 |
|
|
|||||
A variety show thats still revered for its absurdist, slapstick humor debuted 50 years ago. It starred an irreverent band of characters made of foam and fleece. Long after The Muppet Shows original 120-episode run ended in 1981, the legend and legacy of Miss Piggy, Fozzie Bear, Gonzo and other creations concocted by puppeteer and TV producer Jim Henson have kept on growing. Thanks to the Muppets film franchise and the wonders of YouTube, the wacky gang is still delighting, and expanding, its fan base. As a scholar of popular culture, I believe that the Muppets reign, which began in the 1950s, has helped shape global culture, including educational television. Along the way, the puppets and the people who bring them to life have earned billions in revenue. Johnny Carson interviews Muppet creator Jim Henson, Kermit and other Muppets on the Tonight Show in 1975, ahead of one of an early The Muppet Show pilot. Kermits origin story Muppets, a portmanteau of marionette and puppet, first appeared on TV in the Washington, D.C., region in 1955, when Henson created a short sketch show called Sam and Friends with his future wife, Jane Nebel. Their motley cast of puppets, including a lizardlike character named Kermit, sang parody songs and performed comedy sketches. Hensons creations were soon popping up in segments on other TV shows, including Today and late-night programs. Rowlf the Dog appeared in Canadian dog food commercials before joining The Jimmy Dean Show as the hosts sidekick. After that show ended, Rowlf and Dean performed on the Ed Sullivan Show, where Kermit had occasionally appeared since 1961. Rowlf the Dog and Jimmy Dean reprise their schtick on the Ed Sullivan Show in 1967. From Sesame Street to SNL As Rowlf and Kermit made the rounds on variety shows, journalist Joan Ganz Cooney and psychologist Lloyd Morrisett were creating a new educational program. They invited Henson to provide a Muppet ensemble for the show. Henson waived his performance fee to maintain rights over the characters who became the most famous residents of Sesame Street. The likes of Oscar the Grouch, Cookie Monster and Big Bird were joined by Kermit who, by the time the show premiered in 1969, was identified as a frog. When Sesame Street became a hit, Henson worried that his Muppets would be typecast as childrens entertainment. Another groundbreaking show, aimed at young adults, offered him a chance to avoid that. Saturday Night Lives debut on NBC in 1975 when the show was called Saturday Night included a segment called The Land of Gorch, in which Hensons grotesque creatures drank, smoked and cracked crass jokes. The Land of Gorch segments ended after Saturday Night Lives first season. Saturday Night Lives first season included Land of Gorch sketches that starred creatures Jim Henson made to entertain grown-ups. Miss Piggy gets her closeup The Muppet Show was years in the making. ABC eventually aired two TV specials in 1974 and 1975 that were meant to be pilots for a U.S.-produced Muppet Show. After no American network picked up his quirky series, Henson partnered with British entertainment entrepreneur Lew Grade to produce a series for ATV, a British network, that featured Kermit and other Muppets. The new ensemble included Fozzie Bear, Animal and Miss Piggy Muppets originally performed by frequent Henson collaborator Frank Oz. The Muppet Show parodied variety shows on which Henson had appeared. Connections hed made along the way paid off: Many celebrities he met on those shows sets would guest star on The Muppet Show, including everyone from Rita Moreno and Lena Horne to Joan Baez and Johnny Cash. The Muppet Show, which was staged and shot at a studio near London, debuted on Sept. 5, 1976, in the U.K, before airing in syndication in the United States on stations like New Yorks WCBS. As the shows opening and closing theme songs changed over time, they retained a Vaudeville vibe despite the house bands preference for rock and jazz. The Muppets hit the big screen The Muppet Show was a hit, amassing a global audience of over 200 million. It won many awards, including a Primetime Emmy for outstanding comedy-variety or music series for which it beat Saturday Night Live in 1978. While his TV show was on the air, Henson worked on the franchises first film, The Muppet Movie. The road film, released in 1979, was another hit: It earned more than US$76 million at the box office. The Muppet Movie garnered two Academy Award nominations for its music, including best song for Rainbow Connection. It won a Grammy for best album for children. The next two films, The Great Muppet Caper, which premiered in 1981, and The Muppets Take Manhattan, released in 1984, also garnered Oscar nominations for their music. As The Muppet Movie opens, Statler and Waldorf tell a security guard of their heckling plans. Fraggle Rock and the Disney deal The cast of The Muppet Show and the three films took a break from Hollywood while Henson focused on Fraggle Rock, a