http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives...sting-star.php
Though this article has some points, I can't fully support the writer's position on this. What do you guys think?
Printable View
http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives...sting-star.php
Though this article has some points, I can't fully support the writer's position on this. What do you guys think?
His entire premise is wrong thus making the argument flawed. Newspapers and blogs are much more closely related than radio and podcasts. It was a longtime combination of things that took newspapers down. Craigslist had just as much to do with taking down newspapers as blogs did. TV and Radio already had newspapers being outdated. A 24/7 news cycle could be covered more quickly via TV and Radio before blogs even came along. Blogs just came along to give newspapers the push they needed to finally fall over.
The majority of radio is passive listening. Music, with a little bit of talk. There aren't many talk shows out there in comparison, and the ones that survive are mostly the behemoths, the syndicated talk shows...Which brings me to another of the reasons newspapers fell. Most news staffs were local. They had a high overhead to run them. Blogs, Craigslist, etc are lean. They don't cost much to put out. Newspapers were never going to compete once their subscription and classified ad revenue dried up. Huffpo doesn't cover everything as newspapers did.
Radio's day is most likely coming, although I still say radio will never truly die like Newspapers did... the frequency is there, it is free for everyone to listen and radio has been quicker to adapt to changes (not as quick as they could've been) but it will take longer to see radio impacted as bad as newspapers were.
Also blogs are easy to read and write, podcasting is just now hitting its stride. The technology to create interesting shows is just starting to become available to the masses whereas the internet was based on text and later pictures....
Anyway... as I said. He makes some decent points, but I would like to see how if his article still holds up 5 years from now.
While famous or well known people will typically have much better exposure and ratings you cannot deny the power of the internet to have an effect of taking people in the spotlight.
Look at Youtube. Some of the top Youtubers have an audience that rivals some cable network shows. Some have even made it into movie or TV appearances. Fred has already made his second movie..not saying it is all that great.
Rebecca black's music video put her on the Tonight show with Jay Leno.
It can often be done with little or no overhead considering the big budgets and production costs of the main stream media.
I just spent some time reading the comments posted regarding that blog post. Wow he upset a lot of people !! I personally do not agree with some of the statements the author of that podcast made, but he does bring up a good point. Are there any true "Podcasters" that have made it or impacted radio. I'm not talking about stand up comics who went into Podcasting. I'm talking about people who did not have main stream expose make it. There are probably a dozen or so that have done that (don't quote me on the number... you get the point)
It is true that podcasting has not become mainstream in the sense that online news has become. I doubt podcasting can ever take on radio. Newspapers and news sites are like for like - they're not real time. Podcasting is not real time and radio is. It's a lot easier to engage people with live content. And that will be the revolution.
