Remain Relevant in Changing Times

Networking online: enough already!

Happy New Year! Is one of your resolutions to get - and stay - better connected professionally and personally? If my in-box is any indication, a ton of people have made the same resolution. I've been flooded over the past couple of weeks with invitations to connect on www.LinkedIn.com, www.pulse.plaxo.com, www.twitter.com, and the usual Facebook and MySpace.com.

Here's my prediction for 2008: people who weren't early adopters of networking online will gravitate to some of the newer online tools like www.pulse.plaxo.com in an effort to be among the first to climb aboard the NBT (next big thing). These people will send countless invitations and start building big databases, but many will soon lose interest or move on to something else. Online networkers can be rather fickle...and irritating when they go about trying to link to as many people as they can, whether they know them or not.

Don't get me wrong: I love networking and am a huge fan of LinkedIn, as I've noted here before. But I'll be darned if I'm going to get connected with people through multiple systems, especially since (so far) everyone who has contacted me through Pulse and Twitter in particular are already connected to me elsewhere. I don't see the point. I have no desire to combine my personal and professional connections (supposedly the selling point of Plaxo). I can't imagine a time when I'll want to "Twitter" with people... I view it as being for people with too much time on their hands or an inflated view of how interesting daily life is (theirs or mine).

I think it makes a lot more sense to pick a professional networking system and a personal one and learn to use them really well so you can be efficient and effective. This business of being connected just to be connected misses the whole point of networking, which is PURPOSEFUL connection.

So, while I want to encourage anyone reading this to always keep in mind the importance of networking, I hope you'll give some thought to  putting a strategy behind it. Thoughts?

Is the Rolodex still relevant? Spinning for contacts can still trump the click of a mouse

Saturday's Wall Street Journal carried a fascinating story that addressed the question, "Whatever happened to the Rolodex?" (Subscription required). In a nutshell, the story featured several business professionals who still cling to their Rolodexes, despite living in a Blackberry world where it seems you aren't real if you aren't connected online or found in an Outlook Contacts listing.

The article made me smile because I, too, am one of those people who never throws away a business card. I put them in large ziplock bags and store them in a file cabinet drawer. I've been too embarrassed to keep them on a Rolodex, believing it would mark me as a dinosaur. Still, as much as I love technology and am good about keeping my key contacts filed electronically, there's a part of me that just knows one day there's going to be a huge technical glitch that causes me to have to rebuild from scratch.

Yes, I know half the cards will be out of date, but the point is I'll at least have names I can look up using other means. Besides, I like to look at business cards. I think they tell a lot about the person who gave it to me (unless they're from a large company that requires a standard card that emphasizes the brand over the person).

According to Newell Rubbermaid, makers of the Rolodex, the 6,000-card flip files of the past have given way to much smaller flip files; in fact, the largest one the company makes holds "only" 500 cards, a nod to the decreasing desktop space resulting from the surge in cubicles. But hey, despite the fact that these card wheels aren't exactly a growth industry, they also don't require frequent updating; hence, they're cash cows. The standard business card just hasn't changed much over the years in terms of size and shape.

Generally speaking, sales of card wheels have fallen steadily since the 80's when personal digital assistants (PDAs) first came on the scene. Now, companies that traditionally relied on card files and even card scanners are looking for ways to expand their brand and tools to the digital world, lest they go under altogether.

Meanwhile, Facebook, MySpace and LinkedIn provide ample opportunities for us to keep up with one another electronically. I love and hate these tools equally: I love 'em because, used properly, they're powerful and undeniably easy to use; I hate them because they're so easy to use people tend to "collect people" with the click of the mouse without giving much thought to why the person is worth collecting. At least with a Rolodex, you have to make an effort to attach the card to the wheel, file it and even occasionally remove some if the file gets too unmanageable.

In our efforts to become as paperless as possible, I think we sometimes fail to recognize that "the old-fashioned way" can still be relevant. After all, the relevance isn't in the  way the information is filed: it's in how the information that's filed is used.

How do you keep up with your contacts?

Business cards are more relevant than ever!

Sorry it has been a while since I've posted to this blog. I didn't take the summer off; rather, I started a new blog to coincide with new responsibilities I have at Edelman. I am spending a good bit of my time helping organizations understand how best to market to Boomers. That's how it came to be that I'm now writing www.BabyBoomerInsights.com, a blog that offers insight about how Boomers think, act, and make purchase decisions - all based on research. Stay tuned to find out about some original research findings Edelman will soon be releasing. You just may be surprised by some of the nuggets in there! In short - in my world, few things are as relevant as Boomers.

