Pew? Phew!

On April 3rd the Pew Internet and American Life Project issued a new report claiming that more than 6 million U.S. adults have listened to podcasts and that 29% of MP3 player owners have downloaded Podcasts.

Pew felt compelled to issue a comment three days later proclaiming "We Stand by Our Data", responding to press criticism of the report's findings and conclusions.

Given that Apple sold a phenomenal 5.3 million iPods in the first quarter of 2005, generating more than $1 billion in revenue, and that total MP3 player sales probably totaled about 8 million for the quarter (extrapolated from iPods constituting about two-thirds of the hardware market), there's little doubt that the installed base for Podcast portability is growing at a dizzying pace.

But a detailed review of the report's findings does raise some reliability questions. For example, it holds that minorities (African-Americans and English-speaking Latinos) are more likely than non-Latino whites to own MP3 players by a ratio of nearly 2 to 1 (16% versus 9%), but then separately finds that "iPods/MP3 players are gadgets for the upscale", with ownership rates of 18% in $75,000+ households but less than 10% in households with incomes below $50,000. Given that minority households have lower average incomes these findings seem at odds.

Similarly, it finds that men are more likely than women to have MP3 players (13% versus 9%). But when one reads the report's Methodology section, one discovers that "In each contacted household, interviewers asked to speak with the youngest male currently at home. If no male was available, interviewers asked to speak with the oldest female at home." Well, if a household is called and the interviewer finds that Billy is too busy playing XBox Live to be interrupted, and then asks for Mom instead of Susie (who's on her computer busily downloading), wouldn't that tend to produce the reported result?

It is almost surely true that Podcasting is a rapidly growing activity. But this report is a good reminder that whenever one sees a headline trumpeting the findings of some new study it is always prudent to review the document to assess its veracity.

Papal Podcast

The Washington Post reports that during the days leading up to the funeral of Pope John Paul a Dutch priest "led Internet listeners on an intimate audio tour that allowed them to pay one last visit to Pope John Paul II before he was laid to rest. Father Roderick Vonhogen brought the Catholic Church's ancient rites to life through a cutting-edge format: the podcast, a radio-style show that is distributed over the Internet. "

The story continues:
"On "Catholic Insider," listeners hear Father Roderick banter with students camped out in St. Peter's Square and describe the pope lying in state in the basilica. "It's beautiful, it really looks like he's sleeping," he whispers as a choir sings in the background.

Religion, whether organized or splinter, is clearly not asleep and seems to be emerging as an early adopter of podcasting.

That said, articles like this are bound to fade as the novelty value of podcasting dissipates. We already take ubiquitous video imagery for granted to the extent that it hardly seemed remarkable that multiple amateur videos provided a worldwide audience with unprecedented views of a historic natural disaster, the recent Indian Ocean tsunami. Likewise, it will soon be expected that any world event of note will generate multiple first person podcast reports and reflections.

XM v. Sirius Personality Test

An article in today's Washington Post Business Section postulates that there are distinct personality trait differences between purchasers of XM and Sirius satellite radios, with XM supposedly more family oriented, while Sirius offers Howard Stern (hey, the Osbornes are a family too...;-). It's not a particularly useful or comprehensive piece -- is there really a meaningful difference between MLB (XM) and NFL (Sirius) fans, other than the season the sport is played?

But it does recognize that traditional radio is being hit from both the subscription and podcasting sides, quoting Phil Rist of BIGresearch:

Though the radios started out in cars, they're now going portable, and Rist said that means even a bigger challenge for traditional radio.

"They're getting hit from both sides," he said. "Not only is satellite expanding, but podcasting is taking off. People are realizing they can do more than download music, they can download talk shows [one example of podcasting], whatever special interest they desire. It doesn't have to be music."

As for me, I have XM in my auto. I guess that might wrongly indicate my personality is passive, as it's the only choice the vehicle came with in the summer of 2003. But I've been happy with its program selections, reliability, and pricing, so I'm likely to stick with it unless they screw up one of those key factors.

Politicasts

Today's Washington Post reports sighting the virgin politicast from former Senator and candidate for Vice President John Edwards: "The former vice presidential candidate this week released his first podcast, an online audio recording featuring Edwards and his wife, Elizabeth, chatting about the NCAA basketball tournament, her breast cancer treatments, his opposition to President Bush's Social Security plans and (pander alert) his respect for bloggers." Pander aside, a future release will reveal his personal hair care tips.

(R-E-S-P-E-C-T. There's the righteous rising sisterhood Aretha Franklin version and the black man pouring out his soul to America Otis Redding rendition. Both great.)

