So after a fairly disappointing trip to The Cheesecake Cafe here in Medicine Hat I posted a comment talking about it on their Facebook wall figuring that while it might not be up for very long, it would certainly make my feelings known and hopefully they would reach out to me to discuss my concerns or even say that they were sorry I didn't enjoy my experience.
Instead they deleted the post and ignored it. Not even a simple "I'm sorry you felt that way."
Social media is about exchange marketing - No longer can companies use broadcast advertising to push out their message without listening to their customers. Modern customers want, and demand, exchange marketing. We can broadcast to the companies we do business with - both good and bad - and should expect to be able to have an exchange of ideas.
This is the power of SOCIAL media. It's an exchange and, for better or for worse, it's here to stay. Companies MUST understand that if they choose to participate in social media, and leverage the potential of sites such as Facebook, they should be participating fully.
To Cheesecake Cafe - this was a fantastic opportunity to build a relationship with a disappointed customer and instead, because you don't understand social media, beyond the ability to broadcast to a potential customer base for free - a small part of what makes social media powerful, you've lost that opportunity.
While I won't dramatically swear that I'll never go to Cheesecake Cafe again, I will say that it's probably never going to be my first choice (or second, third, forth etc).
More importantly all my friends will be sharing, even a little part, my experience. And if they comment, all their friends will get to share that experience.... And their friends... And theirs...
And THAT is the power of Social Media.
Friday, February 10, 2012
Thursday, December 23, 2010
Well, I certainly hadn't seen that coming...
So, almost a year ago I applied for a job with a local real estate company that was looking for a graphic designer. They explained that they were actually just looking for freelancers and not offering a position. I wasn't at all interested in doing freelance work, so that was that.
6 months ago I decided to start doing some freelancing - who wants to be tied down to a boss and a schedule and a regular paycheck (well, okay, that last one is awfully nice)
Now that I'm not looking for a job and just going freelance, that same company that had been looking for freelance is now looking to hire someone for a position.
Yesterday they offered me a real job with a real title (We're not exactly what that title is just yet, but I'm leaning toward 'Marketing & Communications Coordinator')
It's been three years since I've had a real, honest to goodness job - Wish me luck because I start on January 5th.
6 months ago I decided to start doing some freelancing - who wants to be tied down to a boss and a schedule and a regular paycheck (well, okay, that last one is awfully nice)
Now that I'm not looking for a job and just going freelance, that same company that had been looking for freelance is now looking to hire someone for a position.
Yesterday they offered me a real job with a real title (We're not exactly what that title is just yet, but I'm leaning toward 'Marketing & Communications Coordinator')
It's been three years since I've had a real, honest to goodness job - Wish me luck because I start on January 5th.
Saturday, December 4, 2010
making music for the love of making music
I've started working on some posters and wanted to find some good inspiring quotes about music from some great musicians. First up was Louis Armstrong because, other than being one of my all time favorite musicians, he was always good for a quote.
Next up was Elvis, and he too did not disappoint. I was going to go with Bob Marley next when my wife asked if I was going to do any with people my audience would recognize. Since I'm doing these for my daughter's school, I figured I had better look into newer stars. (I'm pretty sure they will recognize Bob Marley, even if only from headshop displays and hopefully they all know Elvis, but I'm pretty sure my man Louis is going to be a mystery)
So, who should I start off with? Realizing for the first time just how old and out of touch I am, I resorted to some quick research.
Now I know some of the singers I can hear when my daughter has her headphones on, so I have a couple names to start with - Ke$ha and Usher.
A quick look through Texts from Last Night revealed a strong bent toward Lady Gaga and a search of Canadian Singers yielded a couple names from which I pulled Alanis Morissette and Nelly Furtado (not to be confused with Nelly - the things you learn...)
Now, I was listening to Alanis in high school, so my guess is that she's out.
So I have a list of 4:
Usher
Ke$ha
Nelly Furtado
Lady Gaga
Let me stop a moment and say that this list does NOT come from any sort of serious research, but just happened to be some names I basically pulled from a hat. Please do not take this list to mean anything other than it is 4 names of singers that I know are relatively popular.
Now my first two searches were pretty quick and easy. Typing 'Louis Armstrong Music Quotes' and 'Elvis Music Quotes' easily gave me dozens of quotes to choose from which illustrated to me clearly how they felt about music and their opportunity to create that music.
“If you have to ask what jazz is, you'll never know.”
-Louis Armstrong
"Music should be something that makes you gotta move, inside or outside. "
-Elvis Presley
What about the other 4? My modern stars?
I'll list a couple of my favorites, though please remember that this isn't exhaustive:
"I’m interested in making sound moves as a young man. When the opportunity presented itself, I jumped in."
-Usher
I write pop songs. But I think it is sprinkled with a lot of counter-culture references. It ranged from rap to hip hop to trip hop, house, drum and bass, and experimental and improv and jazz.
-Nelly Furtado
"My ideal man would be funny and fat with a beard. I love fat men. I like real men. I don’t like really feminine men who tan. I don’t understand that. I like a funny man, though. Russell Brand’s not quite my type, but if he had a fat, bearded friend, that would be perfect."
-Ke$ha
"I have fans who just love my music and don't know I write it and enjoy it shallowly -- and that's OK too. I think art and music should be just as powerful if you drink it shallow as if you drink it deep."
-Lady Gaga
These aren't the worst quotes, but I picked them because they were a good example of the quotes I saw. I didn't see quotes about music and loving it. I didn't see quotes that would make me want to pursue music as a dream or a love. I didn't see passion or excitement.
I've always thought, and maybe this is a bit naive of me, that some of the older music stars, like Louis Armstrong and Elvis Presley, seemed to create their music because of an internal passion. That creating music was the only safe way to release the feeling inside of them, but when I look at today's stars, I don't see the same passion for their art. I see a bunch of people with talent (or at least good agents) who want to become rich and famous. They thrive off the attention and not off of their music. Oddly, out of the 4 quotes from earlier, the deepest glimpse of that passion is from the one person who strives to get all the attention - Lady Gaga.
