The Emerging Independent Podcast Industry: How Podcast
Networks are Professionalising and Formalising Independent
Podcasting through Processes of Curation and Gatekeeping
Wouter Schreurs Student number: 10766189 wouter.schreurs@student.uva.nl University of Amsterdam: Research MA Media Studies Thesis supervisor: Dr. C.J. Birdsall Second reader: Dr. J.C. Hermes 28 June 2019
Abstract
Podcasting has recently experienced significant growth in production and audiences. Such growth has also resulted in an increase in economic capital which has attracted traditional media companies to the developing podcast industry. Amateur producers in the industry have responded to this development by working together through the formation of podcast networks. In such networks, producers promote one another and share in their niche audiences. By working together, these podcast networks have a stronger and more competitive economic position. By closely analysing three case studies, Maximum Fun, Relay FM, and Gimlet Media, this thesis will argue that the independent podcast industry is rapidly professionalising and formalising in response to traditional media companies stepping into the podcast market. Podcast networks are doing this through combined processes of curation and gatekeeping. These processes are used by the networks to establish cohesive collections and present these
effectively to audiences. The networks also form very strong and active communities around their brand in an effort to create loyal users who trust the brand and promote it through word of mouth. As such, these networks are becoming influential taste makers for audiences and advertisers alike. This, in turn, allows these networks to financially benefit from a large audience and a strong competitive position in the market and therefore compete with traditional media companies. By independent and professional podcast networks borrowing strategies from one another, the independent podcast industry is not only professionalising and formalising, but also setting the tone for the way the podcast industry as a whole operates.
Keywords
Podcast, podcast network, curation, gatekeeping, media industry, independent production, amateur media
Contents
1. Introduction...3
2. Podcast: a developing media industry...6
2.1 Podcast, a brief history...7
2.2 The dawn of an industry...14
2.3 Independent podcast networks...16
3. Curation and gatekeeping...20
3.1 Curation...20
3.1.1. Decentralisation...21
3.1.2. Social/distributed curation...23
3.1.3. The changing curator role...25
3.1.4. Podcast curation...26
3.2 Gatekeeping...27
3.2.1. Traditional gatekeeping and its link to curation...28
3.2.2. Shift away from institutions...30
3.2.3. Gatekeeping online...31
3.2.4. Gatekeeping and networks...32
3.2.5. Podcast gatekeeping...34
4. Podcast network analysis...36
4.1 Analytical model...36 4.2 Maximum Fun...39 4.2.1. Selection...40 4.2.2. Presentation...41 4.2.3. Guiding...41 4.2.4. Collection management...42 4.2.5. Alteration...43 4.3 Relay FM...44 4.3.1. Selection...45 4.3.2. Presentation...46 4.3.3. Guiding...47 4.3.4. Collection management...47 4.3.5. Alteration...48 4.4 Gimlet Media...48 4.4.1. Selection...50 4.4.2. Presentation...50 4.4.3. Collection management...51 4.4.4. Guiding...52 4.4.5. Alteration...52 5. Conclusion...53 References...58 Appendix...65
1. Introduction
Although podcast is still a relatively young medium with a history of just a decade and a half, it continues to experience tremendous growth in popularity both in terms of audiences as well as in terms of productions. In fact, podcast audiences have been shown to continually grow by “10 to 20% per year” and this doesn't appear to be slowing down anytime soon (Bhaskar). Low production costs combined with ease of distribution make podcast into a medium that is potentially accessible to large
consumer audiences for both production and consumption. Add to this the fact that the estimated total ad revenue for podcasts has risen by close to 600% over just 4 years and it becomes clear that podcast is not just here to stay but that it is turning into a potentially very profitable enterprise (Karr). It is not surprising, then, that many content creators are keen to join the medium, especially those with a pre-existing (online) following, who can create a podcast and attract advertisers with relative ease.
With such an increase in both production and consumption of the medium over the last few years, podcast has also received increased scholarly attention from various angles, which ranges from studies of production and audiences through to technological questions. For production, Kris Markman and Caroline Sawyer have examined the motivations behind podcasting for its producers, revealing that community building, enjoyment, and the chance for financial gain were important contributing factors. For audiences, Steven McClung and Kristine Johnson have examined the motivations of the users, revealing that entertaining content and joining a community were important as well as the ability to listen at their own leisure. This community building aspect has been taken further by Kyle Wrather who studied how fans and podcast producers alike use online spaces to form communities and interact with each other. According to Robert Yeates, this interaction between fan and
producer that exists around these podcasts actually allows fans to affect change in the media content they consume. Lastly, technological questions have been taken up by Jeremy Wade Morris and Eleanor Patterson who studied podcatching apps, revealing that user control and interactivity as well as encouraging users to consume more content were important factors in these apps. While this brief overview is far from exhaustive, it helps to show just some of the ways in which podcast is being taken seriously by scholars as a medium worthy of theoretical and empirical study. This thesis will explore this literature in more depth as well as contribute to the discussion about this medium.
With the financial gain that has come with the growth of the medium, the media industrial aspects of podcast require more in-depth consideration as well. As more traditional media companies are investing in podcast companies or setting up podcast divisions of their own, the medium may potentially turn from something largely run by amateurs into something dominated by media corporations. As suggested by André Gaudreault and Philippe Marion, a medium enters a new and more professional stage of development when institutions are formed and more economic resources become available (13). But amateur producers who have spent years building audiences and productions are not unresponsive to big business
stepping into the podcast market. These amateurs, too, seem to have begun to create a more structured environment, working together to play to their strengths. By forming podcast networks through multiple amateur and independent podcasts joining
together, they may all grow stronger and more profitable. As strong networks, they are better able to market themselves to advertisers and to compete with big companies stepping into the market.
Most of the existing work on amateur media seems to focus on fans and the way they interact with media and create their own culture and even their own content around it, the most prominent work coming from scholars like Henry Jenkins and Matt Hills. However, the current study into amateur media does not focus on fans, instead it critically examines a field of amateur production that is beginning to turn into a professional industry. As such, this thesis is a response to a call for more research into alternative and community media as these “can enrich our understanding of the broader media landscape and its place in society” (Atton 9). While Chris Atton has compiled an extensive book on the topic, he is quick to remark that it is far from exhaustive and a study into the independent podcast industry is also lacking (9). Furthermore, this thesis is a response to the need for a production studies approach to the developing independent podcast industry as such an approach examines
production communities and their “organizational structures, professional practices, and power dynamics” (Banks, Conor and Mayer x). As a response to these calls, this thesis will provide some much-needed insight into the ways in which the independent podcast industry is developing.
