Podcast Vs Vidcast

[Scottish Business Owner]

On another post Gordon has been showing off a video he has had produced which I think was very good. It's made me think though about creating podcasts against vidcasts (Is that the right terminology? ). I've been toying with both these for the blog but podcasts for me seem easier to achieve and there seems to be much more technical aspects to video which tend to favour them being outsourced which I think would mean a fairly big jump in costs.

As a user do you see advantages to a vidcast over a podcast in terms of how you take in and process the information? I accept that certain things can be better communicated via video and I like the idea of tiutorials etc being developed in this way but for traditional interviews one on one etc wheres the advantage?

 

[Former Member 1]

On another post Gordon has been showing off a video he has had produced which I think was very good. It's made me think though about creating podcasts against vidcasts (Is that the right terminology? ). I've been toying with both these for the blog but podcasts for me seem easier to achieve and there seems to be much more technical aspects to video which tend to favour them being outsourced which I think would mean a fairly big jump in costs.

As a user do you see advantages to a vidcast over a podcast in terms of how you take in and process the information? I accept that certain things can be better communicated via video and I like the idea of tiutorials etc being developed in this way but for traditional interviews one on one etc wheres the advantage?

Done properly there isn't much between them in terms of costs. People imagine all you need for a podcast is a microphone and a PC. In fact you really need the services of a decent scriptwirter, voice over artist, musicians, and recording engineers..... Otherwise you wind up with something only your mammy will listen to.

In fact the only REAL difference between recording sound and vision is the medium. Where we record concerts and music video the presence of specialist audio recordists can ramp costs up by 120% plus the additional post production costs. the sound being a project in itself!

A video such as Gordon has posted would cost you about £300 (Ex-VAT) and that's versioned out in Blu-Ray Compatible, DVD AND a web format of your choice... A proper wee 5 minute company profile is about £500. And again that's done in HD so it'll even stand being broadcast as well as being suitable for exhibitions, DVD etc etc etc....

It's only where programmes start getting really complex that costs ramp up. But even there. We recently did a 25 minute corporate presented by the ex-BBC newsreader Sarah Edwards and Welsh Celebrity Dai Jones. VERY complex VERY long dual language shot on location in Cardiganshire (Ceredigion) with custom-written music; we invoiced a little over £8.5K on that..... Travel, accommodation and all!

Video has the advantage of putting a face to the voice; and that's a HUGE advantage. Makes things much more personal. But whether Podcast or Videcast it really NEEDS to be done by someone who not only understands the technical process but the narrative process too!

 

[KingdomOfAdventure]

Some comments...

I listen to a lot of podcasts. I rarely ever watch a vidcast.
Why?
I travel a lot in the car and on trains.
Rather than listening to music or the radio or whatever I listen to podcasts. Most of the podcasts I listen to are games or comics related (it is after all my planned business) but not from a "fanboy" perspective. Many of them are small business related specific to those markets and have given me a wealth of advice and help in my planning for the shop.

So why not watch a vidcast when I'm at the PC/Laptop?

Maybe I'm weird or something but I rarely just sit and watch TV or whatever. I'm normally doing something else at the same time which means that the likelihood of me watching a vidcast is low.

Podcasts are more accessible in my view. Maybe start with that and then once established or at least you're used to doing one you can try vidcasts. Some of the podcasts I'm listening to do a special vidcast episode (game reviews in particular sometimes benefit from a video),currently I skip most of them but that's because the topics aren't enough of a pull for me to watch.

I wouldn't put it solely down to a cost decision. Determine who you audience are and then consider when they're more likely to want to use the broadcast. Are they commuters? Are people who will make time to sit down and WATCH it.

Ask yourself what you gain by having video.
Then ask whether you're actually losing anything by being purely audio (not always the same question).

You don't want a barrier to entry (A phrase I've been using a LOT recently) and a video would be a barrier for me unfortunately.

Cheers,

Dave

 

[Former Member 1]

You make some good points Dave. Essentially your argument is the old TV Vs radio debate. And it's true; in some circumstances audio only is more accessible.

But then it has to be done skilfully... Good use of effects and explanation to drive the narrative flow. And in fact this is also true of a good video production..... Pictures need to be used to illustrate and illuminate points and reflect moods; NOT drive them in most cases. In around 80%-85% of cases a video should be 'watchable'. i.e. you should be able to make sense of it (albeit in limited form) in audio only. And if that sounds strange consider how often you've sat down to your supper or to read a newspaper with the TV news running in the background; only putting your fork or paper down when a particular story engages your interest.