I've admitted I'm out of touch with the music that is most popular today, so maybe I'm completely mistaken. Maybe there is passion there and I just don't see it at first glimpse.
I see it in today's culture. People are becoming famous not because they strive for years to build their skills and craft and slowly work their way up from nothingness to stardom, but instead they go on a show for a few weeks and are suddenly stars. I see people who have rich and famous parents leaping into stardom from the first floor instead of the basement. I wonder what effect this has on the stars themselves? Instead of talking about music, they talk about themselves. Instead of the passion of great art that has a life of its own, they talk about becoming famous. The music and art take a back seat to the person who creates it.
I got a glimpse of this the other day. My daughter had no idea who Louis Armstrong was but instantly recognized 'What a Wonderful World.'
Maybe in 30 years someone will be saying the same thing about Usher or Lady Gaga. They'll say, "they had a passion and love of music- that today's stars don't have the same feeling."
Now, a question for those out there who might know today's music better than I do. If you were trying to foster a love for music in today's teens, who would you use? Who creates inspiration in today's youth? Any ideas. If I start looking for Justin Bieber Quotes I might just loose it.
Next up was Elvis, and he too did not disappoint. I was going to go with Bob Marley next when my wife asked if I was going to do any with people my audience would recognize. Since I'm doing these for my daughter's school, I figured I had better look into newer stars. (I'm pretty sure they will recognize Bob Marley, even if only from headshop displays and hopefully they all know Elvis, but I'm pretty sure my man Louis is going to be a mystery)
So, who should I start off with? Realizing for the first time just how old and out of touch I am, I resorted to some quick research.
Now I know some of the singers I can hear when my daughter has her headphones on, so I have a couple names to start with - Ke$ha and Usher.
A quick look through Texts from Last Night revealed a strong bent toward Lady Gaga and a search of Canadian Singers yielded a couple names from which I pulled Alanis Morissette and Nelly Furtado (not to be confused with Nelly - the things you learn...)
Now, I was listening to Alanis in high school, so my guess is that she's out.
So I have a list of 4:
Usher
Ke$ha
Nelly Furtado
Lady Gaga
Let me stop a moment and say that this list does NOT come from any sort of serious research, but just happened to be some names I basically pulled from a hat. Please do not take this list to mean anything other than it is 4 names of singers that I know are relatively popular.
Now my first two searches were pretty quick and easy. Typing 'Louis Armstrong Music Quotes' and 'Elvis Music Quotes' easily gave me dozens of quotes to choose from which illustrated to me clearly how they felt about music and their opportunity to create that music.
“If you have to ask what jazz is, you'll never know.”
-Louis Armstrong
"Music should be something that makes you gotta move, inside or outside. "
-Elvis Presley
What about the other 4? My modern stars?
I'll list a couple of my favorites, though please remember that this isn't exhaustive:
"I’m interested in making sound moves as a young man. When the opportunity presented itself, I jumped in."
-Usher
I write pop songs. But I think it is sprinkled with a lot of counter-culture references. It ranged from rap to hip hop to trip hop, house, drum and bass, and experimental and improv and jazz.
-Nelly Furtado
"My ideal man would be funny and fat with a beard. I love fat men. I like real men. I don’t like really feminine men who tan. I don’t understand that. I like a funny man, though. Russell Brand’s not quite my type, but if he had a fat, bearded friend, that would be perfect."
-Ke$ha
"I have fans who just love my music and don't know I write it and enjoy it shallowly -- and that's OK too. I think art and music should be just as powerful if you drink it shallow as if you drink it deep."
-Lady Gaga
These aren't the worst quotes, but I picked them because they were a good example of the quotes I saw. I didn't see quotes about music and loving it. I didn't see quotes that would make me want to pursue music as a dream or a love. I didn't see passion or excitement.
I've always thought, and maybe this is a bit naive of me, that some of the older music stars, like Louis Armstrong and Elvis Presley, seemed to create their music because of an internal passion. That creating music was the only safe way to release the feeling inside of them, but when I look at today's stars, I don't see the same passion for their art. I see a bunch of people with talent (or at least good agents) who want to become rich and famous. They thrive off the attention and not off of their music. Oddly, out of the 4 quotes from earlier, the deepest glimpse of that passion is from the one person who strives to get all the attention - Lady Gaga.
I've admitted I'm out of touch with the music that is most popular today, so maybe I'm completely mistaken. Maybe there is passion there and I just don't see it at first glimpse.
I see it in today's culture. People are becoming famous not because they strive for years to build their skills and craft and slowly work their way up from nothingness to stardom, but instead they go on a show for a few weeks and are suddenly stars. I see people who have rich and famous parents leaping into stardom from the first floor instead of the basement. I wonder what effect this has on the stars themselves? Instead of talking about music, they talk about themselves. Instead of the passion of great art that has a life of its own, they talk about becoming famous. The music and art take a back seat to the person who creates it.
I got a glimpse of this the other day. My daughter had no idea who Louis Armstrong was but instantly recognized 'What a Wonderful World.'
Maybe in 30 years someone will be saying the same thing about Usher or Lady Gaga. They'll say, "they had a passion and love of music- that today's stars don't have the same feeling."
Now, a question for those out there who might know today's music better than I do. If you were trying to foster a love for music in today's teens, who would you use? Who creates inspiration in today's youth? Any ideas. If I start looking for Justin Bieber Quotes I might just loose it.
Friday, December 3, 2010
Zappos Customer Service Fail
I recently read the article 10 Best Stores for Customer Service from Newsweek. Customer service is a dying art, so it's nice to know that there are some businesses that strive for excellent customer service.
