Kats Eye on Life

The Talk

Prior to becoming a parent, I envisioned that the most challenging conversations I would have with my child would be about sex or peer pressure or working to one's potential.  I also expected that those difficult conversations would commence in the preteen years.  How wrong I was.

Today's difficult conversation began as many do, in the car.  Five year old Girlie was talking about something which reminded her of her former nanny, whom she mentioned by name with the caveat: "but she doesn't want to be our friend anymore."  That had been the best explanation I could give a 4 and a half year old about why her nanny left without saying goodbye to her.  My exact words at the time were that she didn't want to be our friend anymore and when asked if we would see her again, my response was a clear "no".  Today I muttered under my breath to Mr. Problem Solver, "Are we ever going to be free of this?" 

But today Girlie wanted more information: "Why did she not want to be our friend anymore?"  I told her that this was one of the most difficult parts of someone not wanting to be our friend anymore, that usually we don't know exactly why.  I said that this makes it hurt even more, because we're confused about what happened.  She then asked if this had ever happened to me.  I told her yes.  Then she said to Mr. Problem Solver,  "Daddy, did you ever have a friend and then he or she (yes, she really used that phrase) didn't want to be your friend anymore?"  Mr. Problem Solver said yes and then Girlie asked, "What was his or her name?"  Mr. Problem Solver said he didn't remember, that there were too many.  Then she wanted to know if they were boys or girls and he said both.  I then explained that since we are a lot older than she is, we unfortunately have had the experience of someone not wanting to be our friend many times. 

She asked me if I remembered the name of someone who was no longer my friend.  I told her that I did and I said it was funny, because she has the same name I do.  I told her that even though this happened a long time ago, my heart still hurts when I think about her.  She asked me if my friend was a big girl or a little girl and I said that we were both big girls when it happened, but that my friend actually had a little girl of her own, like Girlie.  I told her that I loved this little girl and played games with her and read to her and went places with her but when her mother didn't want to be my friend anymore, I couldn't see the little girl again.  Girlie immediately said that this was just like what happened with her nanny, who has a sister Girlie's age that now Girlie can't see again, because her nanny doesn't want to be our friend anymore.  And in that awful moment of clarity, I realized that these are the most difficult conversations -- the ones with questions that can't be answered with powerful admonitions or warm reassurances or clinical statistics. 

I have comfortably and confidently given Girlie the proper names for genitalia; described her birth; discussed same sex marriage; challenged her notions of gender and even navigated the topic of death and what I believe happens to the body and soul after death.  But I am nearly unhinged attempting to explain why people stop loving each other. 

Let's Talk About Stats

Post #12 for my MBA class, "Communication Strategies for a Global Marketplace."

To wrap up the posts I've been writing as part of my current coursework, I wanted to reference a blog post from JeffEsposito.com that fascinated me.

The post is, "23 Social Media Facts to Share with Executives" and it includes some staggering statistics such as:

By 2012, half of the world’s Internet users, 1 billion people, will have a Facebook account – TIME (12/7-1/3 edition)

That's next year.  ONE BILLION PEOPLE.  I was just saying to Mr. Problem Solver how much I've appreciated having a Facebook friend who has family and friends in Egypt.  This friend has shared the thoughts and words of people living there and at times, I've felt as if I too, walked with them.  Such an opportunity to learn and understand.  I have yet to travel to Egypt (on my bucket list) but the glimpse I've had behind the thoughts and feelings of my friend's family/friends has been incredible.  And next year, a single site will give the opportunity for one billion people to connect with each other.

But will they?  I know a number of people, encompassing a wide range of ages, who refuse to get a Facebook account.  I've heard all the reasons:  "waste of time", "I'm a private person", "it's not safe", "I'm not good with computers", etc.  And each of these reasons, like the reasons we use to justify any decision, have their valid points.  But as my rector said on Sunday when he announced "Lent On Line" (a Facebook book discussion he'll be initiating on Ash Wednesday) these social media technologies are here to stay and those that aren't on board with using them will ultimately miss opportunities and information, not to mention opportunities for connection. And groups like my small Episcopal church must be leaders in the use of these technologies in order to connect with other like-minded small congregations and individuals.  Or we we'll be left behind (pun definitely intended).

