Hacker Read top | best | new | newcomments | leaders | about | bookmarklet login

Productivity...well, kind of. If the show is an hour long you get 45 minutes of madness with Mann and Dan talking almost incoherently but then you get 15 minutes of brilliance from Mann. I always walk away with some useful quip or anecdote about life or work.


sort by: page size:

For me it's the 5 minute recap, 5 minute content, 5 minute break, 5 minute recap loop on most shit.

i'd point out that he mentions two examples, the average the guild episode clocking in at 10 minutes, the average never not funny episode clocking in at 1h 30m.

For most shows, I record 60 to 90 minutes of conversation to get 20 to 40 minutes of edited content. I try to edit down to the bone, where there is nothing else I feel I can take out.

That might seem a bit extreme, but some of my guests are not native English speakers, so there is a lot to fix in post-production.


Bit of an exaggeration. The average show is roughly 22-24 minutes per half hour with the rest going to advertisments.

That's 1.3 shows a week. 15 hours. Podcasts and tv blogs will have work for quite some time.

Not to mention that once you've seen one 60 Minutes episode, you've seen them all. It's a legendary formula, but tired as hell.

I suppose it's all because of the topic or the content itself. They try to use any technique to keep the view and to make it longer. They sometimes build miniseries from something that could be an hour max.

Holy crap. Half-hour shows are basically YouTube videos in terms of length

Awesome feedback John...also I watched a bit of the show, intriguing :)

Don't mean to pry too much, does not very long mean 15-20 hours worth of work? less? More?


Hour shows are 40 minutes. Half hour are 18.

Yeah, being to the point is crucial in these days of abundant content. Sometimes I wish they reinstated the 10-minute limit.

Personally, I don't have a problem consuming 15 mins of a 1 hour show.

Structure is an "editing problem" but once you go beyond a fairly straight interview or talk show format, the amount of post-production work increases dramatically. With the help of some automation, I can edit a 20 minute interview in an hour so so. Structuring a 1 hour show from different clips and inserting various breaks etc. would probably add a good day to the whole process.

Why limit the complexity/interestingness of everything to always fit into a single hour? These seem to be aimed at people who have finished introductory material and are potentially looking for (semi-)/nontrivial material. If you're married to the idea of ~1hr segments, you can always split them into parts of a series.

Yep, it's not the length per se, it's the length to content ratio. Too often it feels they could have fitted the same stuff into a 30-40 minute show.

Agreed, it depends of the type of content, and the audience.

I used to enjoy long content. But in the last 2 years, I got distracted easier, and enjoy short content more.


I think they mean each episode is one hour long, not the full show.

What I was getting at was more the fact that even if you record 3 hours of stuff, you don't need to put the unedited 3 hours out. It can be recorded on a potato microphone on a clay disk for all I care, just spend some time in the edit and cut it down to a manageable size.

There are very few podcasts that can stay on topic and interesting past the 1 - 1.5 hour mark.

The only exception to this rule are the Christopher McQuarrie Spoiler Special episodes of the Empire Podcast (now behind a firewall). The dude can keep spewing fascinating stuff about his movies longer than the movies' combined runtime =)


It's a cute remark, but why is 50 minutes the right cutoff? For a technical talk it seems long. For an entertaining keynote it seems short. Movies are 90+ minutes.
next

Legal | privacy