you, my friend, are hella awkward.

let me set a few things straight. yes, i'm a GenYer. yes, we are wicked awesome and good for business. but we are also hella awkward. and, my friend, most likely you are too.

GenYers spend most of our days on the internet. but let's not kid ourselves. if you're reading this, you probably do too. you have a digi-positive 9-5; you write emails, texts, and generally communicate with words first--voice second; it's faster, sure. short of being Grandma who still (bless her heart) can't quite get all this new fangled stuff, you are in danger.

that's right.
you're becoming more awkward.
and likely, less understood.

that's the irony in this day and age. social networking. all points access to your friends 24/7. transparency to the enth. and yet, you still have no idea what i'm saying. and i'm an highly educated word-person-thingy.

half our country is still leaving 'h' out of "wat" and using "c" in place of 'see,' etc. there is no diction, no word choice, to convey emotion behind the txting, beyond maybe an ambiguous ":)"--and that is the primary mode of communication.

we're losing our body language, our vocal tone, our inclination to have conversations in real life, in person as well as the skills needed to decode those aspects.

we're just stuck in our heads. the Googling of thoughts, we read and intonate what we want to. personalized communication, it is what i want it to be--not necessarily what you mean for it to be. or so i'm noticing.

i had this issue this weekend. wanted to have a semi-serious chat with my sig other, who prefers only talking in txt (i prefer in-person). compromised, chatted on AIM (...no joke). and you know what? i 'walked out' of that chat not at all confident that anything i said actually was understood. the responses were just not on the level.

how do you combat your 'awkward' in an increasingly text-only driven world? do you feel less understood more frequently, or does the "140 character limit" just get you off? are you more in your head, or less? can you even tell if a person is lying by looking at them any more, or do you trust the transparency of consonants and vowels?

things to think about.

[img via.]

on that live-streaming suicide...

some people found the whole thing repulsive, some folks blamed social media, but i just got really depressed and decided to watch PuppyCam after reading an article on it. after reading David's post, i decided i did want to talk about it.

i don't think it's about the fact that it was online, really. he was depressed from the outset. being online didn't make him more depressed. i really think being in a chat room didn't make him more or less likely to commit suicide. he seemed pretty intent on that, anyway. he talked about how he was going to do it, just as many people tend to do beforehand. in fact, it just seems like many other teen suicides:

"I have let everyone down and I feel as though I will never change or never improve. I am in love with a girl and I know that I am not good enough for her."

and i don't mean that in a belittling way. as some of you know, i'm a major supporter of To Write Love on Her Arms, which is a charity in support of getting people help who deal with suicide, depression, and self-mutilation, among other aspects (you can donate via PayPal here). he loved a girl and didn't love himself enough (or didn't get enough love through relationships, hat tip to @mtartag) to discover whether or not he was 'good enough for her.' and that just makes my heart hurt.

i think perhaps it was executed on justin.tv mainly as a last act of attention, of a version of love-seeking. i think the intent here was different, and in some way intriguing (after all, i favourited it on twitter), when @anniemal said "if I'm going to die, I'm going to broadcast it. I'm not going out without an audience."

and yet, the heart of it isn't the broadcast. it's just bringing it to your attention because so many eyes are on it. for once, you don't have to die alone. you can die with a thousand people watching. you are not alone. but you need to tell the kids that before they die. the take-home message isn't ban social media, but instead reach out and help them. it's in your face. don't you think it's time to believe this isn't some "stupid teen thing"?

"But love is the answer to a question That I've forgotten But I know I've been asked And the answer has got to be love." - Regina Spektor <3

PS: another effort in loving your fellow stranger, brought to you by zoomdoggle. check it out.

i may cry: Apple to shut down iTunes?

hot on the heels of a conversation i was having yesterday about music subscriptions and the issue of transference, it seems that yet another legal battle or other may destroy music lovers' hearts. Apple is threatening to shut down iTunes if it goes through.

i think that of all businesses, the music business has single-handedly gone out of its way to make shit absolutely horrid for themselves. if there is an antithesis to social media, it's the music business. there is nothing social about it and there seems to be an utter disrespect and apathy toward the consumer which they, on the other hand, so avidly court by banning pirating and slapping on RIAA fines before you can say "student loan."

