Podcasting Neurogenesis: Perhaps We Need Two Words To Describe Podcasting
Everyone talks endlessly about how much podcasting has changed, but it really hasn’t. It’s actually split into two distinct things.
Welcome to Dispatch #76 of The Audio Insurgent.
A number of you have noted that I’ve been publishing less over the past few months. That is true. Not for a lack of things to talk about, but 2025 has been an obnoxiously demanding year for us. We had to make some staffing shuffles at the beginning of the year, which meant I had my job–and a few other jobs to do as well. But despite being busy, all is well, and I miss annoying thousands of people more regularly. So, we’ll get back to normal soon.
So–for this dispatch, it started with a revelation, followed by the search for a word. To describe this revelation, I went on a quest to find a scientific term for when a cell divides into two cells, but the two new cells are different from each other, as well as different from the original cell. They can be a little alike, but different. This led me down a rabbit hole of scientific jargon about cell modification, asymmetric cell division, mitosis, meiosis, and even parthenogenesis (one of the favorite bands of my youth, Shriekback, actually used that word in a song lyric). I now have fodder for some incredibly boring dinner conversation. The term I landed on that I thought worked best is neurogenesis. Neurogenesis is the process where stem cells divide and differentiate into various types of neurons and glial cells. A stem cell divides into other cells that can be very different from others, and from the original, yet they do carry on some commonalities. It begins during embryonic development, when the nervous system is first taking shape, but also continues into adulthood in certain areas of the brain.
“Fascinating,” I hear you thinking. “But what does this have to do with podcasting?”
Well, I think neurogenesis is a great way to understand the changes that have taken place in the past several years in podcasting. Podcasting hasn’t really changed–it has gone through podcasting neurogenesis.
Okay, so let’s divide…
[TODAY’S SHORT FIRST THING: THE NATURE OF] Before we get to the meat of this dispatch, I wanted to shout out to a new Magnificent Noise project that we’re really proud of, excited about, and happy to see the world embracing already. It comes from our partnership with Atmos, a New York media company focused on climate and culture, trying to re-enchant people with nature and our shared humanity.
Our new podcast with Atmos is called The Nature Of. At its heart, the show is about “spiritual ecology,” which sounds very woo woo, but it decidedly is not. Spiritual ecology is really about the interconnectedness of all things, between people and nature, animals, and the planet itself. One reason the earth is sick, from a spiritual ecology perspective, is because we are unwell too.
The show is rooted in science and puts forward the idea that nature has already solved a lot of the dilemmas that we people face and we should take a look at those solutions and take lessons from them.
The episodes are lush and meaty and accessible and surprisingly emotional. It is just so damn good. Guests include Janine Benyus on The Nature of Biomimicry and Designing Life, musician Maggie Rogers on The Nature of Rhythm and Creating at a Sustainable Pace, and our own Esther Perel on The Nature of Connection and Modern Loneliness.
I hope you’ll give it a listen.
[TODAY’S MAIN THING: PODCASTING NEUROGENESIS] I’m starting to believe our industry has outgrown the word “podcast” to clearly describe everything the industry creates. So much so we should probably have multiple names.
I’ve been struggling lately with a disconnect I’ve been feeling within podcasting, which really flares up when I’m talking with other professionals in the field. In almost every conversation, the topic of change has come up: how much podcasting has changed over the past three years. Cited evidence includes the rise of video in podcasting, “podcasting elections,” the emergence (and dominance) of influencers and celebrities in podcasting, and the evolving economics in the field.
But all the above aren’t really evidence of how much podcasting has changed, but how much one type of podcasting has changed–and how much the entire industry has turned its attention in that direction.
You see, I think the biggest story about podcasting over the past three years is a bit of podcast neurogenesis has occurred, right under our noses, and we haven’t really noticed it. I believe that podcasting has split into two different media forms, and that almost every aspect of their structure, business, and their relationship to audience is now different.
Podcasting has split into two: chatcasts and storycasts.
These are pretty self-explanatory, but let me be more specific. A “chatcast” is a recorded conversation between a host and guests or a host and the audience. A storycast is the telling of a narrative story (or stories).
This isn’t anything particularly new, but what’s new is how much they’ve grown apart. Back when I wrote my book Make Noise I said there were only two kinds of podcasts: people chatting and people telling stories (I actually also broke it down into sub-categories: Rant, Questions and Answers, Conversation, Seasonal Narratives, Episodic Narratives, and Multiple Narratives–these still hold true today too). So what’s changed? The remarkable ways these two have differentiated from each other. Or more specifically, the last three years has been the story of the rise and dominance of chatcasts.
While podcasting's origins clearly lie in chatcasts, much of its meteoric rise over the past 10-11 years has been fueled by storycasts. Yet, over the last three years, that power dynamic has changed back to focusing on the chatcast. As of this morning in the Apple Podcast Top 100 shows, only 13 of them are storycasts–the other 87 are chatcasts.
If you think I’m just trying to be clever here by suggesting these have established themselves as very different entities, I’m not. Look at how different chatcasts and storycasts are today:
I’m sure you can come up with other areas of distinction too.
And, of course, we have to acknowledge there will be some ways that the distinction isn’t as clear or shows that break “the rules” (and I’m referring to the rules that I just made up, of course). Some successful people have hybridized the two, for example where the host is reading a prepared story, but it has the feel of hearing a conversation (great examples would be Crime Junkie or Mr Ballen). But the bottom line is–they are growing more distinct from each other, not less. And when opportunities arise, it tends to favor one form over the other.
Keeping them all under one term is similar to describing television shows and movies under an umbrella term of something like “video.” Sure, that is true–but it doesn’t tell you much, masks all the characteristics that make each distinct, and underemphasizes the fact that TV and movies have very little in common on almost every component of their creation, structure, and distribution.
So…who cares? Why would it be important to use two different terms for podcasts? Because when we use one large generic term, it can often lead us to wrong conclusions and steer us in the wrong direction. Video hasn’t risen as a part of podcasting, video has risen as a part of chatcasting. Film options/rights aren’t a potential revenue source for podcasting, it is a revenue source for storycasting. Think of almost any issue arising today in podcasting–and you’ll notice that they affect one type of podcast much more than the other.
And for those who have heard me talk about podcasting for a long time, no, this isn’t just a way to let go of the word “podcasting” (which I have disliked as a term since its origins), but to acknowledge that success in podcasting has always required precision. And I believe we’ve reached that point expecting one word to cover everything.
Does that mean that we are going to stop referring to Magnificent Noise as a “podcast consultation and production company”? Probably not. But will we start using language more specifically in our conversations internally and with clients? Absolutely.
Maybe you should too.
Okay, that’s it for today.
Thousands of people read this newsletter without even a free subscription. If this was forwarded to you or you read this online, would you mind subscribing?
If you are a regular reader of The Audio Insurgent, I hope you’ll consider doing your part by supporting this work with a small donation. And if that’s too much, you are also always welcome to buy my book or (even better) buy me a beer.
Make great things. I’ll be listening.
--Eric