Remember Van Halen's famous "no brown M&Ms" rider clause? It wasn't because they were divas - it was a genius test to make sure venues actually read their contract. I've borrowed this concept to create my own screening system for podcast guest pitches.
With 4-8 pitches hitting my inbox daily (and most being AI-generated garbage), I needed a better way to separate serious guests from spray-and-pray agencies. In this episode, I share the exact screening question I use that instantly reveals whether someone actually researched my show or just copy-pasted a ChatGPT template.
I'll also share some real examples of terrible pitches I've received (spoiler: one agency sent me the SAME pitch twice for different shows), plus the simple criteria that save me hours each week in pitch evaluation.
What you'll learn:
- Why Van Halen's M&Ms clause was brilliant (and life-saving)
- My specific screening question that AI can't fake
- Real examples of hilariously bad AI-generated pitches
- The exact criteria I give to agencies to stop wasting my time
- How this system helped me find amazing guests like Jackie Schiff and Elizabeth Howell
What's your "Brown M&Ms test"? Share it at streamlinedfeedback.com
--
About Streamlined Podcaster: This is the show for solo podcasters who love their podcast but hate how much time it takes. Each week, host Joe Casabona shares the systems, workflows, and podcast automation that let you run a great show without burning out.
Joe has been a solo podcaster for 15+ years and helps solopreneurs replace manual tasks with reliable systems so they can take time off worry-free. He knows firsthand what it takes to produce a quality show solo — and he's here to help you do the same.
Get Joe's favorite podcasting tools: https://streamlinedpodcaster.com/tools
Connect with Joe on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/jcasabona/
00:00:00 --> 00:00:05 Perhaps you've heard this story from the 1980s.
00:00:05 --> 00:00:10 It's about Van Halen. While on tour, the rock
00:00:10 --> 00:00:13 band Van Halen included an interesting line item
00:00:13 --> 00:00:17 in their rider. Now, if you don't know, a rider
00:00:17 --> 00:00:21 is basically a contract for a stage performance
00:00:21 --> 00:00:25 and it includes everything from where the band
00:00:25 --> 00:00:27 wants to stay, accommodations and things like
00:00:27 --> 00:00:31 that. to how they want the stage set up and designed
00:00:31 --> 00:00:36 to what they want in their green room or dressing
00:00:36 --> 00:00:40 room. And so this was a line item for something
00:00:40 --> 00:00:45 they wanted in their dressing room. M &M's warning,
00:00:46 --> 00:00:49 absolutely no brown ones. And this was in all
00:00:49 --> 00:00:53 caps. So again, M &M's warning, absolutely no
00:00:53 --> 00:00:58 brown ones. It's not that they hated brown M
00:00:58 --> 00:01:02 &Ms. After all, all M &Ms taste the same, right?
00:01:02 --> 00:01:06 The color of the M &M doesn't affect the flavor.
00:01:07 --> 00:01:11 Or that they were divas. They weren't divas.
00:01:12 --> 00:01:15 As David Lee Roth explained in his autobiography,
00:01:16 --> 00:01:19 Crazy from the Heat, they had a lot of important
00:01:19 --> 00:01:24 safety clauses in the rider as well. Van Halen's
00:01:24 --> 00:01:27 show was one of the first highly technical shows
00:01:27 --> 00:01:32 in the industry and a lot could go wrong. The
00:01:32 --> 00:01:37 M &M's clause made sure a venue read the entire
00:01:37 --> 00:01:42 writer. So here is an excerpt from David Lee
00:01:42 --> 00:01:45 Roth's book, and I'm just going to read it verbatim.
00:01:47 --> 00:01:50 So when I would walk backstage, if I saw a brown
00:01:50 --> 00:01:54 M &M in that bowl, well, line check the entire
00:01:54 --> 00:01:57 production. Guaranteed you're going to arrive
00:01:57 --> 00:02:01 at a technical error. They didn't read the contract.
00:02:02 --> 00:02:06 Guaranteed you'd run into a problem. Sometimes
00:02:06 --> 00:02:09 it would threaten to just destroy the whole show.
