Hacker News Reader

Comment by jstx1 | Hacker News Reader

More specifically - what does he do to get the guests that he's had?

I'm not buying explanations like (1) people just like him, and (2) having been at MIT helps with connections - he's had way too many people at the top of various fields, and way too many billionaires and CEOs to be explained by either of these statements. You could argue that at some point you have a positive feedback loop where the calibre of past guests makes new guests more willing to be on the podcast, but I don't think this it either since he's had many high profile guests from the start.

View on HN

I'd bet it's a combination of these things. I know a few people with moderately successful podcasts, and the core thing is this: getting prominent people on your podcast is easier than most people on the outside expect, and harder than most people seeking guests expect.

Prominent people generally like getting their ideas out there, and having a 30-120 minute conversation is a relatively scalable way to do that. Sure, they get asked by a lot of people, but that's where the other points come in.

Let's take prominent guest X. They might get 100 podcast interview requests a month. They might do 1-2 podcast appearances per month (average, most guests cluster their appearances for PR purposes). From the very start, Lex, through his MIT stature, first and second second-degree connections, etc. would very likely be in the top 2% of the 100 people asking; most people asking are some combination of no audience, not targeted in their ask, abrasive, etc. If you're in the top 2% of 100 requests, and they fulfill 2 requests per month - you're looking pretty good. Throw in an element of "luck" in the first few guests if you'd like.

That's just getting started. Once the flywheel starts, it's easy.

Also, targeting prominent people no one has heard of is a good strategy, everyone knows elon musk, jeff bezos etc... but what about that prominent AI researcher that no one has heard of? I'm sure they aren't getting too many interview requests, so its a great way to get those kinds of peoples ideas heard and you get the have a prominent guest even if the guest isn't well known in mainstream culture.

I mean i think he used his MIT connections sure but Lex strikes me as the kind of guy that isn't afraid to email some high profile guy asking what he wants, and his personality is so "positive vibes", "earth, humanity, learning", that guests aren't scared off that they are going to be put under the gun.

He was on Joe Rogan's podcast way back when, talking about AI and the other things Rogan finds generally interesting. If you'll note the history of Rogan's rise in podcasting popularity, it is that he has on people he likes and finds interesting and they just shoot the breeze for three hours. So of course they talked about AI, his experience with communism, etc. Once you're on Rogan's show you've basically cemented your own following.

Yep, that's where the popularity comes from. The entire Joe Rogan/BJJ/UFC movement/lifestyle and the for-male type of content like with Jordan Peterson has really got a huge following among men at least. I haven't listened to Lex, but I do partake in the rest.

It’s kind of funny. Joe Rogan’s show launched a number of careers. Almost like the release of a new iPhone created a lot of ecosystem products.

Lex somehow made it onto the show with what was the Artificial Intelligence podcast back in the day where he was talking to professors at MIT among others. After going on JRE he was able to land higher profile guests, and from there things just snowball.

He seems like a nice guy. I’ve been more picky about podcasts I listen to on road trips or walks and I really like the guests he brings on, though I don’t think he is a world-class interviewer or anything. That’s ok with me. Not everyone/everything has to be the best ever to be enjoyed.

If Lex was reading this I’d offer some advice that, as he puts it, comes from a place of love. Monitor using the same strategies for your guests. “Can you steelman that” “just to play devil’s advocate” etc. and instead perhaps put forth the actual arguments and don’t be intimidated by your guests and their expertise. That’s one of the things that makes Rogan a great interviewer if you ask me.

Also I really, really wish a popular podcast personality like Lex, Joe, Tim Ferris, etc. would interview Chuck Marohn from Strong Towns. If you are reading this I promise that will be one of your best interviews ever, and it’ll do a lot of good raising awareness for a gigantic (perhaps the largest) problem we have in America.

I'm with you here. He genuinely seems like a nice guy. There's never a "gotcha" moment. He acts like he's interested in the topic and person above all else. I'm okay with the rambling tangents and never closing the loop on certain topics because in the end he gives the interviewee as much room as they need/want to finish that out themselves. Many do (the more articulate ones do) but some don't.

That's probably at least somewhat accurate. It's probably also the case that even if you or your podcast aren't exceptionally well known, you'd probably be surprised how open people are to giving an interview if you just ask them. For a lot of "Internet famous" people, a lot of their job is being a public face.

That said, I agree with you generally. I found a lot of the interviews sort of rambly and, while I can perhaps be persuaded that an hour isn't too long for an interview/discussion with someone interesting, anything longer is definitely too much. There's a reason why most professionally produced podcasts don't go longer than about an hour and are typically broken into segments--yes, that's partly about advertising these days but it's also the general format even absent advertising.

Hard disagree about the hour length. Sometimes the interviews drag on with nothing to show for, but other times I don’t want the interview to end. I think the unique success of his (and Rogan’s) podcast shows that there is an audience for this format.

>I think the unique success of his (and Rogan’s) podcast shows that there is an audience for this format.

Clearly there is. I just don't personally really have the patience for it--especially when it's hit or miss.

Yeah I get that, but I usually listen to his podcast when I'm working in the garage or something, so I don't mind periods of less-than-interesting conversation. Though at the end of the day, there are enough gems in his conversations that keep me listening.

A lot of that format is because _this is the way we've always done it_. Some of it is (as you say later in the thread chain) hit or miss, but to me there's enough gold in it to justify. It really depends on your required level of entertainment.

Being on Rogan probably helped him get more viewers but I don't think it has the same kind of effect on potential guests who are considering whether to come on Lex's podcast.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com