Conflicts of interest aside, it sounds like a poor use of time for most startups, who are presumably building something and would want to be targeted with their marketing; I'd expect only a small number to have a good potential customer base in the podcast set.
There way be like a lifestyle/influencer founder angle for certain people that could get you the attention of similarly minded VCs, personally I think thats a lame strategy.
I'm running a startup. We certainly do NOT need a podcast - we have a physical product, and since we're only 2 people, we don't have the time to produce a podcast, let alone the time to do a podcast well. We have a product to make, and customers to make it for. We're not even in tech - so there's very little content that I can utilize for more than one episode, or more than 20 minutes. I can tell my story, the company's value-prop, where we're at, and where we want to be in about 5 minutes tops. Probably less now that I think about it.
Honestly, I don't get why everyone is hopping on the podcast bandwagon. It makes no sense - just because someone has something interesting to say once doesn't mean they have something interesting to say every week going forward, especially if they aren't someone with a wealth of experience over multiple decades.
One of my neighbors produces a podcast for fun, and it's admittedly low budget and not his primary focus, he just enjoys it. I went on once to talk about my experience in AI, and I realized that I'm incredibly awkward on camera and can't often speak clearly enough to get a point across efficiently, so going on once and seeing myself fumble around spectacularly was definitely a learning experience, and probably good for me.
What freaked me out, though, is how people reacted to it. The episode probably had 20-30 views on YT or whatever platform he posted it on, but some of the responses, (both written and short-form video) were outright disgusting. This got me thinking - why do people care so much about what 2 random people are talking about, especially when those 2 people have no deep expertise on such a subject? Do people have nothing better to do with their time? Do people not have the ability to discern between a low-budget setup with 2 guys just talking about their experience versus someone who has spent decades in a particular industry or sector? And if they do, why react so strongly?
I appreciate this idea. Podcasts have the unique quality of allowing your company culture to subtly permeate the airwaves on which they're consumed. I listen to above/board by Paul Jarvis and Jack Ellis who are building Fathom Analytics. Besides discussing the business behind the product and the technical challenges, I can sense how much it means to them to bootstrap an independent business and to be a real alternative to the Google products we all loathe. This is the kind of information you can't reliably communicate through landing page copy. The human voice has subtlety no marketing text could or should ever want to express.
If this is a window into the soul of a business, then it's a competitive advantage in a world of brands eager to be perceived as authentic. There's still lots of room for manipulation, but it becomes harder to fake when you're recording a show.
Wow. Every comment so far here disagrees with the idea that startups should have podcasts.
I don't think every startup needs a podcast, but my startup has a podcast and actually it's been great for us. Many people in our industry actually recognise us as the people who do The Reinsurance Podcast rather than the people who write the reinsurance software.
Our podcast has definitely helped establish us as an authority in the reinsurance industry. I believe our podcast was actually the #1 podcast in Bermuda at one point.
Absolutely, sir. It's curious how strange the HN community sometimes becomes when we enter the world of actual business -- rather than VC-fuelled entrepreneurship, FAANG employment, or the like. Not everything is engineering or YC type entrepreneurship.
Podcasts are incredibly powerful, when done well. How else can you connect with:
1. Over time, all key industry players in your niche.
2. Their customers.
3. Potential large customers. (You're not pitching them; you're gaining insights for your audience, and giving them a platform. Potential work can come later if it makes sense for them.)
4. Academic thought leaders. (Tons of them. Many of them love the chance to finally talk about the niche.)
5. And yes, investors.
6. Potential high-value employees. You get to learn from them at the very least.
7. You name it.
Try doing this with cold reachouts or networking -- it's doable, but typically takes quite a bit more time, and potentially some assets. And podcasts build trust, and typically take the form of a real human conversation about a niche topic.
Relationships are the lifeblood of any business, and podcasts are a wonderful way to initiate and cultivate real human relationships. They can be a refreshing change from all this automation and technology.
I increasingly use podcasts much as I use any other informational resource: selectively, and with search as a key modality.
Some podcast apps (Podcast Republic, in my experience) feature a comprehensive search over all known podcast episodes, by both title and description (of the channel and individual episodes). Searching for an obscure reference to turn up related episodes is quite useful.
That's not actually my principle app (I prefer the FS/OSS AntennaPod), but it is useful functionality.
Otherwise, there are podcasts I subscribe to and listen to most episodes, others that I'll pick and choose at, some that I just check out a few episodes on. What I typically do is go through and curate a set of episodes that look like they'll be interesting, putting them on my listen queue and/or downloading those to play later.