And it's truly about seizing the opportunities for connection.  As I've written about in other posts, one can participate in social media without fully immersing oneself in all that the technologies offer.  For example, I can be on Facebook, as many people are, and interact with a very small number of people that I know well - less than one hundred, for example.  Or I can open up my network to people whom I've encountered in a variety of settings, some of whom I know "in real life" and others with whom I've only connected via online communities, my blog or theirs, a photography sharing site, etc.  If I keep my circle small and my security settings tight, I may maintain a measure of anonymity online or "protect" myself from peering minds.  But I will also miss the chance to be part of something amazing.  Which for me is keeping in touch with a friend who lives in Norway (she was an exchange student at my high school); a woman whose blog I've followed for years who suggested Melatonin for Girlie (because it worked for her daughter) when she was having difficulty with sleep transitions; a grammar school friend who makes me laugh every day; and people who I know "in real life" but have gotten to know in new ways through their posts and photos on Facebook. 

What do you think about one BILLION people on Facebook?  Do you like the idea of expanding your network through social media, whether it be Facebook or Flickr or LinkedIn or Twitter?  What about this makes you uncomfortable?

A Lingering Aroma

Post #11 for my MBA class, "Communication Strategies for a Global Marketplace."

I have 184 blog subscriptions in my reader and there are probably another dozen or so blogs that email me updates.  One of my favorites is a blog called PR-Squared - The next big thing is already here, conversations about social media and marketing.  A recent post titled, "In Social Media, Everyone Can Hear You Fart" grabbed my attention. 

The post starts by mentioning designer Kenneth Cole's poorly received tweet about the riots in Egypt: "Millions are in uproar in #Cairo.  Rumor is they heard our new spring collection is now available online at http://bit.ly/KCairo".

Writer Todd Defren says this about the tweet:

"Impolitic?  Insensitive?  Dumb?  Yes, yep, yessir.  Scandalously graceless, even.  The subsequent deluge of scorn motivated the apparel brand to delete the tweet and apologize on their Facebook page (but not before a spoof handle made further mischief).

What are the lessons for brands?

First, don’t be a dumbass.  Think before you tweet.  

Second, remember that what goes online stays online.  The tweet is gone but its digital echo will resound for a while.  (In fact, I’m already dreading the fast-dawning day when Google associates my own name with the title of this post!)

Third, remember that when you engage in Social Media — when you expose your authentic self — you also run the risk that not everybody will like you. "

Todd goes on to say that the tweet reflects the tweeter, which in the case of Kenneth Cole himself is someone who has been protected from life's harsher realities and while a visionary, has likely been focused on himself for much of his life. 

He also says,

"In the long run, it’s a safe bet that a brand as large and well-known as Kenneth Cole will survive this event just fine.  It was a dumb move, but the namesake CEO realized it pretty quickly; he apologized and will surely move on and never mention it again.  He’ll think twice next time.  He’ll be more cautious, though hopefully not overly so.  Surely his brand has, over time, largely benefited from his outsized personality more than it’s been hurt by it.

Either way, other junk will fill the void and this too, shall pass.  And that’s a good lesson to remember, too."

This is a good example of why many marketing and PR departments within companies try to limit the unedited access that CEOs and other leaders have to the organization's Facebook page and Twitter feed.  A good leader may not be a good written communicator or may simply not know how to communicate well in short information bytes.  Have you worked for a leader who should not tweet?  Could you lead and tweet?

Words and Actions

Post #10 for my MBA class, "Communication Strategies for a Global Marketplace."

I’ve written before about authenticity.  Those of you still with me may be tired of my favorite word.  I’m a writer and lover of language, yet there are words (authenticity being one of them) which I never tire of hearing and using.  These words for me are so powerful that I am literally stirred anew every time I hear them.  Some of these words for me (and I am separating them here so that you may look at them as individual words, rather than a list – a useful exercise with language) are:

faith

 

justice

 

integrity

 

trust

 

What are words that you love?  Why do you love them? 

Then there are the words that... I don't love as much.  (We have a moratorium on hate talk in my household so I'll elect to describe my feelings for these words by using "abhor", "strongly dislike", "find highly irritating", etc.) Here are a few words and phrases - some of them from the English language, others that don't exist in any language, as far I know:

alright

chomping at the bit

 

irregardless

 

best practice

 

Same question - what are some words or phrases that get under your skin, either because they're often used incorrectly or overused or used to make the speaker/writer seem more intelligent/important, etc.?

