Question Everything

Five Reasons Why You Don’t Want SOPA to Pass

2012-01-18T15:09:00.001-05:00

SOPA and PIPA are the latest acronyms to flood theinterwebs, many of the articles promising death and destruction should eitherof these bills pass in the Congress. I whole-heartedly agree they are not goodfor America, Americans or the world at large, however, I think the real issuessurrounding them, while alarming, have kept us from focusing on some of theother byproducts such laws would create.

I do not intend to cause a frenzy, however, I do want todraw your attention to the less discussed fall-out of the passage of bills likethese.

1. Censorship is a slippery slope and we won’tgain traction back quickly.
No matter how anyone spins it, SOPA is aform of censorship. The language written into the bill does not directly stateit, but then again, it never would have gotten as far as it has with a blatantmention of the “c” word. In fact, there is language at the front of the billthat expressly states it’s not meant to infringe on the 1^stAmendment.

(1) FIRSTAMENDMENT- Nothing in this Act shall be construed to impose a prior restrainton free speech or the press protected under the 1st Amendment to theConstitution. (Source)

As we have discovered in the past however, the roadto hell is paved with such good intentions. SOPA is meant to censure anywebsite that so much as thinks about copyright infringement or offers amechanism that could allow for copyright infringement. That means commentsections, photo uploads, back-linking etc. You know, all the things we do online. But perhaps the scariestthought is that once you say ‘yes’ to censorship, it gets harder and harder tosay ‘no.’ Set the precedent and the really difficult legwork has already beendone for any Internet denizen with a bone to pick.

2. A free flow of ideas breeds innovation.
Let me quote Sir Isaac Newton, you know,the guy who put a name to gravity: “If I have seen farther, it is by standingon the shoulders of giants.” I’m not saying that people don’t come up with newideas or inventions; they do. But, most of the things that are being creatednow are building upon someone else’s creation or discovery. We wouldn’t havethought to break the sound barrier if we hadn’t known one existed. We wouldn’tbe trying to cure cancer, if someone hadn’t discovered it in the first place.See where I’m going with this? Innovative thinking is an organic result of thethinking that came before. It is spawned from the “what if?” question thatoften follows the discovery of something and then leads to the next. By limitingwhat is available and how someone accesses that information, we are limitingthose who would share their work and discoveries with the internet at large. Crowd-sourcing would become the first casualty. What is effectively online brainstorming,bringing together people with different knowledge, backgrounds and experiences,could be considered the epitome of copyright infringement.

3. The Internet has done more good than harm.
While it is not truly universal oravailable to everyone (there are still limits to access based on income, connectivity,etc.), it is still quickly becoming the most accessible media. Unlike newspaper,TV, radio or telephone, the internet needs very little to get carried from onecity, one state, one country to the next. If we disregard connection issues forthe moment, how else can we explain the ubiquity of the internet and its rolein global movements, such as the uprising this past summer in Egypt or evenopposition to SOPA? The beauty of the internet is that it shrinks our world,allowing us to garner information from others who have different views andexperiences than us. It has also made things like medical information,education and news available to people who did not have access before.

4. Passage of SOPA won’t stop online piracy.
Newsflash: the people whom this bill isdesigned to stop, i.e. online pirates who take great pride in stealingHollywood’s latest blockbuster or the music industry’s latest album, alreadyKNOW THEY’RE DOING SOMETHING WRONG. They don’t need legislation to tell themthat. Passage of this bill will not cause them to sit up and say, “Oh no, that’sillegal? I better stop then.” It will simply encourage them to find new andmore creative ways to make pirated content available.

Put succinctly, SOPA will not stop thepirates, but it will punish the rest of us who are trying to share our ideas,our favorite stories, our family photos, etc. with other friends, family or theinternet at large. It will prevent us from engaging in a good, healthy debatein the comments section of a blog or other news source, because somewhere on that site, someone will have infringed a copyrightand the site will be forced to go dark. It will also punish businesses andwebsite owners who may not have the time or resources to police every comment,photo, video, audio clip, link that is shared on their site. It will allow thebig boys to get bigger while the little guys shrivel up and disappear. One ofthe provisions of SOPA is that search engines (i.e. Google, Bing) must removeall pages of the offending site from their index. Do you know how long it takesa site to build up search engine credibility to get listed in the first place?It’s not an overnight process. So, the damage of penalizing a small site thatmight finally have hit its stride can be ongoing, as they will need to startall over again once the site is deemed “okay” by the powers that be.

5. SOPA is a machete.
This is not the job for hacking with a giant,unsharpened knife. If anything, it’s the job for a scalpel, and one that iswielded by an expert (or team of experts). Website owners and content creators/managerswill need to be involved in writing and enacting legislation that will not onlywork, but is easier to follow and enforce.

Whether SOPA or PIPA actually pass or are even brought to avote before Congress is not yet apparent. As today’s web black-out comes to anend, we will need to wait and see what type, if any, effect it had on those inWashington who first proposed SOPA. The White House has already come outagainst the bill, stating: “While webelieve that online piracy by foreign websites is a serious problem thatrequires a serious legislative response, we will not support legislation thatreduces freedom of expression, increases cybersecurity risk, or undermines thedynamic, innovative global Internet.” (Source).So, this is good news, but the fact that the White House wants some type oflegislation still makes it a scary proposition as we’ll need to wait and seewhat the next bill and its language encompasses.

The best thing wecan hope for is that this first proposed bill has shed enough light on thesituation that people now understand how important and potentially damagingsuch a law could be. This should aid the cause in the future when the newlanguage is proposed and help 1) to determine if the new proposed language isbetter than the current incarnation and 2) to mobilize the general populationfaster to ensure that we continue to let the government know we will not allowsuch a bill to pass without understanding its intricacies and how it will affecteveryone.

Read the full language of the Stop Online Piracy Act Here - Library of Congress Website

Why Content is King

2011-12-21T15:18:00.000-05:00

Let’s think about this for a minute: There are two things that set websites apart from one another:

Content
Quality

Whoever has the best combination of both is going to slice through the online noise and win eyeballs.

Aside from sounding creepy, that probably also sounds all but impossible. How can you win the quality content war when posting a 140 character tweet takes less than thirty seconds, making your Facebook status update which clocks in at 45 seconds, obsolete? The answer isn’t faster or quicker – it’s more.

Before the internet or long distance phone calls, there was a glorious tradition in this country of the printed word. Newspapers published both morning and evening editions and competed in large and small markets for pennies. Hearst and Pulitzer, two giants of industry and media, duked it out in New York City at the turn of the 20^th Century, treating their rivalry as a war fought on American soil. They undercut each other’s prices, gouged the delivery boys to make a few extra cents and forced workers to cross picket lines. They poached reporters and photographers on an almost weekly basis, offering more money and benefits if they thought one journalist had a better chance at getting a scoop than the other. They were two of the most powerful men in a country gearing up for an industrial revolution and the start of a new century. And they got rich doing it.

Obviously, the advent of technology has debilitated the power of the printed media. Newspapers have been forced to adapt, many of them building websites and mobile versions that impart the same content as their printed counterparts, without the added inconvenience of ink-smudged fingertips. In some larger markets, a few newspapers have disappeared, suspending their print versions to transition to an online-only model, while others have started to construct a paywall, charging a fee for a subscription to the online website.

The backlash to the latter has been less than expected, but the very idea is still enough to cause publishers and editors to break out in a flop sweat. And here’s why: they know their online content isn’t any better or more in-depth than the hundreds of websites reporting the same thing who don’t charge a premium to read it.

Similar to my recent post on nostalgia, many newspaper and media outlets are banking on our feelings of nostalgia to keep their sales afloat. Memories of grandpa or dad nursing a cup of coffee on the porch and flipping through different sections; fights over breakfast for the funny pages; even Thanksgiving day game-planning with the pile of sales inserts, are all memories and traditions many of us who are over the age of 21 cling to. And newspapers are using this as a key selling point, believing that this nostalgia and sense of tradition will keep people subscribing to the paper. So far, it’s worked.

But nostalgia will only get you so far, and we are nearing a tipping point in media, social, and news. With the cluttered marketplace competing for precious bits of our already cluttered lives, something’s gotta give. What will encourage one person to keep reading the paper or visiting the website, when the same news is available through a Twitter feed or the morning radio. It used to be the in-depth level of coverage available in print far exceeded the snippets one could find on the evening news or during morning drive time. We craved more information, details, all four ‘w’s and an ‘h’, not just the bare minimum. But now, we don’t have the time. If reading a five paragraph article doesn’t really tell us any more than the one paragraph synopsis, there’s no incentive to waste those precious minutes.

There is an answer though, hopeless as it may seem. And unfortunately, it flies in the face of most current budgeting and planning in the media. Devote more quality resources to editorial content. Spend the money to build a strong reporting core of journalists who can not only gather facts but are interested in digging deeper to uncover new angles and insights.