Now; even though I have a vested interest in video I'm not going to suggest one is better that the other. Neither though is one more or less complex or expensive than the other. And it's interesting to note that many radio studios are equipped with video cameras and stream cut-down video information along with the main programme.

It's important to realise that while what Dave says is true; the platform needs to be appropriate to the target audience; SO does the content, structure and flow of the programme. And that, in many respects, is more important a consideration than platform.

 

[Scottish Business Owner]

I've been thinking about this today and the financial side of producing decent quality material is really what stops me from moving ahead. This has to be a real issue for many businesses. There's very little in the way of Scottish or even uk themed business podcasts but I wouldn't be up for doing it unless I could do it to a decent level.

Is there a quality level which most people would accept? I mean Matt you for instance will probably have an ear for all the mistakes and be able to pick out several issues with audio or video I would guess but does the normal person who uploads a few podcasts onto an ipod want the same quality. Conversely is it better to produce the best quality possible to instantly create that barrier to entry?

 

[KingdomOfAdventure]

Is there a quality level which most people would accept?

One of the podcasts I listen to is Pulp Gamer - http://www.pulpgamer.com/ - and when they started in 2005 the quality wasn't that great but the content made up for that.
As time has moved on the quality has improved (part skill level and part equipment) and they sound as good as any digital radio broadcast.

I suppose what I'm saying is that if the content is good then people will put up with a poorer quality recording, at least for a while.

Another comment on the video/audio question.
If the content is advice or simple information then I see no need for video.
However if this is promotional or to convey a specific message then that's where video can come in. Obviously if there is a need to give a visual element then video is a winner

Cheers,

Dave

 

[Former Member 1]

Much as a Jools Holland could set the place alight playing on a little Casio keyboard whilst I would struggle to get "Three Blind Mice" out of a Steinway Grand. With video AND audio recording most of the quality issues centre around technique rather than equipment. And end-user experiences are more to do with how resilient the original material is to the transmission. Technical issues include matters such as signal quality etc. but they're not limited to that.

When you hire a legitimate professional you're not just hiring a man with a camera or a microphone. In fact if that's all that's on offer you need to walk away.

Content wise there ARE some subjects where content is so sparse that an 'anything's better than nothing' situation exists. The 'SOS' signal from a sinking ship is perhaps better transmitted in simple Morse code rather than Dolby surround sound.... And if you're the captain of a sinking ship that might do you fine....

Comparisons can be drawn here with the early days of the internet. For instance time was when sites like this....... The Jesus Bus Were the norm in terms of web design. Now; it so happens these people are friends of mine so I'm not going to be too harsh save to say that many of us will form very firm and immediate opinions as to it's effectiveness as a piece of web design and as a piece of communication. It just so happens though that for the particular 'niche' these people address that site functions well for them.... Content of this nature (apparently) being very thin on the ground. But can you imagine this working for something more mainstream?

Trying to gently direct these people to the finer points of presentation skill and the concept of basic modern web design has proved fruitless. And yet how much less easily dismissed their material would be if it were better presented?

As for the video/audio question. Psychologists working back in the 1950's and 60's produced a very solid body of evidence to demonstrate the increased effectiveness of Television over Radio in imparting information. And indeed teachers and lecturers have relied on visual aids for generations for just that purpose. For all of my educational career (as in from when I started school to now where I'm very much on the other side of the classroom) TV has been a cornerstone of the process of informing...

The increased effectiveness of TV over radio for imparting information was of such significance that in the 60's and 70's Glasgow Corporation set up it's own television studios and network to produce programmes for Glasgow schools. And indeed I spent the first year of my own working life at professional studios owned and run by Strathclyde University. Such was and is the demonstrable effectiveness of television as an informational technology that most of the major Universities run and support TV production units and have done for generations. Nowadays the whiteboard yields to the smartboard, LCD projector and multimedia PC. All essential tools when it comes to imparting information. And at the end of the day promoting business IS about teaching people about the merits of your wares....

As I said earlier. Audio-only production is no less complex than video production and arguably more so. As part of the course we teach multimedia students to produce radio programmes and this is felt by all to be far more challenging that working with pictures. Audio scores in circumstances where the learning opportunity precludes the use of sight. Language systems such as Pimsleur for instance would not transfer well to a visual medium. And Drive-Time radio commercials are among THE most effective advertising platforms there are when it comes to imparting basic brand awareness.