When I reached the tenth on the list, Zappos, it reminded me that I needed new winter boots, as my current pair each have a rather large hole in them. I jumped online and began the long and tedious task of finding a pair that would fit my size 12EEEE feet (yes, that's 4 'E's). I tracked down a boot that wasn't exactly what I was wanting, but was still better than the ones I owned and at $116 they were quite a bit cheaper than the Redwing pair that I liked which only came in 2E width. I also found a great cowboy boot that was onsale for $85 that also came in a size 4E.
Of course that price is in American Dollars, and since I live in Canada I figured I'd just end up paying a few bucks more. I also expected that the free shipping was probably an America-only offer. After a quick search, I found that Zappos has a Canadian Website and I moved over there.
WOAH! The Canadian website was awful to find anything in. It's poorly designed and the search function was nearly useless - Are winter shoes 'dress' 'casual' or 'athletic?' The price for shipping was $10 (returns, which Zappos has always paid for was $15, so you're out $25 if you get them and don't like them).
After a few minutes I was able to track down the cowboy boot, but gave up on finding the winter boot and called the 1800 number. They don't ship that brand of shoe. Fine, I understand that for whatever reason some manufacturers do not allow shipping to Canada; It is most likely because they can sell the same product in Canada at a higher markup which is good for them, but an awful pain for the consumer. I explained that the website was pretty frustrating and asked the Customer Service Representative (sorry, didn't get her name- I'm assuming it's not CSR, but that's what I'm calling her) if she could help me track down a winter boot in a size 12EEEE. Instead she began to talk about why the website was so bad. It wasn't because they didn't care, it was because it was the old style that the American version had originally had but because of Canadian laws and shipping concerns it was impossible to change the site.
HUH? Impossible to change the site because of Canadian law? I've shopped online from a number of sites that ship to Canada from the United States and most of them were fine, so why is Zappos having so much trouble? Seems odd that Canadian Import law would determine whether or not you could have an easy, customer friendly search function on your website, but I figured that was a matter for Import/Export Lawyers to deal with.
I attempted to steer the conversation back to helping me find a winter boot that would fit. CSR continued to tell me that they have had multiple complaints about the site, but there just wasn't anything they could do. "Ok, fine, no problem, can you help me find a winter boot?" She says sure and asks my size again and does a quick search before informing me that she doesn't see one in the search she did, but they probably have them and all I have to do is go to the Canadian website and search through all the shoes until I find a pair that fits.
Wow, that was helpful. I explained, again, that I had already looked but hadn't been able to find them (I kept ending up looking at either cowboy boots or tennis shoes, neither of which was particularly helpful) and she explained that she understood my concerns, but the website couldn't be changed because of...
Yeah, thanks - I got that.
It amazes me that a company that prides itself on their customer service experience would fail so bad when a customer called needing help. Is it because I'm living in Canada? Would it have helped me to explain that I was actually American so they could give me a bit more help? Should I just chalk it up to fate telling me that I have to wear uncomfortable shoes? Maybe I'm blowing it out of proportion.
The fact is that I won't be buying anything from Zappos. Not even the cowboy boots that they can ship to Canada. You can't throw a brick without hitting a web designer, so I find it amazing that they can't have a better web page for their customers in the frozen white north. And it seems to me that a retailer that makes such a big deal out of customer service should be able to help a customer having a problem better than 'just keep looking, I'm sure you'll find what you need."
The biggest issue is that when I did ask for a complaint about the website and lack of selection to be made to the company I was told 'Oh, don't worry about that, I know there have been a lot of people upset with the website and shipping.'
Really? Lots of complaints? I've taught a lot of customer service classes and I promise that at no time have I taught that the way to make a customer feel better is to tell them that they are just one of many unhappy people so not to worry about it.
I know Zappos is an excellent company with amazing customer service, but in this case they failed. They lost a $200 sale, which doesn't mean much to their bottom line, but it does matter to me. Their customer.
UPDATE:
Looking back at this post, I realized that I'm not solving anything. Was there anything that she said that was really wrong? Probably not - though I was frustrated because she didn't seem to listen to what I was saying. Later I do plan on taking the conversation apart a bit - maybe look at how the conversation could have gone that might have made me a bit happier as a frustrated customer.
When I reached the tenth on the list, Zappos, it reminded me that I needed new winter boots, as my current pair each have a rather large hole in them. I jumped online and began the long and tedious task of finding a pair that would fit my size 12EEEE feet (yes, that's 4 'E's). I tracked down a boot that wasn't exactly what I was wanting, but was still better than the ones I owned and at $116 they were quite a bit cheaper than the Redwing pair that I liked which only came in 2E width. I also found a great cowboy boot that was onsale for $85 that also came in a size 4E.
Of course that price is in American Dollars, and since I live in Canada I figured I'd just end up paying a few bucks more. I also expected that the free shipping was probably an America-only offer. After a quick search, I found that Zappos has a Canadian Website and I moved over there.
WOAH! The Canadian website was awful to find anything in. It's poorly designed and the search function was nearly useless - Are winter shoes 'dress' 'casual' or 'athletic?' The price for shipping was $10 (returns, which Zappos has always paid for was $15, so you're out $25 if you get them and don't like them).
After a few minutes I was able to track down the cowboy boot, but gave up on finding the winter boot and called the 1800 number. They don't ship that brand of shoe. Fine, I understand that for whatever reason some manufacturers do not allow shipping to Canada; It is most likely because they can sell the same product in Canada at a higher markup which is good for them, but an awful pain for the consumer. I explained that the website was pretty frustrating and asked the Customer Service Representative (sorry, didn't get her name- I'm assuming it's not CSR, but that's what I'm calling her) if she could help me track down a winter boot in a size 12EEEE. Instead she began to talk about why the website was so bad. It wasn't because they didn't care, it was because it was the old style that the American version had originally had but because of Canadian laws and shipping concerns it was impossible to change the site.
HUH? Impossible to change the site because of Canadian law? I've shopped online from a number of sites that ship to Canada from the United States and most of them were fine, so why is Zappos having so much trouble? Seems odd that Canadian Import law would determine whether or not you could have an easy, customer friendly search function on your website, but I figured that was a matter for Import/Export Lawyers to deal with.
