Socratic Hosting; What "The Challenge" can learn from "The Challenge"

[c_n_anderson 0]

Kulap and Jordan noted that their own podcasts are probably subject to the same criticisms that they dished out this week. Here are some modest suggestions to improve the Earwolf Challenge itself as a podcast using some of the same criticisms that judges have used. One of the recurring themes from all the judges is how intimate and personal the podcasting medium is. Probably my favorite note this week was from Jordan when he said: "A podcast is about your personalities and opinions, just trust that those are listenable". I feel that I have found out a lot about Besser throughout the 6 weeks of 3 podcasts a week: that he likes sci-fi, is not a fan of "meta" comedy, is not a fan of "so bad its good" comedy, that he likes to say "I don't know" when coaching, that he thinks comedy is tough if you do it all alone, and that he prefers a "socratic method" of hosting the show. Due to this "socratic method" Besser typically draws in one of the two (?) associate producers into dialogue (especially during the Day 1 episodes). Unfortunately, I know next to nothing about the personalities and opinions of the associate producers. I know a little more about the producers due to Day 1 from this week (where they and Besser discussed feedback offered on this very forum), but unfortunately any development of them as "on air personalities" disappeared as the associate producers did not contribute to the discussion during Days 2 and 3 of the podcast. Furthermore, the really only provided information and not really opinions (I'm sorry but I know one producer is named Frank and I can't remember the name of the second one). If Besser wants to use a "socratic" method to host the show, he shouldn't host the show alone. He should have a co-host or a side-kick that contributes to all podcast episodes. As it stands, the incorporation of the associate producers "on air" is confusing. They are typically not "on mic" (more on that later) and because I have not established a "listening" relationship with them, I am not sure why I should pay attention when they talk. Either they should contribute a whole lot less or a whole lot more. Either way, we should get to know their names (they should be introduced before answering a question, as if a listener is hearing the show for the first time).
.
For all the talk about sound quality from judges throughout the six weeks, I am really surprised that "The Earwolf Challenge" itself features so many instances of "on mic/off mic" dialogue. If it is supposed to be funny, I don't get it. It just sounds shitty. Perhaps because the show has recently discovered it "socratic" nature, the producers can be excused for answering Matt's questions off mic during the show introduction. But the inclusion of "on mic/off mic" dialogue in the commercials is really puzzling - you had the opportunity to re-record the bit and drop it in whatever you wanted and went with the one where an unnamed producers starts "off mic" and ends up "on mic" (from this past week)? Or the ones from a couple weeks back where Besser echoes prompts just given to him off mic? If you made producing a commercial an actual task in the challenge and had external judges compare contestant submissions to any commercial featuring sloppy mic work produced by the podcast itself, I'd be surprised to see "The Earwolf Challenge" out of the bottom three. Oh, and in Skype go to
Tools>Options>Sounds>Select which events play a sound
and turn off the "hang up" option. The default skype hang up tone sounds bush league.
.
One of the more forceful critiques this week was from Besser toward Bob and Dan to "have a plan" for the day 1 coaching session. I will speculate here on the current set-up, but I wonder if structural changes (especially with regards to planning) can make the coaching sessions and the bottom 3 phone calls/defenses more interesting to listen to. I am curious if other forum members share my opinion that Day 2 works best as a podcast episode, followed by Day 3, and Day 1 trails far behind. On one hand, Day 2 is interesting because it includes interactions between well-known luminaries in podcasting. They are all physically located in the same room, so non-verbal cues can lead to a natural rhythm when they assess what they think of the same submission. It also seems to me that there is a degree of non-recording preparation (i.e. before they hit record, they can talk about what points they want to hit.) The dialogue during the coaching sessions and the bottom 3 phone calls/defenses seems less prepared. I am most certainly not advocating that you script out the interactions, but having a plan seems wise. For example, Besser seemed to touch on a good concept this week by pretending he was Bill Gates/Steve Jobs/Podcasting Mogul and asking the different podcasts to present their pitch to join the podcasting network. The podcasts could have been notified that this was "the game" as opposed to having to "find the game" (they aren't doing improv). A simple email prior to the coaching session saying "Besser's going to ask you for a thirty second pitch pretending he is a podcasting mogul" could have avoided the stammering and confusion as each podcast attempts on the fly to produce a cogent argument. Similarly, defenses could be better mounted if an email sent to all teams (even half an hour before the potential bottom 3 phone call) listed what the general critique topics were about that week's submission. If you sent the feedback to all the teams via email then it would still be a surprise when a team finds out their inclusion in the bottom 3, but again they can mount a cogent argument. I get the impression that the only off air prompting that the podcast contestants get is an email stating what the rules are of that week's challenge (e.g. topic and length).
.
I thought the most interesting defense all season happened when the F + stated in the most recent episode that the current note was the polar opposite of the note from the PFT episode. I could easily see this being something that they could have missed "on the fly" only to wake up at 3 AM the next morning and realize the contradiction. Also note that "push back" made the interaction interesting. I have posted on this forum before my disapproval that the Challenge may seek to discourage "too much pushback". (To be fair, this sentiment only reared its head once with Ham Radio, and since then its seemed to be pretty much a non-issue).
.
Some final comments - I thought Jordan's critique not to do "fake teasers" was off base. Fake teasers are one of my favorite recurring bits in CBB. Remember when they were going to count down 100 top songs (from the last decade?) but only got through the first few notes of "Jam Rock"? Remember when Scott was going to premiere his new song parody (was it Beyonce?) but got interuppted by the "hot line"? Remember when Scott and Gillian were going to do a beat by beat discussion of the upcoming season of Community only to be foiled by the "open door policy"? All really funny.
.
Don't get me wrong. I love this show, the contestants, the judges, the hosts, and the associate producers. My suggestions are only meant as constructive.