[i'm not referring here to social media music sites like Last.fm or iLike, i mean the industry itself--those in charge of distribution and collection to and from those lesser sites.]

this is not Apple's fault. i don't want them to shut down iTunes, but i don't think it's right for the record execs to hoc more cash out of the resellers, especially when in most cases it's not like the artists see a raise. it's like the music bailout to save some cushy chair's job.

between a copyright hike and streaming radio battles the likes that Muxtape, Pandora, and many more face, all that the music industry is accomplishing is blowing off the one foot they've got left. REALITY CHECK. people are going to find more, new ways to pirate if you're going to make it harder to be legal. work WITH our needs, not against them!

i am a full legal music downloader. i buy everything from iTunes (if .mp3) or Amazon (if CD--i do still buy those). if i hear it on Pandora and like it, i buy it legally. partially because it's easy and partially because, at some point, i respected the industry, and still respect the musicians. the former is fast going down the crapper.

UPDATE 10.03: The Copyright Royalty Board Does Nothing. iTunes’ Rates Remain The Same.

hijacked! twitter ads, stupidity vs intellect.

interesting thing landed in my twitterbox this morning. (why did that sound dirty?) @ischafer, of Deep Focus, pointed out this mashable article in which Twittad (...that also sounds dirty) debuted.

Twittad is an online account-auctioning service which functions as the go-between for users looking to monetize their twitter accounts and those willing to buy the impressions of those accounts' followers. skeezy? i'll let you decide. thing of it is, it may smack of familiarity. and it should. since Ian did it for a good cause last May.

but rather than have charity involved, this is just another experiment into how to monetize, cashify, etc the social media sphere (twitter in particular). does that make it worse? some people argued that when discussing adapting the SocialVibe platform to non-charity based advertising, and there may be something to it.

regardless.

there are a few big differences between Twittad's approach and Ian's approach other than the charitable aspect. and this is the heart of the matter:

1. Ian is awesome.
ok. well, that's subjective, but the point is relevant. Ian has a following of cultlike proportions (again perhaps i exaggerate a little). he has things to say that people want to read. he is likable, relevant, and has 700+ followers (as of today; when he did this in May, it was less, but still in the multiple hundreds). he has an understanding of social media to ensure authentic, useful usage of the account during the duration of the sponsorship. and promised 8-10 outbound tweets/day.
...TWITTAD ERROR: it is hard for a sponsor to be sure that the user of the account being purchased is as insightful, conscientious, and influential.

2. his followers have a higher probability of awesome.
you know what you're getting when you buy his space. he has the ears and eyes of many professional elite from the marketing, advertising, and journalism realms, among others i'm sure. you know exactly what target your message is getting sent to and how apt they are to be viewing the advertisement of the sponsor.
...TWITTAD ERROR: if the purchased account's followers are not of a particular target, demographic, or, well, anything, you may risk shouting into the wind; you also are unsure of the level of interaction those followers have with the sponsored account.

3. you are assuming followers give a shit.
as a social media guru, people were interested in Ian's experiment. it was intriguing, charitable, and unique. as Dude A college junior needing $16 for laundry, i'm not sure i care about what you're advertising. moreover, the major downfall of Twittad is that it only gives a profile image (not the usericon). any user of twitter knows that you rarely visit a person's actual profile page. you're busy looking at your feed, often through other second hand apps, like Twhirl. if there are any real impressions to be had, it would be through the usericon.
...TWITTAD ERROR: fail, for the aforementioned reason. almost nobody goes to a person's profile page. unless it's a new follower you may want to follow back. or a funny profile you sometimes click to but don't actually follow, like @chucknorris or @FakeSarahPalin.

