2 years, 1 month ago
How should Leo Laporte and Jason Calacanis resolve their "This Week In" conflict?
In 2005, Leo Laporte started a netcasting show titled This Week In Tech (TWiT) on TWiT.tv and later a network of shows sprang up with some titled "The Week In _____" - the blank filled with subjects like Google, Tech, Law, etc.
Jason Calacanis wanted to start netcast network also. With his previous experience with Weblogs, Inc., it would be a natural progression for Calacanis. He reportedly asked Laporte if he could name his network "This Week In" Admittedly, Laporte had no problem with it and ThisWeekIn.com was launched.
Now with both brands being popular and with Jason appearing on Laporte's shows, Laporte feels there might be a conflict, hence the issue.
Here is my answer, but I want to hear everyone else's solution:
My day job (when I am not launching my own start-up) is running an advertising and marketing firm. We routinely handle issues like this for our clients.
TWIT.tv has its own problems outside of Calacanis - the very name of TWiT sounds very Twitterish. That in itself leads to brand confusion. But it does not come close to the real brand confusion that exists between TWI and TWiT. I first started listening to these netcasts a few months ago and enjoy both networks. It wasn't until I heard Calacanis mention the name issue in one of his early TWiS shows that I figured out that there was no relation even though Calacanis appears on TWiT from time to time and on special events like the SXSW special shows.
My feeling is netcasting is going to be very, very big. I think Laporte, with his cred from TechTV helped launched the niche and with Calacanis' bizdev experience with Weblogs, this is going to turn into a very big niche. If you look at the problems with traditional broadcast TV being allergic to the web (they think Hulu is the answer), this will be another billion dollar niche. The carriers like YouTube and especially the very forward thinking Ustream streaming these shows, we will see a lot of cash swap hands in the next decade in this niche.
Essentially, this issue should be solved now and the best solution has one of them changing their brand name. Painful, gut-wrenching but necessary.
If I was mediating this kind of marketing conflict - if both Laporte and Calacanis were my clients here is what I would suggest.
Calacanis should retire the name of his network and develop a new one NOW before the brand is built further before it goes large and begins appearing on CNBC late at night. He can gently ease out of the ThisWeekIn.com brand over the span of a year and push to the new one. The shows, This Week In Startups and This Week in iPad, etc. should remain the same. And the same goes for Leo. If it was good enough for David Brinkley, then by God, it should be good enough for the rest of us. But to better secure the brand, I would start branding the new shows with something else than the "This Week In _____" simply because it has been done before.
For Laporte, I would change his network's name too. I would want to separate myself from Twitter even though he was there first to the party for that term - they are a Juggernaut and TWiT isn't... yet. I believe it too will be highly profitable also and at some point, as with most leaders in this space, be ripe for acquisition. ABC, CBS and NBC will need to do something in the future to save their skins and netcasting start-up acquisitions may be a path to that.
That would be my advice to them. If I were them, would I take it? Probably not. Laporte has a ton of time and mindshare in the TWiT.tv brand and Calacanis has a ton of cash and momentum in ThisWeenIn.
Both guys are smart and I like both of the networks. I watch more of their shows (hours per week) than I watch broadcast TV. I like both of these guys and unlike the Laport/Arrington spat, I don't enjoy watching the discontent unfold.
So what would your solution be? Beer summit? Waterguns at 50 paces? Live Chatrouletting "Yo'mama" jokes for an hour?
Jason Calacanis wanted to start netcast network also. With his previous experience with Weblogs, Inc., it would be a natural progression for Calacanis. He reportedly asked Laporte if he could name his network "This Week In" Admittedly, Laporte had no problem with it and ThisWeekIn.com was launched.
Now with both brands being popular and with Jason appearing on Laporte's shows, Laporte feels there might be a conflict, hence the issue.
Here is my answer, but I want to hear everyone else's solution:
My day job (when I am not launching my own start-up) is running an advertising and marketing firm. We routinely handle issues like this for our clients.
TWIT.tv has its own problems outside of Calacanis - the very name of TWiT sounds very Twitterish. That in itself leads to brand confusion. But it does not come close to the real brand confusion that exists between TWI and TWiT. I first started listening to these netcasts a few months ago and enjoy both networks. It wasn't until I heard Calacanis mention the name issue in one of his early TWiS shows that I figured out that there was no relation even though Calacanis appears on TWiT from time to time and on special events like the SXSW special shows.
My feeling is netcasting is going to be very, very big. I think Laporte, with his cred from TechTV helped launched the niche and with Calacanis' bizdev experience with Weblogs, this is going to turn into a very big niche. If you look at the problems with traditional broadcast TV being allergic to the web (they think Hulu is the answer), this will be another billion dollar niche. The carriers like YouTube and especially the very forward thinking Ustream streaming these shows, we will see a lot of cash swap hands in the next decade in this niche.
Essentially, this issue should be solved now and the best solution has one of them changing their brand name. Painful, gut-wrenching but necessary.
If I was mediating this kind of marketing conflict - if both Laporte and Calacanis were my clients here is what I would suggest.
