187. Work in Progress: Growing a Podcast with 60,000 Listeners On Top of a Career & Fatherhood (Jeremy Au)

How does someone create a podcast show that’s #1 in the tech category within Southeast Asia’s tech (and top 10% globally) and garners 60,000+ listeners… On top of multiple other roles and identities (such as being the COO at Lucence, a father of two, and an avid science fiction nerd)?

That is a glimpse into the conversation we had with Jeremy Au about on Episode 187 of The Thought Leader Club Podcast as part of the “Work in Progress” series.

In This Episode:

Topics we touch on include:

The craft of podcasting and Jeremy’s thought process behind his podcast episodes
Self-awareness is critical for both podcasting and building thought leadership
Don’t podcast just because you want to podcast… Podcast because you want to be a nerd in a subject matter

Listen on: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | YouTube | Any Player

How Jeremy is grew a podcast with 60,000 listeners on top of a career & fatherhood

Prefer to listen to this episode on YouTube?

The craft of podcasting and Jeremy’s thought process behind his podcast episodes

Cheryl:

Hello everyone, and welcome back to another episode of the Thought Leader Club Podcast. Today, we are talking to Jeremy Au, who has built a very well-recognized and substantial body of work through his podcast, “Brave Southeast Asia Tech”.

When I first learned about Jeremy and checked out his LinkedIn profile, I thought, “Wow, this person is very successful on paper.” But I’m sure, just like all of us, there must be a lot more layers to Jeremy than we can see on the surface, which is what I’m super curious about and want to explore with Jerermy today.

This episode is also part of a series called Work in Progress, where we deep dive into how our guests have built a substantial and compelling body of work and thought leadership, while being someone who is continuously bettering themselves, growing, and learning, and therefore, a work in progress.

Now, to get the conversation going, let’s have Jeremy introduce himself first. So please, Jeremy, could you introduce yourself and tell us who you are?

Jeremy:

Hi, I’m Jeremy, and apparently, I’m supposed to be an onion with many layers. Well, let’s see how it turns out. Maybe you cut this onion and find there are no layers, just a guy with a pure resume, a walking paper book of achievements. That’s who I am. On that note, maybe a little bit about myself, and I guess this does sound like a list.

I’m the host of the Brave Southeast Asia Tech podcast, www.bravesea.com. We have about 60,000 listeners, focusing on tech leadership and founders. I’m interested in this topic because I myself have been a founder, an executive, and an investor in the technology space.

Growing up, I’ve always loved science fiction—I’m a big sci-fi nerd—and I’ve always been interested in science and technology, but also in society and economics. So, I’ve taken the opportunity to do several things along the way.

I’ve been a consultant at Bain as a management consultant across Southeast Asia and China. I studied at UC Berkeley, focusing on technology, economics, and business. I’ve built two companies along the way: one was a bootstrapped social enterprise, and the other a successful ed-tech startup that we grew from Pre-A to Series A.

I’ve been to Harvard for my MBA, and I’ve been a VC for the past couple of years, focusing on Series A across Asia. Currently, I’m the COO at Lucence, my day job, and I spend 99% of my week thinking about building what we call AI-powered liquid cancer biopsies.

Basically, what that means is that with a single draw of blood, we can sequence all the DNA in your blood, detect 50 types of stage one cancer, and get the results to you within one to two weeks. So, you can envision a world where nobody detects cancer too late. Everybody sees it as a highly preventable disease that you can catch early and solve, so no one has to die from cancer ever again.

A bit more about myself: I’m a dad of two daughters, currently a four-year-old girl and a two-year-old girl. I like drinking green tea, coffee’s too much for me. I enjoy walking in nature, though I really should get out more. I read a lot of sci-fi books, probably one every week, which helps keep me energized. And I also watch all these trashy pop TV series, like Game of Thrones, HBO, and things like that.

Cheryl:

Well, first of all, what a list! What a list.

I’m curious to know, because I think a lot of Asian parents would be like, “Wow, I wish my kid was like that.”

So, I’m curious, do you ever feel like you were the “model Asian child”? I mean, you’re a full-grown adult now, but did you ever feel like that in your younger years?

Jeremy:

I would say never. And I don’t think I have. I don’t think I’ve actually heard that from my parents yet, so maybe one day I’ll finally achieve that, you know, pinnacle, the Mount Everest and then the rest of my life is over after that, right?

Growing up, I don’t think my parents really had a very clear set of ambitions for me.

They were fantastic in terms of always letting me be able to buy, read, or borrow any book I wanted. For example, they’d take me to libraries and let me buy books from the bookstore. I think they definitely fed my curiosity and my interests.

Of course, they also provided financial security, so I was able to go to university and make some risks in my life and career decisions.

These were all benefits I got. I wouldn’t say there was pressure, although I guess my mom would have wished I became a doctor. To me, though, I never got there. So I guess I’m always a disappointment because I don’t think I’ll ever be a doctor.

