Thursday, December 17, 2009
Presenting on Women and Social Media on Capitol Hill and at the White House
You can read all about the adventures Erin Kotecki Vest and I had in DC yesterday, but you can also see exactly the slides that we presented...first to Republican communications and new media staffers, then to Senior Advisor to the President, Valerie Jarrett and members of her team and the White House new media team:
Of course, the slides don't tell the stories. The stories women tell about how political issues impact their day to day lives. But as we told these political teams yesterday: There's a whole world of voters outside the political blogosphere and its partisan echo chambers (which I know well after my years as a political blogger). Those voters wouldn't self-identify as "political bloggers", but every time they talk about food safety or the H1N1 vaccine or the economy or how their health insurance coverage was taken away or how to reduce your carbon footprint...they're talking politics. The politics of every day life.
BlogHer is listening, and we're evangelizing to both sides of the aisle to listen too.
BlogHer Goes to Washington
View more documents from ElisaCamahortPage.
Of course, the slides don't tell the stories. The stories women tell about how political issues impact their day to day lives. But as we told these political teams yesterday: There's a whole world of voters outside the political blogosphere and its partisan echo chambers (which I know well after my years as a political blogger). Those voters wouldn't self-identify as "political bloggers", but every time they talk about food safety or the H1N1 vaccine or the economy or how their health insurance coverage was taken away or how to reduce your carbon footprint...they're talking politics. The politics of every day life.
BlogHer is listening, and we're evangelizing to both sides of the aisle to listen too.
Labels: blogher, bloghercon, Democrats, Erin Kotecki Vest, politics, Republicans, social media, White House, Women
Sunday, November 22, 2009
Twitter: Is it the place to run ads?
Really appreciated this post, Risks with Twitter Advertising, on the Going Social Now blog. You might think from the headline that this was all about the risks of alienating followers or being associated with the "Wild West" of uncontrolled content on Twitter, and certainly the first risk does come up. In social media your first concern as a company jumping in is to not be the company that comes in and ruins the user experience!
What I enjoyed about the post was that it also brought up unknown and unresolved issues around the quality of experience for the advertiser too. Such as the lack of cookies, therefore the inability to put frequency caps on how often a user sees a particular ad. Such as the lack of actually reliable impression or click trackability. Things that are taken for granted in the usual online advertising world.
There's only one thing I would correct in this post. They say:
"Before you know it, the FTC will feel obliged to institute guidelines or requirements for advertising in this space too."
Well, the future is now, because the FTC has already said that their new guidelines for bloggers apply to tweets and Facebook status updates too. So, disclosure...yes!
Personally, when it comes to Twitter, I'm proud of the solution I helped institute for BlogHer.
1. Our @BlogHer account is about community and content
2. Our @BlogHerSupport account is for answering questions in a public way, but without boring everyone
3. Our @BlogHerDeals account is all sponsor offers and initiatives
The beauty of Twitter is that it's a 100% opt-in user experience. If you don't like what any particular person is tweeting, unfollow. Conversely we can be pretty sure that every person that follows our Support and Deals Twitter account opted in to that kind of content.
I may be biased, given this is BlogHer's Twitter policy, and that our blogging policy also spells out a similar kind of physical separation of editorial and sponsored content, but I think that if you want to turn your Twitter stream into an advertising opportunity, you should try creating a new Twitter feed, grow a follower base of people who are interested in that kind of content from you and then go for it, to your heart's content!
What I enjoyed about the post was that it also brought up unknown and unresolved issues around the quality of experience for the advertiser too. Such as the lack of cookies, therefore the inability to put frequency caps on how often a user sees a particular ad. Such as the lack of actually reliable impression or click trackability. Things that are taken for granted in the usual online advertising world.
There's only one thing I would correct in this post. They say:
"Before you know it, the FTC will feel obliged to institute guidelines or requirements for advertising in this space too."
Well, the future is now, because the FTC has already said that their new guidelines for bloggers apply to tweets and Facebook status updates too. So, disclosure...yes!
Personally, when it comes to Twitter, I'm proud of the solution I helped institute for BlogHer.
1. Our @BlogHer account is about community and content
2. Our @BlogHerSupport account is for answering questions in a public way, but without boring everyone
3. Our @BlogHerDeals account is all sponsor offers and initiatives
The beauty of Twitter is that it's a 100% opt-in user experience. If you don't like what any particular person is tweeting, unfollow. Conversely we can be pretty sure that every person that follows our Support and Deals Twitter account opted in to that kind of content.
I may be biased, given this is BlogHer's Twitter policy, and that our blogging policy also spells out a similar kind of physical separation of editorial and sponsored content, but I think that if you want to turn your Twitter stream into an advertising opportunity, you should try creating a new Twitter feed, grow a follower base of people who are interested in that kind of content from you and then go for it, to your heart's content!
Labels: blogher, bloghercon, Twitter
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
Listen to me live (?)
In about 5 minutes (8:30AM PT), on this fine, crisp fall morning, I will be appearing on the Chat With Women radio show.
You can listen to me live here.
Only, that link isn't working for me. I'm sure I need to install something or other, but no time!
(Not that I can listen to myself live, yes, I understand that.)
In any case, I'll come back and add the link once they post it. As I tweeted earlier, tI have only the vaguest idea of what we're going to be talking about, so it will be improv...woo hoo!
You can listen to me live here.
Only, that link isn't working for me. I'm sure I need to install something or other, but no time!
(Not that I can listen to myself live, yes, I understand that.)
In any case, I'll come back and add the link once they post it. As I tweeted earlier, tI have only the vaguest idea of what we're going to be talking about, so it will be improv...woo hoo!
Labels: Chat with Women
Sunday, October 25, 2009
Taking control of your social media
Over a year ago I wrote a peeved post, Me and the bad pitches: Or why bloggers get peeved by marketers. In it I shares how a bad PR pitch from someone representing a product I actually loved turned me off.
The product, in this case, was a show, Spring Awakening. The PR person in question wanted free promotion from me, and when I asked about a couple of media passes to review the show, they went dead silent. As I explained in my post above, it was a good idea to approach a blogger who had already raved about your show, a true brand fan, but that wasn't one of them.
Here we are, over one year later, and I received an email not from a PR firm, but from the blogger for the touring company's blog, Totally Trucked. Pun, the gender-neutrally-named blogger in question had found my post and reached out.
First, I have to say: Impressive to find my post. It doesn't exactly come up on page one of the search for Spring Awakening blogs.
Second, Pun apologized for my prior bad experience with their brand (because, yes, that PR person's blunder reflected on their brand) and admirably addresses each of the complaints I made in my afore-linked post. Finally, Pun shares something that I think more and more companies are realizing and acting on, namely:"...we are coordinating outreach on the national level now--many local presenters do not have sufficient experience with bloggers."
