. But so I do think that we have an opportunity here because we're so stuck on the legacy. And in fact, this goes back to something we started with, which is what is a definition of a podcast. So I think the thing to revisit here is that the underlying pipes and infrastructure, and I know people don't expect this when we're talking about an episode about podcasts. But I think it's really important because it informs this conversation.

It is RSS feeds. It is literally an ecosystem of pipes that are connected by feeds, talking to feeds, talking to feeds. This is both a structural, huge limitation causing major fragmentation in the industry, major limitations on what's possible with what creators can do to even connect the dots because the unit of analysis is limited to what you can actually send in a feed. And that has certain tradeoffs to it. And this actually reminds me of container ships, like physical, large shipping ships like

merc, et cetera, that you see in the ocean. And one of the novel things about container ships is about what they did to creating trade across the world. And because they're multimodal, they go from airplane to ship to truck to yard. They allowed so much collaboration and connection around the world. That's what feeds are doing for the podcast ecosystem. What's missing, however, is just like a container ship. Containers are rectangular boxes that are very limited in what you can actually fit into them. And people therefore need to fit the shape of their goods to fit in those boxes and the entire ecosystem for physical container ships is architected around being able to lift things out and in. That is the same thing that's happening in podcasting right now.

The containers are connecting all of us in this feed ecosystem, but they're also dictating what information travels where and in what form. And I just want to point this out, no matter how wonky it seems, because that structure both dictate so much of what the current batch of tools can and can't do when it comes to analytics. a discovery and more, all across the board. And it's where platforms and tool builders have a huge opportunity to cleverly address or even bypass those containers once we get past this phase of where the podcasting industry is structurally right now.

Yeah. I just think like we are in such early, early, early innings of what podcasts can be. Because if you think about it, again, this is not using the technical definition of a podcast, but using this cultural definition of like audio recorded content, right? most of the time you're consuming that kind of content on an internet-enabled device. It's not like you're downloading it onto your computer and then using a USB stick to transfer it to your phone, right? And so therefore, like we are not monetizing this stuff or even creating features on top of it that are internet native. There's just so much stuff we're not even tapping into.

And it's such a shame because we're consuming these things on internet-enabled devices. And yet we're using the same business model as televisions. Where you can't even do anything. Which is not meant to be interactive. Yeah. And there's like right now very little interaction with the podcast, which I think is such a shame. So I want to ask you guys kind of lightning round style on a couple of neat things that are artifacts of the existing world of content and how we think they're going to play out with podcasting. So let's just, I'm going to throw out a phrase.

And I think you should give your take too because you have more expertise on podcasts than anyone in this office. You're right. I forget to do that as a host sometimes. Okay. So I want to ask you guys about seasonality. Like what do you guys think of this trend of people dropping podcast seasons? So I love seasonality. It gives, like, it gives me a feeling of momentum and also we're currently living in a moment where there's all things happening all the time, so many things to consume. I would like things to have definite ends. And I'm a big fat of seasonality personally. I think it also makes it easier for bundling and different pricing down the line. Absolutely. Oh, fascinating. So for me, seasonality is, so when I think of the long tale of content and Chris Anderson wrote the fundamental piece and book on this, it's this idea of an infinite shelf.

space. And to me, things being in software and being digital, it's unbounded to the point of being pointlessly infinite. And forcing a false scarcity is my favorite thing that like box in a month companies do, like stitch fix and makeup, whatever. It's a way of curating and creating a scarcity in a world of abundance. And I think that's a really interesting packaging thing for any kind of content across the board and especially for podcasting because there is no, you're essentially in an infinite scroll in the audible world. You don't know where you are. you have no context. You're not plugged into a specific thing

because you're living in this weird ecosystem of voice and show or episode, depending on how you're listening. So that's my quick take on seasonality. I love it. Okay. So binge watching. This is related to seasonality. One of the most fascinating things about Netflix phenomenon

in the space of visual content is they realize, like, wait a minute. We don't have to do weekly things. We can drop everything at once, not release it as a season that spreads out once a week or whatever the pace is and allow binge watching. I think binge watching is great

and it's natural human behavior for any kind of content. I suffer from it myself. Like I was the kind of person I would watch the series 24. I would watch a season in like 30 hours. I do that too at stranger things

and everything. Yeah, yeah. And it's just natural human behavior. And so I think it's great. That we want to just be addicted and go deep all at once and we can't stop ourselves. And actually in terms of

for the creator, I think it's a good thing because you don't want that listener to kind of forget about it. I binge watch all the time. So I'm just going to take devil's advocate that I only believe about 80% of. One is, I actually think that binge watching

or binge dropping has actually caused attention to a given show to deteriorate, right? It used to be the case where when a TV show drops weekly, there's sort of a pulse of conversation that is drawn out over a longer period of time if that show has hit. I thought about... You mean like the water cooler conversation?

