> Does anyone here understand what this is actually about?

Scripted podcasts with higher production values. Basically, the modern version of old time radio programs. Article is behind a paywall though, so there's nothing to see here anyway.

I'm guessing that "narrative podcasts" and "investigative audio series" are industry terms for true-crime-style junk and whatever "Missing Richard Simmons" is. News for people who don't care about news.

It doesn't surprise me these companies are failing, people with an appetite for that stuff can gorge themselves on social media for free.

Narrative Podcasts, I guess those are like old time radio plays: an audio production with voice actors and music and sound effects to tell a story. Everything old is new again.

Turns out these productions are too expensive to make, and even with increasing demand, ads can't generate enough revenue. So they're laying people off at the companies they paid millions for, and funding less expensive productions instead.

It's amusing to see someone reinvent the radio drama, then realize it's been done before and why

> Does anyone here understand what this is actually about?

Podcasts with any level of quality are losing out to podcasts that are essentially ragebait with a modern "comedic" spin that require little to any production value. Dickbags in their bedrooms don't need millions of dollars to create ragebait, while putting together a "narrative" podcast, either a true-crime type or a "Stuff You Should Know" type deep-dive into odd subjects, requires time, effort, and a bit of background research.

Of course advertisers want to fund the ragebait. It requires no effort at all

Cheap slop pumped out quickly is outselling quality performances.

Why would any company spend money to buy something and dismantle it or otherwise render it less valuable than what they paid for it. Do you find yourself in the habit of purchasing new cars to run through a crusher that you believe others regularly do this? Why not spend the money investing in something that can be cultivated and make even more money or later be sold at a profit?

The action you describe is pointless. Even if you believe there's some ulterior motive by which the company secretly profits by destroying an asset, that ignores that the workers who still possess the same skill set and can form or join some new company that produces the same product. All a company can achieve is wasting their own money as they lose business to some competitor that supplies what consumers want.

The audiobook industry can do nothing to stop these kind of podcasts from being made. If there were money to be made there, someone would seek to supply the product to consumers.

> There is one "problem" with this sort of format though: It takes time to consume, very much like a streaming series. And there is only so much time that shows like this can eat up.

Many people have time during their commutes. I walk for 30-60 minutes per day (got to get those steps in) and that's when I listen to podcasts. Without that activity (the walk or commute), I would not listen to them.

It's no different from the evolution of every media format. You start with some higher quality, high brow content experimenting with the medium then realize that its easier, less risky, and more consistently profitable to sell cheap "drugs" like reality television programming, angry talk radio, neverending sequels, generic pop music, risque social media posts, etc. Podcasting is no different.

> "Serial"

As in the podcast equivalent of soap operas?

> It was new, had the true-crime pull that fascinates women and men alike,

You're going to have to withdraw that last remark if you think men* like a weekly dose of psychotics, tragedy and entire families that probably belong in court-ordered rehab.

*Apologies to the LGBTQ community, who seem to love the same tear-jerking tragedies that dependapotami love on As The Stomach Turns.

> Ow! My Balls! has taken over the podcast scene.

I'll take that show over the movie "Ass" that won 8 Oscars...

That's just the direct cost, there is also massive administrative overhead that is spread across the entire range of shows, At one time it was far more than 10 people/hour on indirect cost and I doubt that is has gotten better since I last figured it out.

Not exactly.

> but advertising dollars are flowing to cheaper chat formats rather than resource-intensive narrative productions.

Logically, advertising dollars should flow to where the ears are. With a caveat: Spend your ad dollars in the market most likely to produce more sales per audience member. Critical thinking people who listen to investigative content probably don't make the best suckers^H^H^H^H^H^H^H customers.