New podcast format

[robertgp124]

I wasn't a fan of the sounds, but really enjoyed the podcast this week, Seems like they were doing a trial run and all things considered, I like it. Lately it seems as though there have been so many very good segments and great ideas!

My only thought on the sounds is this - the team always has a great narrative, a good story. It's one thing when it gets broken by a little humor (I love it) but I don't enjoy the sound commentary (for lack of a more elegant description). Having said that, I miss John's harp music.

 

[scjo68]

I enjoyed the podcast. The ad did not bother me at all. If a business sponsors a program, it only makes sense for the business to be promoted. It is very American and very "Disney". THe ad itself was appropriate and tasteful, I thought.

I did not care for the sound effects. They kind of interrupted the "flow" of the discussion. It didn't ruin the show or anything, though.

 

[SamSam]

I'll have to go against the general consensus here and say that I really enjoyed the show, sound clips and all. It tickled me that Pete was having so much fun with them and that T kept wondering what the heck he was playing.
The Advertising...it was tasteful,at the beginning of the show so it wasn't an interruption. It's a free podcast, which I happen to enjoy very much, so a little advertising is just fine with me.

 

[PainInIL]

Really not a fan of the sound drops. It takes a podcast where people are having a great conversation and turns it into a morning zoo. I tune in for the conversation, not to hear someone play with a soundboard.

 

[coopersmom]

I gotta agree with most of the posts on this thread. Maybe the sound clips would have worked better in the video version (I only have the audio version.) or if the "targets" of the jokes could've heared them and reacted. Maybe not. To me it felt like a "morning zoo" type of show, and that is not a format I'm a fan of.

I agree with the others who miss having soundclips sourced from the show itself, especially the Bawb-isms. Some of the clips used (particularly the woman screaming "Help me!", which I have no idea what it's from, but it sounds something from a horror movie to me) I found to be jarring and even a little disturbing, removed from their original context.

Let's hope it was just a case of Pete going button-happy with a new toy, and not a measure of things to come.

As for the ad-read, I totally understand that they need to pay the bills. So, I'm cool with it. A lot of podcasts I listen to do ad-reads in different ways. I'm sure they'll experiment with formats and find the way that works best for this show.

And finally, a note to Pete: "Fair use" exists, but there is no "30-second" rule. Please be careful.

I just wanted to echo all of the above. I agree the podcast, perhaps because they are more wary/self-concious being live and on video, didn't flow as well as usual and the sound effects were very morning zoo and, frankly, annoying.

I hope they take this as its intended--constructive criticism from a listener of many years--and not as a knock against trying new things, because I don't think that's my issue.

The generally accepted fair use rule, as I learned it, was that the allowable amount of quotation/sharing/exhibiting of copyrighted material is no more than 10%, with that amount not to exceed 30 seconds ... Which is probably what Pete was referencing. Though the above actually applies only in a current events or journalism situation, where the quoted/excerpted material is used to illustrate a story or point (e.g. a movie review or local news story) and would not apply to brief use of music or movie clips as entertainment pieces or transition material.

The fair use standards are also, legally (though I'm simplifying the explanation a bit), more stringently applied to commercial works. With the definition of commercial very broadly drawn. Things like using the highly identifiable NBC News theme to intro your news would definitely be a giant and obvious legal no-go, as consumer confusion is a major legal issue. (Just a warning. Not a critique.)

In today's landscape where the DMCA interpretation tends to go the way of the rights' holder, regardless of how much or little is excerpted, "fair use" has become an endangered species. The policy of most major websites (e.g. YouTube) and web hosting servers and services is to honor ALL DMCA takedown notices with zero proof, including those with no basis what-so-ever, leaving the creator to argue why it should be able to exist, vs. making the complainer prove they own the rights.

There are plenty of bots (automated systems) that constantly search YouTube and other websites for "infringing" material based on key words, sound clips, etc. and will issue a DMCA takedown notice for anything it finds, even if that item is well within the fair use guidelines or not even the item it was actually searching for all (mis-identified takedown notices are legion). YouTube will then, also totally automatically, remove the entire video from its service just upon receipt of the notice ... So many of these things happen without a single human being even looking to see if the notice makes sense.

 

[mytripsandraces]

I just wanted to echo all of the above. I agree the podcast, perhaps because they are more wary/self-concious being live and on video, didn't flow as well as usual and the sound effects were very morning zoo and, frankly, annoying.

I hope they take this as its intended--constructive criticism from a listener of many years--and not as a knock against trying new things, because I don't think that's my issue.

