Facebook just made us a little bit more lazier

Imagine, if you will, a world without the Internet. No e-mails. Just the written word, phones and fax machines.

That was the world in my youthful '20s, my glorious backpacking days. Say goodbye to your family for at least six months, put your worldly belongings -- plus a spare toilet roll, essential -- on your back, hop on a plane and see what adventures lie ahead.

But my loving family back home wanted to hear about those adventures. Because my mum and dad were divorced at the time, I didn't want one to feel "left out." So, I wrote two letters exactly the same and posted one to each parent. Took a little longer, but when the cows are milked or the crops are harvested, there isn't a lot to do other than sit in the sun, think about life and write.

Fast forward to the modern world. Write an e-mail, string a few paragraphs together, add in a couple of random LOLs and a smiley face ... and BCC that message to all your family members at once. Job done, and on with Netflix.

I know, I know. Can't live in the past. Times change. Don't be an old fart. Etc. etc.

So when Facebook introduced its Reactions option the other day, it made it easier for us to go one step further from the basic Like into the whole gamut of emotions. With one single, lazy click, your online friends and family can now love, laugh, be surprised, sad or angry at your posts. Then move on. To Netflix.

Of course Facebook is free and no one forces you to use it and give up your privacy. I choose to and enjoy it, actually. Great way for keeping in touch with people I care about here in Toronto and worldwide.

But it's a little sad when there's another incentive just to be lazy and click an icon to express a response, rather than crafting those words and thoughts. But then again, when did you last go out to the shops, choose a birthday card, write a nice message, buy a stamp and go to a post box to mail it to a friend on Facebook ... instead of clicking the "wish your friend a happy birthday" option?

Don't think I've done that for a while. Shame. Written sentiments via pen and paper are very rare these days, which is what makes them more special if you receive one.

(Don't want to get into "business speak" on a Friday, but try writing a "thanks for being a client" handwritten letter now and again, see what happens ...)

And please, if you like this blog post, don't forget to take a second and click on the Heart icon below. Thank you.

Have a great weekend!

John.

Quantum computing and social media

Having just returned from some valuable family time in a remote Scottish hamlet, my relaxed mind needed to kick-start itself again ... and what better way than to chat about quantum computing (QC) and social media? Obvious connection.

Now, QC is above my level of understanding, but imagine if that gear stick above was in your quantum car. Instead of choosing a direction to drive in at one time, you'd be be able to drive in more than one direction at the same time. If that explanation doesn't fully explain the concept, then Google the subject matter for more information.

So, as of now, I can fire up my Twitter account and -- as they used to say years ago -- "join the conversation." Once said conversation has been joined, I may thus choose to take a negative or a positive stance depending on my point of view.

The tweet is sent, the #humblebrags or trolling starts to flow, and the conversation veers off onto its chosen path.

In the future (once quantum computers go mainstream) I would be able to take alternative views at the same time, and the respondents would be able to do the same. The conversation would spin off into various directions simultaneously.

Imagine the possibilities:

• Brands would enjoy amazing success, screw up and apologize at the same time!
• People could YouTube videos of their dog AND cat on the same skateboard to the same music!
• Bloggers could write about "The Top 10 Ways To Increase Your Social Media ROI" and "Why Social Media ROI Is Dead As We Know It" in the same post!

It's mind-blowing. All angles could be covered at the same time. Everyone would be right and wrong simultaneously. QC would change the face of social media for ever. But at the same time it wouldn't.

John.

Take a video? Facepalm!

Selfies, videos, instant sharing ... 24/7, global. Taking a video by pointing your camera at the subject is sooooo June 2015.

I can't recall where I heard about Beme (because I like to give credit where it's due) but it looks pretty interesting. You can download it for Apple.

Easier to read the TechCrunch recap or watch the video:

From TC: "With Beme, video recording is done via the rear camera in four-second bursts. However, instead of hitting a record button and watching the screen to see what you’re filming, you capture video by covering your iPhone’s proximity sensor, which is the little dot next to the front camera.

"This means you start recording by placing the phone up against your chest, forehead, or any other location (a finger also works) that would cover the sensor."

As the video explains it, and I may be wrong, once you upload the unedited footage, your connections get a chance to view it once only and then it's gone forever. (For just them, or totally? Not sure on that front.)

