Tuesday, February 23, 2010
Gay Basher Marginalized at CPAC
This has gotta make Andrew Sullivan happy. A fair sample of the Republican Party has made it clear that when it comes to gay rights, they simply have bigger fish to fry (even if they are just being quiet about any intolerance of gay rights)
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
Cars suck
The Wall Street Journal had an excellent article today about Toyota and the shitty cars they've been selling to people for years. The article essentially tears them apart, so I think it is worthwhile to play devil's advocate before I do the same.
Toyota developed fuel efficient vehicles while American car companies had their thumbs in their asses. American car companies are now getting bailed out by the government. Toyota has done a better job of giving people what they want.
The past few years have shown isolated instances of defective cars, and it is only natural to think this is not reflective of a larger problem that will put countless people in danger. If Toyota was aware of the depth of the problem, it would have been in their interest to begin the recall immediately and stop production of equally defective cars.
So with that in mind... should we give Toyota a pass and say that a lesson lived is a lesson learned, try not to make cars that will kill people next time? The answer is obvious.
We can't just rely on the free market to punish Toyota. Transportation is essential to the public, and if you fuck it up to the extent that people are in serious danger, your previous role in providing public transportation needs to be compromised.
Toyota has known for years that their cars were fucking up all around the world and failed to act on it. The article also mentions that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's primary contacts at Toyota had been some of their own previous employees.
Putting regulators on the phone with their own ilk is a great way to shake them off. Unless someone can persuade me otherwise, I have to assume that is exactly what Toyota did.
So this brings me to my main point: How much trust should we put in car companies to handle our transportation needs, and how much trust should we put in the government to make sure that car companies are handling this with care?
Doctors, lawyers, and financial advisers have a fiduciary relationship with their client. Fiduciaries are bound by ethical standards and usually laws to act in the interest of their clients.
The reason for this is obvious: if I am coming to you for legal advice, or I am giving you my money to invest, or I want your medical opinion, you could do a very bad job and I wouldn't even know the difference until I'm broke, jailed, dead, etc. Failing to fulfill your responsibility as a fiduciary undermines the purpose of your practice.
Much of this cannot apply to car companies because they are not individual practitioners, but large multinational businesses that serve tons of people with tons of cars with no rhyme or reason.
However, the fact remains that car companies are counted on to perform an essential service. When they screw up, everybody gets screwed.
It's easy to say that we should just get angry, regulate the car companies, and sue them. But this does not address the fundamental problem, which is our dependence on their products in order to conduct our lives.
Sure, Toyota fucked up and we should all partake in the proverbial finger pointing. That's always gonna happen, and I have no beef. But what if we sue them for a ton of money, regulate them more, and fuck with their entire operation? How much will that help?
In this case, more oversight would have probably revealed the problem. But the truth is that car companies are always going to screw up at least some of the magnitude of their operation.
So now that I've argued in a complete circle, what does this mean?
Instead of increasing the public's oversight of the auto industry, let's increase the public's oversight of transportation in general. Instead of telling car companies how to go about making cars, lets pull back and reassess our need for cars.
There isn't a clear answer, because people people don't always want to share public transportation and you can't travel great distances on a bike. Cars serve as a middle ground between these two.
Nevertheless, the conversation needs to be more abstract than simply figuring out how to improve on what we already have. Car companies are entrusted with too much power to have an evenhanded relationship with the the public.
Toyota developed fuel efficient vehicles while American car companies had their thumbs in their asses. American car companies are now getting bailed out by the government. Toyota has done a better job of giving people what they want.
The past few years have shown isolated instances of defective cars, and it is only natural to think this is not reflective of a larger problem that will put countless people in danger. If Toyota was aware of the depth of the problem, it would have been in their interest to begin the recall immediately and stop production of equally defective cars.
So with that in mind... should we give Toyota a pass and say that a lesson lived is a lesson learned, try not to make cars that will kill people next time? The answer is obvious.
We can't just rely on the free market to punish Toyota. Transportation is essential to the public, and if you fuck it up to the extent that people are in serious danger, your previous role in providing public transportation needs to be compromised.
