Is Facebook the High School We Never Leave?

August 8, 2011

Though most people do personally know at least some of their Facebook friends, Twitter followers, and LinkedIn connections, we tend to be less inhibited when we share on these platforms, as we might in a crowd of people who don’t really know us.  For young people, the disembodied, anonymous feeling of social media communication can have painful, even dangerous consequences, as revealed by numerous blogs, studies, and articles about cyberbullying.  Rachel Simmons’ re-release of her best-selling and groundbreaking book Odd Girl Out includes several new chapters that specifically address the role of social media in young girls’ lives.  Emboldened by distance and something like invisibility, young people say things to each other or about themselves that they would never say face-to-face, on the phone, or in the presence of an adult.  Since social media and the internet are clearly not just a trend, Simmons and other experts urge parents to talk to their kids about social media, encourage media literacy and education, and be aware of and involved in their child’s online life.  But are kids the only ones that are engaging in hurtful or destructive behavior online?

Adults, too, use social media, particularly Facebook, in a way that reveals insecurities, jealousies, concealed emotions—all the angst-y behavior that we typically associate with adolescence.  Just like kids, when adults are alone, bathed in the white glow of the computer screen, they tweet, post, and message impulsively.

For example, A particularly common adolescent behavior performed by adults on Facebook is the underhanded-asking-for-sympathy status update.  The status could be fairly straightforward, something like, “Could it get any worse?” or perhaps it’s a famous quote that refers to hard times, “What doesn’t kill me only makes me stronger, right?”  These fishing-for-praise/compliments posts are usually successful, eliciting a few comments, maybe even a “like.”

Another go-to is the passive aggressive status update: “I’m so tired of selfish people” or “No more second chances,” messages that clearly have an intended party, but don’t name them.   Obviously the unspecified recipient must be listening (ie reading), or else the post wouldn’t have been written.  Broadcasting a private argument or conflict to hundreds of people—if that’s not bullying, what is?

A less public but just as deliberate regressive behavior is stalking—spending hours and hours sifting through pictures of ex-boyfriends, former rivals, or secret crushes.  Measuring the waistline of the woman who married your college sweetheart or comparing the growth of your former classmate’s baby to your own—these tasks are masochistic.  Why do we put ourselves through it?  Is it because we just can’t help it?  The temptation, the access to that information, is difficult to resist.

A disclaimer: I am addicted to Facebook, and I acknowledge that not all people use it in this way.  Some adults really do use Facebook just to keep in touch with friends, share pictures with their family, or promote their business.  Some people would never dream of posting in the manner I just described.  But we all have at least one friend that does, and chances are we’ve never approached them about it.  This behavior is risky and reflects poorly on the writer, though, especially since so many of us use social media to keep in touch with our coworkers, and since so many employers use social media to check out candidates.

At the risk of sounding too “the children are our future,” I have to ask—how can we demand that our children (well, not my children—I don’t have any.  But kids in general.) learn to act responsibly and maturely online when the average adult demonstrates so many childish behaviors in the same space?  When a grown woman posts “So tired…in the emergency room all night” and only later (and privately) reveals that she was there because she nicked her thumb while cutting a bagel, do we tell her that she is the boy who cried wolf?  No, but we would tell that to a fourteen year old.

And here’s my larger question– are these behaviors really childish, or are they just human?  Do we ever truly grow out of the need to bully, fish for compliments, and spy on people, or was the opportunity to act on these urges simply not as present until social media came along?  Is Facebook a high school we never graduate from?

Why Your Company Should Say Bye-Bye to Booth Babes

August 3, 2011

For those of you who are lucky enough to be unfamiliar with the term “Booth Babe,” allow me to explain. A Booth Babe, euphemistically referred to as a “promotional model,” is a young girl clad in a risqué ensemble who stands in front of exhibitors’ booths at conference and trade shows. She and several other of her busty colleagues hand out fliers and try to lure you into the exhibitor booth, where some much less attractive person will tell you about their products and services and not let you escape until you sign up for their newsletter.

I’m always surprised at the abundance of booth babes at conferences, especially at professional gatherings like CTIA and FOSE, two that I’ve attended recently. Sure, maybe booth babes still have a place at the International Lingerie Conference, but the antiquated concept is inappropriate at important trade shows and conferences that are meant to provide an opportunity to learn about current industry issues. Businesses should abandon this outdated promotional ploy, not just because it’s offensive (which it is) but because it doesn’t work. Here’s why:

Booth babes are poor brand ambassadors.