Similarly, build your opinions section back up. We’re not really a nation of free thinkers any more. There are too many competing voices saying ‘almost’ the same thing. We need smart people to analyze the messages and tell us what to think. I say this in all sincerity – spend any time actually trying to listen to a politician as they stand on their soap box and I challenge you to actually tell me the difference between his platform and his opponent’s. That’s right, you can’t. I attest the goal for opinion and commentary writers is not to be less biased, but more.

As we ponder paywalls and become the latest casualties in the media’s battle for relevance, I guarantee you that these two things – content and quality – are what will set everyone apart. They are what will drive readership and revenues and what will ultimately spell success or failure for websites.

The Selling Power of Nostalgia

2011-11-29T13:14:00.000-05:00

Nostalgia is a common house guest this time of year. We pull out boxes of ornaments wrapped in mildewed tissue and remember the stories that accompany each as we hang them on tree branches, some fake, some real, and listen to Christmas carols or sip hot chocolate. We anticipate the two biggest eating holidays of the year, thinking about all of our favorites that mom or grandma will make and that we only get to indulge on an annual basis. Green bean casserole and sweet potatoes with little marshmallows, pecan pie and eggnog are just a few of the small splurges we save for this heady time between Thanksgiving and New Year’s.

Despite new technology and even newer sensibilities that might eschew nostalgia and tradition, retailers bank on our adherence to these annual rituals. National and local stores make a pretty hefty bet at the start of their fiscal year that a majority of their money will be made in these four to six weeks and then they spend inordinate amounts of advertising dollars making sure we spend, spend, spend. And what’s their biggest selling point?

Nostalgia.

Preserve old memories, make new ones, add a new ingredient to your family recipe – these messages assail us this time of year, telling us why we need another version of the ornament we cherish, in spite of the fact that the new, shiny one just unwrapped from its factory plastic carries no memories with it.

But this ability to cash in on our sense of nostalgia extends far beyond the retail space. The opening this past weekend of The Muppets drives home exactly how much stock we place in nostalgia. Kermit the Frog, Miss Piggy, Fozzie Bear are relics of a simpler time, a less cynical version of America when we looked to entertainment to entertain with a nod and a wink, not a slap and a curse word. There was a time when a cream pie in the face or a water squirting boutineer was high comedy. Speculation abounded before the movie’s release if the Muppets could be updated for today’s modern sensibility while still maintaining the kid-friendly, family-friendly feel of its original. New Flash: If it weren’t possible to update humor to appeal to both kids and adults through a primarily kid-focused medium, Pixar would be in Chapter 11.

It would have been a huge win for nostalgia, tradition, the Muppets and Jason Segel if the movie had won the box office on opening weekend. Unfortunately, there are some sparkly vampires who beat them to the multiplex and tween girls with enough disposable income to see Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn Part One a dozen of times in a two day span. Grossing $42 million in its opening weekend is a respectable showing for a movie with Muppets, Moopets and maniacal laughs, but maybe where they’ve really won the race is the reviews.

RottenTomatoes.com has The Muppets at 98% while Breaking Dawn is only tracking at 26%. Christopher Orr, movie critic for The Atlantic, sums it up this way: “The chorus of one of the songs declares, ‘I’ve got everything that I need, right in front of me.’ For 120 minutes, that's precisely how I felt.” Glowing might be an understatement.

It’s nostalgia that’s keeping those felt beauties relevant, folks, not a hip soundtrack or sparkling social commentary (although any fan of the Muppets will tell you they excel at the latter). We’ve seen this nostalgia phenomenon keep brands in the limelight for years. Everything from Star Wars to Star Trek to Rainbow Brite has benefited from a strong nostalgic reaction that eventually pays off with a franchise resurgence.

And that’s why marketers and advertisers will continue to exploit that happy place in our heart where some of our fondest memories live. Because nostalgia sells. Anyone who tells you differently is obviously unsentimental and probably has a heart made of coal.

Or, they’re too young to know what nostalgia means. In which case, give them a few years and then see how they react to Dora, iCarly and the Wizards of Waverly Place.

The difference between innovation and inaction: A Tale of Two Companies

2011-10-06T16:55:00.000-04:00

I have always been proud of my small hometown in upstate New York. I grew up on the shores of Lake Ontario and in the shadow of a moderately-sized, but fairly important city for business, Rochester. Making their home in the Rochester area are three large corporations: Xerox, Bausch & Lomb and Kodak. For decades, these three companies have not only stimulated Western New York's economy, but have been considered pioneers in their respective fields.

Then, this week, there's rumblings that Kodak may have to declare bankruptcy.

Yikes.

The fact that this announcement comes the same week as Steve Jobs' death is eerily coincidental in my mind. Today, we're mourning the passing of one of America's truly great innovators, while one of America's truly great innovative companies seems on the verge of collapse.

While Jobs was able to grow and evolve his company, and in the process create markets for MP3s, smartphones and tablet technology, Kodak stagnated. Based on the news coming from downtown Rochester, a large part of their failings seem to be traced to the fact that when digital became a real game changer, Kodak didn't want to change games. It stayed at the table, playing Five Card Stud, while digital moved onto Texas Hold 'Em and then, PokerStars.net.

And maybe this is the best example of how truly difficult innovation can be. The world changes, consumers change, beliefs change, incomes change, taboos change. And these changes increase the demand for new businesses, new products, new services, while also decreasing the demand for older businesses, products and services.

Now, some organizations have managed to survive this evolution, either growing with it or providing a service that, like death and taxes, isn't going away. (Funeral homes and tax collectors have the ultimate job security.) Apple is a great example of a company that grew, changing its product mix in time with the changes in the market. Also, Jobs diversified his business and is credited with founding Pixar. That's right, Buzz and Woody started out as apples, not mice.

Kodak didn't grow. Instead of finding a way to become the best player in the digital photography market, growing on their already highly recognizable brand name, Kodak let the digital revolution pass them by, clinging to the belief that people would always need film and they would always need someone to develop it for them. By the time Kodak did enter the digital industry, it was far too late. Their cameras weren't even considered a decently cheap alternative to their foreign competitors, and they lost the foothold they had spent 130+ years carving into America's business mountain range.

You might think the outpouring of sentiment over Jobs' passing from regular Joes and Jills as well as other technology innovators is a little much. Twitter feeds, Facebook statuses, traditional and online media have been flooded today with Steve Jobs quotes, in memoriam posts and articles. But, when you look at Apple as a business, and you compare it to other less successful organizations, such as Kodak, you have to realize that Jobs wasn't simply a really smart guy or a technological svengali--he was genuinely an innovator, creating something new, making changes to the establishment and doing it in a timely enough manner to stay relevant.

Even if you're not an Apple-ite, that accomplishment is plenty of reason to admire and emulate the man who made little 'i's as synonymous with technology as the Kodak 'K' was in the 1960s and 70s with personal photography. Kodak and Apple have many things in common: at different times they transformed our society, literally changing the way we saw the world--Kodak, through the viewfinder of a camera and Apple, through the touchscreen of an iPhone. The main difference between them seems to be that with a true innovator steering the ship, Apple has emerged from the first decade of the new millennium and one hell of a recession, with a larger share of the market than it had before while Kodak might be filing chapter 11.

It's a cautionary tale and a celebration of risk-taking all in one.

Double Standards Do Not Equal Double the Fun

2011-08-16T12:00:00.002-04:00

Football is back! I never really worried it wouldn't return, but still, sitting through the first week of preseason games, I was reminded of why I like this sport so much and I'm certainly glad the owners, players and NFL could work out how to divide that pesky $9 billion pie. (Yes, that last bit was sarcasm.)

However, the start of professional football season brings the advent of the college football season. Considering the amount of moving and shaking that has happened between January and now in that profession, you'd think everyone would be a little green from seasickness. And maybe there are, because things are getting out of hand.

LOOK HARD ENOUGH AND YOU'LL FIND DIRT

I learned this lesson from my mother (and she learned it from her mother before her). If you're looking closely, you're bound to see the dirt, the stuff that got swept under the rug, the layer of dust thick enough to write your name in. The NCAA seems to either have forgotten this or has decided that spending their time investigating athletes and the gifts they may or may not receive from fans, agents and the community at large is more important than doing something related to college, like, say making sure those athletes graduate with a degree and an opportunity to do something after their ten year career comes to an end.

The Ohio State University is maybe the most recognizable offender in this latest round of NCAA scrutiny. Their storied couch, Jim Tressel, resigned. Their quarterback, Tyrelle Pryor is trying to make it into the supplemental draft this week. Kids who had committed to OSU before this mess have rescinded their letters and are looking for other, more stable places to play.

And all of this is because a handful OSU players signed some memorabilia and had the audacity to receive tattoos and maybe cars as payment. Miami is the latest school to be painted with the guilty brush, as apparently, some of their players (most of whom currently play in the NFL) also accepted inappropriate gifts.

This latest round of scrutiny, can probably be traced back to Pete Caroll's Trojans, including Reggie Bush, and the USC basketball star, O.J. Mayo.

HYPOCRITICAL MUCH?

