Some of my recent posts are fairly long so I’m wondering if it would be more engaging for you guys if I provided a voiceover of the post. While I imagine it’s better in general to have a voiceover, it will take a bit of time giving me less time to work on more topics. So, is it worth it to start adding voiceover to most articles?
I don’t have a subscription because I’m a poor PhD student but the posts that you make that refer to YouTube videos are super worthy of having a voice over. YouTube is a trap 🪤 , Substack is a great source of information and thus knowledge.
If one is available I would listen to it but given the choice I would prefer more content and to use my imagination to read it in your voice :) on a separate note a podcast would be awesome and I would definitely listen, but probably not a priority for you with YT and mails already
Yes. Voice-overs are great. I do not have the time to read everything I'd like to. Being able to listen, podcast-style while I am working is very convenient.
I run a targeted goat grazing business and am often driving between jobs or in the brush checking the electric fencing, vegetation and the animals. Downloaded audio info is much easier for me to access than written these days. Thank you for asking !
PS I have always enjoyed your podcasts on YouTube. Your voice works for me.
If the voiceovers could be on an app like Spotify I would listen to them since it would be easy to do wherever I am through my phone, but otherwise I'm always seeing Substack on my PC where I'd rather just read since I'm less mobile.
Similar to the theme of the AI post where progress results in certain losses, I also wouldn't want your content to be deliberately avoiding references to visual material because you wanted to maintain the quality of the audio version. I think that would be a loss in quality overall.
Maybe you are overcomplicating it? I'm referring to how much time it would take you to record it. I don't think it needs a lot of production value, and perhaps you should set yourself a time limit of an hour or two for recording and editing. It would depend on how much money substack is bringing in, but I assume these posts take quite a bit of time to add another six hour of recording and post production. Then again, I know nothing about editing.
Maybe record a short podcast with someone else that goes over the information? A conversation is much more engaging than someone reciting writing.
How hard is it to train a voice model with you voice data and generate the reading audio. 👀
I don’t have a subscription because I’m a poor PhD student but the posts that you make that refer to YouTube videos are super worthy of having a voice over. YouTube is a trap 🪤 , Substack is a great source of information and thus knowledge.
On one hand I love your videos and having the article + your voice would almost feel like watching one of your videos
On the other hand i already read your articles in your voice so i probably wouldn't use the function
I think less work on you is better though :)
If one is available I would listen to it but given the choice I would prefer more content and to use my imagination to read it in your voice :) on a separate note a podcast would be awesome and I would definitely listen, but probably not a priority for you with YT and mails already
Yes. Voice-overs are great. I do not have the time to read everything I'd like to. Being able to listen, podcast-style while I am working is very convenient.
I run a targeted goat grazing business and am often driving between jobs or in the brush checking the electric fencing, vegetation and the animals. Downloaded audio info is much easier for me to access than written these days. Thank you for asking !
PS I have always enjoyed your podcasts on YouTube. Your voice works for me.
If the voiceovers could be on an app like Spotify I would listen to them since it would be easy to do wherever I am through my phone, but otherwise I'm always seeing Substack on my PC where I'd rather just read since I'm less mobile.
Similar to the theme of the AI post where progress results in certain losses, I also wouldn't want your content to be deliberately avoiding references to visual material because you wanted to maintain the quality of the audio version. I think that would be a loss in quality overall.
Maybe you are overcomplicating it? I'm referring to how much time it would take you to record it. I don't think it needs a lot of production value, and perhaps you should set yourself a time limit of an hour or two for recording and editing. It would depend on how much money substack is bringing in, but I assume these posts take quite a bit of time to add another six hour of recording and post production. Then again, I know nothing about editing.