---

so in short, Ian did it first, did it better. then again, many of the selling twitter accounts are going for pretty cheap. is this more of a get-what-you-pay-for mentality? banner ads 2.0 anybody?

you can still scramble an egg.

or hard boil it. or poach it. serve it benedict or sunny-side-up.
...you get the picture. all i mean to say is perhaps the "chicken-and-egg" theory isn't entirely irrelevant with regards to content vs. context, as a recent AgencySpy post discusses.

as for the preliminary topic of whether content or context is more important in advertising--that is, creating engaging stories versus knowing consumer values--i agree with Frank Scherma on that one. or at least, i think i do. a link was not provided to his actual opinion, but i'm told that it lands a mixture of the two. (test tube eggs?)

i think that, in order to be effective, you need to understand and know your audience first. really know them. don't "think" you know them--most likely, you don't. know them again. you need to care about what they care about. love what they love. be intrigued by the same facets and hold similar priorities. at least when considering strategies.

then, taking that understanding, you craft engaging stories to communicate how a good product can be great for them. because no one wants to hear those exact words: "our product is wicked awesome! for all your _____ needs!" yeah, sure. it could be the exact bloody perfect thing i need, but by then i'll have already tuned it out.

as for the argument that ads may become the overbearing father at a malt shop (to mix blog metaphors for a moment), i'm not sure that's entirely true. YES a lot of purchasing now relies on word of mouth and on credible consumer reviews. YES this shifts the way that some products communicate. key word being some.

"clever ad campaigns be damned" only works when i really give a shit about where my money is going. for example, i'm going to research my digital camera, or my wireless mouse, or what flight carrier i choose, or my cell phone, lap top, insert fancy toy of choice here. point being: fancy toy of choice. i will research when i have to. i will take consumers into account when i want the most value for my buck.

but if i'm buying a new food product i've not heard of before, or buy new music i hadn't heard before, i am not researching that. i am looking at packaging (especially for those impulse buys that get me going back for more). i am watching commercials (anyone notice how more and more, commercials will have little paragraphs at the bottom citing song & artist? no joke.). i am remembering that advertisement i had to sit and stare on for an hour on a bus ride. or a billboard in traffic.

because, dammit, i don't need your opinion on my pack of gum.

consumers are willing to be more risky (take less advice) with (relatively) less expensive items. because of this, we are never going to get rid of the context/content part of the advertising show. we just don't want to be bothered researching every little thing. so while an iPod adapter, of relatively significant cost and quality, will be researched, that song on the commercial i heard will not.

i think the propensity to believe that everything will move toward consumer reviews and recommendations is a symptom of the echo chamber of us tech geeks, who like to be in the know and research every bloody thing, right down to whether or not i should purchase a $34 dress from TrashyDiva (i did, by the way). but take a step back.

try asking people how they came to purchase their last new items (new, meaning have not purchased before). i think you'll find the trend. at least, that's how this observation came to me. i do believe alan's "prom king" theory is entirely correct because it relies on what brands we spend money to care about; brands who say something about us when we choose them. but for those products we can afford to care less about, clever commercials still suffice.

people ignore irrelevant advertising. make it relevant (know your audience and apply that knowledge) and people will start to care, too.

ceci n'est pas un oeuf.

someone make money off this.

okay, if this service already exists, someone, please leave me the link.

EDIT: i am told iLike.com does this; i am investigating. want to be my friend?
also--does iLike email me, or do i have to remember to check iLike? cos then it's the same damn problem.

if it doesn't exist, someone get the fuck on it please? for real.

i want to be updated when bands i subscribe to come tour in my area. i feel like i'm forever checking 5 venue sites and 4098554 band pages and i ALWAYS seem to JUST miss whomever i wanted to see.

i need instant gratification and updates better than ticketmaster.com can give me. this can't be hard. if you have a database of bands constantly being added to and updated with tour dates, and then people subscribe to those updates when the variable is within XX mile of them...

then again, i'm a copywriting creative. i only moonlight as a programmer. what do i know.

