Needle, Meet Haystack

It happens once every year – for one week, a bunch of people on Facebook get excited about the Discovery Channel’s Shark Week.  This annual event consists of the home of Mythbusters and, well, I’m not sure what else is on the Discovery Channel these days*, devoting an entire week to sharks.  And while I don’t mind getting to know more about our aquatic and toothy friends, I don’t really get why everyone goes so crazy over it, especially when many of said Facebook fans don’t watch it.

But, in an effort to follow the advice of 30 Rock‘s Tracy Jordan, I will “Live every week like it’s Shark Week,” or at least enough so that I can understand this phenomenon.  First, let’s figure out some lessons from the sharks themselves:

• Sharks have lots of teeth.  While this one is pretty obvious, consider what happens when a shark bites into something.  If that thing is hard, like a turtle shell, the shark will lose teeth.  But it has rows and rows of chompers, and very strong jaws.  So if it loses a few pearly whites in the pursuit of a meal, it doesn’t mind.  In fact, that might make the shark more determined (I don’t know for sure; I never studied marine psychology).  Through their teeth, sharks can teach us about resilience and commitment.
• Sharks can smell things very well underwater.  You’ve probably heard all about how sharks can smell blood from miles away in the open water.  Now, consider what that entails: determining exactly where the scent is coming from, swimming to the location as fast as possible, and fending off other predators to claim the prize.  Though it is but the first step in a long process, the shark’s olfactory workings share with us how to take action and commit to a plan.
• Sharks have skeletons made of cartilage.  As anyone who’s ever smushed their nose against glass or flicked their ears around knows, cartilage is both flexible and resilient.  Having an entire skeleton full of the stuff gives sharks the advantage of freer movement, less susceptibility to damage, and the ability to bounce back quickly from an injury.  It bends, but does not break, and easily returns to its original shape.  The skeleton of a shark offers an example of how it’s possible to be both flexible and firm when faced with stress.

Shark Week itself is another matter.  While the event itself has run for over 20 years, it’s gone through numerous changes that reflect not only the prevalence of the event itself, but the development of the Shark Week brand.  These changes offer insight into key branding strategies that have helped to make Shark Week, as one Facebook status message notes, “the most wonderful time of the year”:

• Cross-brand promotion.  Whereas Shark Week used to be a more insular event featuring shark-related nature shows, the theme has expanded to other programs, like shark-themed episodes of Mythbusters.  Discovery Channel leveraged the popularity of its different brands to bring new viewers and publicity to both programs.  While this could have backfired spectacularly, it instead became a success because the network decided that it’s okay to mix things up every once in a while, brand-wise.
• Adding new features.  For the first 16 years of its life, Shark Week didn’t have a host.  But once it could legally drive, the Discovery Channel added hosts, starting with members of its own programming at first, graduating to bigger names like this year’s host, Craig Ferguson.  By acknowledging the power of its brand, the Shark Week folks at Discovery were able to increase it even more by pulling in other powerful brands.
• Going crazy with promotions.  Look at this picture.  Seriously, look at it.  Would you want to ride in that pedicab?  OF COURSE YOU WOULD!  It’s like you’re riding in the mouth of a shark!  And promotions like that helped to make Shark Week ingrained in the public consciousness as a big event worth celebrating.  The event itself became successful in part because of Discovery’s willingness to be innovative with brand promotions.

So what does it mean to live every week like it’s Shark Week?

I have no idea.  But there are definitely a few lessons that can help us learn how to motivate and brand ourselves like Shark Week.

*I just remembered they have that show that’s super-awesome to watch while bored or intoxicated, Time Warp, where they show things happening in 300-style slow-motion sequences.  Oh, and Dirty Jobs is pretty great.

We live in an age of TiVo, an age of Hulu, an age of DVD box sets, an age of Torrents and streaming sites.  You can watch almost any TV show and a whole lot of movies at any time you wish.  So with that being said, what’s the point of reruns on in prime time during the summer?

