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 13, 2009

My wife and I recently had a brand-new baby. Our latest addition, Alexander James, is number four - so we’re not new to the baby game. What is new is the way in which the entire process was communicated to friends and family.

On February 10th, I got the call from my wife: she’d gone to her final pre-natal visit, and she was already in labor a day before her scheduled induction. As I gathered up things and headed home, I tweeted the news (a task which I’ve also set up to update my Facebook status):

Labor has already started, so it looks like the baby is coming on his own before tomorrow. Heading to the hospital shortly. 11:49 AM Feb 10th

I got home, got things ready, waited for my cousin to swing by to watch the other kids, and headed out to the hospital.  We arrived at the hospital, and my wife underwent the first barrage of questions. The attending nurse, sensing her evident discomfort (and the fact that this wasn’t her first trip to the maternity ward) sped us through. I tweeted again, this time from my web-enabled smart phone:

Straight to labor and delivery, do not pass triage. (4th kid has its privileges) 1:24 PM Feb 10th from mobile web 

As we got settled in our room, and the real medical history inquisition piled on, I broadcast my frustration:

Goodness, it’s 240,000 questions at the hospital. I thought they were going to break out the waterboarding equip. and k-fed album. 2:19 PM Feb 10th from mobile web

Within the hour, we hit trouble. The nurses rushed to the room, hurriedly checking monitors and printouts and looking very concerned. They tried to downplay it as they called for the obstetrician. Something had happened, and the baby’s heartrate decelerated rapidly. Through a combination of medication and re-positioning, they managed to stabilize the situation. They also began the induction to move things along. Nervous and powerless, I clicked away at my phone again:

Little scare - his heart rate dropped suddenly - but they broke her water and put in an internal monitor and everything looks ok now. 3:04 PM Feb 10th from mobile web

All day long, this is how things went. The slow pace of waiting punctuated by updates via Twitter, or my responses to well-wishes on mobile Facebook as my nearly 300 friends on that network had simultaneous, instant access to every bit of news (no matter how insignificant) I chose to publish. During the entire process - some seven hours from start to finish - I didn’t pick up the phone to call anyone even once. In fact, the first and only call I made was after the birth, when I let my oldest know she had a brand new baby brother. The rest of the world found out like this:

Ladies and gents, I’m proud to announce the arrival of Alexander James Skojec! 7lbs, 8oz and 20 inches. 6:43 PM Feb 10th from mobile web 

It didn’t end there. In the delivery room, I also had my Nikon D40, a Flip Video Ultra, and a wi-fi enabled laptop. Since the hospital had open wi-fi, I quickly went to work. Before the obstetrician had even left the delivery room, I had several good photos and a video uploaded, the latter facilitated by the Flip camera’s integrated and easy to use software, which interfaces directly with YouTube.

It’s only been two years since we had our last baby, and most of the capabilities I used to keep everyone informed of our progress were either out of my reach or simply didn’t exist back then. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again - social media empowers instantaneous, rich, multimedia communication with a wide network of contacts in a way that is entirely unprecedented.

But with it comes some questions. Such as the one my parents (who DO use Facebook) were probably asking - “When am I going to get that personal phone call letting me know what’s up…?”

What do you think? My ability to update everyone at once clearly (and with photos and video) was an advantage for me on a hectic day that gave unusual access to people who could not be with us. Does this change the obligation I once had to reach out and make the personal contact that family events like new babies were once synonymous with, or is my social networking approach going to become more and more common without hurting feelings and leaving people feeling left out?

New capabilities, new questions.

[Comments(4) »] [TrackBack »]

MARCH 18, 2009

Yesterday, Hoda & Kathie Lee, my favorite 10 AM morning show anchors, were discussing a “Today Show” story on Wild Freeborn, an Ashville, NC girl scout who decided to sell her cookies online instead of the traditional “door-to-door” approach.  By creating a YouTube video and a Facebook group, she managed to sell over 700 boxes of those addicting cookies before she was shut down by the national organization, citing rules against online orders.

