Winning The Battle of Ideas and Losing The War
Mike Williams
July 13, 2010
I've made this point to several people that I know and interact with during these last several days. This point applies to the right and to the left as well. I'm trying to define a problem that both sides of the political isle have to deal with. That problem is known as a collective circle jerk.
What is a circle jerk? I'm using this term as it applies to podcasting, political blogs, and conferences. It means podcasters that have the same "like minded" people on their shows. It refers to the political blogs that constantly reference the same talking heads and have the same guest writers. It's the conferences that they go to full of like minded individuals in which major money is spent but very little ever gets returned.
The truth about podcasts is that like minded people listen to like minded people. They also have like minded people on as guests; regularly I might add. That's all well and fine if you like to listen to podcasts that agree with you. I'll submit that most of us have a hard time listening to the other side of the debate. Whatever side that happens to be. Sometimes, I'll admit, it's downright painful.
As someone who has been involved in podcasting since MP3s were first used in this fashion, I can tell you that I've seen podcasts come and go. The shows that have real staying power and the shows that generate the most revenue are the shows that do not play it safe. I'll give you a great example with The Daily Source Code. Adam Curry (also known as the "pod-father" - the founder of podcasting as we know it) is currently on show #839. Yes, eight hundred and thirty-nine; an incredible number of shows that average over an hour in length. Why does it do so well? Adam takes on topics that aren't safe. He doesn't speak to a particular crowd and personally doesn't really care if you agree with him or not. I'll admit that some of his "conspiracy" style material makes me want to turn the show off. All in all, Adam marches to the beat of his own drum. Politically, Adam attracts conservatives, liberals, and virtually all walks of the political spectrum including the Ron Paul folks. No particular ideology is safe and that is why his show garnishes the downloads it does.
Podcasters that consistently have the same people on or can easily be mistaken for a political sounding board or television station beg the question. Why listen? If you've had John Q. Public on your show 6 times chances are I already know what he's going to say about a particular topic. I'll bet that a bunch of folks see the name and simply don't even tune in. I typically don't. Especially, if I've already heard what he or she has to say.
The real trick to a good political podcast is having those folks on who do not agree with you. Those folks that engage your ideas and force you to defend your logic are the most intriguing shows you can do. The most popular shows that I've ever done include a guest that is diametrically opposed to the views of the host. After all, you really can't convince the people who are already on your side to follow you and your ideas if they're already on your side. You want to grab those people who are not on your side.
While I worked as a customer service rep for a major medical supply company, the measure of a really good call wasn't the call where everything was nice and we all walked away happy. Sure, they were good calls but they weren't the "great" calls. The really "great" calls involved a pissed off customer who was loaded for bear and wanted a piece of somebody to make his life complete. He was pissed off and someone had to pay. I volunteered to take those calls. Why? They were the most challenging. My goal was to have that customer smiling through the telephone by the end of the call. Those were the "great" calls. I believe that I grew as a customer service rep every time I took one of those calls.
Why are Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Mark Levin gaining so many listeners? It's the calls they receive from those folks who do not agree with them. It forces the host to clarify and define his position. It is this interaction that makes a great show and also helps the host grow as well.
Political blogs are a bit more engaging and can have some excellent comments with some great back and forth banter yet can still be involved in the collective circle jerk. I'll bet your daily reading list involves more people that you agree with than those you don't.
I remember when I started papundits.com the arena of political blogs was relatively small. Today, there are so many political blogs out there it boggles the mind. A precious few of them are doing well enough that they actually make money. I remember making money from blogads. I mean really making money. Nowadays, anyone with a touch of internet savvy can create a website and discuss their ideas to a relatively small audience. Just because you are on the world wide web doesn't mean the world is reading your blog. Should you give up? No. I'm not saying that at all. What I am saying is that you shouldn't expect to make a ton of money. With a political blog, you probably won't. You will be involved and engaged in a growing community of those who share your ideas which brings me to the next topic.
Political conferences are a bit of a mystery to me from a business stand point. I have had multiple discussions on this and have never really gotten the common sense answer I was looking for. It always ends up with a comment about what a great way to meet people these things are. That's fine but if I'm spending hundreds of dollars, I want a return on my investment. I spend time and I spend money and I get to meet some people who pretty much do what I do. Ok. Couldn't I have done that from home? The point is lost on me.
