13:13 - Dig 'em Frog vs. Michael Scott

[UMPIRE]

SEASON 13, ROUND 13

Dig 'em Frog

Slot: The Team's Mascot
Season Wins: 1
Season Losses: 1
Fantasy Team Page
Read more about Dig 'em Frog at this Wiki
Official Site: Kellogg's

Michael Scott

Slot: The Team's Mascot
Season Wins: 1
Season Losses: 1
Fantasy Team Page
Read more about Michael Scott at this Wiki
Official Site: NBC

Battle Terrain
Team Mascot Challenge: Umbrella Corp.

[Magnamax]

I think Michael Scott is a PR problem and will almost certainly do something to goozle Umbrella Pharmaceuticals. 

Dig Em is fun and will help be a distraction.

[Culwych1]

47 minutes ago, Magnamax said:

I think Michael Scott is a PR problem and will almost certainly do something to goozle Umbrella Pharmaceuticals. 

Dig Em is fun and will help be a distraction.

Michael Scott has literally done this challenge. When Sabre printers were catching fire, he was the face to make things better as requested by the CEO. He loved every second of it, and did a brilliant job.

Frog is just too apparent as a distraction- no one is going to buy it, especially in this day and age.

[Magnamax]

On 1/14/2024 at 11:26 AM, Culwych1 said:

Michael Scott has literally done this challenge. When Sabre printers were catching fire, he was the face to make things better as requested by the CEO. He loved every second of it, and did a brilliant job.

Frog is just too apparent as a distraction- no one is going to buy it, especially in this day and age.

That was a different scenario. Sabre wanted him to be the fall guy. Far more often (the watermark episode) Michael Scott is the last guy you want trying to rehabilitate your image. He gets awarded Employee of the Year by the company to try and rally morale and then makes things worse. Michael Scott is not going to be good at covering up or distracting a long term problem. 

[Culwych1]

5 minutes ago, Magnamax said:

That was a different scenario. Sabre wanted him to be the fall guy. Far more often (the watermark episode) Michael Scott is the last guy you want trying to rehabilitate your image. He gets awarded Employee of the Year by the company to try and rally morale and then makes things worse. Michael Scott is not going to be good at covering up or distracting a long term problem. 

How is he a fall guy? He is literally up there as the face of Sabre, explaining what happened and helping their image. They didn't pin it on him and then fire him, which would be the role of a fall guy. 

He does make mistakes, I grant you that - but he also has some charm and has experience of the corporate world. He's the one they want up there, first as the new mascot and distraction, and then very possibly as an easy mark for a fall guy!

[Peypeypeypey]

Michael would make the situation worse more often then he would improve it. He did read off a statement of apology for Sabre (written by someone else), but there are tons of examples of Michael taking a small issue and making it into a much bigger problem. The watermark incident and the shareholder meeting both come to mind as major corporate examples, and that's but even to mention the HR problems and sexual harassment that would realistically follow him

[Culwych1]

1 hour ago, Peypeypeypey said:

Michael would make the situation worse more often then he would improve it. He did read off a statement of apology for Sabre (written by someone else), but there are tons of examples of Michael taking a small issue and making it into a much bigger problem. The watermark incident and the shareholder meeting both come to mind as major corporate examples, and that's but even to mention the HR problems and sexual harassment that would realistically follow him

Thank you for elaborating on the perfect examples of distractions that Umbrella need! All the focus will be on Michael and his gaffs (apart from the perfectly read script he is provided which we have as proof of his experience in this task) and in the meantime Umbrella rolls out whatever new strain of the virus they are concocting. 

[Peypeypeypey]

10 minutes ago, Culwych1 said:

Thank you for elaborating on the perfect examples of distractions that Umbrella need! All the focus will be on Michael and his gaffs (apart from the perfectly read script he is provided which we have as proof of his experience in this task) and in the meantime Umbrella rolls out whatever new strain of the virus they are concocting. 

That is not how corporate mascots work. Michael is not really even a mascot, but if you're using him as one, then this argument is not doing you any favors. All this will do is drive more eyes onto the Umbrella Corp and fan the flames

[Culwych1]

3 minutes ago, Peypeypeypey said:

That is not how corporate mascots work. Michael is not really even a mascot, but if you're using him as one, then this argument is not doing you any favors. All this will do is drive more eyes onto the Umbrella Corp and fan the flames

The task is being a distraction as a mascot, at a time when Umbrella is under scrutiny. 

If we are focusing on the term mascot in particular, then the definition is loose but can be defined as "an avatar that represents a brand and acts as an ambassador for their products and services". 

What Umbrella wants is someone or something to represent them as an ambassador and someone who makes mistakes is quite often a distraction from the company itself. And in fact, let me take it one step further. A bumbling manager is just the distraction that a lot of companies use; 

•  BP during the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, the then boss Tony Hayward made a series of public relations blunders including saying "I'd like my life back"
•  Uber; even as the company was being hit left and right by criticism, boss started having recorded arguments with drivers which were leaked and drew the the attention to him. 
•  Yahoo - brought in a new CEO who immediately started throwing lavish parties and basically did everything wrong. 
•  Facebook, I mean Mark Zuckerberg and his statements to the press are a showcase in what not to say and do

All of these you could say were just coincidences, but there are a lot more - this is a valid strategy and I see no reason why Michael wouldn't prove as effective a mascot in that sense and allow Umbrella to redeem themselves as a new company. 