This sounds like a hybrid of Twitter, Periscope and Snapchat. A very quick live video that has a short life span.

I used to jump straight into all the shiny new toys, and learned my lesson by trailing around a ton of moribund social media app accounts that never really took off, or just died. Not having an iPhone anyway, I can't check this one out. Wonder if an Android version is in the works?

Will be interesting to see if brands take this one up.

Have a great long weekend everyone!

John.

Is it the medium or the message?

The news story of the day is the dentist from Minnesota who reportedly killed a lion in Zimbabwe that was being used in a research project for Oxford University. Thirteen-year-old Cecil was lured out of the bush at night, shot with a bow, took 40 hours to die before being skinned and beheaded.

Understandably, social media has erupted over this event [graphic images] and apart from scathing Yelp reviews of the dentist's practice, an online petition has been set up that already has over 111,000 signatures -- and climbing as I write -- demanding "Justice for Cecil."

This is very similar to the recent activity over the female hunter who received death threats after a photo of her [graphic images] was posted next to a kill.

As a kid, I read a short story in the newspaper once about some guy that had hurt a dog. The way the story was written made it seem like a joke. I was 11 and outraged!

I ran to get my pen and notepad, and crafted a letter chastising the newspaper about its insensitivity. Into the envelope, on with the stamp and off it went in the mail. I didn't expect to get any response.

But the week later they printed my letter with an apology. I was extremely happy with that. I felt like I had made some small difference to redress the balance.

The point I'm trying to make in this convoluted way is that "communications technology" has come a long way from the humble written letter into the all-encompassing Internet. When you see something terrible online now, it takes five seconds to share it around the world, perhaps with some comments of your own.

It's MUCH easier to give an opinion, or protest at something, or raise awareness. Sometimes these things have legs and they follow people around, sometimes they peter out more rapidly.

Does something shared on social media have more impact than a written letter from an angry 11-year-old? Not sure.

John.

Are brands human?

Massive Pink Floyd fan, not so much from the Syd Barrett era but shortly thereafter. Just got my tickets to see frontman David Gilmour's solo tour next March in Toronto. Very excited!

When I think of DG he sums up the Pink Floyd brand for me. Sadly, keyboardist Richard Wright passed away in 2008, and drummer Nick Mason and bassist Roger Waters have their own projects. So the band will never tour again. But they all played a massive part in shaping Pink Floyd's unique sound.

I thought about other people that represented brands. A few that sprang to mind were Colonel Harland Sanders (Kentucky Fried Chicken), Steve Jobs (Apple) and Richard Branson (Virgin).

Colonel Sanders' image is still used in KFC's branding; Steve Jobs had a hand in every aspect of Apple's products, and had films made about him; Richard Branson started his empire as a student from the humble telephone box. These three people still, to this day, symbolize the brand that they started.

There's been some blogs recently discussing whether brands are fake and just trying to be your "friend" on social media. Maybe some do. If so, we need to give more credit to the consumer that they can pick up on that manufactured sentiment.

Real people work at brands, not robots. There will always be that human touch behind campaigns and social media outreach. Social media is just a tool -- like the telephone, e-mail, letter, fax machine -- that real human beings use to communicate and promote their brand and, if we're being honest, trying to sell more products or services.

We all know that! It's our choice. If you don't like how a brand is treating you, then look elsewhere. There's tons of competition out there grateful for your business. In my humble opinion, the ones that survive and do well are those that -- by default or otherwise -- have a recognized person leading the way, ready to stand up and be counted and own it, during the good times and bad.

If your brand can find that "face" then you can stand out from the crowd. People are born to communicate with other people, it's just natural.

Have a good weekend!

John.

Do brands really hire underpaid social media people with fleshy, flawed faces?

[Disruption. That was going to be the topic of today's blog post based on what's currently happening between Uber and Toronto taxi cabs. But that can wait for another day; disruption is not going away.]

"Of course brands screw up a lot on social media. It’s because, despite their rictus grins, the plastic masks of friendship they wear are just hiding the fleshy, flawed faces of underpaid social media people, who are often trying to be the fun voice of several soulless logos at once."

Ouch!

That scathing paragraph comes from a blog post entitled, "Brands aren’t your friends, they’re the idiots at the social media party" on The Next Web site.

