SEPTEMBER 17, 2009

These days, it can be hard to tell how old people are, just by looking at them. With grandmothers on Facebook, the current cupcake craze and my whole office reading young adult fiction, the cues - visual or cultural - that we used to use to tell people’s ages seem to be disappearing. Personally, I don’t think of myself as old… despite an upcoming milestone birthday (ugh), I think I’m young at heart. I tweet, I download music, I blog, I watch reality TV - I can’t be that old, right?

Nope. I’m old.

And this is how I know.

Yesterday, I sat in a staff meeting and looked around the room at my colleagues, who were sitting with their chairs in a large circle, facing in. And it hit me - there is finally a failsafe way to tell who’s old and who’s young. Without exception, everyone in the room over 30 was wearing a watch, and everyone under 30 was not. It was striking.

The wearing of a watch seems to be the one thing that separates the men from the boys, as it were. Clearly, those under 30 have learned to find other, less constraining ways to tell time. Perhaps they have had cell phones or PDAs by their side from such an early age that they just never got used to looking at their wrists to find out how long they had before class started, or before their curfews came and went - a concept that is totally foreign to me.

I was intrigued, so I thought I’d ask these Gen Yers to explain why they weren’t wearing a watch yesterday:

• “My cell phone is so much a part of me that my watch is optional. A watch is only an accessory.” (Kristen)
• “I don’t like having anything on my wrist. I use my cell phone to tell what me time it is.” (Gloria)
• “The only time I wear it is when I am working out, because it can tell me my heart rate, etc. There are so many other ways to look at the time that I don’t need to wear a watch.” (Michele)
• “I never have. My cell phone is always with me, and besides, I don’t like knowing that I am always late.” (Lisa)

I admit it - I haven’t gone a day without a watch (intentionally) since I was about 8 years old. I feel unmoored and lost without my watch. Yes, I may look at the clock at the corner of my laptop screen more often that I look at my watch, and I do glance at my blackberry throughout the day to find out what time it is. But for me, going without a watch is just simply not done. It’d be like leaving the house without my keys.

So there you have it - the dividing line between young and old. Which side of it are you on?

[Comments(6) »] [TrackBack »]

AUGUST 28, 2009

Today, I was driving to work when a state trooper rammed into my car from behind, because he was on the cell phone and not paying attention. He gave me a ticket for “Failure to control speed to avoid a crash.” FML.

That’s just a sample of the funny tidbits you’ll get at the site fmylife.com. What does the f stand for? Well I can’t really tell you without getting fired, but I’m sure you get the point (and if I am fired for writing this it would probably be an FML.)

The site collects stories and anecdotes from users that illustrate their bad luck and misfortune. The stories are usually comical, in a “I’m glad that didn’t happen to me” sense.

Is your life not so unfortunate? Then maybe you should submit a story to MyLifeIsG, a site that shares the opposite, stories of fortunate events, or general “I’m pimp” tales.

What if you life isn’t G or unfortunate? Don’t worry, there’s a site for you too. It’s called My Life Is Average.

I’ve noticed that the latest in humor sites involve various sharing of personal events. Whether it’s that drunk dial you made last weekend (Texts From Last Night), or a note with a not-so-hidden subtext (Passive Aggressive Notes), or an embarrassing moment involving your parents and Facebook (Oh Crap. My Parents Joined Facebook), it seems like every moment of our lives is worthy of inclusion on some internet meme site.

So what exactly are these sites saying about our pop culture today? First, the limits of what we consider private and public are being stretched to new lengths. Social networking introduced the idea that details about ourselves should be open and shared. Now even our less graceful moments can be shared, as long as they are funny to somebody else.

Does that also mean our sense of what we consider decent and indecent for public consumption is changing? I’m not entirely sure.

I don’t have all the dots connected on this yet but there’s clearly a trend with the rise of these types of internet meme sites.

