An Interview with Erik Rydholm the man behind Pardon The Interruption
Back in 1999, I joined the Motley Fool as the Director of Organizational Development. At the time, the Motley Fool was the number one financial destination on the internet and the business was thriving. We had 400+ employees spread between HQ in Alexandria, VA, the UK, Germany and Australia. We were scaling the business and driving for greater operating efficiencies. Erik Rydholm was a co-founder and Chief Operating officer at the Fool. In his role Erik was very focused on growing the business, keeping our Foolish culture and driving efficiency. One of the core values of the company, “Play to win” exemplified the culture and the approach that we took as an organization. Erik had some unconventional approaches to meetings and recognized the inefficiencies that often exist when the wrong people are in meetings and there is no clear agenda.
Erik eventually left the Motley Fool to pursue an idea that revolutionized modern TV shows. Erik has spent the past 20 plus years as the executive producer and the guy behind the idea for Pardon the Interruption (PTI) one of ESPNs longest running hit shows. It is the format of the show that has always intrigued me. I have been using the visual agenda down the right side of the screen in a meeting effectiveness workshop that I run for clients to teach them to run better meetings. The workshop Leading Effective Meetings borrows from Erik’s approach and the format he pioneered with PTI.
Recently I reconnected with Erik and had the opportunity to ask him about PTI, the visual agenda and a host of other questions. Erik provided some great insights. I hope you enjoy what follows:
Brian Formato (BF): What was your inspiration or reason for the format for PTI?
Erik Rydholm (ER): We wanted to hold people's attention throughout the program. At the time, similar TV shows expected that people would be interested in what they happened to be talking about. We felt the viewers deserved more information, not just about what we were talking about in that moment, but what they might be interested in that's coming up, and also what they had missed out on by tuning in late. That was the genesis of the rundown. The clock was a way to ask people's rational brains to overcome their emotional brains. One minute FEELS like forever when watching TV, but rationally we know it's not very long. By showing the clock, people realize that sticking around for the next topic even if they're not interested in the current one is a small commitment.
BF: Did you expect the visual agenda to have the impact on the TV viewership experience that it has had? Were you surprised?
ER: We were asked to make the show look different than anything else on TV. Putting so much written information on the screen ran the risk of overwhelming viewers. But that was also the criticism of the "Fox Box" that showed people the score and time in the corner of an NFL game. Tough to remember, but that was REVOLUTIONARY when it debuted when Fox took over NFC games in the early 90s. And many people complained that it was annoying. But now it's expected. So after a little bit of discomfort, people soon embraced the rundown and how it helped them navigate not just the show, but the day in sports.
BF: You leveraged emerging technologies to enhance the viewer experience with the ability to dynamically show text on the screen. How has technology continued to evolve the viewer experience?
ER: Actually, we focus so little on technology and so much on personality and relationships. People like people. If I can get you to form an attachment to one of the people on the air, the chances of you watching again the next day go up significantly. Technologically, I'm a firm believer in staying a half-step behind the curve. I want to meet people where they already are, not where I hope they might go. We've barely changed the format of the show in 21 years. It just works. And part of that, I'm convinced, is because we thought through the needs of viewers.
BF: Do you see the visual agenda template having applicability in a corporate setting and if so, how?
ER: I think meeting leaders (and participants) often like to hear themselves talk. Holding a meeting is bringing together an audience and people like to use them as a way to communicate their identities and validate their own importance. Having a visual agenda puts the company first. We've all chosen to be part of this company. Our work should be in service of that collective endeavor, not the personal.
BF: Did your experience at The Motley Fool have any bearing or influence on the creation of PTI and the format? If so, what was the influence?
ER: Absolutely. The rundown looks a lot like most webpages did in 2001 - a navigation bar down the side of the screen - and that was no accident. On the web, it helped people know exactly where they were within a site. It serves the same function on our show.
More importantly, most people at the time didn't see viewers as customers. They saw them as ratings points. The Motley Fool taught me to think in a customer-centric way - what needs do my customers have, and how best can I meet those needs? I wanted to give viewers all the information we had about what we were talking about, and turn the normally hidden skeleton of the show into an exoskeleton.
Finally, at The Motley Fool, I was always thinking of the return on investment for our customers. There are a number of reasons to love The Motley Fool, but I always felt like the biggest driver of the business is people feeling like they received a FINANCIAL return on their FINANCIAL investments that they credited in some way to our insight. Well, with PTI, they aren't investing their money - and they certainly aren't getting money in return. They are, however, investing something even more precious - their TIME. So I want to make sure they're getting a return on that investment in the form of entertainment and enlightenment. If you invest 30 minutes with PTI and feel like you've come away smarter and happier for it, then you're likely to want to repeat that experience the next day.
BF: Why does the visual agenda work so well?
ER: I've mentioned a bunch of reasons but here's another: ESPN is on in many places of gathering in the country - bars, airports, sporting events, health clubs, etc. We always wanted you to know exactly what we were talking about even if you couldn't hear it. I remember reading that 75% of all information on TV is communicated visually. The graphical structure visually communicates exactly what's going on, even if you can't hear - or your attention is wandering - from the words.
BF: How would using a template like the PTI format help make company meetings more efficient?
ER: I think it can help people stay on agenda and on time. But I also know that staying on agenda and on time doesn't always make for the most productive meeting. Because it's one person's imposition of control on the structure, forcing others to adhere to it. It's super important to realize that the success of the show is not in the format, but in the personality, passion, and expertise of the people. We set up the structure so that we can invite chaos between the boundaries. And when the time is up on a topic, we always tell the hosts that the bell is a suggestion, not an order. If their passion about a topic carries them well beyond the time limit, then that communicates to the viewer that the hosts think this is REALLY important. In other words, success is not defined by strict adherence to the structure. Sometimes, it's defined by the active challenge of it.
BF: Is there anything else you would like to add in terms of my plan to apply your approach to improving company meetings?
ER: I'll share a story about the first brainstorming session I ran while creating the very successful Desus & Mero show for Viceland. We had about 20 people in the room - executives, hosts, smart friends, etc. As I was walking to the session, I was trying to figure out how I was going to cover the 10-20 topics I needed to cover (purpose, structure, set, social, promotion, wardrobe, lighting, staging, etc), get truly actionable feedback on each, make everyone feel included and appreciated, and do it all in two hours. I realized that I could NOT approach it as a list - we'd barely make it through three topics. So I scrapped the entire "rundown" and boiled the entire meeting down to one single question: "This will be the best show on television if ______." And then I went around the room one-by-one and asked each person to fill in the blank in they way that they felt was most important. Each person naturally spoke to their area of interest/expertise/passion. And others chimed in or challenged. But everyone felt heard, and I came away with an incredible blueprint for the show. The great TV writer Cord Jefferson was in the meeting and I remember his answer so clearly: "This will be the best show on television if... it's young Black men talking to Black people about Blackness; It's a feature, not a flaw, to play to a Black audience." I used that statement as the foundation of the show. Everyone involved heard it at exactly the same time I did. And I could tell they thought it was spot on. So I didn't have to rally people around MY vision. I simply had to embrace the thoughtful insights from the brains in the room. And it gave people CLEAR EVIDENCE that I would embrace their idea if it was right for what we were trying to accomplish together.
End of Interview
I want to thank Erik for the opportunity to learn more about how he pioneered the visual agenda approach to TV. If your team and organization would benefit from making your meetings more effective, please reach out and let Groove Management facilitate our Leading Effective Meetings workshop for your team.