I attempted to steer the conversation back to helping me find a winter boot that would fit. CSR continued to tell me that they have had multiple complaints about the site, but there just wasn't anything they could do. "Ok, fine, no problem, can you help me find a winter boot?" She says sure and asks my size again and does a quick search before informing me that she doesn't see one in the search she did, but they probably have them and all I have to do is go to the Canadian website and search through all the shoes until I find a pair that fits.
Wow, that was helpful. I explained, again, that I had already looked but hadn't been able to find them (I kept ending up looking at either cowboy boots or tennis shoes, neither of which was particularly helpful) and she explained that she understood my concerns, but the website couldn't be changed because of...
Yeah, thanks - I got that.
It amazes me that a company that prides itself on their customer service experience would fail so bad when a customer called needing help. Is it because I'm living in Canada? Would it have helped me to explain that I was actually American so they could give me a bit more help? Should I just chalk it up to fate telling me that I have to wear uncomfortable shoes? Maybe I'm blowing it out of proportion.
The fact is that I won't be buying anything from Zappos. Not even the cowboy boots that they can ship to Canada. You can't throw a brick without hitting a web designer, so I find it amazing that they can't have a better web page for their customers in the frozen white north. And it seems to me that a retailer that makes such a big deal out of customer service should be able to help a customer having a problem better than 'just keep looking, I'm sure you'll find what you need."
The biggest issue is that when I did ask for a complaint about the website and lack of selection to be made to the company I was told 'Oh, don't worry about that, I know there have been a lot of people upset with the website and shipping.'
Really? Lots of complaints? I've taught a lot of customer service classes and I promise that at no time have I taught that the way to make a customer feel better is to tell them that they are just one of many unhappy people so not to worry about it.
I know Zappos is an excellent company with amazing customer service, but in this case they failed. They lost a $200 sale, which doesn't mean much to their bottom line, but it does matter to me. Their customer.
UPDATE:
Looking back at this post, I realized that I'm not solving anything. Was there anything that she said that was really wrong? Probably not - though I was frustrated because she didn't seem to listen to what I was saying. Later I do plan on taking the conversation apart a bit - maybe look at how the conversation could have gone that might have made me a bit happier as a frustrated customer.
Monday, November 29, 2010
Created with Love
It seems to me that so many products out there are built to make a buck and often don't show the creating company's passion.
I love technology, though I'm certainly not an early adopter. When I first saw an Ipad at Future Shop I was in awe. The feel and look were amazing. The screen is more reactive than I realized it would be. I came within a hair's breadth of buying my first Apple product.
But then I started to really look at the features that Apple DIDN'T include in the IPad. No USB slots. No camera. No Flash. No multitasking. Can't be used in direct sunlight. No ability to expand the memory.
I'm not knocking the Ipad. It's still an amazing product and I applaud Apple for coming out with the first and flashiest tablet on the market. They have an amazing fan base and some solid products on the market. My daughter loves her Ipod Touch. I honestly don't design on a Mac because I learned on a PC and have never felt the need to learn the new system.
I do, however, wonder if it was the best product for their customers or if it was the best product for their pocketbooks. Did they really believe that Ipad users didn't want a camera. Is their feud with Adobe really important enough to keep people from playing their flash games? And what's the reason for not having a USB port? I see an amazing product that should have been so much better. I'm sure we'll be seeing an Ipod II in the coming months that will fix some of the problems the IPad has, but shouldn't they have made and sold a product that didn't have such big features missing? Don't they owe it to their customers - to the early adopters who help drive sales of a new product - to release a product that has all the bells and whistles?
I have no idea what Apple was thinking. Maybe they put out a product that they thought was perfect.
I won't buy it as it stands because there are so many things I would like to be able to do all the things I'd like to be able to do with a $800 piece of technology.
I started looking at the other tablets coming out in the next year. Three really stand out to me as being able to do what I need them to do:
RIM's Playbook looks amazing. It's powerful, supports flash and I don't have to buy another data plan because I can tether it to my Black Berry. It's backed by an excellent company that I know I can trust to put out a great product.
Dell's Duo is exciting because it gives me what I always worry about not having with a tablet - a key board. It also boasts a pretty powerful processor since it's really just a net book with a touchable screen. I like the idea of having a basic computer that I can also use as a tablet, but I worry about size and durability.
The one company that I will probably buy from, however, isn't even based in North America. Notion Ink, a new company out of India, will be getting my money (so far) with their new Adam. They strongly believe that they are putting out the best product. It also will be one of the most inexpensive products in the market. If it's even half as good as it looks, the Adam will still stand toe to toe with the biggest companies trying to bring a tablet to the market. If it is as good as they want it to be, it will be the best product out there.
But it's not just the features that are intriguing me, though they are looking pretty amazing. I have been reading the Notion Ink blog and what I see isn't just a drive to put out a successful product, but instead I see a drive to be the best in the world at what they do. I see passion. I see genuine belief in excellence.
When you strive to be the best instead of striving to be the biggest or the richest, you create more than just a good product - you create a good brand. Branding is so important for a company, especially when the company can begin building their brand before the product has even been released.
Rohan Shravan, Notion Ink's CEO, keeps interested parties informed with a weekly blog, but he also stays on top of the comments from the blog and also other blogs and news stories. He seems always willing to jump in and answer any questions he can, though at 1000 comments on a blog post only days after it's been posted means that he can't talk to everyone.
One of the things that sold the company and the product to me was the marking on the back. On the back of every Adam will be the words 'Created with Love by Notion Ink.' Corny and cheesy? Yeah, probably, but it also hints at an underling value system at Notion Ink. They do love what they do and are striving for something more than just a product; this isn't going to be just a plain old tablet to watch movies on. This will be something special.