[Comments(2) »] [TrackBack »]

AUGUST 25, 2009

Last night I saw “District 9“  in the theater. Normally I would never consider paying $9.50 to see an alien movie, but I had heard that it was pretty good. When I was asked who said it was good, I couldn’t come up with any names. I knew that multiple people had said they liked it, but I couldn’t remember who! :\

Today I was on Facebook and realized that a few of my Facebook friends had also seen the movie and had noted that it was worth seeing. I’m embarrassed to say I didn’t have actual conversations with anyone about the movie - I only blindly trusted their Facebook statuses as movie reviews.

The power of social media is AMAZING. Peer reviews are what we trust, and social media allows us to share our opinions to anyone who wants to listen. My “District 9″ experience reinforced that power for me.

Timemagazine and Mashable have also written about the effect social media has on box office revenue. When “Bruno” opened, it did well… until the bad tweets about the movie flooded Twitter. Time speculated that the negative reviews on Twitter contributed to the movie’s downward spiral after its premiere on July 10. Mashable thinks that Twitter had the opposite effect on “District 9″ - it was a trending topic and garnered mostly positive buzz. Both movies made over 14 million dollars on opening night. On the second day, “Bruno”’s take fell to 8.7 million, while “District” made 12.6 million dollars!

I’m glad I listened to my friends on Facebook even though I couldn’t remember which ones. It was an unexpected hit for a moviegoer like me. Usually, I go for historical dramas and chick flicks, so if not for the unsolicited reviews my online buddies posted, I would not have had the chance to enjoy this sci-fi thriller!

[No Comments »] [TrackBack »]

JULY 8, 2009

Yesterday’s memorial concert for Michael Jackson was something to remember. Most people will remember where they were when they watched it and who they were with. Everyone’s still talking about the star-studded audience and the grief the Jackson family must be going through. Stevie Wonder and Jennifer Hudson’s performances were very touching, while MJ’s daughter, Paris, made the closing comment. It brought a tear to my eye, all while wearing headphones in front of my computer.

This morning I looked back at Mashable’s coverage of MJ’s memorial and was amazed by the stats! I was one of 9.7 million people who tuned into CNN’s live stream. There was a TV right behind me, but I watched it online. CNN’s live stream had a leg up on its broadcast counterparts because of its Facebook integration. This meant that as I watched the memorial, I could be signed into my account with Facebook Connect to post updates and see what others were saying as they watched. It was neat to see people’s reactions to performances as they happened. There were 500,000+ Facebook updates posted from the CNN live stream, making it the biggest live Facebook event in history - even bigger than Obama’s inauguration! More than 800,000 people have given the free Michael Jackson glove virtual gift, making it the most popular Facebook gift ever.

While the memorial was broadcast live, Jackson-related tweets occupied all 10 of Twitter’s top trending topics. Michael Jackson is still trending on Twitter today. It has been Michael mania on the web since the day of his death as people who are shocked, saddened, and confused have turned to social media for information and to express their opinions on the passing of one of the biggest celebrities in history.

Social media allows us to communicate and document our experiences in a whole new way. The unprecedented amount of condolences the King of Pop received virtually was a great example of how important social media is as a communication tool. He will be missed!

[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 »]

MAY 12, 2009

Sometimes when I’m catching up on my DVR’d programs, I catch a commercial or a scene from a show and think, “that’s New Persuasion.”  An example: after taking in a lot of my favorite new shows this season, I realized that they all shared a common theme - perhaps another sign of the rapidly changing landscape of business affairs, consumer behavior, and the activities of our everyday lives.

All four of my favorites, including, FOX’s “Lie to Me,” ABC’s “Castle,” CBS’s “The Mentalist,” and FOX’s “Fringe,” employ outside consultants or professionals of an unrelated industry to help solve problems.  For example, on “Lie to Me” a slew of clients, including government agencies like the FBI and CIA, hire “The Lightman Group,” a group of quirky deception experts (masters at reading body language), to get the truth out of people to get answers and solve crimes.  “Castle” depicts a mystery novelist who tags along with a New York City police detective, calling up the characters and plot twists of his stories to anticipate criminal behavior and crack cases.  In “Fringe,” an FBI special agent partners with a “mad” scientist and his son to solve and usually help victims of strange and supernatural occurrences.  And “The Mentalist” enlists the help of an independent consultant with a knack for observation to help the California Bureau of Investigation find out “who done it.” 

