Podcasts have popularized in recent years, but insufficient research has been conducted on them. With this study, we intend to identify which audio features affect a podcast's star rating and number of ratings. The particular audio features we examined are the fundamental frequency, jitter, shimmer, harmonics-to-noise ratio, and loudness of numerous shows in the official Spotify Podcasts Dataset. This dataset includes podcast metadata and openSMILE audio metrics which we compared to the equivalent Apple star ratings and numbers of ratings. To find significant relationships, we ran t-tests with Benjamini-Hochberg corrections to prevent false positives in our multivariate comparison. These statistical tests indicated a positive relationship between Harmonics-to-Noise Ratio (HNR) and number of ratings along with negative relationships between jitter and number of ratings as well as shimmer and number of ratings. These results will allow podcasters to optimize their audio in order to garner more user ratings and thus achieve more success.
Lara Karacasu
Columbia University
[email protected]
Quinn Booth
Columbia University
[email protected]
Pitch, volume, and speech rate affect the perceived confidence of a speaker (Guyer et al., 2019). Louder podcasts tend towards higher ratings (Shafiei et al., 2020) and there exists a positive relationship between speech rate and popularity in music (Gauvin, 2017). Additionally, we have seen -- especially in the case of fake news -- that overly confident and persuasive media is attractive to viewers. Therefore, do podcasts with a more confident and persuasive tone perform better upon release? Further, do the patterns in certain audio features associated with confident speakers, such as pitch and volume, indicate anything about a podcast's success?
Alternatively, some auditory features reflect audio quality. For example, harmonics-to-noise ratio measures relative additive noise in a signal, and it is a significant predictor of roughness in voice samples. Jitter is associated with irregular vibrations in the vocal folds. Finally, shimmer is a measure of variability in amplitude, correlated with noise emission and breathiness (Bottalico et al., 2018). Previous studies have also found a positive relationship between audio quality and favorable perception of recordings and their speakers (Newman et al., 2018). Thus, would podcasts with higher audio quality tend to receive higher ratings and more engagement?
-
Hypothesis 1: Podcasts with higher star ratings will differ significantly from podcasts with lower star ratings across multiple acoustic features.
-
Hypothesis 2: Podcasts with larger numbers of ratings will differ significantly from podcasts with smaller numbers of ratings across multiple acoustic features.
-
Hypothesis 3: Podcasts with higher star ratings and larger numbers of ratings will have significantly: lower fundamental frequency, less jitter, less shimmer, lower harmonics-to-noise ratio, and greater loudness.
There exists little research on the audio characteristics of podcasts, yet knowing which auditory qualities lead to favorable reception would be a fantastic tool for aspiring creators. In this study, we choose to explore the relationship between fundamental frequency, jitter, shimmer, harmonics-to-noise ratio, and loudness in regards to the star ratings and number of ratings that podcasting shows receive. Fundamental frequency and volume are most basic characteristics of spoken audio, making their discussion of great importance. Additionally, jitter, shimmer, and harmonics-to-noise ratio are widely regarded as important metrics of general audio quality. Fortunately, though little work has been done on podcasts, many studies have discussed the relationship between other forms of spoken audio and our perception of the speaker/media.
First, there is an established relationship between lower vocal registers and perceptions of power and credibility. An experiment in this vein was conducted with 51 men and women who were instructed to introduce themselves in a number of manners. When asked to emulate a figure of authority, such as a doctor, subjects would subconsciously lower their vocal register. Such findings indicated a relationship between lower voices and power, authority, and trustworthiness (Sorokowski et al., 2019). From a biological perspective, a compilation of studies indicate that Old World monkeys likely developed this association because of a preexisting connection between deep tones and large objects/animals. We consistently associate lower voice pitches - measured by fundamental frequency - with social status, leadership status and, again, power (Aung et al., 2020). With these connections in mind, it is likely that podcasts with a lower vocal register will give an impression of credibility and authority.