I understand where the NCAA is coming from. Obviously, they don't want kids to feel pressure to perform or get rewarded for performing or underperforming because of some deal they've struck with a very influential booster (let's leave those backroom dealings for high school football.) However, the idea that the NCAA should place all of the responsibility, and therefore, blame on these college athletes is unfair.

Let's think about it for a minute: most of these kids get full rides to schools that they probably couldn't get into based on their high school transcripts alone. They are often out of their element, away from home for the first time, training year-round, including two-a-day practices in the blazing summer heat and more than likely come from fairly middle to lower class families. (I am generalizing here, but I would attest that these traits are more common than not.)

So, with all of these factors in place, we expect an 18 or 19-year-old kid to refuse a SUV? Or a dinner at a nice restaurant where they serve food on china and not a cafeteria tray?

I don't know about you, but my freshmen year at college I did a few things I'm not too proud of. Made some decisions that, without the watchful eye of mom and dad, were probably ill-advised. And I didn't have half the pressure on me that these athletes do.

Now, I am not advocating that college football players should be completely exempt from the responsibility. A big part of college is learning how to be an adult; it involves a maturing of your beliefs and general understanding of the world that will help you once you leave the institution. However, I personally feel it is the coaching staff and trainers who should also be head accountable, and probably, more accountable than the players.

It's no secret that people are crazy about their sports teams. Go to any stadium parking lot before a game in September and October and you'll see plenty of evidence: chests painted, cheesehead hats, temporary tattoos, etc. There's a reason the word Fan is derived from Fanatic -- we can take our sports teams and their wins and losses pretty seriously.

So, knowing this, why would the coaching staff at colleges and universities, especially those with a long history of winning, neglect to teach their players what is right and wrong? Maybe give them advice on how to gracefully decline an offer. Maybe even reward them for reporting when they have turned down a gift or free meal.

ONCE IS NOT ENOUGH

I'm aware that many programs do have some educational sessions like these, especially for new recruits. But once is not enough. Teaching a kid about the dangers of taking a gift in a sterile classroom environment in no way replicates the situation that player will be faced with in the real world. Similarly to training our children how to avoid getting into a car with a stranger, and teaching them all the different lies a predator might tell to lure them, we have to give these athletes better weapons to fight the battle with overzealous fans and opportunistic agents.

And let's start to put more of the onus on the coaches who should be doing more than obsessing over Ws. They should be monitoring their players, offering them a place to talk and discuss situations without threat of punishment or retaliation.

There should also be stricter penalties enforced if it's determined there was an infraction. Sure, USC got stripped of their Rose Bowl title, but what happened to Pete Carroll? He got a job coaching the Seattle Seahawks--in the NFL ... wait a minute ...

Reggie Bush returned his Heisman Trophy, but wouldn't admit to any guilt. Personally, I don't think he needs to. He was accused of taking gifts, not steroids. In my opinion, accepting a car or a good meal does not impact how good of a player someone is. Now, if he'd been stellar and then started throwing games, we might have a leg to stand on. But the Heisman is awarded based on talent. Reggie Bush has talent.

I want our college athletes to be fine, upstanding citizens, as much as anyone, but placing them in a spotlight that hot makes it infinitely more difficult. Look at what happens to professional athletes when they are also thrust into the spotlight. Not all of them behave like angels.

THE GREAT PAY DEBATE

There's a show airing on ESPN right now that discusses the current state of college athletics. It's a panel of current and former coaches from a wide range of sports, ESPN anchors and former players who are now commentators for the network. In a recent segment, Jay Bilas, former Duke and Coach K team member, made the point that other students who are given scholarships based on talent (i.e. music students) are allowed to pursue outside gigs and more importantly, make money. Bilas uses this as argument to pay college athletes.

I don't want them pulling down a six figure salary in college--they're already making that in tuition and room and board. But a stipend wouldn't be out of the question. Many of these kids come from nothing, and when they're practicing, traveling, playing and studying (hopefully), there is little time left for them to get a part-time job at McDonald's to earn some fun money. These scholarship athletes are expected to work for the team and that's often a full-time job even in the off-season.

As a former music major at a fairly renowned school, I can tell you that between practice, lessons and performance, there is little time to do much else. Nurturing a talent like playing the cello or running the 50 yard dash is a full-time 365 days a year proposition.

So, let's remove some of the temptation for these kids and give them some money, so they don't have to worry about how they're going to pay for a new shirt or gas to make it home for break.

Colleges are making an inordinate amount of money on these teams and the athletes. Ticket sales, concession sales, merchandise, free publicity, marketing clout--some of these things are readily measurable in dollars and cents while others are more qualitative. But ask any school with a strong athletics department if it helps them recruit students without sports aspirations and they'll emphatically tell you 'yes.'

Let's ditch the double standard--that players must be held accountable, but coaches don't have to be--and try to remember what it was like to be 19. How many 'less than smart' decisions did you make? And I'll bet no one was offering you a tricked out ride, a professional sports contract or Kobe beef served off of gold-rimmed plates.

Although, if they were, you must have been doing something right.

Remember the Golden Rule

2011-08-08T12:00:00.000-04:00

Admittedly, the last month has been a little crazy for me, hence the lack of updates. And even this morning, as I considered posting something, I had to really stop and think. What exactly do I want to say? Is it all that important? How can it help someone else?

I'm not totally convinced I've found the answer, but I'm hoping someone out there might find this useful. As I am still job hunting, this process eats up a large capacity of my brain during my waking, and more than likely sleeping, hours. Giddy hopefulness from getting a request for a phone interview to the gnawing nervousness of waiting to hear back after an in-person meeting can consume large chunks of my day, just as job searching, cover letter writing and applying can.

However, much like the reason 95% of applicants don't ever hear a peep from the companies they've applied to, getting a response following an in-person or phone interview is similarly difficult. Which forces me to ask, why?

An organization has already invested time into speaking with you or possibly meeting with you to discuss your qualifications and their needs. You've often met or spoken with at least two people within the company, who no doubt make a fairly decent salary, meaning the investment they're making in vetting you and your qualifications is significant. And yet, often, even after these in-person meetings or phone screens, recruiters and hiring managers are hesitant to let these candidates know that they are no longer interested in pursuing their candidacy for the role.

Now, I imagine there are a few reasons for this, the most logical being that people hate delivering bad news. It makes us uncomfortable, we feel bad, we empathize with the person we're "letting down gently." I get it - I despise having to tell someone something they're probably not going to want to hear. But as a job seeker, I can assure you, it is 100% better for me to know if I'm no longer in consideration for a position. It allows me the freedom to doggedly pursue another opportunity, gives me a chance to retrospectively consider the interview and how I might have done better, and makes it possible for me to mourn the loss of this opportunity and move on.

For Human Resources and the Hiring Manager, communicating this information may seem unimportant, but there is one way it can be hugely beneficial--it will stop highly interested and motivated candidates like me from sending emails or even making a call to ask what the status of the position is. Having been in a position to make hires before, I find it fifty times more difficult to respond to an inquiry from the job seeker than to beat them to the punch and be the first person to get the information out there. Once the candidate has reached out, you are now operating on the "defensive" as it has obviously been too long since the interview and they should have heard something by now.

However, I think the most important facet in letting candidates know where they stand is courtesy. You already know if you're going to offer them the job or not. Personally I feel telling someone one way or the other is the least you can do. They took time out of their life, and often, left their job for hours or even a day, to interview with you, just as you took time out of your schedule to interview them. Isn't it better for both parties to definitively know whether they got the job? I think so.

Job seeking is hard and stressful. Interviewing is anxiety-inducing at best and downright terrifying at its worst. Let's take some of the stress out of the occasion by extending common courtesies to one another. I'm reminded of kindergarten and the golden rule, "Do unto others as you would have done unto you."

There's a reason this is a concept we ask five-year-olds to grasp--abiding by it would make the world an infinitely better place.

"Reach for the moon. Even if you miss, you'll land among ..."

2011-07-13T09:48:00.000-04:00

Wait. What are those things called again?

So, the July 4th holiday and a business trip to the west coast immediately following messed up my posting schedule, but now I'm back. However, today's post isn't so much about business. It's about a topic that is very near and dear to my heart and something I have hesitated to write about until now.

Last Friday, July 8th, the Space Shuttle Atlantis launched from the Kennedy Space Center for the last manned space flight for the foreseeable future. And I can't begin to convey how much this saddens me. Through a statement released by the White House, Obama's spin masters put a heck of a twirl on this seminal moment in American space flight:

"We’ll drive new advances in science and technology. We’ll enhance knowledge, education, innovation, and economic growth. And I have tasked the men and women of NASA with an ambitious new mission: to break new boundaries in space exploration, ultimately sending Americans to Mars." (Source: Statement by the President on the Launch of the Space Shuttle Atlantis)

I can appreciate the enthusiasm and the positive message, but we have lost something with this decision to shutter the space shuttle program. I fear this choice to suspend space flight will serve as the first death knell for our stellar curiosity. That we, as Americans, will stop reaching for the stars.

