In 2005, the possibility for anyone with their smartphone and wireless headphones to go out for a run while the latest podcast episode played on Spotify was nothing short of a pipe dream. Just like someone giving up traditional radio, which had about 230 million listeners in the United States, for a format that only 10% of the population had barely heard of and that Apple had just added to the iTunes subscription so their customers could listen on their iPods. Yes, you read that right, iPods.
Eric Nuzum (Canton, Ohio, 1965) was the one who decided, in that year, to introduce the podcast into NPR's lineup. In three months, he developed the content strategy and since then, American public radio has been one of the largest and most reputable distributors with formats like the popular TED Radio Hour. The same happened when he joined Audible in 2015, where he developed successful projects like The Butterfly Effect with Jon Ronson, or Where Should We Begin? with Esther Perel. Now, as one of the leading gurus of the format, he heads his own consultancy, Magnificent Noise.
For once, let's start with the future: where is the podcast format heading?
I find it interesting to talk about the future because often the things that change the most are the ones that no one sees coming. It struck me a lot to read a book that contained the transcripts of all the TV broadcasts on the morning of 9/11. Minutes before the planes crashed into the World Trade Center, they were saying it was a beautiful day. Minutes later, everything changed. And I believe that when looking at podcasting, the easiest things to predict are those that are a continuation of what is happening today and that don't attract attention. Listeners and viewers are important as a form of financial support to keep revenues increasing. We will also see new storytelling models emerging in podcasts with that support, and the topics they will address will increasingly align with the interests of the population.
You are considered one of the great pioneers of the format. How would you define this evolution?
When podcasts started, it was very difficult to explain to people, it seemed very technical, but there I was telling my friends how great it was. I would tell my family, "It's fantastic, and you don't even know that you have something so great at your fingertips." I literally went with my parents to find podcasts that they might enjoy. My father likes woodworking and my mother enjoys quilting, so I found podcasts that they could enjoy.
We have seen over the years how listeners have been growing, and the trend shows that it continues. Has the myth that this was a bubble been debunked? Or was it indeed a bubble? There are still a couple of bubbles in this world, but many are not real. There was a bubble for investing in podcasting companies, companies that were receiving millions of dollars, but it doesn't happen as much anymore. It was definitely a bubble because people were investing in companies that had very few chances of success. But the proposition for the audience was not a bubble; it was real from the beginning. And the best proof is that there has never been a bad year or a flat year. It has always grown and continues to do so. Many traditional media outlets looked down on podcasting because it was small, and here they are now. We were right when we told them that this was going to keep growing.
Have the entry of those companies you mentioned distorted the essence with which the podcast was born? I am very happy that those bubbles burst, but both companies and media outlets continue to invest. There are still some venture capital investors, but I am glad their bubble burst because they only caused harm to the podcast. The downside of that investment cycle was that it created expectations for creators and companies that it was easy to find work and money.
That thinking still persists with 'influencers' who have entered the podcast sector or with a good part of those who talk about investment.
There are very few people who have become rich from podcasts. Very, very few. There are about four million podcasts in the world, how many of them have been financially successful? Perhaps a few hundred, not even 1%. The problem is that some people look at the one who was in the right place at the right time, became very rich, and they think that is the norm.
Let's not just talk about getting rich from a podcast, let's talk about monetizing ideas. Is it still one of the problems the format faces?
It is difficult for creators to make money from their podcasts, just as it is for filmmakers with their movies and writers with their books. It is inherent to culture and media. There are more creators than the market can professionally support, and for me, writing podcasts should be like playing sports. You can enjoy and benefit greatly without being a professional athlete because only a small number are. Podcasting should be a passionate endeavor, something you enjoy. And if you are lucky enough to overcome the adversities and make a living from it, then I will be happy for you.
Is it still a challenge to make a living for podcast creators?
We have a problem with that because revenues have not kept pace with the expansion and growth of the audience. We are becoming less effective at making money with podcasts. This also leads to running out of ideas because we have a much larger audience, and it is harder to obtain funding.
What solution can be adopted?
I think a couple of things will happen. We have a much more refined and quantifiable audience. Revenues have decreased because the number of downloads has dropped, but the size of the audience has not changed. I believe that the way advertising is sold in podcasts is a bit broken, and those who take it seriously have sought direct support from their audience, making them pay and contribute. That is a stable way to generate income; it has to be like that.
As a consultant now, should that be the future?
Asking for more and more of that support, yes. They are economic cycles, and it is healthy to have a podcast that responds to the audience. Because when that happens, you tend to strive to serve the person who pays for something. It is not always a healthy recipe for success to provide your service to advertisers.
There is also the issue of algorithms and how large platforms often guide towards certain trends. How do you assess that?
Spotify focuses too much on algorithms, Apple does it a bit differently. The brightest in recommendation algorithms are YouTube and TikTok. Surely on YouTube, you have experienced watching a video to change a doorknob, and suddenly, all your videos are about doors. This is also an opportunity for podcasting at this stage; we should consider those algorithms a tool to help you connect with new people and not so much a threat. They all respond to what they consider indicators of what people love and get them accustomed to your content. If you manage to gather a group of about two hundred people who really love your podcast, it will recommend you to other similar people, and there is a path there.