The jury is still out on the Adam. The release date is creeping slowly forward, and who can honestly say what the product will be like. Being able to build a brand without a product only works if you can back up that branding with something great. The company has to be true to that brand from the moment the product hits the shelves.
I don't know Mr Shravan, so I can't begin to say if he's honest and as excited about the product as he seems. What I do know, however, is that if Notion Ink and it's young CEO are as honest as they seem, I can't imagine the product being anything less than stellar. And that's enough to sell me.
Notion Ink website
Rohan Shravan's Notion Ink Blog
I love technology, though I'm certainly not an early adopter. When I first saw an Ipad at Future Shop I was in awe. The feel and look were amazing. The screen is more reactive than I realized it would be. I came within a hair's breadth of buying my first Apple product.
But then I started to really look at the features that Apple DIDN'T include in the IPad. No USB slots. No camera. No Flash. No multitasking. Can't be used in direct sunlight. No ability to expand the memory.
I'm not knocking the Ipad. It's still an amazing product and I applaud Apple for coming out with the first and flashiest tablet on the market. They have an amazing fan base and some solid products on the market. My daughter loves her Ipod Touch. I honestly don't design on a Mac because I learned on a PC and have never felt the need to learn the new system.
I do, however, wonder if it was the best product for their customers or if it was the best product for their pocketbooks. Did they really believe that Ipad users didn't want a camera. Is their feud with Adobe really important enough to keep people from playing their flash games? And what's the reason for not having a USB port? I see an amazing product that should have been so much better. I'm sure we'll be seeing an Ipod II in the coming months that will fix some of the problems the IPad has, but shouldn't they have made and sold a product that didn't have such big features missing? Don't they owe it to their customers - to the early adopters who help drive sales of a new product - to release a product that has all the bells and whistles?
I have no idea what Apple was thinking. Maybe they put out a product that they thought was perfect.
I won't buy it as it stands because there are so many things I would like to be able to do all the things I'd like to be able to do with a $800 piece of technology.
I started looking at the other tablets coming out in the next year. Three really stand out to me as being able to do what I need them to do:
RIM's Playbook looks amazing. It's powerful, supports flash and I don't have to buy another data plan because I can tether it to my Black Berry. It's backed by an excellent company that I know I can trust to put out a great product.
Dell's Duo is exciting because it gives me what I always worry about not having with a tablet - a key board. It also boasts a pretty powerful processor since it's really just a net book with a touchable screen. I like the idea of having a basic computer that I can also use as a tablet, but I worry about size and durability.
The one company that I will probably buy from, however, isn't even based in North America. Notion Ink, a new company out of India, will be getting my money (so far) with their new Adam. They strongly believe that they are putting out the best product. It also will be one of the most inexpensive products in the market. If it's even half as good as it looks, the Adam will still stand toe to toe with the biggest companies trying to bring a tablet to the market. If it is as good as they want it to be, it will be the best product out there.
But it's not just the features that are intriguing me, though they are looking pretty amazing. I have been reading the Notion Ink blog and what I see isn't just a drive to put out a successful product, but instead I see a drive to be the best in the world at what they do. I see passion. I see genuine belief in excellence.
When you strive to be the best instead of striving to be the biggest or the richest, you create more than just a good product - you create a good brand. Branding is so important for a company, especially when the company can begin building their brand before the product has even been released.
Rohan Shravan, Notion Ink's CEO, keeps interested parties informed with a weekly blog, but he also stays on top of the comments from the blog and also other blogs and news stories. He seems always willing to jump in and answer any questions he can, though at 1000 comments on a blog post only days after it's been posted means that he can't talk to everyone.
One of the things that sold the company and the product to me was the marking on the back. On the back of every Adam will be the words 'Created with Love by Notion Ink.' Corny and cheesy? Yeah, probably, but it also hints at an underling value system at Notion Ink. They do love what they do and are striving for something more than just a product; this isn't going to be just a plain old tablet to watch movies on. This will be something special.
The jury is still out on the Adam. The release date is creeping slowly forward, and who can honestly say what the product will be like. Being able to build a brand without a product only works if you can back up that branding with something great. The company has to be true to that brand from the moment the product hits the shelves.
I don't know Mr Shravan, so I can't begin to say if he's honest and as excited about the product as he seems. What I do know, however, is that if Notion Ink and it's young CEO are as honest as they seem, I can't imagine the product being anything less than stellar. And that's enough to sell me.
Notion Ink website
Rohan Shravan's Notion Ink Blog
The Internet is Forever - Part 2
A couple weeks ago I posted the story about a government agency saying it is illegal to fire someone for something they say on Facebook. I disagreed with that idea then, and still do, but as I reread the post, I'm seeing that I missed the original point I was going for. While I still stand behind the point I made, it is not quite the idea I was trying to communicate.
Half of my readers thought I was an idiot, but I think the problem he had with it was more because I didn't make my original point particularly clear.
It is not really about whether it is fair or right or just that someone is fired for comments they make online. I can have my opinions and I'm sure others have theirs. Opinions are like... Well, I won't get into what opinions are like save to say that everyone has them.
The fact is that people loose their jobs all the time because of things they say. Sometimes they say something at work that is overheard, or at a restaurant where they didn't know their boss was at the table behind them or over the internet.
The question isn't even about whether someone should have a reasonable expectation of privacy for things they say on the internet.
The issue is more about the fact that things you choose to say are have a much more lasting impact on your life than ever before. The girl I wrote about before will see her life effected by the comments she wrote. Future employers can, and will, see these stories about her before they will decide to hire her.
Maybe she is well within her rights to say and write anything she wants. Maybe it would be illegal to fire her for those comments. Maybe there is nothing legally wrong with it. I'll concede every one of those facts, because that isn't the point.
Someone did see it and there were consequences because of what she wrote. One of those consequences was immediate - She was fired. Other consequences may come about later.
And in the end, the person most at fault isn't her boss. It's her. She chose to make the comments. She chose to put them online.