Absolutely. Like, True Detective, Game of Thrones. thing, basically everything that HBO, like that sort of structure of it, I really like that wonderful conversation. And I like to be on the same sort of page as other people when I'm having that conversation. And that's something I'd never gotten with a binge show. I loved the Russian doll. I can't find a single person to talk to about it who, you know, fall in the same time. And like, I'm, I can guarantee in about a month, I'm going to forget about that show. To use a tortured metaphor, the thing about binge TV that I enjoy doing, but I feel a little bit

sick of doing it afterwards. It reminds me of, like, you know, that thing when, like, parents say that they do to certain kids where if they catch that kid smoking one cigarette, they make that kid smoke the entire pack of one sitting. That's kind of how I feel after when I binge a season. I feel like I don't want to watch TV for like a month. But it's like inevitable, you know, I feel like this is a behavior account. Well, there is a lot of, so my whole thesis about this, which is similar to screen watch screen time and kids, because people always have these stupid religious debates over it. It's not so much the act of doing it or not doing it. It's why you do it. So if you're someone who's binge watching because you're depressed, that's

That's not good. But if you're someone who's binge watching because you just can't stop watching the show, that's great. I will say to push back on your point, Nick, because I know you're taking the devil's advocate, but I think that what you're describing this problem of the water cooler thing that Connie that you labeled, it's actually an artifact of technology not quite being there because there is a movement of second screen technologies that are allowing more. There's forums online like Reddit that aggregate. To give you a perfect example of this, when I finished the UBrowdy problem, the first thing I did was go troll the web to find all the forums and all the people talking about it so I could find my people and talk about it and find other people who loved it.

And so there are tools that are emerging that allow conversations to then, to your point, the water cooler to be aggregated asynchronously. And there will be, I think, a second screen phenomenon happening with pod listening and binge listening as we start having the technology ecosystem grow. I can see how, you know, you don't want to spoil the ending. So you won't actually go to that forum until you finish your book. You're absolutely right. And actually, I like that you can have a choice because in spoiler alert culture, which Nick is slightly hinting that he misses, at least on the devil advocate.

I do. There is sort of like a thing where you can actually choose to check out of things, luckily. So you're not like stuck in a room with everyone talking. And then you are screwed because you missed like the closing season of Dallas or whatever show it was. The other point I make about binge listening in this context is with binge watching, new types of narratives are happening. I'm very curious about what will happen as we start seeing binge listening of podcast seasons or podcast. podcast episodes to narrative and how that's going to change that category of podcasts where would a serial change the way it tells stories? Yeah. Because people are binging it. Well, then it

becomes an audiobook. Oh, interesting. Then it becomes an audiobook. Oh, my God. I would have argued it's almost the opposite eye on the spectrum because it's sort of going through a book very quickly. But the flip side of it is when I'm thinking the analog with binge watching is that you can watch an entire season and it changes the way you don't have to have a cliffhanger at the end of every episode. Whereas even in a chapter, people still have a little bit of these things, right? Narrative. I will say, I think cereal would have made a lot more money if it allowed people to pay. I think on the margin, binge listening helps creators. Because if you can make someone pay for like a whole season at once and maybe give them like one or two episodes for free,

it's better than hoping that they're going to come back every week. Right. The serial example is actually really, really interesting. Serial itself was an innovation of the forum because it stuck to what podcasting was able to do at that time. Prior to the existence of cereal, it was incredibly difficult to tell a serialized story. over the radio in the form that they did it. And secondarily to that, they told that story in semi-real time.

And that's something that they sort of looked at the structure of what the distribution format was, and they go, we're going to try that out, we'll see what happens. And so this is a little bit of them playing perfectly to deform there. And I want to sort of go back a little bit to the point about, like,

the second screen experience and the sort of the Devna water cooler. So I love second screen experiences. I live for NBA Twitter. I live for Bachelor of Twitter. but I got to say I do like that experience with physical people and that I miss hanging out

and watching TV with my friends sometimes at the same pace. That's all I guess I think like ever since DVR arrived like we kind of lost it already. I think you guys are both being very falsely nostalgic for a past that never was

because I actually think I mean yes there's a reality to be physically present but again we're in the early innings with all of this we're investors in a company called Big Screen where you can essentially share

in this ambient intimacy, like hang out in VR. Like when there is a digital overlay over the physical world, just like people connect on Twitter for ambient intimacy, the cocktail party of the web, there will be a physical-like experience that you have similar level of satisfaction

and hanging out in real time with your friends. And it's just an artifact of technology that we're not 100% there yet. That's what I would argue, at least. But back to the binge watching thing, I was going to add that when a season drops all at once, I add it to my playlist, but I never watch it.

Because what's also missing in the space, and this is again why I love the idea of binge watching slash listening for podcasting is the concept of virality. Viral hits don't happen instantly unless you're like a Joe Rogan experience and Elon Musk smoking pot on air. Like it's sort of a cultural personality show. It's slow burn type of virality. And so seeing what people are talking about and what resonates is hugely important for

creators, not because you freaking want to crowdsource what you want to say, but you do want to know it doesn't go in a black hole. I would love a world where in the future you'll know which parts of the podcast, the audience, like the most. Right. My epoxy for that, by the way, is I do. Twitter searches all the time for the commentary, so it's a very skewed sample. But it's helpful, and I push the editors to do this, because to close this loop, even if they're not active on

Twitter, because there is no other way to see what resonated. But can't you see like a platform just like saying, tap your screen if you like this part? Oh, totally. Well, I don't know if this is public. Do you know this, Nick, but is doing screenshot, audio shots of podcasting? Yeah, I heard about this. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Is it public? Do you know? No, yeah. Okay. But there will be sort of podcast, sort of screenshotting and sort of audio clips. And I'm curious to see with or without the transcript, Connie, to your point, about the importance of that, whether those will go viral. It's crazy to me that these things don't have automatic transcription on the top hits. Like, that's such an easy, technical thing to do.

And for a listener, that would mean that I don't have to just pause and say like, oh, yes, remember, like, go back to the one minute 30 mark later on and take notes. Well, I actually love that, too, because one of the biggest limitations of podcasting is the lack of a quote, screenshot equivalent. But that exists in China already. not only can I see the transcript, I can then comment on it, and I can make it so only my friends can see it, or I can make it so the entire public can see it. And then there's a discourse. Right now we have to manually upload transcripts. And you basically have threaded conversations around parts of your podcast.

