There’s a moment I keep seeing online. Two people. One webcam each. A split screen that looks like a corporate compliance training video from 2009. The audio is tinny. The lighting is whatever the ceiling decided. And the entire “video podcast” is basically a Zoom call that accidentally got published.
Then someone wonders why nobody watches.
The real question is not “Should I do video?” The real question is this. Are you making great audio, or bad television?
Because the proliferation of video podcasts is not, in itself, a creative revolution. It’s a distribution shift. YouTube is where discovery happens for a massive portion of the audience now. Edison’s data has been pointing in that direction for a while. YouTube has become the most-used service for weekly podcast listeners in the US, ahead of Spotify and Apple Podcasts. That matters.
But distribution is not the same thing as craft.
There are sensible reasons creators drift toward video:
YouTube search. Suggested videos. The algorithmic rabbit holes. The fact that listeners also “watch” while doing other things. And the growing platform support. Spotify, for example, is pushing hard into video. It has expanded monetisation tools for video podcasters and claims video podcast consumption has nearly doubled since launching parts of its initiative. Deloitte is even forecasting podcasting and “vodcasting” ad revenues to keep climbing into 2026.
So yes. The incentives are real.
But incentives produce a specific kind of content. The fast kind. The easy kind. The “set it and forget it” kind.
That is how you end up filming radio.
And filming radio is fine, if it looks like TV.
Television has grammar. It has pacing, blocking, visual rhythm, depth, movement, cutaways, inserts, context. Even the simplest talk show uses visuals to do work.
A static two-shot of people talking is not automatically “TV.” It is documentation.
Documentation can be interesting if the humans are electric and the framing supports the mood. But most of the time, it is just evidence that two microphones were present.
If your video adds nothing, it becomes a tax on attention. The viewer has to watch something that does not reward watching. That is why so many video podcasts end up consumed like audio anyway. Tab open. Screen ignored.
And then creators conclude “video doesn’t work for us.” When the real issue is that they didn’t make video. They made a recording of audio.
This is where I will sound like a heretic on the internet. Audio is not the “lesser” version of video. Audio is its own medium, with its own unfair advantages.
Audio lets the listener co-create. Their brain builds the pictures. It makes them complicit. It is intimate in a way a screen often is not. It can mislead beautifully, reveal slowly, shift time without apology, and put you inside a moment with nothing but breath, distance, texture, and silence.
When we produce an audio drama like Blood in the Dust, we are not trying to imitate film. We are building a world that only exists in the listener’s head. The detail is in the sonic choices. Space. Footsteps. The weight of a pause. The way a room “sounds” before anyone speaks. That is not a consolation prize. That is the point.
The same is true when you look at the best audio work globally. Not because it is famous, but because it understands the medium:
Narrative journalism shows that pacing and structure can be cinematic without a camera.
Sound-rich documentaries prove that “scene” is an audio concept too.
Audio fiction demonstrates that imagination scales better than budget.
If you want an immediate gut-check, ask yourself this. Would this episode still be gripping if the listener never looked at the screen?
If the honest answer is no, then you are not making a podcast. You are making a talk show that forgot it needed to be watchable.
Another twist is that YouTube is not only a video platform anymore. It has actively made podcast ingestion and management easier, including delivering episodes via RSS feeds. In other words, you can benefit from YouTube discovery without pretending your show is a full video production.
This is an important option for creators who want reach without producing a weekly studio shoot.
But it comes with a risk. If you publish audio to YouTube with a static image or minimal motion, do not kid yourself that you have “done video.” You have done distribution. That can still be smart. It just means you should double down on audio craft, because the audio is carrying everything.
If the visuals add meaning, video can be a genuine upgrade.
Video earns its place when at least one of these is true:
1. The content is inherently visual.
Demonstrations, makeovers, cooking, design reviews, live performance, physical comedy, show-and-tell, reactions where facial nuance is the payload.
