Skip to main content

How long is a piece of podcast?

Image by Mateo Abrahan from Unsplash
Listening to podcasts has transformed walking for exercise - and has been a revelation after the rigidity of traditional radio show formatting that requires a programme to be, say, 30 minutes long, no more, no less. However, a couple of podcasts I listened to this morning have demonstrated how things can go wrong at the boundaries.

The (2022) podcasts in question were the 14 May episode of More or Less: Behind the Stats, lasting 9 minutes, and the 6 May episode of Kermode & Mayo's Take, which runs to 1 hour 59 minutes.

These are clearly extremes - I think it's fair to say that most podcasts are in the 30-50 minutes range. But each illustrates a point.

Let's take Tim Harford's More or Less first. This one demonstrates the danger of making a podcast that is just a radio programme repackaged. It is part of a series that is broadcast weekly on the BBC's World Service and has a rigid 9 minute slot. If it had been a real podcast, it would have run for about 15 minutes, I'd suggest. But, dealing with a relative complex single issue, Harford, who is usually a laid-back presenter, was forced to rattle through at a slightly unnerving rate. The content was fine, but the need to fit to a broadcast slot made it less than perfect listening. 

By contrast, Kermode and Mayo's Take, which is a new podcast based on an earlier BBC radio show by the pair, shows that the freedom of the podcast format can be taken too far. I don't mind that nearly two hours is too long to fit with my typically 40-45 minute walk. I'm very happy to split the listening across several walks. But it felt like what we were getting was an hour's content that the presenters were allowed to run away with and extend unnecessarily. There was simply far too much wibbling with negligible information content. What this one required was a good edit.

The lessons from this listening experience seems to be twofold. We really should do away with linear broadcasting of this kind of programme and just have them as podcasts. They are better in a flexible slot than as time-constrained radio shows. But with great freedom comes great responsibility. Just because a podcast can be whatever length you like, it is still important to edit the content so it works well. I will continue to listen to Kermode and Mayo as I'm interested in film and value their opinions - but it would have been so much better if it had been tightened up.

Podcasting is still a relatively new medium and that will mean mistakes along the way. But if we learn from them, it will continue to go from strength to strength.

See all of Brian's online articles or subscribe to a weekly digest for free here

Comments

  1. I have been a guest on many, many podcasts. Now, I like my own voice and don't know when to shut up. This clearly creates a problem for podcasters who clearly quail at the thought of all that editing. So the podcasts I have been on are usually more than an hour. Sometimes MUCH more than an hour. Forget your daily walk - you need to camp out in the garden and bring sandwiches.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5.  However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's recent gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some ex

Mirror, mirror

A little while ago I had the pleasure of giving a talk at the Royal Institution in London - arguably the greatest location for science communication in the UK. At one point in the talk, I put this photograph on the screen, which for some reason caused some amusement in the audience. But the photo was illustrating a serious point: the odd nature of mirror reflections. I remember back at school being puzzled by a challenge from one of our teachers - why does a mirror swap left and right, but not top and bottom? Clearly there's nothing special about the mirror itself in that direction - if there were, rotating the mirror would change the image. The most immediately obvious 'special' thing about the horizontal direction is that the observer has two eyes oriented in that direction - but it's not as if things change if you close one eye. In reality, the distinction is much more interesting - we fool ourselves into thinking that the image behind the mirror is what's on ou