Here’s Some Feedback: You Probably Suck at Giving Feedback. Here’s the Good News: You Can Quickly Get Better.
You think talking about feedback is boring...and it isn’t. And your content--and your career--may hinge on your ability to do it better.
Welcome to Dispatch #15 of The Audio Insurgent.
I’ve gotten some feedback from Substack that I would get even higher numbers if I published more frequently. While I’m always open to feedback, it’s summer...I’m allowed to take a couple weeks off of this, aren’t I?
Speaking of feedback, let’s be honest with each other...talking about feedback isn’t the sexiest topic for a newsletter. I get it. But I’m here to convince you that it is actually an incredibly important part of every project you work on. And, yes, most people are bad at it. And, again yes, you can get better. In fact, I’d argue that your ability to give good editorial feedback may indicate the ceiling of your career potential.
Plus I want to share a few small things I’ve been reading and loving.
So let’s jump in...
[SMALL THING BEFORE THE BIG THING: LEAKED NUMBERS] Every chat I’ve had with a podcasting colleague this past week has made at least passing reference to this article, containing some leaked data from Spotify that compares download figures from several of its now-owned networks.
So, a few things about this.
First, in Journalism 101, you are told to ask a few questions of information that is given to you. First, obviously, is “Is this information accurate?” A bit further down that list is another important question, which is front of mind when I read articles like this, “Why was this information leaked?”
Despite some mild salivating and hand-wringing over the data itself, almost no one is asking questions about who leaked this data and what they have to gain from leaking it. Some true Game of Thrones stuff happening here, most likely. But before you chatter about this data, ask yourself if you are just serving as a pawn in someone else’s game.
And speaking of the data--this leak would be a bigger deal if this data really mattered.
Comparing the relative downloads from one network to another, even when they are owned by the same corporate overlord, is silly. That’s because the reason they were all acquired is because they do different things. They create different kinds of audio experiences. Just because you can crank out buckets full of 90 Day Fiancé episodes in the time it takes to crank out a small handful of episodes of Succession doesn’t make one inherently better or worse than the other. They are very different shows, with very different production styles because they are designed to do very different things. Just because James Patterson will crank out 135 books before George R R Martin releases his next novel doesn’t make either or their work more or less important.
If works really do have differentiated purposes, they should have differentiated measures of success. Downloads (or any measure of gross consumption) might be okay for some, but doesn’t work for all.
So many in podcasting are playing a volume game right now that they forget that success in podcasting rarely comes from volume, it comes from depth. Sometimes (not always) creating depth requires different time and resources. Long term value comes from building a deep relationship with an audience, making a promise and then repeatedly overdelivering on that promise.
I don’t bring this up to condemn or defend anyone. From what I’ve read, the lower performing network immediately defended themselves by saying that their work requires more production and editing time than the work of other networks. Let’s mark this as the worst possible defense--a defense that those offering it will lose whatever argument is actually going on here. The answer is that the shows they produce net deeper, more loyal relationships with listeners. And often (not always) those deep relationships take more time.
[BIG THING: HOW TO STOP SUCKING AT FEEDBACK] In the last dispatch of The Audio Insurgent, I spoke about the importance of listening within an organization--and how critical it is as a sign of an organization’s health and culture. Somewhat surprisingly, most of the responses I got to that dispatch weren’t about the importance of listening, but about how bad most people are at giving feedback when they listen. One reader told me, “Getting feedback from colleagues wouldn’t be so bad if they weren’t such soulless assholes about it.”
To me, a lot of the issues surrounding poor feedback come from a basic misunderstanding of feedback’s objectives and role.
To summarize, I often call upon this Ann Richards quote, in which she is actually quoting Sam Rayburn:
“Any jackass can kick down a barn, but it takes a carpenter to build one.”
Feedback embodies this same idea.
I think there are two different kinds of feedback: one-directional and two-directional. In the past I’ve referred to these as critic’s feedback and editor’s feedback.
Critic’s feedback (one-directional) is someone giving their assessment/opinion/reaction. They are simply pointing out what works and doesn’t work. It’s subjective and singular--their opinion. Context is irrelevant. And that’s where their role ends: What works. What doesn’t work. They don’t even need to give a lot of detail.
The vast majority of feedback is critic’s feedback. Unless you are reviewing Broadway plays for The New York Times or participating in a focus group about your preferences in mayonnaise or some similar role or situation, this kind of feedback has little use in the world. Perhaps it is because this kind of criticism is so prevalent in our society, writ large, or our media is so filled with opinions and hot takes, but most feedback falls under this definition.
