Audio vs. Video Podcasting: The Cost of Attention

Here we have our first hint at a theme (and question) that runs throughout this report:

Does embracing video lead to a more successful show?

Or is it simply the next frontier to be tackled by shows that are already successful and have resources to reinvest in expanding into new channels and the opportunities they represent?

We can see here that video podcasts have been embraced most by shows that exist to support or grow existing businesses, and least by shows started as a hobby or passion project.

But what drives this difference in adoption rates?

One answer is that shows that exist as marketing channels for businesses face more pressure for the shows to work (ie. attract audiences and buyers), incentivizing them to go where their audiences are to generate ROI and justify their continued existence.

Hobby shows, on the other hand, don’t need audiences to justify their existence. As long as the creator is happy making the show, the show is a success after all.

Another answer may be that the creators of shows that exist to serve businesses are less attached to any one medium and are happy to learn new skills and platforms as trends and expectations change.

This theory highlights a key difference in how many respondents see themselves:

Many of those who use their podcasts as marketing channels for their business would not describe themselves as “Podcasters”… despite in many cases having podcasted for many years and enjoying the creative process of podcasting as much as anyone else does.

These respondents are more likely to identify as “Founders”, “Entrepreneurs”, “Business Owners”, or platform-agnostic “Creators”, who are eager and willing to move between mediums and platforms.

For these respondents, their show is not their singular creative focus, but one of many channels they’re active on, which all exist to serve the business itself.

With this in mind, it’s clear that not only do these podcast creators have logical incentives to be regularly experimenting with new platforms and mediums, the long-term success of their businesses require it.

As with the annual revenue comparison, the median monthly production budget was identical for both groups, at $300/mo.

That said, even the average budgets for both groups are surprisingly low.

It’s worth noting, however that for audio/video shows generating more than 10k views per month on YouTube, the average production budget was significantly higher at $3,303/month.

By comparison, the audio-only shows averaging 10k plays per month had an average budget of $922/month.

In an interesting quirk, that differential between the top-performing shows in each group is identical to the overall production budget differential: 3.6x more for audio/video shows than audio-only.

It’s clear that despite its historic drawbacks when it comes to discoverability, audio is a powerful tool for maintaining attention once it’s been acquired.

So what does that mean for your decision to pursue (or continue to pursue) video or not?

For one, the additional 286 hours of video consumption time (on average) is not nothing. In fact, for the Audio-Only shows, that additional time would account for a 41% increase in overall consumption.

In addition to the additional video consumption time, however, the Audio/Video shows also earn 49% more audio plays and 42% more audio consumption time than Audio-Only shows.

Of course, we can’t say that this consumption differential is the direct result of producing a video show and publishing it to YouTube.

But we will offer a pair of hypotheses, starting with the boring one:

Some people do, in fact, discover shows on YouTube and ultimately opt to listen to the show via a podcast app.

While many YouTube consumers have never opened up a podcast app, nearly all audio podcast consumers do use YouTube regularly—even if not to consume podcasts.

Given YouTube’s strength at (and explicit goal of) matching users with content they’ll like, it’s almost inevitable that the platform will occasionally (or regularly) introduce audio podcast listeners to new creators and shows they will enjoy.

Now, the more interesting (and impossible to prove) hypothesis:

Compared to podcasting, YouTube is both a much more transparent and much more competitive platform.

What this means is that creators (more or less) know how “the game” of the YouTube algorithm works, and are highly incentivized to develop the skills necessary to master it.

In practice, that means improving their episode titles, packaging, hooks, pacing, storytelling, and more, in service of improving the metrics that YouTube’s algorithm uses to promote videos.

Of course, as they improve these skills, they improve their results on YouTube.

But is it not reasonable to expect that better titles, packaging, hooks, pacing, and storytelling—ie. better content—would also improve their ability to attract and retain listeners on their audio-only feeds?

It may be hard to prove. But it’s something to consider.