<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:itunes="http://www.itunes.com/dtds/podcast-1.0.dtd"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Garrick is at MPR&#8217;s The Loop Tonight</title>
	<atom:link href="http://garrickvanburen.com/archive/garrick-is-in-the-loop/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://garrickvanburen.com/archive/garrick-is-in-the-loop</link>
	<description>User Experience Strategy, Ruby and Rails Web App Development</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 20 Mar 2010 01:04:57 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Jeff Horwich</title>
		<link>http://garrickvanburen.com/archive/garrick-is-in-the-loop/comment-page-1#comment-13249</link>
		<dc:creator>Jeff Horwich</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 20 Jan 2007 01:11:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://garrickvanburen.com/archive/garrick-is-in-the-loop#comment-13249</guid>
		<description>Hey guys.  Glad to have you both not only there, but responding to the show.  (Wondered who that was with the Mac in the back row -- blog away, I say!)  Of course we appreciate Jesse&#039;s review .  But Garrick makes some good points, and we need that too.  I might go point by point as well:

1. We&#039;re trying to do what we can for a diverse audience -- ages, backgrounds, incomes.  I&#039;m glad for the progress we&#039;re making there.
2. True enough.  iPods are easy targets...not just because of the earbuds but because of their sheer ubiquity...which also meant we got lots of suggestions from people our network suggesting we had to at least give a nod to it.  (You&#039;ll notice tonight, though, that we had to cut the iPod stuff to fit the show into an hour.)  Interestingly, we had a rough idea to attend to these historical comparisons...but it kind of lingered without a format, and other ideas filled up the show (and then some).
3. You&#039;re on to something here, though Jesse&#039;s response is also very close to the truth.  A true discussion is our goal, at least for a portion of the show...but we have found it is also very difficult to pull off as good radio --  Hence the reason you don&#039;t hear it very often outside of community radio stations. The value as a listening product can be quite low, and it&#039;s extremely difficult to edit into something that feels coherent to someone who was not in the room.  We&#039;re trying to just get better at it each time -- as it is, we go farther than any other program I can think of (how many actually push beyond having audience members just ask questions of some big-shot guest?).  In the six shows we have done in the Forum the audience segment has always been kind of a wild-card -- not surprisingly, because an audience on any given night is a complete unknown.  So it&#039;s hard to plan the show around it. As a result, we try stack the show with other strong content, while we maintain the audience involvement as a staple of the show whose formula we are still working on.  Seriously: We deeply value any constructive criticism on this.
3a. One other thought: A lot of our interactivity happens on the front-end, in planning and discussing the show with our community.  This isn&#039;t so evident in the Forum as the show tapes, but it&#039;s very important.
4. Hmmmm.....well, we think we&#039;ve got a radio show on the way tonight, which is the top-line goal (for us, our listeners, and those bosses Jesse mentions).  And with luck, we&#039;ve got many more to continue getting better (and, no doubt, return to variations on this kind of eternal technology-and-society theme). 

Sorry for the length!  I had some time to kill while our assistant producer rolls the show into our system for the evening broadcast. But thanks again for both of you for joining us.  Love to hear from you any time and I&#039;m happy to continue this discussion.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hey guys.  Glad to have you both not only there, but responding to the show.  (Wondered who that was with the Mac in the back row &#8212; blog away, I say!)  Of course we appreciate Jesse&#8217;s review .  But Garrick makes some good points, and we need that too.  I might go point by point as well:</p>
<p>1. We&#8217;re trying to do what we can for a diverse audience &#8212; ages, backgrounds, incomes.  I&#8217;m glad for the progress we&#8217;re making there.<br />
2. True enough.  iPods are easy targets&#8230;not just because of the earbuds but because of their sheer ubiquity&#8230;which also meant we got lots of suggestions from people our network suggesting we had to at least give a nod to it.  (You&#8217;ll notice tonight, though, that we had to cut the iPod stuff to fit the show into an hour.)  Interestingly, we had a rough idea to attend to these historical comparisons&#8230;but it kind of lingered without a format, and other ideas filled up the show (and then some).<br />
3. You&#8217;re on to something here, though Jesse&#8217;s response is also very close to the truth.  A true discussion is our goal, at least for a portion of the show&#8230;but we have found it is also very difficult to pull off as good radio &#8212;  Hence the reason you don&#8217;t hear it very often outside of community radio stations. The value as a listening product can be quite low, and it&#8217;s extremely difficult to edit into something that feels coherent to someone who was not in the room.  We&#8217;re trying to just get better at it each time &#8212; as it is, we go farther than any other program I can think of (how many actually push beyond having audience members just ask questions of some big-shot guest?).  In the six shows we have done in the Forum the audience segment has always been kind of a wild-card &#8212; not surprisingly, because an audience on any given night is a complete unknown.  So it&#8217;s hard to plan the show around it. As a result, we try stack the show with other strong content, while we maintain the audience involvement as a staple of the show whose formula we are still working on.  Seriously: We deeply value any constructive criticism on this.<br />
3a. One other thought: A lot of our interactivity happens on the front-end, in planning and discussing the show with our community.  This isn&#8217;t so evident in the Forum as the show tapes, but it&#8217;s very important.<br />
4. Hmmmm&#8230;..well, we think we&#8217;ve got a radio show on the way tonight, which is the top-line goal (for us, our listeners, and those bosses Jesse mentions).  And with luck, we&#8217;ve got many more to continue getting better (and, no doubt, return to variations on this kind of eternal technology-and-society theme). </p>
<p>Sorry for the length!  I had some time to kill while our assistant producer rolls the show into our system for the evening broadcast. But thanks again for both of you for joining us.  Love to hear from you any time and I&#8217;m happy to continue this discussion.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jesse Ross</title>
		<link>http://garrickvanburen.com/archive/garrick-is-in-the-loop/comment-page-1#comment-13236</link>
		<dc:creator>Jesse Ross</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 19 Jan 2007 22:51:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://garrickvanburen.com/archive/garrick-is-in-the-loop#comment-13236</guid>
		<description>I have to say, even though I thought it was fun, I don&#039;t completely disagree with your sentiments.

1. Totally agree here. I hadn&#039;t been before, but it did seem like a good representation.
2. Yeah, good point. Perhaps Apple&#039;s choice of distinctive white earbuds is to blame for them being an easy target ;)
3. I also think a true discussion would have been more interesting... but perhaps logistically a bit harder to have, due to the sheer number of people. Also, maybe that format would be a bit too far out from what is typically expected of a radio show (not a bad thing from my perspective, but could be harder to sell to the higher ups)?
4. Maybe in this case... but they take recommendations and suggestions, so let&#039;s push them to make it even &lt;em&gt;more&lt;/em&gt; interactive.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I have to say, even though I thought it was fun, I don&#8217;t completely disagree with your sentiments.</p>
<p>1. Totally agree here. I hadn&#8217;t been before, but it did seem like a good representation.<br />
2. Yeah, good point. Perhaps Apple&#8217;s choice of distinctive white earbuds is to blame for them being an easy target <img src='http://garrickvanburen.com/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_wink.gif' alt=';)' class='wp-smiley' /><br />
3. I also think a true discussion would have been more interesting&#8230; but perhaps logistically a bit harder to have, due to the sheer number of people. Also, maybe that format would be a bit too far out from what is typically expected of a radio show (not a bad thing from my perspective, but could be harder to sell to the higher ups)?<br />
4. Maybe in this case&#8230; but they take recommendations and suggestions, so let&#8217;s push them to make it even <em>more</em> interactive.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
