Ask the Podcast Coach: After Further Review | Testing Channels, Asking Better Questions, and Rethinking Price
Back from Brazil and back behind the microphone, I had a few takes worth another look on Ask the Podcast Coach episode 599, “Trick or Threat: Keeping Your Podcast and Website Safe This Halloween,” published October 31, 2026.
After the microphones are off, I like to go back to the tape. After Further Review is where I revisit my own comments and decide what I’d add, clarify, or change.
This week, three plays stood out: deciding whether social media is worth the effort, asking listeners for useful feedback, and knowing when to change your prices.
[20:37] | Test the Channel Before You Write It Off
The Call on the Field
“You test it for you.”
We were discussing whether social media still helps podcasts grow. I pushed back on the idea that there’s a universal answer. I pointed to the value I continue to see through my work at Gallup and on LinkedIn, including engagement around my recent trip.
Under Review
I stand by the need to try things with your own audience. Someone else’s disappointing experience on Facebook doesn’t tell me what my listeners will do on LinkedIn. My success with a work-related post doesn’t tell another podcaster what will happen with their show.
But I also used phrases like “doing really well” and “finding value.” Those need a little more definition. A post can start a good conversation without bringing anyone to the podcast. That conversation may be worthwhile. It just doesn’t establish that the show grew.
After Further Review
Before I test a channel, I need to decide what I’m asking it to do.
For a podcast article, I might want someone to visit the website and read it. For an episode clip, I might want someone to continue to the full conversation. For a post about a Gallup event, a useful outcome might be a conversation with someone I met there. Each can have value, but I shouldn’t use one as evidence of another.
That matters for my own work at The Average Guy. If I share an article and it gets likes, I know people reacted to the post. If a tracked link brings someone to the site, I know the post produced a visit. I still don’t know whether that person listened, subscribed, or bought something through an affiliate link.
I’d also put a boundary around my advice to keep working at a channel. “Give it time” can become an excuse to keep doing something indefinitely. A useful test needs an effort I can sustain and a point when I’ll look at the results.
For example, I could give one channel several weeks of consistent posts pointing to useful articles, then compare the visits and conversations with the time I spent. Posting whenever I remember and checking whichever number looks encouraging doesn’t tell me much.
My recent travel posts reminded me that relationships already built on a platform matter. I can’t separate that history from the response and hand someone else a recipe that says, “Post this and get the same result.”
Test it for you still works. I’d just add: decide what a useful result looks like before the numbers arrive.
The Ruling on the Field
Call stands, with a clearer measurement. Give the channel a fair test, define the outcome, and keep engagement, website visits, and listener growth separate.
[29:00] | Ask Questions You Can Do Something With
The Call on the Field
“Make sure they’re good actionable questions.”
During the audience-survey discussion, I said I’d ask myself whether I had the resources, time, or ability to act on the answer.
Under Review
I work with communities, and I made clear on the show that I’m not a survey researcher. My advice came from asking people for feedback and then having to decide what to do with it.
When listeners take time to answer, I think I owe them some thought about the response. That doesn’t mean every suggestion becomes a change. It means I should know why I asked.
I mentioned liking a survey of around 10 questions, possibly 10 to 15. After further review, I wouldn’t start with a number. I’d start with the decision.
After Further Review
Suppose I’m considering more Home Gadget Geeks articles that explain how to do something we discussed on the show.
I could ask, “Would you like more content?” I suspect plenty of people would say yes. That still leaves me with almost every decision I had before I asked.
A more useful question would be, “What have we discussed recently that you wanted to try but didn’t know how to get started?” Now I might learn where the conversation left someone needing help. I could use that answer to choose an article, ask a guest a better follow-up question, or add a resource to the show notes.
I’d also soften something I said later in the discussion: that people don’t respond because they aren’t engaged. That was too broad. Someone can listen every week and still miss the request, open it at a bad time, or decide the survey looks like too much work. Later in the conversation, I acknowledged that a bad experience with the previous survey can affect whether someone opens the next one.
Before I judge the audience, I need to check the invitation and the experience. I should explain what the feedback will help me decide, test the link on a phone, and make sure completing the survey takes a reasonable amount of time.
The response-rate percentages I mentioned live also shouldn’t become a grading scale for someone else’s podcast. Without a clear count of who received the invitation and a comparable way of asking, the percentage can be misleading. Downloads don’t tell me how many people actually heard a survey request.
Finally, I need to close the loop. If listeners tell me something useful, I can explain what I changed because of it. If I keep the existing format, I can acknowledge the feedback and explain that choice too.
Listening doesn’t require surrendering the direction of the show. It does require doing something more thoughtful than collecting answers and forgetting them.
The Ruling on the Field
Call confirmed on actionable questions; the engagement shortcut is overturned. Ask about a real decision, make responding easy, and explain what happened with the feedback.
[49:59] | An Empty Calendar Doesn’t Automatically Mean Your Price Is Wrong
The Call on the Field
“If you’re too busy, you need to charge more.”
We were talking about creators underselling their work. I tied pricing to demand: when you have more work than you can handle, consider charging more. When you have capacity, I suggested discounting to bring in business.
Under Review
I was trying to get away from an abstract argument about what someone is “worth” and look at what their business can actually deliver.
For someone selling their own time, capacity matters. A calendar full of appointments can look successful while leaving no room to prepare, improve the service, or handle the rest of the business.
But the second half of my advice was too automatic. Being less busy than I want doesn’t establish that the price is the problem.
After Further Review
If people aren’t buying, I’d want to know where the conversation is stopping before I lower the price.
Maybe the right people haven’t seen the offer. Maybe they’ve seen it but can’t tell what they’ll get. Maybe they understand it and don’t need it right now. A discount doesn’t necessarily fix any of those things.
Suppose a podcaster is offering an episode review. “An hour of consulting” tells someone how long the appointment lasts. “A review of your opening, pacing, and listener experience, followed by three changes to try in your next episode” gives them a clearer idea of what they’re buying. I’d want that clarity before deciding the fee is too high.
If I were fully booked, I’d still look at what was filling the calendar. Revisions and administration I didn’t account for can eat up the week. So can promising more access than the price supports. I’d want to understand that workload before assuming demand alone explained it.
Raising prices may help. Changing the scope or limiting availability may be necessary too. A higher fee doesn’t create more hours in the week.
I’d keep the idea of a limited introductory offer, provided the terms are clear. There can be a good reason to charge less while trying a new service or filling a specific opening. I’d want the customer to know what the offer includes, when it ends, and what future work would cost.
When I say what something “normally” costs, that needs to be a real price I can explain. Any introductory discount should have a clear reason and an end.
The bigger correction is to my wording about a person’s value. What a customer will pay for a particular service tells me something about that offer, that customer, and that moment. It doesn’t measure the person providing it.
The Ruling on the Field
Call stands on considering price when demand exceeds capacity; the automatic discount is overturned. Check the offer, the audience, and the workload before changing the number.
Final Whistle
Reviewing these three comments, I’m reminded how easy it is to turn a useful observation into a rule that’s too broad.
A social post gets attention, and I want to call it growth. A survey gets few responses, and I want to judge engagement. A calendar has openings, and I want to change the price. Each deserves another look before I decide what happened.
That’s why I like reviewing my own tape. Sometimes the original call holds up. Sometimes I need to say it better.
You can hear the full conversations in Ask the Podcast Coach episode 599, “Trick or Threat: Keeping Your Podcast and Website Safe This Halloween.”
For the previous edition, read After Further Review: Knowing When to Adapt, Walk Away, and Try Something New.
