DECEMBER 5, 2008

I was a Facebook holdout.

Oh, I knew it was out there - after all, I work in social media. For the first few years, I wrote it off as a tool for students, another item I could add to the list of things that weren’t around when I was in college (cell phones, email, illegal file sharing, etc.).  Then, as colleagues started signing up, and companies started working it into their media strategies, I took a detached, academic interest in Facebook. But I didn’t actually sign up.

This all changed a few months ago. I started noticing that my contemporaries - not just younger friends - were on Facebook.  Finally, one of them sent me an invitation to join, and, justifying it by saying “I need to understand this for my clients”, I took the plunge.

Now, I think Facebook is the greatest time-suck since Tetris. Here’s why I like it:

• It helps me stay in touch with friends using minimal effort.
• Status updates - my favorite part of Facebook - give me little glimpses into my friends’ lives, the kind I never get now that we’re all spread across the country, busy with kids and work and schedules.
• Status updates also let me see a different side of clients and colleagues - people I don’t often interact with in a non-work context.
• People are funny and snarky on Facebook - my favorite type of humor.
• Birthday reminders - can’t beat that!
• I love finding the random connections between friends. The other day I typed “Jack” into the seach bar - was looking for a friend and forgot to type in his last name - and eight random Jack’s came up who share mutual friends with me. Trying to figure out how my former colleague from a law firm in San Francisco and a childhood camp friend might know the same person is kind of fun. (I’ve gotten a few emails from people of late asking me, “How do you know Trish? I went to high school with her?”).
• Cyberstalking. (You know what I’m talking about.)
• Funny pictures from the 80s that people upload and tag.
• Facebook detente - waiting to see whether “someone I may know” on Facebook will cave before I do and click on “Add Friend”.

From a professional perspective, Facebook is fascinating. Brian Solis calls Facebook ”a river of relevance that displays invaluable insight, giving you direct access into the most important conversations and activities taking place in and out of Facebook.” I agree - I’ve seen causes, products, TV shows, even presidential debates discussed on Facebook, and I can’t understate its value in providing genuine, often-real time public opinion.

I do have a quibble. On any given day, I need to respond to Facebook email, posts on my Wall, comments on my status, and possibly a Facebook IM.  Added to my work and personal email accounts, this is sometimes daunting.  Welcome to the Saturation Generation, where Inbox Zero is nothing more than the impossible dream.

I’m still holding out on Twitter, though.

[Comments(3) »] [TrackBack »]

NOVEMBER 19, 2008

I was reading an publication from EPM Communications on consumer behavior and attitudes when I saw a statistic that made me unsure as to whether I should laugh out loud or cry. Here it is: A third of Americans (34%) exercise 100 or more days a year; 10% exercise 50-99 days a year; and 15% are opposed to regular exercise.

Opposed to regular exercise? What?! Why would someone say that they are opposed to regular exercise? Do these people choose to ignore the fact that as much as 64% of the U.S. population is overweight? Being overweight has been identified as a cause of cancer, diabetes, heart problems, and sleep apnea, and has been found to reduce life expectancy. Why would someone identify themselves as being against exercising?

Maybe it’s because we hear so many conflicting headlines about just how bad it is to carry extra weight on our frames. One week we hear that it’s not as bad as we previously had thought… the next week we hear that a little extra weight may be good for our bone density numbers… a week later we hear that we should lose the weight in order to stay healthy and live long lives.

As a result, it seems that we are increasingly choosing to believe exactly what we want to believe and, therefore, dangerously ignoring the rest of the facts. Does hearing these vastly different perspectives on a daily basis provide exactly the excuse we need to be lazy? We like to believe that we have good genes, that we were athletes in high school and can get back into shape whenever we want.  We also believe that we are healthy because, even though the scale is showing us a number higher than we want to see, our blood pressure and cholesterol numbers are normal. As a society, we complain about health insurance costs but isn’t it our lack of self-control and/or denial contributing to the problem?

Perhaps we should all make the time to filter through the saturation of headlines and conflicting studies and educate ourselves on the risks associated with our unhealthy habits - individually, as well as for our nation as a whole. How’s that for a New Year’s resolution?

