When I taught my first writing workshop for UC Berkeley Extension in 1980, I had no computer or cell phone. If I was stuck in traffic or there was a riot downstairs (true story) or God walked into my classroom (true story – he seemed ready to take vengeance on his enemies, but offering him a cigarette got us a pass) there was no way to call anyone. And if I couldn’t remember something during class, I was out of luck.

Last Saturday as I began a workshop on grammar (the power, not the rules) I referred students to a page in my workbook only to find that the E.E. Cummings poem I’d had there for years was gone. I’d taken it out for copyright reasons (which I didn’t have to do) and now I missed it. Not wanting to misquote a single word or rule breaking, I took out my mostly functioning Moto Q during the break and successfully Googled the poem.

Apt for a grammar workshop, here’s the complete poem:

****
since feeling is first
who pays any attention
to the syntax of things
will never wholly kiss you;
wholly to be a fool
while Spring is in the world

my blood approves,
and kisses are a better fate
than wisdom
lady i swear by all flowers. Don’t cry
—the best gesture of my brain is less than
your eyelids’ flutter which says

we are for each other: then
laugh, leaning back in my arms
for life’s not a paragraph

And death i think is no parenthesis
****

I can’t teach writing or grammar without remembering always that “feeling is first.” And when it comes to writing for PR and trying to understand communications in social media, we’d be wise to keep this poem handy.

Communication, e.e. cummings, grammar, Moto Q, PR, since feeling is first, Social Media, UC Berkeley Extension, Writing

Share on Facebook

More great insight from Seth Godin.

When you blog, are you writing for people who already know you or those first encountering you?

Writes Godin:

“I think this dichotomy of experience raises the level of responsibility for the reader. Without knowing who you’re reading, it’s hard to judge the tone of voice of what you’re hearing. More important, it changes the posture of the writer.

“Sometimes, the web is more of a cocktail party than a club meeting.”

I love this image. I’m at an event and strike up a conversation with a stranger (rare but it’s happened), but before I can get past the name, friends of the stranger join us. They start chatting away, completely ignoring the fact that I don’t know them or what they are talking about. I have a choice, I can interrupt them and ask lots of questions because I really want to get to know these people, or I can excuse myself.
Readers who want to join an online conversation in progress can patiently pay attention until the exchanges begin to make sense—hoping the time was worth it—or they can take the time to review the history of the discussion to get up to speed faster. Or they can simply abandon the conversation without having to make any excuses.

Bloggers have the advantage of using links that provide the needed history to include new readers, but Facebook and Twitter create a completely different environment. These conversations can’t possible carry forward sufficient background for those who missed the beginning or haven’t been paying attention. Still, keep in mind that the more shortcuts, slang, jargon, in-jokes, and unlinked references you make, the more exclusive these new inclusive platforms become.

Blogging, Communication, Facebook, language, Seth Godin, Social Media, Twitter, Writing

Share on Facebook

Started another UC Berkeley Extension writing workshop last Saturday. Great group of students with much to contribute. A hot topic was the writing style generation gap. Some of the older students are shocked by the emotional content and other style errors in the writing of their kids and younger colleagues.

Those of us watching the evolution of social media aren’t surprised—dismayed maybe, but not surprised. Is it going to wreak havoc with business communication? Or is it an evolution toward a more democratic, more direct form of communication that will seem completely natural, even in business, to those who grow up with it?

The answer is both. Our language continues its steady drive toward informality and greater emotional content, and the most formal of us today would be labeled as far too informal by the conservative standards of two generations ago. Good article here on the social media generation, which seems to prefer raw and authentic to edited and polished.

But the problem today really isn’t the evolving style. It’s the refusal to adjust the style for the needs of different readers. Most of us easily adjust our behavior—our personal style—as we move from client meetings to internal meetings, to networking events, to being with family. But many of us—both young and old—are unwilling or unable to adjust our writing style to fit the needs of different readers, which causes problems whenever the intended readers include members of different generations.

For communications professionals, the message is clear. Stop complaining about the evolving style and start understanding it. This huge new group of readers is only going to get bigger and more economically powerful.

business communication, Communication, generation gap, language, Social Media, social media generation, UC Berkeley Extension, Writing, writing style

Share on Facebook

The Forum for Women Entrepreneurs and Executives (an Eastwick client) held a conference on the business benefits of social networking. I watched the first hour or so on Ustream (another Eastwick client), during which Ross Mayfield, CEO of SocialText (yes, another Eastwick client) and Jeremiah Owyang of Forrester (no, not a client) provided terrific insight into how companies are deriving value from social networking and how other organizations can get started. Wish I could have stayed on for the whole conference. A couple of takeaways:

From Mayfield: four solution areas to define the use of social networking: collaborative intelligence (instead of email to exchange information), participatory knowledge base, project management, business social networks.

From Owyang: the POST approach. Understand the People first, then define the Objective, then develop the Strategy, and only then decide on the Technology. Also understand the real objective of a social network: listening, talking, energizing, supporting, embracing.