In terms of the development of podcast networks, Dutch podcast creator and writer, Lieven Heeremans, has examined the reasons for their emergence as well as some of the ways in which they operate. Heeremans concludes that podcast networks
are beneficial to all member podcasts as a network can leverage their niche audience more effectively against advertisers (75). Of course, members on the network also benefit from being able to share audiences and grow individually as well as collectively. In his exploration of podcast networks, Heeremans briefly notes that curation and gatekeeping are fundamental aspects to the operation of an effective and successful podcast network. However, he goes on to state that “the implicit
gatekeeping mechanisms in this chapter could benefit from both a more detailed and inclusive analysis” (Heeremans 75). It is precisely this more detailed and inclusive analysis which this thesis will attempt to provide.
Through a close analysis of the processes of curation and gatekeeping in three different podcast networks, Maximum Fun, Relay FM, and Gimlet Media, this thesis aims to uncover how exactly podcast networks are systematically employing
strategies to curate and gatekeep their own network and the independent podcast industry at large. Furthermore, the strategic and systematic use of such processes points towards the formation of a more formalised and professionalised industry. As such, the central question in this thesis is: how are processes of curation and
gatekeeping contributing to the professionalisation and formalisation of the
independent podcast industry? By comparing two independent podcast networks and their way of operating to a podcast network that is not independent, the differences and similarities in strategies will be critically analysed. In turn, this will reveal to what extent independent and professional networks borrow and copy each other's strategies, and thus how independent podcast networks are functioning in a more 'professional' manner.
Thus, this thesis will first closely examine both podcast as a medium as well as the phenomenon of the podcast network and elaborate on them both in order to establish a solid basis to analyse the independent podcast industry. Next the concepts of curation and gatekeeping will be unpacked and I will provide a working definition for both concepts that will help in establishing the conceptual tools for an analysis. Using the key concepts, an analytical model will be applied to the three podcast networks. These case studies have been selected to provide a clear example of how podcast networks operate both from an independent and a corporate perspective. These two perspectives will then be critically compared to conclude with an assessment of the extent to which the independent podcast industry is professionalising and formalising.
2. Podcast as a developing media industry
Podcasts and podcasting have been around for over a decade now, long enough to come into their own and to form an industry around them. The term podcast was coined in 2004 by journalist Ben Hammersley when attempting to define the new emerging amateur radio phenomenon at the time. Hammersley combined the words iPod and broadcast to describe the way this new media format was being used; not as a live broadcast, but rather as a downloaded programme to be consumed at the
listener's leisure (Hammersley). At that time podcasting was still a new and emerging phenomenon for a very niche audience. On top of that, portable audio players were not yet widespread, there were no smartphones and getting podcasts onto your device was a much lengthier process than it is today (Sullivan, “Podcast” 38). Thus, although the beginnings of the medium as we know it today could be seen, a lot of
developments still had to occur to get to where we are now.
As already apparent from Hammersley's definition, podcast was initially linked to radio and seen as the medium's newest innovation. Podcast, before it even got its name, was seen as a form of amateur radio where anyone and everyone could record their own content and share it with the world, assuming of course that listeners were able to find it and also interested in listening to it (Berry, “Podcasting” 8). The connection drawn to radio is not very surprising, since the two media do share a lot of commonalities in that they both deal with similar audio material and they both
distribute it in a mostly one directional way to audiences with little or no room for interaction. Of course, there are also some differences, but the similarity to radio made it seem, at least in the early period, that podcast was simply a new form of radio. Following Gaudreault and Marion, borrowing from earlier media occurs with all emerging media at first and “a medium does not really impose itself as an
autonomous medium […] until it has defined its own way of re-presenting, expressing and communicating the world” (3). Podcast has undergone significant changes and developments since its emergence and has found 'its own way of re-presenting the world'. As such, podcast has moved further away from radio to become its own separate medium (Berry, “Podcasting” 17).
As David Black argues, discussing podcast as if it is a form of radio already puts us in the wrong mindset: “the very act of dubbing those streams 'radio'
determines how much the two things will be perceived as having in common” (398). Black argues that “media gain and retain identity through acts of naming” and
therefore approaching podcast as podcast and not as radio helps in setting the two apart (401). Richard Berry has also added that “if we consider that many listeners might come to podcasting because it is not radio, a distinct identity could prove to be advantageous” (“Podcasting” 9). Thus, podcast is not simply a part of radio even though it has undeniably borrowed a lot from radio and has grown out of many radio traditions. Media scholar Andrew Bottomley even remarked that “there is little about podcasting that is truly new, when the full range of radio's history and forms are taken into account” (180). Even so, the scholarly assessment is that podcast has now come into its own and should be studied as such.
2.1. Podcast, a brief history
To more clearly delineate podcast as a stand-alone medium, the following section will look through its relatively short history to examine the changes that have occurred as well as the particularities that make the medium into what it is today. To start, a clearer definition of podcast will help delineate the medium. Podcast and radio scholar Tiziano Bonini has offered such a definition in an influential paper, stating that “[p]odcasting is a technology used to distribute, receive and listen, on-demand, to sound content” (21). He adds to this that this content can come from traditional institutions and amateurs alike. Thus, podcasting is about both the production and reception side of sound content, it is open for anyone to use, and importantly it is on-demand offering greater agency to the consumer. On-on-demand formats such as the podcast proliferate to respond to growing consumer needs and wants with regard to being able to time-shift their media programming and be less tied to predetermined schedules (Murray 206). This connects podcast to a broader development in the media and beyond.
The on-demand and time-shifting functionality has been at the core of podcasting from the outset. Traditionally, podcast makes us of an RSS feed and consumers may subscribe to this feed free of charge (Berry, “Will” 145). Subscribing to such a feed results in the audio file being automatically downloaded onto the consumer's device as soon as the producer puts it online. Thus, podcasting is simultaneously a push- and a pull-medium (Berry, “Will” 156). This is how the technology can be defined the way Bonini has done, making both the producer and consumer an important part of the equation. This model allows the consumer to only subscribe to the content they are interested in and then to consume it at a time of their
choosing. This configuration has been characteristic for podcast from its inception and is still the case today.
However, the technologies and interfaces surrounding the content delivery system have changed. Initially, consumers had a lot more difficulty finding podcasts and had to go through the lengthy process of manually subscribing to an RSS feed and loading the files onto their devices. But since platforms like iTunes launched a
landing page for podcasts in 2005, the process of finding and subscribing to podcasts has been simplified. The RSS feed still remains, but is linked through platforms for the consumer's ease. This means that these platforms don't host the podcasts, they merely point consumers to where the original file is stored (Sullivan, “Platforms” 9-10). The subscription process has been further simplified with the widespread use of smart mobile devices where consumers have access to a multitude of applications called “podcatchers”, these apps allow consumers to automatically receive the latest episodes of their favourite podcasts directly onto their device so they can consume them whenever and wherever they want to (Morris & Patterson).
