JUNE 9, 2009

When I worked on Capitol Hill many years ago, if you wanted to share your opinion with your member of Congress you needed to sit down and write them an old-fashioned letter or look up their office number in the phone book and call them.   Times have changed, as Roll Call magazine pointed out earlier this week - now, you can contact your Senator directly through Facebook.

Today, lobbying organizations are using Facebook to mobilize supporters, open up discussion about political topics, and facilitate communication directly to Congress.  What used to be a small opening in access to politicians is now a flooded gateway.

I can’t help but think, does this ability to generate mass form letters to Congress or the White House really make a difference?  Personally, I have often supported the ONE campaign by submitting automated emails that are forwarded to President Obama asking him to end world poverty.  I know it makes me feel good to take 30 seconds and weigh in on an issue of great importance, and I hope that I am making a difference.  But am I?  At what point does saturation negate the impact?

I do know that when the first congressional office I worked in was inundated with thousands of form letters about a satellite TV issue, we listened (and griped about having to open all of those envelopes).  Building a collective voice, and the ability to do so quickly and easily, is necessary in today’s swiftly moving news cycle.  As referenced in Roll Call, the Democracy in America Facebook campaign to garner support for Sonia Sotomayor’s nomination to the Supreme Court seems to be working based on numbers.  What are some of the possibilities and pitfalls in this approach, I wonder, especially as it relates to companies and how they use Facebook?

In searching the blogs for an answer, I was intrigued by this example of a successful charitable campaign by Target identified by Su Yuen on her Bitbot blog:

Target wanted to donate US$3 million to charity this year but didn’t want to do it in the traditional way where charities receive the money and a picture of them holding a gigantic mock cheque appears in the papers. They wanted something that would capture the attention of youths on Facebook as well, and hence created a Facebook application on their page. In the application, fans could vote for their favorite charities and at the end of the 2 week campaign, the US $3 million will be split amongst the 10 charities based on the percentage of votes they received. Almost immediately, this campaign has given the charities MORE than enough reason for them to lobby all their supporters to get onto the Target page and vote for them. The campaign is now over but according to Inside Facebook, the campaign garnered 75,000 fans after just 4 days. 

In her conclusion, Su Yuen states:

I know coming up with a good reason for getting people to lobby their friends and organization members for your initiative may be hard as you don’t want it to sound too gimmicky either (and potentially end up ruining your company’s reputation) but if you get it right, you should have a pretty good chance of generating a lot of buzz around your Facebook page.

I would state it even more strongly.  There are some constants in effective communication, no matter the method used, and they include sincerity and transparency.  No matter the volume, the heart of it has to ring true.

[No Comments »] [TrackBack »]

JUNE 8, 2009

It’s a known fact that women play a very important role in decision-making in the household– including decisions about new purchases.  MediaWeek published an article on this very topic in February, analyzing a report which consisted of two rounds of polling (one before the current financial crisis, and one afterwards).

Results of the polls:

• 74% of women are “primarily responsible for buying groceries and basic supplies” today, and 55% say they are “primarily responsible for paying the bills.”
• Half of the women surveyed said they “love to shop” but have been holding themselves back to reduce the stress of overspending.
• Also, when asked about stress management strategies, 54% said staying in the budget helps them stay calm and “paying cash only for purchases” helped 31% of them.
• Of the women polled, 59% say they are worse off than they were a year ago.
• The scary part: 57% are worried they will run out of money.

No matter how you look at the results of the poll, it’s clear that businesses should take notice if they want to survive the economic downturn.  Understanding women’s financial styles, concerns, coping mechanisms, and needs is absolutely crucial for targeting them as an audience and as an important part of the economy and marketplace.  Helping allay financial concerns, offering exceptional value, and being aware of the financial pressures women are facing today are three smart strategies companies can adopt when reaching out to this demographic.