[geejaxies 0]

I agree with a lot of your criticism.
.
I think a lot of the "sound quality" complaints come from the hi-fi studio set-up out of which Earwolf records. The only time I've ever actually mirrored the many complaints on sound quality was during the TV Zombies. There's was distractingly bad, even when played through my iPhone's speakers or shitty earbuds, but they did eventually improve it a bit, so good for them. But I imagine most people listen to podcasts either with shitty computer speakers, shitty earbuds, or shitty iphone docks. I'd wager that 5% or less of an average podcast's fanbase uses better technology than that. That's still a significant margin, and obviously shows should put out the best product possible, and I'm personally going to work significantly harder on quality for my own shows, but are most fans of this show actually hearing the sound quality problems that the judges complain of week in and week out?
.
I was also thinking that Besser could use a co-host. That way he could focus on being the persistent Simon Cowell type guy, with a host by his side to expedite the stuff that he doesn't like as much. His aimlessness is a little off-putting at times. The show also has a lot of "on-air talent" as guest judges, but it would be good to get somebody on the producing team of Earwolf to be a consistent voice on the show. That way you have a perspective from the people that will be working with the winning podcast on a weekly basis, and giving a bit of insight into the backstage elements that make shows successful.
.
I'm really glad that F+ pushed back on their critique, and a producer-voice could help to alleviate that. Somebody who can track the critiques and keep things consistent. I haven't listened to any of these shows before, but it was very frustrating this week to hear F+ get the boot for taking feedback and implementing it into their show while Totally Laime got through after failing to take notes they've received before. Creative people like Matt Besser, despite all of his true, considerable talent, just aren't focused on tracking consistencies like that.
.
Also, I never listen to Day 1. It just isn't interesting. But if there was another voice to play with Besser, to offer feedback and consistency for the coaching session, and to keep things moving along, it would help matters greatly. As it stands, it's just 10-2 Skype calls of the same thing coming from one voice. But if there was somebody else there to feed the discussion, it would be much more compelling.
.
I like the Wolf Den, so if he's available, Jeff Ulrich would be a good fit for that additional role in an eventual Season 2. I understand that he might be too involved with the day-to-day business to clear 4-5 hours a week to tape this. But, the network is halfway his, and he'll be promoting the show, so I think his voice could be a good fit for an expanded role.
.
It's a good show. I just want to hear it become a great show, and I want it to feel fair. A more organizationally-minded voice could bring fairness to the table.