As with anything, there's much that's low-quality and/or not of interest. That doesn't mean that the good stuff isn't really good, though.
(Listening to David Runciman right now, who's had a numbere of serial podcasts, one of which I'd discovered through a comment here on HN a month or so back. His discussions of political philosophy and its history are excellent. Relevant, without being painfully topical.)
(And I think TFA's premise is ... ridiculous on its face. Podcasts are appropriate in some cases, completely not in others.)
Instead, sometimes you come across short articles or snippets of videos or snippets of audio, where a podcast is mentioned. Or someone might link you to a specific timestamp in an episode.
And that’s how you discover one or two podcasts that you really really like, and you decide to listen to more episodes from those podcasts.
I'm definitely curating as I scan my library. The first thing I look for is the potential for insight due to a host-guest paring that I may not have seen before - or that I have and it was pretty good last time.
If it's a news-driven podcast, I'll look for topical content I've been interested in lately.
After that, it's just what every topic I'm interested in at the moment.
I would also recommend very liberal use of the pause button. If the conversation is bubbling specific thoughts up in your head and those thoughts seem more interesting than the conversation - PAUSE IT. Nothing will be more relevant than your own insight on the topic. Once you've synthesized the thought, unpause and see how your thoughts compare to the podcasters. This is probably my favorite thing about the medium.
Generally I layer podcasts on top of work that doesn't involve auditory processing, such as driving, grocery shopping, working out, laundry, etc. If you target those moments in your life when your hands and 'physical brain' are occupied, but your 'language brain' isn't, even busy folks can find time for this. It also helps to listen at a speed higher than 1.0.
Some people can do this during nearly all of their working time due to the nature of their work - welders, truck drivers, landscapers, etc. IE, not thought laborers. I think it's something of an untapped market for audio content to focus on these folks.
Agreed, I run regularly and it's great thinking time, I find it so much more valuable to just have rote exercise to keep me physically distracted and let my mind wander. I'd consider it counterproductive to listen to anything.
I do understand your point but that rings as sort of a tautological question to me? Either don't claim this time 100% for audio content or just think at some other time. Lately I prefer to intentionally meditate in the early morning, that is where my most productive thoughts come from. That and the shower.
I mean, I freely admit that sometimes when I'm lazy it's like 15%, but that's higher than zero! If I focus on active listening and cognition and try to write down or discuss key points afterwards (driving with a partner is great for this) I can get a lot more information retention.
Back when I was commuting I would start my working day by summarizing the podcast that I had just listened to in a text document - good way to sort of boot up my brain in the morning, without coffee.
I actually find my favourite podcasts are the ones that take the fact I’m not retaining 100% of the content into account!
Adam Regusea’s podcast [0] I think is a great example. He’ll leave pauses in and (because of the listener-questions format) will reiterate context pretty often. (“So, [name], you asked if it’s good to [verb]… while when I [verb]…”)
Agreed, Adam Ragusea's podcast is great. I think it comes from his background in public radio production. To that end I like NPR podcasts a lot. They're good about using music, audio cues, different performers etc to separate information into digestible chunks.
On the other end of that scale are very information-dense podcasts that have transcripts. I like those a lot because I find I can read the transcript after listening (or vice versa) and I get more information retention than either just listening or just reading.
My example for this is Alie Ward's 'Ologies' wherein she interviews doctors and scientists about their work, there are many excellent transcripts available [0], including this one: [1]
I'm skeptical of the audience for such a podcast. Also, seems like it would require a lot of time that could be used to focus on the actual business. Sure, maybe you could assign someone in marketing to run it, but even then I would make sure it didn't take up too much of that person's time. And for startups with low headcounts, I'm not sure there is such a "marketing" person.
we're just two bootstrapped cofounders and my cofounder has been doing a lot of user interviews to understand our potential customers' needs and improve our product [1]
we soon realized these interviews had a lot of gold nuggets which we had to share with the world, so we started publishing these on youtube [2]
since then it's naturally evolved into a podcast series and we think this initiative actually made a big difference for us. ymmv
The major (and only?) claim the author has in favor of starting a podcast is that listeners jump in to share free consultation.
I don't know. It doesn't seem like a good reason to start a podcast. But if you have the time and motivation to do a podcast, and make it a good podcast for your listeners, I guess it could be a nice side effect.
The better way to go at it would be to note down the problems beforehand, find an expert and plan an episode around them.
There way be like a lifestyle/influencer founder angle for certain people that could get you the attention of similarly minded VCs, personally I think thats a lame strategy.