Humans also associate a fast speaking rate with being confident. A study had 394 undergraduate students rank audio recordings with sped-up/slowed-down speech in terms of how confident they perceived the speaker. The results showed that students thought faster speech rates had more confident undertones (Guyer et al., 2019). In support, other researchers synthesized the Trinity Speech-Gesture Dataset and had 35 online participants rank recordings on a scale of confidence. Subjects consistently rated recordings with faster speech rates with higher confidence levels (Kirkland et al., 2022). Therefore, in addition to pitch, the speech rate in podcasts likely affects the hosts' perceived confidence. While we are not directly examining speech rate, these studies show how a particular audio feature can affect our perception of a speaker.
Aside from pitch and speech rate, there is a relationship between volume, dynamics (pausing) and engagement/ratings in -- specifically -- podcasts. A study similar to ours was run, searching for relationships between Apple podcast average engagement and numerical ratings, and designated auditory features: pausing, pitch range, participants, intonation, and loudness. They ultimately found meaningful relationships between total engagement and loudness as well as total engagement and pausing, but no meaningful connections between any of the other features. No relationship was found for numerical ratings with any of the audio features, which could have been a result of the methodology: the authors randomly sampled over all podcasts instead of randomly sampling over each rating bucket to get a more even distribution (the majority of podcasts are highly rated) (Shafiei et al., 2020).
As previously stated, audio quality metrics can also influence the perception of not only the recording, but the perception of the speaker in the recording. A 2018 study asked participants to evaluate identical conference talks and radio interviews, differentiable only with respect to audio quality. The recordings with lower audio quality were rated significantly less favorably, and the content of those presentations were rated as being less important in comparison their higher-quality counterparts. Further, the speakers were evaluated as being less intelligent and less likeable (Newman et al., 2018). Similarly, a 2014 study found that young female speakers with more vocal fry, a vocal quality associated with higher shimmer and jitter (Kuang et al., 2016), were perceived as significantly less likeable and less intelligent (Anderson et al., 2014).
Power, trustworthiness, likeability, and confidence are facets of persuasion: a characteristic of successful products. Perceived confidence has a large bearing on the success of a persuasive attempt, indicated in a study that showed how perceived competence affects persuasiveness when speaking through an analysis of successful Kickstarter campaigns (Wang et al., 2021). In other words, if we believe someone is trustworthy, we are more easily persuaded, regardless of their information's integrity. An affirmative study had subjects listen to recordings of persuasive material, some with paralinguistic material: an indicator of confidence. When shown recordings with more paralinguistic material, subjects gave higher ratings of persuasiveness. From these studies, we can see that persuasiveness greatly depends on perceived competence and confidence, rather than solely the quality of provided information (Zant et al., 2020). Take for example the growing prominence of fake news. Fake news and propaganda use stability to be persuasive and establish a sense of credibility (Vamanu, 2019). Under the logical assumption that people support things that they believe in, podcasts with more persuasive qualities should see greater success. Given persuasiveness is reflected by confidence, podcasts with lower fundamental frequency and greater loudness (characteristics of confidence) should perform better, hence our hypotheses.
-
Fundamental Frequency
F0semitoneFrom27.5Hz_sma3nz_amean openSMILE reading for a podcast's episodes, averaged.
F0semitoneFrom27.5Hz_sma3nz_amean is the mean fundamental frequency measured on a logarithmic frequency scale beginning at 27.5 Hertz. This represents the lowest harmonic/frequency produced by an audio file. -
Jitter
jitterLocal_sma3nz_amean openSMILE reading for a podcast's episodes, averaged.
jitterLocal_sma3nz_amean is the mean difference in period length of sequential fundamental frequency samples. Jitter is associated with irregular vibrations in the vocal folds. This can manifest in choppiness or roughness of the voice. -
Shimmer
shimmerLocaldB_sma3nz_amean openSMILE reading for a podcast's episodes, averaged.
shimmerLocaldB_sma3nz_amean is the mean difference in amplitude of sequential fundamental frequency periods. More shimmer can make a voice sound breathy. -
Harmonics-to-Noise Ratio
HNRdBACF_sma3nz_amean openSMILE reading for a podcast's episodes, averaged.