2. The format uses visuals as storytelling tools.
Cutaways. Inserts. Archival. Screens. Graphics. Location shifts. On-screen prompts. Visual beats that create pace.
3. The environment is part of the appeal.
A set with personality. A table that feels like a world. A space that signals tone before anyone speaks.
4. The show is built for clips.
Not just random quotes. Proper visual moments. Reactions. Visual reveals. A frame that still works when cropped vertically.
If none of those are true, video becomes a shiny wrapper on the same product. Then your “video podcast” competes against actual video creators who understand lighting, lenses, and tempo. It is an unfair fight.
You do not need a Netflix budget. But you do need intent.
At minimum, good video podcasting usually requires:
Lighting that makes faces look human, not like security footage.
Clean audio that would stand on its own, because bad sound is unforgivable on YouTube too.
More than one camera angle, even if the second angle is just a tighter shot that creates rhythm.
A visual plan, meaning you know what the viewer is meant to look at and why.
Editing that respects attention, meaning you remove the dead air that audio listeners forgive but viewers feel.
And if you cannot do that every week, there is no shame in staying audio-first and using video tactically. Short highlight reels. Proper trailers. Visual explainers. A recorded intro. Anything where the visuals are designed, not incidental.
Spotify’s own creator messaging is increasingly explicit that video should be used to “stand out” through visual storytelling and deeper engagement. That is marketing language, sure, but the underlying idea is correct. Video has to do work.
For a lot of shows, the best strategy right now is not “either-or.”
It is:
Make the core episode audio-first. Treat sound as the main event.
Use YouTube for discovery intelligently. RSS ingestion or audio-to-video publishing can still be worth it, especially if your titles, thumbnails, and descriptions are strong.
Add video only when it genuinely adds value. Not because the algorithm bullied you into it.
This approach also protects you from platform whiplash. Right now, there is a visible land grab for video podcasts. Netflix is licensing and commissioning video podcast content. That is a sign of momentum, but it is also a sign of volatility. Platforms chase audience behavior. Creators should chase craft.
Here is the question I keep coming back to, and it is annoyingly simple:
What is the listener’s experience meant to be?
If the experience you want is intimacy, imagination, immersion, story, presence, then audio is not a compromise. It is your strongest tool. Use it properly. Write for the ear. Build scenes. Respect silence. Make the listener see with sound.
If the experience you want is performance, chemistry, facial nuance, spectacle, demonstration, then video can be worth the effort. But then you have to make television, not record a Zoom call.
Yes, use video if it serves the show. Use YouTube because discovery matters. Build clips because that is how attention travels now.
But do not publish bad television and call it innovation.
If you are going to use video, make sure the picture adds to the quality. If you are going to use audio, make full use of its potential. That is where the unfair advantage still lives.
Your voice is your brand. Your podcast should sound like it.
We help creators, coaches, and businesses make shows that stand out – for the right reasons.
Book a Free Strategy Session and let’s build something powerful.
Podcasting in 2026 stops being one thing. With the Golden Globes legitimising the medium and Netflix treating podcasts like catalogue content, creators are being pushed to choose between open RSS audio and platform-native video, while tightening structure for distracted, mobile-first audiences.
This article explains why so many video podcasts feel like boring Zoom recordings, and how to choose or upgrade your format so visuals add real value and audio uses its full storytelling power.
We’re looking to hire. Will it be you?
People sample podcasts easily, but they only subscribe when a show feels clear, consistent, and emotionally worth returning to. This article explains what actually drives subscription and how the YouTube algorithm is reshaping the way listeners discover and commit to podcasts.
Most podcasts hunt for guests, but only the right guests actually add value. This article shows why relevance, intentional curation, and smart editing matter far more than landing a famous name — and how to use guests to strengthen your story instead of dilute it.
Most podcasters believe they need to be everywhere on social media, but growth comes from strategy, not volume. Choosing one platform where your ideal listener actually lives — like LinkedIn for business and entrepreneurs — is far more effective than chasing trends.
