During her presentation at PAB2008, Whitney Hoffman provided her analysis of a fledgling and still relatively unknown podcast network that had great promise when it was launched last September. Whitney outlined what appears to be a breakdown in communications, lack of transparency and possibly the use of bloated claims to market the network to would-be members and sponsors. The problem is that the network never gelled as a cohesive group and has been unable to establish a community among members and audience.
In fairness, most podcast networks have had a difficult time making a success of themselves; the most public of these being Podshow which is trying to distance itself from its earlier mistakes as it goes through its reinvention as an entertainment company.
I believe that there are two types of networks in this space: the Rabbit Network and the Turtle Network.
The Rabbit Network seeks to build market share for financial reasons. These networks face two distinct challenges. First, the early adopters of new media (including podcasting) were hobbyists that struggled with the delivery and/or production of their content. This is in no way a knock at the content creators because most of the content that was (and still is) being produced was fresh and (in some cases) edgy. The content they were creating, though, was marketed to commercial interests that had a difficult time identifying any commercial appeal. This is particularly true where the second challenge comes in — the business model. It’s hard to convince potential sponsors and investors to take a financial risk on an unproven and relatively disruptive technology. The value couldn’t be measured so the potential sponsors avoided the risk. Traditional business models were used where new business models were merited. Because the big players preferred to play safe, the word about the podcasting didn’t move as quickly. This means that it was hard to establish, and ultimately appreciate, the value of the media.
Having said that, there have been some notable sponsorships. As Whitney points out, though, it is unclear whether the sponsorships were achieved based on genuine metrics. Regardless, there is data that suggests some so-called small scale podcasts have greater penetration and engagement than the shows that are getting the big sponsorship deals.
The Rabbit Networks usually make a big splash when they launch and become marginalized over time. Some people believe this is because mainstream media loses interest or that the latest and greatest Rabbit Network has come along to replace the one thatís making the same mistakes as its predecessors. Based on my understanding, the Rabbit Networks almost always disintegrate because of hidden agendas and lack of communication.
The Turtle Network is a group of like-minded content producers that band together in a show of support and to help promote one-another’s shows. There is no expectation of financial gain and in many cases the bond is a mutual (and sometimes vocal) disinterest in sponsorship and advertising. These networks have no specific goals and, for the outsider, appear to be nothing more than a public pronouncement of friendship and a way to help listeners identify content that the producer(s) enjoy.
It’s easy to be dismissive of the Turtle Networks since they never really seem to accomplish anything. However, their organic approach to building and engaging an audience, and their quietly-chug-away approach to creating programs, means that they serve a niche that will follow them and forgive them their absences and production mistakes. The Turtles survive because of their regular, honest and transparent communication.
Perhaps networks haven’t succeeded, yet, because noone’s figured out a way to cross-breed a Rabbit and a Turtle.
I had the chance to hang out with 
I enlisted the help of some friends to share experiences and ideas related to conference and unconference organizing. The hope is to kick off a conversation in which everyone — conference organizers, sponsors, participants, vendors, etc… — contributes and makes future events more smooth, successful and creative.
There has been a growing trend of online services designed to build social networks in centralized and sometimes closed environments. While there are merits to this approach, the abundance of options is crippling and confusing. Invariably, everyone must join every site and we’re left chasing each other around. This has created an artificial sense of centralization in a decidedly decentralized environment.