I understand the historical implications; reruns were first used so that the people who make the shows could have a break for vacation, family time, creative summits, movie-making, drinking heavily, whatever.  And with no way to record the shows themselves (this was before VCR, remember), viewers would tune in to see if it was an episode that they might have missed.  But now that people can pull up episodes of The Big Bang Theory whenever they darn well please, it doesn’t seem as important.

The networks have noticed this, too.  New shows that might not have gone through as new fall or spring series are given a chance in the hottest months.  Cancelled series have their final episodes burned off, a treat for devoted fans of brilliant but axed series like Kings or Better Off Ted.  The summer is no longer a season of pure repetition; it’s now a season of second-stringers and send-offs.

So reruns, which were once almost indispensable in catching up fans who might have missed an episode, are now more space filler than anything else.  And given reality TV’s low costs, the back-burner bits of cancelled shows, new summer series, and the relatively easy set-up for a “news special,” paying for syndicated content seems like it might almost cost more, with lower returns.

In life, we claim that there are things that we need, and in work, there are people who are called essential.  But much like reruns, their utility might be more situational and conditional than concrete.  And many things which were once crucial to us have found that innovation and updating to stay current wind up diminishing their use and range of influence.

The sad truth is, almost anything can be replaced.  New materials can be used.  New software can be coded.  Other people can be trained.  A machine itself can be gutted and have completely new parts put in and will still run about the same, if not better.  In fact, that might be the underlying message of a popular MTV show of yesteryear.  Which is now in reruns.

Now, there is a way for someone to become a true linchpin, but it involves balancing operational utility with social utility.  Being a good, productive worker who delivers results can only go so far; one must be personable and interesting, too.  By maintaining good social connections, a positive reputation, and creating strong interpersonal networks, one can use nepotism as a tool to help ensure continued employment, contracts or friendship.

Unfortunately, TV shows can’t really talk to us (yet), so a rerun can’t remind you that maybe you missed the first three minutes of it when it premiered due to a longer than expected snack break.  Or that it’s got a really good joke in it that you forgot and might want to tell at the office tomorrow.  But it’s okay; that’s what a DVR is for.

Things get replaced and upgraded every day.  People get promoted at work.  Software developers release new versions of their programs.  New appliances are purchased.  And in the realm of television, shows go off the air to be replaced by similar shows.  But never in TV history has this action been taken to the extreme as much as it has recently – NBC is replacing Law and Order with Law and Order: Los Angeles this fall.

I’ll say that again: a show was just replaced with its almost-identical spin-off.

At about the time of the shift, it was also announced that if Law & Order Classic got renewed, it would be the longest-running drama in TV history (in the US, anyway), beating out Gunsmoke for top honors.  Instead, Law& Order Original Blend is being put out to pasture.  The only thing that is startling about this is why.

The difference between the stories in Law & Order v1.0 and L&O:LA isn’t as pronounced as in the other spin-offs, where the focus is on special victims or the intent of the criminals.  To an outsider, the only difference seems to be the locale (New York City versus Los Angeles) and the cast, even though Law & Order Grampa Version has had a lot of cast changes in its 20-year run.  So the only excuse I can think of is this:

NBC is “shaking things up.”  Again.

Now, granted, this has been proven to work.  Fans pop up out of the woodwork to support their shows, old viewers return, and people get excited to talk about the program again.  The problem is, this strategy loses a bit of currency every time it is used.

After all, it’s the strategy used for the Betty White episode of Saturday Night Live.

Or the Conan-Leno feud (and hey, I fell for it, too) – the ratings bump that resulted from the publicity from that bad decision was great.

The good thing about “shaking things up” is that it revitalizes a failing brand, creating a conversation about it and bringing in new and old viewers who have been drawn in by the controversy.  This in turn can translate to a surge of popularity and support.