TV show for kids that aired from 1983-1987 on HBO. Like Hensons other productions, Fraggle Rock featured absurdist humor but its puppets arent considered part of the standard Muppets gang. This co-production between Henson, Canadian Broadcast Corporation and British producers was aimed at international markets. The quickly conglomerating media industry led Henson to consider corporate partnerships to assist with his goal of further expanding the Muppet media universe. In August 1989, he negotiated a deal with Michael Eisner of Disney who announced at Disney-MGM Studios an agreement in principle to acquire The Muppets, with Henson maintaining ownership of the Sesame Street characters. The announcement also included plans to open Muppet-themed attractions at Disney parks. But less than a year later, on May 16, 1990, Henson died from a rare and serious bacterial infection. He was 53. At the end of Fraggle Rocks run, its characters look for new gigs. Of Muppets and mergers Hensons death led to the Disney deals collapse. But the company did license The Muppets to Disney, which co-produced The Muppet Christmas Carol in 1992 and Muppet Treasure Island in 1996 with Jim Henson Productions, which was then run by Jims son, Brian Henson. In 2000, the Henson family sold the Muppet properties to German media company EM.TV & Merchandising AG for $680 million. That company ran into financial trouble soon after, then sold the Sesame Street characters to Sesame Workshop for $180 million in late 2000. The Jim Henson Company bought back the remaining Muppet properties for $84 million in 2003. In 2004, Disney finally acquired The Muppets and most of the media library associated with the characters. Disney continued to produce Muppet content, including The Muppets Wizard of Oz in 2005. Its biggest success came with the 2011 film The Muppets, which earned over $165 million at the box office and won the Oscar for best original song Man or Muppet. Muppets Most Wanted, released in 2014, earned another $80 million worldwide, bringing total global box office receipts to over $458 million across eight theatrical Muppets movies. The Muppet Show goes on The Muppets continue to expand their fandom across generations and genres by performing at live concerts and appearing in several series and films. Through these many hits and occasional bombs, and the Jim Henson Companys personnel changes, the Muppets have adapted to changes in technology and tastes, making it possible for them to remain relevant to new generations. That cat of characters made of felt and foam continue to entertain fans of all ages. Although many people remain nostalgic over The Muppet Show, two prior efforts to reboot the show proved short-lived. But when Disney airs its The Muppet Show anniversary special on Feb. 4, 2026, maybe more people will get hooked as Disney looks to reboot the series The Muppet Show will be back for at least one episode on Feb. 4, 2026. Jared Bahir Browsh, Assistant Teaching Professor of Critical Sports Studies, University of Colorado Boulder This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Category:
E-Commerce
Around 70% of large-scale corporate transformation efforts fail. That figure has remained consistent for 25 yearsand it comes from an era of relatively manageable change. Artificial intelligence will demand far more of companies: faster adaptation, more comprehensive reinvention, and continuous evolution rather than periodic adjustment. Yet more than three years after the launch of ChatGPT, only 5% of businesses report extracting significant value from their AI initiatives. If companies struggled with transformation before, the coming years will be harder still. Managing rapid change is becoming the central competency for business leadership. Every serious observer agrees that executives need to develop new skills and mindsets to navigate what is coming. Yet there is a paradox at the heart of corporate America’s response. In a recent survey of leaders at large organizations, the Center for Creative Leadership found that 82% believed leadership development offers a competitive advantage amid economic uncertainty, and 72% said that cutting development budgets would create significant challenges. Yet 71% expected those budgets to be reduced in the event of any downturn. How can leaders simultaneously believe that executive development is essential while treating it as expendable? The answer isnt confusion or hypocrisy. It is that businesses have lost faith in the solutions on offer. {"blockType":"mv-promo-block","data":{"imageDesktopUrl":"https:\/\/images.fastcompany.com\/image\/upload\/f_webp,q_auto,c_fit\/wp-cms-2\/2025\/10\/creator-faisalhoque.png","imageMobileUrl":"https:\/\/images.fastcompany.com\/image\/upload\/f_webp,q_auto,c_fit\/wp-cms-2\/2025\/10\/faisal-hoque.png","eyebrow":"","headline":"Ready to thrive at the intersection of business, technology, and humanity? ","dek":"Faisal Hoques books, podcast, and his companies give