Do I Need To Be More Of An A-Hole, Like This Commenter Wants Me To Be?
on Feb 3, 2010 - 7:39 AM PSTThis is part of the behind-the-scenes section of Mixergy, which I call etc.
The comment
Dusklight on Hacker News has this feedback after watching my interview with Alex of WhitePages.
But you gotta decide once and for all, are you going to be an asshole or not? Because I can see your frustration when you catch your interviewees in a lie or manipulation of the truth, and you let them get away with so much because you want to be nice. Go for the kill!
My response
Thanks for this comment. I understand your frustration.
I decided a long time ago that I wasn’t going to be asshole, even though I know that would make more people pay attention to me.
It’s not that I mind being hated. I actually like being a prick sometimes. The problem is that it hurts the quality of my work and mission.
Because I want to give you an honest view of what entrepreneurship is really like — and not feed you the rah-rah, “7 steps to easy success,” motivational speaker version of reality — I need my interviewees to open up.
I need them to feel safe enough to shed the superman image they project to the world and admit that sometimes they don’t know what the fuck they’re doing. To talk about the times they wanted to quit. And the times they were so depressed that they wanted to give up.
Because if I could deliver that openness to you, in your worst moments, you won’t compare yourself to the supermen and wonder why you’re not like them. You’ll remember that even the people you admire are flawed. And instead of comparing yourself to the PR image that they project, you might ask, “What did those guys do to get past their rough times? How did they make it?”
And at that point, all the tactics that I ask my interviewees about will come in handy.
But let’s get back to your frustration, because I think you bring up a good point. Sometimes, entrepreneurs try to evade or mislead me, and if I’m too wishy-washy when they do, then Mixergy will become nothing more than a place to for entrepreneurs to pimp the PR version of their stories.
If I attack them O’Reilly-style when they do that, they’ll only dig in their heels, or lie.
I think the better approach is more nuanced. I think it means accepting that some business information should be private. I think it means constantly improving my research so I can respond better when I’m being misdirected and drive the conversation more intelligently.
And I think it means that sometimes, when my guest gives a lame answer, hanging back so that my smart audience can see how lame it was.
Your turn
I’m not going to pretend that I know everything about interviewing. If you’ve heard my work, you got to experience my interviews from a perspective that I’ll never have. So if you have any feedback, hit me with it.
View Comments to “Do I Need To Be More Of An A-Hole, Like This Commenter Wants Me To Be?”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
February 3rd, 2010 at 10:36 am
You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar. If you become an asshole a lot of entrepreneurs who have nothing to gain by being on the show won't do interviews. Not everyone enjoys being grilled O'Reilly style. A nuanced approach is the best, it allows you to level with the interviewee and get to the topic at hand. It's the quality of the work after all that you're after, not showboating and controversy.
February 3rd, 2010 at 10:36 am
Andrew, I've seen a couple interviews by you, most recently I watched the one with Gary Vaynerchuk. I've seen a TON of GV's content/talks/interviews (because I'm a huge fan of Gary), but your interview was actually the MOST insightful for me. I like you broke down his career ascension and success DNA–even drilling into how he met his wife. Everyone has a style, I think you've found yours.
February 3rd, 2010 at 10:45 am
Have you ever seen Charlie Rose behaving that way? I don't see any benefit in behaving like an asshole. Just continue being persistent and asking tough questions. I don't think you need to act like a douche to get good responses…
February 3rd, 2010 at 10:47 am
There's always other ways to get what you want from someone without being an a**hole. You have to master in the art of convincing someone that you are their friend and that they should trust you. See some good points posted here: http://www.wikihow.com/Make-Someone-Tell-the-Truth
Being an a**hole takes you so far in life; financially, emotionally and otherwise. But you'll eventually find yourself face to face with a speeding train. Once that thing hits you- you'll become “do you remember when Andrew used to be the best in…” You get my grip.
February 3rd, 2010 at 10:50 am
Andrew,
I think you do ask the right questions (the ones we all want the answers to), and I have seen you push a guest to get a more detailed answer, but if you start being a jerk, you'll have tough time getting any guests. I've seen some of your guests try to feed us BS and we can see right thru it.
Keep doing what you're doing, keep getting the interesting guests, and the BS will filter itself out.
February 3rd, 2010 at 10:58 am
I'm not sure about the more nuanced approach is the way to go. I listen to your interviews for two reasons, first it feels authentic and the valuable information, insights, and inspiration I get from each and every one of them. Even the ones initially that don't seem that interesting to me. I also share some of the good ones that I believe people in my team or around me will find great value and insight.
Only thing that sometimes makes me laugh is when you kind of get a little… not sure on the word, maybe dorky if I can use that. It's not a bad thing, more on how it comes across. When you click with the person you interview it doesn't really detract from the interview, but when you don't you can feel the tension and takes away from the message, entertainment value, and flow of the interview.
The true test is your podcasts are one of the few that will stay on my Iphone until I listen.
