politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
I really, really don't get why you're digging your heels in on this.
So you're going to ignore the published charts of the two most popular podcast apps (Spotify and Apple Podcasts), and the dominant market research firm in podcasting (Edison) to try to come up with your own proxy methodology based on a video platform? It's a bizarre approach of "do your own research."
And if you want to understand why video views are a poor substitute for actual audio stats, this article from 6 months ago does a deeper dive into the rise of video supplement to podcast audio, talks about the different approaches (and wildly different distribution/audience ratios depending on specific styles and audiences). It says that 16 out of the top 30 are publishing video now, an increase from before, but also obviously means that 14 out of the top 30 don't do video at all.
I went to YouTube Music to browse its podcast charts, where Call Me Daddy was nowhere to be found on the charts. Digging further, it's because the full podcast episodes aren't even available through YouTube. Instead, it's 7 minute preview clips. In other words, the SiriusXM deal bringing it out of Spotify Exclusive hasn't even trickled over to YouTube yet (or SiriusXM doesn't want to publish it on YouTube for whatever reason).
So digging into YouTube viewer counts is like trying to argue against published box office rankings based on trailer view counts on YouTube. It's a bad methodology, and looks like someone flailing to try to confirm their feelings against what the mainstream media is reporting.
Yeah your response is hilarious dude.
I don't get why you are digging your heals in on this podcast being a bigger thing that it is. It seems to me you are engaged in a kind of masturbatory self delusion about the relevance of some news, which is clearly an attempt to wag, being bigger than it is.
Its a kind of weird parasocial, narcissistic self delusion that lemmings who seem to think of themselves as cheerleaders for a team, are particularly guilty of.
I think @UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world gets it right:
Its a dated, mid-tier, podcast, in an age where podcasting as "the medium" has been dying and losing relevance for a while. That's what all the evidence suggests. Its not nothing, but its nothing special. To any one with eyes, it looks like a very safe, managed conversation on the part of the campaign. The media effort around it looks like an attempt to make it something more than it is. And then there are those eating it up. That's you. And you aren't unique. When it comes to politics, Lemmy.world is mostly delusional just right-of-center liberals who think they are further left than they are, who are mostly interested in team sports, cheer-leading in a way that has been significantly damaging to the actual prospects of the Democratic candidate. I don't see what you are doing as any different.
The pod-cast is mid, the interview was a safe managed environment, the media around it tried to make it something it isn't, and you ate that shit right up. Now you are digging your heals in to pretend the thing is something other than what it was.
I thought we were having a conversation about tech/entertainment/media companies and their audiences, but I guess you were ready to turn this into something about parasocial dynamics and American electoral politics, neither of which is a particularly interesting topic for me, and honestly wasn't even part of the conversation I thought we were having.
I guess that's on me for commenting in a politics community I'm not subscribed to, but your original comment at the top of the thread was about something I am interested in.
Either way, you're wrong on the audience metric stuff. I probably should've picked up on your grudge against podcasting as a medium when you kept using the verb "watch" to describe how people consume podcasts. Which also probably is why you insist on using YouTube as some kind of proxy for podcast reach or popularity. I disagree with your method of analysis, and I think I've made that pretty clear. But you do you, and go on believing that you've got your finger on the pulse of how all audiences consume content on the internet.
Well let's take a step back then. I've only been able to find charts that offer a ordinal ranking for this podcast (1 - 10 ). And yes, admittedly I don't watch podcasts, so I don't have a feel for what that really means. I looked at those numbers and map them over to something that is more continuous and less "vibes" than ordinal ranking, yt view counts. I think that's a fair way to try and map these numbers into something we can actually discuss objectively, but if you have a better approach or better information, I'm more than open to discussing. But I can't seem to find any data on actual Spotify viewership to pin these numbers down to be able make some apples to apples comparisons. Because of that, I think my reliance on proxies is justified.
So beyond that we have access to anecdotal evidence from a few other posters here who are more familiar with podcasts as a scene and they seemed to largely agree. Not surprised that few have heard of it. It was big for a while, but it's edge has been worn off and the format copied. There are bigger more relevant podcasts to get to today.
So if we keep the conversation focused, I think it's probably about correct to describe the podcast as "mid". It's not nothing, but it's not exactly where people are at today. My broader commentary was about the way campaigns use media to create an air of something being something it isn't (eg, wagging the dog).
Also do people not "watch" podcasts? It genuinely makes me interested to know what brand of phone/ tech ecosystem you use/ grew up with.
