What Creatives Don’t Understand About Execs (And, Conversely, What Execs Don’t Understand About Creatives)
Both groups freely express their frustrations with the other, but oftentimes they are just talking past each other.
Welcome to Dispatch #80 of The Audio Insurgent. And welcome back from summer! This summer was definitely a strange one–I’m kinda glad to be back in the swing of things and have a ton of ideas to share with you.
Today is clearing the deck of three smaller topics, then back in a week or two with a much larger idea.
Let’s do this…
[TODAY’S FIRST THING: WE ARE THE LAZY LUDDITES] In the last 24 hours, about 14,000 people have shared this item about a new podcast network that plans to generate 3,000 AI-created podcast episodes a week–at a cost of only $1 an episode! It also garnered the headline in this morning’s Podnews newsletter. This all comes from a new podcast network called Quiet. Please Podcast Network, part of a company called Inception Point AI, fronted by former Wondery COO Jeanine Wright. In the article, Wright refers to critics of this kind of content as “lazy luddites.” She added, “Because there’s a lot of really good stuff out there.”
I’m not sure what “good stuff” she was referring to, and admittedly when they are putting out 3,000 episodes a week across 5,000 new shows, I can’t listen to everything. But apparently the supposed “good stuff” isn’t referring to the material I’ve heard coming out from Quiet. Please Podcast Network.
I have people reaching out to me regarding almost any article that contains both the words “AI” and “podcasting”--mostly from folks concerned that this is the dreadful doom-laden moment where AI will disrupt podcasting and bring an end to the industry (and the jobs of its workforce) the way AI has torn through a number of other industries. Last night was no different. To my knowledge, no one who was discussing this article last night or this morning actually stopped to listen to any of this network’s actual content.
So I did.
And, again, I didn’t listen to everything, but I wasted a few hours of time listening so you don’t have to.
And it's all a steaming pile of hot garbage.
I mean, it is truly, deeply, profoundly terrible. After a while, I kept listening just to see if it could get any worse–or any less appealing–or any less deeply out of touch with why audiences come to podcasting–and it did all three of those things!
Longtime readers of these dispatches know I don’t like to publicly crap on an individual person’s work. But that’s the thing—this isn’t an individual person’s work—it is all generated by a machine that doesn’t have feelings or a professional reputation to protect.
Don’t believe me on how bad this is? Try listening to this one about knitting or this chilling Christmas mystery or this show about Squanto - The Man Who Shaped Thanksgiving or this prime stinker on Hollywood Legend: Adrien Brody.
So there is a chance that I am a luddite–presumptively blowing off AI as a creative disruptor in podcasting because it blows so hard today. Others look at the way AI-generated video has established a beachhead in short form video and expect the same to happen to podcasting. But this is the way I look at it: there are three critical things a podcast needs to succeed: curiosity, passion, and authenticity. That’s fairly unique to podcasting (as opposed to other media)…and that’s basically it. It almost doesn’t matter what you are talking about or what story you want to tell or what microphone you buy or how long your episodes are. If you have those three things, and let other people who also value those same three things know your podcast exists–you can build something worth making.
Today, and for the foreseeable future, AI can fake or mimic some of the attributes present when someone has curiosity, passion, and authenticity–but it can’t create it.
AI is an amazing tool that I use and encourage others to use, responsibily and smartly, every single day. But as I’ve said to a number of creators who wring their hands over AI: if your creative work can be replaced by AI today, then your work probably sucked to begin with.
[TODAY’S SECOND THING: THAT WONDERY THING TELLS US MUCH MORE ABOUT AMAZON THAN IT TELLS ABOUT PODCASTING] About five weeks ago Amazon decided to break apart Wondery. Almost immediately, my texts and email started to light up. I even had a number of reporters reach out to me for comment. But once they heard my thoughts…none of them used my quotes in their articles.
Many of those who reached out described this as a "seismic" moment in podcasting that would change things forever. Now, it certainly was a seismic disruption for the 100 people who lost jobs (though it is important to note that a number of them will be reabsorbed into other divisions at Amazon).