 

[Former Member 1]

Bear in mind that what you are talking about is essentially either a television or radio programme. The notion of a podcast or vidicast simply describes a platform. In terms of technical and editorial structures and quality these are very old technologies indeed... And very well established narrative platforms. The notion of "quality" being just about sound quality of picture sharpness is a n empty one.. There is far more to it than that...

Point is if you want to punch above your weight you place yourself in direct contention with the main players. The whole essence of what I do rotates around putting promotional tools that were previously the sole domain of the big blue-chip organisations into the hands of small businesses. But there IS a breaking point beneath which you cease to emulate or utilise and start merely to ape those high-end techniques rather like 'Dell Boy' with his claims to be based in "New York, Paris and Peckham".... He thinks he's doing like the big guns do; everyone else sees monkey see monkey do!

Dell Boy is a joke of course. But would you ever consider advertising your business using leaflets produced by photocopying a hand-drawn flyer? Would you turn up to a high profile meeting in a cheap suit? Or hand an important client a chewed Bic Biro to sign a contract? Do you carry your business documents in an Asda bag?

ALL mistakes I've personally witnessed from people who see only the functional elements of what they're trying to do....

The issue isn't whether someone like me can knitpick over the final result. I only do that sort of thing for my clients so that others won't have the opportunity to do so silently... It's only a few weeks since we had the utterly ridiculous and comedic "Hirer" video pop up online. Quite apart from the unpleasant experiences we had what McClumpha and Co succeeded in producing was something that left them looking utterly not-credible. and a standing joke in many circles; including business circles...

Cost-barrier wise both video and audio production compare well with traditional print and other mediums. In advertising promotion and PR you don't always get the return you paid for. But it's even rarer to get the return you didn't pay for. A few hundred pounds will buy you a very flexible cross-platform presentation that will stand everything from broadcast on HDTV through to playback on a mobile phone...

 

[Adventurelife]

In order to justify the costs of producing quality video, and I would suggest £500 is excellent value for a professional job, you need to consider from the minute you consider this route the distribution of the video/podcast message.

If 500 see it it has cost you £1 per person if 100000 see it it has cost you 0.005p per person.

To a certain extent the price that is being charged is not that relevant. It is the distribution and hitting your target market in large numbers. Get that correct and it starts to look fantastic value.


Peter

 

[alanbold]

As a user of both podcasts and vidcasts, here are my thoughts...

Audio podcasts if well done can be immensely descriptive and can be consumed on many more devices than video. If required most audio podcasters direct their listeners to their website/blog to see photos/graphics or even video that adds a visual side to the podcast. Enhanced podcasts are audio podcasts that also show images on the screen of iphones/ipods with screens, although great they are restricted to Apple devices really. I love the freedom that audio gives me, I can listen to it anywhere and do things at the same time. I tend to watch vidcasts when i am waiting somewhere.

If you are going to make podcasts or vidcasts regularly (which is the main idea around them) then its much cheaper to make audio podcasts due to a few factors like less time spent on production, much much less bandwidth costs and there are others factors too that make it cheaper and easier than video.

Alan

 

[Former Member 1]

If you are going to make podcasts or vidcasts regularly (which is the main idea around them) then its much cheaper to make audio podcasts due to a few factors like less time spent on production, much much less bandwidth costs and there are others factors too that make it cheaper and easier than video.

We're obviously going to have to agree to disagree here. But unless you're more or less going down the toy microphone and PC route, professional audio equipment to originate the material is no cheaper than equivalent video kit. The set up and execution of a sound recording is no less complex than video. Nor are the professional people who know how to operate it well any less expensive to hire.

As for time spent on production? Again; done PROPERLY (as it should ALWAYS BE when your livelihood is what's on the block here) radio production which, whatever the platform, is the essence of what we're talking about here, is no less stringent. time-consuming or involved a process than TV. Potentially it's actually more exacting as an audio presentation may well be more reliant on clearing IP rights for music and effects. And certainly the presenter's skill level has to be much greater in terms of engaging and retaining audience attention.