Okay, so where does the internet come in? It is all about the numbers. More people than ever can interact together than ever before. I can talk to people in Europe, Asia or even Antarctica with only a few keystrokes. I can do it from my office, my vehicle or even while on an Airplane. When I post something on my blog, literally millions of people can read it (not that they do - but I do appreciate my readers. You both rock, btw). Never before could we simply get online and tell our favorite actor that we like them. Heck, never before could we tell them anything directly. In the past our letters would have gone to an agent or agency for review before it eventually (maybe) made it to our favorite actor. Now? I simply log into twitter and I get to directly communicate. Heck, I just went and saw a picture of Levar Burton's Thanksgiving Turkey - that's pretty personal access. Imagine that even a couple years ago.
More importantly, nothing on the internet is really private. How many sex tapes have leaked? How many times have comments that were meant to be private ended up on the front page of a newspaper. Even when we think that something we say to a closed group is private, it's not. When I post something on Facebook, not only can all my friends read it, all the friends of my friends who comment get to read it as well.
Okay, so now that I've tried to clarify my earlier point I'm sure you are wondering why I've brought it all back up. My original post was more about the power of the internet and why we have to be more guarded about what we choose to say than ever before.
5 years ago YouTube didn't exist. It's extremely possible that if it was 2005 Dr. Stephen Duckett would still have a job.
Don't know the story? Look it up - let the power of the internet work for you. YouTube would be a great place to start. Not that interested? Fine.
Dr Stephen Duckett, the CEO of Alberta Health Services recently chose to not respond to a couple reporters by saying that he was eating a cookie and couldn't answer them. Due to his flippant attitude toward the media and his unprofessional conduct he was released from his position. Less PC - he was fired. Maybe it's not exactly that simple - there were rumblings that he might have been released anyways- but this was the perfect excuse.
But what if we had no YouTube? No internet? No way to make it possible for hundreds of thousands of people to view the episode. No way for hundreds of thousands of people to comment on the episode. Maybe he would have sneaked past the media with a slap on the wrist. As it stands, anyone can easily find and watch a mashup of Dr Duckett and Cookie Monster happily sing about their love of cookies.
I can't say with 100% certainty that he would have kept his job in a pre-YouTube world, but I can say that the YouTube videos are what hurt him the most. That's the power of nearly unlimited viewers. Who, other than Albertans, really cares about the state of the Albertan Emergency room wait times? But how many non-Albertans have access to those videos?
Would Dr Duckett have said what he did if he had known that the comments would have ended up all over the internet? Of course not, but he should have known better. People have adapted to the ability to post information on the internet instantly. I'm currently typing this while my wife tries on jeans at the mall. My daughter was showing me pictures that a friend posted on the internet. We can share pictures, stories and videos instantly with millions of people, but we, as a society, haven't yet learned that what we say on the internet can have much more lasting and larger impact than what we say because it reaches more people and is more permanent. Google saves websites. Facebook posts stay around for what amounts to forever, you can look up news articles from a decade ago and you can still watch the first YouTube video ever posted, Me At the Zoo, almost six years ago.
I'm going to give you one more example. I have a half dozen web comics I enjoy. The artist and writer of one of them is on Twitter and I follow him. He posts whatever is on his mind and had no problems being insulting or rude to other people on Twitter and chooses to post derogatory comments about religion and other people's beliefs. On a free speech level, I can't say there is anything wrong with what he posts. He's entitled to say pretty much anything he wants, but that doesn't mean I have to like what he says. What he chooses to say is his choice, but he should remember that he is running a business. He sells t-shirts and books and other memorabilia from his comic. He can say whatever he wants, but I get to decide if I want to send him my money for his products. Up until I started following him on Twitter, I had every intention of buying a couple items from him, I've purchased many books from a different webcomic company, so I am certainly in his demographic and a buyer. I'll still enjoy his comic and read daily, but I'll choose not to purchase his items because I don't like what he writes on his Twitter account. I'm not spying on him - his Twitter name is displayed on his webpage. He's purposefully attached his Twitter account to his business, but when he posts he chooses to ignore the fact that potential customers will be reading and making opinions on him and his business. Maybe he makes plenty of money and doesn't need my purchases, and that's fine, but the point I'm trying to make is that he has lost business because of things he chooses to post. There are repercussions to his actions. Maybe not loosing a job or finding himself being made fun of on You Tube, but he will make a little less money.
There is a whole range of effects that come from our choices. The internet can greatly increase the severity of these effects. The effects aren't always directly noticeable and certainly don't have to be negative (Justin Bieber was discovered because of You Tube) and don't always effect just the person who makes the post or is on the video (again - Justin Bieber learned this when posting a fan's phone number on Twitter).
Regardless of anything else, remember that what we choose to do or say, both on and off line, can have lasting effects. Post whatever you want on Facebook, twitter or YouTube, but know that when you hit that publish or share button you are entering that item into a public record of your life. Be aware of the public side of the internet. Know that you aren't always in control of who reads the information you choose to put out there. And most important of all - remember that it's your choice to make the comments.
Half of my readers thought I was an idiot, but I think the problem he had with it was more because I didn't make my original point particularly clear.
It is not really about whether it is fair or right or just that someone is fired for comments they make online. I can have my opinions and I'm sure others have theirs. Opinions are like... Well, I won't get into what opinions are like save to say that everyone has them.
The fact is that people loose their jobs all the time because of things they say. Sometimes they say something at work that is overheard, or at a restaurant where they didn't know their boss was at the table behind them or over the internet.
The question isn't even about whether someone should have a reasonable expectation of privacy for things they say on the internet.
The issue is more about the fact that things you choose to say are have a much more lasting impact on your life than ever before. The girl I wrote about before will see her life effected by the comments she wrote. Future employers can, and will, see these stories about her before they will decide to hire her.