The problem is, coming up with new conversations all the time doesn’t build a lasting allegiance; the numbers are often temporary.  In fact, this strategy of short-term thinking can often damage the brand overall, as viewers become more resistant to gimmicks, and long-time fans may feel betrayed.  Additionally, not taking public opinion into account (again, Re: Team Coco – and yes, that’s a real picture) creates backlash and problems with solvency of many of the brands involved.

So, if one does deign to use this approach, the hubbub must be justified – high quality content, loyalty incentives to keep the new followers while appeasing the old, and continuing to develop a solid brand relationship are all necessary to sustained success.  You can build off of a gimmick, but it requires a lot of work at relationship-building to justify the initial attention grabber.

Even if Law & Order Oh, That’s Still on TV?  With the Guy from ‘Kangaroo Jack’?  I Should Watch That gets a ratings boost and manages to inspire enough petitions to get its historic 21st season, or if the controversy leads to a record number of viewers for the first episode of L&O: LA, that’s no clear indicator of sustainable results.  They still need to earn the trust and respect of the viewers, and that’s not something that can be done as easily as getting that buzz.

So meet the new boss, same as the old boss – we don’t know how long they’ll be sticking around, but things might start feeling awfully familiar.

First off, this has nothing to do with my personal decision to boycott NBC directly until they get rid of Jeff Zucker (which started at about the time that I made this post).  And when I say “directly,” I mean “direct viewership of NBC programming on my TV but It’s cool if I’m watching Chuck, Community or Parks and Recreation on Hulu.”

Yeah, I know, my brain is weird.

Truth is, I’ve never been able to get into the Olympics.

It has nothing to do with the entries of non-sports like ping pong (sorry, Forrest) or curling (aka “shuffleboard on ice”) being included on the bill.  It’s not that I get bored with watching athletes compete, though watching other people exercise makes me feel fat and lazy.  It’s not even the faux-patriotism that many people start to feel when cheering on their country, which is more of a social obligation than something people do by choice.

Actually, I don’t like the Olympics because it seems like I have to watch them.

The other broadcast networks black out their schedules with reruns when the Olympics are on.  There are reports, specials, analysts and replays that clog up 24-hour news channels.  Every other commercial is for a “proud Olympic sponsor.”  Billboards, magazine articles, the main pages of websites…all of it a constant reminder that The Olympics Are On Right Now And I Should Be Watching Them.

Sure, there are similar marketing strategies involved for holidays, major-league sporting events, awards ceremonies and (sometimes) movies.  But unlike these events which typically* last only a few days, hours, or less**, the Olympics go on and ON and ON for what feels like an eternity.

I’ll watch some of the opening ceremony (which is a day in and of itself) and tune in a few days later.  Then, I’ll be flipping through the channels a couple of weeks later and BAM!  The Olympics are still going on!  It keeps going on and on and on even past the point of being welcome on my TV schedule, like a house guest who doesn’t know when to leave.

None of this is meant to speak ill of the athletes themselves; their athletic achievements are inspiring, and it takes an incredible amount of skill, dedication, perseverance and ability to get to the Olympian level.  It’s just that watching the Olympics requires a far greater investment of time and emotion than I am willing to give.  But if someone can put together a highlights reel of the events for me that can be watched in under two hours, sitting down to watch the Olympics sounds a lot more plausible.

* Except Christmas, which started in July last year.

** You only really need to watch the last two minutes of any sports event to get the gist of the whole thing.

This past Sunday, I woke up at a time that no reasonable person* should be awake at on a Sunday morning: 8:00 AM.  Unable to return to sleep, I flipped through the channels, trying desperately to find something on the air to justify the early morning consciousness.  As I had seen all of the infomercials that were on at the time, I opted for some good ol’ church TV.  And what I saw was amazing.

Regardless of the station that I chose, the evangelists all seemed to be speaking in the same way.  Though they had distinct personalities and stories to share, there were many unifying characteristics that highlighted not only their similarities, but also some core skills that can make a good public speaker.