OK, so maybe "local presenters" isn't a universal term and specific to this genre of company, but the point is that the show went beyond simply having their own blog...they realized that reaching out to the blogosphere should come from deep on the inside too.
Now, am I saying a marketing person, or even a PR person, can't be authentic, can't be "on the inside"? No. I'm a marketer; I believe we are typically pretty damn passionate about what we market.
But.
Don't abdicate the responsibility. If it's your brand, your company, you will be held responsible for what happens in its name. Social media as a marketing tool isn't something wildly revolutionary anymore. The slack people will cut you is getting shorter and shorter. We expect you to know better. We expect you to care about what kind of outreach is being done in your name.
Maybe that doesn't always mean taking that outreach "inside", but whoever is doing it better have access to the inside. And buy-in from the inside.
The hottest fan-passion can cool. Don't let it happen to you while you're not even looking.
The product, in this case, was a show, Spring Awakening. The PR person in question wanted free promotion from me, and when I asked about a couple of media passes to review the show, they went dead silent. As I explained in my post above, it was a good idea to approach a blogger who had already raved about your show, a true brand fan, but that wasn't one of them.
Here we are, over one year later, and I received an email not from a PR firm, but from the blogger for the touring company's blog, Totally Trucked. Pun, the gender-neutrally-named blogger in question had found my post and reached out.
First, I have to say: Impressive to find my post. It doesn't exactly come up on page one of the search for Spring Awakening blogs.
Second, Pun apologized for my prior bad experience with their brand (because, yes, that PR person's blunder reflected on their brand) and admirably addresses each of the complaints I made in my afore-linked post. Finally, Pun shares something that I think more and more companies are realizing and acting on, namely:"...we are coordinating outreach on the national level now--many local presenters do not have sufficient experience with bloggers."
OK, so maybe "local presenters" isn't a universal term and specific to this genre of company, but the point is that the show went beyond simply having their own blog...they realized that reaching out to the blogosphere should come from deep on the inside too.
Now, am I saying a marketing person, or even a PR person, can't be authentic, can't be "on the inside"? No. I'm a marketer; I believe we are typically pretty damn passionate about what we market.
But.
Don't abdicate the responsibility. If it's your brand, your company, you will be held responsible for what happens in its name. Social media as a marketing tool isn't something wildly revolutionary anymore. The slack people will cut you is getting shorter and shorter. We expect you to know better. We expect you to care about what kind of outreach is being done in your name.
Maybe that doesn't always mean taking that outreach "inside", but whoever is doing it better have access to the inside. And buy-in from the inside.
The hottest fan-passion can cool. Don't let it happen to you while you're not even looking.
Labels: bad pitch, blogger relations, good pitch, PR, Spring Awakening
Friday, October 16, 2009
Smart People Talking About Important Things: Bioneers
I'm speaking at the Bioneers Conference in Marin on Saturday, but the conference itself starts today.
And you can watch panels life, as they'll be streaming them (including mine) via Ustream. My panel about how Social Media and Sustainability mix, is at 4:30PM on Saturday, but check out more about the entire schedule here.
Now, if your thing is live and in-person interaction, tickets are still available at the door, but otherwise: Keep your eyes on the video below!
Live TV : Ustream
And you can watch panels life, as they'll be streaming them (including mine) via Ustream. My panel about how Social Media and Sustainability mix, is at 4:30PM on Saturday, but check out more about the entire schedule here.
Now, if your thing is live and in-person interaction, tickets are still available at the door, but otherwise: Keep your eyes on the video below!
Live TV : Ustream
Sunday, October 11, 2009
Link Round-up: The FTC and their new guidelines
OK, the other shoe dropped, and the FTC released their actual new guidelines covering advertisers, bloggers and celebrity endorsers.
I've actually read most of them, and scanned them multiple times looking for specific references (for example to fines, penalties, enforcement, etc.)
I suggest you either read them yourself, or stick to commentary from people who have read them or interviewed FTC folks about them because I'm frankly shocked at the misinformation that started floating around about these guidelines right from the moment they were released. First from (usually) reputable sources and then from bloggers and tweeters going to town with the misinformation.
Bottom line: If you think this affects you? Then read them yourself. Why rely on anyone else's assessment?
It was actually hard for me to find mainstream resources that didn't repeat misinformation, particularly the whole "$11,000 fine" meme, which turned out to be false. OK, with that said, here are some good resources.
On BlogHer
Who would I be if I didn't start with Melanie Nelson's great and thorough post on BlogHer: The New FTC Guidelines and What They Mean to You and if I didn't remind you to review how BlogHer has approached publishing editorial and sponsored content since 2006 in Lisa's founder post: The elephant in the room: How BlogHer is cracking the code on editorial content and paid advertising?
Elsewhere
While some mainstream media sources seem to want to fan the flames of the "wild, wild west" view of the blogosphere, a couple of others have done exactly what journalistic sources are supposed to do: Report. And fact check. So check out:
Fast Company was the first to talk to the FTC and debunk some of the rumors about fines and enforcement, having them answer questions coming from concerned bloggers themselves.
Media Bistro's PR Newser blog checked in with the FTC to get even more clarification around the existence (or not) of penalties, fines and enforcement paths. Including drawing a very important distinction between guidelines and laws.
MediaPost publishes a helpful look at why the FTC thinks reviewers at "traditional media outlets" don't need to follow these same guidelines. Agree or disagree, it's a clear explanation of the position.
If you want a great bloggy analysis from someone who isn't freaking out about the guidelines, then check out:
Susan Getgood is always a good place to start, as this is a blogger who knows how to write substantive opinion pieces based on clearly cited data resources. Always disciplined. Her analysis, part one, is a general overview of the guidelines. Keep your eyes open for part two, as I'm sure it will be equally as useful.
Of course it wouldn't be fair not to point you to:
Those who think this signals the End of Days
From sources both mainstream and bloggy, some folks are telling you how they really feel, and it starts with the headlines:
Slate publishes a piece entitled "The FTC's Mad Power Grab"
Less hysterical and more grounded in real problems, MediaPost published "Legal Expert Questions FTC's New Blogger Rules".
And I must point out that two stalwarts from traditional media, turned blogging superstars, are virulently opposed. Those two being Jeff Jarvis and Dan Gillmor. The word "dangerous" gets thrown around a lot.
Now, where all of the above (and I) are in total agreement is that the proof will be in the pudding of enforcement. If these guidelines are applied fairly, consistently and without scapegoating bloggers (as opposed to more mainstream publishers or celebrities who are receiving just as much, if not way more, value from relationships with brands) then who can argue that disclosure and transparency aren't good things? People would do well to avoid some of the crazier hypotheticals I've seen tossed around and focus on letting the government know that we will indeed be keeping a watchful eye on fair follow-through.
