Wow, interesting post Buzz. I had a similar experience when I was interviewing for an executive producer position for a popular TV show in Toronto, except I was in the room for the interview - at that point I realized I had restless leg syndrome.
In this churning rapidly evolving media market a couple of things are happening.
1) People in the decision making positions can sometimes rely too much on what they know (which would be what always knew - bet it in radio, tv or newspapers). 2) The new media or new way of doing things is not showing the revenue just yet so they can still make those more traditional decisions. 3) A lot of the media executives I meet are about 5 years away from retirement - meaning they want to keep a low profile and not really do too much until they are ready to collect a pension.
BTW...needless to say I did not get the job.
Anna
· 2 months ago
So Specialize, with the ability to Diversify as required.
Roger Kingkade
· 2 months ago
Anna makes sense.
I won't comment on comment on your obvious lament that you feel some media outlets are allowing themselves to be left behind. I'd like to shine some light on your interview.
Often times, people attempt to fight city hall from the outside. This is rarely the simplest way to affect change. You can fight it from within. Wouldn't it be a better use of time and resources to ensure that you get your foot in the door where you can thoroughly examine the machine, find efficiencies and deficiencies, and then chart the new course?
buzz
· 2 months ago
Yes Roger, I also believe fighting from within is the best case scenario, like Matthew mentioned.
It's a shame, however, that one has to behave in a cloak and dagger manner to get in the door before the change can be affected.
The fact the industry is blind to it's need to move forward, embrace change and seek innovation is what disappoints me.
Change should be affected from within, and employers should be actively seeking the people that can participate in the status quo AND move it forward. It's not an either / or proposition. It can be done simultaneously.
Roger Kingkade
· 2 months ago
On the contrary, one doesn't have to behave in a cloak and dagger manner. I think there's a general misconception that managers are blind to the changes they must make. Furthermore, many critics have a hard line for where the industry must go without much reverence for the process. I challenge many of those who call for change to itemize how we get there from "here."
I think this is true: If you want to get into a company, try to get into the company as it exists now. From there, use your skill set to champion small causes and implement small changes. Blowing up a strategy is costly and, often, inefficient. There's a lot to be said about subtlety.
buzz
· 2 months ago
I was laying out my best asset: diversity.
Roger Kingkade
· 2 months ago
There's no question that your diversity is a huge asset. Nobody gets it like you do... spoken as a friend and a colleague. Maybe you bumped into somebody who doesn't get it either.
All Comments
In this churning rapidly evolving media market a couple of things are happening.
1) People in the decision making positions can sometimes rely too much on what they know (which would be what always knew - bet it in radio, tv or newspapers).
2) The new media or new way of doing things is not showing the revenue just yet so they can still make those more traditional decisions.
3) A lot of the media executives I meet are about 5 years away from retirement - meaning they want to keep a low profile and not really do too much until they are ready to collect a pension.
BTW...needless to say I did not get the job.
I won't comment on comment on your obvious lament that you feel some media outlets are allowing themselves to be left behind. I'd like to shine some light on your interview.
Often times, people attempt to fight city hall from the outside. This is rarely the simplest way to affect change. You can fight it from within. Wouldn't it be a better use of time and resources to ensure that you get your foot in the door where you can thoroughly examine the machine, find efficiencies and deficiencies, and then chart the new course?
It's a shame, however, that one has to behave in a cloak and dagger manner to get in the door before the change can be affected.
The fact the industry is blind to it's need to move forward, embrace change and seek innovation is what disappoints me.
Change should be affected from within, and employers should be actively seeking the people that can participate in the status quo AND move it forward. It's not an either / or proposition. It can be done simultaneously.
I think this is true: If you want to get into a company, try to get into the company as it exists now. From there, use your skill set to champion small causes and implement small changes. Blowing up a strategy is costly and, often, inefficient. There's a lot to be said about subtlety.