Toyota has known for years that their cars were fucking up all around the world and failed to act on it. The article also mentions that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's primary contacts at Toyota had been some of their own previous employees.
Putting regulators on the phone with their own ilk is a great way to shake them off. Unless someone can persuade me otherwise, I have to assume that is exactly what Toyota did.
So this brings me to my main point: How much trust should we put in car companies to handle our transportation needs, and how much trust should we put in the government to make sure that car companies are handling this with care?
Doctors, lawyers, and financial advisers have a fiduciary relationship with their client. Fiduciaries are bound by ethical standards and usually laws to act in the interest of their clients.
The reason for this is obvious: if I am coming to you for legal advice, or I am giving you my money to invest, or I want your medical opinion, you could do a very bad job and I wouldn't even know the difference until I'm broke, jailed, dead, etc. Failing to fulfill your responsibility as a fiduciary undermines the purpose of your practice.
Much of this cannot apply to car companies because they are not individual practitioners, but large multinational businesses that serve tons of people with tons of cars with no rhyme or reason.
However, the fact remains that car companies are counted on to perform an essential service. When they screw up, everybody gets screwed.
It's easy to say that we should just get angry, regulate the car companies, and sue them. But this does not address the fundamental problem, which is our dependence on their products in order to conduct our lives.
Sure, Toyota fucked up and we should all partake in the proverbial finger pointing. That's always gonna happen, and I have no beef. But what if we sue them for a ton of money, regulate them more, and fuck with their entire operation? How much will that help?
In this case, more oversight would have probably revealed the problem. But the truth is that car companies are always going to screw up at least some of the magnitude of their operation.
So now that I've argued in a complete circle, what does this mean?
Instead of increasing the public's oversight of the auto industry, let's increase the public's oversight of transportation in general. Instead of telling car companies how to go about making cars, lets pull back and reassess our need for cars.
There isn't a clear answer, because people people don't always want to share public transportation and you can't travel great distances on a bike. Cars serve as a middle ground between these two.
Nevertheless, the conversation needs to be more abstract than simply figuring out how to improve on what we already have. Car companies are entrusted with too much power to have an evenhanded relationship with the the public.
Thursday, January 28, 2010
2009, Baby Boomers, Facebook
According to Mashable, from 2007 to 2008 the percentage of baby boomers (people aged 44-62) that claimed to maintain a social networking profile increased from 30% to 31%. In 2009, that number took a Maoist great leap forward all the way to 73%.
The significance of this cannot be understated. The potential of online marketing is not even close to being realized.
My generation doesn't need to be sold on social media because it started with us. Facebook has been ubiquitous among college students, and I always assumed it would grow as more people graduate college and enter as freshmen.
This polling data throws that understanding out the window. Facebook began as a trend amongst college students, but has taken off in a completely different direction. Anyone who does not understand this is woefully unprepared to comprehend the future of commerce.
The significance of this cannot be understated. The potential of online marketing is not even close to being realized.
My generation doesn't need to be sold on social media because it started with us. Facebook has been ubiquitous among college students, and I always assumed it would grow as more people graduate college and enter as freshmen.
This polling data throws that understanding out the window. Facebook began as a trend amongst college students, but has taken off in a completely different direction. Anyone who does not understand this is woefully unprepared to comprehend the future of commerce.
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
Social media for the competitive enterprise
"Companies that still think they control whether they "do" social networks or not are terribly mistaken."
That was my favorite quote by Erik Qualman in his April 3rd, 2008 article for Search Engine Watch. He uses John Deere as an example of a company that is involuntarily marketed by its users. At the time this article was written, there were over 500 Facebook groups devoted to John Deere, with 10,000 people as members of the most popular 10.
Social media has made it so that a business' clientele can organize and communicate with little to no effort. John Deere customers can inform each other if the company's products fall off, or if another competitor has outdone them.
There is no refuting that businesses are now tied to social media one way or the other. If your company is not actively promoting its products on the internet, you are providing the opportunity for your detractors to influence the conversation.
As obvious as this seems, I'm only going to be able to find a job in social media if more companies come to this realization!