February 3rd, 2010 at 10:59 am
No need to be a jerk. The trouble with that method is that it quickly becomes your only weapon for getting attention.
Being a jerk is easy – it's the lazy way to get attention.
Getting attention with great content is hard, but the payoff is so much better.
February 3rd, 2010 at 11:16 am
Stay the course buddy. Life is always about balance. Your questions and comments are well researched, well presented and in many cases pointed. You are conducting interviews not interrogations. Love your stuff. I'm not listening to watch a fight, I'm listening to learn. And I have learned much.
February 3rd, 2010 at 11:23 am
I know you said the twitpic interview was your most complimented work, and it was great, but I believe your best work and most illustrative piece that gets at the heart of your answer to Dusklight on Hacker News is in your interview with Chandrasekar Rathakrishnan regarding the CrunchPad / JooJoo.
Excerpt below from the transcript of the JooJoo Crunchpad interview with Chandrasekar Rathakrishnan
http://mixergy.com/joojoo-crunchpad-chandraseka…
=====
Andrew: Okay, so, one of his guys, or a couple of guys flew out to see you guys at your office and to help work out with the, help work on this pad, right?
Interviewee: His guys did come to Singapore. But they did not help with anything that you see right now. I mean, there wasn't a single line of source, there wasn't a single line of source code that was contributed by them. None of the design work done by them. Is it, is it very unusual to think that when people want to acquire companies they, they fly people out to do due diligence. It's like, it's like someone saying, you know, “Yahoo and Microsoft are in acquisition discussion. But because these discussions fell through, everything that Yahoo owns belongs to Microsoft.” I mean, it's as ludicrous as that.
Andrew: I see, but, but it was called the CrunchPad. It was his idea at the time. He did send people out there to, to talk to you about it. He was saying, just as your quoting his blog where he gives you guys a lot of credit, we can also find lots of quotes on, on TechCrunch where he talked about his contribution to, to the pad. Where he talked about his design. Where he talked about like it was his baby.
Interviewee: So, every, I think there are 10 maybe 100s people with the same ideas across the globe. It's about who does it right.
Andrew: But not that many with, with employees at your office and whose, and whose offices your guys go into. So there was, there was more, you're saying that it wasn't a collaboration where they contributed code and they contributed design and they contributed hardware. It was them at your office doing what? And I'm not accusing you, I'm, honestly I'm here just to try to learn as much as possible about this deal.
Interviewee: Yeah. I, I, I know you're not accusing me. But, I guess, I can claim to say, I can claim X number of things. The truth is out there and we will deal with this in the courts to show why, why, why we say we own all the IPs and such. I, all I can is, I think in any acquisition discussion it's normal for people to meet out in the offices and to continue discussion. It doesn't mean people sit down and work together.
Andrew: So, can you give us just a sense of what it was like to have them in the office? What it was like to, what kind of input they gave you?
Interviewee: I repeat again. There was no inputs. We did everything. The guys were just there for acquisition discussions and they didn't spend more than a day in the office. So.
Andrew: Really! So, months they were in Singapore but they didn't spend more than one day at the office.
Interviewee: Yeah.
=====
That final response, yeah is a great example of your nuanced approach in action. You had great research, you kept pushing and finally you hung back when it was apparent you were getting a lame answer and your audience could see through it.
February 3rd, 2010 at 11:37 am
I worked for Dale Carnegie for a long time because I loved the book How To Win Friends and Influence People. I think my attitude is in line with that program. Thanks.
February 3rd, 2010 at 11:38 am
Thanks. A 1 hour interview can often take me at least an hour of research. It pays off.
To get better, I need to find new ways to research because not everyone's data is online the way Gary's is.
February 3rd, 2010 at 11:39 am
I agree. I only doubt it when I think about how much bigger O'Reilly's audience is that Rose's. Still, I know which attitude feels better to me. I'll find another way to grow.
February 3rd, 2010 at 11:40 am
Good point. Those skills are harder to master than the more forceful ones, but I think they get better results.
February 3rd, 2010 at 11:41 am
Thanks. A live audience helps too. So do comments under each post. It's harder to lie when you know there's a big audience out there that can call you out.
February 3rd, 2010 at 11:42 am
Thanks. I'd use the word 'dorky' too.
I sometimes test my interview style to see if I can try new things. It doesn't always work out well.
I'm thinking of doing some side interviews where I could experiment more openly and work out the dorky kinks in (semi)private.
February 3rd, 2010 at 11:43 am
It really does work though.
Look at Tim Sykes. I'm getting lots of love notes about him by email because of his attitude. (Not sure why they don't email Tim, by the way. He'd love it.)
February 3rd, 2010 at 12:01 pm
You can go downmarket if you just want more uniques/viewers… But that's a slippery slope toward cute cat videos and porn. The value of mixergy is the high quality guests and interview subject matter…
February 3rd, 2010 at 12:11 pm
I think you've been doing a good Job Andrew. You've shown that you're not afraid to ask tough questions and that's all you really can do. I was actually telling a couple people last night that the reason I find so much value in your interviews is because you ask those tough questions, and you get responses that I can relate to. The superman analogy is right on.
