#some of you are so parasocial with the actors on your tv screens and it shows

[sophsun1]

.

[kutputli]

I have been bullied, outright bullied, I say, into finally watching Interview with the Vampire. Apparently Delhi boy Arun is the way to persuade me over my gore squick.

So three years late and several hours after the train has passed - my episode by episode live-blog. (These will probably be shallow reactions because I know all the meaty meta and analysis has already been written. I remember reading it back when I was an innocent parasocial of your gifsets.) Also, I am coming into this with a series of biases; I've been completely spoiled by way of seeing gifs, reading meta and going through the book summaries. This is also not my genre; I don't enjoy gothic or horror, I was never into the vampire mystique, and I learned vampire lore via Buffy and Angel fandoms back when. So I am predisposed to watch this for the specific angle of how to intersect with my friends' interest in the characters. Disclaimers out of the way...

Season 1 Episode 1 - Mmmm, I see what people say about the art direction. This is a very very beautiful show. Very deliberately staged historicity, very artfully selected colour palattes and design. I imagine watching it on a big TV would be rewarding (I'm on a laptop.) But actually, more than the quality of the design, I think what I am enjoying is the quality of the actors. Because I have been forewarned, I realise all the cast is serious scenery chewing theatre rats. But the energy they bring to their scene work is palpable even through the screen.

Louis for instance, is oddly not beautiful. I can think of several other actors who would look far more physically arresting. To be frank, I don't see what Lestat saw in him, that moment did not have an impact on me. But what Louis is, because of Jacob, is intensely watchable. He brings such commitment to the character that my admiration for the actor translates into sympathy for the character. And of course, the Theatre Voice. Absolutely A+ choice to choose Shakespeare trained actors to deliver what I imagine must be quotes from Anne Rice's original florid prose?

It's a dangerous risk to use that sort of of heightened textual narration, which can work on a page, to sit against the visuals we are already seeing. I remember how Good Omens season 1 did so much quoting from the book to disasterously flat effect. But it works here, and that is, I think, because Jacob delivers the lines with so much integrity to bringing us back to the Dubai penthouse as we watch the New Orleans scenes.

I really enjoyed Daniel Molloy, who I remember finding rather delightful in the gifs even before we all knew his importance and where he was headed. I love grumpy irascible characters and he's lovely at being surly and sardonic. And physically deteriorating and mundane and ordinary, which makes him such a good foil to -

my precious little murderboy Armand! I really do want to watch things unspoiled, so I carry some regret about going into this so very equipped with hindsight. But I did giggle as the very first vampiric contact we see is a cup of tea being placed by Unnamed Brown Guy hand in front of Daniel. That's the love of your life, dude! Give or take a few divorces and deaths. I was watching Assad very closely to see what choices he was making - if there were any clues to pick up on. He was pretty stoic during the hand burning.

But that silent service thing going on - that's definitely something that packs more of a punch if you imagine him learning that from childhood as a human. I've got all kinds of headcanons going on for him, which I've been discussing with @quark4561 and I think his backstory can be a heartbreaking foil to Louis's, in terms of service, and sex work, and segregation.

Speaking of race, I know much of the fandom adores Lestat, but I thought the great thing about casting Sam Reid, is that he isn't the kind of drop dead gorgeous version that Tom Cruise might have been (never seen the film) and so he comes across right from the very beginning as ordinary except for the priviledge of his power. We know already that his power is vampirism, but because of the casting choices, it also becomes the power of whiteness. Lestat isn't some idealised homosexual awakening for Louis, or at least, that wasn't the way I read it. Lestat uses money, whiteness, physical force and vampirical power to get to Louis, and that sets their relationship on a dark, abusive path from the get-go.

In contrast to this was Louis's relationship to Lily. I loved her and the gentleness of their bond. The needless cruelty of Lestat killing her (thankfully offstage, I do not need to see Black women murdered any more), hammers in that this is a person who is selfish and cruel (beyond the ordinary carnivorous murders that one expects of the vampiric genre).

I'm not sure I understood why Louis's brother killed himself. Were we supposed to believe Lestat fucked with his mind? Were the voices he heard a sign of suicidal delusions?