The generally accepted fair use rule, as I learned it, was that the allowable amount of quotation/sharing/exhibiting of copyrighted material is no more than 10%, with that amount not to exceed 30 seconds ... Which is probably what Pete was referencing. Though the above actually applies only in a current events or journalism situation, where the quoted/excerpted material is used to illustrate a story or point (e.g. a movie review or local news story) and would not apply to brief use of music or movie clips as entertainment pieces or transition material.

The fair use standards are also, legally (though I'm simplifying the explanation a bit), more stringently applied to commercial works. With the definition of commercial very broadly drawn. Things like using the highly identifiable NBC News theme to intro your news would definitely be a giant and obvious legal no-go, as consumer confusion is a major legal issue. (Just a warning. Not a critique.)

In today's landscape where the DMCA interpretation tends to go the way of the rights' holder, regardless of how much or little is excerpted, "fair use" has become an endangered species. The policy of most major websites (e.g. YouTube) and web hosting servers and services is to honor ALL DMCA takedown notices with zero proof, including those with no basis what-so-ever, leaving the creator to argue why it should be able to exist, vs. making the complainer prove they own the rights.

There are plenty of bots (automated systems) that constantly search YouTube and other websites for "infringing" material based on key words, sound clips, etc. and will issue a DMCA takedown notice for anything it finds, even if that item is well within the fair use guidelines or not even the item it was actually searching for all (mis-identified takedown notices are legion). YouTube will then, also totally automatically, remove the entire video from its service just upon receipt of the notice ... So many of these things happen without a single human being even looking to see if the notice makes sense.

There is no acceptable percentage or amount of time or number of pages that is clearly fair use. The only people who can determine whether or not something is fair use are the copyright owner (who decides whether or not to pursue an infringement claim) or the judge presiding over the infringement case. Here's a link to the rules about fair use: http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#107.

 

[bradisgoofy]

As a long time listener, I too didn't think the sound clips "flowed" with the show. And I have no problem with ads, most of the podcasts I listen to or watch have them.

 

[WebmasterPete]

First of all - rest assured that I take EVERYTHING said in this thread as constructive, and no one should ever feel afraid to post comments like these.

As some have pointed out, we're experimenting a little with certain things as we gear up for the first live show. I'm very aware of the chemistry the table has and I'm trying to be mindful to 'enhance' - not 'change'. We might go to far, or not far enough. The fact is we've been doing basically the same show for 6 1/2 years and it's time for it to (hopefully) get better. Some things will work, some things won't. With honest feedback and continued good will from our listeners, we'll make it everything it has, should and can be.

Thanks again for the feedback!!

Pete

 

[DisneyDaddy-O]

I think what has made the show so good for years is the fact that all of you have sat at a table and discussed topics that we all love. I for one don't mind the ads at all and am looking forward to the video version. I just hope that the show doesn't become too polished and too "radio". I enjoy the casual banter and the feeling that we are listening in to a conversation at a kitchen table. One thing that would be very cool is if we could send in questions or make comments as the show is being recorded. Maybe a chat room or on twitter. Keep up the good work and I look forward too all the cool things that are lined up for the future.

BTW I also prefer old show sound bytes rather than the movie ones.

 

[SamSam]

First of all - rest assured that I take EVERYTHING said in this thread as constructive, and no one should ever feel afraid to post comments like these.

As some have pointed out, we're experimenting a little with certain things as we gear up for the first live show. I'm very aware of the chemistry the table has and I'm trying to be mindful to 'enhance' - not 'change'. We might go to far, or not far enough. The fact is we've been doing basically the same show for 6 1/2 years and it's time for it to (hopefully) get better. Some things will work, some things won't. With honest feedback and continued good will from our listeners, we'll make it everything it has, should and can be.

Thanks again for the feedback!!

Pete

Loved reading this. As business owners ourselves, we try to take all suggestions in a positive way but it is sometimes hard not to personalize it, so I'm glad you are being very positive about all the 'suggestions'.

You have a great website, great podcast and I love that you are always looking at ways to improve....not that it needs any changing.

 

[UConnFan]

The fact is we've been doing basically the same show for 6 1/2 years and it's time for it to (hopefully) get better. Some things will work, some things won't. With honest feedback and continued good will from our listeners, we'll make it everything it has, should and can be.

This is an important point I hasn't considered. It gets old doing the same thing for so long. I'm sure you need a new creative outlet. You have always been able to strike a balance between old and new, so I trust that you'll do the same in this case.

I do have a question. I think I remember hearing that you can only fit so many people at the table with the equipment now. Is that always going to be the case? I personally think this might be part of chemistry issue. If part of the team isn't there, the conversation isn't as rich. I miss hearing the whole perspective.

 

[ktrask]

I love the podcast, and I trust in the team and their direction.

