Why have all the sequels that have been planned to the Rocky Horror Shows either not been made or have flopped? The obvious answer is they couldn’t live up to the original. I suspect the real reason though may be a little more subtle – they couldn’t reach the spirit of the original. Because, in the meantime, circumstances changed. Other films and musicals were made. People got to a point where they had done that – still are doing it all over the world every weekend – they just didn’t want to do a variation of it. It’s a dilemma that every successful product faces. Something wins – now what? How much of what you had do you keep? How much do you revamp? What stops 2 being too? In the case of Rocky Horror, the storylines were just as wacky, many of the characters made a return, author Richard O’Brien was still involved … and yet … Rocky Horror worked brilliantly. The numbers say it’s still working. There are facts, but there is no …

The next time you’re bored at dinner, here’s a discussion guaranteed to re-animate conversation. Simply ask “What do you think is the world’s most unnecessary/useless/over-rated job?” (choose any option – they all work). The night I asked, suggestions came thick and fast. And most of the reasons people gave for disparagingly rating jobs the way they did fell into clear categories: 1.       Do nothing 2.       Add nothing 3.       Cost a lot and do nothing 4.       Talk a lot and add nothing 5.       Why do they bother? 6.       Think they matter but don’t 7.       Complicate everything 8.       Superficial 9.       Lack ability 10.   Lack personality 11.   Clueless 12.   Ruthless 13.   Make no difference whatsoever 14.   Pen pushers 15.   Grizzlers 16.   Vultures 17.   Leeches 18.   Bullshitters 19.   Fence squatters Interestingly, a number of vocations received ratings in multiple categories. How do you think other people see the work you do? Are they right?

Further to the last post on Michelin. Over at The Domino Project, Seth Godin and his team are clearly having the same misgivings about the publishing industry – that when you work to a prize (in this case a place on The New York Times list) that prize can have a huge influence on swathes of what you do, and the influence isn’t necessarily positive. Here’s two excerpts from their piece on why they will not be courting popularity with The New York Times Bestseller List: If you publish books (or write them) aimed at a mass audience, the Times list is never very far from your focus. It’s not just an indicator (the proverbial canary, indicating what’s going on in the mine) but it’s also an amplifier, a spark that can lead to ever more sales, conversations and credibility … … But there’s a cost. The cost is that you have to write differently, promote differently and do business differently. Simple questions about rollout, promotion, pricing, packaging, titles and distribution sooner or later come …

Another reminder this week that the social media space – just like every other market – is not one consistent goldfield. While the likes of LinkedIn and Facebook continue to build powerful brands and potentially public business models, MySpace has lost a lot of ground, and much of what I see here takes me back 10 years to the boom and bust of the dot.com times. Some parallels I noticed: Participation is not enough. If you don’t have a distinctive, clear and evolving money-model for your brand, it’s not enough to be in the same arena as those making money. You will be overshadowed and outperformed. Cash cows are grown, not born. The purchase price is no guarantee of anything. In the case of the $580 million that News Corp paid, it’s not even a barrier to entry for others. It just means you paid a high entry fee based on a perception of what lay ahead. There’s a recurrent warning in there too for valuing “new models”. In terms of fundamentals, there are no …