A breakdown of survey results from the EarBuds podcast newsletter survey: What people say they do with podcast recommendations and what they actually do are not always the same
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?
Interesting stuff. I’m saving this. One note, people often misuse “statistically significant” as if it means “representative” but it really means the observed result would be unlikely under a specified null model, usually judged by a p-value threshold like 0.05. A better way to talk about this might be that the sample may overrepresent people with stronger opinions, higher engagement, or greater motivation to respond, because they opted in (selection bias).
Wow, really really interesting stuff. You've put so much work into all of this!! And so much thought also into what it means for you and your newsletter. You can be proud of yourself!
As someone hosting an indie (and indie-writer but also reader focused) Podcast on my House of Chapters publication, some of what you wrote (like clicking the link or searching for the Podcast) made me think of everything that can go wrong or distract haha.
But it also reminded me that at the end of the day...we're just people with a passion and not brands bombarding people with ads so that a 3-5% click-through-rate mean millions of people (so it's fine to annoy 95%, hahah).
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?
Love the insights. Thank you for putting this together. Keep Crushing!
Interesting stuff. I’m saving this. One note, people often misuse “statistically significant” as if it means “representative” but it really means the observed result would be unlikely under a specified null model, usually judged by a p-value threshold like 0.05. A better way to talk about this might be that the sample may overrepresent people with stronger opinions, higher engagement, or greater motivation to respond, because they opted in (selection bias).
So much great info here! I regularly send my APs your findings and promotion tips for the science and climate change podcast I produce at USC
Wow, really really interesting stuff. You've put so much work into all of this!! And so much thought also into what it means for you and your newsletter. You can be proud of yourself!
As someone hosting an indie (and indie-writer but also reader focused) Podcast on my House of Chapters publication, some of what you wrote (like clicking the link or searching for the Podcast) made me think of everything that can go wrong or distract haha.
But it also reminded me that at the end of the day...we're just people with a passion and not brands bombarding people with ads so that a 3-5% click-through-rate mean millions of people (so it's fine to annoy 95%, hahah).
Thanks again & keep up the good work!