[No Comments »] [TrackBack »]

OCTOBER 24, 2008

I am not a particularly nosy person. I like to think of myself as well-informed and proactive. Okay… who am I kidding? It’s so easy to be nosy nowadays! (And as David referenced in his post a few months ago, I’m not the only one.)

Google serves as a wonderful little sidekick that can give me juicy tidbits about people, places, and things whenever I want them. Thanks to Yelp, I can research the service at the restaurant I’m thinking of going to and read reviews from real patrons. Sites like Rate My Professor prepare me for what to expect from instructors, as well evaluate my books before I buy them for a class. Rate My Cop evaluates police officers based on personal accounts of interactions by people online. (As you might imagine, some people have not-so-nice things to say about the officer that just wrote them a ticket hours earlier.) A friend of mine even showed me how to look up county information to find out if people have traffic tickets or arrests. All you need is a name and a county to search in.

When I recently moved to a new house, Rotten Neighbors took the mystery out of the situation - it gave me the chance to screen my neighbors before even meeting them. And, I admit that after I finished checking out my own neighborhood, I had fun plugging in the addresses of my family and friends.

But, does this knowing all information, especially information about the people around us, make us safer? Happier? Probably not. In many cases, it just give us another thing to worry about. And let’s face it, for most of us, our list of worries is already pretty long as it is. Do we really need to think about that crazy write-up that someone posted online about our neighbor that may or may not be true?

When all is said and done, we should use these tools when necessary, but not go overboard. I am learning to take the information and reviews I read online with a grain of salt and focus more on the number and quantity of bad reviews more than the specific details of one person’s account. This keeps me from stewing over something that may or may not be biased, and unnecessarily ruining my perception of a restaurant, neighbor, cop, or person unfairly. Then both technology and my conscience will be on my side.

[No Comments »] [TrackBack »]

OCTOBER 7, 2008

Recently, Tina Brown embarked on a new online project: The Daily Beast. This site mirrors The Huffington Post in its method of aggregating current news stories, but also stands out because it’s simpler and more concise. Every day, the editors pick and choose articles they find interesting and categorize them based on editorial style. For instance, they may pick a slew of articles that present different angles of one story to bundle into a “Big Fat Story”.  Another section called the “Cheat Sheet” ranks the 14 hottest stories and allows users to promote or bury a story (a la Digg).

The Daily Beast is the latest example of a website that works as a filter for all the raw information out there. A team of editors constantly sifts through the web in order to produce a coherent front page. This isn’t just a blogger picking out a few interesting topics to share each day, or even a team of writers continuously following a specific subject area. The Daily Beast compresses and distills a broad range of articles and orders them, often with a purpose. Tina Brown probably says it best when she answers this question on the site:

[Q:] Why should I visit you when there’s already Slate/Drudge/Huffington Post/TPM/Google News and every other magazine and newspaper?

[A:] Sensibility, darling.

… we all have only one pair of eyes and ears. We’re hoping that if you like the sensibility The Daily Beast brings to choosing news and opinion then you’ll trust us to be the lens you view it through.

Sifting through the massive amount of news and information online every day is a full-blown job for these editors. Let’s face it: not all of us have the time or patience to read and process all this news every day. The internet allows news to proliferate alarmingly fast through a multitude of sources. Sites like the Huffington Post have even become somewhat unwieldy, drowning the reader in articles. I’d rather leave the job of sifting to the people who truly love it and want to do it every day, so they can guide me through it later. The Daily Beast won’t by any means replace all the other sources of news I frequent online, but it will offer me a way to easily digest popular topics and issues with a healthy dose of editorial insight.

[No Comments »] [TrackBack »]

OCTOBER 6, 2008

Technology is awesome – and at the same time, technology wears on me.

Most days I am grateful for all the ways I’m connected — however, there increasingly more moments lately when, like Gayle with her email, I’m ready for a break. Tools meant to make my life easier leave me feeling overwhelmed; social bookmarking is amazing, but I tag more articles and posts than I could ever read, and my Google Reader is overflowing with unbelievable art, can’t-miss events, insightful stories and statistics - if only I could get to all of it.

