JULY 16, 2009

A little TechCrunch/Twitter drama is playing out this week in the blogtwitterverse.

Apparently, about a month ago, a Twitter employee’s email account was hacked, and sensitive business information about Twitter - including business plans, meeting notes, salary data, financial projections, and partner agreements - was obtained by the hacker.  There was other, more personal information in the mix - salary data, names of people who had interviewed at Twitter, etc. All of that information was sent in a zip file via email to TechCrunch, a well-known tech blog. It now appears that TechCrunch intends to publish the hacked Twitter information, minus the personally sensitive stuff.

On Tuesday, TechCrunch first posted that it would publish the documents. That post prompted over a thousand responses, many negative, and also prompted TechCrunch to post an update, responding to the responses. TechCrunch’s position is simple: it received the information, the information isn’t personally embarrassing to any individual, the information is interesting, and it is going to share it. Even though the documents were obtained through unethical means, TechCrunch sees no ethical dilemma in making it public. The documents will eventually get out, it reasons, so why not be the one to publish it?

This sentence seems to sum up TechCrunch’s position the best:“[I]t certainly was unethical, or at least illegal or tortious, for the person who gave us the information and violated confidentiality and/or nondisclosure agreements. But on our end, it’s simply news.”

Late yesterday afternoon, TechCrunch posted Twitter’s financial forecast through 2013 - clearly interesting reading for anyone who has been watching the microblogging site’s meteoric rise and wondering how it plans to make money. In the post, TechCrunch suggested that it plans to post more of the Twitter documents, and also noted that it has been in negotiations with Twitter’s lawyers over the issue of the hacked documents. (FYI - here’s Twitter’s response, posted yesterday, to TechCrunch’s first post about the documents.)

[UPDATE: This afternoon, TechCrunch posted a significant amount of very sensitive Twitter business information - pages and pages about partnerships, threats, goals, projections, celebrities, and much more.]

I get that blogs aren’t newspapers, and that they are therefore not necessarily held to the same ethical standards as traditional print journalists. And I don’t even know whether a newspaper would be ethically obligated not to publish hacked material.  In my mind, the answer to that question doesn’t ultimately matter: the point is that scoops and traffic numbers should not be the most important things to consider when facing a dilemma like this.  Sometimes, you do the right thing, just because it’s the right thing to do. And TechCrunch should have taken a pass on the documents. Would it have cost them anything to do so, other than some lost page views? Meanwhile, the potential damage to Twitter is huge.

TechCrunch likes to play on the edges - I realize that. (See its statement last year that it would no longer honor embargoes.) But it is worth it? I’d have to say no.

[Comments(4) »] [TrackBack »]

APRIL 28, 2009

Earlier this month, my fellow Catholics celebrated Easter. I’ve always joked that church attendance doubles on that day – and from what I’ve heard from friends who attended mass, Easter this year was no exception. I write “from what I’ve heard,” because I didn’t attend mass on Easter… or any other weekend throughout our Lenten season, shame on me. (I am normally a church-attending Catholic.) Sure, I have a thousand excuses why I didn’t go and why I asked my neighbors and friends to pray for us rather than do it myself in church, but I’ll save you those.

Maybe my lack of attendance is why Newsweek’s recent cover story, “The End of Christian America”, wasn’t surprising. The article stated that not only has the number of Americans who claim no religious affiliation nearly doubled since 1990, but “the Northeast emerged in 2008 as the new stronghold of the religiously unidentified.” As the author states, “[the Christian God] is less of a force in American politics and culture than at any other time in recent memory.” Somewhat related is news out of Britain that 100,000 former Christians have downloaded forms to become de-baptized. Apparently, “once-devout church members… are leaving churches they see as increasingly out-of-tune with modern life.” The most recent wave of requests for these certificates came after the Pope commented that condoms could worsen HIV & AIDS in Africa.