But maybe working in a biotech startup that services the medical sector is kind of close. I don’t know, let me ask her next time we have dinner. Does this count? Do I get a checkmark or not? I don’t know.

That being said, I don’t think I’ve ever felt like that.

However, I do feel like, at this stage of my career, I do get that comment more. And I think it’s an interesting perspective because, growing up, I’ve always been driven by purpose, hard work, and excellence. What I mean by that is, I’ve always believed in mission.

I believe in things I really care about, and because I care about them, I really want to persevere and do all the hard work that needs to be done.

Because of that, it kind of naturally feeds into outperformance, I guess—excellence, not necessarily as a goal. I think that’s been interesting because I have to acknowledge that in the early part of my career, that was a big driving feature in how I thought about work and everything else. You know, work is life, and life is work. Work hard, then play hard, and then you just play soft and work hard again, right?

So, I think that’s the crux of it.

Now, at the age of 36, in the middle of my career, I think some people consider this the prime time to get your stuff done, etc. I don’t necessarily see myself as being at the peak of that model.

Actually, I feel like there’s so much more to learn. There’s so much more that I haven’t achieved yet. There are so many people who really inspire me.

So, I don’t really feel that, but I do hear those comments more now, and I think, to some extent, they reflect those checkboxes I’ve ticked, like Harvard, and being a management consultant, etc.

I think a lot of the prestige comes from what society decides is prestigious, but I think the rest of my career doesn’t really have those checkboxes anymore. I don’t think I can be the “model Asian child.” I don’t think it’s a useful barometer because it actually stops.

If you think about it, the perfect Asian student gets A’s, becomes a doctor, gets married, and has kids. These are all very static, I guess, goalposts, right? If that makes sense.

I think it doesn’t talk about being a great dad, a great husband, or a great colleague. It doesn’t talk about having fun every day, or about your health, or about why you wake up in the morning every day. Those are the immediate reactions when I hear that.

Cheryl:

The part that really stood out to me was when you mentioned excellence.

Actually, I’m curious to know, when it comes to your podcast, especially since that’s what I think of when I think of Jeremy Au, I think “podcaster.” So, I’m really curious to know, how do you view excellence in the context of your podcast?

Is excellence a benchmark that you strive for as a podcaster, or is it more like, “Let me just do the bare minimum”? What’s your relationship with your work as a podcaster?

Jeremy:

When it comes to my podcast, it really goes back to the beginning, which was during the pandemic. I started it then because, for myself, I’ve always had a bit of a creative side, and I’m more of an extrovert.

Imagine going through that experience at the start of the pandemic, stuck at home. My wife, she’s an introvert. So there needed to be an outlet for my creativity.

On the other hand, I also listened to a lot of podcasts. I really enjoyed one called “Reboot,” which is very much about coaching and human performance in the startup world, not really about excellence, but really, kind of like the reflective components.

I’ve also read a lot of Irvin Yalom, “Staring at the Sun,” which is a psychology book by the pioneer of group therapy. It had a lot of big psychological keys that I always enjoyed listening to as audiobooks.

When I moved to Southeast Asia and being home kind of made me realize that my diet of content was very American and Western. There wasn’t enough about Southeast Asia from a local land, from a local relationship.

I think the second and third pieces were, first, I was just curious. I thought, this is a new skill to try, to do, to explore, to tinker with. Those two things came together: one, an outlet for creativity, and two, looking for some similar material Southeast Asia. Then third, of course, is curiosity. That’s why I started the podcast, “Brave Southeast Asia Tech.”

The interesting part is that why I started, is not why I continue. I think why I continue is because, If you ask me now, “Jeremy, do you have plenty of space for creative outlets?” I’d say yes, because my job takes up 99% of my week, that’s one.

Two, there is a lot of Southeast Asia content, I’d say yes. Ever since I started, there have been more Southeast Asia tech podcasts. And third, I get to think every day at my job.The original reasons for starting aren’t really the driving factors anymore.

Why I continue is because I always think of myself as the first listener of the podcast. What I mean by that is I shouldn’t be focused on excellence or the number of listeners or other external factors. I get the honor and privilege of talking to someone I respect or am curious about, and I get to craft a podcast that I would want to listen to.

There’s this self-motivated approach to it. I just do it for myself. It’s like, if I’m not happy with the bread the store makes, I’ll bake my own with my special mix of nuts and so on. It’s the same with the podcast. I treat it as my time, about three hours on the weekends, to talk to someone I like, and then I get to enjoy it.

By following my curiosity, I get to share that with people who want to listen, whether that’s a day later, a month later, a year later, or even 10 years down the road. I see it as a gift of learning. That’s how I really think about excellence. Not meeting some specific bar.

Did I enjoy the podcast as a listener, as the first listener, curating those questions? Yes. If I had to add a second attribute, it would be perseverance, in the sense that I should be doing something I like and not I don’t mean perseverance in the sense of like, let me do something because it’s hard to do, right? Because my job is already so hard to do every day. I need perseverance for that.