In the 1960s, the space race was spurred by the Cold War: Russia beat us to it and that was unacceptable. Kennedy focused much of his short time in office on stressing the importance of getting a man on the moon. Nine years later, we did it. Sure, we haven't managed to travel to new galaxies or even put some people on Mars--yet. While Arthur C. Clarke and Jules Verne dreamed big things for us, the complexities of cost, technology and that pesky thing called distance, have kept us closer to home than they envisioned. But we were still trying, striving for something beyond ourselves, beyond Earth and its confines.

When we stop looking up, when we stop reaching for those stars, where will our focus go? Into more immediate (read: closer) issues? Obviously, there are a lot of things we could be paying more attention to: pollution, the environment, hunger, poverty ... but I still contest that the hope of reaching outside ourselves, of literally transcending these earthly concerns can do more for those efforts than hours of partisan rhetoric and podium thumping.

The space race of the 1960s and for most of the past three decades has been a uniting factor among the American people. Like your favorite team winning a world championship, people could hold up these accomplishments as something "we did." "Look how far we've come. Look what we can do when we put our minds to it, when we persevere, when we refuse to allow obstacles to stop us."

Admittedly, my view is romanticized. One of my favorite movies of the '80s was "Space Camp" (starring Kate Capshaw, Kelly Preston and Leah Thompson). I told my mother when I was eight that I wanted to be an astronaut. I vividly remember watching live as the Challenger turned into a stream of white smoke on the TV in my second grade classroom. I'm a huge fan of science fiction and fantasy, in large part because through those books and authors' imaginations, I've already set foot on Mars, orbited the Earth in a space station and traveled at faster than light speeds to reach other galaxies.

I understand that the space program is a huge drain on government finances and giving the current debt crisis, trimming some fat is probably a good idea. But I don't think space flight is fat, I think it's muscle fueled and strengthened by creativity and curiosity and the desire to know more than we do now. And I worry that once that muscle atrophies, rehabilitating it will be nearly impossible.

How social media is blurring the line between personal and professional

2011-06-27T11:10:00.006-04:00

I am all about social media. I think it's a fascinating phenomenon and like the telephone, television and Internet, it is completely changing the way we interact locally and globally. It is shortening distances between continents and countries. (There is a flipside to this argument as well, and I'm getting there. Patience, young one.)

Facebook, Twitter, Tumblr, Linkedin, Blogspot, Flickr--all of these sites allow us to instantly share updates with one another on everything from what we ate for breakfast to what we want for lunch. They have reconnected families, helped deployed troops stay in touch and even allowed police to catch criminals. They have spread the word about the good--the recent New York State Senate vote to legalize same sex marriage--and the bad--the devastating Tokyo earthquake.

But, and there's always a but, I'm a little worried about this overexposure. Especially in the context of job hunting.

Social Means Social

Social networking content is, at the heart of its very nature, meant to be shared. So if you swear like a sailor in your Facebook feed, it's out there for all the world to read. If you prefer to tweet inappropriate photos, then someone with half a brain and a Google search field, can find them. We only have to look at the dozens of politicians who seem to forget that online doesn't mean anonymous.

However, I believe that some social networks, which were originally founded as ways to reconnect and/or spy and/or stalk old friends shouldn't necessarily factor into an employer's overall view of a candidate when making a hiring decision. People have lost jobs because of their activity on Facebook; they've had job offers rescinded because of their comments on Twitter. I'm not saying these people shouldn't have exercised better judgment (they should have) nor am I saying that these people shouldn't necessarily have been fired (I think that's a case by case kind of call). What I am saying is that, if I have pictures posted on my profile of me at a party, enjoying a drink with friends, is that really damaging my credibility as a potential employee? If I dress up as something particularly hideous or risque for Halloween, I don't believe a recruiter should take that as an indication of my character.

This is why we conduct criminal background checks and call professional references. I believe these things can and will point out the folks we don't necessarily want on our payrolls. I don't believe people should be persecuted in the court of public opinion for gnarly Spring Break photos circa 1998.

[A word from our sponsor: Now, let me be clear before I go on that if someone is seen doing something illegal in a picture on a social network, I totally believe that person should be brought to justice. Just putting that out there. Now back to your regularly scheduled blog.]

Facebook as a Professional Network

What sparked this little diatribe is the announcement that Monster, one of only two major online job boards (since they gobbled up HotJobs) is preparing to launch a social network, BeKnown, on Facebook today. (Mashable article here.) In the article, Monster's global vice president for product, states that "you can manage your professional identity and your social identity in one place."

This is a bad idea.

And here's the flipside to that positive social media argument: while it has allowed people to reconnect and allowed the world to become a little smaller, it has also caused the decline of the "personal filter." Just as e-mail was the death knell for decent spelling and grammar, social media and its immediacy has all but silenced the voice in our heads that whispers, "Are you sure you want to post that? Is that something the world needs to know? Do you really want to drop the F-bomb that many times in a 140 character tweet?"

Because it's so easy to publish every stray thought, rant, idea or hate-filled invective that comes into our heads, we have begun to do so. Appropriateness and decorum seemingly have no place in social media unless you're a celebrity or a brand and the wrong tweet could lose you followers, consumers or sales dollars. There have been multiple examples of this in the past few months alone: Gilbert Gottfried made a joke about the Tokyo earthquake and was subsequently fired as the spokesperson for Aflac; Roger Ebert made a remark regarding the death of Ryan Dunn and drunk driving and received such terrible backlash, Facebook deactivated his page for a time. Even as far back as 2009, 8% of companies indicated they had fired someone for their behavior on a social network.

Now, Monster proposes that job seekers actually send potential employers to their Facebook profile, on purpose, to further demonstrate why they should be hired.

Here's a radical thought: let's keep personal stuff separate from professional stuff.

I have a profile on Linkedin that I'm pretty proud of; I've got one on Facebook that I use to communicate to friends and family; I have a feed on Twitter that I use to mention random things that pop in my head and follow some of my favorite celebrities; I manage a blog on Blogspot and another one on Wordpress--I don't lack for social connectivity. And as a current job seeker, initially the idea of another way to reach out to potential employers sounded attractive.

I don't post wildly inappropriate things on my Facebook page or through my Twitter feed, so honestly, if an employer does stumble upon it, no big deal. But many people do. And using social networks to make contacts and get jobs and reconnect with people has already blurred the line between professional and personal; between what really is damaging to a person's character and what's really just a gag for fun. I don't think we should be further obscuring this line by encouraging a melding of our professional and personal lives on Facebook.

I honestly think it's going to do a lot more harm than good.

The battle between book smart and street smart

2011-06-22T11:00:00.005-04:00

In continuing with my theme of job-search related posts, I wanted to take a moment to discuss job descriptions and, more specifically, education and experience requirements.

Now, I believe that having a degree in a related subject to what you'd like to have a job doing is a good idea. There are definitely tenets I learned while completing my Bachelor's degree in Public Relations that I needed to know to compete for a job in that industry. The fact that my first job out of college was in advertising and now I work in the advertising and marketing industry is secondary to the fact that what I learned about the basics of these jobs is the same: communication, communication, communication, good writing, the right medium and oh yeah, communication. In the end, the line between advertising, marketing and PR is pretty thin although those industries don't like to admit it.

So, could I have applied for and gotten a job in Human Resources with my Public Relations degree? Maybe. There are Corporate Communication roles that typically require someone not in HR to bridge the gap between C-level executives and the rest of the staff. By hiring someone outside of human resources, it helps to dispel the "us vs. them" mentality that is prevalent in large organizations.

But I couldn't have applied for and gotten a job in say, Information Technology. I don't have the skill set. Nor really the interest.

But now, after having worked for a little over eight years in the professional world, how important is my degree when compared to my experiences or even my passions? I contest that the things I've learned on the job and the things I've absorbed from living life with a sense of curiosity are far more important now than my degree. At some point in your career, your degree simply becomes an example of your commitment to stick to something for four years.

However, if a job description lists a B.S. degree as mandatory, even though I am qualified for every other aspect of the job, what are the chances a recruiter or ATS will drop me automatically into the circular file when they see B.A. on my resume? It's hard to know for sure. Many organizations have dedicated recruiters who spend a lot of time reviewing resumes and online profiles to ensure that they're finding the right candidate for a position. But with our current job market flooded with overly qualified candidates for a handful of positions, carefully perusing resumes is probably not on the top of the recruiter's list. They need a quick way to skim through a stack and using the posted requirements for the job is the easiest way to do that. As it should be; that's why descriptions are written in the first place.

What I'm arguing is that job descriptions might need a little fine-tuning, especially when looking to fill a role that's anything but entry-level. If I'm looking for a manager of customer service, I don't really care if the candidate has a degree in business or human resources--I care that they've held customer service roles in the past, managed people before and have glowing reviews from their colleagues and direct reports. I care if they've worked in a similar industry (I don't think they need to be the same, but that's another debate). And I care that when I meet with them or talk to them on the phone, their passion for providing excellent customer service as well as their ability to problem solve quickly is clearly evident.