A recent guest post on the blog ConversationAgent – connecting ideas and people – how talk can change our lives was titled, "Top 10 Reasons Conan O'Brien's Social Media Stuff is Better than Yours".  Obviously the post is a play on the humorous lists made popular by late night talk show host David Letterman.  But this list has a point - one made clear in a few of the list's points:

#7 - Conan is having fun; you're "engaging" customers

#6 - Conan's staff is on a mission; yours has a mission statement

While all of the points are great and each of them says something about how Conan has done so well connecting with fans via social networks, I think the two above are key.  Whether you find Conan funny or not, it's difficult to imagine anyone viewing one of his skits and not believing that he's having fun.  And he has fun with social networks too, by creating Team Coco, a platform for integrating videos, Facebook, Twitter, his blog and many other social sites.  The fun he's having appears to come as naturally to Conan as breathing, which is what differentiates him from organizations which are seeking to "engage" their audience or market.  Conan has no barriers - he is part of Team Coco but so are we.  The Team Coco site looks as though it was a progression of the fun, rather than an orchestrated attempt to capture more viewers.  (Which of course is also what it is.)  By sitting in an office and creating a strategic plan to maximize efficacy of marketing via social networks organizations build a barrier between "us" and "them" which then reminds the audience that they shouldn't trust big business or corporate mouthpieces.

I love #6 too - mission statements are useful but too often, employees need to look in a book or on a website to remember the words of their company's statement.  When people are personally invested in a specific approach or outcome, that becomes part of everything they do, rather than a set of abstract words for which they need reminding.

Where in your life and work are your words and actions in alignment?   Where are they divergent?  How do you feel in these environments?  As my friend Patti Digh is fond of saying, "We are always in choice."  Like Conan, we are our most powerful and persuasive when in alignment.

Death Threats and a Pullet Surprise

Post #9 for my MBA class, "Communication Strategies for a Global Marketplace."

The world of higher education has been my home for the past 9 years and it's a space I continue to monitor closely, even though I'm not currently employed by a college or university.  I read the Chronicle, maintain my AACRAO and NACAC memberships and receive daily updates from Academic Impressions and Inside Higher Ed.  I also follow a number of higher ed blogs.

Social networks have altered higher education marketing as much if not more than they've changed other industries' marketing practices.  Higher education has not traditionally been known as an arena on the cutting edge of the newest technologies.  Despite the fact that universities are providing the research behind advancements in every industry, the institutions themselves are slow to adapt to the latest technologies.  One reason for this is most larger colleges and universities are very decentralized, with individual schools and divisions and departments using different information systems for everything from data collection to marketing.  It's difficult to get these diverse groups to agree to abandon their beloved technologies in favor of something completely different.

The other thing that social media has done for higher education is to permit a peek behind the curtain of academia.  This view was formerly reserved for those with multiple years of advanced education and research experience, saved for those who could speak the language and appreciate the vista.  Academicians are known for being brilliant scholars who have spent so much time with their field of study that they've forgotten what exists outside that field and how to speak to people who don't share their passion for the application of rapid annealing to nonequilibrium precipitation reactions or the characterization of the genes involved in branched-chain amino acid transport in Escherichia coli.  (Areas of study for two faculty members at Case Western Reserve University - www.case.edu)  I make these statements with great admiration and appreciation - many of my friends have doctoral and professional degrees and I would love to pursue my own Ph.D.  But the stereotypes of the absent-minded professor exist for a reason.

So how has social media helped (or hurt) higher education?  One example I spotted recently in the Chronicle pertains to a college president.  Along with lifetime academicians, the college president has remained an elusive being.  Rarely spotted, often misunderstood and underappreciated, the leader of our institutions of higher learning has had a tough road to hoe.  How to be seen as a person - someone who cares about students but also has the ability to garner multi-million dollar donations and broker partnerships with corporations and non-profits alike? 

The president of Pitzer College, a prestigious, small liberal arts school in California, recently found herself the subject of a blog post in the Chronicle of Higher Education, the industry's primary publication.  The post is entitled, "A Tale of 2 Chickens, a President, and Her Mother" and was written by Lawrence Biemiller.  The first line of the post reads, "It’s not every college president who has to explain chicken-butt photos to her mother, but when the time came, Laura Trombley managed. All part of being a president, she said."

