This commentary is adapted from The Audio Insurgent, the author’s Substack newsletter, and republished with permission.
You want to know the most common question I’m asked about podcasting?
“How long should my episode be?”
I hear it in every Q&A session, every new client meeting and even when I meet people out in the real world. For years, I’ve always answered the same: “It should be as long as it needs to be and not a moment longer.”
At first, people think I’m being clever and point out that my answer isn’t an answer. To them, an answer is a number.
I reply, “If anyone, ever, answers that question with a number, do yourself a favor and never listen to anything they say — ever — because that person has no idea what they are talking about.”
I was raised in the radio world, where time not only rules over everything, but the best radio talent and producers are those who make their zealot-like adherence to a clock completely unobvious to the listener. Radio people think in hard-clock times, plan in hard-clock times, and think about it so often they can subtract 43 seconds from 3 minutes, 28 seconds just as easily as muggles can do base 10 math.
But here is the thing: Listeners don’t think in time. And they certainly don’t listen in time, either.
Strategy ‘rooted in time’
After seeing Current’s article detailing NPR’s new newsmagazine strategy to address the years-long deflation of audience, I have to admit I got very excited. Finally, some action.
Then I read it.
It seems the strategy is rooted in time, specifically, “including more stories in the two- to three-minute range, featuring a broader range of topics.”
First, let me say that I’m glad that NPR is trying something — anything — to correct audience erosion issues that should have been addressed years ago. And I’d also applaud their attention to the audience. But to focus a tactical action plan around the length of pieces is an overly literal response that will weaken their ability to achieve tangible results.
For those eager to see what will come of this new strategy, there is no need to wonder. I know exactly what will happen — and that is that this strategy will do nothing to slow, stop or reverse public radio’s decline.
Hidden meaning in what listeners say
One of my research mentors always told me to not pay attention to what people say, but instead focus on what they mean. So in all the research NPR is basing this strategy on, what are listeners saying … and what do they mean?
I’ve been an insatiable consumer of audio audience research for the better part of my adult life and worked on dozens if not over 100 audience studies, focus groups and listener surveys in that time. In all those stacks of qualitative and quantitative research, there has never been a time that I’ve heard audiences discuss the length of pieces, episodes, or shows … unless they are bored.
That last part is key. When listeners are bored or don’t see the relevance of the piece to them, then they start to comment or complain about length. The length itself is what they are saying, but it isn’t what they mean.
When we hear them say things like, “It would be better if these pieces were shorter and had more variety,” what they mean is, “Can we please move on to something else? This is not good and hopefully something new would be better, but if it isn’t, let’s plan on that being short too.”
I often say that if listeners are discussing how long something is, we’ve lost them. So perhaps the best way to address that isn’t to focus on length but, instead, how about we focus on making it not boring?
I’m definitely not saying that pieces can’t or shouldn’t be shorter. What I am saying is that using that as your litmus will often lead you to focus on the wrong things.
What research shows, again and again
Public radio has no shortage of listening data and audience research that pretty much universally says one thing, over and over again, in data set and research study after data set and research study: Public radio is less compelling now than it used to be.
That, in 11 words, sums up all public radio’s current woes: audience erosion, declining member revenue, the bottoming out of underwriting, decreases in philanthropic interest and support, and diminished public awareness and appreciation for public radio’s mission and work. All of these woes come down to that sentence. Public radio, with its value-based mission and economy, seems bizarrely okay and resigned to accept this trajectory and not treat this as an existential emergency.
Notice that there is no mention here of digital disruption or competition, because every piece of evidence I see shows that public radio has been more harmed by its own self-imposed atrophy than by any effect from the changing media landscape or competitors. Competition didn’t make public radio less relevant — it did that all on its own.
The solution isn’t about time — it is about increasing those moments where listeners are so engaged, engrossed and captivated by what they hear that they don’t care about how long it is.
The benchmark of public radio greatness has always been the somewhat archaic idea of the “driveway moment” — where a listener is so captivated by what they hear that they will sit in their car, in their own driveway, unwilling to stop listening. That, more than anything, shows the irrelevance of time. In our best moments, creators obliterate any interest in or concern about time.
It is important to remember that listeners don’t think like we do. They don’t think about format, structure, style or even length. They only ask: “Is this good?”