Being able to consume a podcast anywhere and anytime is another
fundamental feature to the medium that has been around since the early period of its development and has also gone through some changes since then. Not only are podcasts an easily transportable medium, but they are also often consumed while on the move. In fact, McClung and Johnson have found that “most users (68%) consume podcasts on a portable media player” (89). Thus, podcasts are often enjoyed while in transit or doing other activities, making portability an important factor for
consumption. This aspect also gave podcast a big advantage over other audio media. As Jonathan Sterne et al. put it, “[p]odcasting was a portable technology, while the earlier forms of online syndication kept audio in the computer.” Of course, a medium like radio is also portable thanks to small receivers and smart devices but it doesn't have the on-demand advantage that comes with the podcast. Furthermore,
podcatching apps have transformed and even emphasised the portability of the podcast. According to a recent study on podcatching apps by Morris and Patterson, these apps are encouraging consumers to keep listening as they switch between devices. The apps enable consumers to continue where they left off in a piece of content even when they switch to a different device in an attempt to make it easier for the consumer and to keep them hooked (Morris & Patterson 226). Thus, portability
and the option to listen wherever were important factors for podcast from its inception and have gained in significance.
The portability and time-shifting nature of the medium noted above does more than just simplify media consumption for consumers. According to McClung and Johnson “podcasts, as well as the portable devices on which they are used, are changing the way people interact with media” (82). Due to their on-demand nature and the apps used, the consumer has a greater degree of control over the content they are listening to as well as the way the way in which they listen to it (Morris &
Patterson 225-6). For example, consumers can listen to content in any order, play it at a different speed, skip through segments, rewind, and relisten whenever they want. Some apps even offer the option to automatically edit out silences and skip over intros to make it easier for users and to save time. Because consumers have easy access to these tools with which to alter the way the content comes to them, they effectively have the agency to alter actual material.
Perhaps more important here is the way in which greater agency in
consumption changes how consumers interact with media at large. As Richard Berry argues: “there is a move in power from programmers to listeners” (“Will” 145). Consumers can now choose not only what they listen to and when they listen to it, but they can also choose how they listen to it in a way that is potentially different from the original piece of content they are consuming. Thus, the consumer has an increased amount of autonomy and agency in the process of consuming media content, and while there is such a power shift to the consumer, there is reason to believe that this change is actually beneficial to podcasts themselves. As Murray remarks,
“[p]odcasting facilitates repeat listening far better than the domestic audio taping of the past” (204). Furthermore, increased autonomy for the consumer actually means that the variety in content available has become much larger. Content that would not make it to air on radio or that would be cut down, is able to thrive in a podcast environment. Indeed, “podcasting does offer a much wider range of audio content than broadcast radio does” (Sterne et al.). With no limitations on available air time and the ability for consumers to choose what, when, and where they listen, there is a lot more room for niche topics as well as producers from marginalised and minority groups who might be underrepresented in traditional media.
Podcast also seems to provide an increased level of intimacy between listener and producer, in part thanks to the wider range of content that is available. Podcast is
not unique in its ability to be quite intimate; this seems to be a common feature in auditory media, according to John Durham Peters, most media “in the United States at least, actively cultivate a sense of intimate relations between persona and audience” (217). What also helps for auditory media is that consumers often use headphones or earphones, especially when they are listening on the go, therefore, content is already often delivered in a very private manner. Moreover, according to Michael Bull, this creates a privatised sound world for listeners (199). This privatised sound world is used by listeners to control their everyday experiences and create a more intimate private space (Bull 205-7). For podcast, Richard Berry has remarked that it “creates a deeply personal and highly privatized (and intimate) space in which content is
consumed” (“Podcasting” 13).
The highly intimate space that is created can be partly attributed to the actual content being listened to. Because podcast has so much variety and so many forms of niche programming, consumers can often find exactly the kind of podcast that they are interested in. Due to an increased level of interest, a listener is much more likely to pay close attention and get involved in whatever they are listening to. Increased attention helps establish a greater degree of intimacy. One can add to this the fact that most podcasts consist of spoken word content requiring closer listening (Berry, “Podcasting” 12-13). Furthermore, consumers often seek out podcasts that are produced by members of a community that they are also a part of or produced by people to whom the consumer can closely relate, which again helps foster a greater degree of intimacy (Berry, “Part” 666). Podcast producers are also inclined to employ a mode of address that more closely involves the listener, while the listener cannot join in on the conversation, this mode of address combined with the intimacy may make listeners feel like they are a part of it anyway. As stated by Phillip Dearman and Chris Galloway: “the highly personalised listening experience is a key facet of the podcaster's appeal” (537). Thus, this inclusion seems to help in keeping listeners interested and listening closely. Furthermore, many podcasts are home productions or created by amateur producers and consist of personal stories or personal accounts. This less professional perhaps even homemade style may add a feeling of greater authenticity and intimacy for the listener.
These elements seem to suggest a greater degree of intimacy may be found in podcast compared to other auditory media. With a seemingly increased degree of intimacy and the creation of a highly privatised and intimate space in podcast, the way
the audience behaves and responds to this medium can also differ. Berry has noted that “podcast listening is both theoretically and actually different from radio listening” (“Podcasting” 13). But this extends beyond radio listening to most other forms of audio. When compared, podcast audiences seem to be much more engaged with the content thanks to an increase in intimacy as well as seeking out content they are specifically interested in and listening more attentively. Because of this, audiences may also be more likely to set time aside to listen to their favourite podcast, especially if episodes are released on a regular schedule. Even if listening is combined with another activity, such as a daily commute, the listener is seeking out the privatised sound world this offers in order to be immersed in the content.
The large amount of spoken word material would appear to play an important part in audience attention, requiring a greater degree of effort from the consumer to follow along, which in turn may be of great benefit to podcast producers. Not only does it mean that their content is getting consumed more attentively but there is also an increase in the willingness of the audience to engage and participate in the content. Of course, due to the on-demand nature of the medium, live engagement is not an option. However, interaction is still possible in a way where it is not temporally simultaneous with the time of recording. Many podcasts make use of listener questions for example. This creates even greater intimacy and engagement in a process that reinforces itself.
Increased intimacy and engagement also help get listeners involved in different ways. Marika Lüders has noted that “involving the audience as participants is also a strategy which is seen to generate loyal users” (694). Having loyal users enables a podcast producer to retain the audience more easily and increases word of mouth advertising that many podcasts rely on. As podcast industry professional Eric Nuzum points out, traditional advertising is ineffective for podcasts, instead
marketing is “an ongoing process of engaging with your audience and potential audience.” Therefore, having an engaged audience and also engaging with them is crucial for a podcast to thrive. Furthermore, an engaged audience can also financially support a podcast and make it possible for the producer to turn from an amateur into a professional who makes a living from producing content. Berry has even noted that “not only are podcast listeners more engaged with the content but they are also highly likely to support the sustainability of their favourite work financially” (“Podcasting” 15).