Any law can be abused. There is no doubt about it. Were these guidelines written too broadly and thus at greater risk for such abuse? Perhaps so, but then I wish the debates could focus on that without all the hyperbole and smelling salts and ridiculous restaurant eavesdropping metaphors. Otherwise it seems like a case of the blogger "doth protest too much".
Hope this is helpful.
I've actually read most of them, and scanned them multiple times looking for specific references (for example to fines, penalties, enforcement, etc.)
I suggest you either read them yourself, or stick to commentary from people who have read them or interviewed FTC folks about them because I'm frankly shocked at the misinformation that started floating around about these guidelines right from the moment they were released. First from (usually) reputable sources and then from bloggers and tweeters going to town with the misinformation.
Bottom line: If you think this affects you? Then read them yourself. Why rely on anyone else's assessment?
It was actually hard for me to find mainstream resources that didn't repeat misinformation, particularly the whole "$11,000 fine" meme, which turned out to be false. OK, with that said, here are some good resources.
On BlogHer
Elsewhere
While some mainstream media sources seem to want to fan the flames of the "wild, wild west" view of the blogosphere, a couple of others have done exactly what journalistic sources are supposed to do: Report. And fact check. So check out:
If you want a great bloggy analysis from someone who isn't freaking out about the guidelines, then check out:
Of course it wouldn't be fair not to point you to:
Those who think this signals the End of Days
From sources both mainstream and bloggy, some folks are telling you how they really feel, and it starts with the headlines:
And I must point out that two stalwarts from traditional media, turned blogging superstars, are virulently opposed. Those two being Jeff Jarvis and Dan Gillmor. The word "dangerous" gets thrown around a lot.
Now, where all of the above (and I) are in total agreement is that the proof will be in the pudding of enforcement. If these guidelines are applied fairly, consistently and without scapegoating bloggers (as opposed to more mainstream publishers or celebrities who are receiving just as much, if not way more, value from relationships with brands) then who can argue that disclosure and transparency aren't good things? People would do well to avoid some of the crazier hypotheticals I've seen tossed around and focus on letting the government know that we will indeed be keeping a watchful eye on fair follow-through.
Any law can be abused. There is no doubt about it. Were these guidelines written too broadly and thus at greater risk for such abuse? Perhaps so, but then I wish the debates could focus on that without all the hyperbole and smelling salts and ridiculous restaurant eavesdropping metaphors. Otherwise it seems like a case of the blogger "doth protest too much".
Hope this is helpful.
Sunday, October 04, 2009
A tale of two customer experiences: When "bugging" the customer works...and doesn't
We customers are a prickly and thorny bunch. I get that. We want companies to get it just right, and "just right" seems to change based on the circumstances. We also often seem to swing between complaining or saying nothing...and yet if you dare for one minute to assume that "no news is good news" when it comes to customers, you'll probably regret it.
But sometimes I think companies don't spend very much time putting themselves in the customer's shoes.
Case #1: Don't bug me with your customer surveys...until I've got something to say
Most of my life I've had GM cars, from my first car: a hand me down '72 Chevy Impala to the two Saturns I've owned in the last 12 years or so. The Saturn folks, in particular, are very customer-focused, and I had my moments over the eight years or so that I owned Saturns of being bugged. Bugged by that snail mail survey post-routine service. Followed up by the phone survey. And sometimes an email survey. I'm guessing I didn't take the vast majority of those surveys. Everything was fine. No need to spend my precious time responding.
Now, I have a Honda Civic Hybrid. I've had it a little over a year, and I noticed something when I took it in for its routine service. They didn't wash the car before giving it back. I don't mean a fancy detailing, but my experience with both Saturn and Audi (the two brands that I got and serviced through dealers) was that any service was topped off with a nice, basic exterior wash of the car. Not so with Honda. And it bugged me. "Well, when i get my post-service survey, I will certainly let them know that this is a little thing that goes a long way!", I thought to myself. (When the truth is, it is its omission that goes a long way.)
Only I never got that survey, They didn't bug me via snail mail, telephone or email. No bugging at all. Which, you guessed it, bugs me to no end.
And the moral of the story is: Yes, it's a bummer that people, including me, enjoy complaining more than they enjoy sharing praise. Yes, people will ignore your surveys, and you will struggle to get healthy response rates and actionable feedback.
But you have to ask. Because otherwise, you have a customer like me who may be perfectly satisfied with my vehicle, but may think much less of the brand...over a very tiny thing.
And really, would it hurt you to rinse my car down after you've worked on it?
Case #2: That's great you want to protect me, but you're protecting me from the wrong things
I'm about to cancel a credit card I've had for 17 years. As soon as my new card comes from a different company, I'm canceling the old one, even though it will be a pain in the butt, given the auto-charges I have set up on it.
Why?
Because in their eagerness to be consumer protection leaders, they are protecting me from purchases that set off no typical alarm bells and are, in fact, with companies I do business with regularly. Over the last few months I have had numerous transactions declined/held, or that triggered a check-in call to me that I had to return and deactivate.
This is all to protect me from fraud using my card. I should be grateful, right? So, why am I so bugged?
-Because in 17 years of having this card I've never missed a payment, never had a fraudulent charge and I'm never near my limit.
-Because their auto-bot phone system never accounts for voicemail messages and leaves half-messages on my machine.
-Because they actually sent an email with a link to click to approve a transaction...as if any bank should encourage their customers to trust such emails from banks! And yet when I went to the site to do it directly, it is impossible to find any place to do so. Hence, the wasted time making phone calls.
-Because they declined my annual donation to the Humane Society!
-Because they made me call to approve my annual domain name renewal charges...with the same company made at the same time every year for the last 6 years.
-Because they made me call to approve a purchase for $8.99 on my Kindle.
I mean, if you're going to protect me, at least protect me from the anomalous charges! Not the ones that are part of my regular spending pattern. Don't tell me you don't have the systems to say, oh yes, she has made 20 donations to the Humane Society in the last ten years, I think she means it.
And lastly, when I called, no one really had anything to offer me to improve my experience, not even the hallowed "supervisor". A shrug of the shoulders is what I got.
And losing a long-time customer is what they're going to get.
All because they bugged me. But really because they made me feel like an anonymous, random cog in their machine, not a long-time valued customer.
And that's the common thread here. It's not so hard to make customers feel like you know then, that you think about them and care about what they think.
The surveys no one responds to? Doesn't mean we don't get the message that you want to hear about what we think. Doesn't mean we won't notice if you decide to stop asking us.
Checking in on purchases when I traveled overseas? Didn't bug me at all...I knew that charging something from Africa was a bit out of the norm (to say the least). That's protection I appreciate. Calling me three times in one month about penny-ante and even regular charges? Declining a charitable donation in a non-outrageous amount? Senseless aggravation.
Customers are a prickly bunch. But we actually make sense most of the time.
But sometimes I think companies don't spend very much time putting themselves in the customer's shoes.
