Disqus - Latest Comments for GeekMommy

Re: The difference between ad:tech and Blogworld

morganb — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 16:04:09 -0000

GeekMommy -

Thank you so much for sharing your thoughts. You really articulate it well. I get that their customers demand audiences. They need reach. I get that social media doesn't scale the way other advertising methods (on and offline) do. I get that until they can aggregate enough networks, enough niches, enough customers through new channels they'll stick with the ones that get them paid. And it's a fine argument. Social is always one part of the puzzle for any company. I don't think anyone would argue for a marketing strategy that only uses social marketing.

But what was and is concerning is the point you articulated. That the people (agencies) advising their clients with the money don't *get* it. This was the main point I was trying to make with my points about Twitter and Foursquare being used in a very limited way at the conference. Sure, they are just two brand new tools, and may or may not last themselves, but the fact that they were not being used by many conference members, and that when used the way they were being used is not what anyone would call "best practice" points to a lack of understanding or acceptance of important shifts in the online environment that will impact them and their customers.

It is exactly the "fad" mindset that you speak of and that is what makes it really scary. If ad:tech is supposed to be the future of online marketing and advertising then I would say that many at the conference are betting on a future where social marketing is a gimmic or a fad that goes away - and to me that's a sucker's bet.

Thanks for the comment!

Re: The difference between ad:tech and Blogworld

GeekMommy — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 13:33:17 -0000

"The people that control the money have yet to make the leap."
You know, part of this is that the people who advise the people who control the money have yet to make the leap as well. I cannot begin to explain the number of times in the past year I have said to someone with a background of traditional ad agency thinking: "Social Media isn't just digital marketing on someone's social networking platform. Just because you use a tool that can be used by Social Media Marketing doesn't mean that you are *doing* Social Media Marketing. eMail can be used as a SM tool, but it can also be used as a direct marketing tool. The tool doesn't dictate the methodology, it's the other way around."

Have I been understood when I said that? Mostly, no. I get a nod of the head and "yeah, yeah, yeah, of course!!" and the very next thing that I've heard strategically from the person who agreed so vehemently is essentially the equivalent of the banner ad on Facebook.

I've talked to Marketing people in Fortune 100 companies. When I talk to them, they not only get what I'm saying, they get how big a shift in thinking that is and how it's not going to happen overnight internally in their companies. Additionally though, I've been asked before why none of the agencies they talk to have brought it to them this way? The answer is the same. Those agencies are filled with people who get Ad:tech but don't get BWE. Their also filled with people who are fairly sure that this whole "social media fad" will die off.

Sadly, the money goes where the path of least resistance is.

Re: Twitter’s lists make Chris Brogan feel bad

joeschmitt — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 17:24:04 -0000

Unfortunately following people does not always mean "I actually have them in my twitterstream". Plenty of people who follow 100 or more people use tools like HootSuite or TweetDeck that allow them to organize who they follow and basically ignore some people or groups of people since they don't use their uncategorized stream any more. Since I'm a big phone user, those tools never appealed to me, and so I've found other ways to achieve the same thing, mostly through multiple accounts.

Even so, we don't give the same attention to everyone in our streams. We all have favorites, people we'll go back for, and people who when we see them in our stream we pay attention. @hotdogsladies said at SXSW that people pay you with their attention if nothing else as a way to tell people not to rush to monetize their blogs or Twitter streams. I still stick to that. I know that some people who follow me barely notice, but others are very engaged.

The rush to measure all this stuff is short-sighted. Those things are helpful, but they don't do a good job of gauging influence.

Re: The chat room/forum problem (& an apology to @Technosailor)

GeekMommy — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 04:13:07 -0000

You have managed to generate some *passionate* discussions the past couple of days Robert!

I do rather wonder where we all go next. I've actually been using Facebook way more than I used to, strictly because Twitter has gotten more broadcast than conversational of late with the influx of people. I've also taken to reading more blogs than I used to because of the desire for finding information that interests me rather than (as you put it) 'cat pictures'.