That was my favorite quote by Erik Qualman in his April 3rd, 2008 article for Search Engine Watch. He uses John Deere as an example of a company that is involuntarily marketed by its users. At the time this article was written, there were over 500 Facebook groups devoted to John Deere, with 10,000 people as members of the most popular 10.
Social media has made it so that a business' clientele can organize and communicate with little to no effort. John Deere customers can inform each other if the company's products fall off, or if another competitor has outdone them.
There is no refuting that businesses are now tied to social media one way or the other. If your company is not actively promoting its products on the internet, you are providing the opportunity for your detractors to influence the conversation.
As obvious as this seems, I'm only going to be able to find a job in social media if more companies come to this realization!
Sunday, January 24, 2010
Social Media conference in Charlotte
250 people went to a social media conference sponsored by the Charlotte Observer at Queen's University in Charlotte yesterday. The seats sold old within 12 hours, and there were over 200 people on the waiting list.
One 70 year old woman attended after she saw an advertisement in the newspaper, and sat through a session on social networking being led by a 21 year old college senior.
From what I've gathered, there is no such thing as being a social media expert. There's a certain barrier to cross in terms of understanding the language people use online and then feeling comfortable with online communication overall, but then it's free game in terms of who will lead the conversation once everyone is willing and able to participate.
When it comes to getting past this barrier, I believe that I can be as good of an instructor as an, much like the college senior presenting at this conference. I could entry level or part time jobs in social media focusing on instructing others on its capabilities.
The only time you can claim to be informed about social media is when you are giving an instruction like the one described above, to people that are devoid internet usage.
One 70 year old woman attended after she saw an advertisement in the newspaper, and sat through a session on social networking being led by a 21 year old college senior.
From what I've gathered, there is no such thing as being a social media expert. There's a certain barrier to cross in terms of understanding the language people use online and then feeling comfortable with online communication overall, but then it's free game in terms of who will lead the conversation once everyone is willing and able to participate.
When it comes to getting past this barrier, I believe that I can be as good of an instructor as an, much like the college senior presenting at this conference. I could entry level or part time jobs in social media focusing on instructing others on its capabilities.
The only time you can claim to be informed about social media is when you are giving an instruction like the one described above, to people that are devoid internet usage.
Friday, January 22, 2010
Yesterday's Supreme Court Ruling
This is not directly related to my ongoing study of the social media job market.
People are freaking out about corporations being able to dominate campaign financing. Washington is already controlled by corporate interests, so this makes matters much worse for those of us who think that healthcare companies and major banks (to name just a few) have had too much influence on recent policy.
Credit card companies can charge whatever they want, major banks can get handouts from the government, and the healthcare bill gets modified until it is so beneficial to healthcare companies that their stocks have soared. Yesterday's Supreme Court ruling seems to promise that we will only see more of this in the future, when political campaigns are even more representative of corporate funding and politicians are even more indebted to corporate interests.
Online movements have already emerged as people hope to overturn the ruling. As good as that might be, I'm not optimistic. Rather, I've begun to ponder if there's another way around this predicament of corporate funding. What if corporate funding, regardless of how much there is, was not able to play such a major role in campaigns?
I should mention that there are still limits on how much corporations can give directly to campaigns, but that is to say nothing of privately funded advertisements that are not produced by the campaigns. This is in my opinion, a technicality, but nevertheless true.
However, back to my main thought. In the age of the internet, promotion is FREE. Go on Facebook MySpace, Twitter, whatever. Put yourself out there and get spread by word of mouth. This is by no means an easy way to get public recognition and support, but it is nevertheless possible, and the last I checked more people are getting access to the internet and these websites every day.
There's also the promise of online fundraising, which worked out remarkably for Howard Dean in 2004, Ron Paul in 2008, and obviously Barack Obama in 2008. Even if corporations blow a ludicrous amount of money on campaign donations, average citizens from all over the country can get their money to charismatic candidates with an appealing message more efficiently than ever.
But online fundraising is also a deviation from my main point. I get notifications of some friend of a friend who is an aspiring musician/artist/writer etc. on a regular basis and it costs them absolutely nothing. I could honestly give a shit about half of what I see, but the recognition is there nonetheless. What if these notifications were for candidates for public office?