I think perseverance in this context of a hobby is something you should enjoy, right? And so from my perspective, I do tell myself like my job as a hobby is not to add perseverance, although that may be how people think about it.

Yes, it is a competitive strength, because the podcast will become better in 10 years, as I get better and better at skill, etc. It’s like playing guitar for 10 years is better than playing guitar for three months intensely.

But from an individual perspective, it’s a hobby, right? It’s a passion and I think for me, it’s much more about saying, How do I do it in a way that’s at the right tempo, right cadence? It lets me continue enjoying the craft.

Cheryl:

You know, the point about how you are the first listener of the show really resonates with me. But that being said, one really nosy question came to mind is “Jeremy, okay, you say you’re the first listener, but were there ever times when there were no second or third listeners?” Was there ever a time in your podcasting journey where the analytics, let’s just say, were not quite where you wanted them to be? And was that a discouraging time, or did that never happen at all in your podcasting journey?

Jeremy:

Oh, it never happened at all. I always had a second listener, and that continues to be my mom. I don’t know if that’s a plus or minus. I think in the early days, I viewed it more as a minus because the recordings felt very stilted.

I would have felt better saying, “Oh, I’m just recording this for myself.” But it’s always interesting, you know, when your mom says, “Well, I was really impressed by your podcast,” which is nice. But you know, the psychology of it is, every son is running away from their mother, right? I guess so.

What made it easier as well was that if I had to say there was a 1.5 listener, it would be my guests. My first 50 guests, effectively the first year, were all my friends.

My first ever episode was with my best friend, my co-founder for Conjunct Consulting, my army buddy. And recording that podcast, I guess I was the first listener, he was the second, and my mom was the third listener about a week later. It created this interesting dynamic.

For me, I think you should talk about topics that you love. I remember during the pandemic, I had some free time and took a podcasting course just for fun. The mentor was very clear, saying, “Jeremy, you’ve got to talk about a topic that sets your soul on fire.” I was like, “Who comes up with this stuff? It sounds like something that should be on a coffee mug or wall decor!” But you know, he was right.

He said, “You’ve got to talk as if nobody’s listening.” I grumbled at that, but I realized he was right. That’s resonated with me ever since.

The truth is, you have to talk about a topic that doesn’t matter if there isn’t another listener. If you’re doing a solo podcast, talk about what you love at a frequency that makes sense for you.

If you’re interviewing someone else, then both you and your guest are the first two listeners, and it should be something you both enjoy.

It would be a criminal act if you hated interviewing that person or if they hated being interviewed by you. It would be even more of a nightmare.

That’s how I try to reframe it psychologically, you gotta enjoy it.

And that’s the beauty of it: people have writer’s block, but people normally don’t have speakers block.

Cheryl:

For you, when it comes to your podcast, whether it’s solo monologue episodes or when you’re interviewing guests.

I guess this is more so for the monologue episodes – do you write your outline or script first, or do you speak it out? What is your workflow like?

Jeremy:

I do three types of podcasts. I do market news and with regular co-hosts.

The second part is more of an interview with industry leaders, experts, founders, VCs, etc.

The third, of course, is the solo monologue switch.

The way I think about it is that when I’m interviewing a guest, I’m about 10% asking questions. When I’m co-hosting a show, I’m probably 40% involved, because I’m trying to analyze, for example, the Vietnam market, speaking with a Vietnamese co-host. I’m representing a different point of view, but they are experts, so they should be 60%.

Then, when it comes to the monologues, it’s 100% Jeremy. I always joke that some listeners “can only handle 40% of Jeremy; they can’t handle 100%.”

One of the big realizations I’ve had is that people come for the guests but stay for the host as well. There’s so much content out there, right?

Like last night, I was searching on Spotify about Thailand because I was curious about the recent political developments with the new Prime Minister. I saw so many episodes that had come out in the past 24 hours. Amazing, the velocity of news. It reminded me that people come for the guests, but they stay for the host.

That context helps when I’m doing solo monologues. I cover topics like market news with my regular co-host, like what happens this month and when I interview someone about something else, I feel like there are questions I get asked often, and I don’t answer them well at the moment. Or I feel they deserve a wider audience, because I am already trying my best to answer at the moment.

For example, recently, an undergraduate student asked me, ‘Do technology unicorns engage in unethical behavior?’ I thought it was a really good question, and it got me thinking.

I actually thought about it in terms of two different ways, right?

It was very much like, first of all, what is unethical is different from what’s immoral, which is different from what’s illegal, right? And that’s why I found the question interesting.

Because unethical means that it’s not performing to the norms of the group. Immoral means that it’s not performing to your personal sense of right and wrong. And then illegal, obviously, is in violation of a government regulator or legislation, right?

So these are three different ways to define some certain type of behavior.