[Bucho 188]

@Greg: Day one is where you hear those producers pipe up now. Matt talks to Frank and Peter at the start and they discuss the parameters of the challenge - a new section which, contrary to what those sillygoose Who Charted gadabouts said this week, is a significant improvement on proceedings.
.
.
@Chris: I pay attention when the producers talk because they clarify things for Matt and, therefore, for me. I do think they could do with some more introduction, just to familiarise the listener with their place in proceedings and I do agree that promoting one of them to be a steadying co-host/co-judge role could provide additional consistency, but I think the latest round ran really well. And in fact they did contribute on-mic to days 2 and 3 this round, as they have done in previous rounds, although the fact you didn't recognise that may point to the lack of clarity you're bringing up.
.
As for the relative merits of each day, I enjoy days two and three fairly equally and with the addition of the production meeting at the front of day one I think that part of the show has become much stronger.

[JW Buchanan 1]

This has very little to do with the main bit of what you said, but I was really puzzled by the judges' reaction to Bob & Dan's intro. My understanding of it was that they had chosen to frame their entry as the first three minutes of a typical show, and that the "fake teasers" were teasers for segments you might hear in a full-length show. Even though Bob & Dan tried to explain this and said that the "fake teasers" were pulled from segments they'd done in previous episodes, the judges went in another direction, arguing about whether fake teasers as a concept is funny and whether these "fake teasers" were funny enough (note my use of quotes). So the teasers were "fake" in that it was a cut-down version of a pretend show made for a contest that ended after three minutes, and not fake in the ha-ha "these are the most ridiculous things we could think of, we'll never do this, it's a joke" sense.

[JW Buchanan 1]

The Socratic method is working-- the show is improving from week to week and episode to episode. I like the conversations between Matt and producers Frank and Peter on Day 1 and I like that they're having these conversations out in the open-- That's what's lead to a culture of commenting here that's about improving the show and making fair decisions, and not just cheerleading. I would like to hear from Frank and Peter on Day 3, even though they don't have a vote. When the judges lose the thread or get confused (as in the above Bob & Dan situation or the above-above F Plus situation) it would be nice to hear from a non-voting impartial third party that's seen the entire sequence of events. Everything is Socratic until Day 3, when all hell breaks loose.

[mattbesser 605]

A lot of good points here that I'd like to discuss on-air. For instance, next coaching session ep. we discuss the co-host idea. We're thinking of doing a bonus ep. that addresses the suggestions in this forum. If we did that it help for me to have some examples of what you guys are talking about. Can you give me a time code of a place where I sound "aimless" or confused so we can deconstruct it on our bonus ep.?
In regards to F+ getting conflicting notes...the fact is they confused/lost the judges doing it both ways. I think I addressed this on the show, and I admitted that their show is probably easier to understand if you listen to the whole show and get into its rhythm.

[Julia 477]

I think a bonus episode would be awesome, Matt. I appreciate that you guys are discussing listeners' suggestions to see what works on the show and what can be improved.
-
Here's something I've noticed on some "reality" programs that may or may not work on the Challenge... On reality singing competitions, the judges are not hearing the songs for the first time. They sit in on rehearsal, so they pretty much already know what they're going to say. The advantage of the judges listening in on the clips before the episode is taped is they could ask questions of the producers to understand the shows and hosts a little better. The downside, of course, would be that we're not hearing their first reaction to a clip. They may not laugh the second time around or what have you. I'm undecided if this would be a change for the better or the worse, but I want to know what you other listeners think? Would it be beneficial for judges to hear the clips, off-air, before the episode is taped, or is it better as is?