And so it's okay if the listener doesn't even get to the end because you can have a highlight speed, all kinds of stuff right now, that we just are not doing. And so I think this is like where the platforms can get much better at creating. Like even if they like just chunked up the best clips, right? Or maybe you as the creator, you can like throw out which. clips you think are the best. Make it easy for them to repost on other social mediums or make us like background music to whatever. You can do that actually now on some of these tools, but to your point, it's fragmented. It's not centralized on a single user experience. And I think like

the main platforms don't allow that. Right. Currently no. Spotify and iTunes and others don't. In fact, this is again where the ecosystem is so fragmented because the side players are, there's a whole budding ecosystem of tools that are doing this kind of thing. So again, like it goes back to like, like likes and comments and payments like and tips. Like that's just like, form of showing how much you like something, creators don't know which pieces of their podcasts were the best parts of the episode. They don't know where they are like for. They don't know any of it. It's a black hole. But on the metrics, I do want to say that one of my favorite analytics for podcast success, because I do think that we need to think about what you're

measuring for the type of show you are. And in our case, what I care about as editor for the show is insights per minute. And this is the same thing as insights per inch in terms of like going down a verbal post because when you have a brand collective and not a cult of personality-driven show, this is again where the metrics for the type of show need to vary as well in my view. For our kind of show, if you're not like a famous personality, then the insights per minute matter a lot

to get people to stick and stay. And then secondly, when you think of audience discovery, audience and movements of people and fans aggregating around a piece of content, then I care about if a show has, say, a drop-off halfway as a drop-off point. If the first half are people who are mainstream interested in learning about quantum computing and then they drop off 50%, I consider that a huge metric of success.

And if the remaining 50% that stick around, a much smaller subset of people who are developers in quantum computing are interested in building quantum computing are physicists, then that's a huge metric of success. So for me, again, this is again another granular way of thinking about the type of show, the type of content, et cetera. Now, we can't do any of this right now, but as we introduce new storytelling and forms and podcasting, I think we'll be thinking a lot more differently than the obvious on those fronts too and about podcast engagement, which, by the way, one quick factoid for you guys, the number one thing I hear from all of the publisher network, because one of the things that I did when I came here was reach out to various people to beg them to put their authors on the podcast. It's before authors became, like going on podcast became the thing to do. And yeah, there's nothing that moves books the way podcasts do. I've heard this over and over and over again.

from all of my publishing industry friends. I heard the exact same thing. The way that the podcast experience is currently constructed, it drives sales. But the question is, is that when other platforms or when the experience changes due to technical innovations or new features added, would it fundamentally change that relationship? Will there be the same kind of sales push that we experience right now? It's an open question. I think it's a totally work.

I mean, like, to me, it's like the same way QVC is a great way to sell stuff. podcast is a great way to sell content, written content that people don't want to read. But I think this is a bigger problem with the book publishing industry, meaning that they're not selling books in an internet native way. There's no great way to figure out the highlights of a book. There's no way for me to read the first chapter for free. There's no way for me to get a sense of, do I want to pay for this entire book? I do that all in a bookstore.

We're just skimming, though. In a physical bookstore, yes. In a physical bookstore, you can do all these things. but on Amazon you still can't. Right. This is another way where I think we're not thinking of the native medium

because it's crazy to me that books which are self-contained with no context are still decoupled in audio book form and it's equally crazy to me that podcasting because of the structural limitation

of the feed pipes don't actually have context built into them where you can actually tie a podcast into the context of a broader show more by this author, more on the topic

to your point about PDFs and show notes and related materials. It's crazy to me that there isn't a web ecosystem for podcasting yet? Because none of this stuff is being sold in an internet native way. I just think like right now, the way we sell books, it's like if you had no movie trailer and you only had the movie poster. Right? It depends on a movie poster. You're like buying the

book based off the cover and maybe some quotes by people who've read it, but you don't get to even see the trailer. And this totally actually skews the creator's incentive for what kind of content to create. So like for a book, like are you going to pay $20 for like a $20 for like a $20? page book or will you feel better about paying $20 for like a 170 page book? And then authors might have to write extra words for the sake of selling a, you know, well, that reminds me like the early days of Charles Dickens where he was paid by the word and that was like a funny artifact of the way the monetization was happening. But I would argue on the flip side of that, on the creator's side, I think it's more important to find your community because a beautiful

thing about, again, podcasts are movements, groups of people following either a show or an episode or a topic, serial fans, whatever it is. And so, when you have thousand true fans in the Kevin Kelly phrase that are following a particular book author or a particular topic or a particular podcast, in our case, what we're doing is we're mobilizing the fan base, not because of that author, but because of the way we do our take with that author. Like it's sort of the A6 and Z take on it. So when we did Yuval Harari, it was me and Kyle talking to him about all kinds of random stuff. That was probably not even related to his book. The point is that it's a way to mobilize your movement, your fan base. And this goes to Nick's

earlier point about Patreon and band bases or Marco Arment's point about brand as intimate connection. So my theory on this whole, this sort of notion of like what people will pay for, it people will pay as much for a thing based on how valuable they think the thing is. And so it's equally plausible that a person looks at a 20 page book and things it's worth $20 as it is that a person looks at 170 page book and things that they will pay $20 for that. It really depends on how that person or how its message to this consumer what value is, right? And so it ties back a little bit to the notion of advertisers and analytics. Analytics, as constructed by a technology company, by a platform, by a data team, is an effort to tell the advertiser, this is how valuable you should think this is. And in the

art world, value is constructed in a whole different amorphous way. And so I think it's not a one-to-one objectivity of what is the right metric or how do we find the truth of the value of a certain thing. these are socially constructed things. And so I think that that should be a consideration when it comes to when we think about even the book publishing industry. I should argue that celebrity books should be priced a lot higher than it is, but, you know, that's just me. Books is just one example, though. Like, if you think about like a YouTube video, like the creator is incented to make it long enough so you don't put just what pre-roll ad, but also put like another ad in the middle, which means the video has to be long enough to have enough gap time between the ads, right? Not really because the most popular videos on YouTube that do really well.