I will say that my family are not seasoned veterans, and on the "older" version I was starting to get frustrated feeling like it was a club of kids that knew things I could only hope to get bits of. I've really enjoyed some of the new segments such as the one on the dining plans. My family was in the process of deciding DDP or no, and the podcast truly helped that decision. I like that they were separate downloads so if you didn't want the subject you didn't have to listen to it (I know that change was made months ago, but it's a good one ).

Keep up the good work. I look forward to more fun, stories, and tips!

 

[coopersmom]

There is no acceptable percentage or amount of time or number of pages that is clearly fair use. The only people who can determine whether or not something is fair use are the copyright owner (who decides whether or not to pursue an infringement claim) or the judge presiding over the infringement case. Here's a link to the rules about fair use: http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#107.

True, and said much more succinctly than I. I said rule, but should have put it in quotes as "rule," because it's a really a guideline ... I just wanted to try and reference what Pete had probably heard and emphasize that even then it's 10% OR 30 seconds, whichever is shorter, not either.

But the above is true, any copyright holder can deny use at any time, for any reason. And the law, as it's currently interpreted, is always on the rights holders' side.

 

[WebmasterPete]

I do have a question. I think I remember hearing that you can only fit so many people at the table with the equipment now. Is that always going to be the case? I personally think this might be part of chemistry issue. If part of the team isn't there, the conversation isn't as rich. I miss hearing the whole perspective.

I'm going to take the opportunity here to answer a few comments on this thread.

The table is set up to hold five people. Before the video equipment, the max we would have at the table was 6. There is no way to have 8 people at the table under any circumstances, and even if I could, I wouldn't - it's impossible to manage. Even with five people, the number of times we have everyone talking at the same time drives me nuts.

John, Kevin and I are usually always at the table, Corey and Julie alternate out because they don't have a sitter for the kids and one of them has to stay home, and Teresa and Kathy come in when they have segments. Dustin now has a permanent seat behind the equipment along with Shaun and Craig Williams (it requires a minimum of two people now to run the equipment, and you'll see why when we launch the video segment).

The shuffling of people at the table was driven by a few considerations. First, we're all really busy and have multiple things on our plates beyond the show. Just with John, Kevin and I and our travel schedules it got really difficult last year. Getting everyone to be able to coordinate being here on the same day, every week was tough - let alone the fact that a recording day can run as long as 5 hours depending on what's being covered that week. Also, I wanted to be able to change things up from time to time - offer some fresh perspectives from listeners (the correspondants) who will be increasingly included in the coming months. Having others available to be on the show helps with one of the major issues we have - consistency. This is 100% my fault, but shows NEED to go up EVERY WEEK at the same time. Especially committing to the live format, we have to be able to do that and that means I have to have people that can stand in when others can't. Of course there will be exceptions - I won't run the equipment when we're in the middle of a massive storm for example, but generally speaking I have to make consistency, authenticity and creativity the mantra for the show moving forward. Everything we've been doing over the last few months has been with that in mind.

Yes - blending in new things while keeping a firm commitment to the elements of the show that have served us so well is daunting for me right now. Feedback like this thread helps with that more than I can say. I understand why some people are reticent to offer constructive criticism but it doesn't serve the show well. I'm not perfect and neither is any one sitting at the table. We'll try new things - if we get feedback telling us what people liked and didn't we can adjust. When everyone just tells us how wonderful we are, we start to believe it and then things get ugly. I've been down that road before Don't get me wrong - keep telling me I'm wonderful by all means, but also tell me what it is you don't like. All of us have a very real and very genuine affection for our listeners. You guys have changed our lives in more ways that we can ever tell you. We all want the show to be good and to get better because every one of us wants to give that to you. I wish you could hear the conversations that go on when we discuss new ideas for the show. The only consideration is 'do you think they'll like this'. Except now that we're going to video, the other consideration is "does this shirt make me look fat".

As far as the advertising goes - someone said they thought it was foolish that I wasn't doing it all along. Yes, we did blend the advertising/content line with the ABD trips and the Podcast cruises - no question, but we remain very transparent about that. What I didn't want to do was 'straight up' advertising on the show. My feeling was that I did just fine with the advertising on the boards and the DIS and there was no need to do it on the show. Now, with the costs associated with the live stream and video production I have no choice. The ads will never be part of the body of the show, they will always be at the top and I will keep them as inoffensive as I can. Also, there is no plan at all to bring on additional sponsors - it's just Dreams and unless someone backs up a Brinks truck to my front door, it will stay that way.

I will also let everyone know that the non-show drop ins I've been playing are being banished forever. No one seems to like them but me, so we'll stick to the occasional drop in from previous shows.