So unpacking that was interesting in terms of answering to that person, but also talking about the reason why unicorns technology, unicorns create these kinds of behaviors is because it’s part of the economic model, it’s part of the competition. It’s part of their drive to generate profits.

It’s actually a social good for some stakeholders, and is a social negative for the incumbents and the people who are being disrupted by it.

After I explained it, I thought it would make a great standalone episode.

Normally, my individual monologues come from a question and answer session with someone else, so that was my first pass.

The second pass is that I write those points down at a high level, such as notes from a conversation, whether it was via WhatsApp or email or it would be me writing down what I try to remember. Then I let it sleep for a week or two. After that, I’ll review it again, and I will try to record in the mornings. I just riff on it.

What works for me now is that when I’m recording individual monologues, I switch off the video, which is different from my other podcasts. I only record audio.

I’ve realized that I’m more comfortable brainstorming without the pressure of the video. I’d rather brainstorm more, share anecdotes and examples, and different ways of saying it. Then I can edit it down later.

The power of AI helps too. You can throw in a bunch of images automatically these days to accompany the voice. When I brainstorm and think about the idea, I’m not looking at my face or focusing on my gestures. So recording audio-only content for my individual monologues or rants, makes it easier for me. And then I go from there.

Cheryl:

Wow, what I’m hearing is that there’s a lot of thought that goes behind, especially with your monologues. I mean, I’m sure a lot of research goes into the guest interviews as well, but for the ones that are either 40% Jeremy or 100% Jeremy, it sounds like there’s so much care and thoughtfulness behind the scenes.

It really showcases that this is something that is a craft, essentially.

Is there anything else you can share that demonstrates how you see this as a craft?

Jeremy:

Yeah, you know, I think it is definitely a craft because podcasting isn’t just a branding tool.

While people often discuss it in the context of personal branding, the art of creation is very different from the art of consumption, right?

There are so many ways to consume content, reading, listening, watching, discussing, short-form, long-form, and they all cater to different preferences. But the art of production doesn’t always map it out one-to-one with those consumption methods.

Historically, if you were a great long-form writer, the main way to share your work was through books. Readers had to engage with the book format to access the content.

Now, with the power of the Internet and AI, that process has transformed. People can write 500 tweets in a row, and then they convert it into a podcast, automatically, a video or book.

It’s kind of interesting, because, you know, the atomic piece is just like, “What is your insight and what’s your take on it, right?”

And so I think what’s tricky is, you know, I would say the podcast as a craft, it’s kind of like a combo combination, right? And that makes it maybe a little bit more difficult, because today’s world is, keep on looking for video podcasts, which is long form or short form, but it is kind of a weird craft, if you think about it.

And I would even argue maybe it’s a dying craft as AI takes over more of our personas over time.

But, as of today, it requires somebody who is in control of their speaking—someone who can think on their feet in terms of their insights, create rapport or empathy with an interviewee (for the most common podcast format), and control their facial expressions, body language, and gestures. It’s actually a full performance, right?

Maybe you don’t show the bottom half of your body or move around the stage like an improv comedian or an actor, but there’s still a theatrical element to the process.

Because of that, not everybody should do a podcast.

Maybe your role is more like a playwright, in that case, you should be writing things down. As a playwright, you probably wouldn’t write tweets, unless you want to, of course. Why not?

But you’d probably focus more on long-form writing and so forth.

What I’m trying to say here is that people need to be much more self-aware about what their personal strengths are.

For me, I’ve always enjoyed reading tweets. I tried tweeting, but I realized I hate it because my perfectionism kicks in hard. You’re stuck trying to say something in exactly 280 characters—obviously, now it’s more—but it has to be so precise. That’s just not me.

I prefer being more comfortable running longer, providing context, and thinking things through. I think podcasting has a good, long process that suits me better.

The good news now is that AI now clips and chops up my content into bite-sized pieces, summarizes it, and distributes it, and goes from there.

Self-awareness is critical for both podcasting and building thought leadership

Cheryl:

The part about being self-aware and really understanding what are your strengths, and are your strengths positioning you to be an excellent podcaster, that is a really good question for people, especially aspiring or earlier-stage podcasters, to really consider.

I really love that point.

A segue into another topic I want to explore is the topic of thought leadership.

I want to start off with the question of, first of all, Jeremy, how do you view this concept of thought leadership?

Jeremy:

I think thought leadership is a good description, I would say, because all of us are thinking animals, right? In the sense that we are, you know, kind of, like, very predisposed to information, because information is, like, key to survival, right?

If you hear, like,” that thing is poisonous” you know, that’s very important information.

“Oh, there’s a war coming”, that’s important information, right? And so I think, humans are very much like supermarket monkeys, in the sense that when it comes to information, we want as much information as possible. I think there are very few people in the world who want less information.

In fact, if you think about it, going back to the Bible, for example, the story of Genesis, and Adam and Eve, they just couldn’t help but say, ‘I want to know. I want to understand the knowledge of good and evil.’ That was the one thing they couldn’t resist. This mythology repeats itself in many other tales. Curiosity killed the cat, and so on.