Case #1: Don't bug me with your customer surveys...until I've got something to say
Most of my life I've had GM cars, from my first car: a hand me down '72 Chevy Impala to the two Saturns I've owned in the last 12 years or so. The Saturn folks, in particular, are very customer-focused, and I had my moments over the eight years or so that I owned Saturns of being bugged. Bugged by that snail mail survey post-routine service. Followed up by the phone survey. And sometimes an email survey. I'm guessing I didn't take the vast majority of those surveys. Everything was fine. No need to spend my precious time responding.
Now, I have a Honda Civic Hybrid. I've had it a little over a year, and I noticed something when I took it in for its routine service. They didn't wash the car before giving it back. I don't mean a fancy detailing, but my experience with both Saturn and Audi (the two brands that I got and serviced through dealers) was that any service was topped off with a nice, basic exterior wash of the car. Not so with Honda. And it bugged me. "Well, when i get my post-service survey, I will certainly let them know that this is a little thing that goes a long way!", I thought to myself. (When the truth is, it is its omission that goes a long way.)
Only I never got that survey, They didn't bug me via snail mail, telephone or email. No bugging at all. Which, you guessed it, bugs me to no end.
And the moral of the story is: Yes, it's a bummer that people, including me, enjoy complaining more than they enjoy sharing praise. Yes, people will ignore your surveys, and you will struggle to get healthy response rates and actionable feedback.
But you have to ask. Because otherwise, you have a customer like me who may be perfectly satisfied with my vehicle, but may think much less of the brand...over a very tiny thing.
And really, would it hurt you to rinse my car down after you've worked on it?
Case #2: That's great you want to protect me, but you're protecting me from the wrong things
I'm about to cancel a credit card I've had for 17 years. As soon as my new card comes from a different company, I'm canceling the old one, even though it will be a pain in the butt, given the auto-charges I have set up on it.
Why?
Because in their eagerness to be consumer protection leaders, they are protecting me from purchases that set off no typical alarm bells and are, in fact, with companies I do business with regularly. Over the last few months I have had numerous transactions declined/held, or that triggered a check-in call to me that I had to return and deactivate.
This is all to protect me from fraud using my card. I should be grateful, right? So, why am I so bugged?
-Because in 17 years of having this card I've never missed a payment, never had a fraudulent charge and I'm never near my limit.
-Because their auto-bot phone system never accounts for voicemail messages and leaves half-messages on my machine.
-Because they actually sent an email with a link to click to approve a transaction...as if any bank should encourage their customers to trust such emails from banks! And yet when I went to the site to do it directly, it is impossible to find any place to do so. Hence, the wasted time making phone calls.
-Because they declined my annual donation to the Humane Society!
-Because they made me call to approve my annual domain name renewal charges...with the same company made at the same time every year for the last 6 years.
-Because they made me call to approve a purchase for $8.99 on my Kindle.
I mean, if you're going to protect me, at least protect me from the anomalous charges! Not the ones that are part of my regular spending pattern. Don't tell me you don't have the systems to say, oh yes, she has made 20 donations to the Humane Society in the last ten years, I think she means it.
And lastly, when I called, no one really had anything to offer me to improve my experience, not even the hallowed "supervisor". A shrug of the shoulders is what I got.
And losing a long-time customer is what they're going to get.
All because they bugged me. But really because they made me feel like an anonymous, random cog in their machine, not a long-time valued customer.
And that's the common thread here. It's not so hard to make customers feel like you know then, that you think about them and care about what they think.
The surveys no one responds to? Doesn't mean we don't get the message that you want to hear about what we think. Doesn't mean we won't notice if you decide to stop asking us.
Checking in on purchases when I traveled overseas? Didn't bug me at all...I knew that charging something from Africa was a bit out of the norm (to say the least). That's protection I appreciate. Calling me three times in one month about penny-ante and even regular charges? Declining a charitable donation in a non-outrageous amount? Senseless aggravation.
Customers are a prickly bunch. But we actually make sense most of the time.
Labels: banks, credit cards, customer support, GM, honda, saturn
Thursday, October 01, 2009
"I am a Technical Woman"
Here are my two seconds of fame! Can you spot me in this fun video from the Anita Borg Institute:
The Institute announced their largest ever, sold-out attendance at this week's Grace Hopper Celebration of Women in Computing...over 1,600 people!
Last year I was struck by the diversity of thee (mostly) women...across many dimensions. I believe the ABI, like BlogHer, makes it very difficult for anyone...whether organizing a speaking roster or compiling a "top" list...to say that there aren't any qualified women, or they don't know where to find them.
I know the ABI, like we at BlogHer, are happy to help you diversify your offerings with amazing, competent, qualified, expert women across all sorts of fields and subject matter areas.
The video is just a fun, short little thing...but take its point
Full Disclosure: I am on the Board of Advisors for the Institute.
The Institute announced their largest ever, sold-out attendance at this week's Grace Hopper Celebration of Women in Computing...over 1,600 people!
Last year I was struck by the diversity of thee (mostly) women...across many dimensions. I believe the ABI, like BlogHer, makes it very difficult for anyone...whether organizing a speaking roster or compiling a "top" list...to say that there aren't any qualified women, or they don't know where to find them.
I know the ABI, like we at BlogHer, are happy to help you diversify your offerings with amazing, competent, qualified, expert women across all sorts of fields and subject matter areas.
The video is just a fun, short little thing...but take its point
Full Disclosure: I am on the Board of Advisors for the Institute.
Labels: Anita Borg Institute, women in tech, women speakers
Sunday, September 27, 2009
I'm in good company
Scoble has joined the ranks of those totally annoyed by the Twitter Suggested User List lately, and has been on a tear about it. First on Twitter itself, now in this post.
Thanks Robert, happy to be in that company!
Every time I'm tempted to say "Who cares about the Twitter Suggested User List? Who cares about rankings etc.?" (Because I don't really pay attention to them or even my traffic, truth be told) I"m reminded that back when we started BlogHer, people asked the same about the Technorati Top 100 and other rankings that included next to no women. And the argument then and now is that such rankings and lists are used as feeds into other avenues of power. The media uses them as sources. Companies use them to determine who to partner with. If they are arbitrary, exclusionary or unfairly homogenous, it has a ripple effect.
So, I might personally not care, but I'm glad Robert is caring for me!
Thanks Robert, happy to be in that company!
Every time I'm tempted to say "Who cares about the Twitter Suggested User List? Who cares about rankings etc.?" (Because I don't really pay attention to them or even my traffic, truth be told) I"m reminded that back when we started BlogHer, people asked the same about the Technorati Top 100 and other rankings that included next to no women. And the argument then and now is that such rankings and lists are used as feeds into other avenues of power. The media uses them as sources. Companies use them to determine who to partner with. If they are arbitrary, exclusionary or unfairly homogenous, it has a ripple effect.
