It’s time for every podcaster to get on board with video podcasts

Several surveys have shown that YouTube is one of the most-used platforms for podcast consumption right behind Apple and Spotify

Welcome! I'm Simon Owens and this is my media newsletter. You can subscribe by clicking on this handy little button:

Hey folks! Today I’m answering questions from readers. If you have a question you want me to answer in a future newsletter, leave it in this thread.

It’s time for every podcaster to get on board with video podcasts

The first question comes from Bob Lalasz:

Video and podcasting are time-intensive and possibly resource-intensive. What are the leading indicators you would look for as a solo creator to say: I’m confident a plunge into video/podcasting is a smart risk to take?

I genuinely don’t think a creator should plunge into video or podcasting unless it’s something that truly interests them. A solo creator’s time is very limited, and it’s of little strategic value to divert energy away from something you’re good at just because you think it’ll somehow advance your business or brand. That’s why so many media outlets failed at their “pivots to video.”

That being said, if you do launch a podcast, I think you should definitely also launch a video channel. Hear me out. 

If you had suggested to me 10 years ago that the average podcaster should create a video version of their podcasts, I would have called that idea silly. After all, who wants to watch a bunch of people sitting around a mic and talking to each other?

I would have been wrong in that assessment. It turns out lots of people like to watch that. Several surveys have shown that YouTube is one of the most-used platforms for podcast consumption right behind Apple and Spotify, and there are now dozens of podcasts that regularly rack up millions of video views.

The trend started with YouTubers, of course. Many already had the cameras and mics, and so they built makeshift podcast recording studios where they chatted with their fellow video creators. Shows like the H3 Podcast and Impaulsive not only amassed millions of subscribers on their main YouTube channels, but they also launched spinoff channels that aggregated short segments from their longer shows. The H3 Podcast “highlights” channel, for instance, has over 800 million views. The Impaulsive “clips” channel has 650 million.  

Traditional podcasters were slow to adopt this trend, mostly because there wasn’t a good way to record video for remote interviews. Zoom calls had poor sound quality and the video often didn’t match up perfectly to the audio. But over the last year, tools like Zencastr and Squadcast have rolled out their own video tools that record natively to each participant’s machine, thereby ensuring that the video isn’t subjected to internet latency. Sure, you have to spend extra time editing the two separate files together, but the improvement to sound and video quality are well worth it.

I recently started recording video versions of my podcast interviews, and this week I posted the first one to YouTube. It probably added about two hours to my workload, but I saw a significant increase in YouTube views as a result (before I was just uploading an audio file with a static image of my podcast logo). I’m not someone who’s adept at video editing, but the beauty of video podcasts is that they don’t require high production values.

So if you’re a podcaster who’s been thinking about expanding into video, now’s the time. YouTube is just too large of a podcast distribution platform to ignore, and there’s a real audience for this type of content. Given that YouTube is building an entire team focused on its podcast offerings, it’ll only become more relevant to the podcast industry in the years to come.

Quick hits

"YouTube’s creative ecosystem contributed more than $25 billion to the American economy in 2021, and supported more than 425,000 full-time equivalent jobs." [Social Media Today] From the article: "That’s why YouTube Shorts is such a significant threat to TikTok ... because it’s a complementary channel to a creators’ main YouTube feed, and if you can build your channel audience, you have greater potential to monetize your work."

A bunch of laid-off journalists banded together to launch their own outlet. [NYT] Yes! More worker-owned media cooperatives like this!

This is agreement between Warner Music and Soundcloud is kind of a big deal because it restructures streaming payments so that indie/smaller musicians take home more money. If Spotify and Apple Music were to adopt this payout model, it'd be HUGE. [The Verge]

Marvel IP generates billions of dollars a year, yet the company's comic book creators have grown increasingly agitated because of how difficult it is to get properly paid for their work. [Hollywood Reporter]

Should you publish multiple podcasts to the same feed?

The next question comes from Peter Osborne

What are your thoughts on the approach that Scott Galloway (Prof G Media) is taking to posting multiple podcasts on one feed (with the ability to pick and choose) and is this a strategy someone can/should pursue? Rather than separate feeds for each new podcast, he's branding them separately. People used to launch on a new feed but share a few episodes on your old feed.

Let me reword your question for clarity: Traditionally, media companies will launch new podcasts on separate feeds, but is there any strategic value of placing all of your podcasts on the same feed and allowing your listeners to pick and choose which series to listen to?

I think where you’re seeing publishers choose the latter approach is with limited series narrative podcasts. Not only are these narrative shows expensive to produce, but they’re notoriously difficult to monetize. That’s because it’s nearly impossible to price advertising inventory appropriately since there’s no way to predict audience size in advance. If the show ends up being a surprise hit, then there’s very little financial upside. Remember those famous Mailchimp ads in the first season of Serial? Those rates were set before the show became a viral phenomenon. That was a huge lost revenue opportunity!

So publishers are increasingly launching new narrative series on the same feed, usually framed as “seasons” of a show. Take Bloomberg’s Prognosis podcast as an example. The last season used the subtitle “Breakthrough” and spent nine episodes focused on Long Covid. Its current season is subtitled “Losing It” and is an in-depth look at the science behind weight loss. Both could have easily been separate shows, but Bloomberg can build a better business around running them as seasons of the same show.

As for non-narrative podcasts? I think it depends on how closely they align in terms of niche and format. You mention Scott Galloway’s podcast as an example; I think the reason it works so well is that he’s the host of all his separate shows. People who subscribe to his podcast feed do so because they’re fans of Scott Galloway and probably want to listen to whatever he talks about.

By running multiple shows within the same feed, you risk alienating your audience. I unsubscribed to at least one Slate podcast because it decided to start grouping several shows into the Culture Gabfest feed. Nothing’s more annoying than downloading what you think is one show and instead getting something completely different. That runs the risk of ruining the intimacy of podcasting.

Which brings me to one of my pet peeves: media companies promoting new shows by running sample episodes in already-existing feeds. It’s just such a blatant bait and switch, and I always just delete those episodes. My podcast listening time is precious, and it’s very rare these days that I add a new show into my rotation. I don’t appreciate it when a publisher tries to sneak a new show into my podcast player without my consent!