Twitter Me This: Why Is Twitter's Popularity Surprising?

So today's Washington Post has yet another article about how stupid Twitter is, this time in the context of sports. Ok, ok--we get it--Twitter is stupid. Who the hell cares about what you or I had for breakfast, or that we're stuck in traffic, or how we were walking down the street and suddenly a piece of meteor just fell out of the sky?

Well, based on the amount of press coverage Twitter is getting--plenty of us care.

My question is this: why is Twitter's popularity surprising? If the minutiae of people's lives isn't interesting to us, why the hell is reality TV the ridiculous phenomenon that it is? Why do billions of people read The National Enquirer, People, etc or watch Oprah or Barbara Walters or engage all manner of other voyeuristic behaviours? Because we're nosy and like to know what goes on in other people's lives. We want to know that Jon and Kate got two new puppies, and that one of them piddled on the floor and one ate a toy horse. We want to know that Britney bought not one but two Frappucinos. We care that Jennifer Aniston decided to throw caution to the wind and eat a cheeseburger and fries.

Basically our whole entertainment culture revolves around the stupid trivialities of people's lives. Add to that the fast pace of life today and the fact that people spend most of their waking lives either on cell phones or on the Internet, and what do you get? Twitter.

Infidelity 2.0

Pre-internet, finding ways to cheat on your spouse were limited--you either worked with the person, lived near the person, or were already in some way connected to the person (à la your husband's best friend or something along those lines). Then came the internet--suddenly the pool of potential cheating partners got a lot larger. It didn't matter where they lived; as long as they had an internet connection and a desire to meet someone (or many someones),the sky was the limit. Forget having to sneak around or worrying about hitting on someone who would be shocked to be approached by a married person; there are dozens of sites devoted exclusively to married dating so thousands of willing partners are only a click away.

The thing about internet dating is that it's pretty pre-meditated. It's one thing to just "accidentally" fall in love with your secretary or the tennis pro; after all, you never intended for it to happen. But online dating--it's pretty hard to plead innocence when the monthly charge for Ashley Madison shows up on your credit card statement.

But cheating 2.0? Think about it--social media creates a perfect storm as far as infidelity goes. The ease of the internet combined with the familiarity of old-school hook-ups with people you interact with in the course of your daily life. And it's free so no pesky credit card statements to give you away.

Pre-social media, how could people, over the course of maybe an hour, connect with grade school friends, college roommates, long-lost friends or family members, celebrities, and who knows who else? It just wasn't possible. Now you can log on to Facebook and right off the bat be matched up with anyone you went to grade school, high school or college with...and then from there, the sky's the limit. Suddenly you are only a few clicks removed from any of the 175 million people on Facebook. Some of whom you inevitably either dated or wanted to date at some point in your life.

Don't tell me you haven't heard this same story from at least one friend: they either saw their high school or college boy/girlfriend on Facebook and debated "friending" him or her, or received a friend request from said ex. In the end, curiosity won and the friend invite was either extended or accepted. First there was casual catch-up banter--how've you been, how many kids do you have, what ever happened to so-and-so, etc. Then there's either the part where the guilty party's husband or wife finds out about the exchange and that's the end of that--or, the opposite: full-on midlife crisis kicks in and the person decides that his/her whole adult life has sucked and this newly re-kindled relationship is just the thing to get it back on track. Come on--don't say you don't know what I'm talking about; even if you've not heard it first-hand from a friend, surely you've read about it.

I'm just sayin'--there's nothing new under the sun; social media just makes cheating easier.

Mystery of the Missing Public Profile Page Updates Solved

When Facebook changed its Terms of Service in February, you would have thought the sky had fallen--angry rants and news reports about Facebook stealing the rights to people's data were all over the place. Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg quickly rescinded the new terms and made a big to-do about how Facebook is a democracy and everyone should have a say about how their data is used, etc.

Well, everyone, that is, except for companies. On March 11, Facebook rolled out a new design--again, to much public chagrin. One feature of the new look--in fact, what seemed to be one of the main driving forces behind changes--was the fact that businesses who formerly had "Pages" would now have "Public Profiles", making it easier for them to keep in touch with their fans. News items posted on companies' profiles would show up in fans' news feeds just as any other individual's profile updates would.

Awesome news for businesses--Facebook really pushed the greatness of the new design to companies, including tips for marketing, advice for optimizing pages and more.

I am the admin for my company's page and was really psyched about the new capability to communicate with our fans via their news feeds--something the previous version of Pages couldn't do. Two weeks after the public roll out of the new look and features later, I am still waiting. I have yet to see a Public Profile update appear in my news stream--except one from the Red Cross.

Then today I see a post on Inside Facebook alluding to the fact that Facebook has automatically turned updates from some Pages off by default - presumably to keep fans' news feeds from becoming "too spammy." Huh?

Turns out Facebook added another feature during the re-design; something they're not hyping like the rest of the updates: "Hidden Friends." Facebook took it upon itself to decide which pages should be "hidden" and which were worthy of appearing in fans' news streams. Then didn't mention to fans that they had to go in and manually choose which public profiles they wanted to receive updates from.

