Podcasters look for their own awards
A new medium deserves its own award show: That's the kind of thinking which led to the reeking atrocity of the Webby Awards. Now podcasters apparently feel that even the Webbys aren't good enough for them, and they're looking to start their own awards show. The Podcast Peer Awards dismisses other websites' top-10 lists of the most-downloaded podcasts, noting that "there are over 50,000 audio and video podcasts available. Most of them are lousy." True enough. But the backers of the Awards are proposing to have the producers of those same lousy podcasts vote on which ones are the best.

Our advice? If you believe in the wisdom of the crowds, stick to the top-10 lists to see which podcasts are the best. Podcast listeners, not creators, are the best judges of a podcast's worth -- and they're voting every day with their headphones.
Posted by Owen Thomas 10:44 AM 8 Comments comment | Add a Comment

Oh yea it worked for the oscars. NOPE
Posted By chuckster Eagle,ID : 12:06 PM  

It's the only podcast awards that can't be gamed (since it requires authentication that you are a real, live person, and an experienced podcaster). Every other podcast top 10 list CAN be gamed, either through multiple email addresses or multiple accounts. That, in and of itself, gives the awards a niche, and a bit of credibility.

Plus, most of the podcasts that are lousy are by people who decide they're a podcaster, put out 2 or 3 shows, and then disappear. As for podcasters who have been doing it for months, with regularity and consistency, there aren't near as many, and their shows are a good bit better.
Posted By Christy, Greenwood, SC : 8:31 AM  

"Starting their own awards show?" The second annual Podcast Awards (http://podcastawards.com/) is already in the voting process.

Top 10 lists are fine for the lemmings, but awards of this type are just another way to open things up to those who are dissatisfied with nearly all radio stations being under the thumb of a small group of owners.

Unlike radio, where your choices are confined to the reception available, podcasts are available literally from all over the world, so if you don't like one, you have the freedom to move on to the next one.
Posted By George L Smyth, Columbia, MD : 8:34 AM  

The writer obviously doesn't even know what a podcast is, or he wouldn't suggest that they could be eligible for a Webby.

Next thing you know they'll be telling people that you need an iPod to listen to podcasts....NOT TRUE (and frequenty misreported).
Posted By Sara B., Oakland, CA : 1:35 PM  

This article is not only biased, but ignorant and I am surprised that CNN would produce such low quality opinion material.

The reasons for my assertion are independent of the merit of the podcastpeer awards themselves.

Every top ten list is biased and does not reflect the 10 best podcasts. Popularity as a metric fails because many podcasts are TV,radio, and political speech rebroadcasts, turning podcasting into another "Tivo-like" device. So, on this metric, the audience would never explore novel podcasts.

Furthermore, to "stick with the top-10 lists" essentially cuts out 49,990 podcasts. Even if 80% of these are bad, that means this author in essence is suggesting that people should focus on 10 (that may be good based on their ranking on a list) and ignore almost 10,000 other good podcasts!

The award system and condemning it based on the premise that only the most popular podcasts, that are ranked through some arbitrary manner, right now, are the only valid podcasts.

Preposterus. Just like movie critics, individuals will gravitate toward awards and reviews that they agree with. I, personally have found enjoyable podcasts with the same frequency of listening to those that are in the top 10 lists at itunes compared to those that are not even in the top 100.

So, by your reasoning, I should promote the shutting down of iTunes because it's ranking system obviously fails to identify quality podcasts. Nonsense!

More, quality award systems and especially review websites are needed to give listeners different grounds to compare with their own taste. All that is needed is to give the listener the metric with which the award or list was measured and all bias and potential conflicts regarding said system (e.g., a reviewer also produces their own podcast and is friendly with the producer of the podcast under review).

For full disclosure, I produce a podcast (Armchair President) and it has never been, to my knowledge in the top 100 at iTunes or podcastpickle, but has been as high as 8 at Yahoo and 1 at podcastalley.
Posted By Patrick Fogarty, Gilbert, AZ : 7:44 PM  

Aren't the "experts", the one's who create the media, in this case podcasters be the best to judge which podcast is truely the best. Instead of some Top 10 popularity contest that can be easily rigged.
Posted By Charles DFW, TX : 9:49 PM  

Their are many independant podcasters who want to help promote podcasting. They love podcasting, and want to spread the word to others. This is a great way to spread the word and share their favorite podcasts with others. This article shows that their plan is working. The lid is off the podcast pickle jar, and the word is getting out. Podcasts are a blast.
Posted By Gary Leland, Arlington, texas : 8:40 AM  

I agree: "Podcast listeners, not creators, are the best judges of a podcast's worth".

As a podcaster, I feel biased in judging. Before I began podcasting I was an avid listener, could listen without bias, much more objectively, unafraid to hurt someone's feelings who is one of my "peers". By voting for my peers I would logically vote strategically for those who would vote for me. Is that true, unbiased, objective, and free of self-interest? You may say I'm in the minority but that is typical of so many things in life: you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours.

I trust the listener, they don't have a vested interest.
Posted By Jeff, Dallas, TX : 12:35 AM  

To send a letter to the editor about The Browser, click hereTop of page

Got a news tip? Send it to The Browser


Most stock quote data provided by BATS. Market indices are shown in real time, except for the DJIA, which is delayed by two minutes. All times are ET. Disclaimer.

Morningstar: © 2014 Morningstar, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Factset: FactSet Research Systems Inc. 2014. All rights reserved.

Chicago Mercantile Association: Certain market data is the property of Chicago Mercantile Exchange Inc. and its licensors. All rights reserved.

Dow Jones: The Dow Jones branded indices are proprietary to and are calculated, distributed and marketed by DJI Opco, a subsidiary of S&P Dow Jones Indices LLC and have been licensed for use to S&P Opco, LLC and CNN. Standard & Poor's and S&P are registered trademarks of Standard & Poor’s Financial Services LLC and Dow Jones is a registered trademark of Dow Jones Trademark Holdings LLC. All content of the Dow Jones branded indices © S&P Dow Jones Indices LLC 2014 and/or its affiliates.

Most stock quote data provided by BATS. Market indices are shown in real time, except for the DJIA, which is delayed by two minutes. All times are ET. Disclaimer.

Morningstar: © 2014 Morningstar, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Factset: FactSet Research Systems Inc. 2014. All rights reserved.

Chicago Mercantile Association: Certain market data is the property of Chicago Mercantile Exchange Inc. and its licensors. All rights reserved.

Dow Jones: The Dow Jones branded indices are proprietary to and are calculated, distributed and marketed by DJI Opco, a subsidiary of S&P Dow Jones Indices LLC and have been licensed for use to S&P Opco, LLC and CNN. Standard & Poor's and S&P are registered trademarks of Standard & Poor’s Financial Services LLC and Dow Jones is a registered trademark of Dow Jones Trademark Holdings LLC. All content of the Dow Jones branded indices © S&P Dow Jones Indices LLC 2014 and/or its affiliates.