Facebook Killed the Blog, Part II

So, I found myself wondering the other day about Facebook's impact on blogs, again.

When blogs first hit the scene, some 13-15 years ago, they were really, the only gig in town. If you wanted to interact socially, it was blogs or forums or nothing.

Now, of course, Facebook (and Twitter, to a far lesser degree) is the 800 pound gorilla in the room. Way too many people view Facebook and social media as completely synonymous (which, they're not).

So, here's an example.

My blog, obviously, is public-facing. Anyone can find it, read it, comment on it. I don't restrict the viewing of the blog to anyone.

But, when I promote the blog, I do it on Facebook, a lot of times. When my friends want to comment, they do that in response to my link post on Facebook; *NOT* on the blog. The net result is that 90 percent of the comments to my blog don't actually make it TO my blog; they're restricted to my circle of friends on Facebook. And, any other viewers might not see that a good deal of my posts actually generate a number of comments.

Now, ideally, blogs are meant to be viral -- viewers should read them, comment and share -- and by doing that, the readership grows. But, Facebook continues to make that less conducive. Now, in some cases, it's understandable that people don't want to post publicly (maybe they want to send something to me directly; and they don't want everyone to see what they've written). And, that's the bigger risk of social media -- the fact that the web makes things archivable and findable and permanent.

I thought about this a lot last year, while I was out of work -- ensuring that what I posted in various places made sense given the venue (in other words, public forums demanded one level of self-imposed privacy; Facebook demanded another; email conversations could be less concerning). I went back over my internet history and ensured that anything I had posted in a public setting was appropriate and suitable.

I basically subscribe to this version of internet privacy (something we all should follow), and I see the value in being more careful (even now that I'm no longer looking for a job). But, I think you need to know the setting you're in -- this doesn't mean you have to completely change your online personality, necessarily; it just means that, perhaps, that highly off-color joke is better served through email than on Facebook.

One of my favorite communications professionals, Shel Holtz, has a great saying -- "New media do not kill old media" -- and that's certainly true. All of these media work together -- email has a place; blogs have a place; and Facebook has a place. Unfortunately, I wonder if blogs have overstayed their welcome -- not really from a functional standpoint (I still think they're outstanding forms of communication); but from an audience perspective.

Should I Be a Vegetarian? (Your Thoughts -- warning, long post!)

A few months ago, a friend of mine revealed that he had become the Suffolk County head of an organization called Move On! – an anti-war movement. I was quite envious because there aren’t that many things I feel that passionately about, in my own life.

So, I started thinking about what issues I did feel that passionately about; and – around that time – I started noticing even more advertisements and news stories about animal abuse. And I realized, I feel that strongly about that issue.

In ascending order, here is my hierarchy of ‘heinousness’ in regards to animal abuse (and, sorry, ahead of time, for the non-communications bent this blog has taken, recently – I’ll actually have a professional-related piece for my next post … I promise!)

7. Slaughtering animals for food.

Make no mistake, I still think there’s something a little wrong with people who do this; but compared to some of the other entries on this list, this is fairly benign, I suppose. I cannot imagine spending EVERY SINGLE DAY killing animals. I simply cannot. It’s especially perplexing because, well, to be blunt, we don’t NEED animal protein to live – many, many people are vegetarians, and they live extremely healthy lives; in fact, the lack of red meat in your diet severely reduces several health issues.

And, now, Marc Zuckerberg, founder of Facebook, has revealed that, for 2011, he will ONLY eat meat that he has personally killed.

What troubles me (apart from sadists, which comes later) is the barbaric ways we use to execute the animals. I can almost – ALMOST – accept humane, pain-free killing (almost); but in some cases, the killing is anything but. Crab legs, for example – we have established machines to slice off the legs, while leaving the animal writhing in pain. Then, it’s tossed into a bin to die (it takes too much time to kill it; so, instead, they just expire, eventually).

And don’t get me started on veal.

Still, there’s hope – scientists are already working on “growing” meat (similar to how we create yogurt). I had joked about this years ago; but now, it’s actually a reality.

6. Animal Neglect

I have to put this one this low because, in many cases, the individual is mentally ill. There are many stories about people who are found to have 27 cats, 6 dogs, a cheetah, a parrot and 4 gerbils – all running around loose. These people are ill. I have 3 cats and a dog, and I already think that’s close to too many.

So, this entry is just for the people who are mentally ill. Still, they’re not without blame; someone should be monitoring them, etc. – but, I think this failing is with everyone (if they don’t have family, then the government should be intervening – in  no way should you be able to amass that many pets).