HNRdBACF_sma3nz_amean is the amount of noise which falls within a harmonic of the fundamental frequency versus that which does not. Harmonics-to-noise ratio measures relative additive noise in a signal. A lower harmonics-to-noise ratio indicates more noise in someone's voice, as opposed to harmonics, making it sound more coarse. -
Loudness
loudness_sma3_amean openSMILE reading for a podcast's episodes, averaged.
loudness_sma3_amean is simply the average volume of audio/its signal's intensity.
-
Star Rating
Podcast rating out of five stars on Apple Podcasts. -
Number of Ratings
Number of ratings on Apple Podcasts.
In addition, we define podcasts with "higher ratings" as podcasts with an average Apple star rating above the median rating, and podcasts with "lower ratings" as podcasts with an average Apple star rating below the median. Similarly, we define podcasts with "higher engagement" as podcasts with a number of Apple ratings above the median number of ratings, and podcasts with "lower engagement" as podcasts with a number of Apple ratings below the median. In order to validate the findings, we will also run our statistical testing using another, more extreme, split point: the 90-10 split point. That is, our validation tests consider ratings and engagement metrics at or above 90th percentile as being high, while ratings and engagement metric at or below the 10th percentile as being low.
The majority of our research centered around data collection, preparation, and aggregation. The relevant data from the Spotify Podcasts Dataset is spread across multiple folders. Thus, we collected the podcast metadata and openSMILE audio data from separate directories and compiled it into our own contiguous dataset. Initially, we formatted Spotify's metadata.tsv file, which contains basic information about every English podcast episode in the shared Box. This required reading the TSV into a Jupyter Notebook, grouping the entries by show name, and conglomerating episodes per show into a listed field. Additionally, we cleaned the data by removing any insignificant podcasts, as well as podcasts with uncommon RSS feeds. We chose a minimum threshold of 30 episodes for this task: that is, podcasts with fewer than 30 episodes were not included in our dataset. The reasoning behind this decision is primarily that averaging audio features across a podcast with a minuscule number of episodes may lead to skew in the final dataset, as we would not be able to confidently use those means as representative values for the podcast show as a whole. More broadly, larger samples better approximate populations, and consequently yield tighter confidence intervals. However, each podcast show also corresponds to one observation in our dataset, and an extremely high threshold would thus yield a low number of observations. Empirically, choosing a minimum threshold of 30 episodes per podcast balanced both trade-offs: ultimately, our final dataset contained 422 episodes.
An RSS feed is an XML file that stores links to and information regarding a podcast's episode history. Removing shows with uncommon/unreachable RSS feeds assists our RSS scraping algorithm. This program reaches into RSS feeds that remain after our data is cleaned and retrieves any dates associated with a show's episode list. We isolated shows with sufficient online documentation using this method. Originally, these dates were meant to interface with the Twitter API to run sentiment analysis on Tweets advertising podcast episodes in our dataset. Ultimately, we used the Apple ratings to assess a show's performance and cross-referenced the dates from the RSS feeds against the Apple ratings to guarantee validity. RSS feeds also helped us determine our 30 episode threshold for shows we would allow into our final CSV. Dipping much below 30 episodes resulted in numerous personal or less used RSS feed formats entering our dataset, meaning we would have to account for these in our RSS feed scraper. It was more feasible for us to employ a threshold that would guarantee a smaller number of popular RSS feed hosts.
After preparing the initial CSV, we incorporated the openSMILE data from the Spotify Podcasts Dataset. openSMILE is able to extract 88 features from an audio file; the creators of the Spotify dataset ran this analysis on every available episode. This information was held in a separate portion of the Box in a complicated folder structure, navigable by the show's show filename prefix. Unfortunately, the files in this portion of the Box were too large for us to download -- attempting to ZIP the larger directories would result in a network error. Unable to download the parent folders, the only possibility was to individually download upwards of 400 specific smaller folders. Because performing this task manually is infeasible during our time frame, we developed a Selenium downloading interface. Using our login credentials, the Python-based Selenium application logs into Box to access the Spotify Podcasts Dataset. It uses our current CSV to construct a list of show file prefix names with undownloaded openSMILE data and iterate through the folder structure, downloading them one at a time. Note that we have explicit permission to download and access this data.