Owyang’s slides are available on Slideshare.

The entire presentation will be available on Ustream.

communities, Forrester, Forum for Women Entrepreneurs and Executives, Jeremiah Owyang, POST, Ross Mayfield, Slideshare, Social Media, social networking, SocialText, Ustream, Web 2.0, Writing

Share on Facebook

I’ve written before about the need to find trusted sources on the net, including here and here, and the good news is it appears to be the trend.

In Revenge of the Experts, Tony Dokoupil of Newsweek, writes:

“In short, the expert is back. The revival comes amid mounting demand for a more reliable, bankable Web. ‘People are beginning to recognize that the world is too dangerous a place for faulty information,’ says Charlotte Beal, a consumer strategist for the Minneapolis-based research firm Iconoculture. Beal adds that choice fatigue and fear of bad advice are creating a ‘perfect storm of demand for expert information.’”

Dokoupil quotes another expert, Jason Calacanis: “‘The wisdom of the crowds has peaked,’ says Calacanis. ‘Web 3.0 is taking what we’ve built in Web 2.0—the wisdom of the crowds—and putting an editorial layer on it of truly talented, compensated people to make the product more trusted and refined.’”

But Dokoupil seems to put a dark spin on this: “It comes, after all, during dark days for the ideal of a democratic Web. User-generated sites like Wikipedia, for all the stuff they get right, still find themselves in frequent dust-ups over inaccuracies, while community-posting boards like Craigslist have never been able to keep out scammers and frauds. Beyond performance, a series of miniscandals has called the whole ‘bring your own content’ ethic into question.”

As if democracy and expertise are mutually exclusive. As if expertise and elitism are the same thing. As if any real democracy exists in an ideal state. As if anything less than an ideal Wikipedia model, with contributions by anyone on any topic (which was never really the case), is undemocratic.

The article’s brief history lesson notwithstanding, it’s counterproductive to equate democracy with unlearned, uncontrolled, unmediated, and without a fee. For democracy to flourish, there must be controls and trust to prevent tyranny from the one or the many. And there must be trusted experts who delve deep into and report on topics the rest of us don’t have time for. And whether it’s a mountain of inaccurate information or manipulated search results, we have as much to fear from an absence of expertise and trusted sources as we do from elitism.

The desire for expertise and trust shouldn’t be seen in any way as a failure of a democratic web or even of the wisdom of crowds, which I never thought referred to a single crowd of all people with Internet access. Communities are alive and well on the web, and just as they have served democracy well offline, they can serve democracy well online.

Charlotte Beal, communities, Craigslist, democracy, elitism, Iconoculture, Jason Calacanis, Newsweek, politics, Social Media, Tony Dokoupil, trusted sources, Web 2.0, Wikipedia

Share on Facebook

It’s movement in the right direction.

read more | digg story

journalism, Social Media, Writing

Share on Facebook

Michael Krigsman addresses the dangers of Twitter, the immediate release of confidential information to an ever growing audience. (Thanks Giovanni )

Michael says it pains him to warn readers about the dangers, but it shouldn’t. Let’s face it, in delivering more interaction and greater immediacy, social media, which moves upward from cool and loose to corporate and careful, keeps making it easier for us to make major mistakes, from a damaging attack made in a fit of anger, to sharing information that’s now available to every human resources department, to a quip that violates corporate policy.

Technologies always carry the potential for abuse. In the case of social media, the potential lies in the greater power to control or influence others. Not abusing this power requires greater individual responsibility, and if everyone was responsible, we wouldn’t need external controls. But we do need controls, that’s the nature of the beast, and our ability and willingness to impose them allows for greater experimentation and faster adoption.

Can you think of a technology that didn’t have the potential for abuse and didn’t need any external control?  If so, please let me know.

Social Media, Technology, Twitter

Share on Facebook

PCs would have remained expensive toys if businesses had not recognized their value. And environmental activism has always seemed a fringe movement because it was seen as anti-business. But here’s the hope from the McKinsey Quarterly (reg. required):

“Environmental issues, including climate change, have soared to the top of the sociopolitical agenda in executive suites around the world, according to a new McKinsey Quarterly global survey on business and society. Executives expect that the environment will attract more public and political attention and affect shareholder value far more than any other societal issue; almost nine out of ten respondents say that they themselves worry about global warming.”

Of great significance, executives are beginning to see environmental issues as an opportunity instead of just a risk: “Executives see most sociopolitical issues more as risks than opportunities, and the environment, including climate change, is no exception. But on this issue, they are more optimistic than they were in the previous survey, even as global concern mounts. The share of respondents viewing the environment mainly as an opportunity has risen from 18 percent in 2005 to 25 percent in 2007, while the proportion seeing it mainly as a risk has dropped to 32 percent, from 41.”

If these trends continue, we may finally see a major transformation from small and incremental business-based environmental initiatives to a broad, self-sustaining economic engine driving CO2 reduction, green products, and sustainability habits.