5. Hunters

This isn’t a case of “wow, I think hunters aren’t that bad;” but more of a case of “wait til you see what follows.” Thankfully, we do have *some* laws that restrict hunters, and most hunters seem to be interested in eating what they hunt. Still, I bristle when this is referred to as a “sport.” When a thug kills a policeman, who has a bulletproof vest and a gun, we don’t say the criminal was “the better sportsman” – we call him a killer. Call it like it is. When we outfit animals with guns, armor and/or anything else to truly combat the hunter, I’ll call it a sport; until then, it’s killing. The biggest risk the hunter has is being shot by another hunter, or going home empty-handed. Boo-hoo.

4. Animal MEDICAL Research

This is a tricky one; but, I have to think, we’ve evolved our computers well enough to be able to emulate a human reaction to medicine, etc.

I can remember reading an article in my local paper years ago [stop reading this paragraph if you’re squeamish]: It outlined a method how they tested for stroke medication. Of course, to do this, they had to  CREATE a stroke; which they did, on chimpanzees, by removing its eyeball. While it was awake. OK – now they have a stroke victim, which they can operate on.

The fact that the story still sickens me, years later, speaks to the vulgarity of the story.

3. Luxury Items and Animal PRODUCT Research

Yeah, I’m looking at you – fur-wearers and consumers of makeup that performs animal testing. It’s one thing to eat meat. It’s another to say, “Thank God there’s penicillin,” but, there’s a whole different level of contempt for those who continue to purchase the goods made by massive killings. Harp seals, for instance; who are beaten – but not to death – then skinned alive, to be left bleeding on the ice – probably praying something will eat them to put them out of their misery.

2. General Savagery

In all of these cases, one prays that there are sane people operating in those fashions. Still, we constantly see stories about the truly deranged that delight in their jobs – those who take sick pleasure in being more vicious than necessary when it comes to slaughtering animals – kicking them, torturing them, etc. One can only hope there is a special, even-lower-level of Hell for these individuals.

1. Sport/Entertainment

Here, I’m referring to dog-fighting, cock-fighting. I’ve noticed an uptick in the last few weeks on advertising from the World Society for the Protection of Animals. Again, this is some horrifying stuff – bear baiting (where the teeth and claws are removed; the bear is tethered to the ground and dogs are encouraged to bite it until it dies – for spectators’ amusement). And, of course, bull-fighting (where, even if the bull DOES win (against the fighter and his SWORD), the bull is still put to death – hey, congrats on your win!).

And, of course, I find as much fault with the spectators of these events as the participants.

Whew – so, where does that leave me?

Years ago, I had a book – The Book of Questions – which asked thought-provoking questions. One question (if I recall correctly) was along these lines:

If someone offered to pay you $100, would you tear the wings off a butterfly to kill it? Would you step on a cockroach?

And, the answers are obvious (and so should be the point – life is life, yet we’ll step on a cockroach for free; and we’d probably decline the $100).

So, is that the case? Is life really life? If so, why do we not get equally upset at seeing a cow (or chicken) killed for our food, as we do watching a dog clubbed to death in Thailand (where it will also be food)?

It leaves me at a crossroads.

For years, I’ve avoided confronting the issue – I never read Fast Food Nation or visited a slaughterhouse. I chose the ostrich approach. I’m not quite as cavalier as my wife (who definitely subscribes to this mentality), but I’m definitely sensitive to it. Should I *be* a vegetarian? I do love the taste of chicken. Should I be more like Marc Zuckerberg? Probably not.

In the end, I think it comes down to humane treatment. If the in vitro meat was successful, I would eagerly switch; but, wouldn’t the animals still be killed? Sure they would.

When I was younger, I used to send money all the time to the harp seal charity; before learning – of course – that probably fewer than $.05 of each dollar I sent actually went to the cause. I like PETA’s mission; not-so-much a fan of their approach (since most are now labeled as lunatics); so where does that leave me, again?

I ask, legitimately, as I would like to do something to further the cause; but I know I’m weak-stomached enough to not want to immerse myself into the darkness that this subject presents.

Thoughts?

How NOT to Use Facebook

Obviously, as someone who works in communications, I’m pay special attention to the way various companies communicate with their customers. And, as someone who saw the value of social media long before there were such vehicles as Facebook or Twitter, it’s always both entertaining and disappointing when someone really doesn’t get it.

Take, for example, the Long Island Wine and Food Festival.

For a small, regional event, there are nearly 1700 people who like/follow it online. That’s good.

Last year was the first time the event was held, over a weekend in June. Not sure how many people actually attended; but starting last September, they started priming the pump for this year’s event. It started by asking people to vote for them for “Best North Fork Event.” And, by November, they were requesting recommendations for the 2011 event.