I do believe there is philosophy shift happening among human resources professionals and company executives regarding passion and commitment over exact experience. Studies have shown that people who are dedicated and engaged in the workplace, can be taught the skills they need for the role. However, someone who possesses the skill but could care less about the work, will not be the employee you want hanging around.

And, maybe most importantly, this critical indicator of success--passion & dedication--has never been accurately captured on a resume or in a cover letter. I believe it can only be conveyed in person (maybe over the phone if you're really good with the phone), and yet many of us never get the chance to make a case for ourselves, because we never get past the gatekeeper of mandatory requirements.

I'm really great ... once you get to know me

2011-06-21T08:54:00.005-04:00

How Job Hunting is Just Like Online Dating

So, I'm job hunting once again. And every time I do, I'm reminded how painful a process it is--and how maddening. The job seeker has little to no control over much of anything besides what their resume looks like (with proper spelling, we know), and the cover letters they write. Otherwise, every other aspect of the job search is left up to the Interwebs and the recruiters who may or may not be reviewing resumes for positions they posted.

And in this way, job hunting is so much like online dating. Once you've posted your profile and a pic or two, what spurs someone else on the site to reach out with an introduction, or hell, even a non-threatening wink, is completely out of your control. And trying to determine why they don't--Is my geekiness showing? Did I expound too much on the glories of ding dongs? Maybe since I'm a girl, I shouldn't like sports.--is the quickest path to insanity.

While many in the Human Resources industry have denounced the "post and pray*" approach of many recruiters, job boards (or job aggregators or even Linkedin) are still the most common way to find a job. So, while the system may be broken, the job seeker is still at its mercy, getting poked and prodded by all the jagged edges.

But maybe this is what's most frustrating. Just as with online dating, seven times out of ten, the reason you don't get an interview or an introductory email or even a wink, has NOTHING TO DO WITH YOU. Let me repeat that, A LACK OF INTEREST OFTEN HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH YOU.

Yup, it's the truth folks. Here are the real reasons you can't get a foot in the door:

The recruiter is building a pipeline of candidates so they can status them in their Applicant Tracking System and prove to their boss they're "looking" of good people.
The organization posts a position that a) they're not ready to hire for yet or b) have already identified a strong internal candidate and are posting the job for legal reasons and CYA.
The organization posted the position in good faith, thinking they were ready to hire, then something happened and now, they're not going to. No one bothered to take down the posting.
The recruiter reviewing your resume has a bias against (pick any of the following): the school you attended, the last company you worked for, any company you've worked for, a certification you've obtained (could be a little jealousy there too); your first name, your surname, your middle initial.
(Now, conversely, these biases can also get you an interview, but I would say the reverse happens more.)
The position has already been filled but they need to post the job so that they won't get sued for violating EEO policies.
The job description (which may fit you perfectly) isn't very representative of the role, so when the hiring manager looks at your resume, he's looking for something else (something you may not have).
Their Applicant Tracking System is broken and/or filing resumes wrong, mislabeling you or marking you as spam when you might be a viable candidate.

These are the most common reasons I can think of, but I'm sure there are more. Discouraging, isn't it?

So, what are our options? Obviously, the biggest one is networking. Now, I'm not a fan of this either. For one thing, I don't know a ton of people working in the field I'm in. I've also moved a bit, so developing a strong geographic base is very hard. Now, I have a good number of connections on Linkedin as well as over a dozen glowing recommendations, but I'm not sure this will really help. At the least, I don't think it's going to help me get a foot in the door -- I think it might push a hiring manager over the edge if I get to the final stages of the process and they're picking between me and someone else, but I do not believe that recruiters or hiring managers spend much time vetting a candidate on anything but their resume until they're ready to extend an offer.

If I had an answer to all of this, I would have revealed it by now, trust me. My secret (if I have one) is being more and more creative with not only my cover letter but my resume. For large organizations that I'm really interested in working for, I've been formatting my resume differently to fit their culture or industry. For social media positions, I've designed a resume that mimics a Twitter feed. My cover letters have evolved from being stiff and stale (Dear so and so, I saw your ad on ...) to conveying more of my personality and creative writing style.

Because similar to dating sites, you've got to put all of yourself out there and stick with it. If they don't like it, too bad. While your job searching might get desperate, it's important to remember, that if the companies you're interested in aren't interested in you, it a) probably has nothing to do with you in particular and b) you don't really want to work there. We all know successful employees work at organizations that are as much a cultural as a career fit. The older I've become and the more places I've worked, the more I realize that sometimes where you work and who you work with are more important than the work itself.

Kind of like dating: the person's beliefs, personality and ideological outlook on life are much more important than any of the exterior stuff which can and will change over the course of a relationship. Just as the sheen of an organization will wear off after that honeymoon period making all the things that seemed perfect for your career insignificant when compared to the jerk working in the next cubicle or the boss who enjoys micro-managing everyone else while neglecting his own work.

My advice?

Take time in your job hunt.
Doggedly pursue the companies you're most interested in after doing your due diligence and researching the heck out of them.
Use Linkedin, reconnect with former colleagues and prod them every day for any type of lead.
And most importantly, stick to your story. You have experience, you're a good worker and you want to be passionate about the work you do and the company you do it for.

Those things will shine through ... once they take the time to get to know you.

* "Post and Pray" is a phrase given to the philosophy of many human resources departments who place their job openings on major job boards (i.e. Monster) but do nothing to cultivate any candidates or qualified leads on their own (like resume mining, proactive outreach to former, rehirable employees, promoting their employee referral program, etc.).

The Search for Eyeballs: How It's Really Anybody's Guess

2011-06-13T08:46:00.002-04:00

In a recent commentary published on MediaPost, George Simpson of George Simpson Communications, talks about the follies of behavioral targeting and other web-based analytics tools that seem designed to tell us everything, but often fall short of providing advertisers or web publishers with an accurate description of their audience's motives. Simpson points out that while frustration abounds, it is a little short-sighted to dismiss all analytics as the work of snake oil salesmen and keep in mind that the benefits of what we've learned through these tools far outweighs the negatives of what we haven't.

And I have to say, I agree. But there is one other piece of the puzzle I believe we should look at and that is expectations.

Expectations have changed for your average Internet user as online advertising and behavioral targeting have matured. We no longer accept that our three-year-old playing a Thomas the Tank Engine game might be served an ad with PG or PG-13 rated content. We have learned to filter out repeated ad content (aka the ads for credit scores, online education and hula girls with swaying hips). Our eyes are now drawn to much more interesting and targeted content: an ad for our favorite shampoo, an upcoming TV show, or the latest blockbuster. As consumers, we feel a certain sense of entitlement that when we visit our favorite websites, we won't be confronted with "junk" on the page, but rather related advertising content that doesn't detract from our experience.

This is the expectation web publishers have as well. While there are still the $0.50 CPMs that allow ads to be served on the most random of pages in order to bring down the eCPM of an overall ad buy, web publishers would prefer to serve their constituency ads that matter to them. Publishers feel (and rightfully so, in my opinion) that crappy ads reflect poorly on their site. It is of course a fine balancing act between revenue and reputation, but it appears that all other things being equal, publishers would rather serve premium and/or quality advertising as opposed to not.

So then, whose expectations are skewed? It appears that consumers and web publishers, the absorber and pushers of the information are just fine with using collected behavioral data to enhance their online experience. Who doesn't get it?

Advertisers.

Now, look, I love advertisers and agencies as much as the next gal, but there is still a disconnect between what is actually feasible to measure and what advertisers want to see measured. As with all advertising mediums, advertisers want guarantees. They don't want to throw darts at a board (or money down the toilet); they want to know that their ads will be seen by qualified consumers who will actually take action.

Um, we all know that's not possible right? I can no more guarantee that a visitor to the Boston Globe's sports page is going to click on an ad for Sports Memorabilia, than I can promise that a visitor to the New York Times Arts & Entertainment page will click on an ad to win a trip to London's West End. Now, based on positioning and target, I would say it's highly likely these visitors might do both of these actions, but promise? Guarantee? Nope, sorry. All too often, advertisers demand information that we in the industry just can't get. However, because our expectations have become skewed and because the advent of the Internet has made the line between public and private very fuzzy, the perception is that we should be able to know what site a 35-year-old man from Cleveland, Ohio visits after watching the latest episode of "The Glades" and what content he looks for and what advertising he takes action on.

I can get you Cleveland, I can get you 35 (probably more like 29-35), I can get you male, I can even get you time of day, but I can't promise that the guy who looks up your ad just finished watching a particular episode of a particular show. I also can't promise that he liked it.

In my previous roles with ad agencies, it always startled me how much advertisers wanted these types of guarantees. I understand the need to know that your money is being spent wisely, but there are so many other variables that lead to someone taking action on an ad: mood, alertness, financial situation, etc. And trust me, if I could accurately predict clicks, I'd be richer than Trump.

All advertising: print, radio, digital--is bought on the predication of best guesses. Through study, surveying and testing we believe we have a fairly accurate picture of who reads what types of magazines, who listens to what types of radio stations, who visits what types of websites. But I doubt we will ever get to the point where we know all of these things for certain (unless Big Brother gets a whole lot bigger, and maybe puts a chip in our head). And, until we admit that the tools we use (i.e. Nielsen and comScore) are not all that accurate, the data we extrapolate from these sources will be a best guess--a really good guess, but still a guess.