But humans really care about thinking and knowing new information. Thought leadership is the other side of that, where you’re providing new thought. That’s why we call it the news, not the olds. We want to read the news because we want what’s new.

If you had a newspaper that said ‘Mother loves child,’ nobody’s going to read that headline. They’ll be bored out of their mind.

And you’d be like, yeah, those are truths, right? But if you say, ‘Take care of your parents,’ society will be better that way,’ again, people will be bored.

The olds, the truths, the old information, aren’t the best way to describe things. It’s the news, new information that changes our lives, that we care about as consumers.

And so I think leadership, in other contexts, is very much about producing what people are consuming at some level, right?

But I don’t think that’s the right way to think about it. I’m not talking about consumption versus production. I think, when we’re talking about leadership, we’re saying that we wouldn’t be here as a society today if people didn’t provide new thoughts about how to do things.

So you and I, we eat yogurt, right? I always tell people, it’s like, somebody out there once had thought leadership. They were like, ‘You know what? Let’s go to this animal, squeeze the udders, dump it into a bucket, and let it ferment.’ And then, sure, it smells pretty bad, but it turns out it’s better for me, right?

I mean, that person’s probably the first thought leader of their day and age for yogurt creation, right? If you think about it. And then, let’s not even talk about kombucha or kimchi. These are really fermented things that smell horrible, right?

So, I think thought leadership is very much a societal function where people are saying, ‘Hey, I’m an expert at something. Let me share my new thoughts about this space.’ As a result, in terms of thought leadership, I would say there are three waves of it.

The first wave, of course, is your really original thinking. That would be like a scientist of the age, which is socially acceptable. But also, I’ll say, controversial figures may be political or social figures with views that seem crazy at this point in time.

And I think after this group of people, social outcasts emerge because they are saying something that’s very unpopular, right? Or they sound very crazy. It’s like, this guy talking about quantum, and everyone’s like, ‘Who’s this weirdo talking about quantum right now?’

Today, of course, talking about quantum is pretty cool. But, you know, 20-30 years ago, people were laughing at the idea. So I think that’s the first wave of thought leadership.

The second wave of thought leadership is a little bit what I call the synthesis or the bridging. I think that’s where a lot of podcasters, like myself, would probably say I put myself there. We’re seeing the future and bridging that information. So that could be, maybe, broadening out to the top 20% of people who are interested in that space. There’s a lot of translation work, a lot of timeliness, etc.

The third wave is what I call, like, you know, the final deep right of 80%, where you just communicate. It becomes the generally accepted norm, and it becomes part of the curriculum in schools.

So, you know, if you look at, for example, DNA, I was reading about DNA recently, and the idea that DNA existed was a crazy concept that people thought was absurd 40-50 years ago. Only 1% of the population was even thinking about this, and then eventually it became popularized, reached the top 20%, became widely known, and now today, every child is learning about DNA in school. It’s the norm for information.

It’s kind of an interesting way to think about thought leadership. Are you part of the 1%, part of the top 20%, or are you broadening it to the 80%? I think that’s how we should be thinking about it.

Cheryl:

I’m curious to hear you talk a little bit more about how, when it comes to, for example, the guests that you bring onto your show. Would you say that they are part of the 1%, the 20% or the 80%?

Jeremy:

I think that when it comes to the market news segment, when I talk about what’s happening in Vietnam or elsewhere, I would probably say that’s close to the top 20%.

For example, recently we were talking about Singapore’s push to privatize NTUC Income, which is insurance.

And obviously, I’m not part of the 1% because I’m not in the room making those decisions—whether it’s at the policy level or the insurance side, etc.

But as commentators, we’re part of the top 20%. We’re digesting the news as it comes up, and then we’re putting together a narrative about what we think is happening and some of the stakeholder decisions being made. So I would say that’s probably like the top 20%.

When I’m interviewing a guest on a one-on-one basis, I think that I’m often part of hearing their 1% story. What I mean by that is I’m hearing their personal story of their own personal life. That’s what I’m interested in. And I find that most people haven’t shared about their personal lives.

They may have shared about it at dinner parties with friends and family, but it’s actually a secret to hear somebody describe their own life journey the way they remember it. It’s a very rare thing.

So being able to hear that story about how they think about their own personal life, I feel I’m part of the 1%. I’m bringing that story to light, especially when I’m working with people. I make an effort to talk to people I find interesting and curious, with respect.

That doesn’t mean they are super well-exposed celebrities like Taylor Swift. I think Taylor Swift’s life story is relatively well known. But when I’m talking to Southeast Asian leaders, I find that they often have very little digital footprint about their personal lives, maybe a lot about their companies or their achievements.

I think about sharing my own personal monologue, yeah, I guess I’m also part of the 1% because, in this case, I’m sharing my own personal take.