From then on, about once a month (or more frequently), they would post something on Facebook about “Hope everyone is looking forward to the festival,” or “The 2011 Festival is right around the corner.” Each time, you had an opportunity to head to their website.

Let’s visit, shall we?

That’s it – you can send them an email; or submit your email to get on their mailing list. No information on last year’s festival; nothing. And, the page has been like this for months. Each month, another post would go up on Facebook, directing visitors to their website.

Starting in mid-May, things start to spiral downhill:

May 14 – “Looking for information about the festival” – and a link to the page.

You won’t actually find any information; but you can send us an email or join our email list (which, by the way, why can’t the information in the email list *be* the information sent out via Facebook? I digress).

May 15 – the same link posted.

May 19 – the same link posted.

May 19 – “We would like to let you all know that it is confirmed, the festival has been postponed for this year! Hopefully we will see you all next year! Enjoy the summer! There are tons of great wineries to visit and restaurants to enjoy! Check back often for updated information. Don't forget to join our email list!”

 

Wow – so in nearly no time, everything is off (but, you can still join the email list).

 

So, I did what any other engaged customer would do – I posted a comment; basically asking what happened and how surprising it was, after the marketing blitz, to see the event canceled.

 

My comment was deleted.

 

So, I posted again; asking “when was it postponed until?”

 

I received back a response, “indefinitely.”

 

I posted again, “why?” And, then another 5-6 people posted after me, asking much the same thing, and expressing their disappointment.

 

That was 17 hours ago; so far, no response.

On so many levels, this is a complete failure from a communications standpoint. If there was an issue with the festival that could be addressed; you have 1700 people who have already said, “I want to see this happen” – tap into that network. Secondly, why the lack of transparency? This isn’t a cure for cancer or equally valuable trade secret; you’re putting together a weekend for tourists. Be honest with your audience – what’s the reason for it not happening? Is it lack of interest; is it lack of volunteers? Of course, posting through social media to ask people to go to your website to sign up for an email newsletter than will be delivered to my email periodically is so incredibly behind the times – you have 1700 fans on your facebook page … communicate with them directly!

But, then again, no one asked me.

The Rapid Decline of John Grisham

***SPOILERS AHEAD***

I can still remember when John Grisham's "The Firm" came out -- it was an instant best-seller and a book I rapidly read through.

Secretly, I suspect, I'm a frustrated would-be lawyer. I don't think I'd really enjoy *being* a lawyer, but I do think I enjoy thinking about being one. Consequently, I find myself drawn to legal thrillers (as Grisham used to write).

"The Firm" was a good book - for 90 percent of the book. I felt he copped-out a little at the end, by making the main antagonist, essentially, the Mafia.

Of course, this wasn't his first book -- he had an earlier one -- but this was the one that put him on the map.

Quickly, Grisham began pumping out books - more quickly, perhaps, that anyone this side of James Patterson.

And, some of them were really pretty good -- "Runaway Jury" is still one of my favorites by him, "The Client" was pretty good, as well.

But, somewhere along the way, Grisham became a fan of the non-ending ending. And, that's disappointing.

He first veered away from being, what I would consider, a legal writer, some time ago. And, for sure, that diminished some of my interest. He stopped focusing on the nitty-gritty and his books became more of a "soap opera starring lawyers" genre. But, at least the endings were fulfilling.

I just recently finished two of his books -- the first, "The Associate" was an utter disappointment. A young lawyer, who had witnessed/been an accomplice to a rape years earlier in college, is 'recruited' by computer hacker thugs to steal information. He finally gets the FBI involved, and a sting is set up, but the cons catch on and flee, never to be heard from again. In other words, a lot of nothing happens.

From the book's Wikipedia page:

Janet Maslin of the New York Times stated, "Mr. Grisham so often writes similar books that the same things must be said of them. The Associate is true to form: it grabs the reader quickly, becomes impossible to put down, stays that way through most of its story, and then escalates into plotting so crazily far-fetched that it defies resolution. Kyle McAvoy is another of the two-dimensional yet terrifically likeable heroes who come to life on Mr. Grisham’s pages only to evaporate later. It’s easy to predict what choice Kyle will make at the end of the novel. It’s impossible to imagine, let alone care, what his life will be like once the improbably wild furor surrounding this one lone law-firm recruit is over."