Last summer I spent a weekend in New York City with some fellow podcasters. On the dinner alone, I spent $500.00. I spent money on drinks, hotel room, taxi rides, etc. I met a few new people along the way. In no tangible way did I ever get any of that money back. I had a really good time but it was expensive. Networking with new people is always a plus I suppose but does it justify the expense? I would say no.
This collective meeting of ideas on either side of the isle when compared to the grand scheme of things can be summed up using a terrific electricity analogy (I'm an engineer so I'd like to use this crap when I can). When you have two poles that are positive and negative and wish to have a flow of electricity or current you need a difference between the two either lower or greater then either one of them.
Huh?
In other words, they both can't be the same voltage. One can be 12 volts and the other can be 12 volts and nothing happens. When one of those poles changes to say, 20 volts then we get some current; some flow; some movement.
One of those political sides needs to attract folks from the other side of the debate if that side is to grow. Without growth, what is the point? It kind of reminds me of those Comcast ads for well, Comcast that you can see on well, Comcast. How does Comcast think it's going to attract new subscribers? Certainly not through their own network. Those folks are already obviously using Comcast. I don't believe that the political debate is all that much different. If you keep advertising your message to the same side, who do you think you are influencing?
At times, it seems that the people on one side of an argument are arguing with others on the same side. They are doing it wrong. What is more appealing to you, listening to two liberals or conservatives disagree or a liberal and a conservative battling it out? I would suggest they are both entertaining but I'd choose the latter.
To sum all this up, I'll say this. We need to stop preaching to the choir on our podcasts if we have any hope of being successful. Have someone on who doesn't agree with you. If your position is as strong as you think it is, it should make for a great show. If your position is weak, it will come through as well. Perhaps, preaching to the choir and surrounding yourself with people who believe exactly as you do is a type of safety blanket. It is the podcaster who sheds this blanket and joins the front lines of battle who will truly win the day.
And so, this is exactly why I believe that we might be winning the little battles but we are certainly losing the war. We need more soldiers and we are not going to get them without getting out there and influencing those on the other side.
What is a circle jerk? I'm using this term as it applies to podcasting, political blogs, and conferences. It means podcasters that have the same "like minded" people on their shows. It refers to the political blogs that constantly reference the same talking heads and have the same guest writers. It's the conferences that they go to full of like minded individuals in which major money is spent but very little ever gets returned.
The truth about podcasts is that like minded people listen to like minded people. They also have like minded people on as guests; regularly I might add. That's all well and fine if you like to listen to podcasts that agree with you. I'll submit that most of us have a hard time listening to the other side of the debate. Whatever side that happens to be. Sometimes, I'll admit, it's downright painful.
As someone who has been involved in podcasting since MP3s were first used in this fashion, I can tell you that I've seen podcasts come and go. The shows that have real staying power and the shows that generate the most revenue are the shows that do not play it safe. I'll give you a great example with The Daily Source Code. Adam Curry (also known as the "pod-father" - the founder of podcasting as we know it) is currently on show #839. Yes, eight hundred and thirty-nine; an incredible number of shows that average over an hour in length. Why does it do so well? Adam takes on topics that aren't safe. He doesn't speak to a particular crowd and personally doesn't really care if you agree with him or not. I'll admit that some of his "conspiracy" style material makes me want to turn the show off. All in all, Adam marches to the beat of his own drum. Politically, Adam attracts conservatives, liberals, and virtually all walks of the political spectrum including the Ron Paul folks. No particular ideology is safe and that is why his show garnishes the downloads it does.
Podcasters that consistently have the same people on or can easily be mistaken for a political sounding board or television station beg the question. Why listen? If you've had John Q. Public on your show 6 times chances are I already know what he's going to say about a particular topic. I'll bet that a bunch of folks see the name and simply don't even tune in. I typically don't. Especially, if I've already heard what he or she has to say.
