The debate on ‘niche’
A few weeks ago, Katherine Matthews put up a post in which she decried the use of the term ‘niche’ and how it reflects badly on podcasting (see ding, dong, the niche is dead). Some raved about her thoughts. John Meadows suggested her post should form a manifesto of podcasting.
I finally caught up with the discussion this evening. Here is the comment I posted on her site…
I don’t believe there’s any reason why being considered a niche podcaster should also be a badge of dishonour. On the contrary. I believe one of podcasting’s best qualities is that it caters to us content-hungry types in a way that mainstream media has tried and failed. Why? Because mainstream media tries to be all things to all people and we do it by finding our little spot in the grass and claiming it as our own and inviting others to join us. Podcasting delivers from the heart to the heart.
Subject specific? Niche? They’re the same thing to me. And just because your podcast caters to a specific audience (or niche) on knitting, children’s books, marketing, self discovery, music or obscure German strategy games, you shouldn’t feel pigeon-holed into speaking only on that topic. In fact, niches don’t have to be specifically about your content; they can also be about your format. For example, the only thing that threads any two episodes of Electric Sky together is the format and the interest in learning something new. Otherwise, there is little that connects a retired satellite communications scientist, a vintage war plane collector and a movie store clerk. If your audience is interested in how you share your passion, they’re likely to want to hear what you do and what you have to say about your life — which is another thing that makes podcasting such a great communications channel.
Functioning in a niche makes it easier for people to find you; it makes you and your passion more accessible. You can throw a fresh coat of flashy paint on it if that’s what works for you. Underneath it all, and to the people that need to find you, it’s still a niche.
October 22nd, 2008 at 9:26 pm
I think the point I was making, in a particularly provocative fashion, was exactly that — that niche shouldn’t be a badge of dishonour (and I’ll be clear that I don’t think you were using it as one, but your discovery of finding Tyfannie’s podcast not unlike that of the Scarborough Dude was an interesting moment in the interview), but sometimes it is used to marginalize. I wanted simply to explore the idea that all podcasts are niches, in some very small way.
And you will note that I do, in that post, and in the one I wrote later as a bit of a follow-up, suggest the ways in which the term is, in fact, useful. If anything, I may be guilty of hyperbole — but since that’s a valid literary device used to create emphasis, you might find that I was purposeful in my use of exaggeration in order to create effect and provoke discussion.
Which I did. :-) I am a writer, after all.
Did you really believe I want to throw out the word, much like those folks who want to get rid of the term podcasting? Then I might respectfully suggest you focussed only on the flashy coat of paint I coated my discussion with; and I accept full responsibility for the fact that maybe I spent too much time applying paint, and less on the actual arguments themselves.
But I stand by them. There are times when I feel as if I’ve been put in a ghetto. And I want to be able to talk about that, about why and how it happens, and I want to think about whether I’m doing that to others, unwittingly.
And I want to listen to what others have to say in response — it’s how I learn, it’s how I grow.
October 22nd, 2008 at 10:02 pm
I think that, except for a very few statistical outliers of general interest (usually associated with radio or some other old-school medium), effectively ALL successful podcasts are niche shows in some aspect.
October 23rd, 2008 at 9:53 am
And Derek, that was exactly the argument I concluded my post with.
I don’t believe I said that the word “niche” reflected badly on podcasting — if that’s what came across, then I argued the point badly. I said that niche is a handy label that, like many labels, can be very limiting and constricting depending on how it’s used.
And that’s how it was used in mainstream media, especially when justifying what *not* to put on the air. As you’ve point out Mark, the beauty of podcasting is that it is capable of ignoring that, of permitting stuff considered to be “marginal” by the mainstream to find it’s audience.
It doesn’t always *do* it, though, and that’s what I’m thinking about. Note, too, that I’m coming at this pretty much from the point of view of a podcast *listener* - I havne’t produced much content myself in months.
As a listener, I’m wondering — do I ignore podcasts which have been defined as “niche”, because I assume there’s nothing there for me? I think I do, sadly, and when I meet someone in person, it often makes a huge difference and I find myself suddenly subscribing and grabbing the back catalogue of podcasts just to catch up.
And then I wonder — why did I buy into that label? Why did I make certain assumptions? And are others doing this, too, and can we change that? Should we change that?
October 23rd, 2008 at 2:10 pm
Nice, chewy food for thought.
For me a “niche” is a cozy, comfortable place where I fit just right. I remember back in 2006, looking in at the giddy podcasting gang and wishing there was a spot in there for me, a subject which was near and dear to my heart, an opportunity to share information that was uniquely mine and yet relevant to others. I was thrilled when I found my “niche”.
And, in response to “just because your podcast caters to a specific audience (or niche)… you shouldn’t feel pigeon-holed into speaking only on that topic”, I think of niche, audience and topic as being distinct. Sure we’re all multi-dimensional individuals, with common experiences and many wonderful ideas to share but, I believe, in some cases we “should” stay on topic. If the declared description of a podcast is “life and ideas from the perspective of someone with an interest in X“, then I think wandering from topic to topic is great. If, however, the declared podcast description is “a podcast about a narrow, well-defined slice of life such as children’s books, say“, then, I believe, it’s only fair to the listener to stick pretty strictly to the declared topic (which only matters, of course, if your audience happens to matter to you).
But, to “niche” his — or her — own.
October 23rd, 2008 at 6:49 pm
I think the constant battle we face is trying to overcome the mainstream media model (keep it simple, play to the lowest common denominator, and do whatever it takes to get a huge audience) and its effect on our potential audience, and (if we are being honest), ourselves. MSM goes to an enormous effort to turn us into simple-minded creatures that ingest marketing and excrete money. I don’t think anyone can be completely immune to this; we live in a snap judgement society, and I freely admit that I can fall into that trap quite easily. Variety, complexity, and indeed “niche” topics, are the enemy of the MSM, at least in North America.
Podcasts can work on many levels - the specific subject matter may be “niche” (the mainstream media would say “limited appeal”), but good podcasts have good qualities apart from the subject matter. A couple of tech shows I listen to, Astronomy Cast and The Linux Action Show, might be seen as “niche” podcasts, but I listen just as much to each show because I enjoy the vibe that each show gives off; I know I’m listening to real human beings. This is universal appeal, as far away from niche as one can get, and humanity is something I don’t get from mainstream media.
October 27th, 2008 at 11:58 am
[...] Niche is just a five-letter word Katherine Matthews’ initial post and discussion follow-up discussion on Mark’s blog [...]