<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/">
<channel>
<title>Techdirt. Stories filed under &quot;audience&quot;</title>
<description>Easily digestible tech news...</description>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/</link>
<language>en-us</language>

<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 10 Oct 2011 03:25:58 PDT</pubDate>
<title>ESPN Affiliate Delays Podcasts; Announcer Rips Into His Bosses For Cluelessness</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111006/01561716230/espn-delays-podcasts-announcer-rips-into-his-bosses-cluelessness.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111006/01561716230/espn-delays-podcasts-announcer-rips-into-his-bosses-cluelessness.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Ah, the shortsightedness of old school entertainment companies knows no bounds apparently.  The latest is <strike>Disney-owned ESPN</strike> ESPN 980, a local radio station that uses the ESPN name, who seems to think, foolishly, that making it <i>more difficult</i> for fans to listen to its radio programming will somehow be better for them.  The details are that ESPN 980 used to release podcasts for its shows, making listening convenient for people who either wanted to time delay their listening, or who couldn't listen on a radio very easily.  But, because ESPN 980 execs only focus on <i>radio ratings</i> as the key metric, they made the shortsighted calculation that they should make it <i>harder</i> to listen to the podcasts, in the <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/dc-sports-bog/post/tony-kornheiser-on-espn-980s-podcast-policy/2011/10/04/gIQAnL1TLL_blog.html" target="_blank">misguided hope that it might drive more listeners to the radio version</a>.  The execs there claim that this is how it needs to "protect its ratings."  Of course, that's ridiculous.  If people can't listen the way they want to, <i>they'll listen to something else</i>.  ESPN 980 is deluding itself if it thinks that people will still bend to ESPN 980 rather than expecting ESPN 980 to bend to them.
<br /><br />
Not surprisingly, the on air talent seems to get this a lot more than the folks making the decisions.  While the station insisted that star radio host Tony Kornheiser "understands" why ESPN 980 is doing this, and isn't upset about it, listeners to Kornheiser's show apparently sensed his views were a bit different.  As noted by Dan Steinberg:
<blockquote><i>
&ldquo;The policy is gonna kill the show,&rdquo; [Kornheiser] said, with typical subtlety and restraint. &ldquo;It&rsquo;s simply going to kill the show....That is the problem. You&rsquo;re listening to this a day late. That&rsquo;s the solution around here, the solution to getting more people listening live. And by the way, there&rsquo;s a great glee with which I am told that my ratings are bad. There&rsquo;s a great glee. The people around here seem to think that this is charming, and that if I only did what they wanted, everything would be right in the world.
<br /><br />
&ldquo;But it doesn&rsquo;t work that way. It doesn&rsquo;t work that way, because of the way audio is delivered to America. It&rsquo;s delivered on demand. And if when you demand it you can&rsquo;t get it, you&rsquo;re not going to listen to it.
<br /><br />
&ldquo;Here&rsquo;s what&rsquo;s going to happen in the next five or 10 years, boys and girls. There&rsquo;s not gonna be football on television any more. It&rsquo;s all gonna be in your computer. That&rsquo;s the way it&rsquo;s gonna work. It&rsquo;ll be brought to you by people like Google, brought to you by people who are search engine people, and I know nothing about this. There&rsquo;s no way to make any money any more doing it the old way. The old way is not just old, much like me &mdash; it is dead.
<br /><br />
&ldquo;That&rsquo;s the old way. People don&rsquo;t want that any more. They&rsquo;re not going to sit around and wait for things....The people who run radio stations, they&rsquo;re apparently not adapting to the new culture and don&rsquo;t truly understand how it works and what people want&hellip; Management believes differently than I believe. I still do the show. I&rsquo;m not running away from the show. I just wish it were more accessible, quicker, to more people.&rdquo;
</i></blockquote>
He seems to get it a lot more than the people who are paid to get it.
<br /><br />
<b>Update</b>: Aha.  Turns out that this was the local station, ESPN 980 -- who merely licenses the ESPN name -- who made this decision.  And, it appears that ESPN itself makes it easier to get access to the show.  Blame goes to the local radio station.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111006/01561716230/espn-delays-podcasts-announcer-rips-into-his-bosses-cluelessness.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111006/01561716230/espn-delays-podcasts-announcer-rips-into-his-bosses-cluelessness.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111006/01561716230/espn-delays-podcasts-announcer-rips-into-his-bosses-cluelessness.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>so-shortsighted</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20111006/01561716230</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 4 Feb 2011 19:39:00 PST</pubDate>
<title>Building An Audience Takes Time, But In The Long Run It Can Provide You More Time To Do What You Love</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110203/04301612938/building-audience-takes-time-long-run-it-can-provide-you-more-time-to-do-what-you-love.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110203/04301612938/building-audience-takes-time-long-run-it-can-provide-you-more-time-to-do-what-you-love.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ One of the regular complaints we hear when we talk about people like <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110131/00542712888/awkwardness-cutting-out-middleman.shtml">Amanda Palmer</a> or <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110124/01172312783/why-you-should-be-paying-attention-to-kevin-smith.shtml">Kevin Smith</a> is that they have to spend so much time cultivating their "audience" that they don't have time to actually "work."  Of course, that should be plainly ridiculous if you just look at those two.  In the last year alone, Palmer has put out two full length albums and an EP (all excellent) while continuing to tour... and continuing to build her audience, brand and business (and now without any "help" from a label).  Similarly, Smith has toured the country a few times, built a podcast network with a ton of shows (also excellent), released a movie he directed, and previewed a brand new movie at Sundance that he directed, edited, and cut. Oh yeah, and all the while continued to build an audience.  Both seem a hell of a lot more productive than the vast majority of content creators I know who went "by the book."