But seeing both of them hoofing together - and I am so glad we didn't see Lestat lurking about then, it was a Black wedding and needed to be closed to the community - was so moving. It made me feel Louis' love for Paul more than his monologue narration. I'm not Black or USAmerican, but I did feel that the Black experience of these characters was respected and integrated into the storytelling choices, from writing to casting to design to cinematography, in a way that really worked for me.

I'm looking forward to spending time with Louis and his assistant, and the grumpy old fart interviewing them.

[bcbfbella]

"I've Been Influenced": The Language of Advertising in a Digital Age

Isabella Cheramie

For as long as the human race has existed, there’s always been something to sell. From the earliest bartering systems to the more refined Renaissance merchant guilds to our modern age of flashy sales pitches, people have always tried to convince consumers that their product was the best and that they deserve the customer’s money more than “the other guy.” 

Handmade signage evolved into bright billboards and flashing neon lights above a storefront. Infomercials became the most effective way of connecting with potential customers. Nearly everyone has spent time at some relative’s house where the only thing playing on TV was QVC or HSN, an endless stream of polished, attractive, and engaging personalities hawking products that you “simply must buy.” Truth is, you don’t need any of it. They know that. You know that. But, still, they successfully convince you otherwise. “It’s a great deal!” they say. “One chance to get it at this price!” “Never again will you get this opportunity!” Soon enough, you’re on the phone or website with your credit card in hand and completing the purchase before you even realize what you bought. 

Why? Because these professional advertisers are fantastic at their jobs. Did you need the newest model George Foreman grill that allegedly gets rid of all the fat on your meat while it cooks? No, but they made you think you did. So, a few business days later when you unbox your fancy new appliance, you are likely hit by a wave of buyer’s remorse. You suppress it with some level of excitement and plug it in. You ignore the questions in your mind: Why did you buy this $115 grill that you’ll probably only use twice before shoving it in the closet and never seeing it again? You shake your head and turn up the heat, smiling. After all, it was a once-in-a-lifetime deal. Congratulations! You’ve been influenced. 

With new inventions such as the internet came new methods of advertising. Likely the most prevalent method today is through social media. Facebook, Twitter*, YouTube, Instagram, Snapchat, TikTok: what started as easy and exciting ways to connect with your friends as well as the world around you changed rapidly once companies realized the power of user engagement. 

User engagement such as likes, shares, and comments causes content to be pushed to a larger audience. This is the most basic explanation of how these social media algorithms work. So, the more appealing the content is, the better it performs. Understandably, the obviously branded content doesn’t perform nearly as well as authentic and relatable posts. People don’t feel the same connection to corporations and hired actors as they do to real people sharing real stories. It became evident that, to achieve success on social media, these corporations had to change their methods of appealing to audiences. Infomercial-type formats in the traditional sense wouldn’t work well on YouTube and billboard-type ads weren’t the most effective on Twitter. 

So, in order to maintain brand relevancy in an era of increased authenticity, companies decided to capitalize on the success of social media personalities and utilize their audiences and platforms to reach consumers as mentioned in this Forbes article by Joel Mathew. These social media personalities had these platforms due to their parasocial connections with the anonymous users on the other side of the screen. It was their candid ways of speaking – their relatability, humor, and occasional humbleness – that captured audiences. 

But what was it that caught the attention of audiences and made this new type of influencer marketing so effective? Well, part of the answer lies in linguistics. 

When looking at TikTok, currently the most lucrative platform for influencer marketing, it is crucial for a creator to capture the attention of viewers within the first two seconds. It’s like a good book in the way that, if the first part doesn’t make you want to keep reading, it’ll be challenging to finish. As the content grows longer, specifically in long-form video content as seen on YouTube, these first few seconds of critical engagement extend to nearly the entire video. 

YouTube is unique in its creator advertising and marketing systems in that it practically pioneered this entire concept. It was the first to pay creators for simply creating and uploading content regardless of outside compensation such as sponsorships (more on that later). The YouTube monetization system relies on how much advertisers are spending to show ads per 1000 impressions, referred to as CPM. Basically, the more engagement your content received, the more people would see it, the more ads would be shown on your video, and the more money you would make. This system encouraged creators to make content intentionally designed to receive more engagement and lead to greater compensation.