The real trick to a good political podcast is having those folks on who do not agree with you. Those folks that engage your ideas and force you to defend your logic are the most intriguing shows you can do. The most popular shows that I've ever done include a guest that is diametrically opposed to the views of the host. After all, you really can't convince the people who are already on your side to follow you and your ideas if they're already on your side. You want to grab those people who are not on your side.
While I worked as a customer service rep for a major medical supply company, the measure of a really good call wasn't the call where everything was nice and we all walked away happy. Sure, they were good calls but they weren't the "great" calls. The really "great" calls involved a pissed off customer who was loaded for bear and wanted a piece of somebody to make his life complete. He was pissed off and someone had to pay. I volunteered to take those calls. Why? They were the most challenging. My goal was to have that customer smiling through the telephone by the end of the call. Those were the "great" calls. I believe that I grew as a customer service rep every time I took one of those calls.
Why are Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Mark Levin gaining so many listeners? It's the calls they receive from those folks who do not agree with them. It forces the host to clarify and define his position. It is this interaction that makes a great show and also helps the host grow as well.
Political blogs are a bit more engaging and can have some excellent comments with some great back and forth banter yet can still be involved in the collective circle jerk. I'll bet your daily reading list involves more people that you agree with than those you don't.
I remember when I started papundits.com the arena of political blogs was relatively small. Today, there are so many political blogs out there it boggles the mind. A precious few of them are doing well enough that they actually make money. I remember making money from blogads. I mean really making money. Nowadays, anyone with a touch of internet savvy can create a website and discuss their ideas to a relatively small audience. Just because you are on the world wide web doesn't mean the world is reading your blog. Should you give up? No. I'm not saying that at all. What I am saying is that you shouldn't expect to make a ton of money. With a political blog, you probably won't. You will be involved and engaged in a growing community of those who share your ideas which brings me to the next topic.
Political conferences are a bit of a mystery to me from a business stand point. I have had multiple discussions on this and have never really gotten the common sense answer I was looking for. It always ends up with a comment about what a great way to meet people these things are. That's fine but if I'm spending hundreds of dollars, I want a return on my investment. I spend time and I spend money and I get to meet some people who pretty much do what I do. Ok. Couldn't I have done that from home? The point is lost on me.
Last summer I spent a weekend in New York City with some fellow podcasters. On the dinner alone, I spent $500.00. I spent money on drinks, hotel room, taxi rides, etc. I met a few new people along the way. In no tangible way did I ever get any of that money back. I had a really good time but it was expensive. Networking with new people is always a plus I suppose but does it justify the expense? I would say no.
This collective meeting of ideas on either side of the isle when compared to the grand scheme of things can be summed up using a terrific electricity analogy (I'm an engineer so I'd like to use this crap when I can). When you have two poles that are positive and negative and wish to have a flow of electricity or current you need a difference between the two either lower or greater then either one of them.
Huh?
In other words, they both can't be the same voltage. One can be 12 volts and the other can be 12 volts and nothing happens. When one of those poles changes to say, 20 volts then we get some current; some flow; some movement.
One of those political sides needs to attract folks from the other side of the debate if that side is to grow. Without growth, what is the point? It kind of reminds me of those Comcast ads for well, Comcast that you can see on well, Comcast. How does Comcast think it's going to attract new subscribers? Certainly not through their own network. Those folks are already obviously using Comcast. I don't believe that the political debate is all that much different. If you keep advertising your message to the same side, who do you think you are influencing?
At times, it seems that the people on one side of an argument are arguing with others on the same side. They are doing it wrong. What is more appealing to you, listening to two liberals or conservatives disagree or a liberal and a conservative battling it out? I would suggest they are both entertaining but I'd choose the latter.
To sum all this up, I'll say this. We need to stop preaching to the choir on our podcasts if we have any hope of being successful. Have someone on who doesn't agree with you. If your position is as strong as you think it is, it should make for a great show. If your position is weak, it will come through as well. Perhaps, preaching to the choir and surrounding yourself with people who believe exactly as you do is a type of safety blanket. It is the podcaster who sheds this blanket and joins the front lines of battle who will truly win the day.
And so, this is exactly why I believe that we might be winning the little battles but we are certainly losing the war. We need more soldiers and we are not going to get them without getting out there and influencing those on the other side.
Print
Email