Now, obviously there are less than reputable agencies out there that sugarcoat and hide actual web stats to convince advertisers to waste money placing their ads where they truly have no hope of getting any traction. But I like to believe that more often than not, we are all doing our best to steer our clients in the right direction. It takes as much of a leap of faith for us as it does for them.

And until the answer: Based on all the research and evidence we have, we think this is going to work, is acceptable, we'll all just be making promises we're not sure we can keep.

What LeBron teaches us about winning and the medium v. message

2011-06-07T08:34:00.003-04:00

I'm a fairly big sports fan, most of my friends know and accept this about me. After years of disliking professional basketball (go 'Cuse!), for the past two years I have been fascinated by the playoffs and now follow teams like the Boston Celtics, the New York Knicks, and yes, the Miami Heat. I still hate the Lakers.

With Game 4 of the NBA Finals tonight between the Mavs and the Heat, and in light of Miami's dominant performance in Game 3, I wanted to reflect a little bit on LeBron and just what precisely his "decision" has done to his career, sports and communication. Yes, communication.

I don't know him personally, so I have no idea if the hour-long special on ESPN was LeBron's choice or if he was advised to do it by his entourage. I do know that if his only motivation was to get some donations for the Boys and Girls Clubs, he could just have easily picked up the phone.

Instead, his hour-long press conference and his choice to take his talents to South Beach has become the defining event of this NBA season. At the start of the season when the Heat couldn't buy a basket and were hemorrhaging points, everyone--fans, sportscasters, Dan Gilbert--were content to smile smugly and talk about karma and the fact that just because you put three good players on one team it doesn't mean they'll play well together.

First of all, they didn't get three good players on one team, they got three GREAT players on that team (Okay, maybe two and a half. Bosh needs to be a little more consistent to be called great). And now, up three games to one in a best of seven series, a lot of the Heat's detractors have gone silent. Secondly, karma only works if the punishable act was malicious (at least, that's my definition), and despite everything that's been said about LeBron, I do not believe he left Cleveland as a way to stick it to the fans, the team, the city or heck, even all of Ohio. LeBron wants to win championships. Dan Gilbert had plenty of time to figure out how to get him the help he'd need to do that. (As a side note, Gilbert's comments following LeBron's decision were malicious and completely unprofessional, so I'd watch out for that karma, Danno.)

But more than a morality tale for sports, LeBron's decision and the way it was delivered have taught us in media and communications a very important lesson: the medium is just as important as the message. If LeBron had held a press conference, a quick one mind you, in the middle of the day, and delivered the same news would he have been as vilified as he is now? I'm guessing no. If he'd sent out a press release and allowed the Cleveland Plain-Dealer to break the news, would they have burned his jerseys? ... Okay, maybe they would have, but I'm not so certain it would have been as devastating to read about his choice to leave as it was to watch him deliver the news on live TV. A live interview on SportsCenter or Mike and Mike in the Morning would have been preferable to "The Decision."

Many pundits have speculated that even if LeBron and the Miami Heat win the NBA Championship this year, LeBron will still be considered the Big Bad Wolf of the basketball world (never mind the fact that he hasn't been accused of sexual assault, drunk driving or bringing a loaded gun to the stadium, you know, actual criminal behavior). The villain label really isn't fair, especially considering how LeBron has conducted himself this season. Yes, the pep rally in Miami right after the announcement was obnoxious, I'm not gonna lie, but since the actual business of playing basketball has begun, and even through the adversity of starting the season on a losing streak, LeBron has been forthright with the media, honest about his game play and contributions and much more approachable. Some of this can probably be credited to Dwayne Wade, LeBron's best friend and now teammate, who has always been open with the media and the fans.

So, is it true that LeBron can't win? Even if he actually does win, will that nullify his tarnished image in the public eye? If not, what can?

Possibly nothing except time. As with many badly delivered messages, time is often the only cure--time or another, even bigger scandal. However, in a 24-hour news cycle, when stations need to fill air time, they have no problem reminding people of LeBron's ego, especially as the Miami Heat start to really pour on, well, the heat, in the finals against the Mavericks.

Now, almost a year later, "The Decision" may simply serve as a cautionary lesson about the hubris of ego. But more importantly, it serves to remind us that it's not the message we had a problem with. LeBron was going to leave Cleveland, that was fact (and any Ohioan who thought differently was fooling themselves). But he didn't need to use a national, live TV event to tell the world and his hometown.

When crafting those media plans and most importantly, when managing a crisis, take a breath and consider how you're going to release your message. Who is the best person to speak to the public, employees or shareholders? And how should they get the word out?

Chances are you won't be faced with the choice between say, a press release and a nationally-televised event, but just in case, make sure you think it through before you make a decision.

I'm sure LeBron would agree.

As a writer, this bothers me ...

2011-06-03T08:35:00.003-04:00

Let me start by saying, I have not read this book. But, the title alone makes me shudder.
No Plot? No Problem!: A Low-Stress, High-Velocity Guide to Writing a Novel in 30 Days - WritersDigestShop.com
Not having a plot is a HUGE problem when trying to write a novel. And writing a decent story with good characters in 30 days when you don't know where you're going is almost impossible.

I think my bigger beef is related to self-help writing books, similar to this one, which don't do much but delay the actual process of writing. Now, I have quite a few lining my bookshelves, I'm not going to lie, but I long ago learned that, as cliche as it sounds, writers WRITE. Writers also read, but they read strong stories by good writers they aspire to be; not self-help platitudes that imbue you with a false sense of "can-do-it-ness." Of course, every writer needs inspiration, I know I need copious amounts on a daily basis, but I take that inspiration (and support) from other writers, people I met while getting my Master's degree at USC or in classes I took through the UCLA Extension program. When another writer you respect, published or not, tells you you can do it, sitting down to write the next three chapters or starting the next revision or figuring out your main character's arc is suddenly a lot easier.

There are some writing books that I think are very useful, including ones relating to writing specific genres (i.e. Orson Scott Card's How to Write Science Fiction & Fantasy) and reference books that can help to inspire or inform a particular element of a story. But I spent a few years thinking that the more I read about writing, the better I'd get at it. And why? Because I was afraid to actually put my fingers to a keyboard and see what came out. Because I was afraid that if I actually sat down to write, I'd find out I wasn't really a writer.

I'm not going to say this was wasted time; I believe I needed those years of fear to get to the somewhat fearless place I'm in today. I definitely needed those years to realize that no matter how much I delayed actually writing, I had a passion to do it and that wasn't going away. But in the end, what propelled me to go to graduate school and really believe I could do it, was sitting down to write a few hundred pages of fiction. And then getting feedback.

As writers, we're in a constant struggle with our psyches and egos; we are constantly telling ourselves we can do it, and in the same thought telling ourselves that once we do, it's going to suck. We make a ton of excuses why we can't write -- cooking dinner, cleaning the house, working out, taking care of others -- we don't need more. We don't need to feel an obligation of any kind to read books about writing that promise some kind of secret formula to novel-writing or storytelling.

You write a novel by sitting down and writing it; by writing pages and pages and pages of prose and then hacking them to pieces and writing hundreds of pages more. I'm not trying to imply this is actually easy. It's not. It's easier to read books about writing than to actually write, trust me, I know. And if reading books like this serves as inspiration for you, then by all means, keep doing it. But remember, you may have dreamed up the next great American novel, but no one can read it out of your brain (at least, not yet. Although, this might be where the technology is heading.) Until then, we are forced to put pen to paper, fingers to keyboard and write it out.

So write. Write as much as you can even if it's just a list of things you want to write about. The important thing is to get used to sitting in front of your computer or notepad and committing thoughts to the medium. The important thing is to remember that the actual act of writing, of seeing a story you imagined come to life is by far more rewarding than sitting around and thinking about it. And writing it down is the only way to silence the Fear demon that sits on your shoulder, hissing nastiness in your ear. Once you start taking charge of your writing, he loses all his power. Shocking, but true.

Attention Recruiters: 10 Ways You Should be Using LinkedIn

2011-03-10T10:14:00.002-05:00

This is a great article from Fistful of Talent about the ways to most effectively use LinkedIn. While this seems to be the little, social networking site that could, LinkedIn has become a force to be reckoned with in the professional world. It should be the first source of information when you are screening new candidates (not Facebook). LinkedIn was created by professionals for professionals. Let's stop blurring the line between business and pleasure and keep them both separate.

Click Here to Read on FistfulofTalent.com

Managing and Motivating Employees in Their Twenties

2011-01-24T08:44:00.000-05:00

This is a great article from the Harvard Business Review about how to manage and motivate employees in their twenties. As the incoming workforce gets younger and managers get older, it's important to address the generational divide. Make no mistake, what was valued by their parents, is not necessarily what is valued by their kids.