Meanwhile, I just had to bring to your attention an Associated Press article I read last week in the Atlanta Journal Constitution about business cards. The timing was almost eerie because just 48 hours before this article appeared,  someone asked me if I thought business cards were  on their way out, given people's love affair with  Blackberrys, the iPhone and other PDAs. I hadn't seen any research on the subject but my response was, "I sure hope not."

Despite being addicted to my Blackberry (but I confess, I'm seriously lusting after the iPhone), I still like collecting business cards. I rarely throw them away and to I've collected about 1,000 over the past five years or so. I keep them in zip lock bags in the bottom drawer of my desk. I love technology, but a little piece of me never trusts it entirely, so I see my card bags as extra insurance. Besides, I love to look at the weight, size, design and colors of business cards. You can tell something about a person by what they choose to put on a small rectangle. Vcards just aren't the same.

Apparently, a lot of people agree with me. According to the AP article, business cards are becoming even more popular, despite the ease with which we can all exchange information electronically now. In fact, even kids are getting in on the act, designing "calling cards" that have only their MySpace or Facebook information on them. In other words, they're using offline techniques to drive people online to check them out. Very clever. And very real world. I almost always look up a web site I see on a business card I've acquired at a networking meeting.

These days, I often get a LinkedIn invitation following a networking meeting I've attended or spoken to. Apparently, some people use LinkedIn as an electronic rolodex, rather than as the networking tool it is intended to be. See my post just before this one if you want to know what I think about the "Link hos."

Anyway, I think it's fascinating how people are using their business cards to remain relevant, from offering multimedia mini-disk cards to stock ones with embedded computer chips that let you download information into your computer. But nothing replaces a beautifully-designed, high-quality card that makes you want to know more about a person.

So, spend the money and take the time to really think through your business card. Unless you have an unusually gifted knack for design, don't do it yourself. Hire a professional. After all, your card may just be the ticket to getting your intended audience to check you out.

Networking on steroids: LinkedIn growing in popularity

Have you noticed the explosion in the number of people who want to get LinkedIn with you lately? Although I've used the service since shortly after it made its debut a few years ago, I can't help but notice that lately everybody wants in on the act. Perhaps they have seen some of the great media coverage the site has gotten recently.

I get several LinkedIn requests a week. I don't always accept them. It strikes me as irrelevant to connect to someone I've never heard of who happened to find me using a keyword search. The way I see it, my connections aren't relevant to me - or others - if I can't personally speak to why I'm connected to them.

I suppose it's possible that some people actually know - and can credibly introduce - hundreds or even thousands of people, but frankly, when I see people with so many connections, I automatically raise an eyebrow. "Link Hos" I call them. Seems they may be more interested in collecting links than in making true connections.

Perhaps it's fallout from the MySpace and Facebook generation. I've heard several college students comment that they have "983 friends on Facebook." Never mind that they haven't even met 971 of them.

LinkedIn can be a very powerful networking tool if used properly. I've been able to use my  genuine connections to meet people I want to know, either for personal or professional reasons. I've also reconnected to people I worked with in past jobs, as well as rekindled college friendships. And I take some pride in the fact that I can provide relevant information about every one of my connections, even without looking at their online profile. That's the very essence of networking, in my humble opinion.

What's your take? Am I being too dismissive?

Business Week floats idea of YouTube for wanna-be moguls

Business Week says it wants to start its own version of YouTube. Essentially, people who are looking for money for their business venture would get an opportunity to develop a video pitch with the intent of receiving funds to back their idea or new company.

The magazine's Executive Editor John Byrne, even envisions a contest in which wanna-be moguls can participate in an online contest to for the chance to win a cool half-million bucks. Visitors to the portal would vote on the pitch they think is worthy of funding.

When I first read the story, I thought, "What a cool idea!" It's a sure-fire way to keep people coming to the Business Week web site. All print publications are seeking to drive more online traffic as interest in print continues to slide. But then my second thought was, "Wait a minute! Voting for the best video is hardly a way to demonstrate good journalism, which is one reason Business Week is one of my favorite magazines."

As I've mulled the idea, though, I'm liking it better and better. After all, daily newspapers have been involving their audiences through blogs. In fact, USA Today's subscription rate has skyrocked since revamping its online presence and asking people to exchange views on stories. Even CNN encourages its viewers to send in their own potential news clip to iReport for the chance to have it selected for an actual broadcast.