or the short quick takes or tutorials or like in those cases it's another example of I mean I think that's the reason why tutorial culture has taken off because people are self-selected into like learning about X, Y, or Z. But like some creators will lengthen their video so they can put in a second ad. Yeah. I think those to me are the more old school creators that are doing that to monetize in that way. They're not the ones who are the influencer creators because the influencer creators have their eye in a much bigger ballgame. They're looking at moving their own freaking makeup lines or like, you know what I mean? Or like other things. Yes, that is sort of like the early phase of every platform and media medium is that you have a quick way to kind of game it to get what you need.

Yeah. But I don't know if that works for the long-lasting players. YouTube in that situation is the arbiter of like how, of the data that tells advertisers what to value. But it's also the arbiter of the data that tells creators how to value the way that are creating something. It also becomes a situation where YouTube is the thing that interprets human behavior and makes assumptions based on those interpretations to the way. what people are valuing. And so this is a, this is like YouTube sort of defining that reality and pulling levers in a bunch of different ways. And so, and they may be correct. They may not be correct. In any case, it's all a proxy of reality that may or may not be aligned. We don't know

necessarily. I agree. I agree it's socially constructed and values created and a lot of it is as limited by the tools people have for thinking about pricing and they have heuristics for doing that based on those structures. I would also say that there's a really interesting opportunity, especially with podcasts, to flip the model where fans get paid. And in fact, Kevin Kelly made this really interesting argument in his book inevitable about how when you swap your paradigm for thinking about attention in an abundant software world, which is what we're talking about here, abundant digital world bits are infinite. There's no limit on airwaves in this context. You can actually flip the model where fans can monetize their attention. So you actually

reorient. And this is actually the premise of crypto, right? Or one of the premises of crypto, at least in the notion of crypto networks where right now the locus of data controls of platforms, with crypto, you can actually invert that where you are the user is a container of the data. So if you think about this in the context of media creation and podcasting, how interesting to think about a fan monetizing their attention because if a fan is a sum of all the shows they watch, maybe an advertiser wants to buy that fan and the fan directly monetizes that attention. I know that sounds crazy, but I don't think that's impossible in a world like this. You guys about looking me like I'm nuts. I just think if platforms can do that, like there's all this stuff they need to experiment with before they even can

get to something like that. Yeah, yeah. That is if you believe it has to go stepwise because sometimes technologies can leap. I agree with you. I think it'll be incremental. I'm like, if we can't even get subscriptions or tips up. We can't even get downloads for fuck's sake.

All right, I'm going to do another quick, I want to hear your quick lightning round take on interstitials and podcasting. Any thoughts on that? The idea of like, you know, title slides or breaks or segmentation,

et cetera. I'm pro interstitials. Like, you know, it's really important to orient your audience to give, to teach them how to listen to a thing. It's an important and creative tool. That's,

that's my view on that. Connie, I feel like you'd have a lot of thoughts on this because it feels so China-native what people do. Describe more what you mean by interscial. I mean more just like, it's kind of to your point about there being granularity. Like you can actually break up a show into subparts by having little breaks. I think interstitials is great because, again, it allows me to show you which parts of your episode I value the most and which ones I'm willing to pay for.

Yeah, for me, I will say that we tried some early experiments with segmentation because I got this funny feedback from people that they're like, I listen to the podcast on the road and my commutes 10 minutes. I wish they were 10 minutes long. And then someone else is like, my commute is 20 minutes. I wish you were 20 minutes long. And then someone else was like, my commute's 30 minutes or 40 minutes. And they have this ideal time. For us, at least 30 minutes has been the sweet spot in terms of like the ideal podcast size. But I don't think there's a rule of thumb because of our most popular episodes are an hour and also 20 minutes. So I don't know. But I did because of that. I wanted kids on campuses like at Stanford or wherever to have a way of listening to an episode and kind of have like a nice natural stopoff point. Because when you're watching a show, the ability to kind of pause. So to me, interstitials are a way of creating a little bit of those moments and breaks. But then what I realize is that as an artifact of this industry, all the tools save your spot in where you were playing last in your player. Yeah. And so it kind of became a moot point.

So that experiment didn't really work. But the driver for it is this thesis that, you know, Dixon says the Internet's made for snacking. Yeah. And podcasts can be beautifully long form. But I also think that there's a consumption mode and very short micro-waiting moments to use a term from a park paper on this concept that when you're waiting in line, can you listen to a quick bite of content, not just watch something on your thing,

not just listen to it. Super interesting. Yeah, and I wonder if we can fill micro-waiting moments. And so I wonder if interstitials would play an interesting role as like a micro-waiting moment. To do that, I feel like you need really good discovery. Oh, yeah.

Or following a show already. Because the likelihood of me finding something that I don't like causes like this fear in the listener. Of course, unless you are then, which currently is a model following a show or a personality. You just have to have so much trust. Yes. that it's going to spend up the right thing.