So, I might personally not care, but I'm glad Robert is caring for me!
Labels: rankings, scoble, Twitter
Sunday, September 06, 2009
The thing about swag
Since BlogHer '09 happened, about six weeks ago, there's been a mini-debate about an age-old marketing tool: Swag, IOW: Stuff We All Get.
This is a somewhat lengthy post, but I urge you to read it all, if only to read about some shocking "swag" given out at ComicCon this year.
Back to BlogHer: There was a lot of swag at the conference. Some folks were bothered by the quantity. Some folks were bothered by how the availability of swag changed the quality of some attendees' behavior. Some folks maintained a "different strokes for different folks" attitude and urged people to Just Say No to swag if it bothered them. Some folks started making gross generalizations about the kind of people who might like swag. Some folks, having clearly never attended other trade shows in other industries, thought the swag availability and ensuing pursuit of said swag was unique to bloggers. Or women. Or mommies. Some folks who didn't witness any swag pandemonium or weren't even at the conference had a lot of fun talking about it and, even better, waxing judgmental about it. Some folks expressed genuine concern about waste and our consumerist society. There are lots of ideas about how to better manage swag for next year's conference, including some great ideas about how to make sure it's all as opt-in as possible. You can see a lot of debate about the issue on our post-conference post soliciting feedback on the swag issue and other issues. You can add your own thoughts there too. We take the issue seriously, and we added several question about swag to the post-conference attendee survey too. We think we can make improvements, and we intend to.
But here's the thing about swag and why most companies are always going to want to give some and, let's be totally honest, most attendees are always want to get some: It works. I could go into a long dissertation about it, but Amy from Pretty Babies pretty much already did in this post. You should read it. She brings up everything from business practices to classism. She's smart.
I'm going to tell one personal story about how swag best does its job.
When I as growing up, my siblings and I each started doing our own laundry at a fairly young age. I used laundry detergent. And I used dryer sheets. I honestly don't know if my mom didn't believe in bleach, fabric softener, stain remover and the like, or if she had that stuff, but I was too young (and probably lazy) to mess with it when I started doing my own laundry. Either way...I have done my own laundry for almost 40 years and have stuck to buying only laundry detergent and dryer sheets.
I confess I even had a cynical attitude towards other products. With no scientific back-up I had the attitude that stain remover, as an example, was simply re-packaged detergent. I don't know why I thought this. I never tried it.
Until, after BlogHer, when I used a sample of a stain remover given by one of our laundry sponsors. The product was biodegradable and cruelty-free, so it met my basic requirements for such a product. I decided to give it a shot on a grease stain that had been on one of my black tops for ages. I kept wearing that top, thinking the black on black stain was probably not very visible to other people, but I was always a little self-conscious about it.
I tried the stain remover, and it removed the stain.
Maybe, to some of you, this is not a revelatory statement.
But I can tell you this one item of swag will change an over-20-year pattern of purchasing habits, which is exactly what that company is hoping for. Sounds extreme, and maybe it is, but in the post-conference survey we found plenty of similar experiences expressed.
Is there such a thing as crappy, useless swag? Oh absolutely. But uselessness is also in the eye of the beholder. Long ago I stopped picking up t-shirts at trade shows. I have a stack of industry t-shirts (from three different industries) about three feet high. I don't need another t-shirt in my life. I don't even wear them that often. But TW from Retro Food has often blogged that her day-to-day wardrobe is made up of such t-shirts, so she's always on the hunt for more. I love picking up notebooks. I actually use a notebook in my day to day work. I have tons of them. I know lots of people who think they're a waste of paper and a waste of time. I could go on and on, but you get the point.
So, while we continue to mull the meaning of swag, I continue to believe that, as with most things, it's about how you do something more than whether you do something.
Bonus Conclusion: The promised "shocking swag" story. And i think I can promise this will not be how BlogHer does things:
According to Joystiq, EA was there promoting a new game. They had the usual set-up in their booth where you could take a picture with a hot booth babe. According to their promotion it looks like the girls were going to be in bikinis, but who knows, that could have been false advertising. (Where's the FTC when you need them, eh?) Tweeting your picture with the hot booth babe (and "committing acts of lust" by finding other hot babes to take pictures with and tweeting those) would enter you in a contest to win:
"Dinner and a SINful night with TWO hot girls..." plus a limo ride and other "booty". Pun intended I'm sure.
This promotion takes the unpleasant "swag whore" moniker a little too literally for my taste, how about you?
This happened at Comic-Con, which was the same weekend as BlogHer this year. While you can find some blog posts abut this controversy in gamer blogs, I only found one mainstream outlet's blog that picked it up. And certainly no hand-wringing mainstream media reports about the moral state of gamers today because of this promotion.
Susan Getgood may be right that the mainstream media has "mommy issues".
This is a somewhat lengthy post, but I urge you to read it all, if only to read about some shocking "swag" given out at ComicCon this year.
Back to BlogHer: There was a lot of swag at the conference. Some folks were bothered by the quantity. Some folks were bothered by how the availability of swag changed the quality of some attendees' behavior. Some folks maintained a "different strokes for different folks" attitude and urged people to Just Say No to swag if it bothered them. Some folks started making gross generalizations about the kind of people who might like swag. Some folks, having clearly never attended other trade shows in other industries, thought the swag availability and ensuing pursuit of said swag was unique to bloggers. Or women. Or mommies. Some folks who didn't witness any swag pandemonium or weren't even at the conference had a lot of fun talking about it and, even better, waxing judgmental about it. Some folks expressed genuine concern about waste and our consumerist society. There are lots of ideas about how to better manage swag for next year's conference, including some great ideas about how to make sure it's all as opt-in as possible. You can see a lot of debate about the issue on our post-conference post soliciting feedback on the swag issue and other issues. You can add your own thoughts there too. We take the issue seriously, and we added several question about swag to the post-conference attendee survey too. We think we can make improvements, and we intend to.
But here's the thing about swag and why most companies are always going to want to give some and, let's be totally honest, most attendees are always want to get some: It works. I could go into a long dissertation about it, but Amy from Pretty Babies pretty much already did in this post. You should read it. She brings up everything from business practices to classism. She's smart.
I'm going to tell one personal story about how swag best does its job.
When I as growing up, my siblings and I each started doing our own laundry at a fairly young age. I used laundry detergent. And I used dryer sheets. I honestly don't know if my mom didn't believe in bleach, fabric softener, stain remover and the like, or if she had that stuff, but I was too young (and probably lazy) to mess with it when I started doing my own laundry. Either way...I have done my own laundry for almost 40 years and have stuck to buying only laundry detergent and dryer sheets.
I confess I even had a cynical attitude towards other products. With no scientific back-up I had the attitude that stain remover, as an example, was simply re-packaged detergent. I don't know why I thought this. I never tried it.