The story continues by noting that the first known instance of politicasting did not exactly prove the technology's awesome power:"Democrat Donnie Fowler was the first pol to launch a podcast, during his unsuccessful bid earlier this year to become chairman of the Democratic National Committee."

But the man who did successfully bid for that post, Respect-Me-In-The-Morning-After-The-Election former Governor Howard Dean, was widely cited for his savvy use of the Internet during his Presidential campaign. Granted, it wasn't enough to overcome the queasy insecurity he induced in large swathes of the American electorate (much less the infamous "Iowa scream"), but it did raise major $ from his faithful followers. Which is his full time job now. So it's a pretty sure bet that Chairman Dean will be transmitting Democratic wing downloads to the moveon crowd, suitable for enlightenment between NPR broadcasts.

The GOP is not to be undone, lest they suffer the indignity of a "pod gap": "The Republican National Committee has released its own podcasts on www.gop.com -- although they will sound familiar to anyone who has watched the party's Web video series "Off the Record." They are the audio portions of those interviews with GOP politicians."

"Additional podcasts will be available soon," the RNC Web site said.

America can barely contain its excitement at that prospect.

But the upcoming Karl Rove politicasts, beamed to the shock troops and requiring the secret decoder ring, are sure to be collector's items.

Meanwhile, the Twins are teaching W how to work the iPod that Cheney gave him.

All of which may prove that no good technology goes unpunished.

Get Right With Godcasting

Podcasters are getting religion. And it's the old-fashioned kind.

The Saturday March 19th Washington Post's Religion section features an article headlined "The Word of God, Now Via Handy IPod; Churches and Preachers Increasingly Turn to 'Podcasts' to Get Across Their Message" (I'm unable to locate a link at the Post's website, but Google found the same piece by Religion News Service's Kathleen Murphy at another site). As the article notes, it's not the first time that spreaders of the Gospel have been early technology adopters -- "Just as sermons were among the first type of broadcasts when radio caught on in America in the 1920s, podcasting is creating a new form of wireless parson."

Hosannas to the trend are already being exclaimed, stimulating Podcasting News to proclaim: "Based on the number of religious-themed programs being distributed, though, it looks like Godcasting may be the podcast's first killer app."


Traditional religion is represented with shows such as "Catholic Answers Live" and "Psalmcast", a Presbyterian airing of readings from the Book of Psalms with musical accompaniment. But nontraditional sects may well have the most to gain from narrowcasting's ability to reach dispersed adherents, and that's the aim of the "Pagan Power Hour", which thankfully "advises listeners that the correct practice of Wicca excludes sacrificing animals and worshipping Satan". (While Satan is miffed, family pets across the land are giving thanks for that message.) According to the article,Pagan Power's host is happy in his belief that, "The borderless Internet, unfettered by Federal Communications Commission guidelines, allows people to enjoy freedom of speech without fearing retribution". We'll see about that, especially since potential regulation of indecency on cable TV is but one small step from similar regulation of indecency through the cable modem. And if the Pagans start endorsing political candidates the FEC may get in on the act.

Mirror sites for religious-themed podcasts are already springing up, with www.godcast.org claiming that listeners from 75 nations have downloaded offerings since its debut in November 2004. (They wanted godcast.com, but apparently some agent of Satan was demanding $250,000 for the site.)

The trend is getting broad media attention, with the Boston Herald running a piece on March 10th titled, "Preachers taking to new pulpit: The Internet".

The Pew Internet Project claims that 82 million Americans had used the Internet for spiritual and religious purposes as of last year. That's a potent congregation against any policies that would impede the word of God from traversing the Internet.

Political Podcasts and the FEC

On March 17th Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid introduced S. 678, proposed legislation that would amend the Federal Election Campaign Act so that its definition of "public communication" will not include "communications over the Internet".

What's this got to do with podcasts? Just whether any podcast that urges support for or opposition to a particular political candidate is going to be subject to campaign finance regulations issued and enforced by the Federal Election Commission.

Declan McCullagh's March 3rd interview with FEC Commissioner Bradley Smith lays out the background. In 2002, shortly after the McCain-Feingold campaign finance bill was enacted, the FTC voted 4-2 to exempt the Internet from its "coordinated communications" provisions. Senators McCain and Feingold, who believe their namesake bill covers both blogs and e-mail, sued the FEC. In fall 2004 the Commission's exemption of the Internet was overturned by a federal district court. The Commission deadlocked 3 to 3 on strict party lines (Republicans for, Democrats against) on whether the decision should be appealed, and the motion died on that tie vote. So the FEC must now initiate a rulemaking on Internet communications and is set to do so on March 24th.