00:02:09 --> 00:02:14 Something like literally life -threatening. This
00:02:14 --> 00:02:16 is a pretty great test. After all, like they
00:02:16 --> 00:02:21 had pyrotechnics and rope work and the flyer
00:02:21 --> 00:02:24 thing that I forget the name of and harnesses
00:02:24 --> 00:02:29 and stuff. And if a venue couldn't even do something
00:02:29 --> 00:02:35 as secure M &Ms minus the brown ones, what gave
00:02:35 --> 00:02:37 them confidence that they did the pyrotechnics
00:02:37 --> 00:02:41 the right way? So anyway, I think this is a really
00:02:41 --> 00:02:43 great test and I've decided to implement it for
00:02:43 --> 00:02:47 my podcast guest pitches. As you know from a
00:02:47 --> 00:02:50 previous episode or any of the million times
00:02:50 --> 00:02:54 I've written about it, podcast pitches are getting
00:02:54 --> 00:02:59 worse. AI is making them so much worse. Shockingly,
00:03:00 --> 00:03:02 despite my best efforts, this hasn't gotten through
00:03:02 --> 00:03:06 to the biggest offenders, guest pitching agencies.
00:03:07 --> 00:03:11 In the intervening time since I wrote my article
00:03:11 --> 00:03:14 about AI making podcast guest pitches work, again,
00:03:14 --> 00:03:17 this was like June 2024, And now when I'm recording
00:03:17 --> 00:03:22 this in July 2025, they have seemed to degrade
00:03:22 --> 00:03:26 even more following this all too common format.
00:03:27 --> 00:03:30 Hey, Joe, I loved your recent episode about and
00:03:30 --> 00:03:33 then completely AI generated summary. It reminded
00:03:33 --> 00:03:38 me of client name who something that may or may
00:03:38 --> 00:03:40 not be related to episode. So if you can't tell
00:03:40 --> 00:03:42 what the fill in the blanks were, I'll link the
00:03:42 --> 00:03:48 article. And then just more AI slop. And I've
00:03:48 --> 00:03:50 attached their one sheet. When can we get them
00:03:50 --> 00:03:53 on the show? Looking forward to hearing from
00:03:53 --> 00:03:57 you. And if you're wondering if this is just
00:03:57 --> 00:04:00 like an overgeneralization of the pitches I'm
00:04:00 --> 00:04:03 getting, here is a real... I'll read it verbatim.
00:04:04 --> 00:04:08 I will... I'll censor the client information
00:04:08 --> 00:04:09 because it's not their fault. I mean, I guess
00:04:09 --> 00:04:11 it's their fault they've hired a crappy agency,
00:04:11 --> 00:04:14 but they... Probably don't know this. This is
00:04:14 --> 00:04:17 a real one I've gotten twice from the same person.
00:04:18 --> 00:04:21 Hi Joe, I just listened to your episode Automate
00:04:21 --> 00:04:23 to Build Relationships and couldn't agree more
00:04:23 --> 00:04:26 with your message about using automation thoughtfully.