Whether it is through donations, extra paid content or advertising, a more engaged podcast audience can be of great financial benefit to a podcast producer. In fact, “advertising embedded in podcasts has a much greater value than advertising broadcast on air” (Bonini 27). Dearman and Galloway echo this sentiment and note that because listeners seek out podcasts, they are a great way for advertisers to reach audiences, especially very niche ones (539). This can again be related to a higher degree of intimacy and engagement from the audience. The audience is listening more closely and therefore more likely to also listen to the advertising. But perhaps more importantly, the advertising is read out by the podcast host and in most cases not entirely scripted but instead the podcast host puts it into their own words. As a result of this editorial decision combined with greater intimacy and engagement, the
advertising becomes more akin to an endorsement from a friend than a paid promotion (Greenfield). Thus, higher engagement and intimacy means that a podcast producer can potentially start to earn money for their work.
All these factors that are important for the medium, then, have made it
possible for podcast producers to potentially make a living from their content. This is made possible too by the low production and distribution costs. Therefore, it is not only possible but in fact attractive for amateur producers to use the medium for the audio content they wish to create. Furthermore, these various aspects and the low barrier for entry means there is a lot more room for creative freedom on the part of the producer. It is here that one must be careful not to overemphasise the potential
increase in freedom and democracy that the medium offers. Media scholar Kate Lacey astutely notes that “aspirations for a technologically re-invigorated democracy also accompanied the emergence of analogue recording and radio transmission” (10). Lacey goes on to explain how every new media development is accompanied by a promise for greater democracy and that each time it has proven to be only temporary and often exaggerated. Enrico Menduni even goes so far as to say that “podcasting does not operate as a more democratic medium” since it has been appropriated by many traditional media institutions (9). However, it is hard to deny that currently podcast does offer producers the opportunity to be more experimental and freer in their productions; whether it will stay this way remains to be seen.
According to Kris Markman, podcast allows producers “to do radio on their own terms – free from industry and/or legal constraints”; as it currently stands, independent podcast production still has a lot of room for creative freedom (555).
Furthermore, “podcasters are unconstrained not only in terms of place and time but also in terms of censorship and established ethical standards” (Dearman & Galloway 543). Since independent producers are generally in charge of their own production and distribution, they are for the most part able to say and do what they want, within limits. One recent example is controversial figure Alex Jones' podcast being banned from many platforms after he violated their terms of service and community
guidelines by engaging in hate speech and promoting violence (Hern). Thus, producers still have to abide by the guidelines set by platforms that provide their content with visibility.
It is not just the producer who enjoys a greater degree of freedom, so too does the consumer: “the listener has a greater degree of autonomy” (Berry “Podcasting” 12). This goes for choosing the content they consume but also how, when and where they consume it: this greater amount of freedom for both parties makes the medium more open to experimental work and exploring the possibilities it has to offer (Murray 210). Such conditions mean that podcast has more varied, more specific and more niche content to offer.
While the aspects and elements listed above are not unique to podcast and can in fact be found in one way or another in other media, it is the combination of all of them that makes podcast into a medium in its own right. And this medium has gone through many changes, some of which have been briefly discussed above. Among such changes is also a big growth in popularity over the last few years, especially in the U.S. and English-speaking context. Although it is hard to pinpoint where the growth came from, as many factors are at play, two significant factors include easier access to portable media players as well as increased desire for on-demand media formats.
Podcast's growth in popularity can also be attributed to the medium becoming more mainstream. This is largely traced back to the podcast Serial, an investigative journalism podcast hosted by Sarah Koenig and launched in late 2014. As Siobhán McHugh demonstrates, the massive success of this podcast saw traditional news outlets reporting on the medium and bringing it more into the mainstream (66). In this context, Bonini has identified what he calls “the second age of podcasting” where podcast is moving from an amateur run endeavour to a more professional field that is developing an industry surrounding it. Sterne et al. offer a different characterisation, noting that “podcasting is neither a complete break from broadcasting nor part of any
kind of revolution, it is the realisation of an alternate cultural model of broadcasting.” The formation of a podcast industry also further establishes podcast as a medium in its own right. According to Gaudreault and Marrion, a medium's unique identity is established through a process where an “institution is created by, for and around the medium” (3). The fact that a professional industry is now forming around the medium is not an unexpected development. It does, however, raise some questions with regards to the large amount of amateur and independent productions that make up a large portion of the podcast landscape. What is the formation of such an industry doing to these podcasts? How do they play a part in it and how are they responding to these developments?
2.2. The dawn of an industry
As has previously been noted, it is possible for (independent) podcast producers to make a living from their podcasts through a number of routes. However, generally speaking this is not straightforward and certainly not the case until a producer has built an audience large enough to sustain a substantial amount of revenue. As John L. Sullivan has shown, “efforts to secure sponsors were stymied until [solo podcasters] were able to demonstrate to advertisers that their shows received and average of fifty thousand downloads per episode” (“Podcast” 51). This means that independent podcasters, especially those just starting out, find themselves in a very precarious work situation. This is also why many podcast producers tend to produce because they have a passion for their craft, as opposed to producing content to be able to make a living. Markman has shown that lack of monetary compensation can be a source of frustration for independent podcast producers, this is why they mostly put in the large amounts of work because they are passionate about what they are doing and because of the community that forms around their work (558-9).
Thus, it can be said that independent podcast producers are often in a situation where they are providing free labour. Following Tiziana Terranova's work, one could argue that free labour is an important aspect of Internet culture and has been from its inception. “[T]he sustainability of the Internet as a medium depends on massive amounts of labor” and “users keep a site alive through their labor” (Terranova 48-49). While this labour might be intended as a voluntary act, according to Terranova it creates value for others. The same can be said for podcasts in that a lot of labour goes into them and a podcast producer might not be making any money, or in fact spending
money on the creation and distribution of their content. At the same time, platforms and apps that host or give easy access to this content can financially benefit from this free labour provided by the independent producers. For Terranova, capitalism doesn't simply look for places where it can benefit from free labour, rather the Internet itself is always already a capitalist environment where free labour is being provided on a huge scale and this free labour is then turned into capital gain for third parties (38-39). Thus, whether they intend to or not, independent podcast producers are providing their free labour for the podcast market. And many do intend to, or at least hope to, do something about this situation.