Returning to the basic ideas of audience engagement, a few reliable methods of increasing content exposure emerged. In a recent study on YouTube influencer advertising, the videos of over 150 top YouTube influencers were analyzed to determine linguistic patterns in order to determine what specifically was aiding in their success on the platform. Of the 11,000+ videos examined, researchers found seven specific linguistic styles that were used most: storytelling, intimate experiences, motivation and guidance, expert advice, coaching and mentoring, middle-of-the-road videos, and struggle and overcoming. Social influence theory, as discussed within the study, focuses on three processes to explain influence on social media. These processes are compliance: influence being accepted by individuals in search of approval or to avoid disapproval from the influencer; identification: followers accepting influence in order to establish or maintain a self-defining relationship with the influencer; and internalization: followers accepting influence because the source is in line with their value system. 

So, this explains why the audience is perceptive to an influencer’s message and why they might follow their influence, but what about the influencer’s role in this? Part of it is emotional tone. Think about it: you’re more likely to want to listen to someone who is upbeat and passionate about what they’re discussing, right? When creators use bubbly, excited voices when they’re discussing something (specifically a product), it helps sell the image of an ideal reality. We’re all familiar with the ���expectations vs. reality” jokes online. The reality is often a disappointing representation of the expectation just like an influencer’s real life is often a bit boring or not as interesting in comparison to their online persona. Influencers don’t just sell tangible products, they sell ideas. They appeal to audiences through envy and yearning for a more glamorous, polished life. 

Let’s think: you see an influencer showing an expensive new mascara that has absolutely changed their entire makeup routine and made their lashes a million times longer. She swears by this $40 tube as she sits in the glittering bathroom of her expensive New York apartment and gives you her affiliate code so that you can try the mascara too! You’re not just being sold the product – you’re being sold a lifestyle. Maybe if you buy this mascara, you’ll share in some part of her alluring lifestyle. She sounds so excited, so happy and full of life, and maybe, if you buy that mascara, a bit of that happiness and excitement will transfer to you. 

The study did mention, however, that constantly upbeat attitudes aren’t always effective, however. In reviews and product discussions, a bit of negative honesty can go far. Deliriously positive reviews tend to glaze over any potential negatives of a product and only discuss how wonderful it is. When an influencer speaks candidly about the things they dislike, it tends to lend a bit of credibility to what they’re saying. For this reason, it’s important for a bit of negative emotional content to appear from time to time. After all, most people won’t want to engage with or buy things from an influencer that they don’t trust. 

Additionally, the use of words such as “we” and “you” when discussing positive opinions or aspects of things tended to lead to an overall better audience perception. The same phenomena occurred when creators used “I” and “my” when discussing negative opinions or experiences as it made them a bit more relatable to audiences. A bit of informality like the inclusion of slang or jokes can also help to connect with viewers. These approaches made the content feel less like “look at this!” and more like a conversation, strengthening the parasocial relationships and making the influencer seem more trustworthy. 

The study goes on to “score” the perceptions of each of the seven types of linguistic styles that were proposed. Of the 11,151 videos examined, 14.7% of them were videos of struggle and overcoming. These videos were more candid, exploring an influencer’s personal journey and how they got past the obstacles and achieved the wonderful life they show their audience. This sort of video performed overall in terms of engagement which supports the theory that audiences want to relate to a creator. This relation, in turn, builds trust and helps the influencer make more money through regular monetization as well as affiliate links, partnerships, and sponsorships along with any personal business ventures they may embark on.  Because, as influencers are acutely aware of, their success relies entirely upon our perception of them.

While this study did focus on YouTube creators, it’s worth noting that similar methods are employed in short-form content such as on TikTok. YouTube’s monetization program pushed influencers to create more engaging content, in turn pushing them to focus more on content-making as a career which leads to selling things through their influence. While some creators leaned into the authentic side as it was what their audience preferred, others like Mr. Beast went fully into the flashy, wow-factor sort of content. While it does work for some creators such as Mr. Beast, it often creates a sense of disconnect with the audience. Again, we ask ourselves “Why?” Mostly the reason why is because everything is too polished, too flashy, too unrelatable. So while audiences may enjoy watching this type of content occasionally, more relatable and down-to-earth content seems to generally resonate more with a broader audience.