[No Comments »] [TrackBack »]

MAY 20, 2009

Call me old-fashioned, but I still prefer to go shopping at an actual store – not online.  I would much rather see/touch/examine what I’m buying before I have it shipped (and I’ve had too many bad experiences with returns).  Yet, I still research products online before heading to the store, to make sure it’s even worth leaving the house for.  Recently, I found window curtains I loved on a store website and was so excited about them until I noticed a bad review (it still amazes me what people actually take the time to review).  And, now, I’m struggling to decide if I should listen to the person I’ve never met or buy the curtains! That got me thinking about how much people allow consumer review sites to influence their decisions.  I read just the other day that Google has now tweaked its searches to pull more from sites like Yelp and LinkedIn.  According to Business Insider, “The idea is to improve people searches and searches for product reviews. Results from reviews sites will now include snippets from actual user-reviews.” 

Consumers have always asked friends and family about products, but, now, frequently rely on perfect strangers, as well.  Yelp, a user review website, boasts that it has over 10.6 million people access its website each month.  In a USA Today article, a chiropractor in LA said he gets 80% of his business from online reviews!  Morning News Beat reported on a shopper survey that stated:“Seven out of ten survey respondents said that they check online product reviews before actually purchasing things, and 62 percent said that they spend at least-a half-hour online each week specifically reading consumer product reviews.” 

Before working at TMG, I used to work for a company similar to Yelp, and working there made it easy to see how important good reviews are to companies.  Customer review sites are forcing businesses to listen to consumers.  Companies that frequent these sites will know what is being said about their products, how to fix any problems, and validate their customer’s concerns.  It’s just another way companies can show that they’re listening. 

Now, would you buy the curtains, or heed the reviewer’s advice?

[Comment(1) »] [TrackBack »]

MAY 19, 2009

So much is changing as a result of this downturn in the economy.  For one, living space seems to be getting smaller.   People are renting out rooms in their homes and grown children are moving back in with their parents to cut costs, the square footage of new houses is being reduced, and more businesses are offering telecommuting to their employees so they can cut back on commercial leases.  Even my office is  consolidating to take advantage of unused space and become more efficient.

In a sense, we are migrating towards each other.  As a recent 5 Forces summary points out, migration is not only about moving away, but can also mean coming together.  Since most of us anticipate that the changes being brought about by the current economic crisis will last a very long time, we could be seeing a permanent transformation in the way we utilize our space and a resulting change in how we interact with each other as well. 

In an era where texting, cell phones, YouTube, blogs, and Facebook have allowed us to communicate more closely, while still keeping our distance, actually shrinking our home and work spaces and forcing greater togetherness could bring back the days when social interaction was defined by water cooler chats and multi-generational dinner table discussions. 

We may come to realize that for all of the advantages of modern communication, nothing compares to a face-to-face conversation.  In fact, it wouldn’t surprise me if we see a build-up of a group mentality, a “we’re all in this together” collective thinking, that displaces the “me” focus of past generations. 

It may be a leap to believe that more crowded spacing will develop into deeper bonds between people, but we all want good things to come from downsizing and sacrificing, and if we are lucky, this may be one of them.

[Comment(1) »] [TrackBack »]

APRIL 8, 2009

I’ve often heard that in tough economic times we shed from our lives those material goods and luxuries that we really don’t need to survive after all.

My colleague and Lexulous player extraordinaire, Gayle Weiswasser, recently wrote a post about industries that are faring well, if not better than ever, during the recession.  Apparently, when we cut back on some non-essentials, we spend more on others.

So, where are we redirecting our money?  It turns out we’re using it to access companionship websites like eHarmony, which, of course, is expected and understandable. We’re also buying more candy from candy stores and renting more movies from Netflix than we have in the past.  And how could I leave out the infamous Snuggie blanket, with sales recently topping $60 million?  These “comfort items,” which also happen to go very well together, quickly and effectively enable us to take a necessary and great escape from the daily grind.  We are, as New York Times columnist Rob Walker put it, becoming “a nation of Linuses.”

Indeed, our behavior amidst the tough economic climate appears sound and reasonable – that is, until you look at prescription drugs.  According to a recent Wall Street Journal article,  data from health-information company Wolters Kluwer Health reveals that the current recession is having an unusually negative impact on prescription-drug sales.

