LOL - I thought it meant answer both questions. It probably shouldn’t have had the “More than an hour” choice either. That could mean 61 mins or 4 hours. “60 mins, more than 60 but less than 120, and 2 or more hours” would have made more sense.
2 Likes
Yes, a lot of responses forgot about that part and implied it was all “to please a minority of listeners”.
1 Like
I suspect the “More than an hour” option is meant to fill the void between 1 and 2 hours. Might have been worded better along the lines of “Around 90 minutes” or something like that. At least if my take on the wording is correct (which may not be the case).
1 Like
I answered them as if, if motion A doesn’t pass, then 1, 2, or 3.
Also, it probably would have been more clear in terms of results if it was “1hr or less”, “more than 1hr”.
I totally get what you’re saying about wanting app development over Pod, but I don’t think that the Pod (assumption here) has a negative impact on App Development. I think it still has quite a positive impact on subscription numbers which does impact app development via increased numbers of engineers etc
I am with TR as much for the community as the app that includes learning a lot still through the pod and having the forum.
1 Like
For sure, I am guessing that the podcast is likely the leading marketing aspect and driver of new users. I am not advocating for it to go away, just change as needed to suit their needs as much as our desires.
There may be no functional connection between the cast and app development, I admit that. And even if there is a total separation between them, other factors like host well being are something of a concern for me. Time demands, the stress of taking part in live format, and having their each and every moment set up for scrutiny are far from negligible in my mind.
From comments on the cast and here on the forum, it’s apparent that they can take some serious heat at time. It’s a level of review that I suspect I would crumble beneath. Not sure that is a part of the comments by them to cut the time a bit, but for any reason they would have I back them if shorter shows improve anything on their end. Having happy hosts matters more to me.
I admire them asking for feedback and such, but feel they can still put their needs in front if an when it’s appropriate for them.
7 Likes
100%. I’ve said earlier, and completely agree with you, that if it’s something they need for themselves I’ll absolutely support it. I’ll be disappointed if it reduces the total amount of listening. I’d happily have two 60-75min high energy pods than have them labouring through something they aren’t able to get up for.
I just wanted to chime back in in defense of my position as a longer is better voter. By voting two hours and over one hour, and two per week, I’m not saying I expect two hours, or two two hour Pods, or that they put anything above their own wellbeing 
.
5 Likes
Yes I was thinking this. The questions above seem to be suggesting a possibility of eg 2x1hr per week - you could have one hour for the deep dives and training Qs, then 1 hour for the other stuff. I’d listen to both anyway.
Or you could have a full version and a shorter version with all the questions and deep dives drawn out, just record a separate lead in.
Although others eg FastTalk do a good job with a lot of the science stuff - so what’s the USP for a science focused 1hr AACC podcast?
They could change up how many are on the show…Jonathan can do three shows a week each with a different guest.
Rip Harambe.
The world hasn’t been the same. Rest easy king.
1 Like
I mean, they should definitely get rid of the filet o’ fish. That thing is NASTY.
2 Likes
I enjoy the 2 hour podcast pls
1 Like
Really love the banter and general talk around what people are up to at start of 2hr podcast…gives the show a really relaxed feel that helps offset the more clinical details of the deep dives but importantly always reinforces the learnings from previous shows in an interesting way for me. It was interesting to see last week that everyone was seemingly cutting back on input on topics to make sure the show fitted into the 1hr slot. For me I find this my favourite podcast to listen in to and will listen anyway, but love the 2hr format.
3 Likes
Huge fan of the podcast, nothing compares and really hope it stays in the 2 hour format.
I did not realise a short format was being trialed and was genuinely disappointed to see the running time was only an hour and 6 minutes long on Spotify.
1 Like
I remember a thread where someone took a screen grab of one sentence that Nate said and used it to criticize TRs entire training methodology. It was one throwaway sentence in almost three hours of podcast that he provided context for immediately afterward. I can’t imagine that level of scrutiny as an individual or as a CEO.