Calacanis should retire the name of his network and develop a new one NOW before the brand is built further before it goes large and begins appearing on CNBC late at night. He can gently ease out of the ThisWeekIn.com brand over the span of a year and push to the new one. The shows, This Week In Startups and This Week in iPad, etc. should remain the same. And the same goes for Leo. If it was good enough for David Brinkley, then by God, it should be good enough for the rest of us. But to better secure the brand, I would start branding the new shows with something else than the "This Week In _____" simply because it has been done before.
For Laporte, I would change his network's name too. I would want to separate myself from Twitter even though he was there first to the party for that term - they are a Juggernaut and TWiT isn't... yet. I believe it too will be highly profitable also and at some point, as with most leaders in this space, be ripe for acquisition. ABC, CBS and NBC will need to do something in the future to save their skins and netcasting start-up acquisitions may be a path to that.
That would be my advice to them. If I were them, would I take it? Probably not. Laporte has a ton of time and mindshare in the TWiT.tv brand and Calacanis has a ton of cash and momentum in ThisWeenIn.
Both guys are smart and I like both of the networks. I watch more of their shows (hours per week) than I watch broadcast TV. I like both of these guys and unlike the Laport/Arrington spat, I don't enjoy watching the discontent unfold.
So what would your solution be? Beer summit? Waterguns at 50 paces? Live Chatrouletting "Yo'mama" jokes for an hour?
You can leave an optional "tip" with Mahalo's virtual currency, Mahalo Dollars. If you are asking a difficult question that might require some research, or if you'd like a wide variety of feedback, a higher tip often leads to more answers to your question.
M$1 Answer
Frankly it is unwise to give other people advice on how to resolve their conflicts, unless they asked you to.
The best you can really do is answer: "If it was me in that situation, what would be the best course of action for me?" Realizing all the time that there is actually no universal answer, and what you personally would do is neither what everyone should do, nor something that would necessarily work out for them.
Also to be honest, I know little about this situation. I don't follow either podcast more than very occasionally, and don't really know that much about the people involved or exactly how this arose.
However if all is as you describe, your own proposal sounds like a wise one, and I myself would probably try to do something similar if I found myself in that scenario.
Of course the key is that "all is as you describe". In a conflict, it is usually the case that the two parties actually would not see the situation in the same terms at all, and would initially not even agree that matters are as you, a third party, described.
That's why it's so hard to mediate, even when people have asked you to.
Personally if I found myself in a situation in which a misunderstanding led to a falling out with a friend, my inclination would be to do the following:
- Apologize for the misunderstanding. and any harm done to the friend
- Hear their pain. Make sure they get that I got it.
- Tell them I value their friendship
- Offer to make full restitution for any harm they feel has been done to them
- They get to say what constitutes full restitution
- Whether asked or not, make such restitution as I can
- Be willing for my part to resume our friendship, recognising that they may not feel ready for that now or ever
Like i said, I don't say that is what everyone should do, or that it would work for everyone.
But for me, that is the way I'd go. Admittedly, most likely only after a period of cooling down and reflection.
The best you can really do is answer: "If it was me in that situation, what would be the best course of action for me?" Realizing all the time that there is actually no universal answer, and what you personally would do is neither what everyone should do, nor something that would necessarily work out for them.
Also to be honest, I know little about this situation. I don't follow either podcast more than very occasionally, and don't really know that much about the people involved or exactly how this arose.
However if all is as you describe, your own proposal sounds like a wise one, and I myself would probably try to do something similar if I found myself in that scenario.
Of course the key is that "all is as you describe". In a conflict, it is usually the case that the two parties actually would not see the situation in the same terms at all, and would initially not even agree that matters are as you, a third party, described.
That's why it's so hard to mediate, even when people have asked you to.
Personally if I found myself in a situation in which a misunderstanding led to a falling out with a friend, my inclination would be to do the following:
- Apologize for the misunderstanding. and any harm done to the friend
- Hear their pain. Make sure they get that I got it.
- Tell them I value their friendship
- Offer to make full restitution for any harm they feel has been done to them
- They get to say what constitutes full restitution
- Whether asked or not, make such restitution as I can
- Be willing for my part to resume our friendship, recognising that they may not feel ready for that now or ever
Like i said, I don't say that is what everyone should do, or that it would work for everyone.
But for me, that is the way I'd go. Admittedly, most likely only after a period of cooling down and reflection.
source(s):
Interest in conflict resolution, and some experience with handling my own and other people's conflict situations
Interest in conflict resolution, and some experience with handling my own and other people's conflict situations
You can leave an optional "tip" with Mahalo's virtual currency, Mahalo Dollars. If you are asking a difficult question that might require some research, or if you'd like a wide variety of feedback, a higher tip often leads to more answers to your question.
M$
Great points, thank you for everyone bringing this to the attention of Mahalo's users. I have faith that @Lon and @jasoncalacanis will work things out.
Philipy -
I think you got it right on. Hypotheticals, honestly, aren't really that useful if you don't have all the information, and since Leo isn't responding to Jason's comments (at least that I can tell), it really isn't feasible to speculate.
That being said, I would be heartbroken to see TWiT to change to another name. I don't listen to the TWi... shows so I don't have an opinion on it.