Managing and Motivating Employees in Their Twenties
From Harvard Business Review

Rockin' Article on What to Fight for in Your Org

2011-01-14T09:24:00.002-05:00

From Fistful of Talent:

I really dig this article - it's so important to know which battles to fight. You've only go so much ammunition, make sure you're using it for the most important confrontations.

5 Things to Create an HR Fight Club Over

What’s in your handbook?

2011-01-12T09:58:00.000-05:00

This is a great, easy-to-read article about what makes a great employee handbook. Having just completed this exercise for my organization, I was pleased to see I had followed quite a few of the steps. And now, I'll be editing it to make sure I follow them all!

What’s in your handbook?

The Follies and Foibles of Wearing Too Many Hats

2011-01-11T10:28:00.004-05:00

There are a couple of different shortcomings to spreading yourself too thin in an organization. This is a concept I've become intimately familiar with in the past few months as my new position at a new company has required me to tackle everything from office management, project management, human resources, training and customer support. Not going to say I've discovered the secret just yet, but here are a few tricks I've learned to gain some balance.

1. Focus on one vertical at a time.
For me, this means that if I'm reviewing resumes or prepping for reference checks, I focus all of my attention on that task at that moment. Same for customer support. It's easy in our multi-screen world to divide our attention, touching a bit on every thing instead of really taking the time to dive into one task. Trust me, you'll feel a lot more successful at the end of the day if you can check one or two things off your list, as opposed to looking at it and thinking, "Well, I did a little bit of everything, but not all of one thing."

2. Reintroduce yourself to the concepts of priorities and delegation.
It's easy to think we're experts at these two concepts. I mean, we get up in the morning and instead of watching TV for an hour, we shower and go to work. That's prioritization, right? We take our clothes to the dry cleaners, surely that's an example of delegation. Nope, not even close. The idea is to really examine what you must get done in a day against what you want to get done in a day. If you're lucky, completing the former will leave you time for the latter. If you're not, than what you want to get accomplished will need to wait until tomorrow - that's prioritization.

As for delegation - this is the hardest concept to really learn, even for those who aren't A personalities (I know, hard to believe those folks exist, isn't it?) We have to realize that there are other people, on your team, in your organization, maybe in the next cube, who can do some of the tasks you're convinced only you can complete. You're not that indispensable, someone else can do it. They won't do it exactly like you, but they'll do it. Let your expectations go and you'll be amazed how much easier it is to assign work to others.

3. If you don't know something about an area, learn it.
I've spent a lot of time over the past couple of months scouring the Internet, researching blogs and looking for information on areas I'm just not that familiar with. Now, I subscribe to a couple Human Resources blogs, a couple of tech journal RSS feeds and regularly investigate night or continuing education classes I can take to learn more. Knowing more will give you confidence. So, know more.

4. It's okay to throw in the towel--occasionally.
During the winter especially, my desire to get out of my nice, warm bed in the morning and go to work is at an all-time low. However, motivating yourself on a 20 degree morning to scrape ice from your car and drive to work when you're feeling overwhelmed is a near Herculean task. And it's okay to admit it. Last week, I got overwhelmed; I-feel-like-I'm-drowning-in-over-my-head overwhelmed. And you know what? I let it out. Wasn't pretty, but man did I feel better afterwards. And getting to that point gave me the courage to go to my boss and say, "This is too much."

Some of you don't work for managers who would understand this concept and to you I say, I'm sorry. Find someone in your organization who gets it, someone who can offer a sympathetic ear and vent to them. But don't bottle it up. You'll get frustrated, you'll get tired, you'll get depressed. Even worse, your work will suffer, giving the overwhelmed feeling the fuel it needs to grow. If you go through a couple of these "I'm gonna lose it" periods over a six month timeframe, and you've communicated your frustrations as much as your organization's culture allows, then prep your resume and get ready to go on some interviews. Life's too short--cliche, but still true.

I could probably point out a dozen other ways to keep your head above water while juggling a million different tasks, but I think they'd simply be iterations of those I've already mentioned. It really boils down to three keys:

1. Stay positive
2. Vent when necessary
3. Ask for help

Maybe if I can remember my own advice, I won't feel so overwhelmed.

Taking Manageable Bites Out of Social Media

2009-09-29T16:46:00.000-04:00

This past weekend I was lucky enough to take a one-day seminar on Social Media from Karl Kasca, co-founder of IncreaseOnlineProfits.com (the seminar was facilitated through the UCLA Extension program). During this 6 hour class (we got an hour for lunch), Mr. Kasca gave the participants an overview of Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, YouTube, Flickr, SlideShare.net and blogging. A lot of information, no doubt, and further reinforcing the fact that in the world of Social Media, it's impossible to do it all.

As social media becomes more prevalent, from recruiting to marketing to gauging public opinion, it's important for all of us to remember "everything in moderation." The interconnectivity of social media is amazing, there's no doubting that. However, information overload is only a hop, skip and mouse-click away.

I'm starting to really dig social media, I'm not going to lie. I think the amount of avenues it opens and the ability to share information is a great asset to us as a society. However, as with the Internet, we're still in the early days of social media. Believe it or not, there will be a "social profile" bust, similar to the dot-com bust of the early 21st century. For those of us who have embraced social media with a passion, we are the early adopters. We're the people who first used Compuserve to send emails and remember a time when AOL was the only game on the web.

And of course, it's okay to experiment. What are the benefits of Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.? We're using these tools, discovering what makes them work for us, our companies or our business, because only through using these applications will we discover just how relevant they are. We're pretty much taking a plate of spaghetti, chucking it toward the wall and seeing what sticks. And that's a good thing. It's only through using these tools to their utmost capabilities that we'll discover what deserves to stick around and what doesn't.

Case in point - MySpace. There's no doubt it was the forerunner of the social networking world. It's still useful today, but has become much more of a niche social network, useful for music and movie promotions, while Facebook has become the overall "grand daddy" of networking. Only time will tell us if Facebook will one day become niche--maybe we're destined to think and write in 140 characters or less.

When looking at social media from a business standpoint, it's overwhelming, there's not two ways about it. As with online advertising a few years ago, the popular opinion is to be "everywhere," blanketing the web with your message as if you're running a double truck in the Sunday paper. But it's not necessary, no matter how much CEOs, VPs and Marketing leaders purport that it is.

The keys to social media are consistency and timeliness. That means that hosting profiles or blogs on every conceivable platform won't do you any good if you can't maintain them. People are looking for relevant content, not sales pitches or regurgitated corporate-speak. It's hard enough to update one blog on a weekly basis: imagine trying to come up with original blog posts for three different ones, while also sending out relevant Twitter feeds, updating your wall on Facebook and answering questions on LinkedIn. It's too much.

As with online advertising (which has just about gone the way of the dodo), a little goes a long way. You want people to want your content. You want them to look forward to your updates, to retweet your posts and "fan" you on Facebook. That's how you not only build a network of engaged consumers, but how you build a community of brand advocates.

I have to admit, I was overwhelmed when I left class on Saturday. In fact, I still don't think I've processed everything Karl shared. But I'm working on it. I'm working on reviewing the information and determining what the best options are for my client and his business. As with most organizations, I am a one-woman show at the moment, meaning I have to be conscious of the time commitment it will take to establish and maintain a social networking presence. I also need to keep in mind who our target consumer is and where they might be. It's as much about the research and strategy as it is the implementation. Isn't that always the way?

When determining how to move forward with a social media strategy for your company, keep in mind a few things I've learned:
1. Keep it manageable
2. Keep it relevant
3. Keep it simple

It's really still the best advice.

How the Employer-Employee Relationship Has Permanently Changed | workforce.com

2009-09-07T02:37:00.001-04:00

A really terrific article relating to disillusionment of not only employees, but their employers as well. Once the economy comes back around, things like those outlined in this article will be the biggest obstacles to retention and turnover.

How the Employer-Employee Relationship Has Permanently Changed | workforce.com

Shared via AddThis

The Tsunami is coming

2009-09-05T16:09:00.001-04:00

This is a great article relating to the true fall-0ut of our recession on the workforce. It isn't so much that employers need to worry this minute about losing workers--it's when the recession rebounds that the greatest chance for turnover will exist.

By compiling data from four surveys and a few white papers HRComment gives a nice overview of some of the downfalls to economic recovery on company profitability and employee engagement.

Enjoy!

The Tsunami is coming

Posted using ShareThis

Maintaining Optimism in Uncertain Times

2009-03-02T16:09:00.000-05:00

I hope the title doesn't mislead you--I have not found the path to the fountain of optimism. On the contrary, I'm wondering what people do, what can I do, to maintain a cheerful attitude in these strange and uncertain times?

I think there are some folks who thrive on a bit of uncertainty. They see a wide open future with the opportunity to take risks and chances they never would have before and reap the benefits. I think there are others who always manage to get by. Those who are like cats, landing on all fours no matter how high the drop or how long the fall.

I don't think I'm either of those people. And maybe I'm overestimating the number of folks like that who exist. But what I have to believe is that there are people out there who have learned how to lessen their anxiety despite the economic and social rollercoaster we've been forced to ride these past months.