For example, due to cost, U.S. patients failed to fill 6.8% of the brand-name prescriptions their doctors requested in the 2008 fourth quarter, a 22% increase from the first quarter of 2007.  Patients also abandoned prescriptions for generic drugs at a higher rate, failing to fill 4.1% of generic prescriptions.  For all of you brand-name drug dissenters, that means you can’t blame this particular sales slowdown on “overpriced” prescription drugs, as even the cheaper generics are being left on the shelves!

Earlier data from the Department of Health and Human Services shows that at least half of all Americans regularly take at least one prescription drug, with one in six taking three or more medications.  Is it not incredibly revealing that, as a result of the current recession, we’ve decided we don’t “need” as many prescription drugs as we thought we did? Or, at the very least, that we are willing to endure mild physical or mental “pain” in exchange for a goofy blanket with sleeves, a bag of Sour Patch Kids, and a viewing of the new Slumdog Millionaire DVD?

What made us think we needed so many prescription drugs in the first place?  And will the alternative, healing power of entertainment and other “comfort items” keep us from returning to prescription drugs in the future?

[No Comments »] [TrackBack »]

MARCH 26, 2009

Since the days of Matlock and Perry Mason, the trial system in our country has remained largely unchanged. Today, we still have courtrooms with judges, lawyers, and a jury of our peers. However the legal institution is now facing new threats, with technology changing the way our society seeks and pushes information.

Last week I read a New York Times article that reveals a recent rash of mistrials due to jurors accessing the Internet either to seek information on the trial or spread information about their involvement.

The article describes several examples where a mistrial was called, or an appeal was filed, based on such actions. Take the story of Stoam Holdings, a company that was being sued for mismanaging investors’ funds. Jonathan Powell, a juror in the case, posted messages on his Twitter account that included, “So, Jonathan, what did you do today? Oh, nothing really. I just gave away TWELVE MILLION DOLLARS of somebody else’s money!”and, “Oh, and nobody buy Stoam. It’s bad mojo, and they’ll probably cease to exist, now that their wallet is $12M lighter.”

Once again I sought the opinion of my colleague Peter (who was in the process of deleting his Twitter account) on this topic, and we had a lot to say about it:

Peter: This is why Twitter makes me furious! People don’t use Twitter to actually read and care about what other people say. They post messages to get others to read them, and everyone panders to everyone else’s need for attention. Powell thought he was being cool with that message, that he would get everyone’s attention with a statement like that. It’s really sad.

Me: You are absolutely right, I think the world of blogging, Facebook, and Twitter. They have given society an outlet to grow their own egos. It is hard to tell a society that has embraced the idea of total transparency in their lives to be discreet with something that could be a sensational hit on their blog or Twitter feed. We also live in a world where people can seek answers instantly with the help of the Internet. Imagine being a juror in a trial without access to Wikipedia to answer that question he has about a theory. That juror will be tempted to find out the answer on his own at home when they go home for the day.

Peter: Yeah, people don’t want to be fed information now that we can find information on our own and arrive at our own opinions.

Me: True, but unfortunately when someone looks up information online, it’s not subject to cross-examination and the discovery rules that make the trial system fair and just. I’ll be afraid of the day law firms start trying to influence juries by planting information on Wikipedia and Google. I’m reading this article again and I bet this Powell guy was excited to say something more interesting than his daily routine as a photo manager at Wal-Mart.

Peter: This is why I think there’s no point to even have Twitter - it offends me deeply and that’s why I am deleting my account.

So where do courtrooms go from here? I am amazed that some courtrooms are allowing jurors to have their cell phones and Blackberry devices in the courtroom. Not only would I encourage stronger enforcement of keeping them out of the courtroom, I would also encourage judges to be more explicit about jurors going online and the possible consequences of their actions. Deliberations, a blog about trials and juries, has a post that describes a simple way that lawyers and judges can guide today’s tech-savvy jurors.

