* How to Tweet Your Way Out of A Job
The irony of the twittersphere mob turning on one of its own for being...open and transparent... reinforces my impression that the twittersphere (me, included) too often suffers from its own high-school- popularity-contest mentality.
Open and transparent is ok, even demanded, by the mob at the cocktail party that never ends: twitter.
Except, when one member really buys in to being...open and transparent.
What? You're open and transparent? You don't really believe that crap, do you? That's how you lose your job....!
I offered a longer response at Dan Thornton's post, The Dumbest Tweet Ever..., at his blog 140Char. There's a good conversation there on this point. And Dan offers some good counter points.
But, there's no halfway point for open and transparent in a relationship. You either are, or you're not.
Agony is where we are now: in the middle. We're all shocked, shocked I say, to see in print what we say in casual conversation.
The line between personal and professional lives fades more every day. (It's too late to ponder the goodness of this movement.)
But, hiring execs and prospects need to understand we're going to be privy to the same conversations they have with their peers and realize...in many cases our dialogue is much the same in its brilliance, compassion, creativity and otherwise.
Maybe, eventually, that will be a good thing. Maybe, eventually, some of our own excesses will come to light and we'll stop them. Peer pressure does have its uses, when peer pressure is open and transparent for all to see.
Then, we can focus on finding commonalities and solutions and free ourselves from wondering about a prospect's enthusiasm for a job if he questions the hell that's known as the 405 around San Jose.
Link is from ...any number of sources, naturally on Twitter. I didn't note the original one.
Post is from I'm not actually a geek.
* Will Google's Purity Pay-Off?
The time is December, 2000. A simpler time, no doubt.
Gasp: Google's garnered 25% of the search-market. Kleiner-Perkins-Caufield has just invested a whopping $25 million in a company that has...NO REVENUES!
There's no banner ads on its home page, either! (For the love of all that is right in the world...you got to have banner ads on your home page, covering them...everywhere....!)
And BusinessWeek asks:
But how will Google
ever make money? There's the rub. The company's adamant refusal to use
banner or other graphical ads eliminates what is the most lucrative
income stream for rival search engines. Although Google does have other
revenue sources, such as licensing and text-based advertisements, the
privately held company's business remains limited compared with its
competitors'.
Limited. That's such a funny word to use today to describe Google's business model.
Ah....it's always fun to look back at those good old days with the benefit of hindsight!
Ok. In all fairness to BW, who saw then what Google would become, now? Did even the founders see that? Maybe. Probably. To some extent, maybe. To some extent.
And, in 2000, a company whose business model was limited compared to its
behemoth competitors was a fair target for the question: How will they
make money?
Blogs are thought by many to be the foundation of your social media campaign. I'm one of them.
But, what's the foundation for blogs, many of them...free to their users? Google adwords, maybe? Maybe.
Back to the question: did Google's founders see then what Google today
is, including its revenues? Maybe. Maybe at that point, they were
focused on...what they offered, their purpose.
Article's at BusinessWeek, from 2000.
Link from copeterson.
* Even Facebook Employees Hate the New Design
Um. So, if your customers hate your design and use your new design to blast it and you...and your employees hate the design enough to run a guerrilla media campaign at your expense...who then are you serving with this new design?
Granted, the tone of that rhetorical question implies...your answer will be self-serving: Your new design serves only you. And if you're truly omniscient and omnipotent outside your boardroom then...you are the embodiment of enlightened self-interest. And any decision that serves you serves the collective. So, of course, a truly disruptive (today's cool word for visionary...) company such as yours need not ask their customers, much less their employees for direction.
Still...
Someone, some company, smart enough to build and grow FB into what it is today must have a better answer than that. So, share it with us and we'll share it with others who'll use it to grow their company and tout your paradigm as the foundation of their success. And they'll tout it on FB as well as on your competitors...like Twitter.
We're all in this together. Help us reach our goals. We'll help each other, and you, reach our goals.