So, with the oft-quoted statistic that public speaking is the #1 fear in America (at least) in mind, here are some tips brought to you by early morning church TV shows:

• Use a compelling narrative. Many of the televangelists would start their sermons with a story before drifting off into other lessons or smaller stories, but would consistently reference their earlier stories.  In this way, they created a story and structure that was easy to follow and reinforced the points that they were trying to get across.
• Don’t be afraid to get physical. Televangelists will use a great deal of body language while telling their stories, making wild gestures and jumping around as necessary to provide a visual element for their audience, as well as a stronger nonverbal message.
• Create dynamic speaking patterns.  Whether it’s changes in inflection and intonation, a different pronunciation of several words or even rhyming, televangelists make sure to have an auditory presence that keeps their audience rapt with attention and interested for longer.
• Audience participation bridges the gap. Many televangelists are celebrities in their own right, speaking to audiences of hundreds or even thousands.  Some help to improve their images and seem more personable by using audience members a a cipher: they connect with these individuals on stage, which in turn makes the entire audience feel more connected to them.
• Break it down.  During their sermons, the televangelists rarely (if ever) used words that had more than three syllables.  Using simple language allowed them to be understood more clearly by their audiences and made their messages more accessible to viewers.
• Don’t be afraid to offer an opinion. Almost all of the televangelists were discussing the same piece of scripture, yet no two of them had the same perspective or lesson to share.

So the next time you find yourself awake at the absurd hour of 8:00 AM on a Sunday morning, take a few minutes to watch and listen to the televangelists.  You might learn how to make a better presentation.

* Unless you’re at work, in which case it’s your job that’s unreasonable.

On Monday night, I was out at a bar with my best friend, celebrating his birthday.  We were watching ESPN highlights (mostly about Mark McGwire’s recent announcement or the Cardinals game on Sunday) when a commercial break came, and Anthony Sullivan appeared to promote a new drain unclogging wonder that could be bought For Only $19.95 (plus shipping and handling).  ”I can’t believe that [Sullivan] has been getting all Billy Mays‘ work since he died,”  my friend lamented.  ”How did that happen?”

Which got me wondering – how did that happen?  How did Billy Mays become such a cultural touchstone that people are sad that he’s no longer making infomercials?  He was a TV pitchman, a role that isn’t typically associated with celebrity.  And then I remembered how Dick Van Dyke got famous.

In some PBS special I watched too long ago to remember the name of, Carl Reiner was being interviewed about The Dick Van Dyke Show, and was telling the story of its name.  When the creators were developing the show in 1961, they were having trouble finding a hook to draw viewers in.  None of the actors were well-known at the time, and the generic names the network offered for the series didn’t work.  So the creators took a gamble and named the show after their leading man.  Dick Van Dyke wasn’t a celebrity then, but his eponymous show created self-fulfilling prophecy that made him a celebrity.  After all, he had his own show – he HAD to be someone!

Similarly, Billy Mays was endorsing a lot of products with the strength of his pitches resting on his opening line, “Hi, Billy Mays here…”  Who was Billy Mays?  Well, if he was on TV endorsing something, he HAD to be someone!

The key is total brand confidence.

Both Dick Van Dyke and Billy Mays were thrust on stage (metaphorically speaking) and through sheer force of will and conviction, people accepted that they had value and were worth paying attention to.  Sure, it’s a more risky gambit than creating a persona over time, but if you can present your brand with enough charisma, and then back it up by showing utility, people will take notice and follow.

However, this move can be overplayed.  After all, what’s more pathetic than someone saying “Don’t you know who I am?”  If you have to resort to this, you’ve already lost, and your brand loses value.  All you need is to confidently say something that gets across the message, this is who I am, and this is what I can do.

It might sound simple, or even a little contrived.  But getting by on the strength of one’s name has worked since the early days of television.  So give it a try – there’s no shipping or handling involved.

Is anyone from NBC reading my blog?  Because if you are, you guys seem to have missed some of my posts from last week, especially this one.  The network seems to have forgotten history, which one would think would be more difficult to do, given that there was an HBO movie about it and many blogs are drawing comparisons between the current situation and the one that occurred almost two decades ago.

