In 2004, a phenomenon hit the airwaves. ABC TV in the United States launched a dramatic series called “Lost.”

Created by J.J. Abrams, the series seemed to offer everything. Science fiction, romance, melodrama, and  at the heart of it, a mystery that was promised had a solution. The writers for the series insisted that they knew what was happening on the mysterious island that Jack, Kate, Hurley and the rest of the survivors of Oceanic 815 crash landed on. Polar bears, a mysterious smoke monster, and eventually a hatch in the ground that is opened at the end of season one.

Each season, more and more viewers started to question whether there was a true through-line that the writers insisted they were following. More survivors of the crash were discovered, only to be killed off without fanfare a few episodes later. The survivors were rescued, then returned to the island. The complicated series of numbers that teased the characters and audience alike became fairly meaningless as the seasons progressed. Eventually, after six seasons, the series limped to an unsatisfying conclusion that many audience members suspected all along, but the writers insisted wasn’t the case. It became obvious that the series, teased as a complex puzzle box, was, at its heart, a soap opera with a sheen of science fiction thrown over it.

Ten years later, a podcast named Serial launched. Hosted by This American Life star Sarah Koenig, Serial began as an open-ended investigation into a murder that had occurred in 1999, in which the person who had been convicted of the crime might possibly have been innocent. While Koenig and her team admitted up-front that they may or may not uncover any evidence that proved beyond a reasonable doubt whether Adnan Syed had murdered his girlfriend, the clues they found and the police procedures uncovered led to other activities that eventually led to post-conviction relief for Syed. Though Serial ended without being able to report on this conclusion (post-conviction relief occurred in 2016, while the first season of Serial wrapped in 2014), listeners knew the end of the story up-front, and were uncovering details along the way. While many complained that the final episode of season 1 lacked punch, it was largely agreed upon that there would not be a “smoking gun” that would immediately overturn Syed’s conviction (or prove his guilt), and even if that had happened, the judicial system takes much longer than a season of a podcast can cover.

This brings us to 2017, with the launch of a new podcast that seemed to be taking a cue from Serial. Missing Richard Simmons was an examination by “Slimmons” alum Dan Taberski, who sought to uncover why his friend, fitness mentor Richard Simmons, had left the public eye in 2014. In the premiere episode, he warned listeners that he didn’t know where this podcast was headed, but he wanted to try to find the truth.

The podcast got off to a very strong start, covering Richard Simmons’ amazing career from 1970s gym owner to multimillionaire celebrity. Simmons’ life story is interesting enough in itself, and it can be argued that his disappearance from public view is one of the least interesting details. Nevertheless, Taberski blows through Simmons’ career in episode one, leaving all subsequent episodes to cover his search for what happened to his friend.

Unfortunately, this approach seemed to backfire. While the premiere episode was a hit, more and more scolding articles were published that asked why Taberski would betray his friend’s privacy for ratings, and whether it was morally right to force someone who may have wanted to disappear from view to come back out in public. Simmons himself had called a radio station a year before to say that he was fine, and an LAPD police check stated that there was no foul play.

I believe that Taberski took exactly the wrong approach in his story, and may have been able to continue the wild success of his first episode if he knew where the story ended. Telling your audience that there’s a mystery to solve is a dangerous precedent, but letting them know up-front that you can only lead to the ending that’s already known, while uncovering details about how you got there, is much more satisfying. The writers of “Lost” fell into much the same trap as Dan Taberski, in believing that they could uncover what was necessary as they went along, rather than promising nothing but the details themselves, and not trying to tie everything into a satisfying bow.

Dan Taberski missed a tremendous opportunity to honor his friend in a multi-part series about Richard Simmons’ amazing life, career, and the impact he had on a huge number of people. The fact that Richard Simmons left public life in his 60s is the least interesting thing about him, and “Missing Richard Simmons” didn’t seem to know this.

The next hit television show, podcast, or any other type of series would do well to pay attention to this. Always know where your story ends before you begin telling it.