The Pit and Pod is the weekly blog of the Archaeology Podcast Network full of updates, news and opinion. Written by co-founder Tristan Boyle and special guest writers

2019 was in many ways, a great formative year for the Archaeology Podcast Network. This whole project is a constantly evolving creature - refining, honing and improving. What has consistently been cemented for me is a sense of desire and need for the APN as a network and as a community. It seems like more and more people are seeing the value of podcasting as a form of outreach and more importantly a place for their voices to be heard and shared

I find it difficult to constantly create content, in this I don’t feel that I am alone. I am driven by fierce passions, have big ideas and I work best if I am fully invested in something. And I'll admit that I have had my doubts about the network, the effort, and the difficulties but I keep coming back to the idea, the mission statement; to create informative and entertaining media about the past.

This is not about engaging a public separate to archaeologists nor is it about solely providing a space for professionals. In creating podcasts that cater to a wide range of audiences, the network is seeing the archaeologist, the professional and amateur, as well as the public as part of it’s broad listenership.

Perhaps this is a stretch, what exactly about the podcasting model is participatory, what function does the public have on the outcome of each show?

In the first case, podcasting in the APN is not participatory, shows are created by hosts and producers with possible input from an audience on topics or themes. There is no method or regulation to this interaction, it is idiosyncratic to the show in question. The audience/public can use any of the modern methods of communication but the final decision is left to the host or producer.

This highlights the second case, that the audience/public only has at best, an indirect effect on the outcome of the show. In some cases where a podcast asks for interaction from the audience and reads responses/includes answers , there may be an argument for a stronger sense of participation, however the decision-making has been maintained outwith the control of that audience/public.

I am not criticising the ways podcasts are made, I am expanding the terms used in order to examine the fine grain details.

It is very easy in the larger course of promotion to overestimate the impact, the effect and to downplay the challenges.

I have written previously on the idea of audience feedback, “When All is Quiet on the Listener Front” and “Reaching out is a Two Way Street” but in the end, it comes down to the individual shows, their hosts and producers, and their listening audience.

Are they cultivating an environment where feedback is responded to? If you ask for it, are you thanking people or at least acknowledging that they took the time to reach out?

Are you shouting out and giving credit where credit is due? Do you even want to have an ongoing conversation with your audience? These are things that any listener to any episode of any show should be able to pick up on after the first listen.

And while some may argue you should have it all included and buttoned up right during your introduction, it can and sometimes should be saved for whatever outro you have created for yourself, but during either the intro or outro or both, the listener, first time or long time, should be able to identify what kind of feedback and at the same time relationship that the show wants to have with its audience.

I have the desire to take a look at the impact of podcasting within the broader field of heritage and the impact places like the APN has on listeners and audience. All I need are the willing participants.

Follow the 5th Year Celebration on #APN5 on Twitter

Please contact tristan@archaeologypodcastnetwork.com for more information