Because right, because then the cult of personality model, people are following the person, not necessarily the guess. I'll just say that the notion of short-form audio is one that constantly talks about. It's also, this is another reminder, like, what anchor essentially attempted to do at the very beginning of their journey and what audio tried to do. And it's one of those things where both of those iterations didn't quite work. We don't know if it has anything to do with what people want

or if it's the case that people were not ready for that yet. I would argue the last one because we have seen over and over with technology. There's like five Facebooks before there's a Facebook that works. I subscribe to the view of the world in which human beings are generally plastic. And so you could force a human being to accept to spot anything. And so it's a question of whether they are, whether the right startup or the right platform executes the right experiment at the right time with the right group of people. That's just kind of how these things are.

Human beings are creators of emergent behaviors because this is where you can never predict the second order effects of new mediums, right? Like Twitter spawned all kinds of interesting emergent behaviors, and that is the fundamental truth of the evolution of all kinds of technologies. But it's all technically, I mean, this is not like cutting-edge science or technology that doesn't exist yet. It's just a platform hasn't put all these things in place. Yeah. But the fact that matter is that stuff like social audio, stuff like anchors initial bit to be the Twitter of audio, the stuff like audio, which is what Twitter was before Twitter became Twitter, which is essentially for audio, is that.

We need proof that the consumer site will lead the way that it will stick with them. But I think that's the problem, right? If we're waiting to have like survey data to see if this works, then no platform is going to experiment on it. And this is why like new startups and new platforms need to experiment with how to engage with podcasts. I think it's like a given that everyone would prefer to have no ads in their podcast. And that's why it's up to all the platforms to figure out how to create the tools so creators can They'll make money and make better money than I think what they're making now. I actually think creators are vastly underpaid in podcasts.

And it's up to the platforms to figure out how to help them monetize so we can get ads out of the podcast itself. I don't think we're disagreeing. I think we're sort of like coming at it from opposite directions here because my number one principle when I'm thinking through these things is that no matter what happens in terms of future development and no matter what happens to notice of whether certain platforms or tools ends up innovating on these fronts is whether creators themselves end up controlling their destinies in this situation. situation, whether they control the means of distribution, like the entire wave, the entire learnings of what happened of YouTube and YouTube creators really haunts a lot of the people that I speak to when I report week and week out. Does the nature of the platform being capricious and altering the way that they expect their certain revenue projections over time?

And so I'm personally all for the ability to create better tipping structures to streamline Patreon and direct revenue sort of pathways straight into the list. listening point. But the fact that matter is like all these pieces connecting the listener to the creator are all going to be controlled by other people. And I think this is the nature of things that brings the most anxiety to the creator class right now. Of course, the creator class would change over time with changing expectations of how these things should work. Connie, I'm hearing you say that there's huge experimentation that's already happening in China that we're not even remotely seeing here. That is also a case, however, where we have platforms.

Because to the point of tipping as an example, Nick also mentioned Patreon as a good thing. But, you know, clearly one of the big structural limitations in the U.S. is that people don't obviously always have their credit cards linked on the way that you have in WeChat or like that we've talked a lot about on the podcast. But like Apple Pay, right? Or like in-app payments. Right. Like people oftentimes will say like, oh, our payment infrastructure is why none of this stuff would work in the U.S. And I don't agree with that.

You're saying that's a cop-out. Okay, that's fair. So then maybe tipping needs to be done at a more micro level. even just the money. It's also helping creators see who they're real fans are. You want the 1,000 true fans. And right now it's like a one-way conversation. Like, why can't the platforms that allow you to listen to podcasts also allow me to record a quick message back to you? And then also like use algorithms to figure out which comments are valuable or not. Yeah, I think we agree in that sense. Like platforms should basically do more for their users and experiment. I also agree with Nick,

though, on the point that he's raising. I don't like the assumption going right to platforms as the default owners of this and the default aggregators of this. And this kind of goes to Ben Thompson, who writes about aggregation theory a lot, which is just a fancy name for network effects in a lot of ways. I mean, he's much more nuanced. But it is at the end of the day, the tension between centralization between bundling and unbundling and these cycles that constantly go back and forth and waves. Yeah. Especially with the YouTube platform, like you look at how the influencers who started YouTube channels 10 years ago, they have massive followings now. Yeah. And they're dependent on YouTube.

Nick's point. Yes, but also it makes it really hard for a newcomer to come in and create a YouTube channel and get to that one million subscriber count, right? And in the similar way, like even now, I hear about so many friends even starting podcasts. Oh, yeah. It's very competitive. Like, there are people who barely get to 10,000 listens per episode, and that's insane. And it can get more competitive, right? Yes. And so that's why I think all these new platforms are kind of interesting because as they try and pick off creators to have them exclusive to their platform, this dynamic may change. Yeah.

But it's really interesting because, like, for video, it was like winner take all. Which is not true in podcasting. So I'm curious then for your guys' take, because back to the point of centralization is to give people a better user experience and choice and variety and ease of use. What do we think about the moves of Spotify and Apple in the space, especially given Spotify's news a few weeks ago of acquiring Gimlet? So I think the necessary background here is that for the longest time, Apple has been a primary distributor of podcasting. It used to be somewhere upwards of like 80%. We believe it's now

somewhere between like 60 to 75 maybe. But with today's Infinite Dial, so studies, it suggests that Spotify has grown their particular share, but we're nowhere seeing like 50-50 parody or something. We're just not seeing that just yet. And so Spotify, the business case for Spotify going to podcasting or spoken audio at large is pulling their business model away from being completely tethered to the dynamics of the music industry which is to say a music industry that's been very costly for them to play in and it's been very costly

for a lot of music platforms to try to come in and take over essentially distribution power from the music labels and so Spotify looked in the situation and go we see a category of content here that is significantly cheaper that is still unwieldy

and it's still untamed and we can try to figure out our place in that world and sort of push us off the narrative of just being a music company and giving ourselves other avenues of growth. And that impacts like the company's branding and positioning, right? It's no longer seen as just a music company but like an audio destination for

all kinds of audio. Absolutely. And in that same way that like Spotify was also known for helping you discover stuff you'll like. I think this is also a reflection they're realizing like podcasting has gotten so large in terms of how many new creators are jumping in. Can you guys address the exclusive shows angle?