YouTube rewards both authentic and the more non-authentic content alike, though, with its pay scale based on engagement and whether or not advertisers seem to approve of your content. TikTok, however, prioritized authenticity completely. The TikTok creator fund (their version of content monetization) pays creators based solely on organic audience interaction which prioritizes content that remains true to creators’ personal brand and audience.

Despite having over 24 million videos uploaded daily, TikTok and its influencer advertising efforts are still a bit too new to find any robust studies like you can find for YouTube. So, until then, we’re forced to rely on user experiences and opinions. Speaking anecdotally now, TikTok creators seem to be a bit sneakier in their advertising. Oftentimes, you won’t realize that you’re watching a sponsored post until you get to the end of the video or sift through the myriad of hashtags buried in the caption. However, the content feels much more candid. Perhaps it’s because of the short-form content style or simply the fact that everyday people can hop on and make a video about their new favorite item, but TikTok “ads” don’t feel so much like ads as they do a friend telling you about something they love. 

Naturally, there are still some influencers who are a bit more heavy-handed with their advertising and the FDA sort of requires them now to disclose the fact that it’s an ad, but even then it doesn’t have the same overtly consumeristic feel as a QVC marathon. It’s much more subtle, their efforts more subdued even when they proclaim that “this is the best energy drink ever!” It’s sneakier in that way, a more direct approach to earn the customer’s trust by building that parasocial relationship using the same methods as discussed in the YouTube study. 

When you really consider the entire “influencer” thing as a whole, it all seems to boil down to understanding and utilizing the linguistic nuances that garner attention. Obviously, this isn’t the only piece of the puzzle when you try to unravel the current state of content creators and the internet, but the bubble seems to collapse without it. 

So, next time you’re mindlessly scrolling through TikTok or Instagram and find yourself nearly convinced by an influencer excitedly encouraging you to use their affiliate code for some must-have product, pause to look past their words and ask yourself if you really need it. Save yourself some money and scroll past because, most of the time, you don’t! 

Notes: *I refuse to refer to Twitter as X. I think X is an objectively horrific name unbecoming of a social media site. I also firmly believe, as a Twitter user since 2016, that the platform should have never been sold to Elon Musk. 

Sources:

[lewyn-martell]

what are some succession podcasts that arent awful? i trust your taste bc i think you really /get it/ and i'm kind of wary of podcasts that miss the point. i've only listened to roycast so far which is the best one imo but are there any you like?

I'm sorry for putting this on hold for so long. I had a pretty important 2 part exam these last 2 weekends and I couldn't listen to the episodes as much as I was doing before and I didn't want to give a whatever answer.

I think I want to start this by saying that for all my problems with the podcasts, most of them aren't awful at all hsbshabhaba It also really depends on what you're after, so I'm gonna try to say what I take from each of the podcasts I listen to. Short answer is that they're all fine except for the Official one.

HBO's Succession Podcast (mondays)

Host for season 3: Kara Swisher

The first I went after and the first to let me down *mwah*

It's simply is a waste of time. I can't describe it any other way. The biggest red flag is already in the description: "After each week's episode airs, join host Kara Swisher and her guests as they unpack how the real world is reflected in the world of Succession on screen" girl FUCK the real world. The one for the first episode is basically a half hour conversation about Gerri's phone call to the white house press secretary and (urgh) real world communications between companies and the president. 30 MINUTES OF THAT. I wanted to off myself.

The only episode so far that was actually worth listening to was the one for episode 3 with Lucy Prebble, an executive producer and writer of the show. Followed (with a large gap) by the 5th episode one because it's actually 2 podcasters saying their opinion (well, kinda. Because I would actually advocate for this one a little bit more if Kara Swisher had anything at all to contribute except guiding the conversation. In hindsight, I shouldn't have expected anything less from a financial and tech reporter, but literally all she does is describe what happened.)