Until, after BlogHer, when I used a sample of a stain remover given by one of our laundry sponsors. The product was biodegradable and cruelty-free, so it met my basic requirements for such a product. I decided to give it a shot on a grease stain that had been on one of my black tops for ages. I kept wearing that top, thinking the black on black stain was probably not very visible to other people, but I was always a little self-conscious about it.
I tried the stain remover, and it removed the stain.
Maybe, to some of you, this is not a revelatory statement.
But I can tell you this one item of swag will change an over-20-year pattern of purchasing habits, which is exactly what that company is hoping for. Sounds extreme, and maybe it is, but in the post-conference survey we found plenty of similar experiences expressed.
Is there such a thing as crappy, useless swag? Oh absolutely. But uselessness is also in the eye of the beholder. Long ago I stopped picking up t-shirts at trade shows. I have a stack of industry t-shirts (from three different industries) about three feet high. I don't need another t-shirt in my life. I don't even wear them that often. But TW from Retro Food has often blogged that her day-to-day wardrobe is made up of such t-shirts, so she's always on the hunt for more. I love picking up notebooks. I actually use a notebook in my day to day work. I have tons of them. I know lots of people who think they're a waste of paper and a waste of time. I could go on and on, but you get the point.
So, while we continue to mull the meaning of swag, I continue to believe that, as with most things, it's about how you do something more than whether you do something.
Bonus Conclusion: The promised "shocking swag" story. And i think I can promise this will not be how BlogHer does things:
According to Joystiq, EA was there promoting a new game. They had the usual set-up in their booth where you could take a picture with a hot booth babe. According to their promotion it looks like the girls were going to be in bikinis, but who knows, that could have been false advertising. (Where's the FTC when you need them, eh?) Tweeting your picture with the hot booth babe (and "committing acts of lust" by finding other hot babes to take pictures with and tweeting those) would enter you in a contest to win:
"Dinner and a SINful night with TWO hot girls..." plus a limo ride and other "booty". Pun intended I'm sure.
This promotion takes the unpleasant "swag whore" moniker a little too literally for my taste, how about you?
This happened at Comic-Con, which was the same weekend as BlogHer this year. While you can find some blog posts abut this controversy in gamer blogs, I only found one mainstream outlet's blog that picked it up. And certainly no hand-wringing mainstream media reports about the moral state of gamers today because of this promotion.
Susan Getgood may be right that the mainstream media has "mommy issues".
Labels: BlogHer 09, bloghercon, Comic-con, EA, swag
Tuesday, September 01, 2009
BlogHer '09 interview links...BlogHers in their own words
Wanted to point out some of the great coverage we got at BlogHer that let people basically speak for themselves.
I thought a lot of the more traditional media coverage was very, well, traditional. Some folks came knowing the story they wanted to tell, and they interviewed folks until the found the soundbites that supported the story, and then they crafted that story for public consumption.
But those kind of stories are never the whole story. Not when you have 1, 500 (mostly) women from all walks of life and all segments of the blogosphere there, and raising their voices.
So I enjoyed the outlets that actually shared their interviews with different attendees and let us hear their stories in their own words.
Webmaster Radio's audio interviews tend to focus on organizational attendees. But even there, there is diversity. Hear Gina McCauley talk about founding Blogging While Brown, or Michelle Whitlock talk about the non-profit Pearls of Wisdom or Anne Collier talk about Internet safety. Plus many more.
Then hop on over to PBS's YouTube channel and check out their BlogHer '09 Playlist. Yes, you can hear my story about trying to unplug when in Africa, but you can also hear from self-proclaimed "worst mother in the world", Lenore Skenazy, conservative blogger Fausta Wertz, and community keynote original mastermind, Eden Kennedy. And they tell me more videos are coming.
Enjoy!
I thought a lot of the more traditional media coverage was very, well, traditional. Some folks came knowing the story they wanted to tell, and they interviewed folks until the found the soundbites that supported the story, and then they crafted that story for public consumption.
But those kind of stories are never the whole story. Not when you have 1, 500 (mostly) women from all walks of life and all segments of the blogosphere there, and raising their voices.
So I enjoyed the outlets that actually shared their interviews with different attendees and let us hear their stories in their own words.
Webmaster Radio's audio interviews tend to focus on organizational attendees. But even there, there is diversity. Hear Gina McCauley talk about founding Blogging While Brown, or Michelle Whitlock talk about the non-profit Pearls of Wisdom or Anne Collier talk about Internet safety. Plus many more.
Then hop on over to PBS's YouTube channel and check out their BlogHer '09 Playlist. Yes, you can hear my story about trying to unplug when in Africa, but you can also hear from self-proclaimed "worst mother in the world", Lenore Skenazy, conservative blogger Fausta Wertz, and community keynote original mastermind, Eden Kennedy. And they tell me more videos are coming.
Enjoy!
Labels: BlogHer 09, bloghercon, Digital Nation, Frontline, interviews, PBS, webmaster radio
Monday, August 31, 2009
Me, acting all expert-y about information overload
Let's keep it between us that I actually struggle with information overload on a daily basis. Instead focus on the fact that the tips I give in this video on BlogHer are actually good tips. I should follow my own advice a lot more consistently than I do.
The most important thing I share in this video is this: You control the noise. I get really frustrated by people, be they elitist journalists or clueless family members, who can't imagine why people use Twitter or who complain about how many blogs there are now Or who ask the classic: "Who cares what anyone had for lunch?" question.
So, without further ado, here is the video*:
* The Juice is an initiative BlogHer has done in tandem with Tropicana Trop 50. I wasn't originally scheduled to be a guest, but then they realized that of course they should have someone with eight blogs and an account on every social network speak about information overload :)
The most important thing I share in this video is this: You control the noise. I get really frustrated by people, be they elitist journalists or clueless family members, who can't imagine why people use Twitter or who complain about how many blogs there are now Or who ask the classic: "Who cares what anyone had for lunch?" question.
So, without further ado, here is the video*:
* The Juice is an initiative BlogHer has done in tandem with Tropicana Trop 50. I wasn't originally scheduled to be a guest, but then they realized that of course they should have someone with eight blogs and an account on every social network speak about information overload :)
Labels: blogher, bloghercon, information overload, The Juice, Tropicana Trop 50
Sunday, August 30, 2009
Is Time magazine serious?
I'd actually like to think Time Magazine is joking when they name the web sites in this list as the Best of 2009.
Don't get me wrong: It's not like I don't use (and generally love) sites like Google, Flickr, Yelp, Delicious, Twitter, Skype, Open Table, Amazon, Netflix, Wikipedia and more.
But, come on.
1. Am I the only one who see a headline like Best Web Sites of 2009 and hopes to learn about new sites?
2. Am I the only one who see a headline like Best Web Sites of 2009 and hopes to discover amazing new content?
3. Am I the only one who doesn't actually consider some of these to be web sites, but rather web applications or services?