With the openSMILE data collected, we wrote additional Python scripts to
take the averages of each auditory feature. Due to the complicated
Hierarchical Data Format of the openSMILE files, as well as the
multi-layered directory structure of the openSMILE folders themselves,
navigating to the appropriate file for a given podcast show, and
subsequently extracting the relevant audio data, was a nontrivial task.
To better understand the HDF file structure, we used the HDFView
application, which was developed by the creators of the format itself
for decomposing HDF files. After visualizing and documenting the
internal structure of the HDF files, we wrote a Python script to extract
the 88 feature names. This script uses the h5py and pandas libraries for
traversing the openSMILE file objects, retrieving the feature names, and
adding them to our final CSV. We wrote a separate Python script to
iterate through the local directories containing HDF files, calculate
the mean of each auditory feature for a given episode, average these
means to obtain representative feature values for each show, and then
add these values to the appropriate columns in our CSV. We imported many
libraries for this task, including h5py, pandas, numpy, and pathlib.
Finally, we gathered performance metrics. Spotify does not have any functionalities for rating or reacting to podcasts. As a result, we looked to outside sources to add them into our dataset. Ultimately, we chose Apple Podcasts. While a few other platforms do contain metrics for podcast performance, many of them would have added confounds to the experiment. For instance, YouTube Podcasts features video feed in addition to the audio feed, which is likely to have a large competing impact on user ratings and engagement. Apple Podcasts contains the audio feed alone, and its interface is the most similar to that of Spotify Podcasts. It has a five star rating system and publicizes how many users have rated a show, giving valuable information about its reception. In order to collect this data, we manually searched for each show in our dataframe and input the average star rating, number of ratings, and show genre. Scraping initially seemed like a good solution for this task, but it quickly proved unworthy of the effort. Many shows exist with duplicate names, or have changed their names since they were sampled in the Spotify dataset, meaning that a set of human eyes was necessary to preserve the integrity of the data. Therefore, we manually collected and verified the rating metrics. Upon finishing this manual portion of data collection, we removed podcasts from our CSV that didn't have an Apple Podcasts page. This step concluded the data collection and integration pipeline.
Our dataset includes information from a variety of sources, including Spotify, RSS Feeds, openSMILE, and Apple Podcasts. Each row our compiled CSV represents a unique podcast show (that has passed the constraints and thresholds described in our Method section), and its columns encompass the podcast's metadata and average auditory features. The finalized dataset contains all metrics relevant to testing our hypotheses: confirming that episodes with lower fundamental frequency, less jitter, less shimmer, lower harmonics-to-noise ratio, and greater loudness tend to receive more/better star ratings.
We primarily used the Spotify Podcasts Dataset to conduct our research, particularly its subset of English podcasts. The Spotify Podcasts Dataset is a collection of over 100,000 English podcast episodes -- and additionally many Portuguese podcasts we didn't explore -- hosted on Spotify, containing transcripts, RSS feeds, show titles, show genres, episode titles, and other associated metadata. From the information in the Spotify Podcasts, we extracted the following data as metadata features for our own dataset:
-
Show Name
-
Episode Name
A list of episode names associated with the show name. -
Episode Date
A list of episode dates, ordered such that they correspond to the episode names. -
RSS Link
Link to an XML file containing documentation of a podcast show's history of episodes, including descriptions, dates, and file download links. -
Episode Duration
A list of episode durations, ordered such that they correspond to the episode names. (Grabbed externally from RSS feeds) -
Show Filename Prefix
A unique sequence of alphanumeric characters used to identify the show. -
Episode Filename Prefix
A list of unique sequences of alphanumeric characters used for identifying episodes, ordered such that they correspond to the episode names.
Additionally, the Spotify Podcasts Dataset includes a separate folder structure containing auditory data retrieved with the openSMILE audio signal processing toolkit. Each file in the openSMILE folder stores large amounts of numerical data using multidimensional arrays, via a Hierarchical Data Format. There are 88 total auditory features sampled for each episode, including our features of interest: fundamental frequency, jitter, shimmer, harmonics-to-noise ratio, and loudness. These features were sampled every 0.48 seconds, for each podcast episode within our podcasts dataset. Hence, to create a representative value for each podcast with respect to each feature, we averaged these samples by feature before adding them to the aggregate dataset.