PS >> no one wants to go see the Faint with me @ Terminal 5. i'm sad.
PPS >> the image is the Cliks. i'm addicted right now. Lucas Silveira's voice is yummy and will make you like Justin Timberlake again with the cover of Cry Me a River. don't hate. check it out on last.fm. if you like that cover, try on Complicated and Oh Yeah.

ok, for real iPhone? this isn't high school.

it isn't even elementary school.

at least i can relate to the iPhone insanity.
way back when, when the earth was cooling and i was a wee 5th grader, cell phones were on the periphery of our existence. they were something nebulous, though we were conscious of them. more importantly, someone picked up on that.

there were these walkie-talkies in ridiculously fun colours. you could "dial" your friends. they were all the rage. ALL. THE. RAGE. that was what we subjected our parents to. miles of lines outside Toys R Us. only to find they were sold out. but we had to. had to have them! it would have been the end of my little 5th grader life.

i was so excited the day i finally got my teal walkie talkie set.
except then they were banned from school the very. next. day. [sigh]

lesson here kids? yes, Apple is badass. yes, the iPhone is better than the previous iPhone. yes, it's shiny. but it will still be there tomorrow [and at least they won't be banned from work! haha]. go ahead, be the Pinnacle Of Cool and All that is Shiny Status Symbol for 5 minutes in repayment for the hours spent on line.

but here's a secret: i won't think you're any less tech savvy because you got it on Monday. in fact, since AT&T is losing stock so quickly, you'll probably wind up with it on Monday anyway. just doing up the hype doesn't do it for me [but here are some fun things that might].

i think what a lot of this has to do with is people like things to get excited over. we don't have enough space for surprise, intrigue, and excitement in our day to day lives as we did when we were children. some joke about technology being "our new toys"--but i think it's true. for some folks, this was Black Friday. the day when all the Christmas lines are ridiculous and half the fun is the insanity. but just like Black Friday... i'm staying home.

bits of wisdom.

--Noah Brier

and a story between the lines:


--A.V. Flox // Evelyn


--Joel // Alisa

[some of my 'favourites' starred from twitter]

the socialcash monstrosity. cashify baby.

right on the heels of Facebook's leap forward (previous post, ability to vote up/down on advertisements users see) is this monstrosity called SocialCash.

"What that means, is that users are given the option to earn stuff in return for completing offers -- like applying for credit cards, getting information about vacation rentals, receiving free trials of magazines, or finding out their credit score. The offers subsidize the reward (like, say, an iPod Touch or an XBox 360) and the developer gets a cut."

so wait, wait--let me get this right.
i click stupid advertisements, fill them out and pretend to like them, and instead of paying me, you give me branded products. yeah, cos that sounds revolutionary. or like a banner ad in and of itself: "click me and a win a free ipod!" yeah thanx no.

i don't want to sign up for credit cards, give out information to third parties via banner ads, or learn more about vacation rentals i won't use, just so i can have a chance at an ipod. no value there. this won't work.

when i said users should be involved with their advertisements, i said in the ads selection. "paying me off" taking time to do shit i don't want to do for stuff i don't want when i could be playing with facebook apps (talking beneath me, here, but you get the idea) is not my idea of a good time.

the only reason socialvibe works with perks is because a) i don't have to DO anything -- the badge stays on my page. b) the information i share is with socialvibe only, or may be shared with my sponsor/charity of choice. c) i go into it knowing that i'm not doing it for the perks, i'm doing it for charity, so if i don't get a $20 gift certificate, i'm not going to be cranky.

but if i fill out hundreds of stupid banner ads or pop up offers or what have you and don't see anything for it--except for lots of credit card bills well then i'm still going to have to go with a HELL NO. this is not RELEVANT. REMEMBER to be relevant when dealing with a teen market! you are not important to them unless you're doing something they already want to do. newsflash: they don't already want to fill out for vacation rental deals. they're sixteen.

"The Gratis concept works for two reasons: 1. people love free stuff, and 2. in order to get the stuff, users must invite a certain number of users who also complete the program (the number varies based on the value of the reward). So the customer pool grows virally and exponentially."

