*the majority of people who fill in surveys 
Well… the majority of people that filled out the survey, but that’s another kettle of fish.
The crew have cranked out nearly 400 podcasts that I’ve found worthy of my time and attention, and I’m sure they’ll keep that up. Happy trails and best of luck to all that have dropped in.
- Yeah, participation matters. It’s why TR mentioned it here, on the podcast and on the FB group at the very least, to let a ton of people know about it. Their choice to participate or not is no different than any optional vote. Those that speak (via participation) get heard.
I missed the host vote but did vote on duration. Where was the original post at for host selection?
See the link I posted just a few posts above. It was a broad questionnaire and not just focused on the hosts.
On subject of feedback just caught up with the one hour tester show…was amused by Jonathan at start…we did a recent survey and nobody really wanted shorter podcasts…but we thought we’d try it anyway…please give feedback as we always react to what feedback tells us…
Huh? 
Right, but if you listen closely… you will hear the real “not so hidden” reason for trying shorter episodes was a request from the HOSTS, and what it means to their time related to prep and such. Chad made it pretty clear he’d like shorter ones and Jon seemed to relay similar for him and Amber. Nate was wide open.
I touched on it in a reply well up this topic to make a point of the reason for the shorter test.
So, they sure do listen to feedback, but have their own desires and needs to balance with that. One shouldn’t be absolute to the exclusion of the other IMO. If they are dreading the work and the resulting longer cast is poorer due to that, vs what might be the case for a shorter one with more engaged hosts, we all lose. Totally hypothetical mind you, but I can see that this is not black and white for listener vs host preferences.
Yeah, I agree with you. I kind of heard it as “most of us would prefer shorter for various reasons, but we listen to your feedback and it helps us prioritize what we do here at TR, so if you prefer longer, we want to hear that”.
Has TR really considered creating developing its podcasts as a separate business line? Just curious.
Also, just staying with the four original hosts means that it’s going to be 75% dude going forward, and even then, Amber is polite enough that she doesn’t get the air time the others do. In other words: like every bad group ride I’ve been on, ugh.
Honestly: the podcast has come a long way since everyone said “guys” when they meant “riders,” but cycle in more hosts and cycle in more women and nonbinary people and watch the listener pool expand
Totally and picked that up, just thought it was a funny sentence! Totally agree with all you said if 60-90 min more manageable for TR crew then do that for sure.
I enjoy the OG crew plus Amber. They share a lot of great info and banter. I’d like to see the Successful Athletes pod add a slight change by bringing Hanna, Kegan, Alex etc. there. Still include stories with “normal folk” who had made great changes but include insight and race reviews with the TR rock stars.
Yeah I came here looking for this survey he mentions, I am not super active on this forum but I subscribe to the podcast on youtube and enjoy the mix of hosts.
Why does duration matter?
This is not a TV show with fixed time allotments. It seems illogical to limit or artificially lengthen the podcast in any very strict manner.
The best solution seems incredibly obvious.
Let the quality of the conversation and content dictate the length.
When there’s great questions, lots of learnings. It’s long.
When there’s less, its short.
Yes, but I imagine that’s hard to fit into a busy work calendar! Nope, can’t schedule a meeting for 10 because we might or might not still be podcasting, who knows…
I want to clarify this. It wasn’t our intention to communicate an indifference to listener feedback. The podcast is a candid conversation with 4 different people, and at times something hits different than you’d think it would. I should have thought through this point in the podcast more thoroughly to make sure you understood this podcast truly lives and dies by listener feedback.
Here’s an explanation of the logic behind all of this:
- Forum feedback: “This podcast is way too long. Absurd to think somebody would listen for two hours!”
- Survey Feedback: When asked what improvements/changes you’d like to see to the podcast, .5% of respondents (+1,000 respondents) mentioned something about shortening the podcast.
This dissonance was shocking to me, so I wanted to test it to see if the noisy minority on the forum were simply a noisy minority, or if more people felt like that but hadn’t expressed it.
In the actual moment of mentioning this on the podcast, Nate, Chad, and Amber broke out in cathartic chorus about how they would prefer a shorter podcast for the following reasons:
- Preparing content for a weekly 2hr podcast is a ton of work
- Recording a 2hr podcast can be mentally/emotionally draining
- While my primary focus is this podcast and our marketing efforts, all of the other hosts carry a lot of responsibilities that individually rank higher (Amber’s Product Management work, for example), so prioritization can get tough.
All of that said, and this is important, so engage italics and bold type, our number one priority with this podcast is to serve our audience, and we’ll do whatever it takes (within reason ) to make that happen. The reasons above for that cathartic expression are not indications that the podcast production is coming at personal cost to the hosts or TR’s productivity. It’s part of our job to manage that well. 
Us going to a 2hr time frame was purely based out of listener feedback. It indicated that people wanted more, so we continued to provide more. As to why 2hr was the length we ended the lengthening progression, we felt we had reached a point of diminishing returns at that point in terms of our ability to be sharp in conversation and delivery.
We agree that length should simply be a product of satisfying a more important goal of quality information and entertainment that makes you faster, and this survey and feedback process has helped us understand our audience feels that way too.
The podcast will be the duration it needs to be, but we’ll continue to listen to all of you and make adjustments as needed to better serve y’all.
When asked what improvements/changes they’d like to see to the podcast, a statistically significant portion of respondents requested we stop rotating hosts and bring back the original crew. That’s why this decision was originally made.
Based on the feedback we’ve gotten since Alex’s post (thanks to everybody that shared feedback!), we’re going to readjust and make sure we have Alex and others on occasionally. Amber, Chad, and Nate will be the primary hosts, but when one of them can’t make it, or when we have an episode that would be uniquely aided by having one of the other hosts on, we’ll adjust.
This openness to feedback and flexibility to meet a changing environments is one of the best attributes you and the entire TR crew embody. It’s quite an asset and something I value with what TR offers.
Great work as usual! 
Glad to hear this. And thanks for explaining some of why you do what you do. It’s refreshing!
I generally prefer the original hosts, but a little rotation is welcome. I think last year when both Nate, Chad, and Amber were away so much—for really, really good reasons!—it felt like the show was moving towards an all-rotating cast, with you as the only constant. Speaking for myself, the sweet spot is somewhere in the middle.
Now, can you find a way to make the episodes longer and shorter at the same time? I think this would make everyone happy.
This is @IvyAudrain and I working on that as we speak…
