I think this Wired article on "podfading" is downright silly. It breathlessly points out that sometimes people start a podcast and then "gasp" might stop. This is of course unlike anything else in the world, since no one has ever stopped doing a sidelight ever. Everyone that knits or plays guitar in coffee houses or writes articles for Wired freelance does it forever in an unbroken fashion. No TV, radio or Broadway show has ever been cancelled or had its principals decide to stop in order to do other things. Give me a break.

This is a blazingly clear example of that "product" vs. "process" breakdown I talk about. The gist of this article is that these ceased podcasts are products that failed. I see them as experiments that were cheap to try and were worth a shot and from which people have learned things. As they even point out in the article, some people that stop one show regroup and start a different show. Is anyone seriously suggesting that people continue a show that isn't working for them for whatever reason? Are they suggesting that no one should start unless they can guarantee they won't stop? If not either, what's the point? Try it if you want to, stop if you need to.

I agree with Scott Fletcher's take but feel even more strongly. When we have the Uplifter meetings and help people get started with blogging, podcasting, and vlogging I don't give a damn how long they continue. Ideally, they will continue exactly as long as suits their needs. I want to make sure that they have the tools to get started and if they have those, all is well. Don't let the big media (even Wired) tell you that you have failed. If you walk out of the situation knowing more and feeling more empowered, it was worth it.