Podcastplayer.org news

Matt Hartley has written a thoughtful response to my article from a few days ago. It’s certainly cleared up some points, and I can now appreciate the idea of striving to give podcast content the widest possible audience:

By no means am I saying this should be the only method of distribution for the world’s Podcasting content. On the contrary, I feel that the more distribution avenues Podcasting ‘content’ has, the better off the creators of this content will be.

Where we differ, I suppose, is in the importance placed on “satellite radio”

I believe that we need to stop following trends with such a narrow view. See, by bringing the content to the growing world of satellite radio, we are working to encapsulate it in such a way that we will be able to distribute our message to brand new ears.

I’m not a north American resident, so (as far as I can tell) I can’t get XM or Sirius. Maybe I’m just not looking hard enough, but I can’t actually find details of the satellite “footprint” on the XM site. This means I start with a different perspective - for me there is no “growing world of satellite radio". Actually, I have a dish on my roof that pulls in 20 or 30 free channels, but I never listen to them - mainly because I never know what might be on. Every time I tried it was just the same old pop/sport/drivel that I found on ordinary radio.

I can understand that there’s a lot of fuss in the USA about satellite radio. After all, XM and Sirius have spent a lot of advertising dollars stirring up interest in every way they can to try and recoup their huge licence expenses. But let’s look at details.

From the XM site, a portable XM receiver costs about $350, and an in-car model around $130. Add to this a $12.95/month subscription and you have about $285 (for the first year). A significant barrier to entry compared to a regular FM radio for a one-off $10 at walmart. Satellite radio is an expensive luxury. I would be intrigued to find out if there is a significant proportion of XM/Sirius users who don’t already have an internet PC or mobile phone. My guess is that satellite radio comes considerably further down the wish list, so it can’t really be touted as a way of reaching Matt’s 70% of the world’s population who are unable to get media via RSS.

On the other hand, I can see a potentially huge possibility for podcasting to provide the source of a lot of zero-cost, or at least low-cost, programming for cash-strapped local radio. Would you listen to the likes of Dawn and Drew if they were on your local radio dial?

The main problems with all of this, though, rest in the nature of radio. As I mentioned before, radio is broadcast. Radio programming has evolved, based on study of ratings and demographics, to provide the most acceptible material to the largest identifiable group of listeners. Anything that deviates from that “sweet spot” will risk losing listener numbers. There is little room for alternatives and experimentation.

Internet delivery is point-to-point. Listeners get to choose individual shows, listen to them when, where, and in the order they like, and skip the ones they don’t like. The control is much more fine-grained. If choosing and listening to a radio station is like electing a president, choosing and listening to podcasts is like being the president.

As for buying into satellite radio, I’d (personally) rather spend the cost of the satellite reciever and year or two’s subscription on an in-car iPod equivalent that syncs from my podcast-fetcher over WiFi while it’s in the driveway. What I want, when I want it, and no subscription fees.

Maybe I’m just weird, though.