Somehow, this "non-ending" apparently has become his go-to manuever. Following "The Associate" I immediately read his next novel, "The Appeal." This had a lot more grit to it. Town in Mississippi has been the site of toxic dumping that resulted in a cancer level 15x the national average. Two small-town lawyers win a $40 million lawsuit against the manufacturer, who is then approached by a firm that helps "win/fix" elections. Through less-than-honorable ways, the firm helps a candidate who is more sympathetic to the plight of manufacturer's liability win an election over a previously heavily favored incumbent. The verdict is overruled; the case is dismissed; and the manufacturer goes on, happily ever after.

Now, what this *doesn't* tell you is how much Grisham builds up the protagonists -- the two lawyers that are struggling to keep their firm (and the hopes of 300+ clients awaiting the outcome of this case) -- to be extremely sympathetic. The antagonist -- the CEO of the manufacturing company -- is near-devil-like. Even the patsy candidate is barely likeable. The lines are drawn very tightly.

Of course, at the last minute, the new judge has a personal tragedy in his life that -- we think -- may help him make the *right* decision (and uphold the verdict); although, as I was reading the book, I kept thinking what a convenient (and, as such, ridiculous) premise this was -- the weekend before he's set to make his decision, *something* happens to make him rethink HIS ENTIRE LIFE.

But, it's even worse than that; even faced with this new information, he still makes the wrong decision, and the bad guys ultimately win.

Admittedly, both of these books, on some level, were inspired by real-life information. And, I'm certainly not one to say "the good guy always has to win." But, I'm trying to determine why Grisham seems to think it's more important to keep his audience in suspense; as compared to the characters in his novels.


Easy for me to say, of course; considering the wide array of New York Times bestsellers I've penned already; but a reader can only know what he likes -- and I'm starting to feel like Grisham has been mailing it in for a while.

With the move of Richard North Patterson away from legal thrillers and into more political stories; that effectively leaves Scott Turow as the only true legal-thriller writer I know of (and he only comes out with books every 4-5 years, it seems; although "Presumed Innocent" is still the gold standard of legal mysteries).

Anyone else have any favorites in the legal thriller arena that I should be checking out?

Continuing on the Theme of Exemplary Customer Service

So, last week, there was an advertisement in our local paper for Petco, which was offering $20 off dog beds. Our dog has had her bed for quite a while, and we thought we might buy her a new one, but there was no information as to the price (just $20 off). So, I headed to the website to see if it was listed, and lo-and-behold, there was an option for a website chat.

 Here is the transcript to my "customer service" session: I think the transcript says it all...

Thank you for choosing PETCO! One of our representatives will be with you shortly.

You are now chatting with April.

April: Hello!  I am a PETCO Customer Relations Representative.  How can I help you today?

You: Hi - there is an advertisement in your weekly flyer for $20 off 'select PETCO oval pillow dog beds' -- do you know what the regular price of those beds might be? Where can I find them on the site?

April: May I know where did you see this advertisement?

You: weekly flyer - I'm on Long Island. Page 5

April: Thank you for waiting. I'll be with you in just a moment.

April: I'm sorry for the delay. I'll be right with you.

April: Thanks for your patience!

[total of 5 minutes]

You: ok

April: As much as I want to give you the regular price of that item. I'm sorry but we don't have the price list in our local PETCO store. However, I can advise you to call the store.

April: Can I have your ZIP code please so I can give you the phone number.  

You: Well - is it on the website?

April: I'll be right with you.

April: I'll be right with you.

April: Thank you for waiting. I'll be with you in just a moment.

April: I'm sorry for the delay. I'll be right with you.

April: I'm sorry for the delay. I'll be right with you.

April: Thanks for your patience!

[10 minutes goes by]

April: I'm sorry but we don't have online promo for $20 0ff.

You: Sigh...

You: No -- I'm asking -- do you have the bed, the product, online. Then, I can see what it is, what it's filled with, etc.

April: I will send you a link to a page that contains that information.

April: Beds.

You: there are 223 beds there

You: which is the bed that is listed in the flyer?

April: I'm sorry but we don't have the the list of promos that our local PETCO store have.

You: interesting

You: so, out of curiosity - and, no offense intended - but, what purpose does this chat serve?

You: If you're unable to tell me about products sold in your stores....

April: I can advise you to contact the store for more info.

You: but, I could do that without being on chat

April: I'll be right with you.

[5 minutes goes by]

You: Why would I just spend - approximately - 25 minutes in a chat window, to learn that, ultimately, the chat exists for the sole purpose of telling me to call the store?

April: I apologize for the inconvenience.

April: Thank you for waiting. I'll be with you in just a moment.

April: I'm sorry for the delay. I'll be right with you.

April: I'll be right with you.

[total of 15 minutes]

Sorry, our chat session has ended due to circumstances beyond our control. Please feel free to chat with us again if you need further assistance.