Bio not provided
@Alexandra Campbell That's great advice, Alexandra. It applies to any content. Get to the point before your readers or viewers tune you out!
1 month, 3 weeks ago on 4 Best Practices for Incorporating Social Engagement into your Webinar Strategy
@DonaldL "Capitalism at its worst" is actually cartels, trusts, monopolies, and other forms of exploitative rent-extraction.
2 months, 4 weeks ago on Newly unsealed documents show Steve Jobs’ brutal response after getting a Google employee fired
@Bralinshan1 What do you mean, specifically, by the government getting their hooks in you and never letting you leave?
I think the key point here is that social interaction can never be reduced to one platform, but you still need interoperability between those platforms. As Shirky says, no single network can dominate all social interaction. People will always want to express themselves through different online personas or avatars (dana boyd has also spoken about this, with regards to teens especially). However, the next stage of the social web's development is about allowing people to manage those different networks and personas and even allow them to overlap in constructive ways.
4 months ago on TED Star Clay Shirky on the Future of the Social Web
@obrimark "Wearables as medical sensors could be a different story." Indeed. If Apple delivers on the medical/"quantified self" aspect of wearables, they could redefine a category, yet again. I like what Google has revealed so far in the wearables space, however. What they've done with Google Now indicates that they're learning how to make relevant, timely information available in the right context.
Both companies will likely make a big impact on social media with their wearables. Especially when it comes to location-aware social discovery of businesses, events, etc. It will be interesting to see how Facebook, Twitter and Foursquare make use of Apple and Google's wearables for checkins and other location-based features.
4 months ago on Is Apple Anti-Social?
@Al Moghadam @Matt Foulger @Jinx13 Great point about the importance about usage data! By recording user actions in their hardware or software, companies can get objective information about how people actually use their products.
In contrast, the things people say on social media can be highly subjective, and are influenced by what they think other people will think of what they say. But the things that people say on social media can actually be self-fulfilling. If you say negative things about a product on social media because you hear other people ganging up on it, you're likely to start believing what you say. I think Microsoft was a victim of this phenomenon when the company became uncool in the late 90s, early 2000s.
It's extremely important for companies to understand their customers' subjective opinions about their brand, not just their objective usage statistics. Do you agree?
@Avik One might also argue that the best way to keep an Apple fresh is to keep it sealed up ;)
Only time will tell!
@Scott at Kawntent Thanks, Scott. Restraint is pretty important, especially in a sales role. Less is more, as long as your engagement is focused and relevant.
4 months, 1 week ago on Social Selling Action Plan, Part 4: Seek A Warm Relationship
@Jinx13 I'm not going to wade into the fanboy wars but you have a point. Apple has millions of brand advocates. The company has built one-to-one relationships with its customers through its quality products, and now those legions of fans do its work on social media for it, for free. Other companies can learn from Apple's example, but it's a dangerous model to follow because the company's brand loyalty is practically unattainable. Every company should strive to make products that people love, but they can't realistically rely on having brand advocates go to war for them without a social media strategy. Enterprises not named Apple need a plan for identifying and supporting brand advocates and for bringing customers into social communities to deepen their loyalty.
4 months, 1 week ago on Is Apple Anti-Social?
@Scott at Kawntent You're right. Apple has probably driven more social media use than any other company aside from the social networks themselves. You can trace the mobile-social-local phenomenon pretty directly to the explosive popularity of the iPhone.
@erikgrad The sharing economy is no less real, and actually more economic. A less wasteful society = more economical society. But I agree that the sharing economy is disrupting the hell out of the status quo. We're moving towards an efficient collaborative system based on access, not ownership, and the abundance of wealth that sharing creates is going to put a lot of people out of business. Luckily, we don't have to throw away everything that works in our existing economy, like property rights and contract law. And there will still be a role for markets in pricing goods and services.
1 year ago on Google Mine (if it’s real) could be the best or the worst thing to happen to the sharing economy
I like the order of the first crucial steps: audit, then identify business objectives, then set strategies and clear goals aligned with those objectives, and THEN set KPIs. Don't put the cart before the horse.
1 year, 1 month ago on Solution Partner Spotlight: Helping Businesses Optimize Social Media
A great read. Thanks, Francisco. Formal organization and leadership are critical if you want to build real people power. I'm going to leave a comment here and disappear into the digital ether, but I'll take your thesis with me.
1 year, 3 months ago on The case for organized power
@innovati Pariser's filter bubble presentation is one of the first things I thought about while reading this great essay. Tauriq's phrase "silos of dogma" is spot on. Internet-scale social networking can certainly reinforce existing prejudices, ideologies, etc.
Tauriq's point about anonymity is also very insightful.
"But there’s a problem: When we make monsters out of others, it is not only our target that loses her humanity, but ourselves as individuals, too. In order to morph someone into a caricature, into a non-person, into nothing but a Bull’s-eye for the arrows we launch from the moral high-ground, we need to ourselves erode what makes us normal, often pleasant, often good people."
For further reading on the destructive power of anonymity, I highly recommend Douglas Rushkoff's "Program or be Programmed" and Jaron Lanier's "You Are Not a Gadget." The latter makes a very compelling case that anonymity has been a foundation of Internet culture because of its underlying technical architecture, which was coded at a time when both the American political Left and Right were extremely distrustful of government. He takes the reader inside the mindset of the programmers who created the Internet, and shows how their (understandable) bias toward anonymity has led to a dangerously pervasive embrace of anonymity across the Internet today. Rushkoff, for his part, makes "comment online under your own name" one of his Ten Commandments for the digital age. While he recognizes the importance of anonymity for whistle blowers and dissidents, he too argues that anonymity makes healthy social interaction almost impossible.
This is a problem offline, too. Last year, when I went downtown to speak to people at Occupy Vancouver, I met a lot of interesting folks from a variety of backgrounds. We shared opinions, disagreed on some issues, found common ground on many others. But some people felt it was better to show up at Occupy with masks on, or bandannas over their faces. Why would I want to have anything to do with them? Why would I want to associate myself with people who will not even show me their face? And how could they possibly hope to change the world for the better if they prevent potential allies from even seeing their faces, making it impossible to build relationships and gain trust? The "black bloc" kids are a joke, and have no idea what they're doing. Like online trolls, they DEHUMANIZE themselves by putting their masks on.
1 year, 10 months ago on Making Monsters – By Tauriq Moosa