I agree with the post that while the court system hasn’t changed, the society it serves has. The justice system needs to pay attention to that fact and adapt, or else we may start seeing more of these “Twitter” mistrials.

[Comment(1) »] [TrackBack »]

MARCH 4, 2009

If knowledge is power, then Google and my smartphone make me the most powerful person in the world – that is, along with everyone else using Google and a smartphone.

This New York Times article - “Geniuses At Play, On the Job” - outlines different products that Google “geniuses” have created, like Google Earth and Gmail. Check out the article for a complete rundown, but the one that sparked my interest was Google SMS, which lets you send a text request for information and then responds almost immediately with your answer.  Tools like this, coupled with the rest of Google’s range of offerings, leave little room for any of us to use ignorance as an excuse anymore.

With more people gaining information more quickly, society is swiftly redefining knowledge and power.  Industry experts and analysts are no longer the last word on any given subject.  I don’t have to buy and read a Consumer Reports piece on which dishwasher is best - when I’m at the store I can simply log on to a trusted product review blog, check out some posts or comments and instantly get a sense of what’s best.  Knowledge - and therefore power - are now at my fingertips and I’m beholden to no one.

What this boils down to is…consumer control.  While some companies recognize this by employing successful tactics such as crowdsourcing, others would be the wiser to understand that their consumers, regardless of degree, specialty, or profession, are educated and informed.  Thanks to Google and my smartphone (short of my brain being directly wired to the internet…well, it would probably be wireless), I’ve got the whole world in my hands. 

[Comment(1) »] [TrackBack »]

FEBRUARY 26, 2009

At TMG Strategies, we’ve read many stories about the “Sandwich Generation,” adult children caring for elderly parents, as adults over age 80 are the fastest growing segment of our population. (To that point, check out a blog on The New York Times website, The New Old Age. ) But a twist on the subject of children caring for parents shocked me: we’re now talking about teenagers providing the care to adults?

Image from New York Times

In a recent NYT article, I learned about several teens that have taken over jobs that have previously been performed by medically-trained adults: “lifting frail bodies off beds or toilets, managing medication, washing, feeding, dressing, talking with doctors.” Experts see child caregivers as a growing trend because “as chronically ill patients leave hospitals sooner and live longer, the recession compels patients to forgo paid help and veterans need home care[.]” As such, more children are being burdened with these adult duties.

In the U.S., a 2005 nationwide study pegged only three percent of U.S. households as having child caregivers; school programs and workshops have been provided for some of these children. However, in Australia, for example, not only does the census count child caregivers, “many of them have rights to participate in patient-care discussions and to ask agencies for help or compensation” and there are hundreds of programs to help them.

While child caregivers may be the most recent example of children maturing earlier, it makes me wonder what the effects will be on this generation. The article provides details about these caregivers struggling with depression, anxiety, anger, and other serious issues (to include truancy and being arrested) as a result of this burden. Having witnessed my grandmother suffer from Alzheimer’s Disease as a young adult, there is no doubt in my mind today that I would not have been able to handle her day-to-day care at age 19, much less at age 13.

What do you think about this – is the issue of children providing medical assistance to parents and other relatives a big deal or not? Is taking care of your grandfather suffering from dementia like any other chore you’d have to take on as a responsible teenager? Or are we creating adults at age 13 and robbing them of their childhood? On a larger scale, what can our country do to help solve this problem? How could our health care industry contribute?

[Comment(1) »] [TrackBack »]

FEBRUARY 9, 2009

Dating. The word alone conjures up some of the best of times and, perhaps, even some of the worst of times. As a whole, dating tends to get a bad rap - whether it’s first date awkwardness, unreturned phone calls, over-analysis, mixed signals, or unreciprocated affection, most people either laugh or let out a long sigh when pondering their own experiences with the dating game.  But, nonetheless, “the game” is fascinating, which is most likely why the newly released movie, “He’s Just Not That Into You“ exceeded box office projections this weekend.  The movie, adapted from the New York Times bestseller of the same title (which sold over 2 million copies in 2004), provides audiences with a tough-love approach to the rules of dating.

