Already a Bloomberg.com user?
Sign in with the same account.
? More Apple sites? Try SmashMyiPod |
| In praise of misunderstandings: How they can jumpstart a discussion ?
November 03, 2005
So, I have been listening to a number of different podcasts lately, and was wondering. When a magazine like us does a podcast, is there a different expectation of editing, formalness that's expected? A "real" voice is obviously important and it's what makes podcasts stand out, but is rambling ok--even charmging--in other people while it wouldnt be with us?
TrackBack URL for this entry:
I would guess yes. BW has a well established brand, very business like, very professional. Rambling on like an amateur probably wouldn't cut it :-) Doesn't mean it can't be in your own voice and a little informal (unstuffy) though.
Posted by: PXLated at November 3, 2005 10:03 AM
My two bits: It's most definitely got to sound clean and well produced, but natural dialog is also essential. To do a natural podcast, I d say: Prepare well, but let the discussion go freely during the recording. Nothing warms a podcast like laughter, spontaneity, real stuff. I'd also suggest not cutting out all of the mistakes - just correct them in a confident manner. The moment a podcast sounds scripted is the moment it loses interest and credibility. I think a highly formal Businessweek podcast, for example, would be a real bad move. Your blog is written in a non-corporate way, so I think a podcast should be consistent with that.
Posted by: Ken Carroll at November 3, 2005 10:11 AM
You should check out the tech podcasts that engadget does - they do an excellent job - freeflowing conversation and the sound quality doesn't sound amateurish. http://podcasts.engadget.com/
Posted by: JRX35 at November 3, 2005 10:28 AM
I come to expect a certain quality to be associated with a brands I'm familiar with. Personally I would expect Nike or Rebook podcasts to sound great. Now if my neighbor, who is a sleep consultant, started podcasting for her small business, I would not be at all upset if the quality and production was amateurish as long as the content was valuable and authentic. For me it's a mix of the quality expectations of the brand combined with the value and authenticity of the content.
Posted by: James Clark at November 3, 2005 11:40 AM
you are still representing the bw brand. but just as this blog is a little less edited, less polished, more informal, more raw than the glossy pages of the magazine, we expect a little experimentation with alternative mediums. once pocasts become a mainstream part of the bw stable, i would expect them to be more formal.
Posted by: schadenfreudisch at November 3, 2005 01:12 PM
Thanks everyone for the input and expertise. What do you think about editing? Do you prefer it?
Posted by: Heather Green at November 3, 2005 01:13 PM
Heather I completely agree with the last post by schadenfreudisch. Since it is so new and experiemental we can only look at like the invention of tv and media. For awhile we were in the dark with just news then came entertainment. Not that the news isn't great but you know what I mean evolution takes time.
By the way did you ever check out www.gasradio.com for their latest podcast.
Posted by: ellison at November 3, 2005 02:54 PM
Personally I prefer it not to be edited. I like the rawness. If it's overly polished then I wonder about the content. By hearing it raw and unedited you know that things are not being cropped out or things being presented in a specific way as you know things on television always are.
Posted by: C.C. Chapman at November 3, 2005 04:38 PM
Many of us come to this site because of the BW brand. That means many of us expect stuff like subjecting the posts to some editing. It's up to you folks to apply the right touch using just the right combination of journalistic tools. This is a new medium, so the recipe is going to be different. Good style is transparent to the content. Editors can help in the area of standards for the publication.
Other posts have dealt with submitted commentary. In summary, I think that commentary should be screened for abusive language, but mostly unwashed. I realize there's some disconnect in the community about that
Posted by: Pete Zievers at November 3, 2005 06:18 PM
I haven't heard that one. Will take a look or listen as it were! Thanks for pointing it out.
Posted by: Heather Green at November 3, 2005 07:03 PM