What’s made the difference? Education from Al Gore and others? Scientific report after report that can’t be ignored? An aging baby-boomers beginning to worry about their grandchildren? All of the above?

According to McKinsey: “Executives seem well aware that action on the environment will be important for many companies if they are to earn the public’s trust. When asked about the three most important ways, if any, in which large corporations harm the public good, 65 percent name polluting and damaging the environment. Almost four in ten choose putting profits ahead of the people’s well-being; three in ten, exerting improper influence on governments.”

“Earning the public’s trust.” I like it. Is it merely a coincidence that with the rise of social media – the changing relationship between companies and their constituents and the potential for damaging corporate revelations – earning the public’s trust is of increasing importance?

Al Gore, baby boomers, climate change, Environment, future, global warming, McKinsey Quarterly, public’s trust, Social Media, sustainability

Share on Facebook

Professor Sledzik praises Steve Rubel for the latter’s big-time revelation that “the Web 2.0 world is skunk drunk on its own Kool-Aid.”

Says Rubel:“Many people I know, love and respect are heralding every new site as like it’s Jes.usR.com. No one’s casting a cynical eye anymore. No one’s looking at valuations and reality - or at least very few people are.”

Says Sledzik: “Does anyone doubt that social media will play a significant role in the future of our business? Didn’t think so. But it’s time we viewed it more critically, and maybe with a bit less, uh, enthusiasm. Let’s dump the Kool-Aid, break out the beer, and have a realistic conversation about where social media is going in PR.”

I’ll skip the disconnect between Rubel’s focus on Web 2.0 investment and Sledzik’s focus on PR, and instead just vent a bit about the idea of some big revelation here.

Anyone who actually listens to the conversations on the blogosphere knows that a lot of smart people never drank the Kool-Aid and have written relentlessly about the need to invest in and adopt new technologies sensibly and incorporate them into real business strategies. Some of us even remembered that the “future of PR” is really out there in the future and that just because something is new doesn’t mean it automatically and immediately has value. But remember the shrill they-don’t-get-it attacks?

Ever been part of a group (as in family) in which the four or five loudest people all shout at the same time and never listen? A lot of useful ideas never have a chance, and a lot of nonsense starts being believed.

Until yappers, blowhards, and gasbags understand that a conversation requires listening skills, the evolution of the Web 2.0 world will be stunted and misdirected. What we need is an algorithm that punishes shouting and elevates clarity, common sense, and intelligent discussion. Maybe I should have been a mathematician.

Bill Sledzik, Blogging, Communication, future, future of PR, journalism, Social Media, Steve Rubel, Web 2.0, wisdom of crowds

Share on Facebook

It’s nice to be reminded of where much of our sense of value comes from. In “Value of anything is a matter of perception” (in India’s Economic Times by way of Katie Paine ), Devdutt Pattanaik explains that we value things based on measuring scales, or “maya,” and much of our maya today comes from marketing.

Which is why advertisers have been so powerful, and why Giovanni Rodriguez wonders about how they will continue to be the gatekeepers of a product’s value in the post-2.0 world. He points to this instructive scene from Madmen (a show, I admit, I’ve never watched).

So if not advertisers, then who will create our maya? A-List bloggers? Unfortunately, the answer is yes for a lot of readers who confuse popularity with trust. Let’s face it, much of the blogosphere has degenerated into an ad-revenue-driven popularity contest.

I’ve written before about my fear that the net will be overwhelmed by algorithm-induced popularity and merely continue the job television started (despite such potential) of delivering the worst content to the greatest number of eyeballs. But the A-List phenomena, rather than simply signaling a failure of the blogosphere, demonstrates our rather desperate need for maya (which is also demonstrated by the increasing sway of celebrities, who hold the power of maya by virtue of their mere popularity, not their talent, deeds, values, or taste – all of which explains the meteoric rise of mediocre people).

Still, I think (OK, I really really hope) that we will eventually replace mere popularity with better mechanisms for finding trusted sources and developing our sense of maya. Blog aggregation is one mechanism. Sites like the Huffington Post bring together multiple points of view around similar themes, with some sense that the contributors have been screened by a known and trusted source. Social networking sites also hold potential, as our conversations with some trusted people lead to connections and conversations with other trusted people, and a maya, grounded in personal (and more humanistic) values, emerges.

In the end, though, it won’t be my aging generation that realizes or fails to realize the potential of social networking. I doubt it’ll be the 30 somethings who are just coming into their own. We are all just witnesses to the creation of a platform, and like the witnesses to the birth of the automobile and television, we can’t grok its path.

In the meantime, it’s important not to lie down on the tracks before the popularity train wreck, and remember that not all popular ideas are good, and good ideas are often unpopular, and it will take individuals (and serious debate), not algorithms, to make the distinctions.

A List, Authenticity, blog aggregation, Blogging, communities, future, Giovanni Rodriguez, Huffington Post, journalism, Madmen, maya, popularity, PR, Social Media, social networking, Web 2.0, wisdom of crowds

Share on Facebook