Audio slideshow producer Ben Chesterton on location in Africa

There was a television show back in the eighties called “Radio with Pictures” which played music videos from around the world. The name was nothing more than a snappy oxymoron at the time – but it’s turned out to be rather prescient. The future of radio would seem destined to include pictures of some description…

It stands to reason really. Many of the platforms on which we consume radio now feature a screen: DAB, mobile phone, ipod, computer monitor etc. Which is why the BBC has employed a team of young boffins to investigate the visualisation radio – and ask themselves the pertinent question “What exactly does radio look like?”

Even radio advertising is in on the act… The search for fresh revenue streams has inspired the creative arm of Global Radio to produce audio/visual commercials for clients which are displayed on their stations websites. Simon Forster, the Creative Services Manager for Global’s UK branch in the West Midlands, says the service is proving increasingly popular. They’ve produced over 30 of these “hybrid commercials” this year alone, at very lucrative rates.

“Enhanced podcasts”, such as the ones produced for the Chris Moyles breakfast show, have been around for a while now and have proven their success on the BBC website. (Although these types of files are not universally supported and can cause play-back issues.)

Although mainstream radio may have picked up on the trend towards “visual radio” – more could certainly be made of the opportunity. Switch on any radio station available via freeview, satellite or cable in the UK – and pretty much all you’ll see is a large blank screen staring back at you…

Another form of audio/visual narrative that’s gathering on-line momentum is the “audio-slideshow”. These differ from traditional vodcasts as they utilise still images instead of video and are therefore far easier to produce – and quicker to download.

As the name suggests, viewers/listeners see a series of still images while hearing a complimentary audio documentary. These pictures can be manipulated by cropping, dissolving the image, fading in or out, or directing the viewer’s eye with the “Ken Burns” technique – the name given to the act of moving a still image across the screen. But why try to explain it – when you can, quite literally, see for yourself…

This example comes from photographer David White and producer Ben Chesterton. I first got to know Ben and his family while working on a project in Ethiopia. He was in charge of a BBC World Service Trust project, training journalists to create innovative, often provocative programmes for Radio Ethiopia.

Before his involvement in development radio, Ben had enjoyed an award winning career as a documentary producer for the BBC. I was therefore surprised when he turned his back on traditional radio to start “duckrabbit.info” – a company specialising in bespoke audio-slideshows. I was curious to find out why and invited him answer a series of questions for New Radio Strategies…

As a former producer of traditional documentaries for Radio Four, what was it that attracted you to audio slideshows?

I used them as a training tool for journalists in Kenya. To shake and wake them up and force them out of the studio by confronting them with what was going on in the refugee camps. Apart from that, I love photos and I was becoming creatively frustrated with my work – so I thought I’d have a crack at something different.

Are audio slideshows more closely aligned to visual or audio documentaries?

I think it all depends on the use of the audio slideshow. I mean, at times it might have more in common with the language of art or poetry then documentary. I don’t think it’s got too much to do with radio in the sense that a good slideshow is completely dependent on the visuals to make sense, whereas it might not be so dependant on the audio.

So can they truly be considered a new form of “radio”?

They can be a great way of promoting radio but to call audio slideshows a new form of radio isn’t something I’d agree with. In fact there’s nothing really new about them. What’s new is the publishing platform, the web, which makes them worthwhile because there’s a potentially massive audience.

What are the differences between producing an audio slideshow – compared to producing a purely audio based project?

The major difference is that peoples attention span on the web is very limited so you are looking to contain an audio slideshow to usually around three minutes. For someone who is used to producing half hour docos this is really challenging! The other thing is learning to let the photos lead. At the end of the day it’s the photos that will keep people hooked, or otherwise.

What is the future of audio-slideshows as you see it?

It’s hard to say. I think they will have a limited use on news websites like the BBC. I think that radio people will start to use them to promote radio documentaries, if they can pull some budget together for this. Certainly Radio 4 could do really well promoting some of their stand out documentaries on the BBC website by using audio slideshows. I think commercially they offer a lot of possibilities for organisations to get stories out about themselves. I also think they offer plenty of possibilities for citizen journalism, for the way that everyday life is chronicled. They are also a great way of making art available to many more people on the web, in a way that is engaging and memorable.

Do you have any recommendations for people wanting to make their own slideshows – and where can people go to discover more about audio-slideshows?

Just come to our blog www.duckrabbit.info/blog where we showcase loads of great examples and also links to other great websites doing a similar thing. I recommend the software Soundslides, which is simple and produces great looking slideshows.

You can have all the kit in the world but at the end of the day it’s all about how you tell the story.

Breaking the output down to work out how they put it together seems to go like this: lots of short, produced speech items, concise studio links, urban music never more than a few minutes way. All local people and local issues, with sympathetic production linked by comfortably confident presenters. To start I was less than impressed with the output – neither Jamiroquai nor Michael Jackson paedo gags would be my first choice – but some punchy social issue audio drama, with live studio commentary and discussion, tightly produced, picked up the pace. And now I don’t want to switch off, because it’s interesting, and I have no idea what’s coming next, and it’s doing what I want my radio to do: painting a picture.

Over on the website, there are loads of archived podcasts – with maybe not quite enough context – and the whole thing looks not unlike a Myspace page, full of graphics and user input. This is probably not the first attempt to mix up web 2.0 with radio stream; clearly they have given it a LOT of thought, and it shows. It’s web first, radio second: the stream idents the website, not the FM frequency.

If this is the new face of public radio in the US – where, according to the New York Times, listenership is up – then there’s grounds for some serious optimism. As long as they’re hitting their audience, not just old hippie liberals from the UK like me, that is. At least they’re not playing the same Amy Winehouse material everyone else is playing. Is this the future of community radio? I bloody well hope so.

Here’s a summarised recent email exchange. Comments and suggestions welcome!

David emails with a question: “I need help with budgeting for a show, single person narrative, 4 episodes of 15 minutes, all pre-scripted. How much would it cost?”

My digested response follows…

“David, you can do for very little (if any) cost. But you will have to put in time. If you can borrow a studio, do so; if not, improvise.

For equipment: use a PC with reasonable memory (512k or up) and hard disk storage (2 Gb) to spare. Download Audacity and learn how to use it. Beg, borrow, steal or even buy an acceptable Mic for maybe £30. You may need to get an external sound card.

For the studio: use a quiet room with a square table in a corner. Get 3 meter-square carpet tiles. Put one on the table, and the other two on the walls to left and right of the corner, cube-wise. Put your mic on a stand facing you, out from the corner. Voila! a £3 voice booth. Experiment with positioning to get the best mic sound.

Now… put in the time. I can’t tell you how long it would take to record the episodes. It depends on your voice artist. It depends on the script. It depends on how quiet the room is, and at what times of day you will record. It depends on your access to the room. But if you can control these variables, this is a much better option than forking out for a studio where you are working against the clock. A guesstimate might be three hours to get the basic material down; less if the script is good; more if the voice talent is inexperienced. And then factor in editing time.”

Did I miss anything? Suggestions for David are welcome…