While monetary gain is often not the primary reason for independent podcast producers to create content, it is one of many motivational factors (Markman). Therefore, it is important to examine how free labour here relates to the precarious work done by these independent podcast producers. This connection is offered by Kathleen Kuehn and Thomas F. Corrigan, who discuss what they refer to as “hope labour.” Hope labour is “un- or under-compensated work carried out in the present, often for experience or exposure, in the hope that future employment opportunities may follow” (10). So, hope labour is a form of free labour intentionally undertaken with the idea that it will result in compensated labour in the future. This means that hope labour is not quite free labour in the eyes of the worker, since compensation is expected to follow at some undefined moment. If an independent podcast producer is motivated to eventually be compensated for their work, they are conducting hope labour.
According to Kuehn and Corrigan hope labour “is largely not experienced as exploitation or alienation, despite the commodification processes inherent to digital and cultural production” (12). Thus, it also ties in very well with what these podcast producers are doing, as they are working passionately on their content and don't feel exploited even if others are benefiting from their hard work. Kuehn and Corrigan even state that “hope labor presumably has greater longevity in social production contexts where it is pursued as a secondary motivation” (19). So, for an industry such as the independent podcast industry, where producers' primary motivation is not monetary gain, hope labour is an important element in production.
The fundamental problem, however, is that hope labour in no way guarantees future compensation, it is just the hope that this will follow after all. In fact, a broader pattern in contemporary society is reflected in the independent podcast industry as
well by the huge increase in the amount of hope labour being pursued. Thus, a large amount of free labour is being provided, which in turn decreases the amount of compensated work that is available, since some of it is being filled with free labour instead. “Hope labor thus contributes, in part, to the precarity of contemporary work” (Kuehn and Corrigan 20). Thus, large amounts of podcasts putting content out for free and competing in the same arena, would appear to cause a big problem for all
independent producers involved. And with a growth in popularity, this problem would possibly only grow even bigger.
2.3 Independent podcast networks
So, the independent podcast industry has emerged as a result of the specific
combination of characteristics that make up the medium that have been listed above. The on-demand feature, the portability, the intimacy, the engagement, the creative freedom, the ability for virtually anyone to record and distribute a podcast and the willingness of people to put in a lot of hard work for little or no monetary
compensation. But all these elements have also helped in bringing about a
phenomenon within this independent podcast industry that is known as the podcast network. Very simply put, “at its core a 'podcast network' has a universal meaning: a group of shows housed in one place” (Ostic).
Such a group of shows can fulfill a multitude of purposes for the members but more often than not a podcast network is a collective of podcasts around similar interests that get together and cross-promote each other and help grow each other's audience. Heeremans remarks that “[g]athering individual shows under the aegis of a network or collective strengthens individual producers and has various advantages for both the collective and its constituent elements” (65). Because of networks
functioning like this, “sharing knowledge, resources, and reach is the central motivation” (Heeremans 65). Indeed, networks allow the members to both work alongside and together with other producers who are working on similar things. Producers retain the ability to produce independently with their own creative input and freedom, whilst at the same time having the ability to work together with others, they stand to get the best of both worlds.
Since networks have producers working together and promoting each other, they are able to much more quickly grow their audiences. Since podcasts that are members of the same network are similar to some degree, there is a good chance that
the audience for one podcast might be interested in listening to another podcast on the same network. Thus, internally referring the audience to other network members allows a podcast on a network to grow quite quickly. Furthermore, a quickly growing audience can “generate reviews to gain enough popularity that they are able to
monopolize the top of the Apple Podcast charts” (Hines). This is a very important point for podcasts, as Morgan Hines writes that “Apple Podcast is one of the best places for podcasters to grow their listener base.” Since consumers can use these charts to find new and upcoming content, they are of great value to producers. When a network is able to quickly grow an audience internally and this results in the podcasts making it to the top of the charts, then this growth can only continue. Indeed, “podcast networks dominate the 'Top Podcasts' charts” (Nuzum). Thus, networks are a great tool for independent producers to grow and collaborate and they seem to be changing the way in which the independent podcast industry operates.
An important reason why this development can happen within the independent podcast industry is due to the effect of what Chris Anderson calls 'the long tail' effect. According to Anderson, the Internet makes it possible even for very niche topics to find an audience since it is not location bound. Thus, a podcast on a niche topic can still gain wide success with listeners spread out over large areas, especially since the format is on-demand. When a number of these niche podcasts join forces, they can grow even more as they can share in their niche audiences.
The reason this matters is because iTunes, which is a very important platform for podcasts, has payment options in place for all types of media they offer except for podcasts. Therefore, podcast producers that want to make money are forced to find different routes such as direct audience support or advertisements (Heeremans 63). The fact that many networks center around a particular topic, often within a niche, “allows the network to brand itself as a go-to network for specific types of content” (Heeremans 74). This not only makes it easier for a potential audience to find the kind of content they are interested in but it also makes for a very attractive opportunity for advertisers who have difficulty reaching these niche audiences. This gives a network more power than an individual independent podcast producer might have because “the network uses their niche audiences as an asset to leverage against advertisers”
(Heeremans 71).
A podcast network is able to use their unique position to not only find advertisers more easily but to also get better deals for their member producers.
According to research conducted by John L. Sullivan, it is “simpler to make deals for sponsorship with networks than with individual podcasters” (51). This is because a network instantly grants access to a larger number of podcasts, usually with a bigger audience. Furthermore, the advertising on podcasts is very effective. As mentioned earlier, the personal touch given to the ads makes them more akin to an endorsement from a friend than an ad. In her research on influencer marketing on Instagram, Brooke Erin Duffy found that more personal forms of advertising are ideal for
advertisers trying to target consumers that have grown weary of traditional marketing strategies. Instead, “[influencers] furnish networked social capital and deliver
messages wrapped in a glossy veneer of 'authentic' or 'organic' brand advocacy” (Duffy 388). Thus, this new more personal and 'authentic' form of advertising is proving to be much more successful in online culture. The same could be applied to podcast where a similar form of advertising is going on and creating a lucrative market for podcast producers to start earning money.
With these new business models and mechanics emerging, it is not surprising that traditional media institutions are moving towards podcast as well, this in turn brings “professional standards and the logics of capital with them” (Sullivan 35). So, in a double move, traditional media is drawn to podcast because it is becoming more professional and formalised, and at the same time the presence of traditional media is helping in the professionalisation and formalisation of the medium. This can also be seen in the way networks are taking over some tasks from producers. Beyond hosting the actual content “[n]etworks can also provide institutional and financial support to hosts” (Greenfield). This means that a successful podcast network can start to hire additional staff to do some tasks for producers, creating a division between 'the talent' and 'the admin' that resembles more traditional media network operations.
According to Heeremans, the move to formalise and professionalise is a gradual process occurring in the industry, and in fact “increase in the division of labour once again testifies to the maturation of podcasting as a medium” (74).