4. Am I the only one who wonders what could be newsworthy about listing sites that are already in the Top 20, 50, even 100 visited sites on the entire Internet?
5. Am I the only one who thinks this would have been better entitled: "Top 50 Sites for People Who Have Been Living in Caves"?
Bah. Humbug.
Don't get me wrong: It's not like I don't use (and generally love) sites like Google, Flickr, Yelp, Delicious, Twitter, Skype, Open Table, Amazon, Netflix, Wikipedia and more.
But, come on.
1. Am I the only one who see a headline like Best Web Sites of 2009 and hopes to learn about new sites?
2. Am I the only one who see a headline like Best Web Sites of 2009 and hopes to discover amazing new content?
3. Am I the only one who doesn't actually consider some of these to be web sites, but rather web applications or services?
4. Am I the only one who wonders what could be newsworthy about listing sites that are already in the Top 20, 50, even 100 visited sites on the entire Internet?
5. Am I the only one who thinks this would have been better entitled: "Top 50 Sites for People Who Have Been Living in Caves"?
Bah. Humbug.
Labels: Time Magazine
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
Deadline September 7th: Submit your amazing communications initiative for a SNCR Award
I'm sorry I'm only posting this now, but there are still two weeks left in which to submit a a nomination for the Society for New Communications Research Announces Call for Entries for 2009 Excellence in New Communications Awards.
I'm a Founding Fellow of SNCR, which has been around since 2005. It's a global nonprofit research and education foundation and think tank focused on the latest developments in new media and communications.
Their awards program "honors the work of corporations, governmental and nonprofit organizations, educational institutions, media outlets and individuals who are innovating the use of social media, ICT, mobile media, online communities and virtual worlds and collaborative technologies in the areas of business, media, and professional communications, including advertising, marketing, public relations and corporate communications, as well as entertainment, education, politics, and social initiatives."
You can check this link for all the categories and details, but suffice to say: Just about any kind of program executed by and/or for any kind of organization should be able to find a category in which to fit.
The submission must include a case study detailing initiatives and technologies. The winning case studies are published by SNCR and New Communications Review and the winners will be honored at the 2009 Society for New Communications Research Symposium & Awards Gala, which will be held November 5-6 at the Harvard Faculty Club in Cambridge, Mass. and hosted by SNCR Fellow Paul Gillin.
Entry guidelines and the online entry form can be found at http://www.sncr.org/awards. The deadline for submissions is September 7th, 2009.
As a member of SNCR's Best Practices Committee I'll likely judge a category or two, so perhaps I'll see your case studies in a couple of weeks?
I'm a Founding Fellow of SNCR, which has been around since 2005. It's a global nonprofit research and education foundation and think tank focused on the latest developments in new media and communications.
Their awards program "honors the work of corporations, governmental and nonprofit organizations, educational institutions, media outlets and individuals who are innovating the use of social media, ICT, mobile media, online communities and virtual worlds and collaborative technologies in the areas of business, media, and professional communications, including advertising, marketing, public relations and corporate communications, as well as entertainment, education, politics, and social initiatives."
You can check this link for all the categories and details, but suffice to say: Just about any kind of program executed by and/or for any kind of organization should be able to find a category in which to fit.
The submission must include a case study detailing initiatives and technologies. The winning case studies are published by SNCR and New Communications Review and the winners will be honored at the 2009 Society for New Communications Research Symposium & Awards Gala, which will be held November 5-6 at the Harvard Faculty Club in Cambridge, Mass. and hosted by SNCR Fellow Paul Gillin.
Entry guidelines and the online entry form can be found at http://www.sncr.org/awards. The deadline for submissions is September 7th, 2009.
As a member of SNCR's Best Practices Committee I'll likely judge a category or two, so perhaps I'll see your case studies in a couple of weeks?
Labels: communications, Game Changers Awards, SNCR
Monday, August 24, 2009
My attempt to unplug
PBS Frontline's Digital Nation project was at BlogHer '09 and interviewed lots of amazing women who blog.
And then there's me. Telling a quick story about trying to unplug while in Africa for a week. And considering myself quite successful at it. Even though I didn't actually unplug the whole, entire time.
It's two-minutes long, enjoy!
And then there's me. Telling a quick story about trying to unplug while in Africa for a week. And considering myself quite successful at it. Even though I didn't actually unplug the whole, entire time.
It's two-minutes long, enjoy!
Labels: blogher '09, bloghercon, Digital Nation, PBS, Unplugging
Saturday, August 22, 2009
Spam me to defend yourself against spam. Good plan.
I got an email almost a week ago that was so glaringly ironic that I saved it. A day later David Weinberger, who is obviously more on the blogging ball than I, blogged the same email: meta-meta-spam.
Some company I've never heard of, and who I can guarantee I've never opted in to receive emails from, sent me an email:
Indeed, that is the definition, thanks for reminding me...dude who is spamming me to tell me how he's not a spammer on Twitter!
The #blogher09 hashtag stream has been completely overtaken by spammers...some of them no doubt enabled by this company in question.
Let's just say: I am not your target audience spammer-dude.
Some company I've never heard of, and who I can guarantee I've never opted in to receive emails from, sent me an email:
Twitter has recently moved to shut down web promotions company uSocial.net, by claiming the advertising agency is “spamming”.
According to uSocial CEO Leon Hill, Twitter recently sent accusations via a brand-management organisation that uSocial are using Twitter for spam purposes. Despite this, uSocial say the claims are false.
“The definition of spam is using electronic messaging to send unsolicited communication and as we don’t use Twitter for this, the claims are false.” Said Hill.
Indeed, that is the definition, thanks for reminding me...dude who is spamming me to tell me how he's not a spammer on Twitter!
The #blogher09 hashtag stream has been completely overtaken by spammers...some of them no doubt enabled by this company in question.
Let's just say: I am not your target audience spammer-dude.
Sunday, July 12, 2009
Aw, I'm a high school lesson!
Got the nicest email yesterday. From someone leading a class on leadership for high school students, who came upon an old post of mine and wanted to use it as a lesson in communications.
The post: A Little Story About Communication
I'll be honest, I was surprised. It's an old post, and not one that pop into my head when thinking of past posts that might be lesson-worthy.
But I'm tickled nonetheless.
The post: A Little Story About Communication
I'll be honest, I was surprised. It's an old post, and not one that pop into my head when thinking of past posts that might be lesson-worthy.
But I'm tickled nonetheless.
Thursday, July 09, 2009
Cross-post: BlogHer post on Twitter, Marketing and Tools
We launched a new Twitter account at BlogHer, @BlogHerDeals.
This prompted a little soul-searching about whether the use of Twitter as a marketing tool is a natural fit. Or whether some tools of the human variety are ruining Twitter with their marketing.