Basically, the network has decided that drastically altering their primetime schedule and creating an almost-solid (except for the local news) block of four evening talk shows isn’t such a good idea.  The ratings have been poor, and rescheduling the different shows might not help much.  Conan O’Brien might lose his shaky grasp of The Tonight Show, Jimmy Fallon will be competing with infomercials for ratings, and Carson Daly (remember him?) will be cast off from the network.

The person who is most affected by this decision is O’Brien, who was given a late night institution, only to watch as the network showed their lack of faith in his abilities by giving Jay Leno another show whose very presence trivializes Conan’s promotion.  There have been suggestions that O’Brien quit and find a home at another network – 15 years on the air have helped him create a powerful brand – but the problem is, where will he go?

CBS has firmly established a counterpoint to NBC’s lineup with David Letterman and Craig Ferguson’s shows.  ABC has Jimmy Kimmel doing late-night hosting.  The CW isn’t making much money and seems to be more interested in teen dramas.  So that leaves Conan a choice of moving to FOX, a network whose record of late night talk shows is spotty at best, or cable.

Leno’s Reverse-Chappelle*  has forced Conan into a situation that many of us have found ourselves in at one time or another: an Either-Or debacle.  Either Conan takes his lumps with NBC and hopes that everything works out okay, or he quits (keep in mind that the jobs and paychecks of all of the people who work on his show would go with him).  But, as with the seemingly limited number of options that are presented to us when we’re between a rock and a hard place, he has a third option.

He can make his own choice.

Conan has proven that he has a powerful brand that attracts younger viewers.  His audience is more likely to categorize him with Jon Stewart or Stephen Colbert than Letterman or Leno.  So if he wants to send a message showing not only his brand power but also his utility, he needs to mobilize his fan base in a way that his network bosses will notice.

Online petitions don’t really do anything, but ratings do.  A concentrated online campaign to increase the number of Tonight Show viewers might help (ie: “Save Conan by watching”) as it attracts his fan base through a medium that they are comfortable with.  He could partner with Leno, as Letterman suggests, and co-host the Tonight Show, helping to increase his visibility and popularity among viewers who may have left when he took over the show.

There are many things that we can learn from the current trials and tribulations of Conan O’Brien. Getting a promotion does not increase your job security.  Your personal brand value is a constantly shifting thing.  You’re allowed to diss your own network on your show.  Even when it seems like you have very limited options, you can create your own solutions.

When you’re developing your brand and establishing yourself in a new position with a company, it’s difficult to find solid footing, and even harder to do when the rug is pulled out from under you.  But if you can maintain your brand, demonstrate your utility and come up with your own solution to solve the problem, you’ll come out ahead.

UPDATE: It looks like Conan chose the third option.

*Dave Chappelle, as you might remember, quit his show and a huge paycheck when he didn’t like the direction that it was going in.  Conversely, Leno continues to stick around and collect what I imagine to be cloth sacks with a dollar sign printed on the side that are full of money.

I don’t know about you, but I hate those people who say stuff like, “Oh, I don’t own a TV.  It’s a waste of time.”  Or, “I don’t see any reason to have a cell phone.”  Or, most damning of all, “I don’t really need a computer.” It’s okay to use them less – we’ve discussed that.  And I’m not saying this because I might be biased.  But to discount an entire form of widely used technology will only doom you to failure and obsolescence.

With shared cultural experiences going on the decline, it becomes harder and harder to relate to others, much less communicate with them.  By keeping yourself voluntarily blind from books, newspapers, radio, TV and other forms of media, you’re removing yourself from the world.  And you also lose proficiency.

The more time you spend with something, the more adept you become, and the more receptive you are to new advancements and trends.  The seemingly wider gap between recent generations can be attributed to the development and prevalence of technology among young people, many of whom first learned to use a computer in elementary school (whereas previous generations were not familiar with the skill set involved, save for maybe typing).  This technological symbiosis between computers and Generations X and Y has led to a communications barrier with many of their older co-workers, save for those who took it upon themselves to keep up.