Agreed, bandwidth considerations are a huge factor. It's actually still quite difficult to ensure video streams well to a wide gamut of users. From the college for instance it's very difficult to watch You Tube on the thin client computers distributed across staff desktops and some classrooms. And a great many people are still using fairly ancient computers for routine desktop tasks. A negative viewing experience can be very detrimental to a business presence. That WILL change though over time.

The KEY thing here is actually to divorce yourself from the notion of a 'podcast or 'videcast'. You are commissioning either a television programme or a radio programme. And THAT needs to be your jumping-off point.

It matters not whether your viewers will see your programme in their own private cinema complete with 20' screen and full surround sound, or they listen to your AM broadcast picked up accidentally through the fillings in their teeth! What's important is that your programme is, in every aspect, wholly proficient and engaging. For it's that which will cause the message you're trying to get across to reach its target.

In terms of technical quality the ancient maxim 'rubbish in rubbish out' holds true; perhaps truer than it did back inthe days of cassettes and 1/4" tape. It's a complete myth that digital recording and transmission systems don't suffer from degradation. And it's essential to meet certain basic origination standards if you're to ensure that no viewer or listener has a bad experience. Which bring up the matter of cross platform transferability.

 

[Former Member 1]

Now; much as the IPOD generation might view itself as the centre of the universe, it isn't. Two years ago we were researching the possibility of designing an HN course around the podcasting phenomena. that, has been reigned back to a few specialist units on cross-platform compatibility. What's emerging from market research is that there are many pockets of consumer activity (including among the younger 15-25 year old range) where the Ipod is being actively rejected. The net result is a plethora of competing devices servicing a multitude of viewing and listening opportunities. Then there are listeners to whom the whole walkman-ipod (the two are essentially the evolutionary span of one device) is alien and has never been accepted. At executive level for instance a prestige presentation is one that very much has to be cross platform; While you might attract initial interest through a simple portable platform (phone ipod etc) ultimately that presentation will need to stand presentation on a high-end platform.

The implication of all that is that ANY media artefact which is produced needs to be able to be DOWN scaled (quite specifically DOWNscaled and NOT upscaled) to meet the needs of a wide range of platforms. It may well be that you use that source material to produce platform-specific versions and even target specific versions. For instance it's fairly common for us to shoot a five minute company profile which will sit primarily as an intro on a website. We routinely do that in 1080i HD; NOT because it's necessary for the primary platform, but because the same material can be re-versioned time and time and time again for exhibition, point of sale or even broadcast.

This actually saves money in the long run as the client builds up an archive of material that can be moved transparently from one platform to another.

Now; only this week past I have picked up a new client who was left "looking like a complete ass" (his words; not mine :blush because the allegedly pro company he'd had shoot his video had done so on standard definition using mpeg hard disc cameras! Looked fine on the website. Transferred to blu-ray and (supposedly) upscaled to 1080i for projection at a major international conference in Geneva it looked like what it was. A half-assed home movie!

It's done quite a bit of damage to his business especially since he IS a small business owner trying to break into a traditionally blue-chip market.

TO be fair to the producers his commission WAS for a web video; and that's what he got. But in fact it had cost him only £50 less that I've quoted him for its replacement! ...A replacement which is being made in full 1080i HD, is available to him on both PAL and NTSC standard definition DVD and whatever multimedia formats he might require....

The same would stand for audio only material. I have an acquaintance who wrote, produced and recorded an entire teaching series which he mastered out to mp3. 60 hours of edited recordings teaching Cantonese along the same lines as Pimsleur; probably 1200 hours of work.

He's now been approached to release the material commercially. But faces the daunting prospect of re-recording as his masters aren't good enough for transcription to CD. Can't be re-platformed due to compression issues and are no-where near the standard needed for broadcast....

SO I guess we won't be seeing him down the pub at the weekend for the next two years or so...

FWIW I don't thing there really IS any valid Video Vs Audio argument. Neither platform is a 'one size fits all' answer to the question of how to communicate one's message.... Personally I turn customers away rather than be a party to them creating something that is either ill-conceived or inadequately executed. And if audio is the correct platform for the particular message they wish to put out then that's the direction I'll point them in.

 

[Scottish Business Owner]

Matt,

Thanks for making me realise I really need to give this much more thought. I think podcasts would be a really positive thing for both the blog and forums but I think I now realise I really do have to do these right to get the most from them.