You can't force them to share things that they don't want to. Keep up the critical questions and I'll continue to find great value in what you do.
February 3rd, 2010 at 12:59 pm
Andrew: You wrote:
“…I need [guests] to feel safe enough to shed the superman image they project to the world and admit that sometimes they don't know what the fuck they're doing…”
There are a growing number of “interview the successful guy” shows cropping up, (I pretty much watch all of them). Your statement (quoted above) sums up what makes your show and interview style unique in this genre. “Bouncing back from failure” is a pretty consistent theme of your interviews, a really *really* important part of business, and something that isn't discussed in depth enough! (where's the glamor in that?!) That you are always maintain a professional and respectful tone kind of forces guests to answer even the uncomfortable questions. One of the reasons I like your interviews is that you can push your guests to back up their comments without getting in their face. Merrick's mention of the Chandrasekar Rathakrishnan interview is the perfect example of how this works for you.
To be an a-hole certainly makes good video and YouTube clips, and there's certainly an audience for that. As a viewer, if I wanted to see people getting yelled at, there's 20 shows I can watch for that. Then there are the people who want to learn something. You know who your audience is- just keep doing what you're doing!
February 3rd, 2010 at 4:39 pm
Well said, Andrew.
As Anton stated, “You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar.” Your personality plays a huge role on the impact of your interviews. So don't be an ass! :)
February 4th, 2010 at 1:22 pm
“Go for the kill!” In spite of the fact that it's funny, I don't think you would get more meat from your guest's answers.
It has been said before I bet, but you get roughly two types of guests on here: the guy who's there to promote his next venture and the entrepreneur who tells it like it is (like Sean Percival).
From what I've learned in my psychiatric interview classes, stressing parts of a question with pauses and proper intonation is crucial, which you do. (I actually prepped myself by listening to Mixergy).
Maybe you could use a little more sarcastic jokes.
February 5th, 2010 at 6:57 am
Thanks. Great to hear it.
February 5th, 2010 at 6:59 am
Thank you. That interview required a different set of skills than my previous ones.
Jack Benny had a way of using a pause to crack up his audience. Maybe I need to learn to use a pause as a way of letting an interviewee's point sink in.
February 5th, 2010 at 7:04 am
Thanks David. I'm glad you pointed out that superman reference. I remembered it when I did the interview that I'll post later today.
February 5th, 2010 at 7:09 am
You're right. I see those interviews a lot.
I need to remember that asking my guests to be more open and admit the hard stuff is what will make my work stand out.
February 5th, 2010 at 7:13 am
I used to watch TV shows about business and see these successful guys rip into their employees and friends and competitors and everyone. Watching that made me think that the only way to succeed in business was to be a prick.
So I cultivated that part of my personality. Then, in my first real job @ Bear Sterns, I noticed that the reality was the opposite. The guys who made the sales had incredible people skills.
So I went to Dale Carnegie and learned how to win friends.
Sorry for the long comment, but my point is that the showmen are often selling a lie about what it takes to build a business. They put on a good show, but they teach a counter-productive message.
February 5th, 2010 at 7:15 am
Thanks buddy. I've been wondering if my Charlie Rose-like style isn't motivating enough. Glad to hear it is. And I'll keep working on ways to communicate the enthusiasm and passion behind what each guest built.
February 5th, 2010 at 1:57 pm
Thanks. Great to hear it.
February 5th, 2010 at 1:59 pm
Thank you. That interview required a different set of skills than my previous ones.
Jack Benny had a way of using a pause to crack up his audience. Maybe I need to learn to use a pause as a way of letting an interviewee's point sink in.
February 5th, 2010 at 2:04 pm
Thanks David. I'm glad you pointed out that superman reference. I remembered it when I did the interview that I'll post later today.
February 5th, 2010 at 2:09 pm
You're right. I see those interviews a lot.
I need to remember that asking my guests to be more open and admit the hard stuff is what will make my work stand out.
February 5th, 2010 at 2:13 pm
I used to watch TV shows about business and see these successful guys rip into their employees and friends and competitors and everyone. Watching that made me think that the only way to succeed in business was to be a prick.
So I cultivated that part of my personality. Then, in my first real job @ Bear Sterns, I noticed that the reality was the opposite. The guys who made the sales had incredible people skills.
So I went to Dale Carnegie and learned how to win friends.
Sorry for the long comment, but my point is that the showmen are often selling a lie about what it takes to build a business. They put on a good show, but they teach a counter-productive message.
February 5th, 2010 at 2:15 pm
Thanks buddy. I've been wondering if my Charlie Rose-like style isn't motivating enough. Glad to hear it is. And I'll keep working on ways to communicate the enthusiasm and passion behind what each guest built.