Formalisation and professionalisation are slowly starting to turn this amateur industry into something resembling traditional media industries. As a result of this process, these networks are also being taken much more seriously. In turn, advertisers are keen to make deals with networks: “advertisers have come to regard podcast networks […] as reliable 'tastemakers' for quality podcasts” (Sullivan 51). But it is not just
networks in a similar way. “[N]ew podcast networks take on the 'seal of approval' function which broadcast institutions formerly had unique access to” (Heeremans 60). Thus, according to Heeremans, podcast networks signal to consumers that there is good content to be found there.
Since the networks decide who does and who does not get to be a part of the network, it signals to consumers that a network is an authority on what is and isn't of good quality and worthwhile to subscribe to. The curation and gatekeeping function that these networks are taking on is precisely what this thesis will look into. These functions are emerging just as the independent podcast industry is going through a stage of professionalisation and formalisation. Therefore, it is important to examine how they operate and why they are emerging. As well as what the implications are for the independent podcast industry.
Lastly, it is important to mention that podcast networks are not exclusive to the independent podcast industry as many have been set up by traditional media companies as well. The networks in question here are what I refer to as independent podcast networks. While some networks may enjoy some form of backing either from private investors or from big (media) companies, what truly makes these networks independent is the podcasts that make up the network. These networks are made up of podcasts with independent, often amateur, beginnings. In other words, these networks are effectively made up of (mostly) independent producers joining forces to benefit the entire group. In the specific case of the independent podcast industry, these networks offer a window into how such an independent industry is trying to run itself as well as compete with professional media institutions that have been around for many years and even decades.
3. Curation and gatekeeping
With independent podcast networks attempting to formalise and professionalise their own industry, curation and gatekeeping have both become important tools to serve this purpose. While both curation and gatekeeping find their roots in very different fields, mostly in museum contexts and journalism respectively, they can provide great insight in the way this fledgling industry is organising itself. Furthermore, with literature firmly rooted in institutions that have been experiencing changes in an increasingly digital and online world, these concepts offer the ideal tools to
investigate an industry that is born digital but in the process of institutionalising. In order to be able to examine independent podcast networks on how these tools are used, why they are emerging and what the implications are, it is first of all important to define what is meant by these concepts.
This chapter will set out to define curation and gatekeeping as well as examine their interconnected roles in the process of formalisation and professionalisation of an independent and largely amateur podcast industry. In doing so, the chapter will reveal how curation and gatekeeping function as important concepts that may uncover how podcast networks operate within the broader podcast industry. The concepts will then be used to establish an analytical model to examine precisely how these networks are professionalising and formalising the independent podcast industry.
3.1 Curation
The concept of curation is most used in the context of museums and exhibitions. And, indeed, a traditional way to define curators is as “professionals who typically manage and take care of artifactual collections at heritage institutions and who organize exhibits in galleries” (Liu 18). Moreover, “[c]urators are knowledge brokers of a specific nature, taking culture created by others, and interpreting and publicizing it for the public good” (Villi, Moisander, and Joy 491). Thus, traditionally the curator has had a very specific place within institutions with a very specific set of tasks. Put very simply, within the museum or exhibition space, the curator would assemble and present exhibitions and provide framing for them so that the exhibitions make sense to the visiting public as a cohesive whole.
Already, in this overly simple definition, it is clear how curation can start to be linked to the work of podcast networks; bringing together different cultural works (podcasts) within the same setting (a network) and presenting them to the public as a
cohesive whole (the podcast network). The way a cohesive whole is formed can vary, of course, but for podcast networks often similar genres, topics or styles are what connect the different podcasts. Whereas in a gallery space it might be artists,
movements, periods, themes, and so on. Thus, modes of curation in podcast networks seem to parallel more traditional modes of curation in heritage institutions. But curation in such heritage institutions has also gone through some changes with the growth of digitalisation, both of the actual museum space and of the art exhibited within it. Indeed, as Sophia B. Liu states after offering her definition of a traditional curator: “this traditional definition of a curator is no longer an accurate way of defining the role of a curator” (18). It is clear, then, that curation too has not stood still, it has changed and developed significantly and in order to better establish the concept of curation in the context of podcast networks, let's now examine how the concept has evolved.
3.1.1. Decentralisation
It is clear that curation once inhabited a relatively stable position mostly within heritage institutions where the curator served as a narrator bringing together otherwise disparate entities as well as serving as the bridge between the objects and the
audience. However, as Sarah Cook remarks, “[a] curator no longer simply facilitates the remembering process by telling a single story about a set of objects” (28). While this task of the curator has certainly not disappeared, more tasks have been added and older tasks have changed. Traditionally and still today, it is part of the curator's job to work together with artists “to create a platform for the exchange of ideas between the viewer or user of the work and the project itself” (Cook 28). So, the curator works with the artist to create the best possible way for the art to be presented to the public in such a way that an exchange of ideas is possible.
However, when art is removed from the exhibition space and only exists in an online environment, the relationship between artists, curators, and audiences logically changes. So, the question here is; what happens to the role of the curator in art that exists in an online space which is removed from traditional heritage institutions? In other words, how does and how can curation operate on the Internet? According to media studies scholar and curator Christiane Paul, art that exists online does not have to be tied to art institutions in any way and can still manage to attract audiences in the way these institutions do. As such, online art is distributed and accessed differently
and as a result promises a break from the “structures of validation and
commodification” that exist within the institutional art world (Paul 85). Thus, for Paul, online art opens up a space for new voices but also a space for new practices. And these new voices and practices can quickly find each other and organise
themselves thanks to the Internet: “[a]n online art world […] immediately developed in tandem with Internet art outside of the institutional art world” (Paul 85).
Not just artists but also critics, theorists and curators sprang up in this online art world, quickly turning it into an art world running parallel to the physical one but not tied to institutions and seemingly more open. Therefore, Paul concludes that “the Internet and 'new media' certainly have opened the field for artistic engagement, agency, and conflicting authorities” (88). Indeed, with increased openness, there seems to be more room for different authorities to arise. Essentially, with the rise of an online art world, institutions have not lost their positions of authority, they have simply had to give up their monopoly position as the only authority.
Thus, in theory the Internet has given artists and other players in the art world the chance to operate outside of the realm of traditional heritage institutions. As a result, online art seems to exist in a more open realm where one can speak of decentralisation: there is no central authority, but instead authority is divided and shared by multiple parties, including some who did not hold authority in the physical art world (Shahani, Economou and Nikonanou 4). Thus, decentralisation does not mean that all authority is gone, instead it means that there is room for multiple
conflicting authorities (Paul 87). This also means that there is room for a multitude of curators to exist alongside one another and there is room for input from many
different angles about how curation should be done and what works should be placed front and centre. In an online world, then, the curator is not simply the link between the art and the public. Instead many different actors contribute to the curation process within the network that forms around online art scenes.