There are several third party research firms, most notably Edison, that compile their own data from the client side, akin to how Nielsen produces cross-platform numbers for television and streaming. And others compile data from different sources, including published ordinal rankings and publicly reported view counts, other metrics like mentions/shares on social media.
Podcasting historically predates always-online devices, so a lot of the interfaces count downloads rather than listens, as the tech companies try their best to push things towards data-tracking proprietary client apps. So it's a non-trivial effort (usually requiring lots and lots of paid survey participants, which also introduces some statistical skew), to get listener data.
So there is data out there, almost all behind business-to-business paywalls/subscriptions. Those closely guarded datasets are what advertisers use to price ad campaigns on these channels, for example, where they have to decide whether and how to spend on one particular type of medium versus another (e.g., product mentions on podcasts versus YouTube versus twitch versus traditional television or film).
The NYT article I linked describes the issue somewhat, that there's a difference between viewing as a first screen or second screen, or listening as primary, or listening as background, and that advertisers and publishers are aware of how different shows perform at different functions. They describe the example of the political podcast, Pod Save America, having stats showing that about 20% of their audience is through video rather than audio-only.
As I understand it, through my own personal experience, podcasts are popular during commutes, as a primary audio experience for people driving alone in their cars or wearing headphones on the bus/train/sidewalk. Those are functions in which video is not desired, so "watching" would be a strange way to describe how people primarily consume the content, through listening only. And while I know official music videos get a lot of watches on YouTube, I don't think counting those watches are a good way to rank or analyze how people "listen" to music overall.
It's also why many of the most popular podcasts simply don't do video (NYT's popular The Daily), and stem from radio roots (the NPR podcasts, a bunch of iHeart or Sirius-published podcasts). Video isn't a good proxy, especially for the podcasts that are tied exclusively to a non-YT platform.
Maybe SiriusXM overpaid for their deal, at $40 million per year. Maybe Spotify overpaid for their previous deal, at $30 million per year. But those numbers alone aren't anything to scoff at, and in my opinion are the best proxy for cross-platform comparison: Smartless got about $33 million per year from SiriusXM, Dax Shepard got $27 million per year from Spotify, etc.
And maybe you're right that podcasting itself isn't ever going to be as big as video or streaming. The South Park guys got $900 million for 6 movies on Paramount+. Apple TV dropped more than 9 figures each on Killers of the Flower Moon and Napoleon.
But for advertisers, that specific podcast is a valuable property. I can't comment on the quality or cultural comparisons because I literally have never heard any part of it (or other huge genres like true crime podcasts or celebrity podcasts or video game reviews or whatever other things people consume), but I watch the business side of things because I'm interested in that.
And I'm not trying to give any commentary on the cultural relevance of this particular Harris interview any more than I'd give commentary on her appearance on Howard Stern (who I might not have heard about in like 20 years) or Walz's appearance in World of Warcraft or something I don't actually understand the logistics of. Politics isn't really something I care about, but tech and media businesses are.
So it seems like your argument is that podcasts on captured platforms use downloads, not views as rankings, we have to use that instead. But also, we don't have access to that data. Because of this, it seems implied in your second paragraph (and you've mentioned it before) that we should use $$ as a proxy for viewership (since we can't measure viewership directly) assuming our goal here is still to get these podcasts off of a discrete scale and into a more continuous scale.
Which is like totally fair, except that only very public shows/podcasts etc are going to publish those numbers. It's a totally valid way to do it, but it comes to the same issue I identified previously, we only have limited access and we can't put a number down for each data point. I know we can pretty easily map views to $$ on YouTube. And if we assume a $ is a $ and is roughly equivalent to a similar number of views, we can get to an apples to apples comparison.
I don't agree with this:
I don't agree. I think yt views are the least plagiarisable metric we have access to. And it's the only one we have access to that's a uniform proxy across all the discussants. Every single podcast or show also puts the same stuff in YT.
I would rank the reliability of continuous metrics for this conversation at YT views or comments first, then if accessable, downloads, then dollar amounts (published or derived from yt views).
I think we could pick a set of what we anecdotally consider 'top', 'mid', and 'basic', teir shows or podcasts (there's no real difference in my mind; I'm watching the same seder show rn: but I'm not I'm listening to it.). If we can get maybe 3-6 for each tier, and we can get them for "Call Her Daddy", we can evaluate the podcast via all three metrics. We could then weight the three metrics individually and average the two.