Why podcast criticism is important - and needed
TL;DR: Podcasts need criticism. It exists, but we need more of it, and more visibility around it.
Honestly, does it even matter?
Well, yeah. It does.
I grew up in the ’90s, and if I was home on a Saturday afternoon, I’d be watching ABC 7—more specifically, Siskel & Ebert. Two movie critics, one from the Chicago Tribune, one from the Sun-Times, arguing, agreeing, disagreeing, and slapping on those iconic “Two Thumbs Up” ratings. But what stuck with me wasn’t the thumbs. It was how they explained why something was good or bad. They had substance. It wasn’t just “I LOVE ITTT!!!” or “I haTE IT.” (Shoutout to today’s user review sections.) It was deeper.
Now fast forward to podcasts.
Back when I worked at TuneIn, one of the biggest pain points—one I felt and constantly heard—was:
“What podcast should I listen to?”
It was overwhelming. Thousands of new episodes dropping every week. No clear way to evaluate them beyond algorithms or what’s trending. I remember one afternoon scrolling endlessly on (Redacted) Podcast app (even TuneIn… shhhh), trying to find something new to listen to—10 minutes in, I gave up.
That’s when it hit me:
Podcast discovery wasn’t broken, it was just missing critics.
So I looked at what worked in other media. For film and TV? I love Rotten Tomatoes and Meta Critic. It’s not perfect, but it aggregates reviews from all kinds of critics. That’s when the lightbulb went off:
Is there a Rotten Tomatoes for podcasts?
Spoiler alert: There wasn’t. So I built it. That was the start of Great Pods.
I built it to solve a personal problem. I’d see podcasts featured on Apple, Spotify, Pocket Casts…and wonder:
Why is this podcast here? Who chose it? What makes it good? Are these editors even podcast listeners themselves? Do they understand the medium?
I once asked one of those companies how their curation worked. The reply?
“A global editorial team is responsible for curating the Browse tab across all countries and regions each week. They have deep experience in podcasting…”
Cool. But what does that mean? It didn’t inspire trust. It wasn’t transparent. Honestly, I could’ve said I was on that editorial team and no one would know the difference.
And that’s why I like critics. They put their name on it. You know who they are. You can agree or disagree, but at least there’s a face and a point of view behind the words.
As Galen from the defunct Bello Collective put it in a post:
“We believe that podcasting is not a trend or a bubble, and that thoughtful critique is essential to the medium’s development…”
That resonated with me. Critics help place podcasts within a cultural and creative context. They help us recognize what’s pushing the medium forward—not just what’s getting the most downloads.
I also started discovering others doing this work: Vulture, The New Yorker, Bello Collective, Mentally? A Magpie—even the Yonkers Public Library (yes, really). These writers weren’t just reviewing. They were helping solve the curation problem.
Criticism is its own art form.
It takes someone who understands podcasts, listens actively, and can articulate their thoughts beyond “it was good” or “it was trash.” Whether or not I agree with a review, I respect it when it’s well-argued. I asked a couple of writers for their opinions for their hot-takes.
Keelin from Mentally? A Magpie says it beautifully:
“Critics are here to ask podcasts how to be better, but also to communicate with the rest of the world how awesome they already are.”
Exactly. Critics are both challengers and ambassadors. They help open doors for new listeners who might feel overwhelmed or unsure where to start.
Michael Bergonzi from Audio Drama Reviews adds:
“There’s simply not enough time in the day to watch every single movie… Critics make the struggle of finding which movies to see easier.”
Same for podcasts. You’re not going to listen to 1,000 episodes to find your next favorite. But maybe a trusted critic can point you in the right direction.
Now, Evo Terra from The End has a different take…and that’s fair too:
“I’m more about heaping praise and shining a light on the shows I personally love… I never want to punish behaviors I want to see.”
That’s valid. There’s room for both celebration and critique in podcasting. Each serves the ecosystem.
So what have I seen on Great Pods?
I’ve seen firsthand that the most popular reviews on Great Pods aren’t always the most glowing. Take James Marriott from The Times UK—he rarely gives out 5/5 reviews. In fact, it’s often the 2-star reviews that get the most traction. I’ll listen just to hear if it’s really as bad as he says. Those are the reviews that spark conversation. That challenge the narrative. That go beyond “It’s good.”
Fun fact: 15–20% of Great Pods user traffic goes to reading full reviews by that critic.
Are we helping people decide what to listen to through criticism?
66% of visitors say yes.
So here’s where I stand:
As podcasting matures out of its startup phase, so should the way we talk about it. If you’re a critic/professional reviewer or want to become one, hit me up at hello@greatpods.co. I’m always looking to add thoughtful, consistent voices to the platform. We also have a growing writers’ community to support new critics.
Want to be the Siskel or Ebert of audio?
Pull up a chair. We’re building that table.
What do I look for in a podcast review or critique?
Write consistently
Explain why you liked or didn’t like something
Go beyond surface-level reactions
Bring a point of view—not just a recap
And if you’re getting into criticism (not just reviews), dig deeper. Ask hard questions. Explore context. (See Keelin’s work for great examples.)
Podcast criticism is open-source.
It’s for bloggers, newsletters, and legacy publishers alike.
It’s for fans, professionals, and everything in between.
And that’s the beauty of it—it’s growing because it’s accessible.
Do listener reviews count? Sometimes. But in a test I ran, 80% of user reviews were basically “I hate them.” That’s not criticism. That’s noise.
So yeah, criticism matters.
It’s how we elevate podcasting, hold it accountable, and showcase what’s possible.
And by the way—I’m not part of that global editorial team I mentioned earlier.
But hey, if I said I was…
Who’s to say I’m not?