4 Likes
Am I the first to say I listen to all podcasts at 1.5 speed anyway, so it was never “2 hours”? 
2 Likes
I’ve listened to the new format podcast. My thoughts are I liked the shorter length as I usually find 2 plus hours to be too long and I’ve to listen over two sittings. So the shorter length was a positive.
However, I did miss the relaxed nature of the previous format. I felt that I did miss the catch ups on what everyone is doing.
On balance I liked the original format more than the new more focused and shorter format.
The idea of combining the deep dives with the science of getting faster podcast is a good idea. Definitely keep the deep dives in some format.
1 Like
I’m just now seeing this a week out. Honestly - i haven’t even had a desire to even see what is on podcast in a very long time. Occasionally I’ll see a fb or ig post that I’ll think - I’ll watch, I’m interested and usually turn it off within a few minutes. The long 2hr episodes, to me, were a lot of endless chatter that every so often dealt with a topic - was so frustrating to watch i gave up. After seeing this question - I’ll give it a try again during tomorrow’s workout. See how this goes.
2 Likes
I have been listening/subscribing to the podcast since 2017 or 2018 and used to listen to almost every episode in full. Over the last year or two I have been skipping more and more episodes though.
Part of this is due to the length slowly increasing in time. For me I rarely have an hour where I can listen uninterrupted, two hours uninterrupted is almost unheard of. So when I try to listen I’m either fast forwarding through long chunks or I am listening to the episode over multiple sessions and I lose continuity/my place in the conversation. Both are less engaging to me.
Part of it is also due to some of the topics being covered again. This can be really good if it is a short session updating with recent learnings/research, but if I feel like I’m listening to the same conversation again I’ll just fast forward 20 minutes or stop listening entirely.
Maybe some feedback where topics are covered again in the podcast would be to do a quick intro on the topic, reference previous podcasts where it has been covered, focus on changes since that podcast and then take the time a longer deep dive afterwards if it’s warranted. Having timestamps in spotify means it’s easy enough to fast forward to the next topic without skipping large parts of (or the entire) episode.
1h-1:30 episodes once per week was my vote
1 Like
I like the long and short but if it was my personal preference, I’d go with long because I listen while I’m riding. However, I think that what the podcast hosts’ preferences would be the deciding factor. I would rather listen to a short podcast if that is where they are finding it to be more enjoyable for themselves. It’s like going to someone’s house for a visit. I wouldn’t want to go there for 2 hours as a guest if they really preferred my visit to be short and sweet.
2 Likes
First and foremost, huge thanks to @Jonathan and the rest of the TR crew for having put out nearly 360 hugley informative and entertaining podcasts. I have been a weekly listener and viewer for over three years and have learned so much to help me with my training, and life.
I can understand why many want the longer podcasts, the joy of podcasts is often the space to go off topic or go deep into an issue and have room for a bit of banter. Also if you are doing a long workout it fills the time.
Like others, I feel it is less about the length than the focus and the balance. Two hours of great content feels a joy, but two hours of less focussed go-arounds can be a chore. This does not mean that you cannot have Nate’s intermissions (often podcast gold) or chat and banter between the presenters, but when answering Qs or addressing topics being more to the point. Deep dives also have their place and should continue to be part of the mix.
That said, I think (personally) that there is a big difference between watching a 2 hour episode on YouTube or listening to it as a podcast. Listening to long podcasts is a lot easier as you can get on with other things whilst listening. I have gone back to listening rather than viewing and mind the length a lot less.
My sweet spot would be around 1:15 to 1:20, but that is probably because it fits in neatly with my commute.
One final thought. During the off season there is a lot more time for longer podcasts, mainly because of the lack of racing to take part in or watch and long base rides. During the racing / event season there are so many other competitions for time that a shorter podcast is really welcome.
3 Likes