What 62 Podcast Listeners Told Me About Discovery, Curation, and Behavior (from the EarBuds Newsletter Survey)
What people say they do with podcast recommendations and what they actually do... are not always the same
I’ve been writing a podcast recommendation newsletter for 9 years
EarBuds Podcast Collective, my podcast recommendation newsletter, turned 9 this year. It feels like I’ve been writing it forever AND like I started it yesterday at the same time. To mark the occasion, I sent out a survey to better understand how readers interact with the newsletter… which subject lines intrigue them, how (or if) they act on recommendations, what other newsletters they read, how they feel about the segments within the newsletter, and much more.
If you’re not familiar with EarBuds, I’ve gotta explain the premise of it before we move on:
EarBuds is a weekly newsletter that shares a themed list of podcast recommendations on a theme — and each week is curated by a different person. Anyone can curate a list. We’ve had extremely diverse themes over the years. Here’s a sample: game theory, mental health awareness, road trip shows for kids, law & media, Australian finance shows, gen z career growth, and so many more.
You can see more of the lists here.
Back to the survey methodology: we got 62 responses, to which I feel I must say: I know this number is not statistically significant (more on that below). BUT the data contained within the responses is still incredibly useful… Because the goal here isn’t to make sweeping claims about all podcast listeners — it’s to better understand the behavior of engaged ones, the people who are already opting into receiving curated podcast recommendation lists.
I’m going to outline what stood out to me about the results AND what it means for the newsletter going forward…
The core premise of the newsletter works: people open based on interest
About half of respondents (51.6%) said they open every issue. A large portion (38.7%) said they open when the theme interests them. When I first started writing the newsletter, sure, I hoped everyone would open every single issue. I was 24 years old and had no experience with email marketing. The newsletter was also very disorganized, hard to read, and not aesthetically pleasing. I’ll find screenshots somewhere and share eventually.
Over time, I realized that the newsletter is really geared towards the 38%. I cannot expect every person to be interested in every topic. But my goal is that they stay subscribed anyway because a. they never know what the next topic will be, b. because there are other segments within the newsletter, and c. because they’re just interested in seeing the variety of shows out there.
The variability from week to week is the product. And the data reflects that: people are not forming a rigid habit, they’re making an active choice each week. It also challenges the idea (and the email marketing advice) that success = train your audience to open everything. I’ve realized that success for my newsletter = be worth opening when it matters to them.
People come for the podcast recommendations (but not only that)
No surprise here: podcast recommendations are the #1 reason people read EarBuds. But what did surprise me was that “notes from the editor” came in second. That’s a signal to me (and a call to action)…
I’ve historically treated that section as optional for myself as a writer. The data in this chart suggests it should probably be a week-to-week fixture.
EarBuds readers don’t just want lists of recommendations. They want framing, context, extra tidbits, something that makes the newsletter human. I’ve always struggled with that balance because if you take a newsletter like my friend Lauren’s, Podcast The Newsletter, it’s very personality forward. With mine, sometimes you might not even know that I’m behind it. And I thought I was doing that by design. But maybe I need to show a bit more personality.
Podcast discovery is happening… but it’s fuzzy
About 20% of respondents said they have not discovered a podcast they regularly listen to via EarBuds. Nearly half (45.2% said they “can’t recall”.) At first glance, that feels like a miss (and was definitely disappointing). But the more I sit with it, the more it feels like an accurate reflection of how podcast discovery works. You don’t always remember where you heard about something. You just know you’re listening now.
But hey, it also might mean the recommendations are just not resonating, and I need to consider that possibility.
Clicks are not the metric I initially thought they were
When asked what readers do when they see a podcast they’re interested in, the most common answer (at 59.7%) was "open my podcast app, search for it.” I theorized this a few years ago and shared it widely among my podcast newsletter writer friends.
(p.s. I manage a slack channel for podcast newsletter writers + if you want more newsletters, I’m publishing a big ole list soon over at Podcasts We Text About).
I shared it widely with my fellow writers because it can be disheartening to see the click-through rate of your newsletter hover just around industry standards. But, knowing that readers engage in more of a glancing situation before taking action on their phones or desktop devices makes it make a bit more sense.
A lot of podcast marketing still hinges on clicks as a proxy for success. But if people are taking action off-platform, then clicks are only part of the story… maybe not even the most important part. The newsletter isn’t necessarily the conversion point, but just a touchpoint on the way to discovery.
The product itself is relatively dialed in
Overwhelmingly, respondents people said: the layout works and the length is “just right.” Great news! But, it also means there’s no super obvious change for me to make.
Instead, it’s all about small, continuous tweaks (and it always has been)… I’ve never published the exact same layout of the newsletter for more than a month or two at a time. Sometimes the tweaks have been more significant (I did a total rebrand in 2021), and sometimes they’re more along the lines of moving the quote from the curator to the bottom of their recommendations list. Where I do see myself making more definitive changes (or at least testing them) is in these ways:
clearer section distinctions
occasional new segments
better surfacing of what already exists
For example, some readers don’t seem to know that we have spinoff newsletters
For some, EarBuds is their only source for discovery
A handful (just 8) of respondents said they subscribe to no other podcast or media newsletters. That was surprising to me, but also pretty cool. I think the real story here though, is that a bunch of my peer newsletters are heavily represented — I’ve done a bunch of collaborations with them in the past and will continue to do more.
There’s demand for more from EarBuds, which already exists
Respondents said they want more podcast recommendations in specific categories: history, fiction, true crime, etc.
Which is great… because we already have spinoff newsletters for many of these topics. It’s a good reminder for me that just launching something is only half the job. I need to let people know these newsletters exist. I’ve purposely waited to make an official announcement (press release, emails to supporters) because I wanted to get the workflow set. It’s still not there yet (because I’m spread thin), but I’ve been working with Keelin (a podcast critic) on organizing things, and we’ll get there sooner rather than later.