I suspect you're not quite as enamored of 'controlled' conversations as you posit here though Robert... as it is the unplanned encounter that changes our viewpoint best. Still - we all have our threshholds. Sometimes you just need to walk away from some places, scale back on others, and ramp up others.

I think you're finding your balance. :)

Re: Twitter Lists- Im Not Down

twitter-18929690 — Sun, 01 Nov 2009 20:51:58 -0000

GeekMommy - unless you pay attention to the people you pay attention to for a reason. And yes, any system can be gamed...so it wouldn't be my only metric!

Re: Twitter Lists- Im Not Down

GeekMommy — Sun, 01 Nov 2009 20:14:31 -0000

I outlined it more thoroughly in my own post today, but as to how the Lists can be scammed more easily than even following? Only if you're willing to go through and see if 1) the lists are all by different accounts and 2) they are all positive lists (is Chris on 50 good lists or 50 negative lists? or maybe 25 of each?) then will it be useful. Putting the number on peoples' profiles indicates it's a metric when it really isn't.

Re: Twitter’s lists make Chris Brogan feel bad

GeekMommy — Sun, 01 Nov 2009 19:27:17 -0000

Makes sense... but think about all the time we're going to have to invest in maintaining these lists. I'd rather spend that time interacting with people. It's why I've never really managed to twig to the groups feature on 3d party apps - I just don't want to spend the time updating/maintaining them when I could be twittering! :)

Re: Twitter’s lists make Chris Brogan feel bad

GeekMommy — Sun, 01 Nov 2009 19:25:15 -0000

I think I get that.

You know, before I got rid of them yesterday, you were the first person I added to my "People Who Make Me Think" list. You're still top of that list, even if it's not a formal "list" on Twitter any more.
I may not always agree with your conclusions but I do always find that you make me examine my own perspective and analysis and that more often than not, you add to my awareness.

I'm very honored to be on your follow list Robert, but I'm even more fortunate to follow you. You're the one who originally made me see the power of twitter and who you follow being more important than who follows you. I've learned a lot thanks to you the past couple of years.

Thanks Robert!

Re: Twitter Lists- Im Not Down

twitter-18929690 — Sun, 01 Nov 2009 15:37:49 -0000

Yeah but if Chris is on 50 lists - a collective filtering is going on, and I say perhaps I am new to the subject, can be fairly sure Chris is providing valuable insight on a regular basis. That's very useful to me.

I'm not going to take one individual's assessment of another as my sole input. We don't do that in life, why would we do that in this case?

There will always be people who will use the systems we create to add static - We need to get smart about filtering it. Killing features that can be used wisely or stupidly, or aggressively is not the way.

You can't socially engineer shitty behavior off the internet. It's an ideal, but as a rule, it ends up restricting the freedom of the well behaved and thoughtful to control the nasty and the immature.

The nasty and the immature will always find a way to plop a turd in the punch bowl. It's a human problem not a technical one.

Re: Twitter’s lists make Chris Brogan feel bad

Scobleizer — Sun, 01 Nov 2009 09:57:31 -0000

My lists aren't finished yet and never will be. I aim to have the most complete lists, though, and if you think someone should be on my lists you can DM me.

Re: Twitter’s lists make Chris Brogan feel bad

Scobleizer — Sun, 01 Nov 2009 09:54:53 -0000

I'm hurt by people who are faking their inclusion by me more in the long run than if people are honest and leave me off of lists that I don't deserve to be on. Let's be honest, I WILL be hurt that I'm left off of your "best golfers of all time" list. I WOULD love to be on that list. Thing is, I don't deserve to be on it and if you put me on it you'll make your list suck.

That said, you're on my favorite geek mommy list and you are on my most important list: the list of people I follow. I read that first before I read any of my lists. Oh, and I'm not done building lists yet. I'm only about 10% done going through my 12,000 followings.

