The new job guarantee: there isn't one. Why even the strongest brands must evolve or die

Was reminded about the pace of change today in reading Seth Godin's blog on the fate of the Singer Corporation, which once employed more than 12,000 people in a single plant. Business today moves at the speed of light, and the only guarantee for workers today is this: there are no guarantees. When was the last time you took inventory of the brands that have come and gone in your lifetime? Are you old enough to remember Underwood typewriters, or even the IBM Selectric? How about film? Or most recently Gottschalks? Pontiac is going the way of Rambler and Packard.









From Seth's blog:

"When was the last time you even thought about Singer (or a sewing machine for that matter)? The cycles are far shorter now than they were during the century that Singer was a shining light for corporate success. More now than ever, success today is no guarantee of success tomorrow.
"Sometimes we spend more time than we should defending the old thing, instead of working to take advantage of the new thing. I bet you can list a dozen "critical" industries that will be as relevant to life in 2020 as Singer is to our world today."

Big media is also an endangered species. I thought about this earlier this week when I followed the entire first day of the Iranian protests on Twitter: raw, unfiltered and often first hand accounts. By the time I tuned into the NBC Nightly News, Brian Williams had nothing to tell me. It was clear to me then that CNN, NBC and the other networks are just as endangered as newspapers: if they don't change.
Change is hard, it's traumatic and it often turns your world upside down. But at the end of the day, we don't really have any other options.

As Seth concludes:

"The key difference is that back then, managers and shareholders could stall and fumble and wait out the transition until after they retired. Now, it's almost an annual event. Hiding isn't working, and neither is whining. The best marketing strategy is to destroy your industry before your competition does."

When passion alone isn't enough: a lesson of survival when your business is turned on its head

Picked up this hilarious video off The Daily Show website on the challenges facing newspapers, in this case The New York Times. There are few bigger fans of the NY Times than me, yet I couldn't help be surprised at the tone of the Times managers. Don't know if it was smugness or self importance, but these guys came across as virtually clueless as to what is happening around them. I'm sure they are passionate about what they do, but passion alone is not enough in itself. And that's one of the problems with the mass media these days. Reporters and editors revel in their passion for the business and believe that this passion for their craft should be enough to save their jobs. After all, isn't what they do important? And if it's important to them, shouldn't society value it? But passion alone entitles you to absolutely nothing. It doesn't solve changing reader habits and interests and it certainly doesn't address the revenue issues. The problem is this: passion can mask the real problems facing an industry, and simply being passionate about it falls well short of becoming part of the solution.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
End Times
thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Newt Gingrich Unedited Interview

A doctor may be passionate about medicine and helping people, but if he doesn't hire people to deal with the insurance companies, she'll soon be out of business. A documentary film maker may be passionate about her subject, but if she doesn't find someone to market and help fund it, no one will never see it. I'm sure the GM workers were passionate about making cars in Michigan, but if no one is buying Pontiacs, what value is that passion? Likewise, reporters and editors talk about their passion for their business, but it's a passion as only they choose to selectively define it. Passion is only valuable if it comes with the ability to change and accept that everything you may do tomorrow may be different. To be part of the solution, and not to simply whine that things have changed and the rules have changed. Unions love to cling to their "rules," but many times these rules have been rendered obsolete by the market. So simply clinging to the work as you define it may reflect your passion, but it's a recipe for eventually being out of work. I'd trade a pound of passion for an ounce of flexibility and problem solving in a minute.

When the tribe holds onto the past, often it just takes one uninhibited dancer to trigger change

Came across this video from the Sasquatch music festival on Seth Godin's blog (see his blog here). It struck me that in times of stress and traumatic change, organizations often become paralyzed by fear of the unknown even when they know they simply must change to survive. This is particularly true in the mass media business (newspapers, radio, TV, magazines) which are undergoing a seismic upheaval that calls for a total rethinking of our roles. And yet, even when presented with overwhelming evidence, we tend to hold onto the past because it it familiar, and comfortable. The tribal instincts of organizations are strong, and few want go to against the "us not change" mentality of the herd. And yet, as in this video, often is only takes one or two people to initiate and embrace change. From Seth's blog:

"My favorite part happens just before the first minute mark. That's when guy #3 joins the group. Before him, it was just a crazy dancing guy and then maybe one other crazy guy. But it's guy #3 who made it a movement.
Initiators are rare indeed, but it's scary to be the leader. Guy #3 is rare too, but it's a lot less scary and just as important. Guy #49 is irrelevant. No bravery points for being part of the mob.
"We need more guy #3s.