Maybe she is well within her rights to say and write anything she wants. Maybe it would be illegal to fire her for those comments. Maybe there is nothing legally wrong with it. I'll concede every one of those facts, because that isn't the point.
Someone did see it and there were consequences because of what she wrote. One of those consequences was immediate - She was fired. Other consequences may come about later.
And in the end, the person most at fault isn't her boss. It's her. She chose to make the comments. She chose to put them online.
Okay, so where does the internet come in? It is all about the numbers. More people than ever can interact together than ever before. I can talk to people in Europe, Asia or even Antarctica with only a few keystrokes. I can do it from my office, my vehicle or even while on an Airplane. When I post something on my blog, literally millions of people can read it (not that they do - but I do appreciate my readers. You both rock, btw). Never before could we simply get online and tell our favorite actor that we like them. Heck, never before could we tell them anything directly. In the past our letters would have gone to an agent or agency for review before it eventually (maybe) made it to our favorite actor. Now? I simply log into twitter and I get to directly communicate. Heck, I just went and saw a picture of Levar Burton's Thanksgiving Turkey - that's pretty personal access. Imagine that even a couple years ago.
More importantly, nothing on the internet is really private. How many sex tapes have leaked? How many times have comments that were meant to be private ended up on the front page of a newspaper. Even when we think that something we say to a closed group is private, it's not. When I post something on Facebook, not only can all my friends read it, all the friends of my friends who comment get to read it as well.
Okay, so now that I've tried to clarify my earlier point I'm sure you are wondering why I've brought it all back up. My original post was more about the power of the internet and why we have to be more guarded about what we choose to say than ever before.
5 years ago YouTube didn't exist. It's extremely possible that if it was 2005 Dr. Stephen Duckett would still have a job.
Don't know the story? Look it up - let the power of the internet work for you. YouTube would be a great place to start. Not that interested? Fine.
Dr Stephen Duckett, the CEO of Alberta Health Services recently chose to not respond to a couple reporters by saying that he was eating a cookie and couldn't answer them. Due to his flippant attitude toward the media and his unprofessional conduct he was released from his position. Less PC - he was fired. Maybe it's not exactly that simple - there were rumblings that he might have been released anyways- but this was the perfect excuse.
But what if we had no YouTube? No internet? No way to make it possible for hundreds of thousands of people to view the episode. No way for hundreds of thousands of people to comment on the episode. Maybe he would have sneaked past the media with a slap on the wrist. As it stands, anyone can easily find and watch a mashup of Dr Duckett and Cookie Monster happily sing about their love of cookies.
I can't say with 100% certainty that he would have kept his job in a pre-YouTube world, but I can say that the YouTube videos are what hurt him the most. That's the power of nearly unlimited viewers. Who, other than Albertans, really cares about the state of the Albertan Emergency room wait times? But how many non-Albertans have access to those videos?
Would Dr Duckett have said what he did if he had known that the comments would have ended up all over the internet? Of course not, but he should have known better. People have adapted to the ability to post information on the internet instantly. I'm currently typing this while my wife tries on jeans at the mall. My daughter was showing me pictures that a friend posted on the internet. We can share pictures, stories and videos instantly with millions of people, but we, as a society, haven't yet learned that what we say on the internet can have much more lasting and larger impact than what we say because it reaches more people and is more permanent. Google saves websites. Facebook posts stay around for what amounts to forever, you can look up news articles from a decade ago and you can still watch the first YouTube video ever posted, Me At the Zoo, almost six years ago.
I'm going to give you one more example. I have a half dozen web comics I enjoy. The artist and writer of one of them is on Twitter and I follow him. He posts whatever is on his mind and had no problems being insulting or rude to other people on Twitter and chooses to post derogatory comments about religion and other people's beliefs. On a free speech level, I can't say there is anything wrong with what he posts. He's entitled to say pretty much anything he wants, but that doesn't mean I have to like what he says. What he chooses to say is his choice, but he should remember that he is running a business. He sells t-shirts and books and other memorabilia from his comic. He can say whatever he wants, but I get to decide if I want to send him my money for his products. Up until I started following him on Twitter, I had every intention of buying a couple items from him, I've purchased many books from a different webcomic company, so I am certainly in his demographic and a buyer. I'll still enjoy his comic and read daily, but I'll choose not to purchase his items because I don't like what he writes on his Twitter account. I'm not spying on him - his Twitter name is displayed on his webpage. He's purposefully attached his Twitter account to his business, but when he posts he chooses to ignore the fact that potential customers will be reading and making opinions on him and his business. Maybe he makes plenty of money and doesn't need my purchases, and that's fine, but the point I'm trying to make is that he has lost business because of things he chooses to post. There are repercussions to his actions. Maybe not loosing a job or finding himself being made fun of on You Tube, but he will make a little less money.
There is a whole range of effects that come from our choices. The internet can greatly increase the severity of these effects. The effects aren't always directly noticeable and certainly don't have to be negative (Justin Bieber was discovered because of You Tube) and don't always effect just the person who makes the post or is on the video (again - Justin Bieber learned this when posting a fan's phone number on Twitter).
Regardless of anything else, remember that what we choose to do or say, both on and off line, can have lasting effects. Post whatever you want on Facebook, twitter or YouTube, but know that when you hit that publish or share button you are entering that item into a public record of your life. Be aware of the public side of the internet. Know that you aren't always in control of who reads the information you choose to put out there. And most important of all - remember that it's your choice to make the comments.
Tuesday, November 9, 2010
Diamonds The Internet is Forever
Apparently, the National Labor Relations Board (USA, not Canada – I have no idea if Canada has an equivalent) has declared that firing a person due to comments they made on Facebook is an illegal act. Specifically, they determined that conversations with fellow employees regarding work situations and pay is protected and therefore posting comments on Facebook that are of a work-related nature that may be read and commented on by other employees is protected as well. To quote the New York Times who quoted the NLRB’s general counsel:
Lafe Solomon, the board’s acting general counsel, said, “This is a fairly straightforward case under the National Labor Relations Act — whether it takes place on Facebook or at the water cooler, it was employees talking jointly about working conditions, in this case about their supervisor, and they have a right to do that.”