Online marketing has been an integral part of political campaigns for years now, but I am arguing that it should be EVERYTHING. All communication and debate should just be done over the internet, and popular candidates will get exposure by getting more fans on Facebook, Twitter followers, etc.
It shouldn't cost money to communicate a political message, and candidates without money shouldn't be at a disadvantage. Corporations will use their money to run TV and radio ads, and for the time being this will be effective because the older generations still use these mediums.
I only watch TV I've recorded, and I'll listen to Satellite radio if anything. I can get by without seeing these ads, and I'm not alone. TV and radio need to be destroyed because they are antidemocratic. I have much more control of what is marketed to me than my parents ever had.
If every single person in this country used the internet, and particularly social media networks, as their primary source of political news, the conversation would be open in a way that it wasn't before, and all the money in the world wouldn't be able to keep people from communicating facts. Of course, every single person is not utilizing social media, but it should nevertheless be a goal for this country.
If social media was truly ubiquitous, and all public political discussions were done over the internet, I would evaluate candidates in the following ways.
First, I would take references from personal contacts seriously. For example, if I am hearing about someone running for the office in Michigan, I would like to know what my friend from Grosse Pointe thinks of the candidate. He is a smart person whose opinion I trust, and I otherwise have very little understanding of current events within the sate of Michigan.
Or if I am evaluating a candidate that will be representing my own state or district, I'm still going to want to know what people in my community think, and it will be much easier to have this communicated in an online public forum such as a Facebook group. Within my own community, I have an idea of what people I would or would not disagree with, but there are still plenty of voices that I would likely never hear offline because it is not realistic for everyone to get together in person for a political discussion.
Another way of finding out what candidates to consider is to see what candidates are the most popular, what the motivations of their supporters are, and where these supporters live (not their addresses, just a regional estimation). Right now, one of the most popular politicians on the internet is Sarah Palin. I think she is utterly loathsome, but it is nevertheless worth knowing how many people like here ideas, why they feel this way, and where these people are generally located.
I do not think this type of thinking popular attraction will necessarily lead to groupthink and stupid decisions. If I go onto Sarah Palin's Facebook page because I's heard that she's the most popular candidate (heaven forbid), I could easily determine that I don't like her ideas, explain why, and link to another candidate that I think is better qualified. Or, if for some reason I was impressed with her proposals, I could still count on someone else explaining to me why I'm wrong and suggesting a different candidate.
The emergence of popular candidates online will not guarantee anything for that candidate in the long run. Rather, that candidates blog, website, or Facebook page would turn into a forum for open discussion that could very well turn against the candidate and serve as a promotional outlet for one of their competitors. In other words, Sarah Palin's popularity on Facebook only creates a bigger audience for someone who wants to break a critical story about her.
By the way, did I mention that NONE of this costs any money? If Sarah Palin, to use her as an example once again, were running for office and I discovered an instance where she pandered to a large multinational corporation, the story is out there and communicated for further discussion instantly... to those that participate in online forums.
If people cling to the old models of hearing advertisements on TV or radio, rather than participating in unfiltered online discussion, then they are allowing corporate funding to disproportionately influence the information they receive.
Be democratic... get on the internet! If corporations have a good point to make about how their interests represent larger economic interests, then their employees and public relations personnel can get on the internet and try to convince me just like anyone else would have to.
For the time being I say go ahead corporate America, spend as much as you want on political campaigns. Bloggers like myself will expose you and the politicians you've bought off. Maybe you'll get away with it in 2010, and maybe even in 2012, but before long every average Joe with internet access will be evaluating candidates through open debate and you won't be able to pay for control of the messages they receive.
As for the politicians, they should beware. When social media dwarfs fundraising as the primary means of building your base, getting elected will be strictly about your message. If you have good ideas, bloggers will promote your candidacy for free. Corporations can give you money or they can offer you a job down the road, but the time is coming where they will not be able to buy you public recognition and votes.
People are freaking out about corporations being able to dominate campaign financing. Washington is already controlled by corporate interests, so this makes matters much worse for those of us who think that healthcare companies and major banks (to name just a few) have had too much influence on recent policy.
