Boss of @Clockwork_Tweet, Geek Girl, Mom. Partner. TechEvangelist. Public Speaker, Entrepreneur. Theatre nerd. Music is my drug. I try to bring the funny.
As a woman who doesn't ever fit into a a woman's world - I can say we often pick really shallow stuff to be critical of. I don't take issue when anyone, male or female, wants to be constructive, or argumentative, or counter anything I bring to any discussion. Confrontation is no problem. But I do struggle when we lose focus on substance and tear down the superficial. Women don't just get critical - they get mean. And they pick things like degree of attractiveness and fashion choices to zero in on. I can't tell you the number of times in my professional life I've gotten the once-over by another female. Thankfully I've come far enough, and I've got enough of value to say, that it happens less and less. But, also, I don't really care any more.
When we talk about success -- we have this picture in our minds. And she looks like Sheryl Sandberg. But success is ideas and work ethic and failures and victories. I don't have a problem with Sheryl Sandberg and how she looks. She's beautiful and successful and that's great for her. I admire the hell out of her story and the movement she's inspired. But there is diversity in success. And we owe each other those stories and the acceptance of them. I often say that a big reason I do any public speaking is because I really believe that other women and young girls need to see themselves in the pictures we paint of success. They can see me - in my wing tip shoes and my not-very-feminine attire and I promise you, 2 min into any discussion you won't care at all what I'm wearing. Because story can be so powerful.
Men don't seem to care about these same things in each other. They judge one another by what they bring to an exchange - the value of it. Not by the shoes they are wearing or the brand of briefcase they carry. Men do, though, I think, project those sorts of expectations on women. And I think that's why it's so culturally accepted. We do it to each other and it's done TO us.
I say let's judge one another on our merits. On our contributions. On what we bring and what we add to our work and conversations and energy exchanges. There's a lot to tear down in the world - global warming, this polarized nation, poverty, crime, etc. I just don't see the need for it to continue to be each other.
11 months ago on Women Can’t Be Awesome: What’s Really the Root of the Problem
That guy is kinda cute.
11 months, 1 week ago on The Spin Sucks Inquisition: Kelly Dietrich (aka Mr. D.)
Keith is awesome. We are big fans over at the GGG! Excellent choice.
2 years, 8 months ago on #FollowFriday: Keith Privette
I think it was Charlene Li, in her book Groundswell, who urges her readers to accept the fact that, when you make your way into the uncharted waters of social, 'mistakes WILL happen.' We refer to that all the time in our discussions with clients. They expect that social will change everything and be the magic elixir for their business. At the very same time they want to think of it like they have thought about everything they've ever done on the marketing side of their business -- messaging that is 'done', edited, polished and perfect. Unfortunately the thing about social that makes it so intriguing is it's humanity. And humanity is never done, polished or perfect. People come with flaws. Conversations and engagement come with people. People are messy. We have to get better at taking the good with the bad if we want to keep moving the needle forward. No one meant to embarrass Chrysler. No one meant to offend people. In fact, there's probably a funny tv spot in there if their people got at all creative.
Anyway, great piece Gini.
4 years ago on The Chrysler Tweet: The Take from An Agency Owner
@rustyspeidel -why thank you!
4 years, 3 months ago on The Facebook PR Mess with “60 Minutes”
Ok I didn't watch the interview. But I have to believe that this story wasn't so much about 'exclusivity' of the story as much as a sort of mutual validation or endorsement. Facebook clearly used the credibility of 60 Minutes to gain the trust of an aging user base that is terrified every time they change their layout, or terrified of the hype that is the Facebook brand and what they perceive as a general lack of regard for privacy. Let's be real - Facebook does what it wants when it wants - and we (we meaning the mainstream) FREAK out about how they are violating our privacy and yet, we use it anyway. We essentially give them permission to continue this behavior by continuing to use the service with no real resistance. While the aging boomers and beyond are getting more and more wired, they are also among the real hold-outs for Facebook. They are afraid of Big Brother having unrestricted access to their info. What the Zbag did on 60 Minutes was get the queen of the dustmeisters, Ms Stahl, to quiver in his presence and wax on like a giddy school girl about some lame, and really minor changes to the profile interface. Big deal! But the 60 minutes audience doesn't know it's not a big deal! They were sitting there thinking, 'damn, why hasn't my daughter, the tech professional told me about this awesome Facebook thing? (damn you, Zbag) and 'look at how this sweet young man is telling Leslie Stahl all about it. Now, he's not so bad! It can't be so bad!' A brilliant maneuver!
Meanwhile - 60 Minutes, like so many media outlets, is striving for relevance! Well, gee - what's more relevant than Facebook?
Just my 2 cents.