leaders the frameworks and platforms to align purpose, people, process, and techturning disruption into meaningful, lasting progress.","subhed":"","description":"","ctaText":"Learn More","ctaUrl":"https:\/\/faisalhoque.com","theme":{"bg":"#02263c","text":"#ffffff","eyebrow":"#9aa2aa","subhed":"#ffffff","buttonBg":"#ffffff","buttonHoverBg":"#3b3f46","buttonText":"#000000"},"imageDesktopId":91420512,"imageMobileId":91420514,"shareable":false,"slug":""}} The Problems With Traditional Approaches And rightly so. Traditionally, companies have turned to executive education programs to help guide them through change. But most of these programs tend to focus on information transfersharing research findings without showing how to apply them to the specific realities of an individual business. The work of translation falls entirely on the leadership team. At the same time, much of the research informing these programs is backward-looking. Foundational studies may have been conducted two, three, or even more years ago. That cadence just cant keep pace with the speed at which AI is reshaping competitive landscapes. The classic consulting model does not fare any better. Whether providing leadership coaching or conducting transformation work directly, these engagements are expensive and the results they deliver are unreliable. More fundamentally, the pace of change ahead makes it simply unfeasible to bring in external teams to reshape the organization every time an advance in AI tech delivers paradigm-shifting capabilities. This approach is not sustainable financially, operationally, or culturally. The Resources Are Already There At present, most companies see organizational change as something rare that needs to be handled episodically. As a result, they lack the embedded processes that enable continuous innovation and transformation. They invest in a leadership program here and an external engagement there without ever establishing the permanent mechanisms that can capture value from new developments on an ongoing basis. This means that every disruption must be addressed from scratch, as if the organization had learned nothing from the last one. Instead of looking outward, corporations should be making the most of the resources they already have. Most companies employ extremely capable leaders who understand how their organizations actually work far better than any outside advisor could hope to. I have seen this repeatedly in the more than thirty years I have spent leading transformation initiatives at major corporations and government agencies. The talent and the institutional knowledge are already therethey just need to be unlocked. What is missing is not capability. It is a repeatable management systemand a spark. Repeatable Management Systems If the internal resources are already there, why aren’t companies already building these management systems on their own? The answer is that potential is not the same as momentum. Most organizations need something to break through the inertiaa catalyst that disrupts established patterns and creates the conditions for change to take hold. This is where outside expertise remains essential. But the nature of that expertise must change. The goal is not to perform the transformation work on the organization’s behalf. It is to provide the spark that sets internal capabilities in motion: diagnosing the current state, establishing the right frameworks, and building the confidence that allows leadership teams to take ownership of what comes next. Think of it as the difference between hiring someone to drive your car and hiring an instructor who teaches you to drive yourself. Both involve external help. But only one leaves you with a capability you can use forever. The key is establishing repeatable management systems that can be applied consistently across different challenges. When transformation processes are repeatable, each new disruption becomes an occasion to deploy proven methods rather than an emergency that demands improvisation from scratch. Building repeatable management systems is not a matter of snapping one’s fingers. But all the core ingredients exist within most large organizations. Outside partners can help establish the frameworks and get things moving in the right direction. But once an organization has built the engine to manage its ongoing evolution, it should not have to keep returning to the well again and again. The Compounding Advantage Businesses cannot afford to keep approaching change in the same way they have for decades. It has not worked well historically, and it will work even less well in the years ahead. The companies that thrive will be those that stop waiting for external partners to perform transformation on their behalf and start building the internal systems that make continuous adaptation part of how they operate. The organizations that get this right first will build a compounding advantage. Once the spark has been provided and the engine is running, each