(I can't attest for the quality of the episodes with host Roger Bennet w/ the cast in 2020 because huh I have far less interest in what actors have to say for a whole (half) hour than I am in the opinion and insight of the writers and directors and other important crew members. Actors are just there to be pretty and do a little dance for me. Sometimes they have nice opinions, most times I couldn't care less...)

The Ringer's Prestige TV Podcast (wednesdays and fridays) and The Watch (mondays)

Hosts (wednesdays): Sean Fennessey and Joanna Robinson

Hosts (fridays): Chris Ryan and Wosny Lambre

Hosts: Chris Ryan and Andy Greenwald

Now these are the ones where the parasocial relationship (derogatory) gets flowing the most because together they post thrice a week and I actually listen to all of them (embarrassing).

On Mondays, right after the episode (at least until the 7th one) we have Chris Ryan and Andy Greenwald on The Watch. On Wednesdays, we have Sean Fennessey and Joanna Robinson on Prestige TV doing a regular discussion with an interview at the end. On Fridays, we have (still on Prestige TV) Wosny Lambre and Chris again doing a Precap, which actually means nothing and it's just a regular discussion about the last episode too.

All of these guys are... fine. They have easy chemistry, they know television, have some nice lines of thinking and discussion (don't get too concerned with real world logic too much), they don't try to demand from the show what it isn't and they get the comedy. But the thing is, while the talks about the plot and some situations and conversations can be a hit, all of these people, ALL of them, will miss something about character motivations ALL THE TIME. Chris and Andy are two dudebros who can't get a single thing right about Shiv and are constantly missing the point about her character. Sean and Joanna are better, I guess (especially Sean. Joanna is a bit of a disappointed Kendall girl who thought that the man suffering in s2 would erase his misogyny and delusions and flaws etc.), but not too much. Wos sometimes will say something and you will think "THANK YOU!! Finally!!" but he has also broken my trust many times (especially with Shiv) because he can get judgy real fast and has a tendency of getting too into Logan's POV (like, are you sure the point of this is the game itself and not the effects they cause??). At least none of them suck the dicks of the male characters too much, but they still get them far better than Shiv, Marcia, Willa, Naomi etc. I have to brace myself every time they try talking about Shiv because it will just leave me fuming or cockblocked when they go through a scene and manage to stay strictly on the surface. I start breathing very slowly every time one of them says something like "here's the thing about Shiv [...]".

So yeah, these podcasts are good if you want to listen to people who actually understand television narrative and bla bla bla. They all have their different tastes and all, although none of them particularly like Shiv or Connor, if I recall correctly. They don't hate them, but they're not crazy about them either. They're also busy bees and will sometimes remember things wrong and draw wrong conclusions from it (which actually hurts less when they do it from what they remember right). They usually have popular opinions, some astute observations, and are not hard-headed about anything. Wednesday ones are the best ones.

Slate Money Succession on Slate Culture (mondays)

Hosts: Felix Salmon and Emily Peck (and guest)

Slate Culture's business and finance division Podcast with Felix Salmon and Emily Peck is actually a warm favorite of mine and they can explain it better than me: "Slate Money is obsessed with Succession, HBO's wonderful drama about the lives of the superrich Roy family. So, every Monday, we'll be discussing the previous night's episode with spoiler-filled glee." They're not kidding about loving the show. They are at their silliest and most happy quoting the absurd lines, and just basking on the ludicrous aspects of the episodes. The downside is that the group chemistry and momentum will depend on how well they can flow with the guest (there's one in every episode), and they're like finance guests which doesn't always bode well for us. Again, miss me with that real world shit. No interest and almost no patience left, but their enthusiasm about the show is contagious and it's still worth it every week for me. Don't expect anything in depth, though, but it's refreshing how they're not judgemental about the characters because of it. The definition of focusing on what you like.

Still Watching by Vanity Fair (mondays)

Hosts: Richard Lawson, and Sonia Saraiya

Now comes the podcasts I actually don't listen all that much and I'm still behind several episodes. I thought this one was in a similar vein as the ringer because you have journalists speaking, but I think, as far as I listened, that they are a bit more surface than the ringer. Yknow, those basic twitter takes?? A bit too into saying how the characters are bad and what's wrong with them instead of talking about why they are that way. My opinion on this one might still change, though!