Networks and network formation play an important role on the Internet, and the online art world is no exception. According to Cook, “[h]ierarchies of media […] were demolished or simply sidestepped in the new sociopolitical arena of networked culture” (30). Thus, in online networked culture, hierarchies that existed in the physical world and played an important role in heritage institutions are not nearly as important online. This means that curatorial decisions where hierarchies would have played an important role in the past, don't function in the same way online. And,
indeed, Paul adds that “[t]he modularity and variability of the digital medium […] constitutes a far broader and more scattered landscape of production and distribution” (87-88). Compared to older media, digital media and the Internet allow for a much wider range of use and reuse. Thus, the hierarchies that made sense in the physical world, may make much less sense online. Add to this the fact that curation is being undertaken by multiple players in the network who might have different points of view and it becomes clear that the online space has demolished these hierarchies and adopted different practices.
Furthermore, not only does the Internet provide the online networked spaces where such art and practices can be found, the Internet also provides access to these spaces to a lot more people spread out over a much larger area than would otherwise be possible. This also means that there are potentially a lot more creators who now have access to an easy platform for distribution. As Liu states: “[w]e are now at a point where it is becoming easier to generate information than it is to consume it” (18). This may result in “curatorial overload”, there is more content to be curated than could possibly be curated by people (Liu 19). According to Paul, this has
fundamentally altered the way in which curators have to go about their work. For Paul, curators need to become filter feeders, continually selecting and filtering out the best or most relevant material they come across (92). This is a process that goes on continually as more and more work is produced and published.
3.1.2. Social/distributed curation
Not just the work of the curator has changed but also those doing the work, the actual curators, have changed. With such an increase in material in an online world, curation becomes more of a distributed task: “the exhibition is not bound by the framework of one institution but exists in a network where curatorial control tends to be more distributed” (Paul 92). This distribution may lead to what Liu calls 'social curation'. In short, social curation means that curation is socially distributed and different people fulfil different parts of the job. Thus, the tasks are being done by an extended network of people instead of a select few professional curators.
For Mikko Villi, Johanna Moisander, and Annamma Joy “social curation as a practice can imbue various kinds of online media content with social significance and extend the circulation of those contents” (492). Thus, through online networks
place. This form of curation at first sight seems to suggest an increased democratic potential online, but as with podcasts, here too one must be careful to not
overemphasise the democratic potential of new media developments. While it may appear to be easier now for different voices to be heard by large audiences, in many cases it is still only a tiny sliver of work and people that actually receive widespread recognition. Social curation makes it possible for everyone to take part in deciding which material receives this level of recognition. This is where the democratic potential lies.
But this democratic potential, too, should not be overestimated. For social curation to begin taking place, there have to be certain members of the social network with a greater degree of authority and influence to get the ball rolling. “Social curators are knowledge brokers that interpret, publicize and endorse content. Thus, there is always an aspect of recommendation involved” (Villi, Moisander, and Joy 492). In other words, certain bigger social curators recommend particular material within the social network and then the greater process of social curation may take place by spreading this material to the furthest reaches of the network. What is important, however, is for these select few social curators with more authority and influence to have some degree of personal connection with members of the network: “[i]t is significant that the curator is somebody familiar, with whom the audience has a personal relationship” (Villi, Moisander, and Joy 492). The closer the audience feels to someone, the more likely they are to take their recommendations to heart.
What's more is that online in a network, a recommendation often comes with access to the actual content. This allows for the social curation process to go very rapidly as distribution is immediately tied to curation and anyone can have instant access (Villi, Moisander, and Joy 492). According to Villi, Moisander, and Joy, social curation is actually an important tool for organisations seeking to reach a large
audience (493). If organisations have access to a social network where social curation occurs, they may use the power of such a network to promote their own work, thus, it becomes clear how the democratic potential of such a network is not quite so
straightforward and might be taken advantage of by those with the power to leverage it. That said, however, “the importance of consumer communities in distributing and marketing professional media content is growing” (Villi, Moisander, and Joy 490). With online social networks and social curation that occurs within them, the consumer voice is more important than ever before.
3.1.3. The changing curator role
As the previous section already started to touch upon, curation on the Internet and social curation are not exclusive to art. While the concept might find most of its use and definition in art, it is used much more broadly, especially with the increased production and distribution of all kinds of information online. In fact, the earliest collection of webloggers in the U.S. was already engaging in social curation online in the late nineties. According to a study into these webloggers by researcher Rudolf Ammann, “[t]his collectivity sought to counter the market-based attention economy of the mass media with a social process” (27). The webloggers did this in an attempt to shift the power from big publishers with a lot of social and economic power to essentially a group of editors working for little or no money.
The webloggers utilised the power of their network to try to achieve this goal. Members would link to each other and refer to each other as well creating the
'NewsPage Network' (Ammann 27). Following Ammann, for a network like this to be able to function, reciprocity is key, the members have to link to each other to
strengthen internal bonds as well as create visibility for one another so that they may all grow their audience (27). By these various sites networking together, the social curation of the web becomes possible, as the power of the network can then be used to highlight some material and information and leave other things out (Ammann 33).
Thus, social curation requires a number of more influential members with more authority to play the role of key curators in the process of curation. While they may not decide what is available for everyone to see, they do play an important role in deciding what is seen by the majority of the audience. Furthermore, “[t]he job of a content curator is […] to make sense of the best and most relevant content and thereby to add a voice and point of view about existing material” (Villi, Moisander, and Joy 491). In other words, these key curators just like traditional curators before them, add a point of view to that which they curate. This could be done explicitly but it may simply be the result of their reputation as trustworthy or authoritative on a certain topic. This leads Villi, Moisander, and Joy to assert that “curation is essentially about people adding their qualitative judgement to whatever is being gathered and
organized” (490). The curator decides what is worthy of public attention and what is not, the audience then decides which curators in a network they trust and which they might not. In a sense, one could say that the audience curates the curators. An online
curator, then, is someone who has been selected by the larger audience as an authority on quality of content.
Following art history and art theory scholar Terry Smith here, “curators […] are appraisers, not judges” and as such they “do everything necessary to bring works up to the point where they may become subject to critical and historical judgement” (44). In other words, for Smith curators in general select those works which should be presented for public scrutiny. According to Villi, Moisander, and Joy this also means that curators have the power to make unknown works and artists known and as a result to potentially make the work desired and valuable (491). With online curation, this has further developed into the job of the curator being “to ensure that [an object] does become a commodity, and more specifically a brand” (Villi, Moisander, and Joy 491). Thus, the contemporary (online) curator appraises not just what should be up for public scrutiny but, importantly, what should be able to be consumed by as many people as possible. Social curation and large social networks, of course, play a very important role in the effectiveness of this process.