Although the Spotify Podcasts Dataset contains metadata and auditory data, it lacks information on ratings and engagement. Spotify does not allow users to rate, like or heart specific podcasts and any existing engagement metrics are not readily available to the public. Hence, we separately collected the performance data for each podcast show from the Apple Podcasts website. This shouldn't create much of a disconnect in our analysis, since we are only grabbing auditory features (our independent variables) from Spotify; these auditory features should be the same on the Apple Podcasts platform given they uploaded the same audio files. From Apple Podcasts, we extracted the data as performance features for our own dataset:
-
Link to Apple Podcast Page
-
Average Star Rating
The average star rating, a float of precision 1, given by podcast raters for a show. -
Number of Ratings
The number of distinct podcast ratings for a show. -
Show Genre
We matched the performance data to the larger dataset by podcast title, podcast host, and dates. The Apple Podcasts performance metrics were scraped between April 3rd and April 4th of 2023. Please note that future attempts to grab these same metrics may result in different results, as the metrics are dynamically updated.
For our statistical analyses, we ran two-sample t-tests with Benjamini-Hochberg correction to prevent false positives in our multivariate comparison. We used two-sample t-tests in accordance with our hypotheses, which only distinguish between low and high metrics. We loaded our final dataset into RStudio and used the ttest() function to obtain the p-values, and then called p.adjust() with method = "BH" for our corrections. We use a significance level alpha of 0.01. All p-values displayed in tables are Benjamini-Hochberg corrected.
Podcasts with higher star ratings will differ significantly from podcasts with lower star ratings across multiple acoustic features.
To test Hypothesis 1, we ran two-sample two-tailed t-tests for each of our five audio features. In Test 1, the two populations being tested were podcasts with star ratings above the median and those with ratings below the median. We aimed to determine if there was a true difference in the two populations' means with respect to each feature. Because setting the cut-off point for the two separate populations at the median is somewhat arbitrary, we also performed another set of t-tests for each hypothesis to validate our results. Thus, Test 2 uses the 10th percentile as the cut-off point for podcasts with a "low" average star rating, and it uses the 90th percentile as the cut-off point for podcasts with a "high" average star rating. Thus, if both Test 1 and Test 2 yield significant results for the same acoustic feature, we conclude that podcasts with higher star ratings do differ significantly from podcasts with lower star ratings across that feature.
Table 1: P-values for hypothesis 1
| Variable | Test 1 | Test 2 |
|---|---|---|
| F. Frequency | ||
| Jitter | ||
| Shimmer | ||
| HNR | ||
| Loudness |
Table 1 displays the p-value for all t-tests conducted for Hypothesis 1. Evidently, none of the alpha values obtained for any t-test conducted for Hypothesis 1 were below the confidence level of 0.01. Thus, we conclude that there is no true statistical difference in feature means between podcasts with higher star ratings and podcasts with lower star ratings for any of the five acoustic features tested.
Podcasts with larger numbers of ratings will differ significantly from podcasts with smaller numbers of ratings across multiple acoustic features.
To test Hypothesis 2, we ran two-sample two-tailed t-tests for each of our five audio features. In Test 1, the two populations being tested were podcasts with more ratings than the median and those with fewer ratings than the median. We aimed to determine if there was a true difference in the two populations' means with respect to each feature. Again, we used a second set of t-tests to validate the results. Thus, Test 2 uses the 10th percentile as the cut-off point for podcasts with a "low" number of star ratings, and it uses the 90th percentile as the cut-off point for podcasts with a "high" number of star ratings. Thus, if both Test 1 and Test 2 yield significant results for the same acoustic feature, we conclude that podcasts with more ratings do differ significantly from podcasts with fewer ratings across that feature.