I actually see both models working really well. I think if you have a platform where anyone can submit a podcast, that can be great. You can have long-tail creators. But I also think a podcast that says, hey, I'm going to curate the top two, 300 podcasts can also work really well too. Both have great monetization potential if they want to be niche or just long-tail. Yeah. And so, I mean, we have a couple of situations that's pretty interesting right now. So there's been a paid podcasting attempt for quite some time called Stitcher Premium. It's a sort of exclusive layer on top of a fairly popular

third-party podcast app called Stitcher, which is part of Mint Roll. And earlier this week, we saw the formal announcement of a company called Luminary that's attempting to be, they literally use the tagline sort of Netflix for podcasts, which is going to be difficult because the primary challenge there is that they're trying to build a catalog of things that you could argue has free alternatives almost everywhere else. But I have made this argument a couple of times before, and I don't think people have stuck yet, But I think we should be looking at HidSpace as a really interesting, like, comp here.

What do you mean by that? So Hitspace essentially is an on-demand audio app that performs a very specific function that provides a very specific genre of on-demand audio content. It fits into one's life in a very, very specific way. You know exactly what you're paying for it, and you can't find quality alternatives elsewhere of that platform, generally speaking. And so we're in a situation where we, there is some lane here to, build a paid podcasting platform, the question is, like, will there be a really, really big

one, or will it be a series of smaller ones that ends up being bundled over the long run? And I think we are at the very beginning of being to answer that question. Yeah, I agree. I would also say for people in the know in terms of the history of podcasting in the recent past five years, I think I've seen versions of Netflix for podcasts, and one of them I remember, I don't even know if you remember this, Nick, is 60DB. I do. Acquired by Google.

Right. They got acquired by Google. and I don't know what Google is doing inside. But the problem is it like it's still a subscription. Why is that a problem? I would love a subscription service. But I think I would rather pay for a specific podcast. Oh my God, yes.

So my number one complaint. So everyone at A630 heard my whole thesis on this a million times, which is, first of all, podcasting is such a homogenous word. We've defined it technically and in user experience. But when I think of the content side of podcasting, I like to split it into a simple taxonomy of three types of shows. There are personality-based, what I call cultural personality-based shows, you know, like the Azure Klein show, the Tim Ferriss show. Sure.

And my God, by the way, most of them are named after male names. Let's just not go off on that one. Then the next category besides culture personality shows is what I call, like, more collectives or like brands or voices of groups of people, which is what I would consider the A6 and Z podcast. And then the third show is a much more produced, serialized, like serial or narrative type of podcasting show. That's a very loose, broad taxonomy. Yeah. But if you think of these three categories, discovery for each of them, it is so frustrating to me. Again, going back to this containerization model, that discovery is limited at a show level.

Again, structurally, it's terrible. I keep bringing up structure because while everyone is so caught up in talking about discovery and monetization, they're missing the big opportunity here, the bigger thing, which is defining a new unit of analysis of episodes versus shows, and possibly even more granular units within that. I hate that we're still stuck in the legacy ways of thinking about this. When we can bypass things with software, we don't have to have the CD stage first to get to the individual song stage. And I also talk to analytics people all the time about how feeds limit what tools outside the big platforms can do, like not being able to tag podcast by topic. Because I believe we all need the ability to find episodes, not entire shows.

I like books and birdwatching. I should be able to find any episodes on those topics regardless of show. Connie, you like real estate and crafts. you should be able to fucking find those topics and discover every single episode on those. But see, this is where transcription and tagging and like just a much smarter internet native way of displaying podcast makes all of that, like, automatic. There is no technical reason why we cannot automatically transcribe all the top podcasts. And again, like I think subscription for like an entire platform doesn't necessarily make sense for podcasts. Like maybe it's a good starting point.

It makes a sense if you have a decent starting point. But hey, maybe you're a podcaster. and you're only going to create like a couple episodes, but it's really, really good content. Right, like, why can't you let people pay for that? And again, I think it's not just about the money that's getting transferred. The problem right now is, like, there's certain podcasts that I would happily pay for

and a bunch that I would not pay for. Yeah, exactly. And right now, these platforms don't give you that option to say, hey, these are the ones that I ascribe more value to, much less even to say I like this one or comment or anything. I mean, right, well, you're also alluding at the when you talk about the transcription of shows, though, is like, and this is obviously another key point of discovery,

is it goes again parallel to the web. There was a curated links phase that preceded the portal phase that preceded the search phase. Give it a couple of months because Google is working on that and they are beginning to beta test all of that in terms of transcriptions

in terms of whether a podcast shows or audio, but large, shows up in the search engines. But they're not even going to have all the podcasts, right? The exclusive podcast on Luminary, Google's not going to have. Well, then that's Luminary's problem

at the end of the day, right? I think Google's situation is is that they're going to pull in the RSS feeds or they're going to pull it on a podcast that exists on the open sort of ecosystem and they're going to transcribe it and they're going to index it within the search engine. I guess what I'm saying,

rather than rely on Google as the search engine to do it, at least very basic transcription in search, all the platforms should be able to do it themselves. And like imagine all the other stuff you'd like to tack on to it. Like, hey, maybe in addition to the podcast on podcast today, you have like five links that the listener can go in and click on. click while you're playing. I would love the ability to embed a link natively instead of in the show notes. Or a PDF that you can then charge more money for, right? Like, hey, to read more. Right, right. Or maybe, like, all the, like, parts that you cut out. Yeah. Like, those special clips. Maybe someone pays, like, a dollar to top, to untap it, right? I agree. I would love to pay for, you know, I love to pay for stuff that I want. But it's a situation. I mean, look, I'm just a normal person that has, like, normal finances. I don't think I'm going to spend more than X amount of money per month.