[Monkeybread 0]

Instead of adding co-hosts, why not just have the guest judges in on the coaching sessions? The shows would get a better idea of what the judges will be looking for and the judges might have chance to actually know what they are about beforehand. Sometimes I think the shows get judged unfairly, due to the guest judges being completely unaware of what they are about to listen to.

Also, I think the guest judges should be more related to the challenge of the week. I mean, I love Tig Notaro, but why is she there during the sketch week? Similarly, Matt Gourley was there during the recurring segments week, and he does a sketch podcast.

[mattbesser 605]

Jeff, has addressed this before but you aren't going to get anymore work out of the guest judges. It's hard enough just to get them there, they aren't going to do homework or more than one ep.

[JW Buchanan 1]

@Julia: I like that we hear the judges' first reactions. There's something appealing about that for the listeners, even if it makes the judging more difficult.

@Matt: OK

[geejaxies 0]

First reactions are important, and I think it's good to let the judges (and therefore the audience) know that their reactions will be heard. There have been times where I couldn't tell if the laughter was coming from the judges or the recorded submissions.
.
I think prepping the judges non-verbally works fine. People have suggested info sheets for each judge in the studio that describe the theme and content of the shows they're about to hear. That seems like a good balance. Nothing to listen to in advance, no additional commitment. Much has been said in the past of the fact that an iTunes listing informs a listener of what they're about to hear, and that a podcast isn't experienced in a vacuum of information. A simple info sheet would help to replicate that slightly-informed position of a new listener to a podcast.
.
Matt, I will try and find time-codes for the moments where it's felt like you've lost the thread or lost momentum when I'm at work this weekend. Thank you once again for listening to feedback, and taking it seriously. It's a case-study in good audience interaction.

[Bucho 188]

MATT: "In regards to F+ getting conflicting notes...the fact is they confused/lost the judges doing it both ways. I think I addressed this on the show, and I admitted that their show is probably easier to understand if you listen to the whole show and get into its rhythm."
.
Yep, you definitely commentated on those points during the show, and I thought they were points well made. Sometimes it seems like some fans only listen to half of what is said and often mentally latch onto what they see as a "wrong" in a way which deafens them to clarifying commentations which follow.
.
When it comes to full episodes I've found the F Plus to be significantly funnier than some other shows which remain in the contest, but unfortunately their performance within the contest itself hasn't warranted their advancing to the next round.

[c_n_anderson 0]

I just want to point out that I have no problem with conflicting notes (for what it is worth, I don't think that lack of consistency is a problem with the show). Conflicting notes are perfectly acceptable, even expected, if you realize that each finished product is the combination of 1. a choice. and 2. execution of that choice. You can make two different choices and still fail in execution of both. Or the same choice can be made by two different podcasts and one succeeds and the other fails because of differences in execution. For example, in the sketch week the little dum dum club created a podcast agent character. This is very similar to a character from one of my favorite podcasts from another member of the UCB: Matt Walsh's very funny Bear Down: The Chicago Bears Podcast. Bear Down has a character called Doug Mandel who is a Blog Podcast Agent (https://twitter.com/DougMandelBPA). I think Doug Mandel is hilarious while the little dum dum character was just ok (I also think that the similarity is almost certainly a coincidence).
.
My point about the F+ was not to complain about their elimination, but to point out that at least they had something to say during the "defense" segment of the show. I am hard pressed to remember any other defense from the 6 weeks of the show. Maybe it's a bad idea, but I wonder if the podcast contestants were prep'ed in some way prior to the defense (without scripting the interaction or ruining the surprise) the give and take would make for a more interesting listen. F+ could choose to separate the reading and the commentary or commentate (?) while they read the material and either choice may work. I think the choice they made that doomed them was to have like 5-6 different people read in one voice AND comment in another, thus asking the listener to follow 12 different points of view. The execution would have to be really, really, great for that to end up as anything other than confusing.
.
I think the choice/execution perspective also allows for flexibility in interpretation of notes. Thus, the note "don't do meta humor" or "don't do fake teasers" really shouldn't be thought of as a blanket ban - but rather, as: if you are going to make that choice you better make it really funny because it could easily fall on its face.
.
Finally, should I be abbreviating microphone as "mike" or "mic"? "Mike" doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me (kind of like how Peg as a shortened name for Margaret makes no sense to me either), but "Mike" seems to be in dominant use (it's the selection of the wikipedia entry).

