Wrestling Podcasts

looking forward this to see how old stone cold reacts to there impressions and i do enjoy rocky, gallows and anderson together

https://twitter.com/steveaustinBSR/status/938635262145396736

Something completely fresh (For me anyway) this week on Brother Love's podcast looking forward to listening about the Steiners and Big Poppa Pump's run.

They have hit a stride of late. Less commentary and the topics have led to more interesting stories. I had felt a wee bit fatigued by the length of the shows a while back but the improved content has made all the difference.

The one problem they're coming up on is where they've gone in depth on something prior and are hitting on it again and saying "you can hear all about this in X episode". It's ok now as it's intermittent but the longer they go, the more frequent that'll happen and it can be odd at times.

It feels like it very much is too late for TNAGFWIMPACT unfortunately. Amazing to think of all they squandered.

Those of you who listen to Something to Wrestle With, as the guys are on vacation or at live shows a lot the next month, they've organised their schedule as follows:
12/15 - Edge
12/22 - Goldust
12/29 - Poll Announced 12/15
1/5 - Creation of RAW
1/12 - The Rockers & Marty Jannetty's Run
1/19 - Royal Rumble 1998
1/26 - Royal Rumble 1988 (Watch-Along)

Hyped for the Marty show and also hoping we get some new Goldust tidbits given how many times he has come and gone. I think between them Goldie & Marty may have had 15 runs.

Jerichoholic wrote: »

No interest in Edge at all.

For some reason, neither do I.

It feels like he is the type to never make waves backstage and other than the Lita affair I feel like there's no major backstage juice to be had here.

https://twitter.com/iamjohnpollock/status/941313985671860224

This made me chuckle after a crap day

Another fcuking 5 hour STW this week this one on Goldust.

Agent Coulson wrote: »

Another fcuking 5 hour STW this week this one on Goldust.

I'm not finished it but I have to say I've enjoyed it so far.

I think both have made the point that their download and listening figures tell them that longer = better for their numbers. I strongly doubt that the longer shows are doing worse figures but they just plough on regardless. Neither are exactly subtle about the fact that the podcast is their to drive revenue.

You say you can understand the frustration with the length but it would work the opposite way. Go on Conrad's twitter when he does a 2.5 hour show and he's bombarded with people complaining it's too short. It mightn't be to your taste, but they probably know their business better than you.

I like the longer shows for the most part, but I don't complain either way because I can't see the logic in it myself.

Monokne wrote: »

I think both have made the point that their download and listening figures tell them that longer = better for their numbers. I strongly doubt that the longer shows are doing worse figures but they just plough on regardless. Neither are exactly subtle about the fact that the podcast is their to drive revenue.

You say you can understand the frustration with the length but it would work the opposite way. Go on Conrad's twitter when he does a 2.5 hour show and he's bombarded with people complaining it's too short. It mightn't be to your taste, but they probably know their business better than you.

I like the longer shows for the most part, but I don't complain either way because I can't see the logic in it myself.

I've no idea of Conrad's broadcasting background, but I was podcasting before even Colt was and got blooded through the radio industry from the bottom up learning from all sorts of industry heads who've been doing it decades as well as modern web guys at successful mainstream businesses with followings that dwarf STWW, so that's debatable. Famous people can just gain instant followings easier but it doesn't speak to actual industry knowledge, every wrestler wants to be on the Stone Cold podcast but they're not ringing him up for production notes. I will say that they know their own audience better than anyone though, and I'm not arguing that.

The reality is, though, that people who know the business better than any of us and top the entire podcasting charts have determined that 45-90 minutes is the sweetspot for mass audiences. Which makes sense: it's the length of an average work commute, stretched both ways if need be. That's when most people listen to podcasts. So they're not immune to being questioned either, the business has spoke and 5+ hours is not the way to attract a mass audience, if that indeed is what you want.

However there are a million ways to skin a cat and who knows which way they go: they could've determined that they appeal to a hardcore audience who'll buy merch and want 5 hour podcasts that's sizeable enough. They could've simply figured they can sell more ad space over a longer length of time. They could be like "this is how we enjoy doing it and editing would be too much like work, we'll get enough hits and still love doing it this way." They could be really carny and figured out a way of spinning the numbers that shows that if people have to take 2-3 times to listen they can count those as 2-3 hits per person (don't discount this, the lads are carny as **** and that'd be kinda genius if they did it) and they know advertisers won't check. And, again, I'm not arguing with that. All of those are fair ways to do business, it's just **** not being one of those people, but I'm not gonna walk around town wearing something with Brother Love's face on it so...

Your point that it's free content is valid. It's just frustrating when there's a show out there that you want to listen to that just won't make it accessible enough for you to actually listen to. I'm gonna drop my sub if this becomes the new norm and I'd really rather not.

The problem with 5 hour shows is that they tend to skim through latter years. 2008 was a banner year for Edge, but they skimmed through that year as they were close to wrapping up the show.

It was a great idea a few months ago that they covered early years of John Cena into one part and maybe cover latter years for a future episode as a part two.

Personally I look quite favourably on the lengthier show.

I guess it is the way I consume long form podcasts. Generally STWW is listened to on my commute cross country on a Friday evening. Now it turns out I have another few hours for the return journey.

Failing that I just play it hour by hour picking off where I left off.

I think it's coming across like I'm criticising because I'm personally disappointed, when I'm not. It's their show and if the show they make doesn't work for me to listen to, so be it and good luck to them.

On the other hand I'm speculating as to what the jig is, with genuine interest and respect. Like I don't accept that they pull in the figures they claim, not in a negative way, it's just that the figures defy reality so I'm wondering what the jig is. For example, when I used to DJ in clubs, I'd put sample mixes up to send onto clubs and promoters on SoundCloud but, when I'd do so, every time you'd push play it'd count it as a new listen. So I'd do that 150-200 times so potential employers wouldn't see a link with no views. Similarly a mate of mine is on Spotify and earns money every time his songs are streamed, so before he goes to bed at night he leaves one song on repeat on his phone. In business, everyone juices the figures and it's fair game to do so IMO as long as you're not robbing normal people. So, while I fully believe they can verify the numbers they claim, I think they're doing the smart, prudent business move to maximise revenue in some way and am speculating myself. But I think that's getting mixed up with my other point and coming across as criticism when it's not (and that's on me). They've just clearly figured out something in podcasting and as someone who loves the medium, I'd love to know what that is.