Some of the difficult questions before the FEC, such as whether a blog's hyperlink to a candidate's web page is a problem, don't implicate podcasts. But the overarching question of whether the Commission can and should provide bloggers with the same exemption as the mainstream press most certainly does. If blogs and podcasts are subject to FEC regulation then it must attempt to determine how to value their "contribution" to a candidate.

In a March 17th letter to FEC Chairman Scott Thomas, Senator Reid explained the rationale for his legislation:
As you know, the internet has provided a new and exciting medium for political speech. It has generated a surge in grassroots involvement in our government and has proven to be a democratizing medium in our political process. Regulation of the internet at this time, with its blogs and other novel features, would blunt its tremendous potential, discourage broad political involvement in our nation and diminish our representative democracy. (Emphasis added.)

The matter does not appear to split down party lines, and that's good. As Commissioner Smith says in his interview:

What would you like to see happen?

I'd like someone to say that unpaid activity over the Internet is not an expenditure or contribution, or at least activity done by regular Internet journals, to cover sites like CNET, Slate and Salon. Otherwise, it's very likely that the Internet is going to be regulated, and the FEC and Congress will be inundated with e-mails saying, "How dare you do this!"

What happens next?

It's going to be a battle, and if nobody in Congress is willing to stand up and say, "Keep your hands off of this, and we'll change the statute to make it clear," then I think grassroots Internet activity is in danger. The impact would affect e-mail lists, especially if there's any sense that they're done in coordination with the campaign. If I forward something from the campaign to my personal list of several hundred people, which is a great grassroots activity, that's what we're talking about having to look at.

Senator Reid has now stood up and proposed amending the statute. Any podcaster with a bent for political commentary needs to track this issue. Campaign finance exists to raise money so that candidates for office can get their message out, with the purchase of TV and radio spots the primary means of doing so. Podcasts introduce a new grassroots voice into the mix and are likely to first make themselves felt as a means of expressing candidate support or opposition in the 2006 federal elections, and may gather major momentum by the time of the 2008 Presidential campaign.

Whether podcasts that comment on public issues will be free speech or highly regulated hangs in the balance.

Meet The Pod People

"Our theme is to let people watch the lifestyle of these urban hipsters change as we go through this pregnancy and end up with two babies."

Is there an audience for the wakening whispers of a young expectant couple, or are all their similarly positioned urban hipster contemporaries engaged in creating their own self-referential digital diaries, leaving no time to listen to the high casing stitch count, down-filled pillow talk of others?

Leslie Walker's piece in Thursday's Washington Post doesn't ask any questions of this pompous magnitude, but does question whether podcasting's support technology is sufficiently up to the task, having tested two receiving programs and finding both "raw and rickety". But it goes on to provide lay readers with the basic outlines of the podcast phenomenon, observing that it is "adding fuel to the larger trend of time-shifting radio". And what is podcasting but time-shifted narrowcasting? Will automatically downloaded narrow-casts develop the kind of long tail usage sufficient to become the stuff of broad-casters' nightmares, or will they learn to co-opt it, - or will it just fizzle out as a transitory fad? Only time will tell, although the piece notes its ongoing displacement of traditional radio on the daily commutes of iPod's white ear bud crowd. (See Chris Anderson's "The Long Tail" for more about what that's about.)

But for now podcasting's getting bigger, not smaller, and emits the scent of something that just might be a really big show, an on-demand thousand ring Ed Sullivan extravaganza serving up whatever's in demand from its atomized audience; something for everybody.

The article also raises the copyright issue dangling over podcasting:
Thanks to copyright issues, spicing podcasts with songs poses a problem for hobbyists. While the D.C. couple would love to sprinkle urban tunes into their weekly show, they can't afford the licensing fees required to distribute copyrighted music online -- and they won't risk the lawsuits they believe the recording industry will file against podcasters who play unlicensed music.

While our pregnant pillow talkers may not be able to afford to pay the licensing fees required (or at least demanded, regardless of their legal validity if challenged) under the present copyright regime, they are not without financial resources. They pony up $15 per month to a web hosting firm to cache their chat, and sprung for a $54 microphone upgrade. One suspects they'd be more than happy to pay for a reasonably priced, fully sheltering citizen's podcast license that would let them add promotional copies of the urban tunes they'd like to sprinkle into their weekly show - as well as escape the climate of fear spawned by the IP police state Hollywood has in production.

One suspects that thousands, maybe even millions of podcast hobbyists would do the same if such a license were available. So how much money is the music business leaving on the table because it's not? More every day.

(Apologies to my vast audience (both of you...;-) for not posting in two weeks, but I was engaged in legislative matters that required my focused attention. This blog, alas, is just a hobby, but one I'm happy to be back at.)