Weigh in and you be the judge.
This prompted a little soul-searching about whether the use of Twitter as a marketing tool is a natural fit. Or whether some tools of the human variety are ruining Twitter with their marketing.
Weigh in and you be the judge.
Labels: bloghercon, marketing, Twitter
Sunday, July 05, 2009
QoTD: "Angry, little "SEO Experts"
I was reading a standard post about Twitter, and how he uses it, from Guy Kawasaki.
Wasn't really learning anything new or being too surprised when I read this somewhat hilarious Q from his FAQs about Twitter, about his use of ghost-twitterers:
Oh so sad for those very reputable SEO folks I know, including the folks at Beyond Ink that BlogHer actually hired when we were transitioning from our old .org domain to .com.
But oh so reminds of some of the stuff that happens, say every July when "BlogHer" is a trending topic :)
Wasn't really learning anything new or being too surprised when I read this somewhat hilarious Q from his FAQs about Twitter, about his use of ghost-twitterers:
Question: Why do some people attack you so much for this?
Answer: Most are angry, little “SEO experts” who cannot generate content, so they try to generate controversy in order to drive traffic to their blogs or get other angry, little people to follow them.
Oh so sad for those very reputable SEO folks I know, including the folks at Beyond Ink that BlogHer actually hired when we were transitioning from our old .org domain to .com.
But oh so reminds of some of the stuff that happens, say every July when "BlogHer" is a trending topic :)
Labels: bloghercon, guy kawasaki, Twitter
Thursday, July 02, 2009
How many ads prompt LOLs *and* serious commentary?
Lisa, Jory and I often say that we created the "best jobs we've ever had" when we co-founded BlogHer.
So, here's a little insight into one reason I say that:
Lately I've been having a lot of fun with BlogHer's own house ads that we run on BlogHer.com and the network. We like to feature hot editorial and our contributing editors, among other community-related stuff.
One of the earliest editorial ads we did was set to feature some posts that were written on the site about marketing to women, and how companies fall back on stereotypes. When talking abut the visuals to go with the copy featuring the editors' work, one of my colleagues proposed putting the copy against a sparkly pink background, but wondered if that would be too negative.
I thought: Hey why not just go all the way with that? So I literally said:
And I did think that would be hilarious :)
And it came out looking like this:
Which I thought was actually hilarious. I laughed every time I saw it. I exchanged tweets with folks who loved it too. Fun for all!
And then this blogger was actually motivated to write some serous commentary based on seeing the ad:
And he goes on to outline traditional feminine programming a la the Lifetime Network or Hallmark Channel...good stuff.
I had to agree I had never thought of it that way. And it was excellent food for thought...no pun intended simply because that incisive commentary was on a food blog :)
But you know what: That's why I love my job.
I'm just sayin'
So, here's a little insight into one reason I say that:
Lately I've been having a lot of fun with BlogHer's own house ads that we run on BlogHer.com and the network. We like to feature hot editorial and our contributing editors, among other community-related stuff.
One of the earliest editorial ads we did was set to feature some posts that were written on the site about marketing to women, and how companies fall back on stereotypes. When talking abut the visuals to go with the copy featuring the editors' work, one of my colleagues proposed putting the copy against a sparkly pink background, but wondered if that would be too negative.
I thought: Hey why not just go all the way with that? So I literally said:
"As for a visual: We can use their [the editors] headshots, but superimpose them onto cartoon figures as follows:
Suzane riding a unicorn
Virginia in a Disney-like princess outfit
All against a pink background with butterflies and rainbows?
I think that would be hilarious."
And I did think that would be hilarious :)
And it came out looking like this:
Which I thought was actually hilarious. I laughed every time I saw it. I exchanged tweets with folks who loved it too. Fun for all!
And then this blogger was actually motivated to write some serous commentary based on seeing the ad:
"While doing my usual rounds of the food blogs, I came across a banner that intrigued me: it was from BlogHer, asking us (you?) if marketing to women is all about stereotypes. I couldn't quite remember the content of the articles I read from that link, but one writer was lamenting about a sparkly pink candy "just for the ladies" (I can't remember if this is the article I read about the controversial candy bar called "The Finger") while another one, about a "misguided laptops-for-women site." I found myself agreeing with the content of the articles, and of course I am for gender-neutral advertising, for the most part. But don't think men have been dealt a better hand.
Just watching a local cable network here, "Maxx" (probably your equivalent would be SpikeTV, Americans), where I get my daily dose of The Daily Show and The Colbert Report, all the ads are geared towards men. The tagline is "get away with it." Away with what? Oh, watching extreme sports, bikini-clad computer-generated anime females that I hope are meant to be older than 21, references to wanking, beer, infidelity, pugilism, poker, and yes, we prefer women to be dumb (and biting their nails for some reason). Why is The Daily Show and The Colbert Report (among other comedy shows) here? Because laughter apparently requires testicles."
And he goes on to outline traditional feminine programming a la the Lifetime Network or Hallmark Channel...good stuff.
I had to agree I had never thought of it that way. And it was excellent food for thought...no pun intended simply because that incisive commentary was on a food blog :)
But you know what: That's why I love my job.
I'm just sayin'
Sunday, June 14, 2009
Interview with Paula G...on being comfortable in one's own skin
Had a great time this past Wednesday being interviewed by life coach and BlogHer CE on personal finance, business and career, Paula Gregorowicz.
The link to her post publishing the interview is here.
I'm not sure I completely lived up to Paula's vision of being comfortable in one's own skin and how that leads to fulfillment and success. I think I made a different point...that one can be comfortable in one's own skin in parts. And that can be enough. I am highly comfortable about some things, and that serves me well...and it can serve you well too, even if you're a mass of discomfort about other things! Leverage your strengths, baby, that's what it's all about.
When I think of some of the great achievers, I'm not thinking of people who breeze through life without insecurity, or even people who seem that comfortable in their own skin. But they are driven, and who knows? Maybe our discomforts and insecurities are part of what drive us?
What does being comfortable in your own skin...or not being that comfortable...mean to you and achieving your goals?
The link to her post publishing the interview is here.
I'm not sure I completely lived up to Paula's vision of being comfortable in one's own skin and how that leads to fulfillment and success. I think I made a different point...that one can be comfortable in one's own skin in parts. And that can be enough. I am highly comfortable about some things, and that serves me well...and it can serve you well too, even if you're a mass of discomfort about other things! Leverage your strengths, baby, that's what it's all about.
When I think of some of the great achievers, I'm not thinking of people who breeze through life without insecurity, or even people who seem that comfortable in their own skin. But they are driven, and who knows? Maybe our discomforts and insecurities are part of what drive us?
What does being comfortable in your own skin...or not being that comfortable...mean to you and achieving your goals?
Labels: interview, Paula Gregorowicz, podcast