So here we have a situation where possibly too much information, or not the right information is being shared.  Though I stand by the idea that some publicity is better than no publicity, (as I was previously unfamiliar with Pitzer College, and I now know that it's ranked #1 in Fullbright fellowships for American liberal arts schools) I expect that President Trombley is an extremely accomplished woman who is portrayed in this article as the school's chief chicken guardian.  While authenticity is something I prize, I don't know if this image of President Trombley is truly a match for who she is and the role she plays in shaping the college.

And then we have the situation of Dr. Frances Fox Piven, a professor of political science and sociology at the City University of New York's Graduate Center.  Dr. Piven wrote an article for the Nation entitled, "Mobilizing the Jobless" which analyzes the circumstances of unemployment in the United States and why, with so very many people unemployed or underemployed, there is no significant organizing or protesting or even riots, as there have been in other countries when the jobless rate rose so sharply.  She cites a number of reasons why this may be so, and in no way advocates for violence or even specifically for protest.  Yet, this longtime scholar has become (through this article and others before it) a target of conservative radio and television host Glenn Beck. 

According to another article in The Nation, "Glenn Beck Targets Frances Fox Piven":

"This fusillade was evidently set off by Piven's recent Nation editorial calling for a mass movement of the unemployed ["Mobilizing the Jobless," January 10/17]. But Beck has had Piven in his cross-hairs for some time. In the past few years he's featured Piven, along with her late husband, Richard Cloward, in at least twenty-eight broadcasts, all of which paint them as masterminds of an overarching left-wing plot called "the Cloward-Piven strategy," which supposedly engineered the financial crisis of 2008, healthcare reform, Obama's election and massive voter fraud, among other world-historical events (see Richard Kim, "The Mad Tea Party," April 12, 2010). Cloward and Piven, Beck once argued, are "fundamentally responsible for the unsustainability and possible collapse of our economic system." In his most recent diatribe against Piven (January 17) he repeatedly called her "the enemy of the Constitution." In Beck's telling, because Piven and her comrades on the left support civil disobedience in some circumstances, it is they—not the heavily armed militias of the radical right—who threaten Americans' safety."

What's alarming about the focus that Mr. Beck has placed on Dr. Piven is that it has led to multiple death threats, both directly to her and offered up as "services" in the comments portion of Mr. Beck's website.  And yet I had heard nothing about any of this until the February 10th issue of The Chronicle. 

So a college president's ill chicken is news, and death threats against a university faculty member is news too - even more prominently distributed.  Yet with so much social media information available, how is one able to filter appropriately?  How do we see what is most critical for us to see and learn what we need to know to grow and develop, help ourselves and others and become the best global citizens possible? 

I should note that I appropriated the second half of my blog title from comments on the Chronicle's blog post about President Trombley.  Loved the perfect pun from jbarman.

 

Is Any Attention Good Attention?

Post #8 for my MBA class, "Communication Strategies for a Global Marketplace."

I may be the only person on the planet who missed Groupon's Super Bowl Tibet Ad, but what I couldn't miss was the uproar about it. 

I dislike televised sporting events in general and football games in particular.  I never really learned the game as I didn't play it and I quit being a cheerleader for it at age 7 when I learned that after spelling the name of a football player in my cheer, there would never be a point in the game when someone would be spelling my name.  That did it for me.  Unjust.

Anyway, I not only don't watch the Super Bowl but I typically like to be in a location where the Super Bowl is not being viewed.  So on Super Bowl Sunday 2011 I found myself out to dinner with my mother and sister-in-law, who were visiting from the east coast for my daughter's birthday weekend. 

As a writer and marketer I do like to hear about the Super Bowl ads, so Sunday evening found me lurking around online to dig up the dirt.  Had I not been dealing with a health issue too, I'm certain that I would have caught the YouTube link to the Groupon video.  As it is, I'll have to share what I know and have read.

Sandra Fish on Politics Daily wrote:

The ad began with scenes of the Himalayan land in the western part of China. Tibetans have protested their lack of freedom under the Chinese government, with many Tibetans imprisoned as a result.

"The people of Tibet are in trouble," actor Timothy Hutton says at one point. "Their very culture is in jeopardy. But they still whip up an amazing fish curry."

Then he goes on to rave about the Groupon discount he used at a Chicago restaurant.