At TMG Strategies, we are always looking for examples that reflect changes in people’s “faith and values,” because they often tend to affect consumer spending habits and shed light onto emerging trends. But the fact of the matter is that organized religion is playing less and less of a role in our decision-making process, and losing its foothold in modern society. Could it be that loyalty to the church is shifting away as people no longer identify with religious-based beliefs? Personally, I hear more people talking about their “spirituality” than their religion and/or church attendance nowadays.

By ceding this ground, what will be the ultimate cost for the church, as well as our society as a whole? I often wonder if the connection between the growth of incivility in our society is linked to the loss of participation in organized religion. Regardless, my family may not have been an every-Sunday-to-Church type of family, but we have always had good morals and values that we live out everyday. What do you think – would “The End of Christian America” help or hurt us as a society?

[Comment(1) »] [TrackBack »]

MARCH 16, 2009

We are all suffering from “bad news” fatigue as a result of this calamitous economy.  From the first click of my TV in the morning to my NPR drive-time analysis on the car ride home at night, I am inundated with solemn prognostications about how much we are all due to lose financially, and how the recession is likely to last until the end of the year.

Despite our efforts to try and keep our spirits up during this dismal time, the barrage of negativity is hard to ignore.  So it was refreshing to read E.J. Dionne’s Washington Post column today on the broad bipartisan support in Congress for legislation that will increase the number of federally funded volunteer service slots.   It cheered me to know that not only could we bring the bickering political parties together, but the government could also set an example of where to aim our focus in an uncertain economy.

More and more people are in need, and the charities that support them are themselves seeing shortfalls.  At the worst of times, giving of ourselves can be our own redemption.  As Peter Singer points out in his book, The Life You Can Save:  Acting Now to End World Poverty, “There is now abundant evidence supporting what philosophers and teachers have told us since ancient times: the good person is also—typically—a happy person. A survey of 30,000 American households found that those who gave to charity were 43 percent more likely to say they were ‘very happy’ about their lives than those who did not give.”  When you can’t give your money, give your time.

The bad times seem to be bringing out the best in many who have been laid off.  According to The New York Times, there are so many people with free time and a rush of enthusiasm from President Obama’s volunteer call to action that some smaller non-profits can not absorb the influx.   At the same time, workers recently furloughed from a General Motors plant in Wentzville, Missouri were actively recruited for service projects to help their community.  According to Change.org’s blog, volunteering can even help to fill a gap in job history and supplies the answer to an interviewer’s question, ‘what have you been doing?’

Ironically, it is much harder for a company going through hard times to decide how it can help its community - especially if it is laying off workers.  Should the company still continue to work to preserve its charitable support for its community?  It can be a difficult choice, but businesses should still demonstrate compassion and caring even as they struggle to return to profitability.  In fact, how companies reach out during this critical time will be a test of their character.  Those who are compassionate and authentic in their concern for helping others will come out as the leaders, perhaps even creating a lasting legacy for how the organization is perceived once this economic crisis is over.

[No Comments »] [TrackBack »]

MARCH 12, 2009

Last year, headlines claimed that Southwest Airlines had become the fashion police when a flight attendant told a passenger she was dressed too provocatively to board the plane. Other passengers came forward saying they had also been asked to cover up before boarding the plane, and one man was even asked to change his t-shirt. When it faced public criticism, the airline claimed that its decision enforced Southwest’s “family-friendly” image, but later apologized for the incidents. Whether it was right to ask passengers to cover up, the airline seemed to be doing its best to maintain this “clean cut” image.

Yet recently, the company decided to plaster a jumbo-sized decal of a scantily clad Sports Illustrated model on the side of a plane. Christi Day, a Southwest spokeswoman wrote on the company blog last month: “It is an absolutely beautiful plane, and hopefully you’ll get to travel on this sometime soon!” While Southwest is thrilled with the new decal, some customers said they feel the airline decal is “offensive” and “in poor taste.”  Mother and frequent flyer Carolyn Dunham commented on Day’s post:

I fly Southwest several times a year with my four children and would stop cold turkey if we were ever made to board that plane. It objectifies women and confused (sic) children. . . .  You have lost your ‘family friendly’ status with this and I, for one, am deeply disappointed with a company that I’ve long admired.