Hearing that the Girl Scouts of America “punished” this young girl’s clever approach to business got me riled up. I understand that there are rules, but isn’t the cookie program supposed to teach young girls about entrepreneurship, after all? Maybe the “rules” need to be revisited.  My anger over the situation initiated a conversation with my officemate, Peter, that went something like this:

Peter: It’s all about getting out there and interacting with people - it’s about building a relationship.  It’s having that real experience of following through with a task and accomplishing something.

Me: But what about the sense of entrepreneurship?  What about creativity and thinking outside of the box?  I just don’t like the idea that the organization shut down her idea, which I happen to think was genius.

Peter: Taking orders online eliminates the experience of real-life success and failure.

Me: How so?  Not taking orders online makes the organization appear antiquated by resisting technology.

Peter: You don’t need to teach kids technology; it’s inherent to them. What you need to teach them is values - the value of hard work.

Me: Okay, grandma…

Maybe Peter does have a point.  But still, while I can understand why the Girl Scouts prohibited Wild from selling her cookies online due to the fair factor, it could have handled the whole situation differently.  Instead of appearing on television and giving Matt Lauer a list of reasons why she shouldn’t have taken that approach, it missed an opportunity to praise one of its own for an innovative idea. Furthermore, the Girl Scouts should be open to creating an online affiliate program, since it seems to be a service consumers want.  It works for Avon and Mary Kay - why not the Girl Scouts?

The moral of the story is this:  companies cannot allow their traditions to stifle creativity and innovation.  They must embrace new ideas and not be afraid of change.  Reinvention is often the key to success and leadership.

[Comments(3) »] [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 »]

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 »]

AUGUST 19, 2008

It’s obvious that times are changing– in many ways.  Too many to count, actually.  I know this makes me sound old, but I was born in the 80s, so I’m not that old…yet. 

One thing that I’ve always been fascinated with is people’s strong opinions about cohabitation by couples before marriage (this reminds me a bit of the stay-at-home mom vs. the working mom debate).  Most people I know find themselves leaning strongly towards one end of the spectrum or the other– for varying reasons.  Some think that it’s never appropriate for a couple to live together until marriage; others feel that if it makes sense financially and personally, they should go for it to “test out” the relationship before they leap into something a lot more serious. 

This doesn’t even take into account the barrage of images of celebrity couples (think Heidi Montag and Spencer Pratt) who are choosing to live together before marriage and even start families with no feelings of obligation to wed.  The public may start thinking, if they can do it… why can’t I? 

A July USA Today article called “Living Together Isn’t Just ‘Playing House’ ” really delves into the issue and explains why living together no longer has the negative associations and stereotypes attached to it that it did in days of the past.  According to the article, the number of opposite-sex couples who live together has jumped from less than 1 million 30 years ago to 6.4 million in 2007. 

According to Jay Teachman, a sociology professor at Western Washington University in Bellingham, while old data showed an increased risk of divorce among cohabiting couples, that’s not necessarily true today:

Twenty or 25 years ago, if you were cohabiting and then married them, the marriage was more likely to dissolve and end in divorce…today that’s not the case.  You can cohabit with your spouse and not experience increased risk of divorce.  We’re making these finer distinctions that we didn’t make before.

I personally feel that cohabitation before marriage can be a good thing.  For me, it in part came down to a financial decision.  After I got engaged I realized it was pointless to keep my apartment because I was spending all of my free time at my fiance’s house.  Why continue to pay rent when I knew we’d be living together in a matter of months, anyway? 

My mom wasn’t exactly thrilled about this… but she got over it after she did the math and realized it would only be two months of living together before the date of our wedding.  She raised me with the mindset that cohabitation before marriage is a very bad thing.  Now that I am older and have formed opinions of my own, I stand somewhere in the middle of the cohabitation wars: I appreciate the idea in certain circumstances, but I also respect the perspective of my mother.

