Demo Critiques are important for both the critiquee and the critiquer… but their purpose diminishes if they are not on the same page.
What form should a demo for a demo critique take?
A half-inning of play-by-play lasting seven to ten minutes.
What is the point of the demo critique?
A broadcaster sends out their demo in order to receive feedback on how they can improve on air. They then receive the feedback and put it to good use in their future broadcasts, thus becoming a better broadcaster. This is the ideal.
Broadcasting begins as a self-taught course, watching/listening to other broadcasters, trying it for oneself, feeling more comfortable with increased reps, and then turning to the demo critique to bring in a third party for guidance before returning to being a self-taught course through reps and self-critiquing, followed by another demo critique, and onward. Without either ingredient – the self-teaching or the observations from that third party – a broadcaster will find it difficult to master the craft. This, too, is the ideal.
But the ideal isn’t always how things go.
The Critiquee
The broadcaster sending out their demo may not feel secure about it. What needs to be done to get better? Does it sound good in the first place?
Broadcasters – let me speak for myself especially – are uncertain and distrusting of our voices. We may need the third-party ear to offer support just as much as a critique that this is a path we should be pursuing; we need to learn if we sound likable or fun or engaging or exciting. No one knows their own vocal DNA until it is pointed out to them.
The critiquee therefore is encouraged to ask for specifics within a demo critique. How do they come across? Here’s what they’re working on, how does it sound? What are two things that can be improved?
If those specifics are not asked for, the critiquer has carte blanche – and it does not serve a critiquee well to receive an avalanche of feedback.
The Critiquer
A critique tells you as much, or more, about the critiquer than the critiquee. A demo critiquer will hear what they value on air, what they focus on within their own broadcast, and what other critiquers have told them to work on during their own past demo critiques. When I critique, for instance, I listen for how the voice is used, and then I listen for words and spacing and energy and stories and enjoyment.
Because of this inherent listening bias on the part of the critiquer, it’s vital for the broadcaster seeking the demo critique to reach out to multiple broadcasters with different strengths and focuses.
The critiquee can also learn what kind of time the critiquer spent with your tape. Did they listen once, or multiple times? Are their notes for improvement based around trivial nitpicks or real things that can be worked on and improved? What form did their critique take, email or phone call? Ask: How busy are they? How many critiques are they doing? The more critiques a broadcaster gives, the harder it becomes to spend individual time on each.
All of this matters because a demo critique’s second, larger purpose is to build a relationship between the critiquee and the critiquer.
Once feedback has been given and received, the critiquee should gauge whether the critiquer would be open to continue to hear from them. If so, another demo a year later should be sent showing that the critiquee had listened to the feedback, put it into use, and now how did things sound? This is how a crucial relationship for the critiquee forms, putting a dual advocate in their corner: an advisor in the craft and a reference in job-seeking.
So what is the point of the demo critique?
Direction and support. A thoughtful critique reassures the critiquee that they are on the right path, points the critiquee in the right direction, and begins a relationship to give them guidance now and guidance in the future.
To the critiquee: Help the critiquer understand what you need.
To the critiquer: In more ways than one, listen.
This was first written by Jesse Goldberg-Strassler as a LinkedIn article on February 7, 2024.
Leave a Reply