[Bucho 188]

"Mic" makes much more sense to me too Chris. "Mike" feels like how people who confuse "your", "you're" and "yore" would write it.
.
And I thought the "defense" section with the F+ was interesting. It's always illuminating when someone explains what was behind an artistic decision which didn't work like they meant it to, especially when that failure has consequences like it does on The Challenge. It was fun when the F+ did it and it was fun when Brett Hammill did it.
.
I don't understand where the "prepping" would come into it or exactly what you mean by it or how it would make it more interesting than a natural conversation between entertainers though.

[JW Buchanan 1]

@Matt: I re-listened to some of the Day 3 episodes yesterday and while I don't want to contradict any of the conversation in this thread, aside from a few of the little tweaks suggested above, I found the overall quality of the judging to be very good. (Really good! Better in retrospect!) Listeners might have quibbles with the outcomes of specific Day 3 judgments, but I don't think the process of judgement needs an overhaul.
.
Here are those timestamps you were asking for from last week's Day 3 episode:

1) The "F Plus Defense"
12:17 - The F Plus hosts bring up the idea of conflicting feedback
12:26 - Matt Besser asks "What'd I say?"

This was a sequence that was brought up, although I personally didn't have an issue with it. (I thought the substance of the critique was right on and the overall judgement was fair.) However, when you ask "What'd I say," that could just as easily be a question posed to Frank and Peter. When there's a question about what's happened over the course of the entire Challenge, I think they could be a good resource since they have the benefit of having heard everything that's happened (possibly multiple times).
.
2) "Bob & Dan's Teasers"
17:30 - Kulap Vilaysack first brings up the idea of "fake teasers"
18:29 - Bob & Dan explain that the "fake teasers" are not fake
19:22 - Bob & Dan explain that the "fake teasers" are not intended as jokes (All explanations are ignored)

This was just a misunderstanding, plain and simple (although it would have been a real bummer if their podcast had been eliminated because of a simple misunderstanding). To be honest, this specific situation might not ever happen again-- this was a real outlier among all of the Day 3 critiques. But in my opinion, a situation like this is where the Socratic approach needs to come to Day 3-- If the judges are confused about something, they should just ask more questions. Questions first, judgement later. I know that a lot of listeners think that if something needs to be explained, then it's not working, but I don't necessarily agree. Any critique that comes before the judge really knows what they're looking at (or listening to) just isn't worth that much.
This also seems like another opportunity to throw the discussion to Frank and Peter, not because they have more information, but because five heads are better than three.

[c_n_anderson 0]

