Jonathan. PLEASE quit interrupting Nate and Chad! It is SO annoying!

[jlittle]

@adehughes

Totally disagree with you. I think Jonathan is an excellent host - unbelievably polite and respectful of everybody else’s contribution and opinion. I think the interaction between the three of them is pretty much spot on. If you really want to hear how it shouldn’t be done try the CyclingTips podcast - you’ll be a ball of fury by the end of that.

I find that surprising. Aside from AACC, CyclingTips is the only other podcast that I listen to regularly and catch up on when I’ve fallen behind. I like the hosts and typically tend to agree with them, which may make me overlook their delivery.

[mcneese.chad]

I also like the CT podcast. Similar dynamic between the three members and the discussion is very natural and “cyclist like” IMHO. It’s another group that makes me feel like “one of the guys”.

[KRino]

I’ve watched a number of the podcasts and never thought this. I’ve always thought Jonathan does a good job organizing the discussion and keeping things moving. Different strokes for different folks I guess.

[bobmac]

@Jonathan

Feedback taken and noted.

I applaud @Monarch, the OP, and think it is GREAT that you and the TR team are taking note! As a 3x CEO and C-level exec for 25 years in aggregate, the absolute best feedback I/we received was from our most vocal customers. It is investigating and then responding to their most critical feedback that makes you stronger. Five (5) star reviews are great for marketing purposes, but do little for making you a better company (other than the referrals they lead to).

As for the specific feedback, your podcast role is actually not that different than what I did as a CEO when running a meeting. You are:

1. Introducing topics (agenda items) and guiding the discussion
2. Participating where you have useful value to bring
3. Summarizing conclusions (or action items) as appropriate

Personally, I think you do a great job on (1) and generally on (3). Where I think you are struggling is on (2). In some cases, you have some real experience to offer. Where I think you fall short is feeling the need to contribute when it is less the case. And perhaps in most need of improvement is allowing Chad to finish his thoughts, particularly on subject matters where he has done a lot of research. I can assure you that all of this comes from lots of “been there/done that” mistakes and learning.

Best of luck!

@Nate_Pearson

You should hear us in person, we are MUCH MUCH harder on each other, lol.

BTW: Similarly, our harshest customers were nothing compared the rake overs we would do of ourselves amongst our executive team - all for the good of the company and all with the right intent.

[martinheadon]

@themagicspanner

Whilst I don’t disagree with your point I think you should have directed it at the person making the comment rather than posting about them. They are after all ‘in the room’ so to speak.

I was just writing in the third person to respond to the TR alert also in the third person. No disrespect intended.

[Bigvern777]

Change nothing Jonathan.

[brenth]

I have listened to all of your podcasts. I dont find how you handle the hosting a problem. I do find you are typically getting them back onto the topic or main point. It is noticeably different when you are not there. I definitely like how you host the show.

[MI-XC]

Nope, I disagree with the OP, @Jonathan keep up the good work. Hosting is a delicate balance and you do it well. I like the format and flow of @Jonathan, @Nate_Pearson and @chad. I don’t want a formal science presentation, I enjoy the casualness of it. Not to mention it’s live, so only one take.

[ibaldwin]

@Nate_Pearson

You should hear us in person, we are MUCH MUCH harder on each other, lol.

We have a saying at work that if we’re not messing with you, it’s because we don’t like you.

How do you differentiate between interjection (positive), and interruption (negative)? It’s a thin line.

PS, I love the show.

[martinheadon]

@Jonathan

It’s a tricky line to walk as a host. Trying to drive a conversation toward a specific goal while taking into consideration all of the written, verbal, and non-verbal cues of your hosts is dynamic, to say the least, but I need to be better.

This is key. Being a presenter / host / moderator / interviewer is one of those jobs that looks like anyone with a bit of confidence could do it, but boy is it difficult when you actually give it a try.

Sure, you might not always be Letterman or whoever, but for a guy who works for a cycling tech company, you’re doing a pretty good job in my book.

[onemanpeloton]

Guys, it is possible for Jonathan to be a stand up guy whilst also interrupting too much. It doesn’t have to be one or the other. People can constuctively criticise one persons behaviour whilst still liking the guy. It doesnt have to be so tribal.

When i first started listening to the podcasts, I also found interruption to be annoying (from both Jonathan and Nate) but as I became more familiar with them, I got used to it. However, during the time when it mildly irritated me, I never considered those guys to be anything other than really top, friendly guys.

[sonjap]

@bbarrera

@chrisone

The ebb and flow of the conversation on the podcast is perfect. Jonathan is an excellent host.

exactly

Another ITA here. I have listed to this podcast from the very beginning (not binge listening - really starting when they started!) and love it.

[H22EG8]

Kinda wild. Feedback is best given when portrayed in a manner that is constructive to all parties involved. There’s a reason the podcast is successful and it’s bc of the overall balance between the people talking. Ever notice that some podcasts you can barely make it 5 minutes? There’s a push/pull dynamic that exists in a conversational tone of interest.

If the podcast was strictly a documentary, I would personally be bored out of my mind. If it were too jovial, it would be useless to listen to. Jonathan provides the break, direction and occasional “squirrel” moments that keep the mind wandering with interest.

Clearly OP is all for data and analytics… Cool… that’s your cup of tea. Maybe next time try saying “in podcasts a, b, and c, there were moments that I felt were derailing to my interest” - “do you think you could perhaps (fill in blank here)”

Then creating a constructive environment to do it would help… perhaps a single email? PM? Even in the ask a question field (they do read them all).

Personal opinion - it’s a great cast. I listen regularly, have rated it where I could and will continue to listen. I think that one of the biggest missed features of the cast is how well documented it is and how easy it is to reference those portions of the cast. How many times have any of us tried to post a question only to find it has already been asked, posted, and then talked about.

Keep up the good work team!

[Alen]

No issues from me if anyone cares

[bclarkson]

If Jonathan didn’t do what he is doing the 2hr podcast would be 4hrs.

If every company assigned weight to a customer’s voice based on how harsh or loud their complaining then there would only be McDonald’s.

[bherbers]

You’re doing a great job and the podcast is awesome.

[Lisa]

@Jonathan honestly, you shouldn’t take this comment from Monarch too much to heart because the majority of us here have never noticed that you interrupt Chad/Nate in a negative way.
All of you do a great job!!
BTW, thanks for answering my question this week! Super helpful info.

[Fred_Nice]

Jonathon is an awesome host, the podcast is great. It’s like 3 friends hanging out, teasing each other, but dropping a lot of knowledge at the same time.

[Yury_Suturin]

Very nice podcast and dynamic is great! Do not agree with thread starter, excellent host. Specially appreciate the professional tone and absence of slang, great job guys! Keep going!

[JoeX]

I’ve definitely noticed it and some time ago, but a minor issue in the scheme of things. The guys are early in their “talk show host” careers, I’m not expecting perfection.