Infinity announced KYOURadio.com this week.  People can submit archived shows (which are now being called Podcasts by the press) with the best, most interesting ones being broadcast on AM 1550 (in the Bay Area) and streamed online from their website.  Infinity will insert ads in between the shows although the content producers won't yet be able to participate (rather they'll be doing it for fun or to promote their show).  On the other hand, it's not an exclusive deal for the content producers and all of the licensing will be taken care of by Infinity.  As the article mentions, Infinity acknowledges that they're not taking a huge risk since the station had not been doing well financially anyway.  Still, it's a good, bold move that terrestrials like Infinity need to make to catch up.  It's as if the New York Times devoted a page in their paper or website to articles submitted by their community (hint, hint).

They're outsourcing (or is it open-sourcing?) their programming to the masses (not unlike some other folks out there), which is a good way for them to identify talent.  And they're challenging the folks out there who think radio sucks basically saying: "We hear your complaints; we're now going to give you a shot at it".   I hear they've already gotten numerous submissions today and I bet they'll end up with some good shows, but I'm not sure that it'll be enough to increase that station's ratings - the esoteric and disparate nature of the shows may make it confusing to listeners (though having a program guide on their website would help).  What they'll need is a system to rate the submissions once there are a lot of them or else their producers will spend all of their time wading through the chaff to find the wheat.  Internet-based rating systems like GarageBand.com's could help on this front. 

It's an interesting experiment and I'll be all ears to hear how it goes.

[cross-posted from www.ragsgupta.com]

Ok - I'll admit it... when something gets a ton of hype, it is my nature to try and poke holes in it. I'm sorry, I just can't help it. Perhaps it is my contrarian nature, my futile desire to be unique in a vast society, or maybe it's just my distaste for anything rubber stamped by the masses. I'm really working on it, because I know that it makes me judgemental and rude - but, enough for caveats.

I really have been holding back on this one, and I've waiting until there was a sign - and this interview on CNET certainly was a sign:
http://news.com.com/The+man+whos+got+mainstream+radio+quaking/2008-1026_3-5711864.html?tag=nefd.ac. I actually had another sign just now when I went to start this blog, as Paul has added "Podcasting" as one of the "categories" for a post.

In the CNET interview, the interviewer questions the level of hype that Podcasting is receiving, and in its defense, Curry uses the television show "The Osbournes" as, i guess, some kind of allegorical support. He heads further down the "reality tv is proof that Podcasting is compelling" argument for a few more questions, but honestly, he lost me on "The Osbournes". I mean, I kind of think we might all agree that reality tv has sort of eaten itself, right? Also, reality TV is hardly produced in bedrooms on laptops. Anyway, I won't continue on with the Adam Curry thing - you can read it yourself - but it did get me to hone in on some core questions: is Podcasting compelling, and if it is, why?

It brought me to think of none other than our old friend Marshall McLuhan and his famous "The Medium is the Message" quote. (Tim - are you REALLY going to quote Marshall McLuhan? Yes - see you at Burning Man, bro). I believe that Podcasting is compelling as a phenomenon due to its marriage to that cultural heavyweight, the iPod, for sure. McLuhan would do doubt say that the mere existence of such a phenomenon is compelling enough to spark the collective consciousness into innovative action that will drive a new paradigm and generate something even more compelling and with more substance than the original phenomenon. Well, let's hope so, but let's not get ahead of ourselves. As industry professionals, we are interested in how it affects people's behavior, how it affects markets, and since its content related, what is it doing for content?

Well, on the behavior front, I think it is pretty compelling. Timeshifting is a HUGE benefit to the content consumer, and that alone makes it quite interesting. There are, of course, other behavioral effects, but let's just quite while we're ahead.

Markets... hmmm. Well, there certainly is a market for digital audio books, but does that count as Podcasting? I say no... first of all, they were around well before the term, and i don't really think it qualifies as being "programmed", which I think is necessary for the definition (see below). As far as all the other content types, including music podcasts, I think there is potential, but most of it is unlicensed and free at this point, so I am going to say that that its short term affect on markets is pretty small... compared to file-sharing - microscopic.

With respect to content - I have to say that I'm on the fence. Now, I dig the idea of sharing playlists with people, but most of the Podcasts that I have checked out aren't really about music... they are about some music and a lot of somebody talking about what they are playing. To be honest, as a discovery tool, I think the legal/paid sharing options available via Rhapsody, Musicmatch, Yahoo, Peer Impact, Mercora, and others are much more compelling from a pure music perspective due to a much lower barrier to creating and sharing. As far as the other, well, shall I say, "variety show" type Podcasts... well, most of it conjures up either public access television or worse. The tricky thing about content is that the quality of the content is, and always has been, independent of the "medium" in my humble opinion (sorry Marshall).