Table 2: P-values for hypothesis 2
| Variable | Test 1 | Test 2 |
|---|---|---|
| F. Frequency | ||
| Jitter | ||
| Shimmer | ||
| HNR | ||
| Loudness |
Table 2 displays the p-value for all t-tests conducted for Hypothesis 2. Evidently, the jitter and harmonics-to-noise ratio features passed both Test 1 and Test 2, the shimmer feature passed Test 2 only, and fundamental frequency and loudness failed both tests. Hence, we conclude that there is no true statistical difference in feature means between podcasts with higher star ratings and podcasts with lower star ratings for fundamental frequency, shimmer, and loudness. However, there is sufficient evidence to show that podcasts with more ratings do differ significantly from podcasts with fewer ratings across two acoustic features: jitter and harmonics-to-noise ratio. Thus, Hypothesis 2 was supported.
Figures 1 and 2 display means of jitter and harmonics-to-noise ratio. The high number of ratings population is in red; low number of ratings, blue. Looking towards the error bars, there is no overlap, indicating a significant difference in the means.
Hypothesis 3: Podcasts with higher star ratings and larger numbers of ratings will have significantly: lower fundamental frequency, less jitter, less shimmer, lower harmonics-to-noise ratio, and greater loudness.
To test Hypothesis 3, we ran two-sample one-tailed t-tests for each of our five audio features. For each audio feature, we ran four t-tests. Because this hypothesis makes claims about both podcast star ratings and the number of ratings, as opposed to just one of those two metrics, there are four total populations: (1) podcasts with higher star ratings, (2) podcasts with lower star ratings, (3) podcasts with higher numbers of ratings, and (4) podcasts with lower numbers of ratings. Populations 1 and 2 are mutually exclusive as well as populations 3 and 4. Note that populations 1 and 2 are not mutually exclusive from populations 3 and 4. As with the previous hypothesis, podcasts with star ratings below the median are considered to have low ratings, podcasts with fewer ratings than the median number of ratings are considered to have low engagement, and so on. We aimed to determine if there was a true difference between the high and low star ratings populations in the hypothesized directions, as well as a true difference between the high and low engagement populations in the hypothesized directions.
Again, we employ an alternative set of t-tests for validation of results. Test 1 and Test 3 both use the median as the boundary between high and low. Similarly, Test 2 and 4 are both use the 10th percentile as the upper boundary for low and the 90th percentile as the lower boundary for high. Test 1 and 2 use the "lesser" directionality and Test 3 and 4 use the "greater" directionality as parameters for the one-tailed tests. We performed separate one-tailed t-tests with different critical regions (both less and greater) in order to verify the observed directionality.
Table 3: Ratings vs. Audio Features
| Variable | Test 1 | Test 2 |
|---|---|---|
| F. Frequency | ||
| Jitter | ||
| Shimmer | ||
| HNR | ||
| Loudness | ||
| Variable | Test 3 | Test 4 |
| -------------- | -------- | -------- |
| F. Frequency | ||
| Jitter | ||
| Shimmer | ||
| Harmonics | ||
| Loudness |
Table 4: Stars vs. Audio Features
| Variable | Test 1 | Test 2 |
|---|---|---|
| F. Frequency | ||
| Jitter | ||
| Shimmer | ||
| Harmonics | ||
| Loudness |
Table 3 displays the results of Test 1, Test 2, Test 3, and Test 4 for the number of ratings variable. Table 4 displays the results of the same tests for the average star rating variable. Note that, for a given table, a feature should only pass either Test 1 and Test 2, or Test 3 and Test 4, but not both. A feature which passes more than two tests would indicate a negative result, as it would fail to adhere to the hypothesized directionality.
Hypothesis 3 was partially supported. Based on Table 4, we found no significant relationships between any of the audio features and average star rating. However, Table 3 yielded several significant findings. The jitter and shimmer features passed both Test 1 and Test 2, the harmonics-to-noise ratio feature passed both Test 3 and Test 4, and all other tests failed. Thus, podcasts with more ratings tend to have less jitter, less shimmer, and a greater harmonics-to-noise ratio than podcasts with fewer ratings.
Figures 3 through 7 are scatterplots plotting each audio feature against the number of ratings. We plotted regression lines on top of the scatterplot to show the overall association between the variables: positive, negative, or no association. Note that the association between the variables themselves is not strictly linear; the lines are only meant to show the directionality of the relationship, if one exists. Specifically, we note that the number of ratings decreases with increased jitter and shimmer, and the number of ratings increases with increased harmonics-to-noise ratio. The fundamental frequency and loudness plots do not capture any significant relationship, but they are included for completeness.