3.1.4. Podcast curation
While the majority of what has so far been mentioned refers specifically to the art scene or the online environment in general, as this is where the concept of curation is mostly used, it is easy to see how it may be related similarly to the independent podcast industry. As Villi, Moisander, and Joy accurately point out: “[t]here are many similarities between art curation and content curation in social media” (491). This can be further extended to include curation of independent podcasts for web-based
audiences. Like the webloggers before them, the podcasts create a network where they link to one another and gain in influence and authority. The influence and authority are then used to not only gain in audience but also to act as an entity with the authority and knowledge to appraise content in the independent podcast industry. Social curation is used not only to find worthy content but also as a tool to promote the network itself. Independent podcast networks therefore seem to be taking up the role of a key curator in online social curation of podcasts.
Finally, it is clear that curation has gone through significant changes with the coming of the digital and online environments. While it is also clear that curation exists in multiple forms, “whatever else curatorial thinking is, it is always deeply embedded in the practice of actually mounting the exhibition” (Smith 38). This goes
not only for curation in the heritage institution but also for curation online. Whether it is a collection of posts or, in the case of a podcast network, a collection of podcasts. It is the exhibition of the content in a specific place and as part of a larger whole that is central to the curatorial process. It can then be said that “[c]uration does not represent the sharing of ownership but rather the provision of access to others” (Villi,
Moisander, and Joy 492). As curators want to make that which they deem worthy, accessible to as many people as possible. This leads me to a working definition of curation online as the process whereby an appraisal is made and content is formed into a collection to then be shared within social networks in an effort to provide access to a large audience.
3.2. Gatekeeping
Gatekeeping is most used and well known in the world of journalism. Just like curation, then, the literature and knowledge of the concept stems from a different field. But, also just like curation, it has undergone significant changes with the coming of digitalisation and the Internet. And, as this section will show, the concept can be of great use when talking about the role of podcast networks in the independent podcast industry. Furthermore, gatekeeping is a concept that can be closely related to curation in some ways and the two can often go hand in hand: “[c]onventionally, in the art world, curators have functioned as gate-keepers” (Villi, Moisander, and Joy 490). This will be further explored in this section.
The concept of gatekeeping itself does not stem from journalism but instead comes from social psychology. Kurt Lewin coined the term in 1947 to talk about the various gatekeepers within the household who are in charge of decisions about what to keep out and what to let into the house when it comes to food (Thorson and Wells 27). Lewin's idea was taken up in the 1970s after researchers realised that it
functioned beyond his given example and the theory could also be applied to
journalism in terms of what information is passed through the gates. With the coming of the digital era, the concept has needed an update which has been provided through influential work by Pamela J. Shoemaker and Tim P. Vos. For them, gatekeeping is about the way in which information flows from the media to the public. It is “the process of culling and crafting countless bits of information into the limited number of messages that reach people each day, and it is the centre of the media's role in modern public life” (Shoemaker and Vos 1). Put another way, gatekeeping is about a limited
set of people in media deciding what counts as information that should be shared with the public at large. Importantly, then, this limited set of people also decides was does not count as information that should be shared.
This is the traditional version of gatekeeping, but Shoemaker and Vos also talk about how gatekeeping has changed with the coming of the Internet. For this they introduce “secondary gatekeeping”, they argue that the audience has become much more important in information reaching large sections of the public through Web 2.0 sharing, therefore the audience now takes an active role in distributing information to a larger public (Shoemaker and Vos 7). By audiences choosing what content and information on their social media feeds they engage with and share, they are actively participating in the gatekeeping process as secondary gatekeepers. What already becomes clear from this brief look at the concept of gatekeeping is how this could be linked to podcast networks as well. As has been described above, podcast networks rely on word of mouth advertising and on sharing audiences to increase the reach of individual podcasts. More importantly, though, podcast networks decide who does and who does not get to be a part of the network and therefore, which podcasts may reach the biggest section of the public. In order to better be able to link gatekeeping to independent podcast networks, this section will attempt to map the development of the concept and offer a working definition for use in the analysis of the networks.
3.2.1. Traditional gatekeeping and its link to curation
As was mentioned already, gatekeeping and curation can be related quite closely. Kjerstin Thorson and Chris Wells assert that “the gatekeeping tradition offers a roadmap for the exploration of similarities and differences of curation processes within emerging categories of curating actors” (39). In other words, gatekeeping allows us to closely examine emerging forms of curation such as those we are encountering online. And this connection is not too surprising. After all, a curator makes decisions about what to leave in and what to leave out, much like what happens in the gatekeeping process. And although the power with gatekeeping was originally squarely placed in the hands of media professionals, with the coming of the Internet and especially of Web 2.0, this power is increasingly available to a larger number of parties (Thorson and Wells 27). With this shift in power and authority, it is harder to determine who a gatekeeper is and what their affiliations might be. Therefore, it seems fruitful to look at the question that is central to the process of gatekeeping:
“who selects which information according to what selection mechanism, and how the news item is framed before it reaches the public” (Wallace 288). Julian Wallace, coming from a journalistic tradition, still proposes to focus on a news item here, but the question could be expanded to any piece of content. Or, as Thorson and Wells ask: “what determines the information that enters the public arena?” (25).
This central question about selection points to an important factor in gatekeeping; that of control. In gatekeeping there are parties that control what information reaches the public and in what way (Singer 56; Thorson and Wells 28; Wallace 274). This makes gatekeeping a process that inherently involves a power dynamic between gatekeepers and those behind the gates. As Brian Keegan and Darren Gergle state: “[g]atekeeping occurs via numerous mechanisms such as the privileged selection, deletion, or withholding of information from a 'gated' audience by the gatekeepers” (1). This potentially gives gatekeepers enhanced power over a 'gated' audience and as a result “gatekeepers contribute to individuals' construction of social reality and their personal world view” (Chin-Fook and Simmonds 9).
When gatekeeping and the question of power are examined with curation on the Internet in mind, we can start to see more similarities appear. Following Thorson and Wells, “[c]urators are active selectors and shapers of content working under conditions of content abundance” (31). With the Internet, curators online tend to have work similar to the process of gatekeeping whereby they select and frame what information reaches the larger public, but there is also a shift in the way this functions now. As Thorson and Wells point out: “processes of curation may be better
conceptualized as drawing information in than keeping it out” (27). Thus, a curator taking on the role of gatekeeper online is dealing with so much information that is freely available that they have the role of deciding what should reach the larger public. However, curators have little power in keeping things out as they are already out there by the time the curator gets to them. Therefore, Thorson and Wells conclude that new and emerging players are changing the gatekeeping process online (38). In doing so, traditional power dynamics are also being altered and individual users can become gatekeepers instead of always being those who are gated: “gatekeeping tasks are increasingly carried out by non-journalistic actors and platforms” (Wallace 275). This does not mean, however, that gatekeeping is becoming obsolete. In combination with curation, gatekeeping remains important. With such an abundance of information