I am in constant fear of losing my job, of not being able to pay my bills, of having no means to support myself. I know there are others like me. So, what do these others do?

Honestly, I'm asking. At this point, I'll take just about any advice anyone decides to throw my way. And yes, I do already know all the cliches (what doesn't kill us makes us stronger, God only gives you what you can handle, leap and the net will appear ...), I could go on and on. But does anyone have any concrete solutions? Things they've tried that have worked?

If so, please leave a comment, if only to give me a little hope. Lately, the glass has been half-empty.

New Year's Resolution No. 157 - Blog More

2009-02-25T00:03:00.001-05:00

Okay, so I'm notoriously bad at updating my blog. But as my subject line indicates, I'm going to make a concentrated effort in 2009 to blog more. Something tells me this whole Internet thing may actually take off ...

Since I don't have a specific topic in mind for my first post of 2009, let me just touch on a few things that seem to be at the forefront of my thoughts recently.

1. Hugh Jackman and the Academy Awards
Look, the man is an Aussie with a great voice, a great face and a great body. If he wants to turn the Oscars, one of the most under-watched, lowest-rated award telecasts of the year, into a song and dance routine, who are we to complain? His opening montage was hilarious and inspired. It also showcased his exceptional talents as both an actor and performer AND managed to plug his new movie, "X-Men Origins: Wolverine." Come on, that's Hollywood at its finest. And his opening jokes weren't bad either for a guy who's never claimed to be a comedian.

2. The end of "Battlestar Galactica"
I'm writing episode reviews of the last eight episodes of "Battlestar Galactica" and every week as March 20th grows closer, I get just a little sadder. It's a shame that one of the best shows on television--strong in everything including writing, acting, directing--is on its way out. While it's nice that they're getting to finish and wrap things up, I believe the science fiction television landscape, and television in general, will be the poorer for its absence. So say we all.

3. The economy
What can I possibly say about this that hasn't been said by just about everybody? The economy stinks and it's going to take a while to get better. We've just got to strap in and hold on, kids.

4. Social Networking
I finally joined Facebook and LinkedIn and what's more, I joined them both in the same week! I figured if I'm going to embrace Web 2.0, I might as well embrace it with open arms. Don't worry, I'll be posting more about the cultural networking phenomenon at a later time.

5. "Watchmen" The Movie
I'm a little late to the graphic novel world, but I am as giddy as a school girl about the March 6th premiere of "Watchmen." The graphic novel is great, but it's the cast that I'm most excited about: Patrick Wilson, Billy Crudup, Jeffery Dean Morgan ... yeah, you pretty much had me at hello!

All right, I'll be blogging more regularly and hopefully, I figure out a way to get people to read it!

Life Lessons

2008-05-29T10:46:00.000-04:00

I'd love to start out with a really positive comment about my life ... but let's be honest - not gonna happen.

It seems that over the past few weeks I have been hit repeatedly with the "reality" stick and it's not fun. Now, granted, life in general is not meant to always be a barrel of monkeys (although how that could be fun when we know the smell would be outrageous, I have no idea). But I digress ... get used to it ...

I was recently laid off from my job - a job I took because of better pay and benefits and the energy of the company and its employees. I've been there five weeks and as of Friday, I'll be unemployed - like collecting unemployment unemployed. Ah, the joys of corporate America. In the same week, the guy I was seeing decided to end it, because he didn't want a long distance relationship.

See what I mean? Reality stick over the head like an LA police officer with a billy club.

So now, I find myself staring down the barrel of too much time on my hands and unable to muster the energy to get out bed - I still do, I'm just really late. And to top it all off, I am surrounded by glass-is-half-full-just-be-positive-this-is-a-great-time-for-change people who don't seem to quite understand that I'd like to wallow - not forever, just for a bit.

I do believe that things will work out - really. I practically live by the following quote:
"Things will be okay in the end. If it's not okay, it's not the end." Similar to Churchill's - "If you're going through hell, keep going."

Perhaps what this new phase in my life has most illustrated for me is that I do not want to be working for others in a corporate environment. I either want to start my own business or work in TV. Now, why can't I do that?

I know I will need to take a job for the money and the health insurance. I wish I didn't have to, but there you have it. And I'll keep plugging along at my writing projects, keep on keepin' on and hope that this too shall pass.

I just wonder - will it pass like gas or a kidney stone?

Why the Writer's Strike Sucks

2008-01-08T12:11:00.001-05:00

According to an article on Yahoo.com this morning, the reality-based warrior show, "American Gladiators," recently had the best debut of the new year.

Yikes.

Never mind the fact that the show is hosted by Hulk Hogan. Never mind the fact that it pits everyday folks against American Gladiators, well-muscled, well-oiled, well-steriodized wrestlers. Never mind the fact that it's the first of many reality shows to hit the airwaves in lieu of the scripted dramas networks can no longer produce.

What we should be mindful of is the affect these shows have on the viewing public. It's hard enough to get a scripted drama or sit-com on the air anymore and keep it there. Now, seasons have been interrupted and who's to say what will happen when and if those seasons again resume. New shows, like "Bionic Woman" which were barely holding their own before, may not retain their audience after this forced hiatus.

With "American Idol" and "American Gladiator" as our only offerings for the spring, the future looks bleak for actual, thought-provoking dramas. What will become of our favorite characters as the networks and Writer's Guild engage in their own gladiatorial battle of wills? Will Jim and Pam manage to stay together? Will Galactica and her crew ever find Earth? Are Jessica/Nikki and Nathan really dead? Will Hiro ever get the girl?

These are the questions we must have answers to - at least, myself and my friends must have answers to. The end of this year's TV season is in jeopardy and now it appears next year's premiere season may be suffering as well. Similar to the baseball strike of so many years ago, a protracted deficit of original programming could severely deplete an already wavering audience. The Golden Globes, my personal favorite of the self-aggrandizing award shows circuit, will be a shadow of itself this weekend, while the Oscars will just be sad. I don't even want to think about an unscripted Grammy's or Emmy's telecast.

However, with Hollywood firmly entrenched in the golden rule - he with the gold makes the rules - I don't know what the solution may be. I've been to the picket lines, I've donated money, I've agreed not to watch any shows that cross the picket lines, but is this really having any effect? I want to believe it is. I want to believe that the Studios aren't made up of hefty white men, smoking cigars in hazy rooms laughing at the stupidity of the writers and their fans.

I want to believe even more that the Studio Chiefs will do the "right" thing - I want to believe they'll share the wealth and come to their senses. On good days, when I'm optimistic about the human race, I do believe they'll wake up and smell the lost revenue.

On bad days, kinda like today, when my cynicism chokes my senses, I don't have a lot of hope.

I really wish I did.

My first earthquake

2007-08-09T15:14:00.000-04:00

Last night at 12:58am, I experienced something truly "Californian" - my first earthquake. According to reports, it registered 4.5 on the Richter scale and was centered in Chatsworth, CA, which is probably about 15 miles north of where I live.

It was an odd sensation - kind of like a really sharp and powerful rumble of thunder, except the room kept shaking and the noise didn't dissipate with distance. It was also kinda cool.

Even though I know earthquakes have the power to cause mass destruction - I would still take the shaking over the ridiculousness of a hurricane. Having survived Frances, Jean and Charlie in the fall of 2004 when I lived in Florida, last nights little rumble in the urban jungle was nothing.

Now, go knock on some wood so I don't get my butt handed to me next time there's a disturbance in the fault.

Introduction

2007-08-07T12:31:00.000-04:00

I'm fairly certain that anyone who knows me at all would tell you that I don't normally have a problem expressing my opinion. In fact, my family and friends would probably tell you that if anything I have some pretty stalwart opinions and as such, speak my mind on a regular basis.

And yet, when faced with the idea of writing a blog, where the only thing that makes any difference is said opinion, I find myself at a loss ... strange that, don't you think?

What should I discuss? The sad state of our country's government? The brilliance of Joss Whedon? The undeniable obsession I have for "Star Wars" and just about anything sci-fi? How close I am to my parents and family? How much I miss upstate New York, my hometown? The fact that I'm very bad at keeping in touch with people, but think about them all the time? How much I dislike my job (or rather, how bored I am)?

There seems to be an endless stream of topics and yet, I cannot pick one. It's as if the pressure to write something profound prevents the actual writing of it ...

As a writer, this is something I've struggled with before. The idea that everytime you pick up your pen or sit down at your keyboard, the words that flow through your fingertips must be profound - the next great American novel - a thought process which stymies any and all creativity. I know it's not as stressful as all that - let's be realistic - but still, it's hard to manage your expectations.

So maybe I'll leave it like this: I'm not sure what I want this blog to be, or even who I want to read it. It will be a place for me to wax poetic and rant about the state of the world. A place where I will more than likely expound upon the wonder of really great sci-fi (the new Battlestar Galactica anyone?) and the brilliance of auteurs like Joss Whedon, George Lucas and Walt Disney. It won't always be interesting nor profound, but it will be from my point of view.

Hopefully, that'll be enough to keep someone's attention.