Ok - so what does all this mean? Yeah... its getting too much hype, but its also pretty cool when done right. Just like blogs, its all about filtering and finding people who have a knack for it vs. miles of garbage (yeah...well, I walked right into that one, didn't I). I really don't feel like I've seen a good definition yet, so, let's get back to basics. Sometimes a simple definition will demystify the thing and make it easier to put it into the proper context, so here goes:

Podcasting = programmed digital audio content available for download and playback on any device that will support the encoded format of said content. Not very sexy, is it. If it catches on, I want credit, dammit.

At D3, Steve Jobs announced that Apple would be adding support for podcasting in the next version of iTuenes within the next 60 days.  Good.  It's about time a major jukebox embraced podcasting (which is essentially supporting rss with enclosures).  The existing podcasting tools are typical 1.0 software releases -- a bit buggy and not too user-friendly (though these are and will improve over time).  I'm hoping Apple's support for podcasts will greatly increase the ease-of-use in terms of accessing podcasts.  But it won't be enough.  Apple is bringing its sensibility to this in that they'll be hand-picking the stuff that will be listed in iTunes, like they've done with the radio directory -- they don't want their pristine environs swarmed by the vox populi.  iTunes users will hopefully be able to add podcasts not listed in iTunes to their podcast directory as they surf the Web.  Finally, Jobs mentioned that podcasts would be available for free but didn't rule out charging for them via the iTunes Music Store (like they currently do for spoken word via Audible).  That would potentially enable copyrighted music to be included in podcasts (provided the files are protected by a version of Fairplay that ensures DMCA compliance).  I don't think this will happen anytime soon but the statement could have a chilling effect for would-be entrants to the space.

[cross-posted from www.ragsgupta.com]

NPR now podcasts many of its shows and promotes their availability constantly. And there is almost universal fascination with this new form of radio which makes it possible for anyone to be their own producer and lets people listen to their favorite shows on demand on their computer or mp3 player.

Yet NPR does not podcast any of its music based programs including those broadcast by its acclaimed music based affiliate, KCRW. Even amateur podcasters know that there is a "legal problem" with podcasting music. They are right.
The problem is that to podcast music you would need permission from each label representing each artist whose record you wish to podcast. Unlike webcasting, podcasing is not subject to the DMCA compulsory license which makes it possible to bypass the labels for permission and pay SoundExchange, a not-for-profit organization, a statutorily mandated fee. SoundExchange then turns around and pays the artists and labels on a 50-50 basis for the use of their masters.

I think the DMCA should be amended to accommodate podcasting. The DMCA was passed in 1998 -- well before podcasting was invented. Yet this new form of "Internet radio" is perfectly consistent with the spirit, if not the letter, of the Act. The DMCA permits any webcaster to use as much copyrighted music as they want so long as they pay a statutorily mandated fee and so long as they comply with certain "conditions" including that they can cannot "cause or induce" downloading. The prohibition against downloading was to prevent displacement of record sales. But podcasting, like Internet radio, does not displace record sales. Just because you download an hour long music based show, which you can listen to on demand, does not mean you won't buy an album including one of the songs in the podcast. Moreover, if the DMCA were amended to apply to podcasting, the same "performance compliment" rules applicable to webcasting would apply to podcasters, that is, you could not play more than four tracks by the same artist or three songs from the same album within a three hour period.

The good reasons to make podcasting subject to the compulsory license include:

· Prevent podcasting from going underground -- this way at least labels and artists will get paid.

· SoundExchange is already set up to collect and distribute the required statutory fees.

· Podcasting is a form of Internet radio, and the DMCA was set up to allow Internet radio to live and flourish.

If individual podcasters had to license masters from the record companies, they would have to pay someone like me a small fortune to clear the masters, and pay a much larger fortune to the labels for the right to use their masters.
The only way to let music-based podcasting live and flourish is to amend the DMCA to permit it.

Aristotle observed that man is a "social animal". That is the fundamental premise behind why there will always be room for "radio" in people's lives.

I was reminded of this when listening to some podcasts this weekend. I rarely listen to terrestrial radio, save for NPR, preferring instead to listen to algorithmic, playlist-based streaming radio (like the sort that Launch or Rhapsody might offer). The podcasts, raw though they were, made me realize how much I miss having a live human introduce me to music in an intelligent way. I miss the personality and human touch that I love in great music shows like KCRW's Morning Becomes Eclectic, NPR's All Songs Considered, Virgin Radio (UK) and now in podcasts. Playlist-based, algorithmic radio works well for me when I'm working and can't concentrate on another human voice. However, when I'm mobile (in the car or out and about), I'll want a human voice, whether as part of a talk show, or a music show introducing me to music I might like.

[cross-posted from www.ragsgupta.com]