Despite the large amount of attention and discussion, Southwest maintains that only 25% of public reaction was negative. Grant Martin at Gadling isn’t sure the image warrants so much debate:

Women less adorned are all around us, from billboards in New York City to The Sears Catalogue to, oh, I don’t know, THE BEACH. Southwest is just having a little bit of fun turning heads in the direction of their aircraft, but if you can’t stand the sight of a pretty Israeli woman, cover your eyes or stop flying for the next couple of months until they repaint her. The promotion only lasts a few more weeks.

Personally, I think creating the SI plane was the wrong move for Southwest. Not necessarily because of the bikini photo - that’s a different topic altogether - but because of the apparent contradiction in its marketing efforts. If this were Hooters Air, consumers would expect it, but Southwest Airlines said one thing and did another, and that threatens its credibility - never a good thing when trying to gain and maintain loyalty. While it’s true that companies can’t please everyone, they must at least remain consistent in their messaging and core values or risk losing dedicated consumers.

What do you think of this situation? Does this affect your opinion of Southwest?

[No Comments »] [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 »]

DECEMBER 1, 2008

Last week, I read an article in Newsweek that was cleverly called “Change You Can Conceive In: Could Euphoric Obama Fans be Sparking a Baby Boom?”

The author writes, “In the hours and days since Obama’s victory, many of his exhilarated supporters have been, shall we say, in the mood for love.  And though it’s too soon to know for sure, experts aren’t ruling out the possibility of an Obama baby boom—the kind of blip in the national birth rate that often follows a seismic event, whether it’s scary (a terrorist attack) or celebratory (the end of World War II).”

Authors William Strauss and Neil Howe have actually co-written a number of books on the subject of generational baby booms, namely, “Generations: The History of America’s Future,” which tells the history of America through a succession of generational biographies circa 1584 to the present.  According to Strauss and Howe, just as history molds generations, so too do generations mold history.  They even claim to have identified a historical pattern in which each generation belongs to one of four archetypes, or ”Turnings,” that repeats sequentially:

Awakening.  During an Awakening, rising adults are driven by inner zeal to become philosophers, religious pundits, and hippies, as they alienate children (who see the adult world becoming more chaotic each day) and older generations alike.  A Nomad (or Reactive) is born during an Awakening.  Nomadic leaders are cunning, hard-to-fool realists, and taciturn warriors who prefer to meet problems and adversaries one-on-one.

Unraveling.  An Unraveling is an era of relative peace and prosperity between an Awakening and a Crisis.  A Hero (or Civic) is born during an Unraveling.  Heroic leaders are considered vigorous and rational institution-builders, entering midlife as aggressive advocates of technological progress, economic prosperity, social harmony, and public optimism.

Crisis.  A Crisis is a decisive era of secular upheaval in which a values regime propels the replacement of the old civic order with a new one.  Wars are waged with apocalyptic finality.  An Artist (or Adaptive) is born during a Crisis.  Artistic leaders are advocates of fairness and the politics of inclusion, and are irrepressible in the wake of failure.

High.  A High is an era between a Crisis and an Awakening.  A Prophet (or Idealist) is born during a High.  Prophetic leaders are cerebral and principled, summoners of human sacrifice, and wagers of righteous wars.  Early in life, few see combat in uniform; late in life, most come to be revered as much for their words as for their deeds.

What I want to know is whether you agree or disagree with Strauss and Howe’s dissection of generational archetypes.  If you agree with them, where do you believe your generation stands now?  If you disagree with them, what would you add or amend to make them more relevant?

Personally, I believe that an Obama baby boom would compose part of a New Adaptive Generation - a collection of “artists” who will be irrepressible in the wake of modern-day failures.  At least, that is what I hope.

[No Comments »] [TrackBack »]

NOVEMBER 3, 2008

“…and I don’t know what to do, ‘Cause I’ll never be with you.” 