As for the show becoming 'too polished' - I can't begin to say how much I appreciated that comment. That's been a challenge for me as we gear up for the live show. Dustin and I had a LONG talk about that last night - about the need to keep it on the 'amateur' side while still trying to put on a quality production every week. Again, that can be a tough needle to thread - you want to take it to the next level, but what does the next level look like? Do you aim for more professionalism, or does that take away too much from what the show is - a group of Disney fans sitting around a table talking about what Disney fans talk about. How do we make sure we develop content strictly for our 'listener only' audience, while making the video version 'watchable'? How do we add new elements that enhance the show for everyone regardless of how they consume it? I know we can't keep everyone happy all the time, but that doesn't mean we won't try

Pete

 

[sayhello]

Yes - blending in new things while keeping a firm commitment to the elements of the show that have served us so well is daunting for me right now. Feedback like this thread helps with that more than I can say. I understand why some people are reticent to offer constructive criticism but it doesn't serve the show well. I'm not perfect and neither is any one sitting at the table. We'll try new things - if we get feedback telling us what people liked and didn't we can adjust. When everyone just tells us how wonderful we are, we start to believe it and then things get ugly. I've been down that road before Don't get me wrong - keep telling me I'm wonderful by all means, but also tell me what it is you don't like. All of us have a very real and very genuine affection for our listeners. You guys have changed our lives in more ways that we can ever tell you. We all want the show to be good and to get better because every one of us wants to give that to you. I wish you could hear the conversations that go on when we discuss new ideas for the show. The only consideration is 'do you think they'll like this'. Except now that we're going to video, the other consideration is "does this shirt make me look fat".

Sayhello

 

[WaltD4Me]

Pete - what an awesome "behind the scenes" post. I really appreciate reading about what you are trying to do and where you hope to go with the show. It's great (and smart) to invite constructive criticism too. I know more than a few businesses that closed because instead of people telling them what they didn't like they just stopped going there.

One of my favorite things about the show is the group chemistry. After Bob died, I was really worried about what would happen with it, but in my opinion the new members that have joined the team have been great and fit in really well. I love that the show isn't too "slick" and I hope it stays that way. I appreciate that you listened and the "non-show" clips are going away. Some of them were almost jarring and took something away from enjoying the show.

One thing I really miss is spontaneous discussion. It's still there for sure, but I loved the Forum Watch Discussion shows. Most threads picked were great starting points for some really thought provoking team discussions.

 

[Stacy's a freak]

I vote that you leave (or add) any sound clip from Mommy Dearest in the prizematron/sound thingy. I'm not sure if wire hangers work into a Disney conversation, but ... it's just a thought

 

[WebmasterMaryJo]

Appreciate the insight, Pete. I DID have comments, but your last post addressed them all.

 

[*NikkiBell*]

As for the show becoming 'too polished' - I can't begin to say how much I appreciated that comment. That's been a challenge for me as we gear up for the live show. Dustin and I had a LONG talk about that last night - about the need to keep it on the 'amateur' side while still trying to put on a quality production every week. Again, that can be a tough needle to thread - you want to take it to the next level, but what does the next level look like? Do you aim for more professionalism, or does that take away too much from what the show is - a group of Disney fans sitting around a table talking about what Disney fans talk about. How do we make sure we develop content strictly for our 'listener only' audience, while making the video version 'watchable'? How do we add new elements that enhance the show for everyone regardless of how they consume it? I know we can't keep everyone happy all the time, but that doesn't mean we won't try

Pete

Heh. Just take a look at this thread for ideas.

 

[DisneyDaddy-O]

As for the show becoming 'too polished' - I can't begin to say how much I appreciated that comment. That's been a challenge for me as we gear up for the live show. Dustin and I had a LONG talk about that last night - about the need to keep it on the 'amateur' side while still trying to put on a quality production every week. Again, that can be a tough needle to thread - you want to take it to the next level, but what does the next level look like? Do you aim for more professionalism, or does that take away too much from what the show is - a group of Disney fans sitting around a table talking about what Disney fans talk about. How do we make sure we develop content strictly for our 'listener only' audience, while making the video version 'watchable'? How do we add new elements that enhance the show for everyone regardless of how they consume it? I know we can't keep everyone happy all the time, but that doesn't mean we won't try

Pete

I love the idea of using the newest technology and equipment for the live show and the show in general going forward, I am kinda a "tech geek" as my kids like to call me. I love to see you guys push the envelope and try new things and create new content. My only comment would be for everyone to just continue to be yourselves and not create new "professional podcaster personas" just for the show. I enjoy the show for all the off the cuff and inappropriate comments! The stuff about Dustin's head had me laughing out loud in the car this morning.

I'm sure you guys will find the right balance, enjoy the challenge going forward!