You worked for a decade at NPR, which has been one of the driving forces of this sector. A few months ago, President Trump announced that he would cut White House funding to public radio. What could that mean for its structure?
That has been the desire of conservatives for many years because they consider NPR to have a liberal bias. The measure to withdraw its funding aims to weaken or paralyze it. There is a good recent example when the president was answering questions from the press on his plane, Air Force One. Trump asked a journalist where he was from, and he said NPR. Trump replied, "Haven't we cut your funding?" And yes, they had cut their federal funding, but there are other sources of funding. But there I clearly saw that, in Trump's mind, the funding was cut to ensure that that journalist was not on the plane.
Is that a form of censorship?
Yes, because losing 10% of your funding is a lot. If someone told me that I had to find 30 million new dollars by tomorrow, it would be very disturbing. And it is disturbing on purpose, that is Trump's intention, to ensure that there are no journalists asking uncomfortable questions. The public radio system in the United States is a bit different because each station is independent, and many of them have already said they are working to replace that money. But it is a lot of money; we are talking about 450 million dollars a year, and I fear that several of the smaller markets will stop broadcasting. The same thing that can happen here in Spain with symphony orchestras. Some cities have them, and others cannot afford them; it is one of the issues that separate large cities from smaller ones. In the United States, the same will happen with public radio, with large communities supporting it and smaller ones unable to.
Now that we have entered the issue of President Trump, his environment, the so-called MAGA movement, has found in the podcast a place to convey their political messages among young people. 'The Joe Rogan Experience' is one of the most listened-to podcasts globally, and 'The Benny Show' also has that inclination.
Everyone has the right to express political opinions, and it is good that my neighbors think politically differently from me. One of the most serious problems the United States has now is the lack of tolerance for those who think differently. In my circle, there are people who no longer go to a restaurant because the owner has certain political beliefs they do not like.
The point I wanted to make is that many of these formats are riddled with 'fake news'.
I don't know if it's a big problem that people don't know what reality is because it's very clear that they ignore facts or information to cling to certainty. Certainty is stability, and that's what they value even if it's false. For example, it may not be true that immigrants are committing crimes, but it reinforces many of their fears. I believe the only way to combat this is not with more information because it hasn't worked, but by appealing to the certainties they try to believe. Telling them that their family will be fine, that their job and streets are safe... If they choose to believe the person who lies to them, it's because it makes them feel safer, and they will ignore uncomfortable facts.
Is it possible to reach those people? And how can it be done?
Directly, no, but there are other ways. When I go to a dinner and someone has very different political opinions than mine, I try to find common ground. I have a good example from when I was younger with the Ducks Unlimited group, which you probably have never heard of, but they are dedicated to preserving wetlands. There are those who defend them to be able to hunt ducks and others who are absolute environmentalists, wanting to preserve nature and disliking hunting. Two very different opinions, but they had in common the protection of wetlands and focused on that, setting aside other political issues. The way to get out of this political moment is by focusing on those common things.
Is that a realistic scenario right now?
There is only one way out that doesn't involve violence or changing the basic structure of American life, and that way is to focus on what is common. Everything else involves compromising the soul of the country, our representative democracy. But I am much more optimistic. I believe that the more things are tried to be changed, the more they remain the same. And I believe that in my country, there has been a flirtation with totalitarianism that will not last.
You mentioned earlier that there are four million podcasts, which is a very high number. Is there saturation in the market?
The problem is that many people start podcasting to become famous. The fact that there are many podcasts is not inherently bad. How many books are published each year? The problem again lies in expectations and how it has become a business. I have seen several companies trying to use artificial intelligence to create podcasts, and they are all garbage, really bad. This obstructs the path for other podcasts because it is increasingly difficult to attract attention, and when thousands of fake podcasts are published, it becomes even harder.
The future seems to be focused in many cases on the use of AI, especially in technical matters.
To be successful in podcasting, curiosity and passion are needed. AI can mimic those characteristics, but it cannot possess them. Because it is neither curious nor passionate. Therefore, there will never be a moment when technologies can replace human interaction. It may mimic it, but it will never be authentic. And, as many people tell me, technology will continue to improve. Yes, maybe someday, but I don't think it will happen so soon.
Has the podcast sacrificed innovation to delve into projects that are already successful? For example, the conversational ones that have been proliferating almost identically.
Many things remain unchanged, but there are still many that expand, change, and transform. Depending on the media moment, people need different things, and we have to support different things. That's the flow we're in. Just as water follows the path of least resistance, the podcast follows its audience in their interests.
It feels like many podcasts are designed for social media snippets.
People get discouraged quickly with video podcasts, but that format helps some want to come see you. It happens with TikTok, with YouTube, or with Instagram. Maybe they won't listen to you much, but they will come looking for you.