Re: Twitter Lists- Im Not Down

GeekMommy — Sun, 01 Nov 2009 02:38:20 -0000

addendum:

Someone else (whom I won't name b/c it was a DM) just mentioned to me the fact that subjectivity plays a huge part in lists that cause issues.

Let's say I was making a list of "Social Media Thought Leaders" but (strictly hypothetically) I couldn't stand you Chris, or I always disagreed with your viewpoints. Am I likely to put you on the list because I know that you are, in fact, one of those leaders despite the fact that I don't want to follow or endorse you?

Lists are going to prove to be a bigger negative than a positive in the long run.

There are "shoulds" -- people *should* use lists to enlighten other users, they *should* not be offended or hurt if they are left off of a list... and there are realities -- people will use lists to manipulate, game the system, increase their perceived influence, troll, malign others and people will be offended and hurt if they feel left out by someone whom they care for or respect.

Re: A loss for words.

GeekMommy — Sun, 01 Nov 2009 01:58:31 -0000

I always come to your blog a day or two after you write something that makes me cry... You have such a way with making me wish I were around for more of your stories and your insight.

I am so sorry for the loss of your grandmother - she must've been one amazing woman given how much just a couple of paragraphs makes me wish I'd known her.

My heart goes out to your whole family, Micah.

Clearly though, you are just one of many of an amazing family. And yeah, I think you're pretty amazing. "Black sheep" or not.

Take care of you, my friend. ((hug)) Some day? Let's grab a cup of coffee - you can tell me more stories about your Babu... I'd love to hear them.

Re: Twitter Lists- Im Not Down

GeekMommy — Sun, 01 Nov 2009 01:49:44 -0000

Do you recall how I met you?
You had this really awesome idea that would help new users - Twitter Packs. I railed and ranted and posted against it. It was exclusionary and contrary to the open and non-elite nature of Twitter!! Oh, and I mistakenly thought it was sexist...(word choice, I admitted I was wrong.) This was back in 2007, right?

I'm glad you and I are on the same page now. At least with your wiki idea anyone could edit a list/pack... now? Now we've got a whole new game for people to play thanks to Twitter.

I will never really understand why people think that it's okay to make other people feel crappy and left out simply because they don't care whether or not someone leaves them out.

The justification I keep hearing for why it's okay to make people feel that way? That they shouldn't.

Let's start acknowledging the reality versus the ideals. If everyone you know was invited to a party but you weren't - it feels like crap. You aren't going to go to the host and say "hey... um, you left me off the invite list... was that a mistake or not?" unless you have a cast-iron self image or reason to believe the former.

Public lists are not the same as private filtering views.

Honestly? I was making some lists - but I've just realized that I'm probably going to post about this tomorrow as I delete them all.

Thanks for stepping up to bat Chris. And thanks for making me realize that yeah, I really AM against them.

Re: Twitter’s lists make Chris Brogan feel bad

GeekMommy — Sun, 01 Nov 2009 01:40:15 -0000

Actually, there's kind of an irony to me about this whole discussion.

I met Chris over the whole "Twitter Packs" idea - which I said was exclusionary and contrary to the public spirit of Twitter back in what? 2007? It was his idea and I understood where it came from and how it was intended to be helpful. But I also sow how it could damage the community.

Now I'm on the same side of the table as Chris - and the opposite of yours.

Lists *could* be great - if everyone approached them from the viewpoint you do. But they won't Robert. They'll be misused, abused, and a whole new source of twitter gaming. Where people used to try and amass follower numbers to convince others they had reach and influence, they will soon game list numbers.
How long before accounts are created that solely "list" a series of users names under tags like "social media" "social media guru" "thoughtleader" etc so that the number that says "lists" under their name is high?
How long before we start getting the obnoxious "get on 300 lists today by joining insertshortlinkhere.com!!" spam?

Following someone is NOT just a form of lists. It means that I actually have them in my twitterstream. You aren't ever forced to view a list again once you've made it. You can simply list dozens of names and never go back to that particular view, but just stay in your own private view. I can see your lists without ever having to follow someone. Not in the mood to read their crap on a given day? Just don't look at that list. Following is a level of commitment for me.