An editor’s feedback (two-directional) goes much deeper into the creative process, it isn’t about problems, it is about solutions. If someone has ever worked with a great editor, you know exactly what I’m talking about. That editor will talk to the producer or reporter about what story they are trying to tell and also identify character, theme, and the story’s arc. Then they walk through the work and point out what is serving those ideas and what doesn’t.
It isn't a subjective opinion of what someone thinks is “good” or “bad,” but rather, what serves the purpose and intention of the work. A good editor asks a lot of questions before speaking, and when giving two-directional feedback, doesn’t ever really need to point out their own personal opinion. Instead, they offer solutions.
When I’m giving feedback, I challenge myself to come to the edit armed not just with identified problem areas, but multiple solutions for the producer/host/reporter to consider. I don’t insist they do what I share, but they are welcome to use it. My only expectation is that if they follow another path, it just needs to work better than what I suggested. When doing group edits, I often call first on the people who tend to offer alternatives when offering criticisms, because I know it will set the tone for the edit: we are here to make the work better, not just say out loud what’s wrong.
And good feedback does not need to be soft, “nice,” or indirect. Great feedback can be direct and even brutal, as long as it is supportive, constructive, and solution-oriented. This is where the “compliment sandwich” comes from--when you are scared to tell the truth, so you bury it in some nice things. Rarely, if ever, do you find someone who wants feedback who isn’t open to the plain, direct, and even harsh truth, as long as that truth is helping them achieve what they want with the work.
As someone who gives a lot of feedback, and receives a large amount too, I’ve noticed that most people are truly awful at constructive two-directional feedback. Bad feedback isn’t only a wasted opportunity, but bad one-directional feedback almost always results in lowest common denominator thinking: focuses on what everyone can agree on instead of identifying weaknesses and raising up the best creative solution to the issue.
The net result of two-directional feedback is almost always positive. The producer/host/reporter walks away feeling supported, focused, and excited to work harder to make it better.
Beyond simply being in denial of how bad most feedback is from most people (yes, probably including you too, at least at times), a lot of people don’t recognize how essential feedback skills are to career advancement. The know-it-all harsh one-directional critic tends to hit a ceiling they can’t seem to rise above. Those who tend to rise up in organizations are not only those who can achieve results, but those who can articulate vision, values, and intention. And those that rise even higher are the ones who can help others hone those values, vision, and intention in their work, too.
So developing these skills isn’t just a nice way to work well with others, but can directly impact your own career trajectory.
So my advice on how to get better, immediately, is to challenge yourself. Whenever you give feedback, give it clearly and directly. Dump the compliment sandwiches and pussyfooting. Just say what’s on your mind, and then (and this is the most important part), offer a solution. For every criticism you give--offer a way to fix it. Every one.
And even more important yet, don’t say something “doesn’t work” and leave it there. Share WHY it doesn’t work, and remind them of your shared goal and values. In that sense, feedback becomes a teaching moment.
Again, having ideas is great, but being able to clearly express your ideas is better. And being able to course correct and lift others along the path towards ideas and vision is the best. Someone receiving your feedback should walk away wanting more of your feedback in the future, not saying under their breath, “Christ, what an asshole.”
[LAST SMALL THING: GREAT THINGS I’VE READ RECENTLY] A few things have crossed my reading list lately that I have thought were straight up brilliant:
First, a recent edition of Tom Webster’s I Hear Things called “The Most Important Question in Podcasting.” First off, he throws some well-deserved shade at the frequent “20 Most Powerful People” lists. These make my skin crawl--always have. Then he declares who should be #1 on every list, and I couldn’t agree more.
Also, I really like Jeff Vidler’s piece from June called “All Audio Is Not Alike: What Each Type Brings To Listeners And Advertisers.” It particularly plays into the idea, often discussed in these dispatches, that radio and podcasting are different--not in an editorial sense, but in the role it plays in the lives of listeners.
A few weeks ago, this graphic of the professional podcast industry was released. It’s fairly new, so not a whole lot of conclusions. Right now I’m enjoying sitting on the back porch, enjoying one of the beers you readers have purchased, and trying to see what’s in-between the lines. One early thing: when I look at the clusters of what types of companies have been acquired over the past few years, there is a story there (though I’m still figuring out what it is).
And finally, this article about the potential hit Joe Roagan is taking to his influence since becoming exclusive to one platform. The specifics and their meaning are highly subjective and debatable, but I have a feeling we’ll be fighting this false “reach versus revenue” bargain for years...at least until someone proves that exclusive content distribution is worth the checks that get written.
Okay, that’s it for this dispatch.
It won’t be such a long wait for the next one. Trying to get back on a regular schedule for the fall.
If this was forwarded to you or you read this online, would you mind subscribing?
And while this is free, you are also always welcome to buy my book or (even better) buy me a beer.
Make great things. I’ll be listening.
--Eric