00:04:27 --> 00:04:29 Your point about not automating away humanity
00:04:29 --> 00:04:32 really resonated with me, especially when you
00:04:32 --> 00:04:35 emphasized that relationship building isn't a
00:04:35 --> 00:04:38 numbers game. I'm reaching out because I have
00:04:38 --> 00:04:40 a guest who I believe would be perfect for your
00:04:40 --> 00:04:43 show. especially given your recent discussion
00:04:43 --> 00:04:46 about the right way to approach automation. Known
00:04:46 --> 00:04:53 as the is the founder of and has made it his
00:04:53 --> 00:04:57 mission to help entrepreneurs automate with purpose,
00:04:57 --> 00:05:01 not just for the sake of automation. I'm going
00:05:01 --> 00:05:06 to tell you again, I got this pitch twice, two
00:05:06 --> 00:05:09 different times because I have two different
00:05:09 --> 00:05:14 shows. and I'm sharing it because it's so blatantly
00:05:14 --> 00:05:16 obvious that they didn't listen to the episode
00:05:16 --> 00:05:19 which was, by the way, less than three minutes
00:05:19 --> 00:05:23 long. That's right, it was a voice note. Now,
00:05:23 --> 00:05:26 I've offered a ton of advice on how to improve
00:05:26 --> 00:05:29 guest pitches, but what if you're the podcaster
00:05:29 --> 00:05:33 that's getting pitched? How can you separate
00:05:33 --> 00:05:39 the wheat from the chaff? I personally have a
00:05:39 --> 00:05:41 forum that goes to Notion where I can quickly
00:05:41 --> 00:05:45 evaluate guests. Naturally, you can join my mailing
00:05:45 --> 00:05:49 list over at Casabona .org slash join to get
00:05:49 --> 00:05:53 a copy of that automation. But I also have a
00:05:53 --> 00:05:56 specific question I'm looking for, and I should
00:05:56 --> 00:05:59 I should jump ahead here, not jump ahead. I should
00:05:59 --> 00:06:04 I should backtrack maybe and say that I do read
00:06:04 --> 00:06:06 every guest pitch. I read every one of those
00:06:06 --> 00:06:10 crappy emails. Because I have gotten good guests
00:06:10 --> 00:06:14 from them. My friend Jackie Schiff. And my friend
00:06:14 --> 00:06:18 Elizabeth Howell. And my friend Brittany Lynn.
00:06:18 --> 00:06:22 Brittany Lynn. That makes it sound like I forgot
00:06:22 --> 00:06:26 her name. But my friend Brittany Lynn. They were
00:06:26 --> 00:06:28 not my friends at first. They just had really
00:06:28 --> 00:06:30 good pitches. And then we formed actual good
00:06:30 --> 00:06:35 relationships. Where they understood like who
00:06:35 --> 00:06:39 I was looking for in a guest, right? And so I
00:06:39 --> 00:06:43 do get good pitches and I've had amazing guests
00:06:43 --> 00:06:45 from those pitches. So I do read every one, which
00:06:45 --> 00:06:48 makes my Brown M &M test even more important.
00:06:50 --> 00:06:55 So how I am checking this, I have one specific
00:06:55 --> 00:07:00 question I'm looking for an answer to. And there's
00:07:00 --> 00:07:02 something you should know I get a lot of I get
00:07:02 --> 00:07:04 like four to eight pitches per day on average
00:07:04 --> 00:07:07 because there's actually two places where I'm
00:07:07 --> 00:07:09 accepting guest pitches on my application form
00:07:09 --> 00:07:14 over at streamline .fm slash apply. And on pod
00:07:14 --> 00:07:18 match from my friend Alex and Alex and Filippo.
00:07:19 --> 00:07:21 And like I said it's important to me that I read
00:07:21 --> 00:07:23 every pitch because for all the bad ones I've
00:07:23 --> 00:07:26 gotten I've gotten some fantastic guests coming
00:07:26 --> 00:07:31 through cold pitching. My brown M &M's clause.
00:07:32 --> 00:07:35 It used to be what episode made you want to reach
00:07:35 --> 00:07:39 out? Obviously AI has ruined that question. So
00:07:39 --> 00:07:44 now it's a practical experience question. Guests
00:07:44 --> 00:07:47 must propose a specific time -saving process
00:07:47 --> 00:07:52 system or automation when pitching. This makes
00:07:52 --> 00:07:55 it really easy for me to scan through a pitch
00:07:55 --> 00:07:59 to know if they took the time to read the directions.
00:08:00 --> 00:08:04 and learn about the show. If they don't include
00:08:04 --> 00:08:07 a specific time -saving process system or automation,
00:08:08 --> 00:08:13 it's a really easy rejection. So, and like I
00:08:13 --> 00:08:15 said, it's much better than my previous screener
00:08:15 --> 00:08:18 of what episode made you want to reach out. I
00:08:18 --> 00:08:20 also say I'm not interested in founder stories,
00:08:20 --> 00:08:23 but that still requires parsing the pitch to
00:08:23 --> 00:08:26 see if they are pitching their story or if they're
00:08:26 --> 00:08:28 just really including biographical information.