Without viewing the ad I don't want to comment regarding its tastefulness or lack thereof.  But I do want to talk about the concept that there is no such thing as bad publicity.  I've often thought about this idea, that in some circles and for some people/organizations, it almost seems that even what would spell certain death for the rest of us, only serves to increase notoriety and popularity.  Is it because the public loves a good story, even if it's not a positive one?  When I think of "celebrities" that fall into this category, my thoughts turn to people like Lindsay Lohan, Britney Spears, Charlie Sheen, Jesse James, Kelsey Grammer.

Again, according to Sandra Fish on Politics Daily:

Twitter lit up with backlash against the ad. One employee of the agency that created the ad, Crispin Porter+Bogusky, tweeted in response: "Pretend to be upset by our #groupon ad, but we got people talking about Tibet & are donating money. More than what you're doing." He later deleted the tweet, but it was retweeted several times.

I'm shocked that a representative of the ad agency would have tweeted that response, particularly since it doesn't sound like it's in line with what Groupon's CEO Andrew Mason had to say about the situation on the Groupon blog:

We hate that we offended people, and we’re very sorry that we did – it’s the last thing we wanted. We’ve listened to your feedback, and since we don’t see the point in continuing to anger people, we’re pulling the ads (a few may run again tomorrow – pulling ads immediately is sometimes impossible). We will run something less polarizing instead. We thought we were poking fun at ourselves, but clearly the execution was off and the joke didn’t come through. I personally take responsibility; although we worked with a professional ad agency, in the end, it was my decision to run the ads.

To the charities (for which we expect to net over $500,000) and others that have spoken out on our behalf, we appreciate your support.

To those who were offended, I feel terrible that we made you feel bad. While we’ve always been a little quirky, we certainly aren’t trying to be the kind of company that builds its brand on creating controversy – we think the quality of our product is a much stronger message.

This is a powerful response, in my opinion.  While he explains what they were attempting, he fully acknowledges that it didn't work and takes personal responsibility for the ad.  He also highlights the quality of the products that Groupon represents.  Well done, Mr. Mason.

Would any of you refuse to use Groupon after that ad?  What about after reading Mr. Mason's apology?  We know that a child, when not being given the proper attention for positive actions and behavior, will resort to negative means to secure such attention.  The result of this "negative attention" is typically bad for all involved.  Does the same premise work for companies, brands and people?  Or does it work in reverse for certain types of organizations and individuals?  Talk amongst yourselves.

The Whole World

Post #7 for my MBA class, "Communication Strategies for a Global Marketplace."

This week found me battling a health challenge.  And I do mean battling.  Let me set the stage...

Last weekend was Girlie's birthday weekend.  Saturday was her "kid" party, held at a local children's entertainment venue.  (While I admire mothers who can host 15 children in their home and maintain their sanity, I am not one of them.)  And Sunday was her "family" party, held at our home and including 20 or so of our family and closest friends, 8 of whom were children.  My parents, along with my brother and his wife, drove 8 hours to spend the long weekend with us and I invited all of them to stay at our house.  So it was a busy weekend, to say the least.  On Saturday afternoon, following the kid party and gift unwrapping, my mother and I ran a million errands in preparation for Sunday's gathering.  I noticed every time we came home and I had to remove my boots and pull them on again, it became increasingly difficult to get my left boot on.  My assumption?  Something was wrong with the boot, of course.

That night at 11pm was the first time all day I had a moment to sit down and "relax" while Mr. Problem Solver finished building Girlie's dollhouse birthday gift.  As soon as I stretched my legs out in front of me and looked at my calves and feet I was horrified - my left leg and foot looked like they belonged to an elephant!  (And not a baby one, either.)  So I elevated my leg, iced up my foot and the next morning had Mr. Problem Solver run out for compression stockings (FUN in hosiery, take my word for it) and some over-the-counter diuretics (basically caffeine pills).  I managed to get through Sunday's festivities with no major issues and drank tons of water to flush my system.

