Please listen to these three audio podcasts in the Course Documents folder:
- A capella competition audio podcast
- Beanpot final audio podcast
- Magners Comedy Fest audio podcast
Then, respond to this post by answering these questions:
- What do these pieces tell us about the audio podcast as a PLATFORM?
- What can we learn from these pieces about what is the most suitable CONTENT for an audio podcast?
Please be sure to use specific examples from each of the podcasts, and make an effort to read and comment on your colleagues' responses. Remember, there are no wrong answers to these questions; we're looking for insights into the attributes of this platform and how to use it most effectively.
These pieces tell us that getting the listeners attention is the most crucial part of an audio podcast. The beginning of the a capella podcast does a great job of this by starting with an excerpt from their event. Very catchy.
ReplyDeleteThey provide listeners with a different way to connect with the event. Through the readers voices and personalities they have a closer relationship. I feel that in the comedy festival and the Beanpot podcast presenting who is who at the beginning allows the reader to connect with them.
The most suitable content for these pieces has to be soundbites and natural sound. These two things catch the attention of the listener. The natural sound (a capella being sung) draws someone in and the soundbites (coaches, players, judges) adds credibility to the podcast and the information. But also, these add more to the words we are speaking. An audio podcast with two voices sharing information can get very boring but natural sound and soundbites break up the script and add a needed break from the two readers.
In producing a podcast and listening to the other three, it felt a lot like a radio news story at first, but I think realizing that they are stand-alone pieces and not part of a larger broadcast allows for some variations. There isn't a limit on the length like there would be in the midst of a radio broadcast, but there is of course the limit of holding someone's interest. The podcast is also not a type of live coverage, which can be both a benefit and a drawback. It needs to be pre-recorded and probably edited so it loses some immediacy, but gains versatility in the variety of sound bites that can be included.
ReplyDeleteI thought this format allows for a mix of news and analysis with a good dose of sounds that can help tell the story. In putting together our Beanpot podcast, I liked that we were able to give the facts of the story and add in our own analysis with sound bites from the participants adding to both. The a capella podcast did a great job of using sounds from the event to give us a taste of the concert. That seemed like the perfect type of event to cover in this manner. I think we could have added to our Beanpot podcast with some natural sounds. The comedy festival podcast also did a good job of telling the story of the event and bringing quotes from several angles - fans, judges and performers.
What do these pieces tell us about the audio podcast as a PLATFORM?
ReplyDeleteI think these pieces really helped show us the benefits and issues with using an audio podcast. The most important thing in my mind was not the actual tracks but the quotes and ambient sounds. As a platform it's beneficial because there is no time limit which gives you more freedom but it's also one of the hardest mediums to get people to want to view your story. Unlike print with headlines or tv with images, audio podcasts have to rely on a strong opening and that's it to get people to listen. Audio podcasts are really challenging in that aspect because you have to come up with a really exciting way to open. The fact that it's not live makes it difficult because it needs to be accessible to listeners soon after the fact but because they are usually available longer it needs to have a glimpse at the future too. Podcasts are useful in that aspect because you can safely summarize and theorize/analyze without worrying about time.
# What can we learn from these pieces about what is the most suitable CONTENT for an audio podcast?
I think the most important thing we can learn from these pieces is that ambient sounds and sound bytes are by far the most important pieces to a podcast puzzle. A podcast is only really interesting if you have an event with great natural sounds. The A cappella concert podcast was so effective because they had the groups singing and the other two podcasts used great quotes to keep it interesting. Using a podcast for an event outdoors or a concert/sporting events is a great idea but trying to do a podcast at a meeting or in another silent place seems like a bad idea. I also think that podcasts are probably best suited for feature-type stories rather than hard or breaking news because they take time to create and are not live. Because of the time it takes to put together an audio podcast it seems like podcasts should focus on softer news rather than hard news since most viewers will already know most of the information about hard news stories before the podcast is even posted.
As a platform these audio podcasts are informative while still managing to be concise. I agree with Tristan, in that grabbing the listeners attention from the start is the most vital component to a good audio podcast. The a cappella piece used natural sound and soundbites the best of the three pieces because of the variety. Whether it was quotes from audience members, judges, or actual concert excerpts, it kept the listeners ears engaged throughout the entire piece.
ReplyDeleteWhile soundbites and natural sound may be the most suitable content, it was nice to get analysis as well, like in the Beanpot piece. Podcasts allow for both soundbites that the listener can get information from, and analysis from those giving the podcast. Analysis is necessary in podcasts because the listener is not there nor do they have any visuals to rely on. To get some more vivid descriptions that go beyond what the natural sound or soundbites may have displayed is important.