The Sweet Smell of Succession (mondays)

Hosts: David Chen and Tara Ariano

David Chen is cool but Tara Ariano doesn't like romangerri... which would be nothing if this was the only or one of the only podcasts available but when it comes to picking and choosing.... I'm never that thrilled to hear anything from someone who can't appreciate romangerri I'M SORRY SJBSSJSBSJBAHA

RoyCast (fridays)

I'm so behind this one I can't even remember the names of the hosts. Basically all I remember is that the audio is kind of bad and they're a bit too serious. I thought about catching up before posting this answer specifically because you mentioned them, but I already stalled long enough. It seems to me.... that they are fans of the show doing a podcast instead of critics, so it's good to keep that in mind when choosing what to listen because it can be a huge plus or a minus depending on what kind of perspective you want.

----

Bottom line is that my unmissables are mainly The Ringer ones, which I hate as much as I appreciate, and Slate Money Succession which is purely for the vibes.

[nighttimemachinery]

Tag Game: Dig a Little Deeper

Oops I’m so bad at remembering to do these things 😂

Tagged by @clotpolesonly - thanks!!

1. do you prefer writing with a black pen or a blue pen? blue, usually

2. would you prefer to live in the country or in the city? definitely the city

3. if you could learn a new skill, what would it be? i’d love to be fluent in spanish - my second language is french and it’s totally useless where i live

4. do you drink your tea/coffee with sugar? nope! i don’t drink coffee, but i drink my tea black.

5. what was your favorite book as a child? I mean the Harry Potter series was major. But I was a pretty avid reader as a kid and I had a lot of favorites. Most of the big series - Nancy Drew, Baby Sitters Club, A Series of Unfortunate Events, etc.

6. do you prefer baths or showers? this is kind of weird but i like to shower but sit in the tub while the shower runs haha

7. if you could be a mythical creature, which one would you be? probably a unicorn tbh

8. paper or electronic books? definitely paper - i always feel like i should be doing something else when i try to read on my laptop.

9. what is your favorite item of clothing? i have a t-shirt with that image from ‘cloverfield’ of the statue of liberty with the head smashed off and it says cloverfield lol that’s probably my favorite shirt

10. do you like your name? would you like to change it? i’m very happy with my name

11. who is a mentor to you? in terms of tumblr, big shoutout to sarah torple. in terms of career stuff, i feel like it’s presumptuous to call him a mentor but there’s a tv writer and podcaster i know who i really look up to.

12. would you like to be famous? if so, what for? not like famous famous, but i’d like to be pretty well known for something really specific.

13. are you a restless sleeper? not really. i fall asleep really easily and usually stay that way for about 7 hours.

14. do you consider yourself to be a romantic person? yes

15. which element best represents you? hmmm i’m a fire sign (leo), but probably air or water.

16. who do you want to be closer to? there are definitely a few podcasters i’d love to be close with. i guess that’s the nature of a parasocial relationship though.

17. do you miss someone at the moment? not really. does the outside world count?

18. tell us about an early childhood memory. my earliest memory is a recurring nightmare i had in pre-school. every day at nap time i’d fall asleep then have a dream that a fly flew into my nose and i’d burst awake.

19. what is the strangest thing you have eaten? i don’t think i’ve ever really eaten anything that strange. i’m a pretty picky eater.

20. what are you most thankful for? my health. which isn’t amazing, but could be much worse.

21. do you like spicy food? not too spicy, but i do like a little kick sometimes.

22. have you ever met someone famous? i go to a lot of screenings with q&a’s so i’ve definitely met a handful of actors briefly after those. the ones that come to mind though are actors who came into the ice cream shop i worked in a couple years ago. patricia belcher and kurt fuller are a couple character actors i’ve seen in a million things on tv throughout the years and they both came by to sample some ice cream when i worked there haha.

23. do you keep a diary or journal? no i just can’t get into it.

24. do you prefer to use pen or pencil? pen

25. what is your star sign? leo

26. do you like your cereal crunchy or soggy? crunchy! i always have my cereal dry or on top of yogurt (which doesn’t really make it soggy).

27. what would you want your legacy to be? oof i definitely want to create something that people appreciate beyond my lifetime.