Monday morning rolls around and "fat foot" (as I'd affectionately named her) remained.  So I phoned my doctor's office and got an appointment for 2:45pm.  I had breakfast out with my family, we said our goodbyes and I picked up the house a bit before heading off to the appt.  Unfortunately my doctor's schedule had been hijacked, so I saw her at 4pm.  She immediately said she wanted an ultrasound of my leg and began calling around to see where this could be done as late in the day as it was.  Fortunately, the radiology office in the same building was still open, so down I went.  All was well until after the scan when the tech came back from speaking with the radiologist and said, "I have a wheelchair for you and I'm going to wheel you back up to see the doctor."  (Hint: that's never good news.)  Back up we went and next thing you know my doctor is telling me that I need to drive to the hospital and be admitted via the emergency department, as I have a femoral artery blood clot.  She tried to admit through the admitting office, but the ED is a better route when a medication needs to be administered ASAP.  So off I drove.  En route to my home (where I was picking up Mr. Problem Solver) I managed to have an automobile accident.  No injuries, but total nightmare regardless, and a good hour's delay.

Finally get home, Mr. Problem Solver drives me to ED and... hospital is CLOSED.  No beds available.  Hmmm... I phone my doctor's on-call coverage - she calls ED attending, who promises to get me on a gurney with some blood thinner ASAP.  A few hours later I am happily ensconced on a gurney in a hallway, along with dozens of other seriously ill people.  At about 2am I'm transported via ambulance to the new Ahuja Medical Center, where I am patient #10.

So what does this have to so with social networks, marketing or global communications?  Everything. 

I began updating my Facebook status while I waited for my ultrasound, and continued all through the evening.  I asked for prayers that I wouldn't have a blood clot.  (Sometimes the answer to prayer requests is "No.")  As the replies and messages and texts and calls came in over the hours, I felt completely surrounded by the love of friends and family.  People asked if we needed anyone to look after Girlie (which we did, and fortunately her godmother was home and could take her for the night - but literally half a dozen other people offered).   People shared their health scare stories, offered prayers and healing thoughts and generally lifted my spirits.  It was a way to feel much less isolated during a very frightening and difficult time.

The only challenge was that my parents aren't on Facebook, neither is my brother, nor are a few close friends.  So I needed to separately share the information with these important people.  In the ED, the walls are lead so there isn't any cell phone signal - no calling or texting.  So I did the next best thing - I used Skype to instant message my mother!  Fortunately she was at her computer and responded, though I had to give her some quick IM protocols (don't write paragraphs before hitting send, for example).  But the amusing piece is what my mother said when I told her that my sister could read the updates on FB:

"doesn't surprise me that you "facebooked" all of this; i told (your sister) that i'm sure you would be.  i, on the other hand, would not want "the world" to know but that is why we are each made differently."

I thought this was hysterical.  The "world" indeed - as if every user of the internet was now viewing my oh-so-scintillating Facebook status updates.  But I think my 60-something year-old mother's perspective of Facebook is one shared by many people, even some much younger than she.  The idea that Facebook is somehow an open letter to the entire world.  I took a moment to Skype to my mother that the only people who could see these updates were people I actually know and have consented to them viewing my information and even then, they have to be logged into Facebook to read my updates.  I reminded her that when she has news to share, she activates a phone chain or sends a mass email.  This is my version of that process.  I think she understands, now.

But this led me to think about why Facebook, rather than Twitter?  Twitter is often the way that people log updates to real-time events.  Everything from award shows to the Super Bowl to the riots in Egypt have been tweeted.  In some ways it's a more logical tool for bytes of information.  However, my health scare was personal.  Not private per se, as I have nothing I seek to keep confidential about the process.  But personal, as I wanted to reach out to specific people, to friends.  There are a few friends who follow me on Twitter, but most of my twitter followers are strangers, who presumably are indifferent to my health concerns.  I generally tweet about matters of general interest - current affairs, technology, higher education, businesses I like or dislike.  So today I tweeted about some of the aftermath of my hospital stay and the challenges of the new hospital - if you want to see my thoughts, check me out at #katseyeonlife.

What do you think - would you Facebook or Tweet or otherwise announce a personal event online?  This idea is hardly new, as companies and celebrities have been doing so for a long time.  I don't know that it's as popular with us regular folk, yet. 

On a final personal note - many, many thanks to all of you who reached out during and after my health scare.  I am grateful in ways that I can't express.  If you've ever doubted the ability of a few quick typewritten or spoken words to have a positive impact, know that yours have.  Hugs.

 

How To Be An Influencer

Post #6 for my MBA class, "Communication Strategies for a Global Marketplace."

