Printable View
I have been doing a lot of reading over the past few months about what you should and shouldn't do in your podcasting.
Here is an example
Dynamic microphone Vs. Condenser Microphone - When I first went to go and buy a microphone everyone told me Condensers sound better.
What is some misinformation that you have seen?
If you have an acoustically treated studio, you can use either one. If you don't have an acoustically treated room, get a dynamic mic. It doesn't pick up nearly as much background noise.
Well, this is not as much a mis-information as people very opinionated. There seems to be a battle between some about what is better, an audio or video podcast. Personally I do not think this warrants any kind of argument, do whatever works best for you and your listeners / viewers.
Oh, here is another good one... Podcasting is easy and you can get rich doing it. For the most part, that is mis-information.
Yep, that goes for double for streaming. I broke 1000 TLH mid month, and my total so far this year is: - $400 for bandwidth and JLA licensing (coverage for BMI, ASCAP, SESAC, AND SX)Quote:
Originally Posted by techzentv
Theirs some ways to recoup money, but your going to spend more time chasing it than doing a show. Not to mention if your a fan of your own media (you put yourself in your listeners shoes) it becomes even harder to dilute your show with ads. Some are sneaky enough to pull it off.
Money can not be made from affiliate programs. I have been doing amazon and godaddy and made around 300 bucks last month. not bad for someone who has very few listeners
TechZenTV/Mike,
"Podcasting is easy and you can get rich doing it. For the most part, that is mis-information."
I would say that 100% is mis-information and a lie told by the same kinds of get rich/work at home scammers (not you) that just want your money for selling you a system. For most things in life, getting rich requires real work and lots of time and effort to do. Also, as I have stated before on other threads, you should start out at being good at something 1st. Then you can worry about trying to make money at it. The money will come as a byproduct but focusing on it 1st is the wrong way to do it.
The people who can be get rich by doing Internet Broadcasting for the most part are the same people you know from the broadcast world who have massive built in audiences who will follow them anywhere. Who have demonstrated that they are worth paying for either directly via subscriptions/donations or to advertisers who can write big checks to reach their audience.
- Brian
Well, as a newbie' I simply wanted a better way to interact with my computer, and to get involved on Skype webcasts as a guest, or possibly as a contributor. I never thought of making any money so perhaps I'm in the minority.
With respect to microphones and based on where I live, I'm forced to purchase everything on-line so there's quite a bit of trial and error involved in the process. I started with a condenser mic and then moved into the infamous PR40. Still, I wanted to test a third option before I could be happy with my decision, so I ordered an RE20 while not expecting it could possibly be better than the PR40.
To my pleasant surprise I found the Electro-Voice worked substantially better for my voice than the Heil. Oh well, I guess someone has to keep the UPS driver gainfully employed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Ortego
Statements above well said.
I actually just tossed my perception 120 mic, due to wanting to do some audio bus magic to connect multiple callers from different programs with cell callers (tetris of wiring) and with that had to lose the phantom power due to the requirement of unbalanced TS jacks. ended up buying the EV N/D767a (saw it on Craigslist for cheap due to a scratched grill from the metal carry case)
Some of the crappiest broadcast studios get a good audience out of loyalty. But I have seen stations on the cheap take off. MMM radio was the best example. Their videos dont get as many views, but the host is a 30's something white rapper out of Canada, so as far as I concerned: Interview with Uriah Blaak = Beat the odds. and he would even hold his house phone over the mic, epic roll for interviews.
Well said Brian!Quote:
Originally Posted by brianmonroe
I've always maintained that an internet broadcast can be an extremely powerful compliment to an existing brand, and under the right circumstances can become a stand alone revenue generator, but there has to be some credibility attached to it.
There is plenty of money to be made using this medium, but broadcasters have to think outside the box and move past conventional broadcasting revenue models to become a real earner in this field.
Now your talking! The trick (that 98%) doesn't get is doing something that isnt re-inventing the wheel. No one wants to hear a rotary playlist. AOL music was doing that 15 years ago, and where did they end up.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spencer Kobren
Everyone blows Pandora up to be huge, but due to royalty's for all the individual licensing, they still haven't turned a decent dime. Not after all these years of running. Spotify has now reached a royalty agreement, and they are going to be feeling the axe soon.
1% comes of with enough attention to make it happen, the other 1% has a great idea, but like a lot of good businesses, fails to take off.
But "good" money? It all depends on the value of advertizing and attention. Their is a SLEW of undercutting among all the industrys right now. Swyft is a great example of how a smart person can undercut taxi drivers. Ffiver has been getting a lot of attention for stations trying to get $5 for advertizing. Good, but untrained VO artist have been making decent profits there. Not to mention the oddball of advertizing that could be had.
Community share projects have been coming alive, ect. ect. ect. The best bet for small internet stations is to fight battles locally or on a specific level.
When I first started streaming, I had this station taking off. Had a great live show. It was called "dead awaken radio" and was a redux of "Mars Attacks" Wells style. Basically it was music to a storyline of a zombie apocalypse, but all whacked out. Like taking a "Heavy metal" comic, and making something audio with a crazy soundtrack.
Problem was, I wanted to be more "professional". Got the licenses, got the automation, so we were running 24/7. Got the programs running. Got everything going, but then it went from a project with friends, to a project I was spearheading to be like a legit station. Got the audio perfect, and it wasn't fun anymore to the listeners. I had more tune ins on my 24kbps stream then I'd like to admit (it was MP3 too lol)
But yeah, moral of the story, FUN, and interactive above all. 1000 stations get the audio right, but I would give 1000 tune-ins up for 20 repeat listeners that really enjoy the station experience. Those are the kind that will pitch in for donations, that will interact on forums, and they will tell friends.
I think fun and relatability is key…At least for the type of broadcasting that I do. I've always thought in the simplest terms when it comes to both production and building a revenue model and I never wanted to depend on third party sources for numbers. If you're depending on download numbers to sell adversing then you're doing it all wrong in my book.
Whatever market you're in, you have to make your broadcast compelling enough for sponsors just to to want to be part of the "party" without showing them a single number. If you can create real value simply by being connected to you, then you will have a sponsor for the life of your broadcast.
I think this kind of stuff happens when people follow a "convention" without explanation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Podnutter
As others mentioned, people are opinionated. The problem is people don't express how they've arrived at their opinion.
Condensors are common in radio and are often used in acoustically treated spaces.
Many of us who podcast and/or live stream aren't in a position to do that. A dynamic mic, specifically cardioid would be preferable because they can reject sound from an environment that may have issues.
Unfortunately (and in my opinion) a lot of people use condensers since they see "the pros" doing that in studio. There are people who recommend condensers without any explanation why. The why may or may not be relevant but the reader has no way to discern that, if it's not offered. Maybe it's better to describe that as incomplete information.