As it is? I'm not on a single one of your lists. And if I'm being utterly truthful? Yeah, it stung just a little bit that I'm worth talking to in person, but didn't make any of your "more complete" lists. It actually prompted this tweet http://twitter.com/GeekMommy/status/5332041425 before I found out you had written this post.

If anything, I'm finding that lists are one of those shiny objects that get coders in trouble so often... they do something based on "can we do X?" rather than "should we do X?"

I don't think you are acknowledging the downside of lists. While they have the ability to be something awesome the way that you are trying to use them? They are also have the ability to be horribly misused and to hurt people. And honestly? I don't really want to hurt people I like. Do you?

Re: Twitter’s lists make Chris Brogan feel bad

GeekMommy — Sun, 01 Nov 2009 01:24:38 -0000

Oh... now I'm wondering who else you left off of your complete lists? Popularity is not the same as accuracy.

Re: Twitter’s lists make Chris Brogan feel bad

GeekMommy — Sun, 01 Nov 2009 01:23:28 -0000

http://twitter.com/listing_all_the/
Yep. I was curious what lists I was being included on... this lovely troll account popped up. Blocking it solved my issue - but this will become more and more common shortly.
Fun having to track that sort of thing down all the time, eh?
Would be particularly fun if that showed up on your Google search (not.)

Re: Why Speakers Shouldn’t Be Paid

GeekMommy — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 01:00:26 -0000

So, let me get this straight... You want me to TEACH people information and skills that it took me years to get - but you think I should do that for free?

Yeah. Not.

I go to conferences that ARE community to give back and speak for them for free. But when you've got someone charging hundreds, even thousands of dollars, to participants? They are paying me for my time, my knowledge, and my experience. I'm sure as heck not going to make them tons of money as a "charitable" experience.

I speak at BlogHer for free because that's a community that is one I give back to. But I won't ever speak for free for someone who just wants to profit off of information, experience, and knowledge that it took me years to acquire no matter how passionate I am about what I do.

Sorry, but you missed the mark here 100% in my book Andrew.

Re: Lijit contributes analysis to Technorati State of the Blogosphere 2009

GeekMommy — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 18:58:39 -0000

It should come as no surprise that Lijit is in the heart of this! Awesome of Technorati to realize just how powerful your tool is! :)

Re: Alienate Your Female Customers? Pepsi Has An App For That

GeekMommy — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 13:11:39 -0000

ew.
Way to objectify women AMP.

Re: Bringing Trust Agents and Six Pixels to You

GeekMommy — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 03:25:06 -0000

That's seriously a heckuva deal given the results.

Re: On Winning the Nobel Prize

GeekMommy — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 14:02:00 -0000

Congrats on your almost-won-a-Nobel status! ;)

Re: When Should You Use Your Own Language

GeekMommy — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 20:53:16 -0000

Given that I know you tend to write well in advance of the curve, the timing of this post is intriguing in that "serendipitous" sort of way... Today's hijacking of the #nestlefamily hashtag to further a different conversation plays into this somehow - I know it.
I'll be interested to see if you address it with relation to this "framing the conversation" even tho it's technically tangential.
Always interested in your perspective Mr. B.

Re: What I Told Them At New Media Atlanta

GeekMommy — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 20:50:01 -0000

Loving BackNoise.com - will be interesting to see what comes of it.

Re: Antifeatures: big mistake that location app developers make

Otto4242 — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 17:18:11 -0000

How in the heck can you have an "opt-out" when you have to "opt-in" in the first place??

*It's a location app*. The thing is explicitly designed to show your location to your friends. That's the whole purpose of it.

I mean, saying that you can't opt-out of showing your location is like saying that you can't opt-out of sending your emails to people when you use the Mail app. That's what it's *designed to do*.

The "opt-out" is to either a) not use it or b) not have any friends on it. Simple, eh?