Our study of the Spotify Podcasts Dataset indicates that there is a significant difference in multiple audio features (jitter and harmonics-to-noise ratio) between podcasts with larger numbers of ratings and smaller numbers of ratings, supporting our second hypothesis. It also shows a significant negative relationship between both jitter and number of ratings, and shimmer and number of ratings, along with a significant positive relationship between harmonics-to-noise ratio and number of ratings. This finding partially supports our third hypothesis. We found no significance in any of our comparisons between podcasts with high star ratings and low star ratings, along with no significance for the fundamental frequency and loudness audio features with either star ratings or number of ratings.
Limitations of our dataset include the differences between Apple Podcasts and Spotify data and the skewed star rating metric. One issue with the design of our study is the disconnect between the Spotify Podcasts Dataset audio features and Apple Podcasts rating information. This was unavoidable given the absence of ranking features on the Spotify platform; users are able to like songs, but there is no equivalent for podcasts. Though this detachment isn't ideal, Spotify and Apple Podcasts both pull podcast information from the same RSS feeds, including their audio files. Therefore, the audio metrics should be uniform across the two platforms. We believe that this continuity minimized any associated error in our dataset. Additionally, since rating information was not included in the Spotify dataset during the time of its collection, we were only able to sample it for ourselves in the current day. The Spotify Podcasts Dataset was taken in 2019 and 2020, making it slightly outdated. We attempt to control for this by taking averages of the shows' audio metrics, measuring the general tendencies of a show rather than the granular episode-by-episode features that are more subject to variation. Still, this time disconnect could lead to discrepancies in our results. Finally, the data on star ratings that we pulled from Apple Podcasts is extremely skewed towards 5 stars. Figure 8 exemplifies this skew and also a breakdown of podcast genre in our dataset. Because there is little variance in star ratings, we found no significance in any of our hypotheses regarding them. One possible solution could have been to bucket podcasts with number of stars and then sample from each bucket. However, we could not pursue this avenue because very few samples had star ratings below 4 stars, meaning that the sample size would any subsequent analysis would be insufficient.
The findings of this study have direct application in the emerging field of podcasts. Knowing that podcast shows with minimal jitter and shimmer and greater harmonics-to-noise ratios tend to garner more ratings is a powerful tool for up-and-coming creators to optimize their audio for success.
To build on this research, one could examine alternative sources for assessing the performance of a podcast. We ultimately decided to analyze the Apple Podcast ratings, but had originally planned to use the Twitters of podcasts, grabbing metrics from any Tweets advertising their episodes. By using an alternative source for rating metrics, one could gather more targeted measurements of performance, including items such as likes, comments, views (and retweets if using Twitter). Comments could be valuable for sentiment analysis, to determine how the viewers felt when listening to an episode or show. Apple Podcasts also has comments associated with their five star ranking system which could be analyzed for sentiment.
Additionally, many podcasts come with an accompanying video. We looked at podcasts in an exclusively auditory context, but there's much to be said regarding platforms such as YouTube where creators interview celebrities live in front of the camera, or have a long winded conversation with friends that an audience can visually participate in. Analyzing what qualities of video lead to better star ratings and more ratings could be a unique extension of our work.
There also seems to be a relationship between the sentiment of audio and its reception. In early psychology studies, acoustic features were not reliable predictors of music popularity, while lyrical features were slightly effective. Researchers found that chroma --- a measure of melody and mood --- was a statistically significant predictor of music popularity in 20.8 percent of cases (Lee and Lee, 2018). Another study was conducted, again focusing on music popularity, where a strong connection between main tempo and popularity was found. Popularity was defined by the ranking of a given song in the Billboard Hot 100 music charts (Gauvin, 2017). Random forests have also been used in order to predict song popularity. Ultimately, more successful songs --- defined as the songs that appeared on the Billboard Top 100 chart in the near past --- tend to be 'happier' and more 'party-like' (Interiano et al., 2018). This finding imply that a positive valence and strong energy component might contribute to podcast success.