If you ignore the TV, you miss out on water cooler chats with co-workers that can strengthen your professional reputation and relationships.  If you skip out on the movies, you lose common reference points with clients.  If you abhor a cell phone, people might stop trying to contact you.  And if you keep away from the Internet, you’ll lose the race before it has even started. So go out into the world, experience everything through a variety of media, and don’t count out any of it.  You’ll only be shooting yourself in the foot.

A while back, I was watching Real Chance of Love 2: Back in the Saddle on VH1, which shouldn’t surprise you if you’ve read this post, and a contestant offered a surprising amount of insight with this line:

Is you a pipe or a diamond?…A pipe bursts under pressure, but diamonds is made. [sic]

Mauling of the English language aside, she makes a good point.  Pressure and stress cause one of two reactions in people: crumbling under the strain or rising to the occasion.  No one is immune to their effects; stress in and of itself cannot lead to indifference about said stressful situation.

The personal (and in some cases, corporate) responses that you will encounter when it comes to hard times, difficult decision-making, fixing problems and so on will lead to how your relationships are truly defined.  And although you should all be diamonds because you read about stress management last week, that doesn’t mean that everyone else you meet will follow suit.

Since people respond to stress differently, they also respond to how others respond to stress differently.  If you respond more positively, you might look down on or try to over-nurture those on a negative bent.  And if you respond negatively, you defer your responsibilities all to positive responders which can lead to resentment from them, or hold resentment towards them yourself.  So how do you all get on the same page to lead to harmony?

The easiest (and in some cases, “easy” may be inferred to be a term used loosely) way to achieve a more productive environment in the face of stress is to convert everyone to the same mindset when it comes up.  Rather than having a bunch of people running around bemoaning the stressful situation, or having conflict among those who respond to stress differently, the team should work together to overcome the source of the stress.  Even if it’s not a total change, getting some people to focus or just relax can lead to greater dividends than progressing forward with conflicts intact.

So the next time you’re faced with a daunting task with a new group (or even just yourself on a solo expedition), there’s one question that you should always ask:

Is you a pipe or a diamond?

A few posts ago, I mentioned the Peter Principle, and a few readers have asked me to clarify what that is and how to combat it.

The Peter Principle* is the theory that in a hierarchy, every employee tends to rise to their level of incompetence, a point best illustrated by Michael Scott on The Office (or David Brent to those in the UK).  Although realistically, both bosses would have been fired long ago by their respective companies, their continued employment not only shows further evidence of the Peter Principle in action, but also that the same incompetence exists among their superiors.

However, after considering my personal experience and reading Penelope Trunk’s book, Brazen Careerist (specifically the chapters on managing one’s boss), I’m not so sure that the Peter Principle can exist for long in any setting.

While the promotion of people past their point of efficacy does happen, it tends to be less frequent.  Whether through extensive training, a strong vetting process or required examples of matching core leadership competencies, promotions to managerial positions are made through a more exact and detailed process than being based simply on current performance.  And the option of demoting those who show themselves to be incompetent leaders is always open.

As companies become more wary about offering promotions due to expanding costs and shrinking returns, they may alleviate problems within their organizations by adding additional responsibilities or finding new ways to offer employees benefits instead of giving promotions.  As a result, promoting employees becomes a greater undertaking and it becomes more critical for them to ensure that they are choosing the right candidates.  So in cases where companies do not have room for expansion, the Peter Principle can be a deadly mistake.

While Michael Scott could become a manager in a real-world office setting, it’s unlikely that he would stay as one for long.  His standing as an avatar of the Peter Principle would move him quickly from “world’s greatest boss” back to sales.

* Not to be confused with the Dilbert Principle, which states that “leadership is nature’s way of removing morons from the productive flow.”