Credit card companies can charge whatever they want, major banks can get handouts from the government, and the healthcare bill gets modified until it is so beneficial to healthcare companies that their stocks have soared. Yesterday's Supreme Court ruling seems to promise that we will only see more of this in the future, when political campaigns are even more representative of corporate funding and politicians are even more indebted to corporate interests.
Online movements have already emerged as people hope to overturn the ruling. As good as that might be, I'm not optimistic. Rather, I've begun to ponder if there's another way around this predicament of corporate funding. What if corporate funding, regardless of how much there is, was not able to play such a major role in campaigns?
I should mention that there are still limits on how much corporations can give directly to campaigns, but that is to say nothing of privately funded advertisements that are not produced by the campaigns. This is in my opinion, a technicality, but nevertheless true.
However, back to my main thought. In the age of the internet, promotion is FREE. Go on Facebook MySpace, Twitter, whatever. Put yourself out there and get spread by word of mouth. This is by no means an easy way to get public recognition and support, but it is nevertheless possible, and the last I checked more people are getting access to the internet and these websites every day.
There's also the promise of online fundraising, which worked out remarkably for Howard Dean in 2004, Ron Paul in 2008, and obviously Barack Obama in 2008. Even if corporations blow a ludicrous amount of money on campaign donations, average citizens from all over the country can get their money to charismatic candidates with an appealing message more efficiently than ever.
But online fundraising is also a deviation from my main point. I get notifications of some friend of a friend who is an aspiring musician/artist/writer etc. on a regular basis and it costs them absolutely nothing. I could honestly give a shit about half of what I see, but the recognition is there nonetheless. What if these notifications were for candidates for public office?
Online marketing has been an integral part of political campaigns for years now, but I am arguing that it should be EVERYTHING. All communication and debate should just be done over the internet, and popular candidates will get exposure by getting more fans on Facebook, Twitter followers, etc.
It shouldn't cost money to communicate a political message, and candidates without money shouldn't be at a disadvantage. Corporations will use their money to run TV and radio ads, and for the time being this will be effective because the older generations still use these mediums.
I only watch TV I've recorded, and I'll listen to Satellite radio if anything. I can get by without seeing these ads, and I'm not alone. TV and radio need to be destroyed because they are antidemocratic. I have much more control of what is marketed to me than my parents ever had.
If every single person in this country used the internet, and particularly social media networks, as their primary source of political news, the conversation would be open in a way that it wasn't before, and all the money in the world wouldn't be able to keep people from communicating facts. Of course, every single person is not utilizing social media, but it should nevertheless be a goal for this country.
If social media was truly ubiquitous, and all public political discussions were done over the internet, I would evaluate candidates in the following ways.
First, I would take references from personal contacts seriously. For example, if I am hearing about someone running for the office in Michigan, I would like to know what my friend from Grosse Pointe thinks of the candidate. He is a smart person whose opinion I trust, and I otherwise have very little understanding of current events within the sate of Michigan.
Or if I am evaluating a candidate that will be representing my own state or district, I'm still going to want to know what people in my community think, and it will be much easier to have this communicated in an online public forum such as a Facebook group. Within my own community, I have an idea of what people I would or would not disagree with, but there are still plenty of voices that I would likely never hear offline because it is not realistic for everyone to get together in person for a political discussion.
Another way of finding out what candidates to consider is to see what candidates are the most popular, what the motivations of their supporters are, and where these supporters live (not their addresses, just a regional estimation). Right now, one of the most popular politicians on the internet is Sarah Palin. I think she is utterly loathsome, but it is nevertheless worth knowing how many people like here ideas, why they feel this way, and where these people are generally located.
I do not think this type of thinking popular attraction will necessarily lead to groupthink and stupid decisions. If I go onto Sarah Palin's Facebook page because I's heard that she's the most popular candidate (heaven forbid), I could easily determine that I don't like her ideas, explain why, and link to another candidate that I think is better qualified. Or, if for some reason I was impressed with her proposals, I could still count on someone else explaining to me why I'm wrong and suggesting a different candidate.