I think Business Week is on to something. Before joining Edelman, I ran my own consulting practice for nine years. During that time, I helped numerous small companies put together their presentations for pitches to venture capitalists. Many entrepreneurs really struggled with the idea of telling their story in five minutes, which was the typical timeframe they were given at VC pitch-a-thons. The most common complaint I heard was, "I can't possibly relay how passionate I am about this through slides!" This BW video idea helps to solve that problem because now pitches can be anything from a talking head to an office tour to a person writing on a white board to a fancy PPT presentation with a voiceover narrative, along with dozens of other ideas.

If Business Week does move to this new format and you decide to "go for it," take my advice and work with a professional to ensure you have the best video possible. Remember, this isn't YouTube, where most of the videos are slapped together with little thought or creativity.

There are no "do-overs" or "let's put it out there and see what happens" when the world is watching - and voting - for you to get money.

Are you a relevant networker?

Are you a relevant networker? How do you know? I've always thought I was pretty good at purposeful networking, but it never hurts to occasionally review what I'm doing to make sure I'm being as effective as possible.

That's why I was delighted to have the opportunity to hear Andrew Dietz of Creative Growth Group in
Atlanta last week. He offered some terrific reminders of what we need to do to remain relevant as networkers so that we can build our businesses in an effective way. Here's the bottom line: it all comes down to  who you know and who knows and likes you.

He said there were three keys to client development survival:

1. Mine relationship assets. Take a total inventory of who you know. There are four essential affinity groups to consider: Community, Work/Career, Family and Friends, and Educational Institutions. We all know people from each of these life categories but often forget to harness the power they represent. When we reach out to others in a way that proves we want to help them as much they help us, we increase the likelihood of a positive experience.

2. Connect with content. Make sure you've earned the right to connect. There are many ways we can make meaningful connections, from providing information to introducing people to one another who can help each other. Andrew offered a matrix of Ideas, Information, Introductions and Income, and how we can make connections with others we identified in the four mining categories.

3. Navigating likeability. It may seem like a big "duh," but aren't all the basics that really work? Here's a quote Andrew offered from the June 2005 Harvard Business Review: "When people need help getting a job done, they'll choose a congenial colleague over a more capable one... if someone is liked, his colleagues will seek out every bit of competence he has to offer." Andrew echoed this, noting that people want to help people they like, so make sure you really think through what you can do to show how likeable you are by seeking common ground, fostering familiarity, and showing genuine appreciation for others' efforts.

Andrew's primary focus in the meeting I attended was face-to-face networking, but the principles he described can certainly be applied to the online world. I'm a big fan of www.LinkedIn.com because of the incredible opportunity it offers to apply networking skills on a larger scale. Of course, good networkers don't depend on a single vehicle for networking. The most powerful networking occurs though a combination of good, old-fashioned palm pumping, combined with the efficiency online tools offer.

The main takeaway was simple, but powerful: if you aren't maintaining your network on a regular basis, you're risking becoming irrelevant. It will take a lot more effort to become relevant with your network again than it takes to just maintain it.

US Netcom hits new low: proves opportunistic, not relevant

I was so appalled when I saw this news release, I actually began looking for it on several sources just to make sure I didn't misread it or that it was the hoax of a sick mind. Could there really be a company so shameless, so idiotic and so desperate for attention?

US Netcom  appears to be all of those things. Clearly, this company doesn't understand the difference between being relevant and being opportunistic. If the idea is to drive up traffic to their web site so they can put out another release about how they have achieved record number of hits (thus - in their minds - becoming more relevant), let me remind you what HITS stands for: How Idiots Track Success.

I hope all the people who are making history by reporting on the Virginia Tech tragedy online will take note of this company's actions and use their considerable power to give them the attention they richly deserve.

Follow this link to read the full release. Meanwhile, here's the most offensive excerpt:

For $1 per student per year, services such as AllCall Notification could have provided VT with a method of crisis control capable of reaching every student far faster than email. It should have been in place as part of the schools' emergency preparedness plan.

Here are the names of the people who put out this ridiculous release, just in case you want to contact them: Kim Cooke, Mark Hefley, Jeff Worhol, JJ Kelly. I'm sure they'd love to hear from you at 1-800-695-7788 or jeff.warhol@usnetcomcorp.com.

 

We're watching history in the making: Va Tech tragedy changes how stories are covered

If you're still talking about "new media," please stop. There's no such thing any more. It's just media now. Citizen journalists and consumer generated content have never been more relevant than what we have seen in the past two days. The horrible tragedy at Virginia Tech tested the incredible potential - and limits - of the technology that is forever changing the way we communicate with one another, whether across the hall or around the world.