Which is exactly why this advertising campaign by Dentyne is brilliant.

It’s not very often that I see an ad and want to put it on my wall, but when I saw the entire collection for the first time on AdFreak, I immediately wanted a copy of them. Something about their straightforward simplicity perfectly captured exactly how I felt.

Several years ago I wrote a post about wondering if my generation, Gen Y, would eventually shift away from technology and into lifestyles that do not revolve around constant connectivity. I’m certainly not the first or only person to ever suggest that too much technology might lead a generation to say we’ve had enough, but several reactions to this campaign brought me back to that post from three years ago. And others, like Columbia grad student Kate Rosenbloom, are wondering if the ads might be an indicator of that larger phenomenon:

[T]he ads and the reading do make me wonder if we are reaching a saturation point in terms of people’s willingness to embrace the idea that technology equals progress. What does it say about the state of American minds today when the advertising industry, which has been so eager to embrace new technology, is encouraging people to ‘log off’ and ‘power down’ (and chew gum)?

I feel like I know more and more people who are refusing to join social networking websites, use instant messaging services, or text message friends. Could these Dentyne ads be just another sign of an impending backlash?

And while we’ll have to wait and see if this larger shift materializes, this thought-provoking campaign has one major shortfall.  MediaBistro hits the nail on the head when it wonders how Dentyne could create a campaign encouraging people to connect offline, and then support it by creating a website:

[W]hy didn’t you just go all real world? Do nothing online. Perhaps you create flash mobs of hugging via snail mail. Perhaps you hold spontaneous concerts on college campuses or bike rides though small university towns at midnight. How about a real world choose your own adventure game?

Dentyne may not be perfect in its execution, but it did successfully create a series of ads that captures my sentiment of the moment. I’m tired of technology controlling my life… and this company beautifully acknowledges — and encourages — my life beyond Facebook. I only hope balancing it all turns out to be as easy as buying a pack of gum.

[Comments(2) »] [TrackBack »]

SEPTEMBER 26, 2008

I recently identified the single biggest source of stress in my life. No, it’s not the work/family balance. It’s not the status of my retirement savings, either (though that may be because I haven’t looked at my account balances since the collapse of the banking industry this month). It isn’t even the terrorism-global warming-general state of disaster trifecta that the world is currently facing.

No, the biggest source of stress is my complete inability to keep up with email.

My work email, for one, is out of control.  Yes, I know it’s a cliche these days to complain about how many emails you get - people seem to trumpet those numbers like battle wounds. (”I went to lunch yesterday and came back to 200 new emails!”)  But the reality is that the amount of email we all send and receive is exploding. Some days, I don’t actually do any work - I just respond to emails, half the time asking other people via email to do things, and the other half trying to find the right folder to file away the rest of my emails so that I can find them later, when I do finally get to the work.

But my problem goes way beyond my work email. There’s my personal gmail account, which is connected to my blog, and which seems to expand exponentially every week. Gmail has its good points, but the fact that I can’t move emails into files doesn’t help my mental state. The number on the inbox never goes down, it only goes up.  Getting through that account is a never ending task.

And now there’s Facebook. I get messages on Facebook, plus comments on my status and posts on my wall. That’s three separate places for me to accumulate unreturned email, all of which need to be checked individually. Don’t get me wrong - I am not complaining that people are contacting me. I am grateful to friends who take the time to get in touch with me, and I am happy to hear from them. I just get stressed about when I will find the time to write them back.

Unclutterer has some advice for how to get email under control. This is my favorite piece: “Starting right here and right now, you’re going to process your email as it comes in, and as you’re done with each message, you’re going to either delete it or file it away in a folder separate from your inbox.” Great advice - if you can follow it. But if you’re reading email on the road, or you work part-time, then this is tough to adhere to. For one thing, deleting emails on my Blackberry doesn’t delete them on my desktop, so I can’t delete-as-I-go.

