Featured Posts

I’m So Tired of Celebrity Podcasts

April 21, 2021 3:33 pm

As I click open Stitcher, I can’t help but notice some familiar faces appear on my feed. Ashley Graham, Jeff Ross, and Dana Carvey are all smirking at me. A title is cemented above their heads, typically a play on words or turn of phrase in bold font. Usually, a mic is plastered somewhere to remind me, the audience, that I’m about to listen to a podcast.

In the past few years, I’ve noticed faces that are typically centered on movie posters, albums, political campaigns, or sports commercials are now appearing in my podcasting feed. But why?

Why is the podcasting world prioritizing celebrities’ voices? Is this celebrity takeover happening in other digital mediums? How will their presence influence the future landscape of podcasting? And is it poisoning the water of those who find true purpose in this medium?

First things first, I have to define what a celebrity means. For the purpose of this article, it is someone who has a pre-existing, mainstream audience and has crossed over into audio. They did not get famous because of their podcast. They tend to be actors, musicians, politicians, authors, comics, and sports hosts who are notable in one world and then were told by a podcast network “ You should host a podcast!” I am not including shows like My Favorite Murder, WTF with Marc Maron, and, I begrudgingly add, Joe Rogan to this camp because it was their podcast that brought them to the level of fame they are today.

Why is this unique to podcasting?

This celebrity conquest seems to be isolated in audio. New digital media– blogging, vlogging, or podcasting– has the potential to turn a nobody into a somebody. With enough subscriptions, you can eventually seize some fame with enough sweat and perseverance.

Independent creators need to know every facet of their medium. Bloggers need to write well, optimize WordPress, and know SEO to keep their readers coming back. Vloggers need to know how to hold a camera, master pacing, and edit on Final Cut Pro. Podcasters learn how to record, set up a mic, and at least make their way through Garageband. I’m sure some aspects are outsourced. Above all, they all need to know how to tell a great story and how to speak to their audience.

This is the formula: (insert chosen celebrity host) (circle one) speaks candidly/is unleashed/learns through shared experience/ discovers human truths through conversation/ sits down with/ covers everything with/ gains insights with (circle one) a multitude of guests/ brilliant and hilarious friends/ connects with people across life.

Celebrities on podcasts don’t have to do that. With celebrity podcasts, professionals do the hard work. The celebrity just gets to rock up to the studio, glance over the prep about the guest, load the recording with ums, and waltz off to their boxing class followed by a botox appointment. The editing, mixing, and production are left to the professional audio engineers. In no other medium do we ask the talent to not know how the process works.

Additionally, we don’t see Cheryl Strayed creating a blog after being on the New York Times Bestseller list, and Meryl Streep doesn’t start a vlog after her last Oscar win. There is a clear line between the professionals and amateurs in other mediums.

Maybe that’s because there are no networks for blogs or videos. A blogger could get a book deal or a videographer could get hired to do a TV show, but that is them stepping into the network world, which looks entirely different than their Youtube Channels or WordPress blogs. In podcasting, that line is blurred. Where we go for all podcasts is basically the same place: Apple Itunes and Spotify. On podcasting apps, I can hop from my independent podcasts like Beach too Sandy, Water too Wet to network podcasts like 99% Invisible with two clicks and a swipe.

Why is this happening primarily in podcasting?

Interview vs. Editorial

Maybe I wouldn’t be so peeved about celebrities cropping up in my feed if their shows were mildly original.

If you take a look at ten different podcasts all hosted by celebrities, you will notice that their descriptions are embarrassingly similar.

This is the formula: (insert chosen celebrity host) (circle one) speaks candidly/is unleashed/learns through shared experience/ discovers human truths through conversation/ sits down with/ covers everything with/ gains insights with (circle one) a multitude of guests/ brilliant and hilarious friends/ connects with people across life.

Each description of these podcasts is no better than when you were trying not to plagiarize your friend’s essay in high school. You just swap in a synonym for about half the words to “put it in your voice.”