I should admit, upfront, that I really don't know how to become an influencer.  So this post isn't a how-to guide. I'm interested in exploring who some of the online influencers are and how they may have gotten into the positions they're in.

A timely example of some influencers are the individuals who have been tweeting about the protests in Egypt.  NPR wrote about a number of them in the post, "A Primer On Following Egyptian Protests on Twitter" which shared the handles of eleven different sources of tweets about recent events in Egypt.  The NPR post got me thinking how those people came to be featured by the news agency and how they elected (or got elected) to be the voice of the protests on Twitter.

In looking up each of the handles, I saw that they are all round-the-clock tweeters and interestingly, most of them tweet about both the ordinary and the extraordinary.  (By ordinatry I mean a tweet about going to the airport versus a tweet about the situation in Egypt.)  A few of them didn't tweet in English, but I could translate the Spanish and the rest I could assess merely by the times they were tweeted.

What if I started systematically tweeting about something?  The state of Cleveland Heights public schools; the challenges of winter weather in northeast Ohio; private college education in Ohio; whatever.  How long would I have to tweet and how many individual tweets would I have to post to become an influencer on that topic?  What about on Facebook - how do I get fans for my business page?  Tap into my extensive friend network or something more?

 There are a large number of non-celebrity influencers on Facebook and Twitter and Flickr and Delicious and elsewhere.  How do you think they grew into their status?

In Real Life

Post #5 for my MBA class, "Communication Strategies for a Global Marketplace."

This post is inspired by one of my favorite bloggers, Penelope Trunk of Brazen Careerist.  Why do I love Penelope?  Let me count the ways... she's a witty, intelligent writer who has taken tremendous professional and personal risks and shares her stumbles as well as her successes online.  She is controversial, and I think that's one of the reasons I really admire her, because she is controversial simply in being herself, not controversial to advance a particular agenda or position.

Penelope recently wrote a post titled, "Is it OK to be different at work than you are at home?"  and I was drawn in by the title as this is a topic of much interest for me.  There is considerable on and offline discussion regarding FB and blogging and Twitter, about whether anyone is "real" or if most of us are simply portraying a persona.  There are allegations that the friendships that develop online are not "real" and an abbreviation has developed, "IRL" to distinguish a friend "In Real Life" as opposed to a friendship with someone whom one has never seen in the flesh.  (This makes me think about the long ago pen-pals, people who wrote to each other for years - were they never friends?  What about my friend Jennifer who I met on vacation in St. Maarten 30 years ago and whom I have exchanged countless letters, emails and Christmas cards but have not seen again "in the flesh" - are we not friends?) 

But getting back to Penelope's post, where she mentions another blogger and professional resume writer, Louise Fletcher, who commented on her own blog that Penelope can "say whatever I want and not kill my career".  Penelope goes on to say that she thinks that most of us can say more than we think we can.  She points to examples like expressing frustration about one's job/boss or screaming at one's kids, topics that at one time seemed verboten but are now fairly commonplace.  (While searching for a post about bad bosses I came across a blog and book by Bob Rosner titled "The Working Wounded" - love that!) 

But Penelope also writes about her own inability to understand why certain things are controversial and why online writers are so concerned about privacy.  And she says that her inability to understand these points may be a blessing.  I know they're a blessing to me, because when I read her posts, I'm not getting the fairytale, I'm getting the reality.  And what stirs my interest and draws my passion is the real, the true, the AUTHENTIC.  I work hard to be real everywhere - the same person that I am with my friends, with perfect strangers, at my daughter's school, in my professional life, on Facebook, when I tweet, and most especially here on my blog.  Why do I use the phrase "work hard"?  Because it is hard work.  It would be easy to post on FB only the adorably precocious ramblings of my almost 5 year old, Girlie.  But sometimes Girlie makes me want to shriek and spit.  So when that happens, I write about it.  Part of that is that I'm a writer.  It's what I do, like working out for some or knitting for others.  I try not to think excessively when I write, as it tends to get in the way of the words.  But the remainder of that is a choice.  A choice to live an authentic life.