Why all the secrecy, Facebook? What's the big deal?

Well, now you know: scroll down to the bottom of your home page and click "Hidden Friends" to manage which public profiles you want to receive updates from.

How Much Authority Can $9.99 Buy?

A few days ago, on the heels of reading a post about the concept of authority in the world of social media--basically how popularity equals authority--I read another post about Facebook NetworkedBlogs. It launched in June of 2008 but this was the first time I'd read about it.

It seemed like a good way to increase blog traffic--after all, there are 175 million users on Facebook, right? Not to mention NetworkedBlogs claims to attract over 450,000 unique users a month. I went to check it out and added my blog.

I then noticed there is a feature where you can buy a "premium listing"--your blog featured in the "Top 50 Blogs" slot--which was sold out--or listed as one of five featured blogs at the top of a category page. $9.99 ($19.95/month after the first month) to have my blog in the spotlight at the top of a page? My curiosity got the best of me and I got out the credit card; now you can find Mizz Information at the top of the Web 2.0 page on NetworkedBlogs.

Bring on my tons of new followers, right?

Apparently buying followers isn't as easy as it sounds. It's three days later and how many do you think I've attracted? Six. And those six are all friends who saw my status update asking people to follow. Oh, and my mom.

Brands on Twitter---Are They There For You or For Themselves?

First there was Comcastcares. (Ok, they were not actually first but it was the first example that came to my mind. Zappos is another notable example, but for whatever reason I thought of Comcast first. Sorry Zappos.) Frank Eliason, Comcast’s “director of digital care”-- who Business Week dubbed as “the most famous customer service manager in the U.S., possibly in the world”-- came up with the idea of using Twitter to interact with Comcast customers. Then others, probably awed and jealous of all the positive press Frank Eliason and Comcast were getting, followed suit by setting up shop on Twitter too: Dell, Whole Foods, JetBlue, Southwest...you get the idea.(Again, my timing might be wrong as far as when each of these companies set up shop on Twitter; I'm including this caveat instead of taking the time to research actual dates.)

The upside of having all these companies on Twitter is that you sometimes get rocket-fast, personalized customer service. When I tweeted about my frustrations with Sprint, within a few minutes I had a one of Sprint's social media customer service people contact me offering help. He ended up hooking me up with my own "Executive Services VIP Analyst" who not only resolved my problem but left me with her personal contact information should I encounter future problems.

If those two paragraphs were too wordy for you, this awesome slide show basically sums up what I just wrote:



The thing is this: social media--Twitter in this case--has set the bar so high that the only place to go is down. Take my recent experience with Pepco power company. A few weekends ago, we woke up to find the power was out. Having recently seen somewhere that Pepco was now on Twitter, I thought--great, no need to call and sit on hold; I'll probably get an immediate response on Twitter. But not only did I not get an immediate response; I never got a response at all. A few weeks later, when I tweeted about their non-response in another context on Twitter, I immediately received a response from Pepco's Twitter customer service person apologizing for the delay and telling me that they tweet during business hours.

“Business hours”? Business hours in the context of Twitter is like saying bankers hours in the context of a 24-hour supermarket. As in, are you kidding me? Isn't the whole point of setting up a customer service outpost on Twitter being able to offer service that goes above and beyond what traditional customer service channels can provide? Or is a company that offers customer service on Twitter...

Ah, but wait--there's the rub: are any of these companies really offering customer service on Twitter or they merely there so they can be held up as examples of cutting-edge companies who engage with customers in new ways? I mean, yes, they are engaging with customers in new ways--but isn't it kind of on their own terms? There's no accountability. Take the legendary Comcastcares, for example. If you check Comcast's website, you'll see that they offer "six ways to get help" on their customer help and support page. Twitter isn't mentioned at all.

Anyway, I'm going off on a tangent here so I better stop. I guess my question is this: should companies who establish a customer service presence on Twitter be expected to provide real-time support 24/7 or is just being on Twitter enough to earn them bragging rights?

Gen Whine In The House

Yesterday I made the mistake of watching a video of Penelope Trunk giving a speech about Gen-Yers in the workplace. The same now-cliche stuff about managing 20-somethings: don't expect them to "pay dues" because they'll walk if they have to do grunt work like other generations had to; keep them motivated with treats or special incentives every day or they'll walk; don't hassle them if they seem to be doing nothing but listening to iPods and web-surfing all day or they'll walk. In short, treat them with kid gloves because they are so spectacular that we can't afford to piss them off. The rationale being that they're soon going to be overtaking the workforce so we better just let them have their way.

First of all, bullshit. As far as the whole "soon all the Boomers will be retiring" thing--I think everyone knows that is no longer a valid sentiment, what with the state of the economy. Anyone who was even close to retiring a year ago is now most likely looking at another 10+ years in the workforce before they might be able to even consider retiring. And second of all, bullshit--even if they do retire there are still droves of Gen-Xers who are unemployed and willing--not to mention well-qualified--to do the jobs Gen-Yers scoff at. After all, if you have a mortgage, a car payment, credit card debt, kids, a spouse, etc--you don't have the luxury of hiding out in mom and dad's basement until you find a job that pays six figures and consists of one never-ending brainstorming session while hanging out in a treehouse or some equally cool and laid-back work environment.