<br /><br />
However, there is another (important) angle to all of this.  Which is that while building an audience and a fanbase takes time and effort -- which you might think takes away from doing the creative stuff -- in the long run, it can do the exact opposite.  As we discussed about Smith's latest plan, the reason why it makes sense is because <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110125/15591312819/cargo-cults-kevin-smith-difference-between-connecting-going-through-motions.shtml">he's cultivated an audience</a> all these years.  Because of that he doesn't have to spend nearly as much time or money "marketing" the new film -- just as Palmer didn't have to do all the traditional "marketing" methods for her latest release, which quickly shot to the top of the Bandcamp charts.
<br /><br />
This point was driven home in an even stronger way in looking at another content creator in a different arena.  We've discussed novelist JA Konrath a few times in the past -- including his explanation for why authors <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100525/1040569564.shtml">shouldn't fear file sharing</a> as well as his look at how much money <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101229/02190512445/have-we-reached-tipping-point-where-self-publishing-is-better-than-getting-book-deal.shtml">could be made on ebooks</a>.  He's continued to discuss this, highlighting how he <a href="http://jakonrath.blogspot.com/2011/01/time-investment.html" target="_blank">sold over 18,000 ebooks on the Kindle</a> in January (and that was as of the 26th, so there were still five more days) and how his income for the month would end up being somewhere around $42,000.  Yes, for the month.
<br /><br />
All very interesting.
<br /><br />
But the rest of that post is where things get even more interesting.  Robert Niles does a fantastic job <a href="http://www.ojr.org/ojr/people/robert/201102/1937/" target="_blank">comparing Konrath's story to another author</a> -- a freelance travel writer, who complains that there's no money to be made in writing.  Specifically, that writer, Mark Hodson, complains that it's tougher to get paying gigs these days and that blogging is all about "working for free."  Niles immediately notes the comparison, in which the freelance travel writer seems to be waiting for a paycheck, rather than building an audience who has a reason to buy something.
<br /><br />
And here's the key part: while building a loyal audience and community may take time and effort, in the long run, they provide you with the ability to actually focus more on creativity.  Niles highlights how Konrath's post talks about all of the sweat equity he put into book signings and blogging and building up his personal brand for a few years -- all of which he no longer needs to do with each new book, because he has an audience who seeks him out (similar to Palmer and Smith).  Niles concludes:
<blockquote><i>
The irony? Those who put in the work of building a business often end up with more  time to do the writing that they love. As Konrath wrote, he doesn't have to press the flesh at bookstore any longer. He doesn't have to devote time to promotion. With his social media support having reached a tipping point, he can spend more hours writing.
<br /><br />
I've found the same in talking with colleagues who are still pursuing freelance work. They spend hours of extra time for each piece they write networking with editors, writing pitch letters, reviewing contracts and filling out various publications' expense forms. I just write stories - what, when and how I want.
<br /><br />
While some lament the loss of secure employment for a handful of writers, I'm thrilled to live in an era when anyone with the will to write and drive to connect with a community can earn a living, without having to wait for some editor's approval. 
</i></blockquote>
This is the whole point of making sure people understand both sides of the <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091119/1634117011.shtml">CwF+RtB</a> equation.  It's not just about giving people stuff to buy, it's about connecting with those fans, and really building a <i>community</i>.  Yes, it takes work at first, but what new job <i>doesn't</i> take work?  But the point is that if you've really connected and really built up a community it doesn't take you away from being able to do what you love, it <i>enables you to do more of what you love</i> and do it under your own terms.  That's exactly what Konrath, Smith and Palmer have all done, and it's a point that many others strive for, but miss out on if they just think that doing that work isn't worthwhile because it somehow "takes away" from their creativity.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110203/04301612938/building-audience-takes-time-long-run-it-can-provide-you-more-time-to-do-what-you-love.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110203/04301612938/building-audience-takes-time-long-run-it-can-provide-you-more-time-to-do-what-you-love.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110203/04301612938/building-audience-takes-time-long-run-it-can-provide-you-more-time-to-do-what-you-love.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>so-get-to-it</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110203/04301612938</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 2 May 2008 15:25:17 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Hulu Realizes That YouTube's Audience Matters; Puts Its Own Videos Back On YouTube</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080502/0239351003.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080502/0239351003.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ We've covered the bizarre <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071021/135730.shtml">love/hate</a> affair that NBC Universal has had with YouTube.  It actually helped get YouTube its first burst of serious publicity in demanding the SNL "Lazy Sunday" clip be taken down off the site.  It then went back (setting up its own YouTube channel) and forth (blaming YouTube for company problems) on whether or not it liked YouTube, before eventually announcing its own competing offering (in partnership with News Corp.) called Hulu.  Soon after doing so, it <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071021/135730.shtml">pulled</a> the official NBC channel on YouTube, which made little sense.  Even if Hulu were fantastic, the actual eyeballs were at YouTube.  It had built up a huge community.  NBC Universal was making the <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080414/015112835.shtml">classic content owner's mistake</a> of overvaluing the content, and undervaluing the platform.  It figured that if it hosted the content itself, the crowds would come.
<br /><br />
Apparently, that's not what has happened.  While Hulu surprised many critics with a well-designed site, it appears that Hulu hasn't been able to generate the type of traffic executives expected.  So, despite it being a YouTube competitor, Hulu has tucked its tail between its legs and <a href="http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/webscout/2008/04/what-the-hulu-i.html" target="_new">set up its own channel on YouTube</a>.  Apparently, the "build it and they will come" philosophy of NBC Universal's execs didn't work quite as well as planned.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080502/0239351003.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080502/0239351003.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080502/0239351003.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>didn't-see-that-coming</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20080502/0239351003</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>