So don’t worry about making it shorter — or making more short pieces — focus the entire strategic effort on how do we make it more “good,” more often?
I recently re-read the recent Public Radio Meta-Analysis, a brilliant compilation put together by Public Media Content Collective, Greater Public and Station Resource Group. It reviews the findings of 26 different studies commissioned by public radio stations and organizations in order to highlight the common themes and lessons seen across all this massive amount of research. I also reviewed the 17-page Public Radio Playbook — an action plan for networks, programs and stations on how to put those findings into practice.
In the compilation of the 26 research projects and the playbook, there is not a single reference to listener concerns about time, length of pieces or number of pieces. In those studies, listeners offer plenty of suggestions on how to make public radio programming better and more relevant. There is no shortage of good advice seen in study after study after study, and it is almost all focused on getting public radio out of its rut. You are welcome to read it for yourself, but here are some of the consistent findings:
- “Across demographics, many listeners find that public radio is boring and lacks energy.”
- “The tone of public radio is the ‘elephant in the room’ of the existing research.”
- “For younger listeners, the problems with public radio can be summarized in one phrase: ‘very boring.’ Participants in a KCUR focus group communicated the impression that KCUR/NPR is ‘dry and boring,’ and that in order to listen to public radio, they had to be in the ‘right mood.’”
- “There exists a common belief in the general public that public radio is boring.”
I’m sure this push for shorter pieces is driven by the well-intentioned idea that, given the length of the average listening occasion (15- to 30- minutes, depending on the type of listener and station), shorter pieces allow the newsmagazines to offer more stories and cover more topics within that average occasion. It harkens back to the famous 1010 WINS tagline, “Give us 22 minutes, and we’ll give you the world.” Yet one only needs to listen to 1010 WINS, or any other of the remaining radio news stations, and ask if that’s what public radio should strive to sound like.
One of the biggest problems across the nonprofit and public service sectors is that people often confuse good intentions with smart strategy, as if deep conviction and belief can make an idea work. It doesn’t.
Be more caffeinated
Here is another observation based on the interviews in the Current article: Making the hosting more conversational and lively isn’t an answer, either.
Tone is a huge problem but it isn’t solved with chatty hosts. That will read as performative and listeners will smell it a mile away. When listeners talk about tone and energy, they are talking about reporters and hosts who sound monotone and somewhat disengaged and disinterested in what they are reporting and sharing. Their delivery lacks passion and assuredness and does not convey interest or importance. It is often flat.
The solution is not trying to be witty or chatty. Don’t try to fake chemistry and connection. Just be interesting — more interesting — and do the work to connect what you are reporting on to the lives of those who you want to listen. Dump the public radio monotone and speak to the audience like someone who cares — about what you are saying and about the people you are speaking to.
I think it is pretty clear that listeners generally want public radio to be more caffeinated. They want it to be more adventurous, less staid and less predictable in tone, point of view and editorial approach. They want public radio to surprise them and be more distinctive. Training talent to have more banter and be more lively is, again, the wrong prescription for a legitimate ailment. It focuses on style — not substance. And remember, when it comes down to it, public radio needs to focus on substance — just a less boring, more compelling version of substance.
The biggest problem with the tactics reported in Current is they are all small ideas. Public radio has run out the clock on being satisfied with small ideas.
Let me not sugarcoat this: The industry’s lack of attention to evolving its programming has created a crisis moment for public radio. What confuses me is that NPR and the industry have so many smart, capable people in it and running its organizations. Why are they okay with making tiny changes in the face of a huge problem? It’s like pulling out a five-gallon bucket to deal with a surging tsunami.
I’m afraid it is because, within public radio, the pain of a slow death feels easier to manage than the fear of making substantive change.
My fear is that these moves will not only fail, but they will further marginalize public radio. In 2024, what makes public radio distinct? What is public radio better at than anyone else? How is it indispensable in the lives of its audiences?
Lacking answers to those questions (and public radio no longer has answers to those questions), tweaking story length is irrelevant.
Eric Nuzum ([email protected]) is the co-founder of Magnificent Noise, a podcast production and consulting company. He also provides strategic advice to public radio programs and stations and writes about radio and digital audio in his newsletter The Audio Insurgent.