In my opinion, Social Media is more of description in order to frame media in a socialized context. Chances are, that the people lambasting it are not the ones defining or creating it….

In the interest of full disclosure, I am a part of a company very involved and interested in bringing interactive/conversational podcasting technologies to market, so my earlier question is framed by that side of my experience (in addition to my disillusionment as a blogger-turned-podcaster, who had hoped for a multimedia extension of my blog conversations, but instead found precious few relational transactions occurring, and virtually no way to get to know my audience outside of the blog I used to publish the podcast). I’m not self-promoting here; I’m interested in the conversation, so I’ll leave my company out of the discussion.

Perhaps this is all semantic gene-splitting, but the post had as its goal a clarification of the term social media.

My primary argument for the exclusion of the current podcasting model from the umbrella of social media really does boil down to the fact that within the current technology and practice, there is just not a way of interacting in-kind. Podcasters, or some of them, DO want to know who is represented in their download statistics, but they have to rely on the blog’s mechanisms to do that. Blog comments are really what make a blog part of the social media; without that, it’s just another website (albeit much easier for broadcasting thoughts and publishing ideas).

But podcasting itself (the form and mechanics) lacks this social component, and as a podcaster, I’m sure you’ve thought about how someone listening to your podcast must behave in order to interact with you.

1. discover podcast on iTunes or podcast directory.
2. Download to computer or portable player.
3. Listen.
4. At some point during listening, the podcast sparks the desire to respond to an idea, concept or discussion.
5. If the listener is listening on a portable device, then he must make a note of where within the podcast the comment-worthy material occurs.
6. Listener must sustain his interest long enough to get to a computer, and find the blog and then the post associated with the podcast.
7,8,9,10,11,12,etc… What follows is usually something like cueing the podcast to the relevant point, transcribing/paraphrasing what was said so that the listener (now a blog commenter) can respond in context for the benefit of the host and others that might read the comment, and finally - with no small effort in the cause - leaving the comment.

From there, the podcaster might pick up the comment and read it on the next podcast episode (and well he should, after all the work the blessed listener endured just to interact!)

Notice that at no time was podcasting used to reciprocate during this transaction. Interaction took place using blogging technology. In the same way, any number of radio and television networks are distributing via mass media and communicating with viewers and listeners via podcast feeds, blogs and websites. Does this mean radio and TV content (the actual content itself) has joined the ranks of social media? And what about these networks that take last week’s show and redistribute it via itunes - it’s the same content, but is it now social, simply because it arrived via RSS? A lot of us yelled back at our TV screens during the State of the Union speech last night, does that count TV as a many-to-many social technology?

I was amazed to discover that a major podcast network launched their new brand recently, and there was not a single mechanism on the site for capturing user feedback or comments about the episodes they distributed. Still isn’t, I just checked. And they claim to be all about “conversations”! Smells like Mass Media, if you ask me.

You might have inadvertently quoted me as saying that I thought podcasting was 1:1, but I’d like to correct that here, if I may. Podcasting is inherently one-to-many, which is another way of saying mass, because there is no way for the many to communicate in-kind with the one. One-to-one would be interpersonal, where two people engage in a dialog only meant for the two of them. Many-to-many, which is often used to describe the nature of social media, is capable of including as many participants as would care to join in, all talking in turns with the other individuals. Some participate, some merely audit, but the form and mechanics of it allow for this interplay to occur.
I agree that the latent potential of podcasting would eventually place it squarely in the camp of social media. But potential is much different than practice.

I hope this is the place to discuss this, but I am thoroughly enjoying the discussion, and would be happy to continue it via another means, if you feel it is not in the spirit of the blog or the post. You can reach me via email (carter at innertoob dot com).

I think you raise an intersting question, but it seems to make an assumption. I don’t think that podcasting is trying to be a Mass Media Vehicle any more than say blogging is (or has become).

The distinction of social media is applied not so much to the aspirations of the media so much as the form and mechanics of its creation. In today’s world, even the most accidental of things can be spread to the world at large.

I happen to know a lot of podcasters - I was one very early on in the podcasting movement. Most podcasters I know definitely see the potential for revenue in their efforts - moreso than bloggers? Possibly. It doesn’t change the nature of their relationship with their listeners, viewers, what have you. It’s the dynamic, highly interactive and influential nature of that relationship - the potential and often, desire, for a two-way dialogue that makes it quite social.

The lack of established, formalized controls and the ever-decreasing costs of production also contribute to the inclusion of podcasting as a social media. The enablement of millions of individuals formerly unable to license the airwaves is truly a phenomenal sea change in the endless ocean of media.

One other comment you made is that podcasts are mostly 1:1. I might argue that this is the case with most blogs - if not entirely true for all except group blogs. The general pattern is 1) initiate (a thought) 2) receive (commentary) 3) react (to comments). I think that the lack of these more formal responses in podcasts seems like a key difference - I simply see it as a lack of technology. There are a number of companies attacking this problem from all angles. Soon enough, we’ll see those pieces of the puzzle brought to market and the nature of the dialogue will change once again.

I hope this provides some insight into why we might consider podcasting a part of the social media landscape.

As a podcaster, I have to say that most podcasts are just looking to be another MASS media vehicle. Nothing about the technology of podcasting is particularly social, if you are serious about defining social media as a many-to-many paradigm. Blogs, forums, other social applications, these allow for interaction and a way of fostering conversation and connection, but podcasts (defined as audio/video distributed via an RSS feed) are inherently one-to-many pulpits, and without a blog to capture comments about a podcast (a hopelessly decontextualized experience, and quite messy in terms of true podcast integration) it is just another distribution mechanism for getting content to the nameless, faceless great unwashed. Besides, a blog does not a podcast make.

Perhaps I’m ill-advised, and I’ll raise the ire of a good many folks by asking this, but what exactly qualifies podcasting, at least the way it is practiced by virtually every podcaster, as “social media”?