...stop calling it viral. it makes you look bad. < /peeve >

"Clearly, the viral spread didn't work"--anyone else find that sentence funny twofold?

even your cellphone is being stalked.

stalkerrrr!! ...or perhaps, stalkee.

apparently a Northeastern study is tracking cellphones and their locations without letting the users know. 100,000 cellphone users were selected at random from a population of six million for six months. there is no opt-in or opt-out, however they do say all identifying information has been "scrambled." they only want to study human habitual patterns to help with traffic, urban planning, et al.

i believe them...

i just don't believe the folks who're going to capitalize on that concept.

Marc Rotenberg, a founder of the Electronic Privacy Information Center in washington, said the study "raises questions about the protection of privacy in physical spaces, when devices make possible the capture of locational data."

Arthur Caplan, director of the Center for Bioethics at the University of Pennsylvania, said "your cellphone is not something I would consider a public entity."

...this is why i Just Say No to BrightKite.

revisiting facebook, jobs, millenials

in light of this post, i'm revisiting this post.

i wonder if this is going to change.

me, i am a brand. i embrace my inner brand and utilize it. i am the CEO of the brand of the girl Riot™. however, even CEOs get to go home. no one is Cheerios, or BMW, or Adidas all day long. even Adi, Adidas' founder, shares the responsibility with other well-titled folks. at one point, you go home. you sleep. you see friends. you connect with other people. you know... a la the point of social media: being social. and after hours, i'm sure they don't all sleep in Armani and talk jargon in their theta-state.

what gives you the right to inspect a person's private life for their job?

isn't that what applying is about? references, presentations, self-craft. now we're pushing away from that, toward transparency. "twit-pitch me. tell me what you're after and how you can help me--i'll do the background check. nevermind that you can't control what pictures other folks put up of you. nevermind that you can no longer access accounts to things you created, age 14. nevermind what exploration you did in your youth years that made you a good creative--i don't want to see it."

then how transparent are you, really? you want the real person--but only after they've covered their tracks? deleted their pics during those college years everyone had but everyone is supposed to deny? it's a shame facebook wasn't around when you Xers and Boomers were younger. are we handling this like 50s prudes asked to sit in on a sex addicts' meeting in a church basement? if you don't want the "full story" then why are you looking? keep it to the "legit" side of things. we craft those.

sure, check out their blog, their website, their portfolio, newspapers who reference them, other blogs who link to them. i'm not saying don't Google search. i'm saying to assess your digital detective choices--chances are you won't find that information solely on their facebook accounts. to me, that level of invasion borders on pervy. all 100+ pics of me on facebook? i haven't uploaded one. not one. i don't care if it's "personal and public"--it's discerned as a private space for friends (unlike, say, Twitter, which is searchable, Google tracked, and anyone can follow). just like your brand is not my friend, my employer is not my friend unless i invite you in. those spaces are not about you. they're about me.

and i'll be damned if you want me to censor my life to fit your desk job. you wanted a forward-thinking creative, you wanted experience and intellect--this shaped me. this is who i am. and yes, my stuff is on private. but then you're going to want to know why it's on private, aren't you? i'm supposed to connect with friends but not with employers. can i have a "only folks born 1986 or later can access this profile" option? why do i have to keep my personal life private if the whole reason of having the profile is to share?

moreover--will this disdain for (supposed) transparency change as more millenials enter the work space?

and if you think just cos i can do a keg-stand that i'm going to do one with your client, then i'm really concerned. my maturity isn't directly related to my flip cup abilities (which, mind you, are stellar). don't ask for transparency (look at personal sites) if you don't want it. my brand is excellently crafted. my personal life isn't. and if you can tell me how to control all aspects of your personal life, that's really a blog post worth writing.

so i return the question to you all:
how well do you expect someone to cover their tracks? what are you really looking to get out of trawling potential employees' facebooks and myspaces as opposed to their blogs, LinkedIns, websites? ...what are you really expecting? --and will those expectations change?