What do you think?  Is cohabitation less of a big deal today than it was in the past?  Does the new evidence make you think any differently about the concept?

[No Comments »] [TrackBack »]

AUGUST 11, 2008

A few nights ago, I was up late watching the Olympics and reading through email. I checked the latest digest of emails from my neighborhood listserv, and came across a posting from a mom looking for neighborhood kids to join her son’s soccer team (we’re talking 4-5 year-olds, so I use the word “team” loosely) on Wednesdays this fall.

Score! I’ve been wanting to sign my girls up for soccer, but just haven’t gotten around to doing it yet. I emailed the woman who posted, she wrote me back about 10 minutes later (yes, this was 11:45 on a Saturday night), and by midnight the deal was done. All I have to do now is send the check.

My generation of moms has it easy. Think about it: we can do all sorts of things, at all sorts of hours, that our mothers couldn’t. Whether they worked outside the home or not – or whether we work outside the home or not – technology has made our lives a lot easier, and, I suspect, less isolated. Need fall clothes for the kids? Our moms had to squeeze in trips to the store, with squirming kids in tow, whenever their schedule permitted. Me? I go online to Old Navy at all hours of the night when the sales come along, and stock up on whatever we need. Signing kids up for activities? No waiting in line or calling on the phone – I go online to get the girls into gymnastics or ballet classes.

Think about this too – I stay in touch with my friends, those with and without kids – any number of ways, no matter where I am – via cell phone, email, texting, blogging, and occasionally in person. My Blackberry – for good or for bad – makes me instantly reachable to anyone looking for me. I bet my mom had to wait until after we were in bed so she could call her friends or take care of other personal stuff.

The list goes on… Plane tickets? Can you imagine spending your days calling the airlines and comparing fares, instead of just going to Orbitz? Sharing photos with the grandparents by going back to the drugstore and painstakingly filling out those reprint forms? And how about the connectivity that Web 2.0 gives us? When my twins were about 7 months old, I panicked – I just couldn’t figure out how to bathe these two squirmy creatures at the same time without endangering their lives. Off I went to my local Parents of Multiples Club message board, and I had 5 suggestions from veteran twin moms by the morning. (Angelina – if you need some advice, I’m here for you.) For me, my laptop has taking some of the guesswork, the insecurity, and the loneliness out of mothering.

On balance, I feel very lucky to be mothering right now. Of course, my daughters may look back at their childhoods someday and wonder how I managed under these circumstances. But I guess that’s how it always is.

[No Comments »] [TrackBack »]

JULY 2, 2008

Is our country in danger of too much assimilation? As cities all around the U.S. diversify culturally, the process of becoming “American” becomes quicker and quicker. Not only are major cities diversifying, a growing number of immigrants are also settling in suburbia. As a result, growing up in a diverse environment, marrying outside of one’s race, and being more aware of other cultures is becoming the norm.  All of these sound like good changes, but as we become further removed from our ethnic roots, are we also becoming further removed from our individual heritages? Or are we simply breaking ties with the old and solidifying a new American culture?

According to a study using the latest Census Bureau figures, the percentage of Asian women born in the United States who marry Asian men has declined from 59 percent in 1994 to 37 percent today. The proportion of American-born Asian men who marry Asian women has also dropped, from 65 percent to 52 percent. According to this New York Times article, some Chinese-American parents are hoping to reverse these marriage trends by turning to cultural tours such as the Love Boat. These parents are sending their children on the four-week summer program, designed to strengthen young people’s connections with their Taiwanese roots, race, religion and language. The Love Boat – officially called the Expatriate Youth Summer Formosa Study Tour to Taiwan is sponsored and partly subsidized by the Taiwanese government. The tour got its nickname from the many romances that occur between the young participants.

As New Audiences rise in our country, will they long to rekindle their connections to their countries of origin? The success of the Love Boat suggests that more programs like this one will pop up as new Americans find it harder to meet others of the same descent.