The gist of the article is that brands aren't our friends and many fake their social media presence to pretend they are. I have seen some brands do that, and some not. Horses for courses.

We can't forget that the consumer is in the driving seat now. I believe that people do enjoy following their favourite brands, and can just as easily leave them behind if they become, "the leeches of social networking, desperately trying to drain some blood from every bit of creativity they encounter," as the blog writer describes.

Brings to mind this meme:

Whether it's kitchen roll, cars, soft drinks, cookies .... whatever ... people do like to follow certain companies. It's up to those brands to judge the audience and engage accordingly.

John.

No disguising your actions on social media

People can still be a little nervous about social media, and rightly so, to an extent.

Here's an excellent article from Maclean's demonstrating some social media horror stories, from the angle of people acting foolish and then losing their jobs, or being hounded themselves via social media.

The takeaway is that more so now than ever, you're expected to face the repercussions of your social media actions, and that could mean loss of employment -- sometimes within 24 hours as some of the examples in the article illustrate.

Twitter, especially, is instantaneous. You fire up that tweet, press send and it's already out there in the wild, sitting on a server for posterity. Maybe someone has already grabbed a screenshot of it, so no point pressing the delete button = too late. If someone searches your name in the future, that tweet/case study may pop up to follow you around.

Does Twitter need a 30-second "grace period" or an "undo send" option, similar to what Gmail recently made standard after years in beta? Possibly. It may take off, may not.

I think the point is to go retro. Before the Internet and social media were just a twinkle in the eye, businesses picked up the phone and spoke to people. That was the first impression that potential customers got.

A tweet is the same. It's just a shorter version via digital communications. The difference is that it can be shared more widely, much faster, and others can jump in and add their thoughts and comments on the interaction.

I think it's 50/50 at the moment = the "good news" tweets balance the bad examples. I know that social media monitoring software can measure the sentiment of reaction to a brand's tweets, but not sure if there's data analyzing Twitter as a whole entity to gauge if it was a "positive" or "negative" day, in general, for sentiment. Would be interesting to know. (Maybe looking at what's trending is the closest option?)

Typing in "twitter sentiment analysis" came up with these results, but they seem to be individual tools for keywords and brands, rather than Twitter as a whole for 24 hours.

See you in 140, and have a great weekend.

John.

Building your brand with social media in the real estate business

I recently had the opportunity to give some thoughts on how realtors can enhance their brand using social media and online tools. There's a lot of opportunity there.

But, as mentioned, it's a personable business. Big money is involved in buying property and the human beings will close the sale, "not a tweet."

Read the full article on HomeOpeners at Genworth Canada.

John.

Inside the social media head of a Generation Z teenager

"People try to put us d-down (Talkin' 'bout my generation)," Roger Daltrey once sang. That was decades ago, and people still like to talk about the varying generations that have appeared since then, most with space age names.

Generation Z. Sounds like a bad zombie film. But it refers to those born between 1995 and 2012 (give or take a few years). So these young people have grown up with the Internet, always-on tech and social media.

Lots of studies have been done to analyze what they want and need in this respect, but I thought this article was a good one as it is the thoughts of a teenager on her likes and dislikes of the various social media platforms.

Some interesting points to note:

• Photos and videos on Snapchat are no longer than 10 seconds, and it's this short, ephemeral, close-to-real-life sharing that really sparks my interest, and quite frankly, a lot of my time. Better yet (for now) Snapchat doesn’t have advertisements interrupting my experience.
• Today, the main reason I use Facebook is to keep in contact with people through Messenger. Scrolling through my newsfeed is just a way to pass the time if I'm honest, I rarely find anything interesting though due to a boatload of irrelevant content posted by others.
• I also get most of my news from Twitter. It’s a big part for me. Most, if not all, large news companies have Twitter accounts, and it's much easier to log onto my phone to catch up with the news that I'm interested in rather than pick up a newspaper, magazine, or watch the television.
• The main reason I don't have LinkedIn is because I don't really need it yet. For me, and most people I know my age, hardly anyone has a LinkedIn profile because it's seen as a platform for corporate activity. Maintaining a LinkedIn profile screams, "I'm now ready to grow up. Enough with all this messing around, I’m going to be an adult!"

So, there you have it. Just as brands start to adapt to this audience, then they'll need to get ready for the next Generation ... what?

John.