Maybe it's a case of me trying to run before I can walk and it may be more sensible to delay just now and focus on building both the blog and the forums. Thanks to veryone who gave advice on the this thread and rest assured I'll be coming back with an approach that better once i've considered the options

 

[Video3tech]

An interesting question especially as the credit crunch will have enormous impact on how organisations communicate their key messages in the future. Events and conferences are likely to be cut back but we still have the need to disseminate information to clients and stakeholders alike.
I run a web-casting company and our clients include major organisations within the NHS in Scotland. Although I'd be the first to agree that there is no substitute for face to face communication we are finding that more and more organisations are finding the need to use web-casting to get their message out there. Because our service is interactive this enables remote viewers to join from anywhere in the world from either their office or home. They have the opportunity to watch the presentations live as they happen and to submit questions or comments to the presenters. A major advantage to the presenter is that the audit trail lets them know who has watched the presentation and where and when they watched it. Once the live web-cast has been completed they can revisit it as often as they wish from the comfort of their desktop. Even if someone has attended a conference or event they can still make use of the web-cast to refresh their memory of the event and the presentations made.
Because the viewer can download any documents relating to the conference or event (including the audio file) they really have the best of all worlds.
We are seeing more and more interest in the development of web-casting and online collaborative tools especially those capable of being integrated into Virtual Learning Environments such as Moodle which, being Open Source, can be downloaded free of charge.

 

[alanbold]

Okay so I agree to disagree with you Mat and although I agree with much that you say in respect to your speciality of traditional video i feel that your posts on the subject of podcasting and vidcasting need correction.

I dont agree with "professional audio equipment to originate the material is no cheaper than equivalent video kit" looks it really simple, if your working in video then you have the price of both professional video gear and software, perhaps lighting and makeup or studio rental etc and you need professional sound equipment and software. If you work only in sound then you dont have the expense of all the video gear and software. I think your confusing recording studio albums or film soundtracks or radio work with podcasting as you mentioned that you require musicians when there are tons of music tracks that can be bought very cheaply £20 (and you retain the rights to use them in a podcast) or soundbeds or sound effects can be easily created by using high quality wave files available in many audio editing software packages. Where are the IP rights to clear doing it this way? You also dont seem to understand the bandwidth issue/cost, it has nothing to do with streaming or thin clients! Vidcasts and podcasts are downloaded from a web server. What many people fail to understand to their financial detriment is that you generally have a monthly bandwidth limit on your webhosting server. If you go over your monthly limit then you will be charged accordingly. Now if SBF starts a podcast and it is subscribed to by 100 people then the bandwidth used would be 100 times the size of the compressed mp3 file (the audio would of course be recorded as a high quality wave file),if SBF did a vidcast then the bandwidth used would be 100 times the size of the compressed H.264 (or equivalent) video file (even though it was recorded in 1080i HD). Now both you and I know that a video file compressed is much much larger than a mp3 file (at least 10x) and so this has a huge effect on your monthly bandwidth usage. This is one of the limiting factors to vidcasts as well as the time involved in compression, the cost and complexity in doing video. Many podcasts consist of interviews which can be recorded remotely ie the interviewer can record the guest over voip, its tricky and involves some technical wizardry (port forwarding etc) but the results are fine, try doing a video interview with a guest in the USA or in another town for example-kind of difficult!

" Now; much as the IPOD generation might view itself as the centre of the universe, it isn't." I find this statement a bit condescending, it is you that is making the assumption not the IPOD generation. Podcasts and vidcasts do not revolve around ipods either, they are consumed using computers, smartphones, gaming machines and other devices. Also your point on the validity of downscaling is correct although if you were to follow it then you should be shooting 4k video or higher not 1080i!

By writing about friends who dont seem to be doing a professional job and mentioning toy microphones does not get away from the fact that there are professionals like myself who work with web based media and who have very happy clients.

Alan

 

[Former Member 1]

Well my point about the thin clients was more about illustrating the fact that many people's desktop machines can't readily play back video. The bandwidth issues are a taken; no argument there... .

As for the 1080i/4K issue... I shoot for T.V. not cinema! When 4K becomes a common/practical domestic/industrial playback format I'll change our systems. Just as I did when we moved from SD to HD. Last film I saw in the GFT wasn't even in HD! And the issue of an accessible 1080 HD playback format was only resolved back in February....

