Just wanted to update you guys on a few things, starting with some bad news first and then some really good news.
THE BAD NEWS: I think my 3 year old cousin gave me her flu, which so far has been the strangest and most terrible flu I’ve ever had. Started off with zero upper-respiratory symptoms, no cough, no congestion, no sneezing, no sore throat, just a 102° fever and bad vibes. I haven’t been able to stay as active as I’d like for this reason and I wanted to let you guys know.
THE GOOD NEWS: My interview with Spotify’s legendary cofounder and CEO Daniel Ek will be coming out either this week or next (after final approval from Spotify). It was actually the first interview I’ve ever done via Zoom so you guys will have an audio option for the first time.
THREAD QUESTION:
Are audio-based interviews better than text-based? Audio/Zoom is more convenient for the interviewer, interviewee, the listener, and is more shareable and hearing a human voice is just more personal. But there are also some drawbacks which give written interviews the advantage like not allowing interviewer/interviewee much time to refine and really dial-in thoughts. Which is better?
Check out my latest interview with Chris Dixon if you haven’t already:
For the majority of interviews, I much prefer text based. When I particularly enjoy some aspect of the interviewee or subject, I might prefer audio interviews.
Perhaps a hybrid might be best, with most text based with a few audio or video highlights thrown in.
Also, I am hearing of people complaining of "the worst flu" ever after getting vaccinated.
I feel the amount of people doing high quality written interviews is much lower than the amount of people doing high quality audio interviews. I feel like I get more out of the written interviews than audio ones too. Allows me as a reader to actually follow what they are saying. I prefer written.
I like the idea of giving the interviewee a general sense of what they can expect in the interview before hand. This should allow them enough time to get their thoughts in order along with any research or other sources they may want to refer too. I think the alpha in share-ability and listening to audio at 1.5x speed is just too significant to miss.
I also appreciate your written interviews for the level of depth your interviewees tend to reach that I haven't seen in other podcast appearances they may have made. So a compromise here could be to record the written interview later, either with the guest or somebody else playing the guest's POV(weird, I know).
For the majority of interviews, I much prefer text based. When I particularly enjoy some aspect of the interviewee or subject, I might prefer audio interviews.
Perhaps a hybrid might be best, with most text based with a few audio or video highlights thrown in.
Also, I am hearing of people complaining of "the worst flu" ever after getting vaccinated.
I wonder...
I feel the amount of people doing high quality written interviews is much lower than the amount of people doing high quality audio interviews. I feel like I get more out of the written interviews than audio ones too. Allows me as a reader to actually follow what they are saying. I prefer written.
I like the idea of giving the interviewee a general sense of what they can expect in the interview before hand. This should allow them enough time to get their thoughts in order along with any research or other sources they may want to refer too. I think the alpha in share-ability and listening to audio at 1.5x speed is just too significant to miss.
I also appreciate your written interviews for the level of depth your interviewees tend to reach that I haven't seen in other podcast appearances they may have made. So a compromise here could be to record the written interview later, either with the guest or somebody else playing the guest's POV(weird, I know).