Penelope writes, "...I don't understand why we separate ourselves to be different people at different times."  I understand, but I don't like it.  And as bad as it ever was "In Real Life" I think it gets a whole "heap" worse (yes, I just finished reading The Help by Kathryn Stockett and it's about Jackson, Mississippi - I expect my vocabulary will return to normal any day now) on our social media networks.  It's become a game for me.  I start reading a new blog and I see how many posts I read before I determine that I'm reading about a character and not an individual.  A character's life and posts and tweets are always sunny and breezy and make no mention of illness, financial struggles, communication challenges and life lessons.  And that's fine, but I always "follow" writers and online influencers who seem to be people I would want to have as friends in real life, even if that may never occur.  And having been raised to be polite above all else and to temper my true personality, it's taken me a number of years to step into myself and find that I am comfortable. And that I want to connect with people who are also comfortable.

Here are a few more of Penelope's thoughts:

"A lot of commenters accuse me of being a nutcase because one day I am breaking a lamp over my head and the next day I am dispensing advice about effective elevator pitches.

To me though, someone is a nutcase for pretending to not be both those people. Each of us can give good advice on something. And each of us has a messed up personal life sometimes. One person can do both those things. The only thing weird is that we don’t admit it. Why can’t career advisors also talk about the things going wrong in their lives? Why can’t startup founders also be sex kittens?"

My only caveat to Penelope's thoughts are that when we choose our social circles and our place of worship and our employer and the school that our child attends, etc., it is wise to do so as our authentic self.  It is when we go into the situation expecting that we can change what is, or even that we can dramatically change ourselves, that our authenticity can be damaging to our circumstances.  I think the same is true online - Penelope once tweeted about having a miscarriage at work which is authentic to her, but wouldn't be authentic to me.  We each need to know ourselves, find our voice and use it to say what we most need to say. 

A final word about privacy.  While it's useful to remember that every photo and every word we post is forever "out there", in some fashion or another, it's also good to be realistic about the fact that there is now a world wide web of information, and if someone really wants to learn about you, they will.  (This was true in 1992 when someone stalked me from another country and again in 2002 when he got my unlisted phone number.  It was also true from 1996-2000 when none of my psychiatric patients ever harassed me, despite the fact that I was single and had a listed local phone number.)

Thanks for reading my thoughts about being authentic, online and "In Real Life" - what challenges do have being different people?

Have You Seen This Child?

Post #4 for my MBA class, "Communication Strategies for a Global Marketplace."

I began to write this post by going to NPR's Facebook page to refresh my memory about a broadcast based on the book by Peggy Orenstein, "Cinderella Ate My Daughter"

However, when I landed on the NPR page I saw a story titled, "Missing Girls Shouldn't Be Missing From The Media"

I clicked on the link and was stunned by what I read.  A young woman named Phylicia Barnes disappeared on December 28th in Baltimore, MD while visiting her older half-siblings.  And today was the first time I had heard or read anything about it.  Phylicia's birthday was January 12th and she turned 17 that day.  She is an honors student at Union Academy in North Carolina and is scheduled to graduate a year early due to her exceptional academic record.  She has also already been accepted to college.  Why has this not made national news?  Why do I know all about the iPhone being available with Verizon and birds falling from the sky and the fact that senators and representatives partook in calling President Obama's speech "Date Night" due to the fact that many of them agreed to sit with individuals not in their own party? 

I love social media.  I love Facebook and Twitter and my Google feed reader and Flickr and Delicious and on and on and on.  But what does it mean when the trending topics on Twitter involve Charlie Sheen but not Phylicia Barnes?  Are we to blame bad timing - that Phylicia went missing between Christmas and New Year's Day?  There are accusations, some from the Baltimore police department, that because Phylicia is African-American, her disappearance has not receiving the national news media coverage that it would if she were Caucasian.  The comparisons to the disappearance of Natalee Holloway in 2005 are apt.  And there are updates about Natalee's case on the major news outlets' sites as recently as November 2010.

If you're reading this and have a Twitter handle or use other social networks, please spread the word about Phylicia's disappearance.  As influencers in our networks and beyond, we can spread vitriol and fear or we can use our powers for good.  I have a family member who once was a photograph on a milk carton.  Today my family member is an adult.  Let's give Phylicia Barnes every opportunity for the same full life.

Here is the Facebook page where people are praying and sending messages of hope to Phylicia's family http://www.facebook.com/#!/pages/Pray-for-Phylicia-Barnes/177767702243339

"Then let us all do what is right, strive with all our might toward the unattainable..." - Ludwig van Beethoven