Celebrity shows almost always take the interview-style route, which is the easier path. With the minimal equipment to sound decent, the celeb host putters on for an hour with typically another celebrity about the latest trend, how they last saw each other at a party in Soho/ Pasadena, and then maybe they find out they have the same fitness trainer. Then they have a producer, who makes 1/8th of what the host makes in a month, record an intro with a marimba in the background, and poof, they’re on the air.

These shows rarely if ever, branch out into investigative journalism or deep narrative storytelling. They aren’t anything more than a talk show sin a live studio audience and no opportunity to show off some dance moves.

The other kind of show is editorial, which is a slog. Take your Serial, Crimetown, or a Freakonomics episode, and you are looking at a profusion of hours per story. And it costs. Networks typically have to pay multiple producers, sound engineers, mixers, and guests. They foot the bill for travel, equipment, and god only knows what other expenses come up when employees are going into sixth gear storytelling.

The cost-benefit analysis seems uneven. A Radiolab episode that took six months to put together may only be 38 minutes. Some stories that Snap Judgement tackles may never be heard by their audience. Most serialized shows aren’t anything more than 7-12 episodes. Editorial podcasts run the risk of dead ends, bad endings, and murdering a lot of their darlings. To the bottom line, it seems like producers enjoy the sound of their salary going down the toilet, but to the creative process, it’s priceless. Storytellers know the craft takes time.

For networks, producing either kind of show is a gamble. Yet, a weekly chatcast show is faster to produce and not every episode needs to be a win. Whereas an editorial show is a riskier hedge. Networks have to make their money back somehow, which is dominantly through ad money.

It is easier to convince advertisers to invest in shows that have a seemingly guaranteed gravitational pull. I think networks indulge in the cult of celebrity because they think they are giving us, the plebian listeners, what we want. We obviously want to be closer to the celebrities we admire. Which results in more people downloading and subscribing, which results in more ad money. Everyone wins, right?

But do I necessarily want to know what Macauley Culkin’s opinions are on cannibalism? Not, not necessarily. But has it made RedLetterMedia a fair amount of money back? Absolutely.

Networks think they can gain more by investing less when they slap Hilary Clinton’s face on the show art. It’s a hack. But is it working?

Let’s Do the Math

Now, I’m not just pulling this out of nothing. Since no one has direct access to other people’s numbers, we can find suggestive evidence by analyzing the top daily downloads on Itunes and the top 10 lists put out by podcasting charts.

Before I jump into any analytics, I need to preface that this is my crude attempt at a makeshift algorithm ( I.e. me obsessively analyzing, annotating, scratching out, then hemming and hawing on who is and isn’t a celebrity every day for a month as my eyes get blurry from staring at Apple Podcasts and Spotify for too long).

I believe that the most downloaded episodes are the most uncorrupt data, untouched by an algorithm or bias, so we will take that one more seriously.

After looking at the top 200 most downloaded shows on Apple Podcasts for a month, I noticed a trend:

Celebrity podcasts did pop up. However, it was more likely that a handful of celebrity-hosted podcasts showed up several times (e.g. Armchair Expert with Dax Shepard would hold #8, #51, and #156 spots for a day).
The vast majority of top downloads did not have a celebrity host.
It seems that the celebrities who also happen to be great interviewers or storytellers are the ones who get into one or many of the coveted top 200 slots.
The majority of the celebrities who graced the top download charts tend to be white, cis, hetero men. Surprise surprise, the patriarchy takes the mic.

Analyzing Top Ten Lists

Be forewarned that the raw data on most popular shows are inconsistent across mediums. Spotify anoints Joe Rogan as the number one podcast. Then swivel over to Apple Charts and The Daily is the daily champion. I probed at the top ten lists from 2016-2020, and the same shows usually appeared but in a different order. Looking across these charts is like reading a sentence translated into 10 other languages: it more or less has the same meaning but the pronouns, verbs, and nouns have all been rearranged. So I tried to look at them all. This is my synthesis of Spotify, Apple Podcasts, Charitable, Podtrack, and Edison Research.