Yes, I said “the rules.”  You can deny it all you want, but there are rules – some spoken, some unspoken - and just like everything else these days, the rules are changing faster and faster.  With over 30 million active users on online dating sites like eHarmony, Match.com, and Plentyoffish.com, it’s safe to say that the dating game has forever been transformed in recent years.  Email has become an acceptable means of asking someone out on a date, “hook ups” are becoming more popular than dating, breaking up through a text messaging is happening more often, and women are playing more of the “pursuer” role. So whether it’s technology or a shift in values, there’s no denying that many of the rules are drastically different than they were 20 years ago. 

Tamara Duricka is a NYC-based writer who turned 31 years old last month, and happens to be single. In a quest to “do something different” this year – she began a project she calls “31 dates in 31 days,” in which she dates 30 different men in 30 days, blogs about each one of them, and then chooses one of them to go out with her for her 31st date.  I like to think of it as ”The Bachelorette” meets “How to Lose a Guy in 10 days” meets “Sex in the City.

“Sex and the City” romanticized the single life in NYC - a place where every young woman is over-sexed and unattainably glamorous, spends thousands on designer shoes, and drinks cosmos every night of the week. Tamara’s site, on the other hand, does not reflect any sort of “big city” propaganda.  If anything, it presents a more traditional and simple approach, while still remaining fairly open-minded, particularly about whom she will date - friends, strangers, set-ups… all the types of encounters acceptable in the modern-day dating arena.  One of the most fascinating aspects of her project, though, is the balance of the new with the old. It is a very technological, transparent approach to dating, in that all privacy is stripped away and the audience is encouraged to participate in her adventures, yet her expectations and rules seem to revert back to a more chivalrous approach. Love. It.

Being single myself, I admit that the dating game isn’t always fun, but in a society that has created the term: “starter marriage,” where over 50% of marriages end in divorce, and one in five adults in monogamous relationships admit to cheating, I’m quite content with playing the game for a little while longer.  Perhaps I’ll even give Tamara’s approach a go; after all, I’ll be turning 31 in less than 6 months!

[Comment(1) »] [TrackBack »]

JANUARY 15, 2009

It’s a topsy-turvy world out there, according to an interesting piece by Kathleen Parker in the Washington Post discussing the new face of unemployment: young people with higher levels of education.  As Parker points out, a college degree no longer guarantees job security.  What’s an up-and-comer to do?

Consult, apparently.  Instead of falling back on unemployment checks and looking for another permanent position, many of these younger workers are jumping into free-lance opportunities or launching consulting jobs.  Sometimes the work even comes from their recently severed employer.  Tina Brown of the Daily Beast calls this “gigonomics” because these newly-minted independent contractors shift from one gig to another rather than proceed on a straight career path.

I was struck by this trend because I know someone who was laid off and is now “consulting” for her former company.  This would not have been her choice, but what else can she do?  While the insecurity and lack of benefits characterized by gigonomics is certainly a downside, I wonder if these arrangements might actually be a catalyst for great change and innovation in this country.  Yes, the younger generation already expects to change jobs numerous times throughout their careers, but that is not quite the same as having to scramble to make ends meet or to hawk individual talents piecemeal to put a monthly paycheck together.

While just a year ago the story was how to keep Generation Y happy in their jobs, this new environment may prove the spark to tap into their inner entrepreneur, where they might find surprising and unexpected ways to contribute to a new economy.  I read on YPulse about a new book coming out: “Upstarts!: How GenY Entrepreneurs are Rocking the World of Business and 8 Ways You Can Profit from Their Success“by Donna Fenn.  This only confirms to me that the abilities of the upcoming generation are just beginning to be tapped, and perhaps having to scramble to prove themselves won’t necessarily be a bad thing. Innovation is the key to keeping our competitive edge in a global environment, and much of the burden to provide those breakthroughs rests on the shoulders of this generation.

[Comments(3) »] [TrackBack »]