[post script & further transparency--i had a really engaging conversation with Jason Falls about his post; this is not an affront on his views: i actually highly value and understand them, and respect him, which is why i engaged in the conversation to begin with. after all, my facebook is on private. i'm just arguing that it shouldn't have to be.]

save me from this world:

If you like, you may live in a computer created world all day and all night. You will be able to try out a Virtual life with a Virtual lover. You can go into your Virtual house and do Virtual housework, add a baby or two, even find out if you’d rather be gay. Or single. Or straight. Why hesitate when you could simulate.
And sex? Certainly. Teledildonics is the word.
(Jeanette Winterson, Written on the Body, p. 97)

is there a person in the house?

NO. NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO. AND... NO?

"In other words, if everything else in a consumer's life is connected through digital, shopping should be, too."

if i want to be alone and not interact with people when i shop, I SHOP ONLINE.
i don't need to get on a car, in a subway, on a train, to go visit a store without people. granted, it's "less employees," not "no employees," but what's the difference? those people who still are employed will find better ways to "use the time" they're being paid for than to perform customer service, which requires patience, effort, and understanding. why do that when a computer can do it for you? besides, it's not like we need more jobs available anyway...

can i keep saying NO any more?

how many times do you call a phone of a company now and get into an endless automated loop about some stupid thing you never wanted to tell them just because you can't get a HUMAN on the phone? a human who could have answered your question in 2.5 seconds? i don't want to stare at a screen to discern my purchasing protocol. if i'm not doing it online i a) want a personal opinion about the product or b) i procrastinated and need said item NOW, at which point i'm not asking any questions anyway: my mind is made up. removing employed people from stores is a surefire way to lose traffic to said store. they could just buy online.

we are already disconnected. we are seeking connections via pixels. welcome to the age of mass communication. mass disillusionment. mass isolation. and you're just making it worse rather than fostering those connections. if anything, this technology should be a tool used by employees to help customers. like the computers in Borders or Wawa or your local tech-savvy deli. but for the love of interaction and humanity, don't lose the people. sometimes i leave the house just to see another face.

beware the stone gods.

the ... century

from here, found here.

i like it a lot. my one thought, however:
if
the 20th century = mass production for mass consumption
factories, cars, televisions, and fridges

then not
the 21st century = mass innovation

i still think it's missing the point a little. innovation is the sideproduct.
the "cashification" and "monetization" capable aspect, if you will.

it is
the 21st century = mass creation for mass communication

people want to communicate and connect, and so share. not innovate; that's secondary.

'the stone gods' and why it matters.

i am that lit geek.

my 100th tweet [don't ask, i don't really care the number] was about Jeanette Winterson's The Stone Gods. i didn't even know. woo! personal landmark. i'm such a winterson dork.

anyway, the tweet was:
"strange question: have any of you read The Stone Gods by Jeanette Winterson?"

why is this fiction book important? everyone's twittering about ad:tech, and @alisamleo was talking about:
adtech: "are people getting freaked out" by individualized, behavioral targeting?
>> 39 minutes ago from web
adtech: well....depends on the age group. younger users don't care, its the internet economy...
>> 38 minutes ago from web

which got me thinking about how i'm still a little weirded out by it. i don't know if it's generational (am i not considered a young user anymore? i'm only 22) or just that i'm aware of what's going on; either way, i am still cautious about individualized targeting--even as i advocate it (see previous posts about choosing what our txt ads should be in order to keep relevance high).

The Stone Gods is similar in concept to other futuristic books. if you've read Margaret Atwood's The Handmaid's Tale, The Stone Gods is pretty much the direct inverse combined with Brave New World. among other themes, The Stone Gods addresses characters in a world that is hyper-marketed, hyper-targeted, and hyper-relevant. the computers know what you want before you do, right down to what you should wear (i'm sure Kenny Cole would love that -insert eyeroll here-). everything was so individualized that everyone began to be similar anyway, but it was what was desired regardless.

question posed: effective, yes. useful, perhaps.
but is this the kind of world you personally would want to live in?

no judgments here. i'm just honestly curious if you believe it would be beneficial, easier, and less stressful, or if it would "freak you out" about privacy etc.