That's truly the definition of enlightened self-interest, isn't it? It's definitely one definition, I think.
Link from BenMcConnell.
Article at Gawker's ValleyWag.
* The UK Wants Your Twitter Chatter Under Surveillance.
I confess. The headline here is alarming. No matter how many times I remember that twitter chat is digital, the headline still sends shivers down me spine, laddie.
Our phones and internet traffic are digital,too. Digital communications of all types, phone-data-chat-internet-social media-blogs-etc, share the same fiber-optic cables.
I seem to remember that all digital traffic is being shared by most, if not all, of our telecom providers with our government.Wasn't there a story about that this summer...?
And I have a hard time believing that a government likes ours, or what the UK's appear to be, would siphon off twitter traffic onto a separate server and say...don't look here, at this.
Let's just assume this is a false-flag, straw-man, issue of the we're-already-doing-that-now kind. The cynic in me now raises his head and says They're just softening ye up for the reality. The more times we hear this story, the more comfortable we are with its reality.
It's the corollary of Tell a lie often enough and people will believe it. Here, it's Tell a truth often enough and people will accept it.
Or, Rattle our chains loud enough, long enough and in our faces...and we'll come to love the sound for the security and convenience it provides. (Don't forget companies have been watching our traffic for years, now. Cookies is such a quaint a term for spying on us.)
Link from RobMcNealy.
Article at Inquistr
* SalesForce Pairs Up with Twitter.
See? Companies are watching what we discuss. And it's right out in front of us. And this is how Twitter makes money...And we say, yes, please can we have some more, please? You're so smart to integrate commercial spying into your business model! We, includes me: I love Twitter. (I can't wait to hear a salesman pitch me based on my tweets...)
Link from ScottAllen.
* Twitter Drives Traffic to Blogs and Social Media not to Retail Sites.
Aha! We're in control of this conversation....We use twitter for us, not them. For now, anyway.
Link from Kbraga
Article at ReadWriteWeb
* Advertising's Apocalypse Now Moment
Amid 23% population growth in the past two decades, U.S. newspaper
circulation has dropped 20% -- one reason your morning paper, downsized
every which way, is no match for a stiff breeze. Craigslist, siphoning
off $7 billion worth of classifieds, is another...
As for The Wall Street Journal, nobody knew when Rupert Murdoch plunked
down $5.5 billion for a $3.5 billion paper last year whether he was a
genius of synergy and valuation or a sucker. The recession obscures the
answer, but last month News Corp. declared a write-down of $8.4 billion
in assets -- about 40% of it attributed by Wall Street analysts to the
Journal deal. Oops.
Disclaimer: Sam Zell's acquisition of the Tribune Media empire is discussed, also. I just take a little pleasure in sharing Rupert's...story.
So, it's an odd dynamic:
- Advertising revenues are plummeting.
- Twitter and social media sites are replacing traditional media as news sources.
- And they (social media), we, are not referring our friends to retail sites.
So...how do businesses attract clients online?
What about...wait for it...word-of-mouth?
What if...a retail site offered its audience, viewers/commenters/members/customers...something truly unique and amazing and worthy of putting our reputations at risk to tell our friends and neighbors to visit, maybe even buy their products?
And what if these media properties did what no one else can do:
- Investigative reporting! ( The Sunday lifestyle section just doesn't draw like it once did.)
As opposed to offering press release and pr-sponsored puff-piece profiles and party-sponsored talking points as ...news, why not do what you once did best: investigative journalism.
Why not fulfill your responsibility as a 4th estate? Investigate lies and corruption, not propagate lies and corruption.
I guarantee the first media enterprise to put that as their lead resource...and can invite their readers to participate in investigative reporting (I'm not talking about iReport stories like thunderstorms and flooded drain sewers...)...that media will see its revenues and audience explode in growth.
There's so much material and so much hunger (audience, people!) for it, the truth, to be exposed. Are you listening, CNBC?
Article's at Ad Age.
Link from Yvonne Divita.
I gotta go. Thanks for reading.