As Tristan said, only one voice sharing information can become boring. Variety in sound, whether it is different voices, intonations, or varied natural sound and soundbites, keep the podcast lively and informative.
As a platform, what podcasts can do is make a listener feel more involved, and like they were at or a part of events. You get to hear sounds of the events (like the singing at the A Cappella competition and crowd laughter at the comedy fest). Podcasts also seem to be more relaxed than newscasts which can make the listener more at ease and more interested because you have more time to share information. Having multiple personalities is also an advantage of the podcast because it mixes things up not only with opinions and voices, but gives the reporters the opportunity to play off of each other and evoke more personality and creativity into the pieces. (In the Beanpot podcast the guys were very enthusiastic and had a great exchange towards the end of their piece.) Then of course the addition of interviews and soundbites is helpful because you get to hear the tone and inflection of the quotes right in context rather than having to try to imagine or guess like you would from reading them. All three podcasts included interviews and soundbites from credible and applicable sources.
ReplyDeleteWhat we can learn from the podcasts is that it is very important, and sometimes challenging, to grab and maintain a listeners attention. I think it is important to start off with some nat sound (like the A Cappella podcast)which will perk up the listener and give them an idea of what they are getting in to, followed by an attention grabbing introduction or lead. (The Beanpot podcast announced the win in an enthusiastic tone). It is also very important to make introductions at the beginning of the podcast so listeners know who is telling them what. It just makes things easier to follow and more credible. (The A Cappella group did not introduce themselves at the start which was a little confusing). Interviews and soundbites are another big part of the content in these podcasts and they add a lot to the packages. It is important to keep the soundbites short and concise to keep focus, as well as to introduce the person who is talking. (The beanpot podcast introduces and re-introduces their subjects while the A Cappella group only introduced one or two of their subjects.) It is also important that the subjects be varied, to give a wider sense and angle on the event, but still be directly related to the event. (The Comedy podcast was great about this, they had fans, judges and contestants. Also the beanpot podcast was very unbiased in it's interviewing and storytelling.) Finally the most important content of a podcast (other than the actual facts and information) is enthusiasm and personality of the reporters. If they don't sound excited about what they are talking about why should I be? (I thought the beanpot and A Cappella groups did a good job in this, but that the comedy duo could have been a little more upbeat during their reporting.)
Acapella had great quotes from fans of the event as well as organizers who ran the event. I thought the teammates did a good job of describing the event and also providing foresight for the semifinals which will take place later. Using audio from the performances in the opening and closing gave the audio podcast a nice touch. This is key when working with audio because you really have to captivate the audience with good audio. Its also important to constantly add new soundbites because listeners tune out after a while (they did this). The organization and editing of the audio package was great.
ReplyDeleteThe beanpot audio wasn't as satisfying after listening to acapella. I heard breaks in the audio in the beginning interview (due to editing or maybe the digital audio recorder) which caught my ear. I thought their audio podcast was more detailed and covered all the bases of the games highlights and player/coach commentary added analysis. The national title implications at the end provided a nice wrap up to close the podcast.
Lastly, I think the comedy festival had some better interviews due to more background noise. This makes the experience seem organic as opposed to something that was forced in a cold dark room. Another thing that caught my ear was the pronunciation of a comedian in the beginning. Over audio it sounded as if the person wasn't confident in the pronunciation.
What the podcasts tell us about podcasts as a platform is that producers need to include a wide variety of sounds and a clear structure in order to attract and hold their audiences’ attention (which, admittedly, is also a comment on appropriate content for the platform). For instance, although the podcast on the Beanpot was informative and unbiased, it also lacked a clear structure and ambient noise that might have set the mood. The BBC’s podcasts, as a counter-example, nearly always use ambient noise, even if only footsteps on leaves, and their structures are usually obvious: the introduction tells the listener what’s to come and in what order, and then the show proceeds, skipping nothing mentioned in the intro and introducing nothing unmentioned. The a cappella podcast did a good job using sound from the event, using it as background noise, which smoothed the transition between the reporters’ commentary and the interview clips. Ending the podcast with song was an elegant way to sign off.
ReplyDeleteBrad makes a good point about podcasts’ flexibility: as long as you can hold the listener’s attention, your podcast can be as long as necessary. That said, the only long-form podcasts I’ve heard that don’t use the basic analysis-clip-analysis-clip structure have been talk shows. Podcasts, then, strike me as a good platform to use when interviewing one or two people at length (as in a talk show) on an interesting topic or when telling a story on some topic and interspersing interview clips from several people within the story (as in a newspaper article).
