markfrisk
- 20 comments
- 8 likes given
- 11 likes received
Bio not provided
Fascinating story. But do we really think the Mr. Potato Head illustration was a good choice? Good grief.
Per @simonguerin's comment, it would seem that the Nielsen link in your published post originally pointed to a doc on your Google Drive. Can you confirm that this was the case and that you subsequently updated the link to point to the Nielsen PDF? Since the link was to a PDF, I can see how you might have inadvertently linked to the PDF on your Drive instead of the one on the Nielsen Korea site.
It'd be good to have an update on this...
@RichardPosey 100% agree with separating domain name registration from hosting. I have helped more than a few people whose hosting companies were holding them hostage because they'd registered their domain name through the hosting company.
I don't think the kids "were lined up against a wall in Newton, [sic] Connecticut and shot." That's kind of a big divergence from the sequence of events as they have come to be known. (I also don't think it's splitting hairs to point this out.)
I'm not against pre-scheduling tweets, but if you're going to do it, you can't leave things completely on auto-pilot. If tweets are in the queue, t's critical that someone in the organization is monitoring the news and ready to pause the pre-scheduled tweets if necessary.
Re "don't hire knuckleheads": This is an excellent best practice. Sure, separate tools for personal and company accounts and other technology-oriented safeguards are worth adopting. But so many people making recommendations after these social faux-pas focused almost exclusively on the tech aspect while giving short shrift to the human element, which is far more important IMO.
Unless your business is engaged in partisan politics, would you want someone who broadcast that tweet about Obama's grandmother working for you? That it was intended for the sender's personal account is almost beside the point.
I don't understand this sentence:
"It bothers me that despite their growing popularity, some people don’t have faith in these crowdfunding sites."
Logic should tell you that as crowdfunding sites become more popular, more scammers will be attracted to them.
Rather than being overly concerned with a nice picture, I suggest being very clear in your ask, i.e, describe specifically what you're going to do with the funds that are raised. Describe your connection to the cause. But even if you cover those details well, there's still the matter of the trust factor. How do potential donors know that you're really who you say you are? That you're really going to forward the collected funds?
The best way to ameliorate any doubts that potential donors have is to have a pre-established identity, to be a known entity. This is why established entities tend to perform better in this space.I for one am skeptical of people who come out of nowhere raising funds for causes with which they have no clear connection.
@pshapiro I know he often uses this tone. It's unappealing and it's definitely not doing him any favors.
None of which is to take away from your job in capturing the debate. On that I say, Well done!
I'm sorry to say it, but I'm disappointed in the rudeness and tone of superiority displayed by one party in this debate. Neither side is without blame, but one was just over the top. I understand and appreciate the passion this topic instils, but the high dudgeon and comments bordering on personal insult only serve to obfuscate the points being made.
@JenniferSiegler Many people, including me, are of the opinion that Romney would do NOTHING for small business. It's crystal clear where that man's interests lie, and it ain't with small business. Fortunately, it seems as if more ACTUAL small business owners support Obama than Romney. These people know BS when they see it. http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2012/09/18/study-small-business-owners-favor-obama-despite-you-didnt-build-that-comments
@JenniferSiegler I read plenty, thank you. Have you ever heard of hyperbole?
That Michael Robertson tweet is the most batshit crazy idiotic thing I've read all year. By far.
@loretobgude and @brasonja Pardon me, but why are you guys carrying on this conversation in the comments to this post on social media policies? Have I missed something?
Is there a link to this Rally material?
@eringriffith But Starbucks booked $2.5 billion in net revenues in the Americas in Q3 FY12. Still not sure about the numbers you cite. (Sorry to nitpick...)
Wow. What a home run for Square!
@eringriffith ... Can you clarify what you mean with these numbers? "Starbucks will drive Square adoption by using it in its existing mobile payments app, which currently accounts for 2 million of all sales at Starbucks, out of 60 million in annual sales."
A million text messages under SendHub's belt makes it a viable Google Voice alternative? I've been using Google Voice since before Google owned it, when it was Grand Central. I wonder how many billions of text messages GV has handled.
That said, alternatives are a good thing and I applaud anyone who ventures into a tricky space such as this. But the crappy mobile app makes SendHub rather a non-starter for me. I mean, what's the point of a phone-oriented service if it doesn't work well on ... phones?
@johneaton @sarahlacy I don't quite see RM in the same ballpark as About.me, which provides users a profile page and the ability to link to their other digital platforms. Yes, clicking an About.me user's Twitter icon will pop open an overlay with some of that user's recent tweets, and a look at who the user "replies" or is retweeted by. But this is entirely different from what RM does, no? RM presents a visitor to a user's RM page an immediately visible collection of recent content pulled from all the social channels that user has connected to his or her RM account. And all that content is presented in a highly visual style (hello, Pinterest). And the page owner has the ability to shuffle content around, delete certain items, pin others in fixed position, etc. All of this means, at least to me, that RM presents a much more detailed, "live" view into what a particular person is about. You're not just seeing a static profile bio composed by the user, but rather a collection of material they're pointing to, talking about, etc. in near real time. Quite a bit richer than About.me, IMO.
P.S. None of this should detract from About.me. I too admire what they've done.
Good stuff. Reminds me of a recent Scott Berkun quote of the week post, which featured an excerpt from a letter Mark Twain wrote to Helen Keller after she was accused of plagiarism.
"For substantially all ideas are second-hand, consciously and unconsciously drawn from a million outside sources, and daily used by the garnerer with a pride and satisfaction born of the superstition that he originated them..."
http://www.scottberkun.com/blog/2012/9440/
Why limit the third option to only one person having "royally fucked up"? Seems a bit unlikely that this entire debacle could be laid at the doorstep of a single individual, no? (And yes, I know, I know, Zuckerberg's ultimately responsible, etc., etc. I don't think that was Sarah's point.)