If you work only in sound then you dont have the expense of all the video gear and software. I think your confusing recording studio albums or film soundtracks or radio work with podcasting as you mentioned that you require musicians when there are tons of music tracks that can be bought very cheaply £20 (and you retain the rights to use them in a podcast) or soundbeds or sound effects can be easily created by using high quality wave files available in many audio editing software packages. Where are the IP rights to clear doing it this way?

I'll see if I can get one of our audio/nusic management guys to join and explain/debate it with you... I'm not at all confused; Radio Production (at a simple level; essentially creatinbg a podcast) is one of the subjects I've had to teach in the past two years... And to do it well isn't a simple as first seems...

Yes; there ARE tracks that can be bought cheaply; often though the licensing is sometimes complex and not all that it seems. There are VERY good commercial reason why we generally don't use this stuff... Often the licenses that are 'sold' with this stuff don't hold water; and about the only firm our lawyers approve are AKM; They're OK but 'samey'

Podcasts and vidcasts do not revolve around ipods either, they are consumed using computers, smartphones, gaming machines and other devices.

EXACTLY my point! meaning that you need to address the highest common denominator, not the lowest!

 

[alanbold]

Okay Matt its been fun discussing with you, Podcasting I agree is not simple or easy if you want to do it well, that's why I consult on it. There are plenty of commercial sound tracks, music and loops for sale which can be used legally but it is important to use those ones and not any which upon reading the small print could land you in hot water.

On a more exciting note for video lovers have you seen the new scarlet camera from Red. Boy I they look great film cameras

PS My line about 4k cameras was to highlight your point of recording video or audio in the highest quality possible and a joke aa we both know there is no way of delivering them but I was talking to a filmaker who told me that Film studios archive films in 4k now as they know that in a few years there will be 4K and higher digital projectors in cinemas! Wow

Alan

 

[Former Member 1]

Okay Matt its been fun discussing with you, Podcasting I agree is not simple or easy if you want to do it well, that's why I consult on it. There are plenty of commercial sound tracks, music and loops for sale which can be used legally but it is important to use those ones and not any which upon reading the small print could land you in hot water.

On a more exciting note for video lovers have you seen the new scarlet camera from Red. Boy I they look great film cameras

PS My line about 4k cameras was to highlight your point of recording video or audio in the highest quality possible and a joke aa we both know there is no way of delivering them but I was talking to a filmaker who told me that Film studios archive films in 4k now as they know that in a few years there will be 4K and higher digital projectors in cinemas! Wow

Alan

The 'Red' concept really is an exciting one. It's the convergence of stills, movie and video disciplines. Sustainability and adaptability are at the heart of this and I love the return to the same values that kept names like Hasselblad and Arri at the front of imaging technology for so long. For what they are prices aren't bad either.

I believe there are already 4K cinemas. Not many, but they are a reality. and certainly there's a growing range of equipment.

Sony SXRD 4K Microsite | 2K vs 4K

AND DALSA Digital Cinema - About 4K™ :thumbup::thumbup::thumbup:

Archiving at 4K certainly makes sense. But when you see what Red are doing with the monstro epic 617....:scared: Bang goes my theory that video would never outres the large scale film formats.:scared: It would be scary enough as a stills camera; but as a MOVIE camera????? :thumbup1::thumbup1::thumbup1:

I think we'll see a niche for 4k displays in the home. Quite how the files will be transported though I wouldn't want to guess. :crying: After all; they can't (or rather don't) currently transmit the equivalent of a PAL signal properly on terrestrial. HD seems a million miles away.... I find it quite depressing when I run one of my own discs to test before sending it out to the client.. and have to turn back to the SD broadcast. However; ten months past the end of the format war and blu ray is REALLY making inroads. The AVCHD format is an absolute gift as a delivery platform for corporates, and the standard of work that can be achieved is amazing.

The future really is bright; save for the broadcasters the virtual demise of whom I can see coming. I think we'll move from a largely broadcast model to a largely narrowcast one. And as much as I personally would view the 'podcast' (per se) as passe. I'd be the first to cite it as the thin end of a wedge which will eventually change and democratise the way in which content is routinely delivered. That will sound the death knell for production bloat; evidence of this can already be seen in the contracting purse of the big broadcast oriented companies. And it will also drive MASSIVE opportunities for those who can produce diverse high quality specialised content...

 

[ssadchyk]

Behind the Wheel is clearly a podcast

 

[martinwayne]

Thanks all members for this discussion.