YouTube had a meeting explaining how this whole “RSS Ingestion” (think Pacman eating dots) is going to work. What (for me) was depressing is they are making the same mistakes Spotify and Sticher (RIP) did when they decided to jump into podcasting (and YouTube, if you want to pay someone $200 million, I can be your Joe Rogan).
I Sure Wish They Wouldn't Do This
Rehosting The Podcast
Quote 1: ” We're rehosting the content. We're going to be syncing changes made to episode metadata to YouTube. But because we're rehosting all of the mp3 three files, changes made to the audio file on the hosting platform will not automatically propagate to YouTube. This is super intentional. Right? (Wrong) So you can imagine that if you're dynamically changing content on the RSS feed, we don't… YouTube doesn't wanna pick up every single one of those changes.”
So before uploading your file to your podcast host, you better ensure it's 100% correct. YouTube doesn't want to have to pick up every single one of those changes. You get one shot.
I work in support at a podcast hosting company. BELIEVE ME when I say people replace audio ALL THE TIME.
Stitcher started this way and then changed to pass-through (using the file on your media host) and then Spotify started this way and changed to pass-through.
You can learn things from your own mistakes. True wisdom comes from learning from someone else's mistakes. Apparently YouTube music, um, well. Moving on…
What Happens If You Update Your Audio Via YouTube?
“Whenever we pull a new copy of the media file, we create a new video, which is a very consequential action on YouTube because we reset the view count, we reset all the comments, and you lose all the, s and d benefits (whatever those are), that had accrued to that video before. ”
So when you fix the file, you will create a new “video.” Their solution sounded like this,
“If you're a news organization and you say something that's actually inaccurate or you make a mistake, and you need to issue a retraction, it's really in your best interest to remove the old video and get a fresh copy of of the audio content onto YouTube.”
So you know how YouTube works? We aren't changing a thing. They repeatedly said, “We know the two platforms (YouTube and Podcasting) are different.” It is obvious they are not taking any steps to embrace an open platform like Podcasting with RSS. You either play their way, or you don't play.
Speaking of Updates
If you change the name or description of your podcast, that won't update either. Cause who does that, right? (WRONG! Everybody).
Why Don't They Just Pass Through Like Everyone Else?
In their meeting, they said they had great reasons, including:
- Rehosting podcast content enables us to do a better job with search and discovery. “Our ability to understand the content that's being uploaded to the platform and make high-quality recommendations is contingent upon us rehosting. And so that's a major benefit. (so don't question our almighty algorithm).
- “We can also build awesome experiences for viewers that aren't possible with pass-through. So, one example is being able to have chapter markers in the product on YouTube to be able to go to a specific time stamp. And it's not possible with pass-through.
YOU MEAN LIKE THIS?
This wreaks of someone who doesn't understand podcasting. There is a spec in RSS, oh wait, Google does not seem to be particularly fond of RSS because it enables the listener to be in control of where and how they listen. So KEEPING the chapters in the audio that's already there (see Hindenburg, or Forecast Chapter making Software, or the new Podcasting 2.0 spec) is not something they are interested in doing. That would take work and effort.
But then the real reason came out
3. “In order for us to per you know, protect our platform, our viewers, and create a good experience. We need to be able to understand the content, flag stuff that violates our policies, and, you know, keep our platform safe.”
Podcast Stalker Companies Keeping Us “Safe”
So, instead of hiring one of those companies to stalk podcasters and flag their content, they are combing through the content before it hits. So far, that is working, just SWELL. Here are some examples:
Todd Cochran reported that his TECH Show Geek New Central had been flagged for (wait for it) mentioning the name Elon Musk on a TECH show.
People of color had been put on lists because of slang words like “the bomb.”
One podcaster was fine until he wanted to have a dialogue with Kanye West. That earned him a flag. No dialogues aloud.
Another podcaster had been flagged for the t-shirt he was wearing (so, again, nothing he SAID got him flagged…stalker anyone?).
So, hopefully, YouTube will do a better job, and I'm sure it will… (just like they did with Google Reader, Google Listener, Google Play Music, and Google Podcasts).
I mean, EVERYONE is embracing diverse messages and insights (well, as long as the message is the same as mine). I mean, we have to embrace those who suffer from time blindness.
When did we all become such pansies? Are we not teaching “Sticks and stones can break my bones anymore?”
4. He continued, “There was a lot of issues or in the early days of YouTube and the music industry, and we've invested a lot to be able to protect rights holders, and those protections are contingent upon us rehosting the content.”
Which is true. People post copywritten stuff all the time on their HUGE platform. However, couldn't the same technology you use to scan for copywriter violations be used on an mp3 file hosted someplace else? You are checking the RSS feed on a regular basis; couldn't you scan it, if there is an issue, don't put it on your platform and put in place a warning?
He concluded this section, “It's a better experience for podcasters and viewers alike.” The interesting part was he was about 10 feet from the camera, talking over a laptop, so I couldn't see if he was saying that with a straight face.
The Weirdest Thing
They will NOT be ingesting video. So, if you have a video podcast (the OG one with an RSS feed), they won't take it.
I also loved one slide that had a title of “How RSS is Different on YouTube Than Other Platforms.” I expected bullet point one to be,
“WE DON'T USE IT.”
But instead, they showed the points I just spoke about.
The 10% of Podcasters That Have Dynamic Ads Are Not Welcome
Less than 10% of podcasters get enough downloads to sell mattresses and therapy, but if you are one of those, they don't want ads in your show.
The confusing part is you can do a host read “promotion,” but if you try to insert a prerecorded geico ad, that is not acceptable. An ad is created by an advertiser. A promotion is created by a podcaster.
How I Plan On Using YouTube for My Podcast
There is one way I've seen YouTube help bring me exposure. It is an insane approach.
Create videos. I know. Crazy right? People go to YouTube to WATCH, and they go to Pandora and Spotify to LISTEN. This whole thing seems as smart as McDonald's pizza.
In fact, instead of putting on makeup, showing, shaving, turning on the lights, and making sure the SD card has enough space, you could press record on your phone and say, “On the latest episode of (your podcast) we (tease the topic) check it out at (your website with follow/subscribe buttons). It takes all of 5 minutes, and it's FREE.
YES, embrace the discovery. YES, get in there and mix it up with the Algorithm.
I don't have dynamic ads, but I don't think I'll be moving my show to YouTube music. This way I can say whatever I want and not have to let them know (again) that I paid for my intro music and I have the rights to use it.
What Could've Been
Google Podcasts was on every Android phone. Google just had to make it VISIBLE, and it would've had an honest chance at growing. Instead, they made a big splash and achieved 3% (which is great) and then slowly did nothing. If this was a movie, we'd all run to the street with pitchforks and torches and demand they not delete Google Podcasts. This isn't a movie. Its real life. Sometimes real life sucks (and this is one of those times).