month on entertainment goods. I agree that people aren't going to spend like tons and tons of money on podcasts. But I think the better creators would get more rewarded for their content, which means new creators that don't have, you know, crazy followings to begin with can still get paid. No, I agree. But the question is like, I've heard the line of argument that it's really hard to become a patron supporter or find a way to give you money to a creator that you really support. it. And I do wonder the nature of that assumption. There's only so much frictional, so much attacking of the friction that we can introduce to that layer that we find what the most efficient point of, you know, listener supporting creators ends up becoming. Okay, but that is assuming that I want to

support that specific creator. Maybe I only want a tip for that specific episode. Maybe I don't actually want to give the tip to Sonal, but I want to give it to Connie and Nick. Right? That's fucked up, but okay? I mean like, no, seriously, like the way that we are thinking about paying, it's not necessarily the same person who's speaking even on every podcast. And the fact that we aren't able to more directly indicate and tie our money to the products that we truly, truly value. Yeah. I just think that's really lost opportunity. Well, so let me let me push back on that a little bit, right? So the assumption here is that the show is made up of, that this show is made up of you, me, and, you know, and let's say a producer and let's say, you know, a couple of people

behind the scenes. But I think the reality is that most of the production structures constitutes a lot more people than the listener can ordinarily see. So what a listener, who a listener is moved to tip doesn't necessarily translate to who's actually creating the content. Because there's an entire sort of conversation over here in terms of like how listeners value the creators, how they sort of make assumptions about, what they want to support, how do they want to support, why do you want to support. There's a huge, there's a sort of, there are a lot of gaps information there to give all that power to listeners, I think. There still should be some middle point there in terms of how support works.

I'm not saying it can't go to a show, but a show is, even then, supporting a show is different than supporting a person. I'm hearing both of you guys. I also hear that there is a lot more granularity you can do because we have an infinite web. And the fact that we define things as containers of a feed or a podcast or a show. show or an episode. These are all things we can redefine in this new era, and I agree it's very early innings. I also agree so wholeheartedly that a thriving content ecosystem has to support its creators. And I know you're arguing for that, too, because you're arguing in this framework that people have more comments, they have more ability to interact with

their top fans. You're saying the same thing from a different angle, but from a pure business perspective in terms of being able to run a business that is based on podcasting, there does need to be a middle layer where creators can get the value they need. And for me, the open question, quite honestly, is whether the assumption or thesis that happened with blogging. And this is actually the initial premise of Anchor as well, which Spotify also acquired, is whether there will be now a new wave of mobile podcast creators who don't have tools. And again, with tools like Descript, which democratize editing, with tools like just being

able to record a podcast in your phone without having to have like a fancy Zoom recorder or mics, Like that is an open question to me. And I don't know if people are really going to listen to that because we have this discovery problem in the ecosystem. And yet there are a few centralized choke points that are coming up now, particularly iTunes, Spotify, Pandora, et cetera. By the way, on this notion of growing the podcast ecosystem and the total addressable market size, what do you guys make of radio here? Because that has its own set of structural and policy and regulatory considerations. I'm curious for your guys' take on that aspect of it. Well, I think the market size for podcasts is, you know, multiples, large. than what it is today. And I do think it's tapping into radio, but it's also tapping into other things that do really well in the audio format. So like audiobooks that are self-published, for example, things that are related to the knowledge-sharing market for adult learning. Oh, interesting. Really, really work well for audio formats. There's a lot of stuff where I don't need to watch someone talking on YouTube with like a whiteboard, because usually they don't even really need the whiteboard, honestly. Although there is a funny argument to be made, which is that

People also listen to audio and YouTube. And in fact, Chris Anderson was telling me his son watches entire movies on YouTube in audio mode only, which I think is freaking fascinating. I also just listen to movies on YouTube all the time. I mean, yes, YouTube also works for audio. But I mean, just imagine topics around business, topics around finance, topics around parenting, even like meditation and how to like improve your life. All of that stuff works really well in the audio format and doesn't necessarily always require video.

So anyways, those kinds of podcasts, at least today, are not the mainstream podcast, right? Because today, mainstream podcasts are, again, around shows versus individual pieces. Instead of being, like, you know, a TV show, why can't you be like a movie? And it's like this one-time thing that goes really deep, which is really valuable content. And I think if you take that kind of definition for a podcast, it is so massive. So let's begin a whole notion of Trasso Radio, right? It is an industry completely utterly defined by the nature of the distribution point. It is antennas going out.