successive change becomes easier. The organization leans from one transformation and applies those lessons to the next. Meanwhile, competitors who remain locked in cycles of episodic external intervention will struggle to keep pace with technological shifts that arrive faster than any outside partner can respond to. Five Steps to Unlock Your Internal Transformation Capability Recognize that the capability already exists. Stop assuming that transformation requires importing talent or expertise your organization lacks. Audit the skills, institutional knowledge, and leadership capacity you already have. The gap is rarely capabilityit is the management systems and confidence needed to channel that capability toward change. Seek sparks, not ongoing support. When you bring in outside help, structure engagements around ignition, not dependency. The right external partner diagnoses your current state, establishes frameworks, and builds internal confidencethen steps back. The measure of their success is whether your organization can manage the next transformation on its own. Establish permanent change infrastructure. Create the internal systems, frameworks, and repeatable processes that will allow your organization to manage continuous evolution. This includes clear decision-rights for transformational initiatives, standardized methodologies for workflow redesign, and protocols for evaluating and deploying new capabilities. The goal is to make transformation a core organizational competence rather than an occasional intervention. Move transformation ownership to the CEO. Stop treating leadership development and organizational change as HR functions or IT projects. When the chief executive owns the transformation strategy, it becomes integrated with business objectives rather than running parallel to them. Development initiatives should be evaluated against strategic outcomes, not training completion rates. Build learning loops into every change. The compounding advantage comes from treating each transformation as an opportunity to strengthen your capacity for the next one. After every significant change initiative, capture what worked, what failed, and what you would do differently. Feed those lessons back into your frameworks and processes so the organization genuinely learns rather than simply moves on. The age of AI demands a new approach to how organizations change. The old modelswhether executive education or traditional consultingserved a slower world. That world is gone. The companies that will lead in the years ahead will not be those that find the best external partners to perform transformation for them. They will be those that find the right spark to unlock the transformation capability they already possess. {"blockType":"mv-promo-block","data":{"imageDesktopUrl":"https:\/\/images.fastcompany.com\/image\/upload\/f_webp,q_auto,c_fit\/wp-cms-2\/2025\/10\/creator-faisalhoque.png","imageMobileUrl":"https:\/\/images.fastcompany.com\/image\/upload\/f_webp,q_auto,c_fit\/wp-cms-2\/2025\/10\/faisal-hoque.png","eyebrow":"","headline":"Ready to thrive at the intersection of business, technology, and humanity? ","dek":"Faisal Hoques books, podcast, and his companies give leaders the frameworks and platforms to align purpose, people, process, and techturning disruption into meaningful, lasting progress.","subhed":"","description":"","ctaText":"Learn More","ctaUrl":"https:\/\/faisalhoque.com","theme":{"bg":"#02263c","text":"#ffffff","eyebrow":"#9aa2aa","subhed":"#ffffff","buttonBg":"#ffffff","buttonHoverBg":"#3b3f46","buttonText":"#000000"},"imageDesktopId":91420512,"imageMobileId":91420514,"shareable":false,"slug":""}}
Category:
E-Commerce
Some high-profile acquisitions take out a rising competitor, such as Facebooks acquisition of FriendFeed in 2009, some immediately expand a businesss suite of offerings, such as Salesforces 2020 purchase of Slack, and some may morph into an unrecognizable asset, like Amazons 1999 purchase of Alexa Internet, then a web traffic-tracking website. (The first Amazon Echo marking Alexas debut would launch in 2014.) But many lower-profile tech company acquisitions are made at least in part to gain access to specialized engineering talent. So-called acquihires havent traditionally raised many eyebrows. But the terms definition has been expanding as the AI arms race has accelerated a new form of tacit takeover, the reverse-acquihire. In this move, which isnt technically an acquisition, a company either takes a minority interest in a company or makes no financial investment in it at all. However, it hires one or more founders or key members of the executive team. This can leave the reverse-acquihired company rudderless or can cut off less senior staff from employment opportunities or liquidity. It can also allow the company conducting the reverse-acquihire to avoid the kind of process and oversight that comes with an acquisition. The Federal Trade Commission has said that its starting to