More Overexposure

This afternoon I did an interview via Skype with the BBC world service for their program Today, talking about the (short) history of podcasting and the like. I originally thought I was talking to the people from this program but now I think it is this one. I’m just an unfrozen caveman, your similarly named British radio programs frighten and confuse me.

I hope I was sensible. I can never tell if I am golden or I suck on these things, but I just soldier forward and try to be clear and simple. An advantage for them from interviewing a podcasting geek – I captured my own local audio and emailed it to them after the interview, so if they desire they can replace my Skype track with the one from the house. If I ever find out definitively which show I was on, I’ll point to it. If you heard it on the radio in the UK and are exploring the site, welcome! Leave a comment as to what you thought.

I was really torn at one point, when the question was “How does one find podcasts”, I did not go all self-promotional and say “Easy, just use AmigoFish. I suppose that’s why I’m less successful than some, who manage to cram their own personal ventures into every interview they perform. Earlier today I heard a recent IT Conversation show that was loaded with enough of that up front by a fellow podcaster that I hit the skip button. I suppose I’ll be looking for that happy medium of getting my own word out without being a total sleazy scumbag about it for a long time.

Published by


Dave Slusher is a blogger, podcaster, computer programmer, author, science fiction fan and father. Member of the Podcast Hall of Fame class of 2022.

6 thoughts on “More Overexposure”

  1. Hey “Nice & Sleazy” was one of my favorite Stranglers tunes, and they were British. Catchin my drift mate? Everyone has to find their own balance points-agreed.

  2. hugh macleod says:

    listening to you on BBC radio now…

  3. I believe in personal promotion with disclosure. For instance, “There are a number of podcast directories available, a simple google search will turn up several. I myself run one, called Any of them will help you expand your podcasting horizons to a point.”

    I think that gets the word out without clubbing anyone over the head with it or spewing self-promotional vomit.

  4. jer says:

    Not that it means anything, but not promoting yourself won you a few more points with me.

  5. dave says:

    Hugh, that’s cool. Did I sound sensible or like a dumbass? I had no idea that it was going to be on that soon. I thought they were getting it ready for the next day.

    James and Jer, the balance is always hard to strike. I talked to several pre-interviewers who did not ask that question. If they had, I’d have discussed what was cool and not. As it was, I had 50 milliseconds to decide which way to go and opted for this choice. Next time (if there is a next time) I’ll discuss up front what is acceptable should the subject arise.

  6. hugh says:

    I had no luck poking around the BBC website. A search for “evil genius” gets 24 hits, “slusher” none.

    hugh m – What show was it?

    dave – You were asked a question that hits directly on something you are doing. I would have said, “It’s interesting you ask that, because that’s something I’m working on. There are podcast directories, or you can use a search engine, but they don’t help you find something you will *like*. What I’m working on is a recommendation engine…”. Edit that to your liking, then print it up on a small card you can keep with you. There’s a big difference between this, and shamelessly plugging something when it’s only vaguely, if at all related to the topic. For example I shouldn’t just throw out the Illudium Podcast in a discussion about your BBC interview. Whoops. 🙂

Comments are closed.