But the funny part about the monologue piece, as I do about it, it made me think, inspired me to think about this: I normally don’t find myself speaking about something that is dramatically life-changing, in a sense like ‘this stock price is going to go up or down.’

I actually find myself, on individual monologues, kind of like settling back on the universal truths that we just have to rediscover every day.

For example, one of my episodes was very much about being a parent, right? And I was like, you know, what are the three things I learned about being a parent?

Obviously, I think there were some interesting anecdotes and quotes that I made to describe my own experience of becoming a dad and what I’ve learned from the experience.

But, you know, taking a giant step back, there’s something that’s been discovered by billions of dads over the course of human history, right? It’s amazing that the kid, you know, it’s a big gift, it’s a big responsibility. There are some incredible moments that link you up with an unbroken chain of human fatherhood or parenthood, across multiple generations, right?

And that by having a child, you are also creating an opportunity for infinite generations to come after you, right? So you’re part of this long chain.

Now, what I’m trying to say here is, like, when I was talking about that, obviously, something that I felt like, ‘Wow, this is something I discovered myself.’

But of course, these are deeper truths that are kind of known by everybody. Still, this happens to be rediscovered by Jeremy at this point in time. So I don’t really see those as very different waves.

I’ll say, again, when I’m interviewing someone, I’m definitely part of the 1%. When it comes to market news, probably around 20%. And then, I’ll say my personal monologues are probably closer to 80%.

Don’t podcast just because you want to podcast… Podcast because you want to be a nerd in a subject matter

Cheryl:

Interesting. Here’s a very nosy question, let me know how you feel about it.

I’m curious to know, are there any personal stories of yours that you feel would be helpful for the audience to know, but maybe you haven’t shared much of it?

Jeremy:

I mean, I think the part is that I’m a big science fiction nerd, right? And I’ve always loved science fiction. I think people don’t really understand how much I do.

What I mean by that is, even as a kid, I really loved reading science and, obviously, reading books. I was reading fantasy books and fiction. I was always dreaming about the future, dreaming about the past, dreaming about dragons and things like that.

You know, over time, I read a lot of Foundation by Isaac Asimov and Arthur C. Clarke. As I grew older, you can imagine all different types, Ready Player One, a little more action-oriented.

And now I’m reading a lot of deep science fiction, like The Three-Body Problem by Cixin Liu. Right now, I’m reading Old Man’s War by John Scalzi. I was just reading that last night.

I read a lot of science fiction, and I enjoy it because I do. I love reading about technology. I like reading, more importantly, not just about the technology, but how humans would react to it.

How would we, what would be normal to us at that point in time? What would be abnormal? How would we be different? How would we be the same?

These are really fascinating questions, and I would say that, you know, that made me deeply uncool as a kid. Because, as a kid, obviously, you’re just a nerd, right? And I taught the computer club, I did robotics, and things like that. So I enjoyed all this stuff.

O(ne of the joys that I had growing up is like, guess what? I don’t have to hang out with the basketball folks to act cool. I mean, gosh, I remember so many years trying to play basketball because it’s what all the guys did, and I was just horrible at it. Basketball was never my thing.

And now I’m like, okay, you know what? If you’re working in startups and tech, guess what? Everybody likes science fiction, right? Well, maybe not everybody, but at least 50%.

Just yesterday, I was catching up with somebody who’s a founder, and we quickly discovered that we both like science fiction. We nerded out for an hour about the heat death of the universe, Boltzmann brains (which he told me about), and Vernor Vinge’s, Fire Upon Deep, that he recommended to me. It’s such a great subculture of science fiction. This is fun, and I think it’s kind of weird because one thing I also realized is that science fiction has become cool, which is kind of weird.

When I started out back in the 1990s, whenever that time frame was, only some of us had computers. We were all weirdos on ICQ, MSN Messenger, forums, and playing turn-based games like Utopia and combat games.

We were all kind of weirdos because our parents didn’t understand what we were doing, but they gave it to us because they thought it was vaguely educational. They had no idea what they were giving us—an Internet brain and social exposure. I mean, I don’t think anyone does these days either.

Everybody’s like, ‘Oh, I gotta monitor my kid.’ But at the time, they were like, ‘Oh, computer, yeah, have fun. It’s a giant calculator, right?’ So, we were those weirdos, subculture Internet folks.

And now it’s everywhere; it’s the norm. Reddit used to be a place for weirdos, and now everyone has a Reddit account for random news. You look at Apple TV, and I was watching on Disney+ last night ‘The Orville,’ a parody of Star Trek by Seth MacFarlane. It’s humorous, humanistic, and science fiction. I was thinking about how technology and CGI have made it so cheap to produce science fiction that it’s become cool.

Books like Foundation or The Three-Body Problem were super nerdy, but now people are like, ‘Oh, Jeremy, you read The Three-Body Problem? The TV series is so good.’

And I’m like, wow, I guess the nerds are cool now. So it’s kind of nice and fun, I guess.