You won’t find any capes, or the ability to fly, or special weapons among this cast of characters, but don’t be fooled - these are society’s new superheroes:  average, everyday people. The presence of multiple primetime shows with similar plot structures reveals to me that audiences want to see unlikely-but-skilled individuals save the day.  Perhaps this is yet another example of society moving towards more of a “back to the basics”mentality.  We don’t want to be dazzled by superhuman, otherworldly heroes. In fact, they’re kind of scary. We prefer people who look like us, using their brains and skills to help solve problems.  It’s a return to ingenuity, elbow grease, and creativity, instead of fantasy-world saviors who don’t really exist.

Given our current challenges - the international war on terror, global warming, and an economic recession - people seem to be looking for practical, real-life solutions.

[No Comments »] [TrackBack »]

MAY 11, 2009

 A few weeks ago, I was talking to Dan McGinn about the recession and how it has been affecting society in general. He asked me, “What changes have you made in your life since the recession hit?” At first, I really couldn’t think of any. I have a lot of fixed costs - mortgage, nanny, car payments, tuition - and there hasn’t been a lot of leeway for making cuts in my budget. I was embarrassed to admit that I couldn’t come up with any sweeping reforms on the home front that show that I’ve adjusted to the new financial reality.

However, I’ve given it some more thought, and in retrospect, I do have an answer. It’s not as simple as “I cancelled cable” or “I am growing my own vegetables,” but I have realized that my spending habits have changed in more subtle ways that belie my own sense of financial insecurity. For example, I had two weddings to go to on the same night earlier this month. In the past, I probably would have gone out and bought a new dress. Instead, I borrowed one from a very fashionable co-worker.  I hosted a birthday party for my kids over the weekend, and in the past I might have rented some tables and chairs to accommodate the brood of five year-olds who came over to celebrate. Instead, I sent out a broadcast email to my friends and collected enough tables and chairs to seat everyone.  I was also just invited to my first clothing swap party next month - and I can’t wait to see what free fashions I come home with.  Finally, I’m trying to pay cash for purchases these days rather than whipping out the plastic, for fear of running up balances on my credit cards that I might have trouble paying off.

These may all be incremental steps, but the overall effect is clear - I am scared to spend.

Last week, Roddy wrote about the ways in which the economy - and specific industries - have changed due to the recession.  But how have individual consumers like me reacted? It appears that I am not alone. A recent Counting MyPennies blog post points out that there has been an increase in the number of people writing and reading about personal finance and living frugally - clearly an indicator that learning how to save money is on a lot of peoples’ minds.

And I enjoyed this analysis from Real Simple of a poll it conducted earlier this year.  According to the poll, some trends have emerged:

• People are staying in instead of going out - 37 percent of respondents are cutting back primarily on eating out.
• People are spending less on others - 24 percent reported that they are buying the same number of gifts, but spending less on them.
• Cutting coupons is becoming much more widespread - 38% of respondents have started using coupons since the economy took a nosedive.

I realize that none if this is surprising or particularly earth-shattering. But again, I think that these examples collectively illustrate a fundamental reining in of our spend-happy, consumerist society. The question is, when the economy bounces back, how long before this new financial discipline starts to erode? Is this a permanent shift, or just a situational response? Time will tell.

[No Comments »] [TrackBack »]

APRIL 7, 2009

While the bad news about the economy is inescapable these days, I’ve actually been reading a fair amount lately about industries that are bucking the trend and faring better in the recession. I find these stories interesting - where do people turn when they are sacrificing in so many other areas of their lives? Which activities and products are filling the void, and why? Let’s take a look.