There is an important piece of information that Mr. Solomon has missed. When you put something on the internet, it’s never between you and other employees, but instead is potentially with every single person who is currently using or may eventually use the internet. It's naive to believe anything else.
Think about that for a moment. According to Internet World Stats there are nearly 2 billion people using the internet. That’s a potential audience of 2 billion people. Now, I know that 2 billion people will not go look at a Facebook page where someone says bad things about their boss. What I am saying is that if 2 billion people wanted to see it, they could. Kinda makes the 2-3 people around the water cooler seem insignificant, doesn’t it? And while many times facebook statuses (statusi) are for friends only, do we really need to talk about the security of a site like facebook?
Without having to go as far as 2 billion, let’s just talk about the fact that the New York Times is running a story on the situation. I- and you, since you’re reading this- now know that one Dawnmarie Souza, who worked for American Medical Response of Connecticut made disparaging remarks about her boss, including referring to him as a psychiatric patient. I’m not one of Ms Souza’s friends on facebook, but I now know the basics of what happened. More importantly, I don’t have all the facts, but that doesn’t stop me from making an opinion regarding Ms Souza or her former employers.
It's not just the 2 billion people currently using the internet. I said everyone who has or may eventually use the internet. Five times as many people are using the new as just 10 years ago. How many people will be online in the next ten years? How about ten years after that?
If I’m standing on a hill with three of my co-workers and start shouting about how I hate my boss and that he’s an awful person and my boss is walking past, do you think I’m going to keep my job? Probably not, but this example is lacking. Even if we covered that hill with people, my message can only go so far and unless someone is videotaping (not unlikely in this time period) my yell and posting it onto the internet, I’m only likely to reach a couple hundred people and it will only last as long as I choose to scream. Afterwards, I might even feel bad and wish I hadn’t done it, but that’s okay because it was only a one-time thing.
We don’t have any of those considerations when we post on the internet. Like diamonds, the internet is forever. Remember the giant pink bunny that a bunch of artists built that can be seen from space? No? Well, go look it up – it was made 5 years ago. How about the Taco Bell commercials with the Chihuahua? They are there too. It’s all here – and most of it in full color and often accompanied by video.
This doesn’t even have to be about a specific instance or a specific social media site. Everything you do, say or post is saved forever. Don’t think that just because a government organization says that the internet is an extension of our freedom of speech we can say what we want. I’ll leave you with one last thought about it. The government may come back and say that American Medical Response of Connecticut was wrong in firing Ms Souza. They may make them pay her restitution. They could, though unlikely, demand that they give her job back to her. No matter what may happen, Ms Souza will eventually have to find a new job. What’s that potential employer going to find when he looks up her name on the internet?
Check out where I originally found the story - Mashable.com is a great resource for all things Social Media.
Lafe Solomon, the board’s acting general counsel, said, “This is a fairly straightforward case under the National Labor Relations Act — whether it takes place on Facebook or at the water cooler, it was employees talking jointly about working conditions, in this case about their supervisor, and they have a right to do that.”
There is an important piece of information that Mr. Solomon has missed. When you put something on the internet, it’s never between you and other employees, but instead is potentially with every single person who is currently using or may eventually use the internet. It's naive to believe anything else.
Think about that for a moment. According to Internet World Stats there are nearly 2 billion people using the internet. That’s a potential audience of 2 billion people. Now, I know that 2 billion people will not go look at a Facebook page where someone says bad things about their boss. What I am saying is that if 2 billion people wanted to see it, they could. Kinda makes the 2-3 people around the water cooler seem insignificant, doesn’t it? And while many times facebook statuses (statusi) are for friends only, do we really need to talk about the security of a site like facebook?
Without having to go as far as 2 billion, let’s just talk about the fact that the New York Times is running a story on the situation. I- and you, since you’re reading this- now know that one Dawnmarie Souza, who worked for American Medical Response of Connecticut made disparaging remarks about her boss, including referring to him as a psychiatric patient. I’m not one of Ms Souza’s friends on facebook, but I now know the basics of what happened. More importantly, I don’t have all the facts, but that doesn’t stop me from making an opinion regarding Ms Souza or her former employers.
It's not just the 2 billion people currently using the internet. I said everyone who has or may eventually use the internet. Five times as many people are using the new as just 10 years ago. How many people will be online in the next ten years? How about ten years after that?
If I’m standing on a hill with three of my co-workers and start shouting about how I hate my boss and that he’s an awful person and my boss is walking past, do you think I’m going to keep my job? Probably not, but this example is lacking. Even if we covered that hill with people, my message can only go so far and unless someone is videotaping (not unlikely in this time period) my yell and posting it onto the internet, I’m only likely to reach a couple hundred people and it will only last as long as I choose to scream. Afterwards, I might even feel bad and wish I hadn’t done it, but that’s okay because it was only a one-time thing.
We don’t have any of those considerations when we post on the internet. Like diamonds, the internet is forever. Remember the giant pink bunny that a bunch of artists built that can be seen from space? No? Well, go look it up – it was made 5 years ago. How about the Taco Bell commercials with the Chihuahua? They are there too. It’s all here – and most of it in full color and often accompanied by video.
This doesn’t even have to be about a specific instance or a specific social media site. Everything you do, say or post is saved forever. Don’t think that just because a government organization says that the internet is an extension of our freedom of speech we can say what we want. I’ll leave you with one last thought about it. The government may come back and say that American Medical Response of Connecticut was wrong in firing Ms Souza. They may make them pay her restitution. They could, though unlikely, demand that they give her job back to her. No matter what may happen, Ms Souza will eventually have to find a new job. What’s that potential employer going to find when he looks up her name on the internet?
Check out where I originally found the story - Mashable.com is a great resource for all things Social Media.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)