The emergence of popular candidates online will not guarantee anything for that candidate in the long run. Rather, that candidates blog, website, or Facebook page would turn into a forum for open discussion that could very well turn against the candidate and serve as a promotional outlet for one of their competitors. In other words, Sarah Palin's popularity on Facebook only creates a bigger audience for someone who wants to break a critical story about her.
By the way, did I mention that NONE of this costs any money? If Sarah Palin, to use her as an example once again, were running for office and I discovered an instance where she pandered to a large multinational corporation, the story is out there and communicated for further discussion instantly... to those that participate in online forums.
If people cling to the old models of hearing advertisements on TV or radio, rather than participating in unfiltered online discussion, then they are allowing corporate funding to disproportionately influence the information they receive.
Be democratic... get on the internet! If corporations have a good point to make about how their interests represent larger economic interests, then their employees and public relations personnel can get on the internet and try to convince me just like anyone else would have to.
For the time being I say go ahead corporate America, spend as much as you want on political campaigns. Bloggers like myself will expose you and the politicians you've bought off. Maybe you'll get away with it in 2010, and maybe even in 2012, but before long every average Joe with internet access will be evaluating candidates through open debate and you won't be able to pay for control of the messages they receive.
As for the politicians, they should beware. When social media dwarfs fundraising as the primary means of building your base, getting elected will be strictly about your message. If you have good ideas, bloggers will promote your candidacy for free. Corporations can give you money or they can offer you a job down the road, but the time is coming where they will not be able to buy you public recognition and votes.
Thursday, January 21, 2010
Social Media and The Big W
On Twitter, I follow Social Media and The Big W, a website for all news related to social media. Not surprisingly, they are all over Twitter, updating several times a day.
They regularly post social media job listings, so here's what I've gathered:
Pretty much all of the listings are for jobs in New York. There was one position they linked to based out of Stamford, Connecticut, which would be a much easier commute for me if I am still living at my parents house in Fairfield.
Luckily for me, I want to move to New York, and if the money's right I would settle for Stamford. However, I would like to find out about social media positions all over, even in cities where I wouldn't want to live.
In my independent study, I am trying to understand what professional social media looks like right now and how it is evolving. Even jobs that don't interest me are worth checking out in order to further my understanding of what background and associated skills are conducive to job duties.
Today Social Media and The Big W tweeted a job listing for a Part-Time Marketing/Social Media Intern at SheSpeaks, an online social network for women. The position involves researching prospective clients, designing presentations, and updating their website.
The requirements include "Strong interest in Business Development and Marketing" which sounds to me like a sophisticated way of saying you should write a good cover letter and take the interview seriously if you are selected. (In other words: don't waste our time)
They also list as requirements: "Strong computer skills, especially Excel and PowerPoint ", "Comfortable with social media outlets such as Facebook and Twitter", and "Working knowledge of/interest in Search Engine Optimization".
Proficiency with Excel and Powerpoint is obvious, and I expect to see that in just about every listing I see. I'm not even going to bother mentioning it in the future. However, I expect to see some variation in the expectations for knowledge of Twitter and Facebook. Some companies are going to hire interns or entry level positions for the sole purpose of using Twitter and Facebook, so the "comfort" level required by SheSpeaks is probably more unique to their operation, which does not stress using these websites as much.
What stands out to me is the final requirement relating to Search Engine Optimization (SEO). Obviously, the actual SEO is done by the search engines such as Bing or Google. SheSpeaks is looking for someone who understands how SEO relates to internet marketing, and showing up earlier in search results leads to more web traffic.
I've heard a bit about "Google bombs" which are designed to influence search results. A well known example was back in 1999 when a search for "more evil than Satan himself" brought up Microsoft as the top search result. Not surprisingly, this has been corrected.
How much web traffic can be generated by using this type of method? I'm not sure. If I worked at SheSpeaks, would they want me to google "women social network" 100 times a day and scroll through until I found their website each time? Perhaps. Based on their description of having a working knowledge/interest in SEO, I can't imagine they would be asking anything difficult of their intern, if anything at all.
Nevertheless, I see SEO as being a crucial aspect of professional social media, so I will be sure to include related coverage an analysis over the next few months.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)