Let me lay out why I thought these spinoffs were important to start:
Going back to the first slide I shared (“Email Opens”), which suggested people open the newsletter mostly when the theme appeals to them, I’m operating these spinoffs under the notion that people might want more pointed recommendations to their specific interests. PLUS, these newsletters might be appealing on their own to people not yet familiar with the EarBuds model.
A note on sample size (and why I still trust this data for my purposes)
62 responses is not a statistically significant sample of the full EarBuds audience. But it is a meaningful sample of our highly engaged readers. And those are the people whose behavior I care most about understanding because they’re the ones most likely to:
read the newsletter consistently
act on the recommendations they’re served
share the newsletter with others
HOWEVER, if you’re an EarBuds reader and feel that these statistics do not represent you, you can still share feedback. The survey will stay open for the time being.
Qualitative responses worth noting
I want to share some of the responses to the open-ended questions from the survey.
When asked “Do you remember how you found the newsletter? If so, please share,” people said:
Selfishly, I wanted to be a curator as a way of sharing my podcast (while participating)
I think it was a recommendation from the Buzzsprout group, maybe? I learned about it when I first started podcasting in March 2025 and wanted to immerse myself in industry info.
Met Arielle at Podcast Movement 2022 I think
After following Arielle on LinkedIn I believe
I've known about Earbuds from around the podiverse for a while. I was probably prompted to subscribe officially by my buddy Shreya Sharma.
When asked “How would you describe the newsletter to a friend or family member?”, people said:
A list of podcasts or specific podcast episodes that all surround a certain topic.
It's kind of how This American Life describes their series. A collection of podcast recommendations based on a theme or topic.
It's a newsletter about podcasts written by someone who loves podcasts: discovering them, listening to them, and sharing them. The place to find something to listen to that you'll enjoy and be surprised by.
A fun, creative list of podcasts you may/may not have heard of but will probably love - or at least like a lot. ;) (I loved the recent one for pet owners)
The best pod info.
When asked “Is there anything else you want to tell us about what you love about the newsletter? Anything about what you think we should change?”, people said:
Thank you for not just focusing on celebrity podcasts. It can be difficult for indie podcasts to get visibility and I like that these are listener-chosen so they can be obscure.
I like the length, but I think you could even remove or slim down some of the podcast news bits since other newsletters cover those. It would give it a more personal, unique feeling, similar to the one the newsletter had when I first subscribed
Maybe a bonus rec from Arielle that's based on the curated theme (when there's one that makes sense anyway, wouldn't want it to be forced!)
I love that the goal is for creators to highlight other creators. This newsletter was one of my introductions into the larger community of podcasting, and it has felt welcoming and set the tone for how I try to uplift podcasts beyond my own.
I asked the first question because I figured that if people shared where they found the newsletter, there’s probably more subscribers to be found in that pocket of the internet / IRL world.
I asked the second question because it’s always great to know how the thing you made is being perceived by others. The customer is always right!
I asked the third question because my friend Bethany, who helped me with the survey, suggested that you’ve gotta leave room for extra comments.
So… what changes might we make?
Here are a few things I’m thinking about moving forward:
Making “notes from the editor” a consistent part of the newsletter
Figuring out what to share and the layout in which I’ll share it is another challenge
Continuing to prioritize themed curation (that may vary widely from week to week) over uniformity
The spinoff newsletters are for those seeking uniformity in their recommendations BUT I do hope people will stay subscribed to the general newsletter too
Thinking beyond clicks when evaluating success
And communicating this clearly to curators who are hoping to get their show out there as part of their themed list AND to sponsors and advertisers
Doing a better job surfacing the spinoff newsletters
If I’ve learned one thing from this survey it’s that podcast discovery is nonlinear. The results of this survey didn’t simplify the answer to that “problem,” but it did make it clearer.
A question I’m left with: what do I do with conflicting responses? Some respondents said they love that there are segments aside from the list of podcast recommendations. Others say the newsletter should slim down.
Acknowledgements
There’s more data where this came from. You can see the entire slide deck here.
Thank you to Bethany Berger, a longtime subscriber and friend who, in her capacity as a data expert and survey designer, helped me with the wording and flow of this survey.
Thank you to Tom Webster of Sounds Profitable, whose work on research and surveying that I’ve read over the years helped me with specific questions in the survey.
Thank you to the respondents and readers!
Thank you to the industry partners who donated prizes to the raffle that respondents could opt into upon completion.
Thank you for reading! If you learned something about podcast discovery or maybe found some inspiration to conduct a survey for your audience, I’d love to hear about it.
Until next time, subscribe to the newsletter here, curate a list here, become a member (for free) here, and tell me what you’re listening to / loving via a comment or a reply!
Bye!
Like the other comments, I too found this super-interesting.
The clicks finding stands out for sure. You're right to reframe it. The newsletter is a touchpoint in a nonlinear journey, not the conversion event. That's an important distinction that is a struggle for much of podcast marketing.
You raise a question around conflicting responses. Stay with it. This is actually normal and useful data. Conflicting feedback usually means you have distinct reader segments with different needs, not that the survey is broken.
The question worth asking is: which segment do you most want to serve, and what does the newsletter look like if you optimise for them? Small tests, as the other commenter said, but with that question as the frame.
Nine years in and still asking the hard questions about your own product. That's the right instinct.
This is really interesting. I especially loved reading about why you asked the questions you asked, and also I appreciate your lingering question about what to do with conflicting responses! That's always tough to navigate - I guess it's more reason to make small tweaks and measure the impact rather than making sweeping changes?