It hits you in a car. It hits you in a radio. And it commands billions and billions of dollars. My interpretation of that industry and its sort of strange persistence has a lot to do with advertising relationships. It is still the medium that has the most easy reach for, and that hits the most Americans and has the most, like, history behind it. And so if you're an advertiser, you feel significantly more comfortable

because that is your default industry to buy into. And I feel like that feeling of safety and confidence is something that should not be understated. And it's something that all digital media sort of sectors, including podcasting and beyond it, should sort of be cognizant enough, like that's one of the primary things driving that situation. And I think another reason why ads works so well on radio,

and it works well on podcast, who sometimes is it comes in the voice of the creator versus the voice of the brand or like some other random voice. The sort of buzzword that podcast industry executives use all the time is intimacy, right? And that's why we sort of hear the host rat ad being the pinnacle of the podcast advertising experience

and it's also its most valuable ad cons like ad slot at type. And so, you know, that's why like a lot of the genres that you pointed out when you sought to build the taxonomy of a podcast is very personality driven, it's very people driven. That's why there's a little of trickiness when we talk about something like fiction podcasts or non-narrated podcasts and how

you monetize that, how you build that relationship. Yep, I agree. It's very much native to the content of the storytelling and the medium in that context. Absolutely. And at some point, we will see innovations in business models, innovation and distribution in the structure, in the sort of like, you know, container of it that will

alter the advertising assumptions here or the monetization assumptions here. But I also want to go back to, to tie it back to the very first thing we talked about. The definition of it, what we think about it, how we think about it, our assumptions of it being personality driven or show driven or episode driven, it needs to fragment at some point. It kind of needs to break up because it needs to be a universe that can hold a bunch of different kinds of experiences in the same way that when we think about television,

we're not just talking about Breaking Bad, we're talking about real of fortune. We're talking about like so many different kinds of... We're talking about like American Idol, which is such an important movement around the world when you think of the future of content and TikTok and challenge-based things. Right. But the point is that there is a whole, that was a huge fun of reality TV. Or things around holidays. Right.

Like the Super Bowl. Right. Once a year type of events. Right. Like this is again, like we have to break away from the show concept. Exactly. I agree. And to your point, just on a terminology thing, Nick, I would say the word fragmented, we've used

that in the context of industry fragmentation. to me it's more how to make a homogenous term more heterogeneous and have more diversity embodied within it. Yeah, and so I think the question here is sort of like, do we think about the spread as on the one hand you have prestige TV and on the other hand you have reality TV or do we think about the spread more like on the one hand you have Netflix, on the other hand you have Twitch? Like is that the way we're going to think about the ecosystem writ large or are we going

to be a bit more specific when we use the term, when we do our coverage? I think that's also, you know, What we talk about is this important about how we talk about it. Do you want to say one more thing? No, I want to ask you questions because there are so many of my friends today who want to create podcasts. And you created the A16B podcast from scratch to what it is today. To full credit, it was actually created before I joined.

And I took over it three months in the production and then we're hosting it a year later. But I know like the user base massively, the listenership massively grew under your care. So I think you should talk about, you know, what are your tips for someone who just wants to get started in podcasts? Oh my God. That could be its own episode. And I'd love to do that someday. guess maybe on the spirit of creation, which is a theme of this episode, I just say some very

quick high-level takeaways, which is one, and I do this when I give a lot of talks and talk to founders about how to start their own things for their companies. Yes. I think the fundamental thing people need to ask is where they are in the taxonomy of shows that I outlined, because that is sort of a flowchart for what your next step is for either how to hire, build, or just what tools to use? If you're a cult of personality show, the things you can do are very different than if you're doing a brand show than if you're doing a serialized narrative show. So the first thing I always ask people is what is your goal and what kind of show you want, because it's a very crowded environment. So then the next thing is attention is scarce. With podcasting may be less so because

you have a bit of a captive audience in a phone or commute or workout or a, you know, a situation where they are on a hike or walk where they're only going to listen. But even then you are competing with another show. So the number one thing is how you differentiate your show. And one of the number one ways to get a lot of listeners is to have a lot of episodes and a variety of episodes. And so the other way to do it then is to enforce seasonality where you drop a season of episodes and then just like drop them like, you know, record 10 and drop them. So basically if you want to do it, it's like, a long-term commitment. I don't think it has to be, because as you've also talked about, there's a lot more tools emerging and startups emerging that will allow like experimentation and sharing.

But for now, it has to be a long-term commitment. I think Ben Thompson said this. Headcount is the biggest predictor of how much people invest in something. And I think if a company has people dedicated to podcasting, then you know they're serious about podcasting. I would say it's as simple as that. So you do have to invest in it to make it happen. But on the simple mechanics, one of the most beautiful things is the thing that I complained about, which is the very thing that also is the best thing about podcasting is the feed ecosystem makes it so easy to simply record an episode, distribute wherever you want. And then it's about using the feed ecosystem to then freely put your feed out all into the world because it's a simple, all iTunes is doing is taking

a bunch of feeds. All we had to do when we got on Spotify was like feed them our feet. And people can self-select the feeds into different apps. So you can use that to your advantage. And there's a ton more about the content side. But the one thing I do want to say is that the editing process is now becoming democratized because there's a huge gap. I would often put it as the analogy between design and manufacturing, where there's a design phase and a manufacturing phase, and you need to close and tighten that feedback loop to get the best content out. And what's happening with tools like Descript, you tighten this feedback loop between design and manufacturing where you no longer have to separate creators from the technical skills of actually editing a podcast. So that's really important because there's a whole bunch of tools now, though, on the analytics side, that will, and there are a new bunch of distribution tools that are now connecting all these pieces and supporting creators. So it's a very quick answer. There's so much more. could say on this. I think we need to do another podcast on how to create podcasts. Well, that would be fun. Thank you for joining the A6 and Z podcast. Thank you so much for having me. I really enjoyed this talk. Thank you.