[Comments(6) »] [TrackBack »]

JUNE 9, 2008

This article in today’s BrandWeek made me wonder — are Americans pretending to care about the environment, or do they really care?  People seem to be talking the talk…but will they walk the walk when effort is required?

We love to divert blame when it comes to underlying reasons for things like global warming, environmental efforts, pollution, and practically everything else that has become a problem.  Younger generations blame the baby boomers for many of these issues they are forced to deal with, saying that the boomers are the ones that created a huge mess for us to solve.  Baby boomers, on the other hand, like to blame younger generations for the carefree attitudes they have about supporting causes that aren’t intrinsically selfish.  Either way, pointing fingers gets old, and it’s counter-productive.

The section of the article titled ”Looking for Earth Mothers” is fascinating.  I was especially intrigued by the argument that people are more concerned about the environment when they have children that will be impacted by environmental issues –parents are partly willing to sacrifice some convenience because they feel that their children are scrutinizing their actions.  So in actuality, it’s not the sake of the cause, it’s the desire to set an example because of underlying feelings of obligation.  To me, that just seems a bit backwards!

I think that we are all wrapped up in our own stressful lives and living the classic “American dream” we have grown up striving for.  Do I think we are selfish?  No.  I just think we are designed as humans to instinctively do what is easiest and best for our lives and time-line.  Although we are drawn to what’s new or trendy, the simple and routine seem to always overshadow anything that requires us to change our habits.  I don’t think we are doomed — but I do think we’ll be forced to adapt.  This whole environmental panic thing is new to us… we’ll get the hang of it eventually.

[No Comments »] [TrackBack »]

MAY 9, 2008

Because Mother’s Day is coming up this Sunday (and because we have a couple of expectant moms in our office now), I thought this would be a great opportunity to blog about moms!  Last week, my colleague Jenn pointed out a great section in an EPM Communications newsletter titled “Facts About Moms.”  The stats cover a wide range of mothers – and nowhere is that diversity better represented than in the blogosphere.

So in celebration of Mother’s Day, next to each U.S. Census Bureau statistic below is a link to the blog of a mom who fits that demographic. Take time to celebrate these mothers by clicking through and checking out what they have to say.  

• There were 82.8 million moms in 2004 (the latest year for data).

Heather writes Dooce (one of the most highly trafficked mom blogs).

• 55% of women between the ages of 15 and 44 are mothers.

Tracey writes Sweetney.

• 81% of women aged 40 to 44 are mothers.  In 1976, 90% of women in this age group were mothers.

Joanne writes PunditMom.

• Average number of children each mom has in the U.S.: 2.1

Sarah writes Sarah and the Goon Squad.

• The average age of first-time moms: 25.2 (that’s up 3.8 years since 1970!)

Vicky writes The Mummy Chronicles.

• Number of stay-at-home moms: 5.6 million

Gretchen writes Bananas and Toddlers.

• Number of single moms: 10.4 million

Kat writes My Single Mom Life.

• The percentage of first-time mothers in the early part of this decade who were working by the 6th month after they gave birth: 55%.  In the early 1960’s, the corresponding percentage was 14%.

Nicole writes Not Just a Working Mom.

• The percentage of mothers who went back to work within a year of their child’s birth who returned to the same employer: 83%

Kristin and Erin podcast at Manic Mommies.

• 7 in 10 of these women returned to jobs at the same pay, skill level, and hours worked per week.

Isabel writes at Alpha Mom.

Even though the “typical” American family and the role of mothers across America continues to change, we need our mothers more than ever.  Our moms work hard, make sacrifices, and do everything they can to make our lives the best they can be. We should always remember to take the time (more than once a year in May) to let them know they are appreciated. 

So, in case I haven’t told you lately… I love you mom!  See you Sunday!!

[Comments(3) »] [TrackBack »]