Given these findings, there's significant potential for a link between sentiment and podcast performance, which future studies could explore. Similarly, genre could be further explored as a potential indicator of podcast performance. Future studies analyzing podcast performance, even with respect to audio features, could separate show genres from one another in order to further validate our results. Ultimately, many new avenues exist for research in the podcast industry.
Alex Zant, Jonah Berger. 2020. How the voice
persuades. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 118(4), 661--682.
Ambika Kirkland, Harm Lameris, Eva Szekely, Joakim Gustafson. 2022.
Where's the uh, hesitation? The interplay between filled pause
location, speech rate and fundamental frequency in perception of
confidence.
KTH Royal Institute of Technology, 1-5.
Ann Clifton, Sravana Reddy, Yongze Yu, Aasish Pappu, Rezvaneh Rezapour,
Hamed Bonab, Maria Eskevich, Gareth Jones, Jussi Karlgren, Ben
Carterette, and Rosie Jones. 2020. 100,000 Podcasts: A Spoken English
Document
Corpus.
COLING.
Edgar Tanaka, Ann Clifton, Joana Correia, Sharmistha Jat, Rosie Jones,
Jussi Karlgren, Winstead Zhu. 2022. Cem Mil Podcasts: A Spoken
Portuguese Document Corpus. Arxiv.
Eryn J. Newman, Borbert Schwarz, et al. 2018. Good Sound, Good
Research: How Audio Quality Influences Perceptions of the Research and
Researcher.
Science Communication, 40(2): 246-257.
Hossein Shafiei, Ahmad Khonsari, et al. 2020. The Tongue Can Paint:
Understanding Popularity in Podcasting
Societies. Companion
Proceedings of the Web Conference.
Hubert Léveillé Gauvin. 2017. Drawing listener attention in popular
music: Testing Five musical features arising from the theory of
attention economy. Musicae
Scientiae, 22(3): 291--304.
Iulian Vamanu. 2019. Fake News and Propaganda: A Critical Discourse
Research Perspective. Open
Information Science, 3(1):197-208.
Jianjing Kuang, Mark Liberman. 2016. The effect of vocal fry on pitch
perception.
IEEE.
Joshua Guyer, Leandre Fabrigar, Thomas Vaughan-Johnston. 2019. Speech
Rate, Intonation, and Pitch: Investigating the Bias and Cue Effects of
Vocal Confidence on
Persuasion. Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin, 45(3):389--405.
Junghyuk Lee and Jong-Seok Lee. 2018. Music popularity: Metrics,
Characteristics, and Audio-based
prediction. IEEE
Transactions on Multimedia, 20(11):3173--3182.
Longqi Yang, Yu Wang, et al. 2019. More than Just Words: Modeling
Non-textual Characteristics of
Podcasts. Proceedings of the
Twelfth ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining.
Mario Corrales-Astorgano, David Escudero-Mancebo, César
González-Ferreras. 2018. Acoustic characterization and perceptual
analysis of the relative importance of prosody in speech of people with
Down syndrome. Speech
Communication, 99:90-100.
Myra Interiano, Kamyar Kazemi, et al. 2018. Musical trends and
predictability of success in contemporary songs in and out of the top
charts. Royal Society Open
Science, 5(5), page 171274.
Pasquale Bottalico, Juliana Codino, et al. 2018. Reproducibility of
Voice Parameters: The Effect of Room Acoustics and
Microphones.
Journal of Voice, 34(3):320-334.
Piotr Sorokowski, David Puts, et al. 2019. Voice of Authority:
Professionals Lower Their Vocal Frequencies When Giving Expert
Advice. J Nonverbal Behav
43: 257--269.
Rindy C. Anderson, Casey A. Klofsta, et al. 2014. Vocal Fry May
Undermine the Success of Young Women in the Labor
Market. PLoS
One, 9(5).
Toe Aung, David Puts. 2020. Voice pitch: a window into the
communication of social
power. Current Opinion
in Psychology, 30:154-161.
Xin (Shane) Wang, Shijie Lu, X I Li, Mansur Khamitov, Neil Bendle. 2021.
Audio Mining: The Role of Vocal Tone in
Persuasion. Journal of Consumer
Research, 48(2):189--211.\