## Why I found most podcasts suck - Consider the intentions of the podcast in question. What is the north star of the creator? Why are they making podcasts? Do they have any expertise? Are the guests reliable? For most podcasts I have clearly seen that the goal is more views, sponsor money and growing the brand as big as possible. Very little actually have the mission, for example, to help X amount of people achieve Y outcome. I believe if a creator does not treat their content as a duty or to hold to their values then the content will be made to optimise for external and worldly outcomes. Short form content has never really been in a good place, especially not now. Way too many of people are consistently consuming short form and most creators want to capitalise on this. Podcast creators, especially those with money as their top priority, have to adapt by looking at these 2 parts of the machine: 1) Is there any way to plan or setup the podcast to create clips that have a high chance of gaining traction? 2) How can we cut the long form down into clips that will gain traction? In this case, on short form platforms, traction is usually exponential when the content spikes emotion and gets the viewers to watch for longer, like, comment, share or save. Long form content is not much better, especially for the podcast creators that seek worldly outcomes. I found this to be particularly evident with "[Diary Of A CEO](https://www.youtube.com/@TheDiaryOfACEO)". Increasingly provoking and bolder thumbnails and titles that are consistently A/B tested to see which ones gain the most amount of clicks and long view times. Intros carefully created to maximise viewer interest, usually through simple techniques like not finishing a sentence when a critical part of information is to be revealed or having a clip of the guest or host saying something shocking. How can anyone even watch this? Money. Where are they getting it from? These are the 3 most common mechanisms that I have noticed podcast operate on (not an exhaustive list): 1) Entirely sponsor funded - Brand growth is the number 1 mission, utilising al sorts of mechanisms to grow the podcast and its viewership 2) Grow the podcast until you can promote your own product - Chris Williamson 3) Only promote entities that the host has a stake in (the host has most control in this mechanism) - Dr K Also consider that all of these creators will have some sort of ad revenue but I predict this a much lower amount compared to any sponsorship money coming in. ## Why are books the better alternative? - First consider what does it take to write a book? I mean a good book, one that stands the test of time and anyone with interest in that field can read now or 100 years from now. Why do people write books? Books can be read in many different ways. You think you know how to read? [Try reading this book](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_to_Read_a_Book). Want to see if it's the right book to read? Skim it. Want to only read the parts you think are helpful for you? Only read those. With podcasts we lack this agency, and listening on 2x speed just exacerbates the mental masturbation produced by listening to hundreds of claims, pieces of informations or just conversation. If your mission is to learn from a podcast, then you must apply the principles of learning to it. Just because it is a conversation or someone talking in a stimulating and provoking way it does not mean the fundamental rules of learning do not apply. Podcasts for the [general population](https://yougov.com/articles/45191-what-situations-do-americans-listen-podcasts) are a tool to stimulate oneself while doing something else and that is definitely not the way to learn and retain anything. When you buy a book, you know what you are reading: you know if it was made to entertain you, to get you imagining, to get you to learn something. You choose how you use it: it's entirely in your agency what chapters you read properly and with full attention and which you skim over. This allows you to wrestle with parts of the text you choose and you aren't forced to sit through 20 minutes of filler conversation or pre planned questions to find the answer to what was revealed at the start. (Good) books tend to be clear in how the writing is structured and for the most part one part makes sense with the next. I have yet to see claims made in non-fiction books that exist to spike an emotion; there is nothing of that fashion that the writer or editor can even optimise for. This now gets me on why people by books (from my experience): 1) An interest in the contents of the book. Anything from the story to experience to latest information in a field. 2) Book recommendations. Unlike algorithmic recommendations that want to get you hooked for as long as possible on a platform, the recommendation made by people show you something. The recommendations could be online reviews or your friend telling you about a book, it doesn't matter. You choose what decision you are going to make as a result of the comments of people that have spent time with this book. ## What I hate about podcasts "People are X" "People don't know Y" "People think Z too much" - I must admit, listening to so many podcasts allowed this type of speech implement itself into the way I talk. I hate it. There is not a single person on the planet that can generalise a characteristic or a state onto the human population, as no one has data to support this claim. This is why I love books. The author provides the context of their claims and what they have found. I loved reading Gabor Mate and his precise way of showing where the information he has comes from. Based on the hundreds of podcasts I have listened to, I have found a select few individuals and pretty much all doctors that do not speak in a fear mongering way. When people are not clear about the source of what they are distributing, I like to take into consideration if it could be [them projecting](https://www.mytherapist.com/advice/psychology/what-is-projection-psychology-and-what-does-it-reveal-about-people/) their own fears and experience they have lived. ## This is just biased - How many podcasts have you listened to in the past 12 months? What actions did you take as a result? What podcasts caused the actions? - How many books have you read in the past 12 months? What actions did you take as a result? My main critique is of podcasts that are created with the wrong intentions in mind. The podcasts and media overall that does not aim to help people but rather use people as a stepping stone to increase their view count, sponsors and status. I think there are some great podcasts and long form content creators, however I see books as a better tool to interact with people that have decided to do something great and share it with the world. You know which books are fiction and which are meant for deepening your understanding in a field. But do you know which podcasts are made as bread and circus and which are produced to be your most concerned mentor? I personally have seen little action taken as a result of listening to podcasts, you might have the opposite experience. ### Notes > Keep in mind when I talk about books, I spoke about non-fiction books unless said otherwise. > For the survey about the way the general population uses podcasts, it should have included an option to see if people listen to podcasts in their free time or time dedicated to learning.