Let me put this to you in a different way - the company has just allowed a whole city to fall to zombies and monsters. They are under the most intense media, governmental and potential legal scrutiny and they need a way out.

Do they put a suit up front an centre, a loving but ultimately flawed individual who can be the face of the company and fall under all that scrutiny, including potentially making some blunders that make him the focus (and a perfect potential fall guy that they can then use as part of their rebranding), or do they just go with a green cartoon frog and hope for the best? 

[Peypeypeypey]

58 minutes ago, Culwych1 said:

The task is being a distraction as a mascot, at a time when Umbrella is under scrutiny. 

If we are focusing on the term mascot in particular, then the definition is loose but can be defined as "an avatar that represents a brand and acts as an ambassador for their products and services". 

What Umbrella wants is someone or something to represent them as an ambassador and someone who makes mistakes is quite often a distraction from the company itself. And in fact, let me take it one step further. A bumbling manager is just the distraction that a lot of companies use; 

•  BP during the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, the then boss Tony Hayward made a series of public relations blunders including saying "I'd like my life back"
•  Uber; even as the company was being hit left and right by criticism, boss started having recorded arguments with drivers which were leaked and drew the the attention to him. 
•  Yahoo - brought in a new CEO who immediately started throwing lavish parties and basically did everything wrong. 
•  Facebook, I mean Mark Zuckerberg and his statements to the press are a showcase in what not to say and do

All of these you could say were just coincidences, but there are a lot more - this is a valid strategy and I see no reason why Michael wouldn't prove as effective a mascot in that sense and allow Umbrella to redeem themselves as a new company. 

Let me put this to you in a different way - the company has just allowed a whole city to fall to zombies and monsters. They are under the most intense media, governmental and potential legal scrutiny and they need a way out.

Do they put a suit up front an centre, a loving but ultimately flawed individual who can be the face of the company and fall under all that scrutiny, including potentially making some blunders that make him the focus (and a perfect potential fall guy that they can then use as part of their rebranding), or do they just go with a green cartoon frog and hope for the best? 

None of those examples are mascots at all. They are people in charge of companies making horrible PR mistakes that drive more eyes and negative attention onto already bad situations. All of those examples are so obviously bad that I genuinely don't think I even need to refute it. None of those situations helped those companies at all so I really don't know what you're talking about. Those are situations where people, decidedly not mascots, made things far worse for the companies involved

[Culwych1]

8 minutes ago, Peypeypeypey said:

None of those examples are mascots at all. They are people in charge of companies making horrible PR mistakes that drive more eyes and negative attention onto already bad situations. All of those examples are so obviously bad that I genuinely don't think I even need to refute it. None of those situations helped those companies at all so I really don't know what you're talking about. Those are situations where people, decidedly not mascots, made things far worse for the companies involved

I always saw it as reports and media coverage focused on the bosses and their antics, and diverting attention away from the companies and their actual operations. Its a classic tactic, no different to a politician putting up a real or imagined enemy to divert from disastrous policies. 

Ah well, I think this discussion is straying away from the fun element in any case. Happy to agree to disagree, and for what it's worth I reckon the popular opinion will sway towards the frog (rather than the much better choice of more that 17 time Dundie winner Michael G Scott 😆)

 

[Magnamax]

7 hours ago, Culwych1 said:

How is he a fall guy? He is literally up there as the face of Sabre, explaining what happened and helping their image. They didn't pin it on him and then fire him, which would be the role of a fall guy. 

He does make mistakes, I grant you that - but he also has some charm and has experience of the corporate world. He's the one they want up there, first as the new mascot and distraction, and then very possibly as an easy mark for a fall guy!

Kathy Bates asks him to do that “because she can’t stand to do it herself” and sets it up so that he looks at fault. He is excited about it, but he isn’t helping them rehabilitate. In the real world, Michael Scott would be fired ten times over. Any time he is asked to keep a secret, he immediately spills  it, he blunders every single task he is given and is kept afloat by a series of miracles. His solution to his branch facing downsizing is to karate fight Dwight, his reaction to sleeping with his boss is to immediately reveal it to everyone, his pitch to keep his branch afloat is a documentary style movie put together on iMovie, his reaction to a gay employee is to kiss him. All of these are PR nightmares and would cause damage in a real setting.

 

What Michael is apt to do is repeatedly remind everyone of the zombie problem and then cause even more issues. There is little evidence of Michael doing anything more than being a decent salesman but a truly horrific face of anything. 