Cheryl:

Yeah, the things that used to maybe make us feel a bit isolated, like I used to play chess competitively when I was younger, and I felt like a total nerd. I was in a chess club, went to chess meetups, and my parents would supervise me as I interacted with adults playing chess.

I remember feeling really insecure back then about liking and competing in chess, but I wish I had continued it. I think I’d feel so badass today if I had kept it up.

On that note, I’m curious to know: when it comes to the craft of podcasting, because you started during the pandemic, and that’s when a lot of podcasts boomed. Now there’s just so many podcasts out there.

I’ve seen memes that say something like, ‘Instead of going to therapy, men will start a podcast’ a bit sarcastic, right?

What are your thoughts on this? Podcasting has really become a norm, but what do you think really differentiates a long-lasting, sustainable podcast that’s here to stay, versus one that people just half-ass and eventually pod-fades.

Jeremy:

This ties in well because, to be a podcaster or thought leader, you have to be a nerd, and you have to be proud of it. At some level, you have to be comfortable with it, right?

So now I’m curious, Cheryl: I want to hear a chess podcast from you. You know, you’ve done chess in the past, you’re interested in it, I know you’re getting back into it.

Personally, I’m probably not the target audience for a chess podcast by Cheryl, but if you’re really getting back into it, I think it could be really interesting for a lot of people, both women and men, who are interested in getting back into chess as adults. I think that’s an incredible journey.

The writer in me is thinking, ‘Wow, this is like a classic sci-fi or fantasy novel.’ It’s the story of someone disillusioned with chess, burned out, and then rediscovering their spark and climbing back up.

I mean, isn’t it like Queen’s Gambit to some extent?

What I’m trying to say here is that people really enjoy hearing a story about someone who is humble, willing to learn, and pushing hard. I think that’s just inspiring, right? It’s interesting how we tend to make fun of people from different cultures. For example, I made fun of basketball.

My sister was a basketball player, and she still plays when she can, though unfortunately, she’s got a bunch of injuries now. But I think the crux of this is that I can joke about basketball because I’m not part of that basketball culture, if that makes sense.

I think for a lot of podcasters, what I really challenge people to do is, you know, if you’re not a nerd about podcasting, you should be a nerd about something. It just so happens that podcasting is the medium through which you describe your hobby or interest. And I think that’s where it’s different.

Would you write memes about somebody who’s a writer? No, right? Writing is just a medium. Imagine saying, ‘Oh, look at you using a pen to write your personal reflections? Let me write those memes.’ It’s like that meme about men who would rather start a podcast than go to therapy.

It’s not about the medium, it’s just a way of expressing yourself. Podcasting has become like a vertical because of the format, the way it’s consumed on YouTube, etc. But with all the tools available, it’s just become more and more normal. I mean, everybody has a world-class mic with their AirPods, MacBook, or phone.

Recording or podcasting is an emerging modality of recording or remembering, whether it’s through voice or video. And that’s why, you know, today, we make fun of people. We used to make fun of YouTubers, right? Like, ‘Oh, you’re a YouTuber!’ But now, nobody really calls people YouTubers anymore.

Because, you know, look at the recent YouTubers, like the “Best Ever Food Show.” There’s this guy based in Vietnam, and he’s just eating, right? I wouldn’t call him a YouTuber, that’s just what he produces. I would probably describe him more as an “eating guy”, maybe with a bit of a tourism or adventurism mindset.

YouTube is just his modality. Circling back, when I think about all of this, yeah, if you’re passionate about something, someone’s going to make fun of you, alright? If you’re excellent at something, they’ll make fun of you.

Because, you know, the power of comedy is that you punch up, not down. Trust me, if you weren’t good at something, nobody would make fun of you, or at least, it would be socially inappropriate to do so.

Like, imagine someone saying, ‘Oh, look at this kid, he’s horrible at quantum physics. Haha.’ That’s not funny. Why? Because first, kids aren’t supposed to be good at quantum physics. And second, more importantly, it’s bad social form to make fun of a kid for not doing well. We understand that the kid is trying and learning.

But, you know, it’s funny to make fun of a Nobel Laureate for not being able to drive, for example, because we think, ‘Haha, this person is in a higher position, so it’s okay to laugh at them.’ And also, we believe that everyone should know how to drive a car, right? So those are the jokes we can make.

What I’m trying to say is, to do podcasting as a medium, people should try to avoid converging. I’ve seen this happen over and over again: people say, ‘I want to do a podcast because it’s good for my company or personal brand.’

Then, as a result, most podcasts become interview-based, business-oriented podcasts. Some people even say, ‘Jeremy, I want to copy what you’re doing,’ and do it for Vietnam, for example.

And I’m like, ‘There’s nothing wrong with the form of what I’m doing, but is it the substance of your daily life? Is that what you’re truly passionate about?’ Because, again, you know your excellence is that I’m willing to learn about this day.