Here’s some even better advice:

Ask yourself: if an email is older than a month, does the sender really still expect a response? Be honest. Most likely, the answer is no. If it was that important, the sender probably contacted you again more recently, or using another method. This may seem scary to some folks, but I recommend taking all the messages older than a month (or even two or three weeks, for the brave!) and simply moving them into your email archive.

That definitely does take some nerve.

Missionary Geek, who says that most of us feel “vaguely sick” when we look at our inboxes, also has some recommendations for how to keep them under control.

Unless I do something drastic - and soon - I am in danger of email meltdown. What do you do to keep your inbox under control?

[Comments(3) »] [TrackBack »]

SEPTEMBER 9, 2008

The battle of electrons vs. dead trees continues to wage on.

First, there was the e-book reader, of which perhaps the Amazon Kindle is the most famous variety.  While some reports indicate that the Kindle is doing quite well, I have to say that in the past two years I’ve spent riding public transit here in D.C., I’ve seen only one of them. It’s my guess, even as a 30-year-old guy whose information consumption habits skew heavily toward online, that people just like the ease, convenience, cost and even feel of a good old-fashioned book.

But despite the challenges of getting e-book technology to be adopted en masse, The New York Times reported this week that Plastic Logic, an international company whose website brands the organization as a “World Leader in Plastic Electronics”,  revealed the technology for a new, electronic newspaper reader.

According to the Times:

The electronic newspaper, a large portable screen that is constantly updated with the latest news, has been a prop in science fiction for ages. It also figures in the dreams of newspaper publishers struggling with rising production and delivery costs, lower circulation and decreased ad revenue from their paper product.

While the dream device remains on the drawing board, Plastic Logic will introduce publicly on Monday its version of an electronic newspaper reader: a lightweight plastic screen that mimics the look — but not the feel — of a printed newspaper.

The device, which is unnamed, uses the same technology as the Sony eReader and Amazon.com’s Kindle, a highly legible black-and-white display developed by the E Ink Corporation. While both of those devices are intended primarily as book readers, Plastic Logic’s device, which will be shown at an emerging technology trade show in San Diego, has a screen more than twice as large. The size of a piece of copier paper, it can be continually updated via a wireless link, and can store and display hundreds of pages of newspapers, books and documents.

Personally, I think a device of this nature has the potential to take off for exactly the reasons that the Kindle, at least initially, hasn’t. When I’m on the go, the last thing I want to do is read a big, bulky newspaper (usually with inserts falling out) while I stand packed into a crowded train. Something sleek, easy to read, and durable would be a big advantage over my current attempts to read news on my Treo. I already read most of my news electronically - something I don’t do or even want to do with full-length books - so for me, this is actually an upgrade on my existing options. If I were able to personalize my device by drawing from multiple news sources and subscribing to feeds, all the better.

What about you? Do you have an e-book reader? If not, would you want an e-newspaper reader?

[No Comments »] [TrackBack »]

AUGUST 22, 2008

I recently went out to dinner at a relatively upscale restaurant in the area.  My husband and I were leisurely enjoying our dinner when I looked up and noticed that there was a TV directly in my line of vision, broadcasting a baseball game.  While I have nothing against baseball or TV in general, I was annoyed by the fact that there seems to be no way to avoid it. It used to be the only place to watch TV was at your house or maybe local sports bars — now, there is no escape.

And it’s not just restaurants.  Have you noticed that everywhere you go these days there seems to be a TV blaring the latest advertisements, infotainment segments or election news?  TV screens are now ever-present at airports, doctors offices, gas station pumps, grocery store check out lines, the gym, the office, and definitely restaurants.  Can you even remember the last time you ate at a restaurant that didn’t have a TV on at the bar?

A recent study by Arbitron media found that one in three people watch television outside of their own home on any given day.

Is it that we are so used to being bombarded with information and entertainment that we can’t tolerate being alone with our thoughts?  Or perhaps marketers and entertainers feel they have no choice in today’s saturated society but to try and reach us at all times and places.  Do we really need to be entertained for the three minutes it takes to fill up our gas tank?  Will we lead a less fulfilling life if we aren’t aware of the latest Hollywood breakup immediately via the mall TV channel?