[Culwych1]

5 hours ago, Magnamax said:

Kathy Bates asks him to do that “because she can’t stand to do it herself” and sets it up so that he looks at fault. He is excited about it, but he isn’t helping them rehabilitate. In the real world, Michael Scott would be fired ten times over. Any time he is asked to keep a secret, he immediately spills  it, he blunders every single task he is given and is kept afloat by a series of miracles. His solution to his branch facing downsizing is to karate fight Dwight, his reaction to sleeping with his boss is to immediately reveal it to everyone, his pitch to keep his branch afloat is a documentary style movie put together on iMovie, his reaction to a gay employee is to kiss him. All of these are PR nightmares and would cause damage in a real setting.

 

What Michael is apt to do is repeatedly remind everyone of the zombie problem and then cause even more issues. There is little evidence of Michael doing anything more than being a decent salesman but a truly horrific face of anything. 

My view is still that were I an Umbrella exec, I'd unleash Michael, give him the rehearsed lines to do some good, and let him do some bumbling and mistakes as only he can do - then fire him as part of my rebranding strategy ("it is a new day for a new Umbrella"). That is a strategy that makes sense. Releasing a green frog in the hopes of distracting from a Zombie mishap just isn't. 

Also "Dig Em" is a terrible word association given that zombies dug themselves out of the ground to feast on human flesh, and they had to dig a lot of graves to bury innocent victims. 

[Pizzaguy2995]

On 1/15/2024 at 1:13 PM, Peypeypeypey said:

Michael would make the situation worse more often then he would improve it. He did read off a statement of apology for Sabre (written by someone else), but there are tons of examples of Michael taking a small issue and making it into a much bigger problem. The watermark incident and the shareholder meeting both come to mind as major corporate examples, and that's but even to mention the HR problems and sexual harassment that would realistically follow him

Okay dude I really think you’re miss-characterizing Michael here, like to say he’s a complete PR disaster or incapable of being a respectable leader is just plain not true. 

Say what you will about his personality flaws; that he’s shallow, selfish, socially inept, his own worst enemy, but the fact of the matter is that for almost a decade Michael Scott served as regional manager of the Scranton branch of Dunder Mifflin and not only has he never once been fired or demoted he’s actually made Scranton branch the best performing branch of the ENTIRE company. Not one of the best, THE best! Well ahead of their closest rivals Utica or Nashua (See S5 episode “The Duel” if you don’t believe me). Keep in mind he did all this with employees like Dwight Schrute, Jim Halpert, Pam, Ryan, ect. all of whom are in many ways even bigger HR nightmares then Michael is and in any other environment probably wouldn’t last a week and yet under Michael’s leadership they have made Scranton the single most valuable branch of Dunder Mifflin.

Isn’t the fact that Michael is able to keep eccentric personalities like Dwight and Jim under (reasonable) control and on task not show that Michael is clearly capable of managing problematic situations and turning them into a profit? Isn’t that literally what Umbrella is looking for in this scenario? 

I like Dig ‘em Frog as much as the next guy, but in a scenario where you need someone capable of guiding a company through a controversial situation then I definitely trust Michael Scott more then Dig ‘em.

[Culwych1]

26 minutes ago, Pizzaguy2995 said:

Okay dude I really think you’re miss-characterizing Michael here, like to say he’s a complete PR disaster or incapable of being a respectable leader is just plain not true. 

Say what you will about his personality flaws; that he’s shallow, selfish, socially inept, his own worst enemy, but the fact of the matter is that for almost a decade Michael Scott served as regional manager of the Scranton branch of Dunder Mifflin and not only has he never once been fired or demoted he’s actually made Scranton branch the best performing branch of the ENTIRE company. Not one of the best, THE best! Well ahead of their closest rivals Utica or Nashua (See S5 episode “The Duel” if you don’t believe me). Keep in mind he did all this with employees like Dwight Schrute, Jim Halpert, Pam, Ryan, ect. all of whom are in many ways even bigger HR nightmares then Michael is and in any other environment probably wouldn’t last a week and yet under Michael’s leadership they have made Scranton the single most valuable branch of Dunder Mifflin.

Isn’t the fact that Michael is able to keep eccentric personalities like Dwight and Jim under (reasonable) control and on task not show that Michael is clearly capable of managing problematic situations and turning them into a profit? Isn’t that literally what Umbrella is looking for in this scenario? 

I like Dig ‘em Frog as much as the next guy, but in a scenario where you need someone capable of guiding a company through a controversial situation then I definitely trust Michael Scott more then Dig ‘em.

 @Pizzaguy2995, where were you three days ago! 😆

[Pizzaguy2995]

3 minutes ago, Culwych1 said:

 @Pizzaguy2995, where were you three days ago! 😆

My bad, I was making sure I won at least one of my own matches. Gotta look after the #1 right?

[Peypeypeypey]

I'm not going to respond in depth because I just don't really want to get into the weeds of what Michael Scott as a boss, because it super doesn't matter. We're not looking for a boss, or anyone to lead the company out of trouble, we're looking for a mascot. A symbol for the company to rally behind. Michael's flaws are a lot more of problem in that context, and his opponent is a much more tried and true mascot, so he should win. Honestly, Michael shouldn't even really be in this category in my opinion

[UMPIRE]

Match Final Results

Dig 'em Frog: 3
Michael Scott: 3