How to get audience engagement among a tsunami of content
I went along to a meeting recently where a person presented upon YouTube analytics tools to a small audience. The host mentioned that YouTube was a great place to build a brand, and (ironically) was a great place to cross-promote a podcast, in part because it was low-cost, easy to use for both the podcast producer and the audience, and of course there is a massive potential audience.
However, the conversations that followed were most revealing. When asked about when we listened to podcasts, there seemed to be somewhat of a generational split. Many of those who grew up in the analog era advised that they actually put YouTube on as background conversation; a bit like some people use radio. But when it came to most podcasts, this group actually wanted to give the podcasts their full attention. By contrast, many of the younger listeners were agnostic about the channel; if something was worth listening to, they felt that they could always play it back later. I’ll admit that much of this is likely to be just ingrained habit – if you have grown up with “appointment TV or radio”, some part of your brain reacts to that on auto-pilot, even if you are actually conscious of content not being locked in time anymore.
I found this split really interesting on a number of levels. First of all, it would be fascinating to see what people’s content retention was like at various intervals out from actually hearing the content. Can younger generations really multi-task better, if that is what they have been exposed to from infancy? Or is it that they are so used to continual distraction that they don’t notice it around them?
Secondly, it really made me wonder about audience engagement. If my podcast become popular on YouTube, I might get millions of likes and shares, but how much connection do I really make with my audience? For some content, I have no doubt it is compelling enough to not only keep attracting larger audiences, but to be something people come back to. The other thing is, it really depends upon the type of podcast. If it’s based on rapid-fire comedy, or some friends talking things through, then YouTube is probably fine. But what if you are talking upon a more cerebral topic – finance, history, or something similar that actually requires the audience to pay attention?
The “long tail” of content that isn’t so engaging is (presumably) where many YouTube content creators find themselves. Thus, having a YouTube presence might be a good idea now, when there is little expectation of finding purely audio content there – but if the idea takes off, then I would suggest that individual podcasters find themselves back at square one.
The next topic that came up in the conversation was around what time of day we listened to podcasts; and again, there was a split, this time in terms of lifestyles. For some, they had jobs or studies which allowed a lot of free time to listen. For others, listening was a treat they could snatch only in minutes at a time – and so they gave the content greater attention…
I don’t know if any research exists around this, but it would be fascinating to see which audiences listen to which podcasts, and to know the demographics and other details of them. What our host showed us YouTube could do was interesting in this respect at an aggregate level. It was clear to see how many people tuned in, how long they stayed attentive for, and if particular sections of a podcast caused a spike in attention. But I’m not sure how much more detailed the information can become without spending a fortune.
Clearly, each of us has only so much time in the day to listen to anything, and only so much bandwidth in our heads to absorb information. After a while, does almost any content simply become background noise? And if it does, do people start to search out relief from all of the noise and being bombarded with information? I would suggest that some (many?) people do. If this contention is correct, then I wonder if there is a choice facing podcasters.
And I think that the choice is almost completely binary. If a podcaster is happy to gradually build an audience in the dozens, even the hundreds, in the mass market, then doing the same on YouTube is likely a fantastic way to go. The potential audience is certainly there, and the YouTube analytic tools would certainly help. But the limitations remain. How do you get out of the “long tail” among all of the other distractions, and how do you know your audience is really engaged with your content?
The other approach may not exist commercially yet, but it would involve a deliberate focus on quality over quantity. It may involve a membership fee, possibly set at different levels – and such a platform would require higher engagement from listeners in order to serve them very customized content. It could mean that the podcasts on such a platform are long-form (i.e., 1 hour plus). Likewise, it could mean that they are monthly, rather than weekly. They would need to have very high sound quality.
At this end of the market, I imagine that time-poor listeners would be happy to pay for someone to collate the best available content out there – and to strip away all the noise. As such, I imagine that such podcasts will not grow to the same size as a YouTube one; but the fact people are willing to pay memberships is a very strong signal to advertisers or sponsors that the audience is much more engaged than they are with most of what they see on YouTube. In turn, I wonder too if this audience would retain far more of the information being provided – and that the communities around it are “stronger for longer”, passionate fans.
I appreciate that many podcasters simply enjoy creating their podcasts because they are passionate about a given topic, or enjoy sharing their thoughts. But for those who really want to grow and potentially monetize their efforts, I think that putting some thought into what type of audience they want – and how best to serve that audience – is really useful.
What do you think? Let me know in the comments field below.
