3 ms·

A lot of it has to do with the discovery mechanism. Compare it with Youtube: the content which does well there is inflammatory by nature, because the discovery

by skohan 6y ago

A lot of it has to do with the discovery mechanism. Compare it with Youtube: the content which does well there is inflammatory by nature, because the discovery mechanism is that the thumbnail and title has to grab the user's attention from a grid of similar content. Podcasts AFAIK (or as far as I experience) are largely discovered by word-of-mouth. If I discover a podcast, it is probably because one particular episode was interesting enough that someone brought it up in a conversation. Relevant, thought-provoking conversations lend themselves much better to that form of discovery than cheap emotional appeals. Podcasts are a lot like books in that way.

frank2 6y ago
>Compare it with Youtube: the content which does well there is inflammatory by nature Except that Rogan's 3-hour-long interviews are massively popular on Youtube, which undermines your point. (The interviews include video.)
- skohan 6y ago
  But Rogan's discovery mechanism on youtube is largely short clips of the most controversial or attention-grabbing moments from his long-form content. I would wager to guess that many of his youtube-only viewers probably learned about him from a short clip and went on to watch the full interview out of curiosity.
pharke 6y ago
I think there are a few strata of types of content that make up YouTubes base. The most viewed layer which seems to be what you're talking about seems to consist of short, outrageous or viral clips that people share all over social media. Then there is a layer of more organic content that makes up the other big chunk of time people spend on the platform. The channels are smaller but the engagement is orders of magnitude higher. It's similar to reddit and a lot of other platforms that have a clickbait viral layer that they're monetizing through ads and placement and then the actually valuable content that is hard to monetize but makes up the core engagement of the site. It's a good example of how monetization is deeply broken since it prioritizes the garbage over the quality material.

by skohan 6y ago

frank2 6y ago

>Compare it with Youtube: the content which does well there is inflammatory by nature Except that Rogan's 3-hour-long interviews are massively popular on Youtube, which undermines your point. (The interviews include video.)

skohan 6y ago
But Rogan's discovery mechanism on youtube is largely short clips of the most controversial or attention-grabbing moments from his long-form content. I would wager to guess that many of his youtube-only viewers probably learned about him from a short clip and went on to watch the full interview out of curiosity.

pharke 6y ago

I think there are a few strata of types of content that make up YouTubes base. The most viewed layer which seems to be what you're talking about seems to consist of short, outrageous or viral clips that people share all over social media. Then there is a layer of more organic content that makes up the other big chunk of time people spend on the platform. The channels are smaller but the engagement is orders of magnitude higher. It's similar to reddit and a lot of other platforms that have a clickbait viral layer that they're monetizing through ads and placement and then the actually valuable content that is hard to monetize but makes up the core engagement of the site. It's a good example of how monetization is deeply broken since it prioritizes the garbage over the quality material.