For me, naturally and intuitively, I’m from Southeast Asia. I grew up there, love tech, love Southeast Asia, and love people. I’m an extrovert, so I just happen to do all these things, chat with people, and record it for a podcast. I’m not ashamed of that, even though some people have made fun of me, saying, ‘Yeah, you should be talking about America, not Southeast Asia.’ Or, ‘You should be talking about business instead of tech.’

I mean, obviously, I talk about business and economics as well, but what I’m really getting at is the importance of being self-aware about what you’re truly passionate about.

There are so many people who aspire to be thought leaders or podcasters, but they get scared to talk about what they genuinely care about because they think it’s ‘uncool.’ For example, someone might say, ‘You know what? I’m really passionate about Dungeons and Dragons.‘ And they’re worried that no one would care. But I’m like, ‘No, that’s actually great! Start with that!’

Why? Because when I hear you talk about something you’re genuinely interested in, it’s obvious that you know more about it. You’ve been consuming it naturally, and I’d much rather listen to someone who’s genuinely passionate about it than someone trying hard to pretend they’re interested.

The crux of thought leadership is that you’re probably a thought leader in something because you’re truly passionate about it. If you’re passionate about it, you can talk about it effortlessly.

If you’re not passionate about it, and you wouldn’t want to talk about it in your free time, then maybe it’s not the right podcast or thought leadership path for you. Go find something that you enjoy and make it fun!

At the end of the day, how many full-time podcasters are there? It’s like a power law curve, most people aren’t going to make it as full-time podcasters. At best, it’ll be a hobby for years, maybe even a decade, before you eventually ‘make it.’

But even if you don’t go full-time, there are so many other hobbies you could pursue, right? Why not go for karaoke? Attend business networking events? Host dinner parties for conversations? Go for beers with people or take long walks?

There are so many other ways to build domain authority and thought leadership that don’t require talking about a topic you don’t care about. So, why not talk about something you’re genuinely passionate about?

Cheryl:

What a great way to wrap up this conversation!

I think what you shared was so, first of all, very well articulated, but also, to all the nerds of Dungeon & Dragons, you better start your podcast about Dungeon & Dragons or whatever your subject matter is!

That could actually be the title of this episode: Be a Nerd in Whatever Subject Matter that might actually end up being the title of this episode.

Anyways, Jeremy, I really appreciate all of your sharings on the the conversation so far today. Where can people find you and or how can people work with you?

Jeremy:

Quite simple. You can visit www.bravesea.com, we have a podcast with the community, with some discussion material, some resources and my ramblings, all of it is available on that site. It also has the ability to reach out to me.

I like to organize events. Once in a while, I organize a monthly walk with founders in Singapore and for Southeast Asians who kind of come into Singapore.

I organize a poker game for people in venture capital. You know, it’s just natural activities that just find it easy to sit down and be a mini fun person and hang out with people that you like and talk about the future, right?

Cheryl:

Awesome, awesome. Alrighty, everyone. All the links will be in the show notes below.

And thank you once again, Jeremy, for coming on to the Thought Leader Club Podcast.

To everyone listening, thank you so much for being here, and I’ll see you all in the next one.

Bye everyone!

Listen to the Episode

About Jeremy

Jeremy Au (区汉辉) is the COO of Lucence, the leading biotech AI startup fighting cancer with precision oncology tests and backed by Openspace, Heliconia and IHH Healthcare. He also hosts BRAVE, Southeast Asia’s #1 tech podcast and global top 10% podcast with 60,000+ monthly listeners. He co-founded Orvel Ventures (network-driven VC fund), leads the regional chapter of Harvard Business School Alumni Angels and is an angel investor in 24 startups. Harvard MBA and UC Berkeley honor degrees in Economics & Business Administration. Recognized by Forbes 30 Under 30, Prestige 40 Under 40 and LinkedIn Top Voice.

Previously, Jeremy was a VC investor and Chief of Staff at Monk’s Hill Ventures, Southeast Asia’s pioneer Series A fund. Jeremy founded and led CozyKin, an early education marketplace, to Series A and acquisition by Higher Ground Education. The startup was recognized for winning Harvard Business School’s New Venture Competition and the MassChallenge grand prize. Jeremy also co-founded and bootstrapped Conjunct Consulting, an impact consulting platform, to profitability, 100+ clients and thousands of trained impact leaders. He was a Bain management consultant and an infantry sergeant in Singapore.

Jeremy is a keynote public speaker on entrepreneurship, leadership and community engagement for thousands, e.g. Harvard, Deutsche Bank, e27 Echelon, Singapore Global Tech Network, Boston SPARK Council, Institute of Policy Studies and Civil Service College. Author of BRAVE10, showcasing the journeys of Singapore’s top tech leaders. Jeremy volunteers by teaching VC fund strategy and entrepreneurship at National University of Singapore and Singapore Management University. Jeremy enjoys science fiction, hiking and being a father to his two daughters.

Connect with Jeremy:

www.bravesea.com

www.lucence.com