But the impact on podcasting?
My general response was “In a month, no one is going to care about this and little-to-nothing will feel any different as a result of it.” Podcasting, thankfully, has grown too big for any one content company to cause seismic change (note I said “content” company—probably the two entities that could cause that level of change are Apple and Spotify).
One friend “dared” me to wait to write about this for a month, so they could see me change my mind.
So here I am…bringing this up weeks later…to prove my point.
As Bloomberg’s Lucas Shaw reported back in 2021, there was tension when Amazon acquired Wondery for $300 million. Both the Audible and Amazon Music divisions wanted it. The debate went all the way up to the top of Amazon, with the decision ultimately going to Amazon Music, mostly because it planned to continue the ad-supported model used by many podcast networks. In other words, the choice was made to keep the dollars rolling at a time when podcast advertising was still exploding (over making Wondery’s shows an offering in Audible’s membership-focused business model).
One way to look at the recent changes with Wondery is that, basically, Amazon changed its mind.
It is really important to keep context in mind here. While $300 million was the largest acquisition in podcasting (to date), and–I get it–that number feels SO HUGE in the podcasting world. In the Amazon world…it really isn’t very much at all. In Amazon’s world, $300 million represents 0.01209677419% of its $2.48 trillion market valuation. That doesn’t even qualify as “chump change.” So Amazon purchases something for $300 million and tries running it one way. That doesn’t work, so they break it up and try it a different way.
To make it relative, in my family, that’s about the equivalent of a $50 decision. Do I go throwing around $50 for anything? No. But does how I spend $50 affect my overall financial picture or “mean anything” about the state of my life? Not really.
Same here. It certainly is newsworthy and interesting to follow further, but a seismic disruption? Meh.
[TODAY’S THIRD AND FINAL THING: WHAT CREATIVES DON’T UNDERSTAND ABOUT EXECS (AND WHAT EXECS DON’T UNDERSTAND ABOUT CREATIVES)] Earlier this summer I was having a Zoom chat with an impressive creator who was a friend of a friend. She reached out because of a frustration she was having. In short: she was getting nowhere on some podcast pitches she was making to companies.
“These are such good ideas,” she said. “I don’t understand why they can’t see these as great ideas.”
I told her the problem is that she was using different criteria (and language) than the execs she was pitching to.
Execs aren’t as interested in the potential or potency of a story or subject as you might think–and it definitely is not the primary driver for a green light decision that creators might expect. I mean, I get it–they are expecting the conversation to be “This podcast idea is AMAZING…let’s make it!”
But execs don’t think that way about the pitches they receive. For those that are reviewing podcast pitches, they aren’t focused on editorial merit, they are instead focused on risk.
In other words, their primary lens to evaluate is if the company invests in this idea, will they be able to find an audience and a path to earn that money back?
This is one of the primary drivers for the rush to embrace hundreds of celebrity-led podcasts. Celebrities are known entities. They have established awareness and an existing fan base. That goes far to lower the risk of the investment. The same goes for true crime. It is an established genre in podcasting. Advertisers know what to expect from it. Execs know pretty well how to market them. The risk is lower than for other non-fiction categories without the clearer paths leading to and from them.
So it almost doesn’t matter how talented your host is or how amazing the story is–merit doesn’t matter to them. Risk does. And that disconnect means that creators and execs are often talking past each other. Ask either camp what they think of the other, and after some polite platitudes, they say something like, “Too bad they don’t get it.”
It isn’t that they don’t get it–they are just speaking a different language of sorts.
So I counseled her to think about that the next time she pitches. Don’t focus so much on how incredible the story or subject or host is–those execs have dozens of incredible stories, subjects, and hosts come across their desks every week. It doesn’t matter. Instead, sell your idea by trying to lower the risk. Do that thinking for them.
And execs–when you ask creators to “Bring your best ideas”--realize that they see that mandate a different way. You should be more explicit. The creators think it is based on editorial merit, not the reality of taking that best idea into the podcast ecosystem and marketplace.
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