As you know by now, the most compelling video of the police on campus trying to find the gunman came from a camera phone owned by a student (who, btw, was paid by CNN for exclusive footage). So far, it has generated over 2 million views. Hundreds of people have sent what CNN calls i-reports, providing a citizen's eye view of the events as they unfold. Suddenly, the number of "reporters" covering the story has completely changed the way we are able see and absorb the story. We don't have to wait for over-produced, high-priced media personalities to reserve satellite time and set up temporary sets to tell us what they think is going on.

Meanwhile, students learned from other students who was injured, killed and missing by reading Facebook, blogs, MySpace, Wikipedia, and of course through IM's and text messages. Today, there are hundreds of Facebook pages and forums dedicated to mourning the students. In fact, one has drawn more than 28,000 members who share memories, photos, poems and questions. Global online communities are  coming together in a matter of hours. The mainstream media can't keep up. Nor, by the way, can the technology. This horrible event will serve as a blueprint for communications companies to develop even more robust interactive programming.

Over the next several weeks we can expect to see tremendous online coverage of this story as an official investigation gets underway. Every hour new information is revealed as people share their experiences and insight.  We're watching history in the making. News will never be covered the same way again.

Consider this, too: this week marked another new milestone: a majority of teens (55%) now have online profiles.  Watch that continue to grow quickly, especially with the corresponding growth in online coverage of major news.

So, let's drop talk of new media. It's so 12 hours ago.

CBS and Imus: more a misfiring than a simple firing

Imus says he is done apologizing for the remarks that got him fired. Thank God. He was starting to hog ink that could be used to continue to tell us the sordid details of the soap opera about Anna Nichole's baby and speculation over just how bad Sanjaya will be on the next episode of American Idol.

These three stories have one thing in common: they are far more relevant to advertisers than they are to most viewers and listeners. Advertisers care about ratings. They want to know that their products and services are being exposed to the largest audience possible. And these three stories have drawn huge audiences, each for a different reason.

So, I find it just laughable that CBS wants us to believe that they fired Imus because he stepped over the line with his racist remarks. Oh puh-leeze... Imus has offended just about everyone during his 30 year radio career... multiple times, in fact. In many ways, the more offensive he was, the higher his ratings and the happier the advertisers.

This time, though, advertisers ran scared as soon as Jesse and Al got involved and then they really got nervous when the brilliant PR machine at Rutgers went into high gear. Suddenly, they began to worry that this story wouldn't blow over and the strong wind that kept it stirring could well damage sales.  Seems to me they waited just long enough to fire him that it ruined their ability to argue that it wasn't about the advertising dollars, but the offensiveness of his comments.

The lesson to be learned from this is that timing is a key element of relevance. CBS took action too late for most people to believe its argument that the decision was driven by moral outrage rather than the almighty dollar. Right... next thing you know Sanjaya will win American Idol and Fox will try and convince us there was absolutely no manipulation of the process. 

   

USA Today, America's McPaper, embraces Web 2.0

One of my favorite newspapers, USA Today, has relaunched its web site and it's a real beauty. The paper that built its reputation on giving people colored pie charts and an abbreviated version of the news has decided to take a deep dive and actually involve its readers, whom they're asking to participate online and use the paper as a resource.

The first thing I noticed was all the white space on the screen, a far cry from the original wide screen layout with lots of color and bold fonts. Now, the online paper is elongated and fits on the screen in a much narrower format (which advertisers tend to love). Then, I saw how the cover photo changes as you mouse over the thumbprint photos in the margins. That means instead of selecting a cover story and playing it up, the cover story changes based on your own interest. Can you say relevant?

The site uses a public comment tool, social network capabilities and gives people the ability to upload photos and participate in blogs; in other words, all the things that make Web 2.0 the must-have format for newspapers now.

But what I like best about USAT's efforts is that they're not turning the paper over to consumers to be "citizen journalists." Instead, the paper's "real" journalists can use the consumer tools as a listening device, but the reporting will still come from those trained in the craft. Thank goodness. I've always hated the expression "citizen journalist" because it implies expertise that in most cases does not exist. (Full disclosure: this could be an ego thing with me. I have a degree in journalism and worked as a reporter for several years. I'd hate to think I wasn't special somehow.)

Watch for other newspapers, even midsize local fishwrappers, to grab on to Web 2.0 too. Today's newspapers will thrive only if they go beyond giving consumers what they need and include what they want (which, apparently, is the ability to be a part of the process).

I predict USAT will be successful because it has always had a breezy, consumer-oriented writing style that makes it appeal to the average reader, who will be quicker to share the site with "like kind." And when that happens, advertisers will start to throw their support behind it and before you know it, USAT becomes a "gotta see" portal.

Check it out.