James Blunt obviously craves a meaningful life - and, like many others, he finds it through romance.  For the rest of us, all we really have to do is browse through the “Missed Connections” page on Craigslist.

Last week I read an article on CNN.com entitled “‘I saw you’ romance ads wildly popular.”  The author writes,

Craigslist, Kizmeet.com, ISawYou.com, SubwayCrush.com – these missed-opportunity matchmakers have become a staple of online modern love.  They’ve also become a way for some singles to fantasize about the people they’d like to meet and those they hope will want to meet them.

Mary Robertson, a documentary filmmaker in New York City, isn’t surprised by the appeal of the missed connection.  She’s been working on a film about the phenomenon for almost a year. “What inspires me about these ads is the density of the narrative,” Robertson says.  “The longing, the romance – all in this small space.  They’re like haikus.”

Blogger J. Stone at That’s So Fetch does not feel so inspired.  Stone writes,

Craigslist’s ‘missed connections’ gives soft-spoken people with a self-aware cowardice the chance to reconnect with a girl/guy they saw perusing the cereal aisle or the buxom blond who smiled back at them at the airport. . . . I would really like to know the average IQ of these people.  Instead of posting anonymously on the internet about some chick you missed out on, how about you work on your interpersonal skills?

One could certainly argue that the growing popularity of “missed connections” and “ambient awareness” is actually a reaction to social isolation – the modern American disconnectedness that Robert Putnam explored in his book Bowling Alone.

Indeed, have the internet and accompanying communications technologies actually made us feel lonelier than ever?  More socially inept than ever?  Are we purposely, purposefully - and, yes, perhaps cowardly - “missing the connection” in hopes of a fatalistic reunion on the internet?  Some believe fantasy love is better than real love, after all.

Ultimately, whether you admire or pity people who track down alleged “missed connections,” you have to admit that the appeal of missed-connection Web sites may indicate a shift in how people approach the search for love.

[Comment(1) »] [TrackBack »]

OCTOBER 31, 2008

Besides the friends I’ve met at church, I can only think of a handful of people my age that regularly go to church.  This isn’t surprising: the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life recently found that 44% of Americans have left the religions of their childhoods.   The New York Times also reports that, “Among those born after 1984, about 33 percent attend church on a typical weekend” while 49% of Baby Boomers attend church regularly.  Churches are obviously having a tough time “[e]nticing young people to become regular members of a Christian congregation.”

So what are churches seeking younger members doing about it?  They are plugging into social media and other multi-media outlets to reach their flock.  In addition to having rock music instead of hymns and adding video clips to sermons, churches have begun joining Facebook, MySpace, and MyChurch.org among other sites.  Churches have begun blogging, texting pastors during services, podcasting, and set up message boards.

Most churches I know are all about growing community.  I think it’s interesting that now, community doesn’t have to stay local.  Some churches now show their sermons live online so you can check them out before ever darkening the doorway.  Out-of-towners and troops overseas can feel a part of the community while talking in a forum during service.

I can stay connected to my old church by watching clips posted to YouTube (yes, that’s my pastor and church staff doing the New Kids on the Block… I’d also recommend their Dirty Jobs clip!).  Churches have found a way for prospective members to preview what they can expect, figure out if it’s a community they want to be involved in, and decide if it’s worth their time to even show up.

In what ways has your place of worship updated its methods to keep up with the times and younger members?

[No Comments »] [TrackBack »]

SEPTEMBER 15, 2008

It may seem like a small thing and insignificant in the eyes of most, but to me it stood out like a sore thumb when I was watching news coverage of McCain’s running mate, Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, at the Republican National Convention.  No, it wasn’t the striking resemblance between Palin and Tina Fey, nor was it the minor technical difficulties she encountered during her speech, including a faulty teleprompter.  No, it was the hug.  You know what hug I’m talking about - that McCain-Palin embrace (about 1:22 into the clip), so awkward and uncomfortable I was squirming in my seat.  He leaned in and tried to hug, but couldn’t lift his arms high enough to make a full embrace (due to injuries sustained as a POW in Vietnam) and she kind of, sort of leaned in, but looked away and leaned out at the same time.  Hard to imagine, I know, and even more painful to watch.

