-
Why Podcast Co-Hosts Need To Know Their Roles
February 6, 2018
Have an opinion? Add your comment below. -
I've teamed up with Detroit comedian Mike Geeter to launch a new podcast about the Detroit arts and entertainment scene called The D Brief. In this column, I am sharing the lessons I learn from it for other radio broadcasters who want to do the same.
Subscribe: Apple Podcasts • Google Play • iHeartRadio • Website
In my last column, I discussed how Mike Geeter and I recorded several practice episodes before launching our podcast, "The D Brief." In the course of doing so, we learned a lot, and we adjusted accordingly. A key lesson is the importance of assigning roles when you're producing a podcast with co-hosts.
In the beginning, when divvying up duties for the podcast, we set out to divide them equally. For example, we knew that we had five concert calendar-inspired segments that require reading a list of upcoming shows. My inclination was to take half of them and give the other half to Mike. In theory, it sounds equitable. In practice, the results were less than compelling.
Because of my career in radio, I have been reading concert calendars on the air for twenty years. It comes second nature to me, so I can rip through them easily. Mike, on the other hand, does not have the same level of radio experience. So, when he read these lists of upcoming shows, it didn't flow as smoothly.
Moreover, as a stand-up comedian, Mike is the funnier co-host. When I read the list of shows, it puts Mike in a position where he can rattle off one-liners in response to me. On the other hand, when he reads the shows, he doesn't have the ability to react in the same way.
In short, we quickly figured out that by trying to divide the air time equally, we were not playing to our respective strengths. I am the radio guy and Mike is the comedian. The structure of the show should let us take advantage of our different areas of expertise. In sports broadcasting terms, I should be the play-by-play announcer, Mike should be the color commentator. Or, in comedy terms: I'm the straight man, Mike is the funny one.
This revelation reminded me of the distinction between Reactors and Generators that radio talent coach Valerie Geller draws in her book, Beyond Powerful Radio:
Have you ever noticed that some on-air personalities, while they may be completely professional, are somewhat boring by themselves? But the minute someone else walks into the studio, they seem to come alive and get much better. Some personalities seem more talented when they are performing live in front of an audience. Others are funnier, sharper, and more creative by themselves. It turns out that talent usually falls into one of two categories: generators or reactors.
In order to coach talent effectively, it helps to identify the talent's strengths and natural abilities. Sometimes that can be achieved by clearly defining the talent's roles. Consultant Dan Vallie advises, "There must be an anchor or director, a creative chief, a producer, etc." But before you define the role, knowing the type of performers you are working with lets you guide them toward their maximum performance. The programmer is then able to design powerful radio by making the shoe fit the foot, instead of trying to do it the other way around.
What Is a Generator?
The natural skill of a generator means that he or she can easily work alone or as part of a team. A generative talent can easily visualize original ideas. (These ideas are not alwaysgoodor usable ideas, but generators do tend to come up with a lot of them.) A generator has a strong, independent imagination. The generator comes up with a myriad of topics, undaunted by the blank page. True generators are rare.
What Is a Reactor?
Reactors are also creative individuals. A reactive talent takes existing ideas and comes up with numerous ways to make them better or more workable.
No less talented than a generator, the reactor nonetheless has a very different style. A reactor alone faces the blank page with terror. However, the moment a reactor comes in contact with a generator, he or she can instantly and very cleverly pick up on remarks, comments, or nuances and be very funny.
A reactor is usually the one who responds to just about any stimulus with an insightful or witty remark. Reactors can have a lot of fun talking back to their TV sets and radios.
If you've ever listened to a talk show that seemed to have a slow start, but then picked up after the interview or calls began, you were likely listening to a reactive talent. The minute the host can "react" off of the callers, or interview guest, generating for him or her, the show comes alive.
Many stand-up comedians are reactors. Although they might seem to be generative- after all they're standing up doing a monologue in front of a live audience - but in reality, if you put those people in a studio, alone in a room, without that live audience generating for them, they may be less colorful. Reactors work best with other people in the room to spark their creative energy.
Both types of talent are valuable and good, but the right casting here is the key. Forcing a reactor to carry the show as a generator doesn't work, and forcing a strong generator into an equal or subordinate partnership with another generative talent can lead to an almost painful on-air clash. The trick is to identify each person's specific strengths and then to encourage the person to develop those strengths.
Putting two generators together as co-hosts or as a team can sometimes be a disaster. They tend to battle for the microphone, seldom listen to each other, and compete for attention. The show sounds like two kids fighting at the dinner table. It is hard to listen for very long.
Putting two reactors together is not much better. The audience hears them casting a net for ideas over and over again. The process is dull, and, if nothing swims into the net, the show becomes weak and boring.
Electric connection with the audience happens when you have a balance of both elements.
How Do You Tell the Difference between a Reactor and a Generator?
It is fairly simple. Generators have a lot of ideas and energy. They take huge risks and worry about it later. They have moments of brilliance. They sit alone in a room, and their minds overflow with ideas.
That is not to say that every idea a generator produces is a perfectly conceived show, but consistently they seem to be practically exploding with new material.
If you are looking at a reactive talent, you will notice that he or she is quick with a story, a memory, an imitation or a line for any topic you could give him or her. But you must lead the reactor by giving that first push, that suggestion, or a good opening. Leave the reactor alone in a room with no external catalyst for the show, and he or she is miserable. Reactors may do brilliant interviews, or pick things out of the newspaper that are unique, but they need some kind of initial stimulus to begin the process. But again, you probably have a reactor on the air if he or she is dull until the news person shows up or until the calls begin.
Generators are scarce. Most people are reactors. It is a little like being left- or right-handed. One is no better than the other. If absolutely necessary, right-handed people can adapt to use their left hands, and vice versa. You can certainly force people to improve in the area where they are weaker, but in most circumstances it is best for the station to take advantage of their natural inclinations.
If you are an on air personality, it helps to know your own strengths. Are you a generator or a reactor? And if you area manager or programmer, it is your job to identify each person's specific strengths and then to encourage each one to develop those strengths.
When Mike and I hosted a previous podcast series together, we regularly heard other people comment on the chemistry the two of us have. We have a natural sense of give-and-take in our conversation. Valerie's excerpt offers insight into why that's the case: I am a Generator, and Mike is a Reactor.
By dividing up the segments equally, we were forcing ourselves to reverse roles half the time: I was trying to play the Reactor, while Mike was stuck in the role of Generator. These roles don't come as easily to us, and the quality of the podcast suffered as a result.
Realizing this, we tweaked the structure of the show. I would handle a lot of the "radio" elements of the show -- introducing each segment, teasing upcoming segments, etc. -- freeing Mike up to inject more humor. The practical effect of this change is that I speak more, but have fewer funny lines. Mike speaks less, but has a better platform in which to showcase his sense of humor. Most importantly, putting us in the proper roles allowed us to play to our respective strengths, which improved the show overall.
LISTEN: Hear the latest episode of The D Brief podcast.
More Glimpses Behind the Scenes:
-
-