A recent Fast Company article touches on this phenomenon, stating:

In a DVR world, advertisers are reaching outside the home for today’s most desirable audience: a captive one. Anywhere people might be waiting equals an opportunity to air short-form content and advertising.

And according to a recent New York Times article:

There are at least 37,000 shops, offices and health clubs across the country that broadcast ads on TV screens…and are also in 20 percent of all groceries and 11 percent of all office  buildings.  The Wal-Mart TV Network now includes more than 125,000 screens in 2,850 Wal-Mart stores.

What do you think?  Does it bother you to have TV programming everywhere you go in today’s society? Or do you welcome the distraction and entertainment?

I, for one, could do without it.

[No Comments »] [TrackBack »]

AUGUST 5, 2008

In the latest edition of an EPM Communications Research Alert newsletter that I follow as part of the New Persuasion team here at TMG Strategies, I saw a startling piece about world-of-mouth marketing.  According to the article, ”WOM marketing” is the fastest growing segment of the marketing industry.  Surprisingly, in 2007, spending on this form of marketing exceeded $1 billion and is expected to hit $3.4 billion in 2011.

There is no substitute for word-of-mouth marketing  - it’s a dire necessity for the success of a company.  Studies have proven that consumers trust their friends, families, and even complete strangers more than they trust big corporations.  This is why understanding word-of-mouth marketing and its importance is a key element for any growing or fully-established business.  According to my Research Alert, about 90% of WOM marketing takes place offline in face-to-face or phone conversations.  People are also more likely to think that offline WOM is more credible– which directly correlates to the intent to purchase at a later date.

This is something that everyone needs to keep in mind– no matter what type of company they work for or what type of business they are in.  After all, how else could Google have risen to the top as quickly and as efficiently as it has in the recent past? 

[Comments(2) »] [TrackBack »]

JULY 21, 2008

Newsweek technology writer Daniel McGinn (no relation to our very own Dan McGinn) recently took note of a paradigm shift in the mobile phone industry - it’s running out of new customers (with my emphasis):

According to the latest data, the U.S. “adoption rate” for mobile phones stands at 85 percent. That’s higher than the percentage of Americans who have DVD players (84 percent), home PCs (80 percent), digital cameras (69 percent) or MP3 players (40 percent), according to the Nielsen Co. “The concept that within my lifetime we’d have the kind of penetration we have today is unimaginable,” says Martin Cooper, 79, the former Motorola researcher who invented the portable cell phone in 1973. But for wireless providers, it’s a mixed blessing. With fewer virgin customers to bring online, the industry’s subscriber base grew by just 8.8 percent in 2007.

(…) The bulk of the un-mobile fall into three groups, says senior analyst Chris Collins of Yankee Group: children, the elderly and the credit-challenged. (There’s actually a fourth group, prison inmates, but companies haven’t yet found a way to target that elusive niche.)

Lots of parents have mixed feelings about kids’ having phones, but they’re showing up in school backpacks at earlier ages. By some estimates, half the country’s 28 million 8- to 14-year-olds already have handsets of their own.

As a parent, I want to know what’s good about cell phones for kids. Full disclosure: my 10 year-old has a phone, but we got it for her when my wife, now a stay-at-home-mom, was also working. In a big metropolitan area like Washington, D.C., long distances between parents and children (and even longer commutes once traffic is factored in) makes being able to have a open line of communication with your kids very important.

But other than talking to us, or her grandma, my daughter isn’t allowed to use her phone. She’s a little kid, and I want her to stay that way for a while - no need to be on the phone all day and night when she could be reading or playing. (And I also want my cell phone bill to be even incrementally less outrageous than it is now.)

What do you think? Cell phones for kids? If they have them, should they be just a long-range walkie-talkie between the kid and his or her parents, or would you cut them more slack? And who pays for those extra minutes? Does it come out of allowance, or is that just one of the benefits of being an American pre-teen?

I’m a young dad, but maybe I’m just old-fashioned. I’d rather see my kids outside, climbing a tree, than texting their friends.

[No Comments »] [TrackBack »]