I wasn’t the only one who noticed the hug.  Elisabeth Bumiller wrote an article about it in The New York Times.  Bumiller pointed out:

It has been nearly a quarter century since Walter F. Mondale almost never touched Geraldine A. Ferraro in public when they shared the Democratic presidential ticket in 1984, and it is safe to say that times have changed.  Back then, Mr. Mondale had a strict ‘hands off’ policy and did not even put his palm on Ms. Ferraro’s back when the two stood side-by-side and waved with uplifted arms.

But today, with our second co-ed presidential ticket, times have clearly changed. According to an etiquette expert quoted for the NYTarticle, Mr. McCain was right to initiate the hugging as Ms. Palin’s hierarchical superior.  As Letitia Baldrige, former White House social secretary to Jacqueline Kennedy, points out in the article, she finds embarrassing “all this fake hugging that goes on when people greet each other on television,” but goes on to say it’s okay for Mr. McCain and Ms. Palin, “because we accept anything now.”

Personally, my initial reaction to the hug, after the distorted look on my face dissipated, was, why hug?  If McCain’s running mate were a man, they would have shaken hands (or would they?  McCain seems like a hugger, check him out in this receiving line.)  Is it a McCain thing, or a woman thing, and is it okay?  To Baldrige’s point, does anything go these days?

[No Comments »] [TrackBack »]

SEPTEMBER 3, 2008

Because someone in my office gave birth to a healthy baby boy early yesterday morning, and another one of my colleagues is about to become a new mom later this month, and also in honor of “Labor” Day, I thought it would be appropriate to blog about the crazy Hollywood obsession with getting the very first pictures of newly famous newborns with their famous parents.

People and OK! magazines are usually the first to release full-page spreads of sleeping babies cradled by their proud parents… and thousands of people flock to the newsstands to take a look at the tiny people.  The pictures (and the rights to the pictures) are purchased with very hefty price tags.  This raises a question of ethics.

USA Today featured a story called “The High Cost of Celeb-Baby Fever” in August that focuses on the topic of ethics in the sale and release of baby photos.  The article makes mention of the recent record-breaking $14 million deal between Hello!, a magazine based in Britain that purchased international rights to a 19-page “family album” of pictures of the Jolie-Pitt twins– Vivienne Marcheline and Knox Leon.  Before this deal, the most that was reportedly paid for celebrity baby pictures was $6 million, to Jennifer Lopez and Marc Anthony after the birth of their twins.

Now the ethical questions: will this crazy sum of money (seriously, I can’t picture $14 million bucks in my head) become “the norm” in the world of Hollywood now?  Will other celebrities expect money like this for their pictures?  Also, is it even right to sell your baby’s pictures to the media and essentially objectify them at such a young and vulnerable age? 

Then comes the mental health of the child later upon learning that pictures of them were sold for all of the world to see.  Will the kids resent their parents later? 

Also, where is the money going?  Does the fact that some or all of the money received for pictures may go to charity change things at all?
Everyone has a different opinion about this issue.  I personally think that if the pictures are not sold to the media in the beginning, the paparazzi will go crazy trying to pry their way into the lives of celebrities just to get the first one.  Also, the financial aspect is really not anyone’s business.  If a mother–who spent hours and hours giving birth to a child– decides to take and sell some pictures, that’s her choice.  She clearly is making the best choice she can make for her child and her family.  I also think that charitable donations are an honorable cause and it’s wonderful that a few pictures could benefit the multitude of groups receiving aid because of a few pictures. 

In the end, what does it matter?  We are so saturated with images, celebrity news, drama, and gossip that the pictures will be old news before we know it. 

[No Comments »] [TrackBack »]