Besser raises good points about the importance of positive and constructive feedback in this week’s coaching episode (Using a famous guest: Day One). It’s a shame, then, that day 3 of the challenge only features phone calls to contestants in the bottom 3 and not to contestants that “succeeded” in their challenge. I was brainstorming questions that I thought Besser could ask during the day one coaching session, and among the questions included: “What specific change have you made to your podcast in response to a judge’s note? What judge’s note do you feel that your podcast is still struggling to address?” Then I realized that, the little dum dum club, because they have never been in the bottom three, have never received a judge’s note (at least it has never been told “to their face”). The only way they can find out what PFT, Marc Maron, Howard Kremer, Matt Gourley, Kulap Vilasak, etc. thought of their “Challenge” submission is to go back and listen to the Day 2 episode from the week they were judges. If, as for the vast majority of the season, the episodes are “in the can” – then they are literally “flying blind” with response to how their podcast has been received by anyone other than Besser (who can offer an assessment during day one of the coaching challenge). I don’t know what the solution is to this problem – is it too much of an imposition to ask the judges to call all the podcasts during the day 3 segment? It certainly seems less of one now that there are only 4 podcasts left, but early in the competition that is a lot of phone calls. That many phone calls could get boring and repetitive. As has been suggested before, I do think a “winner” of the week would be a good idea, and the judges could at least call the “winner” during the day 3 segment. Maybe the day one coaching session could feature an audio clip of how the judge’s reacted to the specific podcast submissions from prior day 2 episodes. I don’t think that would get too repetitive for the listener, and it would give both Matt and the podcasts a “jumping off point” for further coaching.
.
Oh, I really like the idea of a “bonus ep” called “tell it to my face” featuring interactions with forum commenters and I’d be interested in potentially participating. My twitter handle is c_n_anderson so feel free to DM me. Or I'll just wait for an announcement saying how to sign up to participate.

[c_n_anderson 0]

Besser raises good points about the importance of positive and constructive feedback in this week’s coaching episode (Using a famous guest: Day One). It’s a shame, then, that day 3 of the challenge only features phone calls to contestants in the bottom 3 and not to contestants that “succeeded” in their challenge. I was brainstorming questions that I thought Besser could ask during the day one coaching session, and among the questions included: “What specific change have you made to your podcast in response to a judge’s note? What judge’s note do you feel that your podcast is still struggling to address?” Then I realized that, the little dum dum club, because they have never been in the bottom three, have never received a judge’s note (at least it has never been told “to their face”). The only way they can find out what PFT, Marc Maron, Howard Kremer, Matt Gourley, Kulap Vilasak, etc. thought of their “Challenge” submission is to go back and listen to the Day 2 episode from the week they were judges. If, as for the vast majority of the season, the episodes are “in the can” – then they are literally “flying blind” with response to how their podcast has been received by anyone other than Besser (who can offer an assessment during day one of the coaching challenge). I don’t know what the solution is to this problem – is it too much of an imposition to ask the judges to call all the podcasts during the day 3 segment? It certainly seems less of one now that there are only 4 podcasts left, but early in the competition that is a lot of phone calls. That many phone calls could get boring and repetitive. As has been suggested before, I do think a “winner” of the week would be a good idea, and the judges could at least call the “winner” during the day 3 segment. Maybe the day one coaching session could feature an audio clip of how the judge’s reacted to the specific podcast submissions from prior day 2 episodes. I don’t think that would get too repetitive for the listener, and it would give both Matt and the podcasts a “jumping off point” for further coaching.
.
Oh, I really like the idea of a “bonus ep” called “tell it to my face” featuring interactions with forum commenters and I’d be interested in potentially participating. My twitter handle is c_n_anderson so feel free to DM me. Or I'll just wait for an announcement saying how to sign up to participate.

[JW Buchanan 1]

Yeah, I don't know how that will work (getting in contact with commenters), but I really hope this supplementary podcast happens so that we get at least one more episode with Matt beyond the finals.

[JW Buchanan 1]

Yeah, I don't know how that will work (getting in contact with commenters), but I really hope this supplementary podcast happens so that we get at least one more episode with Matt beyond the finals.

[Bucho 188]

I like Chris's idea of talking to all contestants on day 3. It would have to be tightened up in the early rounds with so many contestants but it would help stop day three feeling like a downer if they were giving feedback to (and asking questions of) the successful rather than just addressing a bunch of filthy losers every time.
.
I also like the idea of a bonus ep (or two, or three) a lot. The more Besser the better.

[Bucho 188]

I like Chris's idea of talking to all contestants on day 3. It would have to be tightened up in the early rounds with so many contestants but it would help stop day three feeling like a downer if they were giving feedback to (and asking questions of) the successful rather than just addressing a bunch of filthy losers every time.
.
I also like the idea of a bonus ep (or two, or three) a lot. The more Besser the better.