Editorial pieces are much more rewarding to the ears

The top ten podcasts are consistently in two camps: highly edited storytelling or normal people with an insane passion. This American Life obviously takes the cake, but Ira has been working overtime for 25+ years. However, Freakonomics, Dateline shows, Stuff You Should Know, and other NPR or New York Times podcasts continue to be at the top because they are high-quality, highly-edited, and well researched (*averts eyes from Caliphate*).

Perseverance and passion

The other top shows that are huge now were started by individuals who reached celebrity status due to their podcast. Joe Rogan, Ben Shapiro, and My Favorite Murderer may have had a small following when they started, but they all are zealous about their topic and consistently show up for their audience.

These shows get somewhere between 190-3 million downloads an episode, which is the same as hearing the host do the backstroke in a vault of cash.

Let’s solve for X

Although networks may think that celebrity shows will effortlessly rake in thousands of downloads, it’s the shows that consistently have engaging conversations, good interviews, and interesting stories that separate the milk from the cream, regardless of who is behind the mic. Celebrity podcasts are not guaranteed to reach the top of the charts.

If the plot worked, every top download would have a celebrity under it. But it doesn’t. Downloads are the most democratic evidence. If we vote with our attention, the data suggests we have elected the hosts who are good storytellers and conversationalists. Only a smattering of them seem to be celebrities.

So why do networks keep throwing money at actors, ex-ESPN hosts, or retired politicians? Maybe still they get enough in ad sponsors to call it even. Or maybe they do think it will be a hit, but, for some reason, the celebrity’s personality gets lost in the static.

However, this strategy is adding to the cheaply made content that is thrown away as quickly as it is consumed. It floats out in the abyss of the internet like the Great Pacific Garbage Patch.

What’s in It for the Celeb?

Celebrities probably have plenty of incentives to host a show. Podcasts are a faster way of remaining part of the cultural zeitgeist than writing a book or pitching a movie. Podcasts could be used as a development for a TV talk show or to keep their network warm.

However, these high status selections don’t necessarily have an underlying passion for the medium. I’m guessing podcasting is just a fun side-hobby to do between shows, projects, or campaigns. So, are they crowding out the people who have a genuine passion for this medium?

The kind of content they are putting out into the ether is not original. I would love if Paris Hilton interviewed Samson the barber from Atlanta or Julia the barista from Queens. That would be interesting. Instead, these shows often circle the same personalities we are already familiar with making the content of these shows more insular.

Additionally, these fledgling hosts are often not professionally trained journalists or have MFAs in writing. They might not have the ability to challenge guests the way a trained journalist might or lack storytelling skills.

Nor does their content even have to be structured. Amy Schumer’s show was a rats nest of nonsense. I loved her comedy, but Spotify telling her to just invite her friends and be funny is setting her up for unstructured failure.

To play my own devil’s advocate, maybe their presence on iTunes helps break the barrier to entry for those who haven’t listened to podcasts. Your Lavern Cox can be the gateway to Hidden Brain or an independently produced show.

Why This Could Be Harmful to the Medium

My hunch is that throwing any old celebrity behind the mic lowers the value of podcasting as a medium.

My prediction is that this scheme is not sustainable. We know what works: hosts that have an obsessive passion for their subject, rigorously research their stories, and are great conversationalists. Dedicated listeners fall on their swords for the hosts that have put the time into creating a riveting audio experience. By investing in celebrities with no training or motive to create an incredible show, are networks feeding a bubble that is inevitably going to pop? Even though it may seem riskier, it might be worth a network’s time to nurture an ecosystem of producers, storytellers, and journalists who have an untiring love for the medium (*steps off soapbox*).

( You’re lucky you aren’t on the phone with me. This five-minute read equates to a six-hour rant).