00:08:29 --> 00:08:33 So once I apply this quick test, if they are
00:08:33 --> 00:08:36 pitching a specific time saving process, the
00:08:36 --> 00:08:39 evaluation becomes much easier. And I'll let
00:08:39 --> 00:08:42 you in on a secret here. If the pitch is good,
00:08:43 --> 00:08:46 even if they don't strictly give me this, right?
00:08:47 --> 00:08:50 If they try or they say, hey, I don't really
00:08:50 --> 00:08:55 have a specific one, but you know, here's what
00:08:55 --> 00:08:58 I'm thinking about. It shows me that the real
00:08:58 --> 00:09:02 reason for this is it shows me they've read the
00:09:02 --> 00:09:06 instructions. If Van Halen saw Brown M &M's in
00:09:06 --> 00:09:09 their green room, they knew their next step was
00:09:09 --> 00:09:12 to do a full walkthrough of the tech again to
00:09:12 --> 00:09:17 make sure there were no issues. If a guest fails
00:09:17 --> 00:09:21 my test, I just reject them. But if they pass,
00:09:21 --> 00:09:25 it's time for the actual work. So that's when
00:09:25 --> 00:09:28 I start researching them and I've tried deep
00:09:28 --> 00:09:31 research through chat GPT. It's fine. I don't
00:09:31 --> 00:09:33 fully trust it though, so I need to go actually
00:09:33 --> 00:09:38 check things. One prompt I do have in guest research,
00:09:38 --> 00:09:40 I can do a whole episode on this actually, but
00:09:40 --> 00:09:43 I do say like be skeptical, verify that they
00:09:43 --> 00:09:46 can speak to the topic they're speaking or they're
00:09:46 --> 00:09:50 pitching. And that's been pretty good. I'll include
00:09:50 --> 00:09:57 one more addendum here. And that is that when
00:09:57 --> 00:10:03 I do get you know, sometimes I will get Pitches
00:10:03 --> 00:10:10 via email where people are asking me What how
00:10:10 --> 00:10:16 do you like to get pitches and so I will say
00:10:16 --> 00:10:19 this I'm currently looking for case studies,
00:10:20 --> 00:10:21 solopreneurs who've saved time by implementing
00:10:21 --> 00:10:26 a process, system, or automation. The criteria
00:10:26 --> 00:10:30 are clear and inflexible. The guest must be a
00:10:30 --> 00:10:33 solopreneur, no employees, only contractors.
00:10:34 --> 00:10:37 The guest must have built a system that saves
00:10:37 --> 00:10:40 them time, and they must be able to speak intelligently
00:10:40 --> 00:10:44 about it. They must also be able to talk about
00:10:44 --> 00:10:48 how the system has had a positive impact on their
00:10:48 --> 00:10:51 business. I am not interested in founder stories
00:10:51 --> 00:10:57 or general tips in some area of expertise. Bonus
00:10:57 --> 00:11:01 points if they are a parent. If the above criteria
00:11:01 --> 00:11:05 is met, you can fill out the form here. That's
00:11:05 --> 00:11:08 usually enough to get the pitching agencies off
00:11:08 --> 00:11:15 my back. I respond once and now they know exactly
00:11:15 --> 00:11:20 how they'd be wasting their time. So now my question
00:11:20 --> 00:11:25 for you is what's your Brown M &Ms? That guest
00:11:25 --> 00:11:28 pitch screening process saves me hours each week
00:11:28 --> 00:11:31 and reduces the friction in evaluating cold pitches.
00:11:32 --> 00:11:36 As you think about your podcast process or really
00:11:36 --> 00:11:38 any screening process, I encourage you to think
00:11:38 --> 00:11:42 about what your Brown M &M's test is. And if
00:11:42 --> 00:11:45 you already have it, let me know. Head over to
00:11:45 --> 00:11:49 streamlinedfeedback .com and tell me about it.
00:11:49 --> 00:11:52 I'd love to hear it. I'll read a few on the show
00:11:52 --> 00:11:54 if I get a bunch. But that's it for this episode
00:11:54 --> 00:11:58 of The Streamlined Podcaster. I hope you enjoyed
00:11:58 --> 00:12:01 it. And until next time, I hope you find some
00:12:01 --> 00:12:03 space in your week.