28. do you like reading? What was the last book you read? i’ve been getting back into reading lately (i had a bit of a dry spell lately) and i’ve been enjoying it! last book i read was harry potter and the sorcerer’s stone and i’m almost done with chamber of secrets now.

29. how do you show someone you love them? i like to feed/entertain/take care of people i love.

30. do you like ice in your drinks? yeah especially now since it’s so hot.

31. what are you afraid of? dementia in old age, the ocean, and recently dying in my sleep.

32. what is your favorite scent? orange ginger

33. do you address older people by their name or surname? first names

34. if money was not a factor, how would you live your life? hmmm maybe i’d have a 3 bedroom house with a pool and jacuzzi, i’d have all of the dumb streaming subscriptions, and i would quit my job and work on my writing.

35. do you prefer swimming in pools or the ocean? pools (see #31 lol)

36. what would you do if you found $50 in the ground? if i saw where it came from, i’d give it back. if not, i’d keep it.

37. have you ever seen a shooting star? did you make a wish? not that i can remember

38. what is one thing you would want to teach your children? to celebrate people’s differences

39. if you had to have a tattoo, what would it be and where would you get it? i have 4 tattoos (anchor with a 94 which is a reference to sound of my voice, hands, a squiggly rectangle thing, and a tea leaf) and my next tattoo i want (WHEN IT’S SAFE) is a pressed penny from Sonoma Train Town.

40. what can you hear now? traffic going by on my very busy street

41. where do you feel the safest? home

42. what is one thing you want to overcome/conquer? my inability to commit to/finish projects. i get hyper-fixated on something, but then something new will come along and i’ll move on before i finish the last thing.

43. if you could travel back to any era, what would it be? honestly i’d rather not. right this second everything in the world sucks, but overall living in this time is better than most previous times.

44. what is your most used emoji? 😂

45. describe yourself using one word. concerned

46. what do you regret the most? not doing internships during the summer in college. but if that’s my greatest regret, i feel like my life is not that bad.

47. last movie you saw? i just watched “wreck it ralph” for the first time.

48. last tv show you watched? i’m currently watching ‘cabin in the wild’

49. invent a word and its meaning. fizzlytings - the feeling of your tongue when you drink a carbonated beverage

I guess I’ll tag: @scottstiles @problematiquefics and @dark-alice-lilith if you guys want to do this!

[notgreat-notterrible]

#5. Wanna be our friend?

I know it’s unhealthy to think of media personalities as your friends, even if that is the image that they create in being inviting, approachable, inside-jokey. It cuts both ways and members from a comedy Youtube channel I watch (and whose podcast I listen to), Funhaus, have more than once addressed the parasocial relationship that inevitably forms between them and their own fanbase. Much of their brand is based on a fun and friendly friend-group dynamic that plays video games together and riff Mystery Science Theatre 3000-style. Wanting to step into the role of producer for our own podcast we’re about to start, I have been thinking about the format and tone of this hypothetical show, and unfortunately, the image of presenting yourself this way is one I would still strive for. It creates a sense of community and yes, cults are bad, but devoted followings are something any content creator would kill to have.

Wanna be our friend?

For how much I listen to podcasts, making my own seems daunting. It is the freedom and open-endedness of it. I have a habit of getting in my own way most of the time when it comes to overthinking things. What qualifications do I have that somebody would want to listen to me? In the same way, why would anybody choose to read my writing? I mean, they don’t on this blog, but they do elsewhere. I like to think that my style draws readers in somehow. Maybe podcasting is the same way.

Thinking about all the podcasts I do listen to, few are actually experts. Well, experts in the way that I think of nuclear physicists or neuro-surgeons (science is hard, okay) who appear on news segments, but you could make a pretty compelling case that long-time industry vets of games or sports journalism are experts too, certainly of their craft, but they’re more likely to be the ones sitting across from and interviewing the “experts.” I tune in for podcast hosts’ personalities, chiefly. Any amount of expertise they may bring to the table is welcomed but secondary. Sometimes the fan take on things is more listenable than a group of overly qualified people who just have no presence or ear for radio.

