I posted my opinions on the widely-applied “formula” of using eye candy as a front for a show earlier this month, but that’s actually different from what you’re talking about.

Briefly, I think the only two ways a wrapped-UGC show would be popular is if a) they had an amazing curator scouring the internet for the latest, greatest and “up-to-datest” or the host/ess had so much of a following that people would watch the show if there were no content at all other than that person standing there, speaking.

Also, doing UGC-based shows leaves one vulnerable to sustainability issues, should there be a submission drought or mass exodus of fans, such as might happen when “the face of the show” leaves the show.

Again, I would point at ThreadBanger, because they CAN do their shows just off of Rob & Corinne’s skillz as on-air talent, producers and editors, but they add in UGC to increase the interactive experience for their viewers. Therefore, their viewers become a valuable PART of the show instead of the ENTIRE show.

A good friend of ours (whose initials are HH) once told a guy at a conference who was trying to pitch a “solution” for monetizing podcasts “why dont you start by making good sh*t?”

Wondering how you feel about companies that try to “wrap” their UGC around strong branding (titles, a host doing intros, etc.) to make it look more polished or professional?