Dating Sites: According to The Economist, traffic to online dating sites has gone up markedly since January 2008. What accounts for the sudden increase in interest in finding a mate? The article has a few theories: 1) people have more time to devote to their private lives now that they are working less; 2) trying times make people more desirous of companionship and stability; 3) living alone is expensive; and 4) the difficult economy has strained many marriages, unleashing newly single people in search of dates.  One fact I found pretty interesting: eHarmony has noticed that “the number of visits to its website was higher than average on days when the Dow Jones Industrial Average fell by more than 100 points.” I guess searching for a boyfriend online is preferable to watching your 401(k) shrink even further.

Candy: People may not be able to afford fancy restaurants or exotic vacations, but they can still afford candy. Gothamist reports that “anxious New Yorkers” have caused local candy retailers to increase their orders by up to 10%, and The New York Times, which also wrote about this trend, says: “For many, sugar lifts spirits dragged low by the languishing economy. For others, candy also provides a nostalgic reminder of better times. And not insignificantly, it is relatively cheap.”

Do-It-Yourselfers: Advertising Age (registration required) predicts that an upward trend for do-it-yourself products and services will linger “well into the next decade” Some of the companies and industries benefiting from consumers’ desire to do things by themselves: home hair care, cooking schools, Autozone (which teaches visitors to fix and maintain their own cars), WebMD, and Howcast (devoted to how-to videos). The New York Times also reports that craft stores like Michaels fared better this past holiday season than the season before, and online craft marketplace Etsy has seen a rapid increase in listings and transactions.

Netflix: The Popwatch blog reported last week that Netflix just shipped its 2 billionth DVD. (The lucky movie? “Nick and Norah’s Infinite Playlist”, which was sent to Clay Shannon of Birmingham, Indiana). Forbes has also reported on Netflix’s strong growth during the recession - and I think it makes perfect sense. You may not be able to afford a babysitter and a night on the town, but a Netflix membership at $18 a month is an affordable way to make staying in more appealing.

I’ve also read that Wal-Mart, McDonalds, and Campbell’s Soup have been strong performers during these rocky times. Value, comfort and predictability - these attributes seem to be resonating with anxious consumers. It will be interesting to see who else emerges if the recession wears on.

[Comments(4) »] [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 25, 2009

Today, women far outnumber men in terms of college enrollment. It is estimated that by 2010 there will be 10.2 million women enrolled in college, compared to 6.9 million men. There is also a gender skew when it comes to job layoffs in these crazy economic times, which means that quite possibly women will soon outnumber men in the employed workforce. So surely we feel that women are catching up to men, right?

Well, not really. Regardless of these stats, there is still a perception that things tend to lean in men’s favor. A recent CBS News/New York Times poll published in MediaWeek last month reveals what we think. The poll asked: “In our society today, are there more advantages in being a man or in being a woman, or are there no more advantages in being one than the other?”

52% said that there were no more advantages in one than the other
40% said there is an advantage to being a man
6% said there is an advantage to being a woman
1% gave no answer

These numbers differ very little from the results of a similar CBS poll conducted twenty years ago. Back then, 45% of respondents said there is an advantage in being a man and 6% said there is an advantage in being a woman.

I think that much of these opinions stem from the salary differences that still exist today. Also, because we have all grown up in a society that embraces many of the wonderful things that the New Persuasion 5 Forces represent (Globalization, Innovation, Immigration, Saturation, and Personalization), and are used to seeing an older white male figurehead associated with success in these areas, we are stuck in an antiquated mind frame. Yet, we are seeing now, more than ever, that young people can be CEOs (think Mark Zuckerberg of Facebook), African-Americans can be leaders, and women can be powerful and self-made. So why haven’t these new realities affected our perceptions of who has it better? 

Thinking that women are at a disadvantage only creates a disadvantage for women. Believing that the person with the most talent — not the most natural advantages– will come out on top in the end is the key to achieving a true meritocracy.

[No Comments »] [TrackBack »]