Podnews Daily - podcasting news

80% of their reporting is very helpful. That said, they definitely have big biases and favored people. They casually promote the launch of some shows, for example in todays update they promoted (for free) the sleepscape pod. they called it “the first of its kind”…which is objectively false. There’s tons of sleep soundscape podcasts. And they promote some shows for free, while others have to pay for ads to get in. And the ones they promote free usually aren’t good. It gives an air of nepotism and/or “old boys network”. Also every week you will hear something about Arielle niesenblatt..why? Idk. 99% of it is not newsworthy in the least. If you have a crush on her, I don’t care, but don’t waste your listeners time with it. Would appreciate fixing these kinds of things

Cridland has once said he’ll stop reading reviews, and then calls this specific review out on social media when it’s updated. As if it’s a conversation between one podcaster and one audience member. As if this review is the only one presenting specific criticisms. As if this review is entirely negative. What a use of one’s rather asymmetrically large platform. All of that could be interesting to explore. I’d love to know various Industry member’s POV of the roll of Apple podcast reviews and ratings today. What are they worth? What can and can’t they do? Are they really notes? Or are they like goodreads where the protocol is that the space is for a listener to put their thoughts? If this is not a listener space, where is? If this isn’t how listeners talk back at podcasters, where is? What’s the difference between a “hate listen” and a “hate read?” I believe others have looked into how Apple podcast reviews work. I’ve read various things, like … * it has been reported that Apple doesn’t consider ratings and reviews in their charts Vs * pod-fluencers successfully gaming Apple ratings and reviews to get to the top of Apple’s charts (?) both can’t be true ** Who actually sees apple reviews? Is it still true that apple displays these by region? If so, do we know why the reach is limited? *** Are apple podcast reviews good for discovery? Are they bad for discovery? As in do negative reviews discourage other listeners? To what extent? I’d guess the opposite. I love trying out shows that have interesting negative reviews. And negative reviews do tend to be more interesting and specific than positive ones. **** Are Apple podcast reviews intended to be a way for an audience member to communicate with a podcaster? Or are they more like goodreads? Why / why not? ***** Is podcasting grown up enough yet for critical reviews and actual criticism? If not now, when? My perspective will favor myself, of course. I think Apple podcast reviews are where I can make non-serious (unprofessional, personal) notes about my own listening experience. I don’t imagine other people will see these notes, or care what I write either way. If they even see this review at all, they’ll probably just think I’m weird to care so much about this one show and go on with their day. I think this show is interesting. It does interesting things in interesting ways — good and “bad” — and lots of other people try to copy it. It’s influential. It has a lot of responsibility, which isn’t completely fair to it. But apparently Cridland makes plenty of money from it to keep at it. A new low for this show is Cridland’s jolly advertising of an AI network’s new show presenting as protagonists a country rigging electronic devices to explode in another country. Which is such bad judgment. I hope Cridland gets completely shunned by the decent part of the podcast community now. I appreciate that Cridland is mostly self taught and solo. But there has to be some common sense and decency. This was such a gross dangerous move that does real damage to the industry he lives off of. Plus … you know … directly promotes state-sponsored terrorism. I’m sick from this one. WOW. Today’s episode / issue included a news segment for a podcast without disclosing that Cridland Himself is involved the announced show. Clearly this kind of “news” is actually an ad, and regardless not disclosing the connection seems highly unethical. And inconsistent. Sometimes Cridland does disclose this kind of connection. When did this show jump the shark into mostly being press releases (ads) for people in the clique? I guess it was bound to happen … that’s why people network after all. But for anyone outside the clique, it makes the “news” way less relevant and ethical. Wish I could remove the final star. It’s a lot to ask of a one-person enterprise with this much scope creep. Kudos to Cridland for spinning up something like this … his determination and dedication are impressive. But apparently there’s plenty of money involved, so maybe it’s time to hire an editor to handle these conflicts. This show truly is at its best when Cridland (and friends) has done some clever research maneuvers and reports the findings. Obviously he’s set up a good collection of Google alerts, too, and plenty of other podcasts about podcasts and industry consultants regurgitate his work. And yet the show now has that hyper socialized networking vibe that narrows the perspective, diminishes the newsworthiness, and brings any pretense at objectivity into question. The ripple effect of regurgitation makes for a grim niche. James Cridland keeps tweeting about this review. You’d think a busy and important podcaster who doesn’t even have time to research how to pronounce people’s names would have better things to do than complain about his audience in public. Weird how insecure some otherwise brilliant people can be. Deleted another star. The music is back. Deleted a star. Edited to add: After some public grousing about the feedback below, the show has dropped most of the background music and seems to have adjusted the pacing a bit to get beyond a snarky hammering headline array and into some actual info (and why not? they are patiently generating plenty of important industry info at podnews, so they surely can identify interesting and useful info to include here). They may have even started to explore further than what seemed previously to be their own friends and enemies list for content. Listening is a much better time now. Changed from 2 to 3 stars. … The super tight pacing, sarcastic delivery, and overly loud tense & shrill music make this show really unpleasant.

Thank you so much for supporting podcasters, big and small! Legal Talk Network and friends are grateful for you!

Listen AND read every day. Thank you!