scrutinize both reverse and traditional acquihires more closely given their potential for abuse. The canonical answer is that one avoids regulatory scrutiny, right? says Kyle Jensen, professor in the practice of entrepreneurship at Yale School of Management. Particularly antitrust scrutiny. A formal acquisition can trigger merger reviews and give regulators a clear set of documents, valuations and control rights to interrogate to decide whether or not healthy competition has been diminished. Reverse-acquihires dont do any of that. So the FTC is now starting to ask whether hiring the team is basically the same as buying out a company (which would retro-correct the term’s definition drift), but avoiding regulatory scrutiny. My understanding is that [the FTC] really want to make it more of a level position between standard acquisitions and the so-called [reverse-]acquihires, says Igor Letina, associate professor at the University of Bern, Switzerland, speaking in an academic capacity. (Letina is also a vice president of the Swiss Competition Commission.) What they’re signalling is that they will examine both types of deals in the same way according to the same standard, and make sure that they are compliant with antitrust laws. Letina is wary of any attempts to call it a crackdown by the FTC. But what the Commission decides could have huge ramifications for the industry. Reverse-acquihires are expedient exits for the executive team. If the fastest exits become harder, what happens to hiring, to equity promisesand the idea that a soft landing is always an option when setting up a company? Mergers and acquisitions have long been key to the world of business, argues S. Somasegar, managing director at Madrona Venture Group, a Seattle-based venture capital firm. Its how companies can acquire talent, customers and technology. But particularly with the urgent imperative to tap leading AI talent, big firms strategic framework has shifted in recent years from build, buy or partner to build, buy, and partneran ideal scenario for reverse-acquihires. Its somewhat of a new construct, he says. Indeed, that construct is now becoming familiar: a big tech firm hires a founder and a chunk of the team while signing a licensing deal or service agreement with whats left of the startup. Google brought on board Character.AI co-founders Noam Shazeer and Daniel De Freitas in August 2024 and then licensed its tech, all while avoiding an investment. Meta acquired 49% of Scale AI in June 2025 for $14.8 billion and made co-founder Alexandr Wang Metas Chief AI Officer. Given how closely the impact matches that of an acquisition, Letinas view is that competition authorities should treat it that way. We really shouldn’t focus on the form, he says. We should focus on the economic essence. Is it an acquisition of assets or not? Not everyone thinks reverse-acquihires are inherently suspect. For Jensen, there are plenty of legitimate reasons a buyer might prefer people over the corporate entity. There is a company that has really talented people, he says. Things haven’t really worked out. Maybe the company has a bunch of debts and weird assets and things like that. You don’t even want those. The danger, he suggests, is when a deal stops being just a hire and starts operating as a shadow acquisition. The problem is what to do about it. If such deals are made so risky in regulation that big firms stop doing them, entrepreneurs decision making could start to shift. Every founder wants their company to succeed, but a good backup plan is to exit by selling the top team. If thats closed off, it could impact the rate of new startups being founded. The individuals in the startups also potentially lose their free will to work for a potential acquirer, argues Jensen. Am I forbidden from working for Google? he asks. That’s a weird outcome, right? I ought to be able to work for whomever I wish to work for. Even if a clampdown is politically popular, its not obvious it would protect the people startups employ. Letina points out that the recent move to cherry pick staff and leave the remainder of the team can be especially ugly for what it leaves afterwards. All those people who were left behind got, in essence, a rather bad deal, he says. The recent trend of management leaving rank-and-file staff left holding the bag after they leave may also harm the ability for startups to hire staff. A stricter regime from the FTC could push big firms back towards full acquisitions that scoop up or provide liquidity for more staff. But Somasegar worries any regulatory change could impact on the speed of innovation. Things are moving fast, he says. Industries are changing fast. You can’t put arbitrary speed breakers along the way, he says. I don’t want to be in a situation where a company wants to buy another company and it takes two years before you know whether the acquisition can happen or not.
Category:
E-Commerce
All news |
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||