Enter the blog post that set me off on this rant. Penelope Trunk has a guest poster on her blog today--a 23 year old writing about why it's smart to quit a job after just two weeks of work. The crux of her rationale being, of course, the tenet upon which the entire Gen-Y work philosophy is based: living with mom n' dad. After all, 65% of new grads do it--so of course it's a good idea.

I digress about the rest of the post; you can read it yourself. And don't miss the comments--those are some of the best parts. Here's one of my favorites:

"I quit a job after two weeks too, but I don't believe the company felt I was doing them a favor. (I was, as indicated in the post.) They are not contemplative enough to consider the possibility that they did something - actually, many things - wrong."

Like forgetting the daily reward or making you spend time at the copier?

Wait--there's more:

"Companies are no more likely than individual people to improve their attitudes or practices when something negative happens."

The "something negative" of course being that the lazy, self-centered entry level person left of his own free will, thereby sparing the company the considerable time, money and hassle it would have taken to fire that person had they and their bad attitude stayed in the job.

Call me a bitter Gen-Xer if you want--I have no problem owning that. And I'm not even one to talk about sticking it out in jobs--I'm the first to admit my resume is filled with jobs that I stayed in for a year before deciding I couldn't stand it and found something better. However, one thing I can say is that I always found a better job, always had health-insurance paid for by me--not my parents--and moving back in with them was never an option.

I've asked this in previous posts: where has the stereotype of the adult loser who lives in his parents' house gone? Have 20-somethings never seen Wedding Crashers? Stepbrothers? Failure to Launch? Call it what you will: saving money, being prudent, giving yourself the opportunity to wait for the perfect job--the fact remains that being 20- or--god-forbid--30-something and living with your parents is nothing to brag about.

Changes to Facebook Pages: Good or Bad for Associations?

You've probably heard it's coming: on March 11, Facebook will roll out a new look for pages. Rather than trying to summarize the changes and either bore those of you who already know about them or lose those of you who have no idea what I'm talking about, I'll let you go read these posts about the changes.

Or, better yet, if your association or company has a page on Facebook, go take a look at it--chances are Facebook has already re-configured it so you can preview the new look. You can also start digesting this summary of the changes and, as Facebook puts it, opportunities the new layout will offer.

Once you've done all that, I'd really appreciate it if you'd come back and leave a comment telling what you think of the changes and how you see it affecting--negatively or positively--your association's presence on Facebook. Pretty Please?

NYT Local "Blog"--Is This A Joke?

The other day I posted about the reports that the New York Times was going to be launching a new local blog network this past Monday.

Today I realized I'd forgotten to check to see if the launch actually happened and went to check it out.

First of all, good luck to you if you want to check it out--I defy you to find any kind of link to it on the actual NYT site. It isn't listed on their blog index page. I found it by doing a search of the site for "local blog."

From the reports about the blog, I thought it was going to be one blog, or at least one main page, but it turns out there are several "The Local" blogs--at least two that I saw, possibly more but I didn't feel like searching more. The one I found first was Forte Greene and Clinton Hill. I started with the first post and worked my way forward to today's posts--e.g. three days into the blog's existence. And I do mean worked--by my count there are already 19 entries. In three days.

Wow, they sure found a lot of bloggers for this start-up blog, huh? Nineteen posts in 3 days--all I can say is wow. And not a good wow--but wow, like wtf. But wait a minute--most of these posts are by one person--Andy Newman. Citizen journalist? Hardly--he's a NYT reporter. Yes, the local is supposed to be a mix of local bloggers overseen by a NYT reporter--but come on. So far, the Forte Greene and Clinton Hill Local seems to be Andy Newman's personal website, complete with traditional newspaper-like sections: six of them, including "News," "The Stoop," etc--check out the page for the complete menu.

And while you're checking out the page notice how horrible the navigation is. Where are the daily archives? The archives by topic, or author or keyword--or anything? Apparently whoever designed it was going for a standard blog feel--posts in the middle, nav, blogroll, archive, etc in the right column. Well, tried and failed.

Anyway, back to Andy. Of the 19 posts--in this blog purportedly populated by citizen journalists--over a 3 day period, how many do you think were his? Fourteen. And that's as of this morning; for all I know by tonight he may have posted five more.

There was an article in the Wall Street Journal the other day about the Times' edgy foray into a new model of journalism--one of "digital-centric operations with smaller newsrooms and a greater reliance on outside sources, including contributions from people in the communities they cover." The article goes on to quote the NYT describing their new "hyperlocal" blog as "a pilot project that is part of an exploration by the Times of ways to extend its journalistic values to serve and engage audiences in new ways. The sites will be heavily focused on citizen journalism."

Here's the thing--if the Local is meant to "serve and engage" audiences in new ways and focus heavily on citizen journalism, someone better tell Andy Newman to take a step out of the limelight and give someone else a turn on the mike. Either that or the NYT needs to stop acting like they're doing something revolutionary when, in fact, all they're doing is giving Andy Newman and other NYT reporters their own mini-NYT websites.