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAs a platform, these podcasts show that a closer relationship can be made between reporter and listener - the Beanpot and Comedy podcasts both introduce themselves in the beginning making an immediate connection with the listener. Also the back and forth between the two reporters on each podcast keeps the conversation flowing as opposed to one person talking the whole time. With just audio used in this platform, there is more of a conversation and a story being told to the listener because they cannot see any images. The reporters have to describe the scene more, like the Beanpot team did very well in their podcast.
ReplyDeleteThe Comedy and A cappella podcasts really put the listener into the scene by using natural sound to start off the piece, which goes right off Tristan's point of grabbing the listeners' attention immediately.
This platform allows for more analysis of the event covered through the reporters themselves and a mix of soundbites like in the A cappella piece. A news podcast lets the reporter expand on the event, like Scott said, allows for longer interviews or more in depth insight into the issues, unlike a regular news video package would.
For the most part, it is essential to be able to listen to the said three events in order to accurately follow along, which makes the podcast a primary platform for this type of reporting. The a capella group did a great job of incorporating the sound bites of the singers throughout the podcast. I agree with Jillian that the clips really involve the listener, more so than the blog or tweet does. Adding the music clips and interviews, along with the author's commentary definitely entertained and kept the audience's attention, more so than simply reading about the title of the next song.
ReplyDeleteThe beanpot commentary was clear and concise, and the coach and player interviews helped move the story along. Sound bites from the game or commentary from the "dazzling goal that gave a 3-1 lead" would have been a good attention grabber.
Similarly, when recording a podcast, audio footage of the actual event is always helpful to get listeners interested in the performance. The comedy fest podcast would have been even better with some jokes or sound clips from performers.
Audio clips from the event itself are definitely the most attention grabbing content for podcasts. They break up commentary and keep the podcast fresh and exciting. All the groups did a great job, especially for being the first one's to record.
These podcasts really give you the sense of atmosphere, with natural sounds and reactions. Good sound clips from the event that are incorporated in the right place are be very engaging to listeners as well. And I agree with Daniela, I like the dynamics between the two reporters: it creates a conversation, such as the judge in the A Cappella competition, the BC coach in the Beanpot piece.
ReplyDeleteHowever, there are some crucial elements for a successful podcast: the script needs to be performed very well (there need to be pauses between sentences and sentences should be very short and clear. I thought there should be more pauses in the A Cappella piece). There should be a variety of sound clips to make the podcast engaging and interesting.
Audio podcasts are a great platform for events with sound clips that are hard to describe in language. Such as the A Cappella piece, it would be very difficult to describe the competition by writing about it, but showing it is much more effective.
I really liked these podcasts and thought everybody did a great job.
1. Audio podcasts as a platform are a great way to use interviews and ambient sound to spice up the story. By allowing people such as coaches, contestants and event administrators to speak for themselves, it offers a level of credibility and excitement to the piece that regular writing doesn't fully capture. Additionally, the atmosphere really comes through a lot clearer and truer, as it is able to represent the event itself rather than a writer representing the event for others.
ReplyDelete2. I think that breaking news is a strong feature in audio podcasts. With all three, the lead was the result of the event, with the background support coming later. One thing that I also felt was important was the "what comes next" aspect - in the A Capella report, this information was augmented by the views of the producer of the event and her thoughts on the chances of the two a capella groups that continued on in the competition. One thing I thought that could have been left out was the opinion and analysis at the end of the Beanpot podcast - if this is breaking news, it usually shouldn't involve opinion.
1. I think the ability of audio podcasts to capture ambient noise really adds a lot to the storytelling process. The acapella podcast did this especially well, by capturing not only interviews but the actual songs themselves. The written word can only convey so much of a scene, and the ability to have audio to add to the words really helps bring the story to the reader.
ReplyDelete2. I think that podcasts work especially well with feature stories and event coverage. I'm not sure a podcast would be the best thing for hard, breaking news, but as evidenced by the acapella and comedy festival podcasts, the ability to record the atmosphere of an event really helps, especially if it's softer news. I'm not entirely sure someone would want to hear a podcast of a town meeting, but I know I want to hear more acapella and comedy podcasts. The Beanpot coverage didn't fully live up the potential of the medium, as there was really no recording of the ambient noise, but instead the analysis of the game. This could be accomplished in a story written the next day.