My favourite podcasters tend to be specifically some kind of journalist or creative at the producer level. Usually not just actors, or just performers, or just athletes. While they may have interesting experiences, they can’t carry a podcast for me. If I’m subscribing to a podcast I’m in it for the long haul. There needs to be something or someone I’m coming back for each week. I specify at a producer level because if you take, for example, The Always Sunny Podcast—my newest obsession—while the hosts are the actors, they’re also the creators, writers, and producers of the FX sitcom It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia.

They bring in an incredible amount of depth about the creative process and their choices (and obstacles!) in the writers' room and on set and off. It also helps that they are incredibly funny and polished storytellers (and performers). Even though they are more prolific and successful now (Charlie Day is becoming a household name, Rob McElhenney co-owns an English football team with Ryan Reynolds) they’ve always maintained a close-knit, indie rock band vibe. Doubly so when they look back at their early seasons of the show where they had to do almost everything themselves. Most fans of the show know that it basically started with the three guys and a $100 budget. That it’s still going is a huge success story, and now we’ve been able to watch their podcast grow and get better with help from their producer (TV writer and producer Megan Ganz) as they continue to experiment with its format. In the last year they’ve added special guest episodes, did fan call-in shows, and even turned it into a video podcast and film on a gorgeous, specially-created set. Not all podcasts benefit from having video but their on-screen presence is undeniable and elevates their work. Charlie and Glenn Howerton excel at physical comedy and being able to watch the bits they launch into is a treat.

Podcasting, to me, is about presentation. And not even visual presentation. Journalists are naturally used to presenting information to an audience and strengthening their stories with different sources and background research, and it helps if they also have something interesting to say because they don’t necessarily need to be objective here. One site in particular comes to mind: Giant Bomb, arguably the driving force of the overall shift to personality-driven games media in 2008, where you had viewers tuning in specifically to find out what its hosts thought of new (and retro) video games in the forms of long-form videos (40+ minute Quick Looks), video and written reviews, and scheduled live-stream productions (all pre-Twitch and Youtube Live). There were no staff writers and editors like in traditional games media outlets and the brand itself took a backseat in favour of the name-recognition and popularity of its main, audience-facing personalities.

I followed Giant Bomb’s podcast The Giant Bombcast for decades, and even its many side projects or off-shoots as its founders and employees moved locations or left over the years: Screened.com, Giant Bomb East’s The Beastcast, a Formula 1 podcast Alt+F1 (which later changed to Shift+F1 when its hosts left the company and continued the show), the breakaway media company Nextlander and its podcast, and most recently The Jeff Gerstmann Show. While they are now mostly separate groups, they share the same DNA: they all have a similar style and sound and have comparable levels of industry knowledge.

Shift+F1 is a staple in my podcast diet and it’s an interesting case because none of the hosts are F1 journalists, just fans, yet all come from a games journalism background and the show is well-researched and comprehensive as a result. Anything else they add is infectious fan excitement and speculation. And the hosts being who they are (having listened to them talk about video games before) made the transition to talking about speedy racecars that much easier and the more attractive option, rather than having to listen to a bunch of random podcasts until I found a group that I liked.

The Poscast is one of two baseball podcasts I listen to (the other being Effectively Wild—pure journalism) and it is hosted by Joe Posnanski (sportswriter and journalist) and Michael Schur (television producer/writer responsible for shows like Parks and Recreation and The Good Place, and an avid sports fan). This dynamic combines the deep journalistic knowledge of the game as well as the way-more-than-average sports fan’s knowledge all wrapped up in comedic banter to keep things engaging and personable.

There seems to be no one right way of doing it, and what I like is completely different to the next person. The only thing I can do now is sit down and start recording and take it from there. As Formula 1 driver Daniel Ricciardo once said after a ballsy overtake, sometimes you just gotta lick the stamp and send it. So that’s where I’m at with things. I can think this thing to death and never get it off the ground or just go for it. It’s going to be sports related with a focus on storytelling, playing to our strengths. We don’t have the benefit of having known each other for years, sadly, and can’t rely on easygoing conversation to drive the podcast. But with any luck it’ll be a project we can continue working on long after and maybe eventually we will have that dynamic.

Check us out on Twitter?