What does a naughty nurse have to do with your office supply products? What does a dominatrix have to do with your IT consulting services? Probably nothing. It’s difficult for businesses to find a segue to these sexy costumes. Yes, booth babes attract attention, but do you really want your brand represented by a nineteen year old in spandex leiderhosen?   What if a passerby asks her a question about your product?  I’m sure that many booth babes are educated, bright, and articulate, but I’m equally as sure that companies provide them with only a cursory amount of product information before sending them out to the aisle with a fistful of free ballpoint pens. Even if she is effective in increasing your booth traffic, your audience won’t remember your stellar PowerPoint presentation, they’ll remember your booth babe’s strategically placed name tag.

Booth babes insult your customers and your products. 

When you rely on booth babes to promote your product, you’re insulting your customers’ intelligence. Booth babes (or, rather, the people who employ booth babes) send out a clear message: I think that my customers can be won over by some good old-fashioned thigh-flashing. Furthermore, the use of distracting models shows that your company does not think its product is compelling enough to bring in customers on its own. If you need near-naked women to convince people to test your mobile app, I’m betting it’s not that great.

This just in: Women are in the workforce!

In fact, we make up a pretty hefty portion of the workforce and even have purchasing power. Booth babes emerged back in the 1950’s, when they were probably the only women on the convention floor, but this is no longer the case.  Booth babes alienate and offend female conference attendees. Not to mention that many booth babes promote companies that have female employees standing in the booth, just a few feet away. Professional, successful employees with all of their clothes on. Booth babes send a message to your female colleagues that women ought to look pretty and alluring, not educated, ambitious, or—gasp!–actually capable of selling a product based on its virtues alone.

Fortunately, many conventions are moving in the right direction (examples here, here, and here).  Booth Babes aren’t worth the risk. Child labor laws aside, this outdated promotional tool sends the wrong message to your customers and employees.

Can We Be Thoughtful in 140 Characters?

July 31, 2011

In response to my most recent post about McLuhan and social media, Bob McCannon, President of Action Coalition for Media Education (an organization with an honorable mission, check it out here) asked me this: “If McLuhan is right, what does that mean for the quality of the culture created by messages communicated by short tweets and even shorter texts. Do we not lose the considerations crucial to a complex understanding of the complexities of life, love, democracy, etc.? Is our disdain for detail responsible for knee jerk reactions of today’s media pundits and politicians?”

Bob implies that brevity mandates excluding details, and that our culture’s obsession with brevity, with tiny tweets and texts transporting important information and complex ideas to thousands of readers simultaneously, has created an atmosphere in which the majority of people dismiss the critical details. Furthermore, he’s arguing that there is a danger in this move away from the details. Without the complicated particulars, we may be losing the ability to understand larger ideas, ideas that successful, engaged, voting adults must understand.

I agree that the brevity of tweets, texts, and other social media interactions has certainly had detrimental effects on the way young people are communicating. When I taught writing courses to undergrads at the University of Utah, I was shocked at how often inappropriate abbreviations and slang showed up in academic papers. Students used “thru” for “through” or “u” for “you,” for example, and sentence fragments abounded. I shouldn’t have been surprised, as Bob and ACME report that an alarming percentage of Americans can’t read 7th grade material. If adults can’t read simple grade-school literature and use short forms of social media as their main communication medium, how will they be able to understand the important issues they’ll be asked to vote upon? It’s frustrating for me, as someone who grew up with literature and is passionate about the written word, that texts and tweets have become the new vernacular.

This leads me to a larger question, though: if the message is short, can the content be rich? Does brevity imply simplicity? I don’t think so. Content can’t be measured in characters. Many poets would agree with me. Consider Ezra Pound’s poem “In a Station of the Metro” that he famously trimmed down from 30 lines to 2:

“The apparition of these faces in the crowd;
petals on a wet, black bough.”

In his 1918 essay “A Retrospect,” Pound wrote, “Use no superfluous word, no adjective which does not reveal something.” There’s a long tradition in English literature (in all literature, really– think of the haiku) of communicating important, beautiful images in condensed forms.

This isn’t to say that tweets should be compared to poems. Of course we can’t compare the seething restraint in Dickinson’s ten line verses to the poorly written tweets out there (one today from a young Tweeter: “#dearyoungself This too shall pass. And that. But will give you a spine of steel. Then fun part.” Um, what?) However, we could argue that there’s a precedent for embracing shorter forms of communication as valuable. If brief content can’t be rich, then lengthy content must be, and we all know from watching rambling political speeches that this isn’t true.

I’ve only recently started using Twitter, and I must admit that I adore it. For me, it’s not the tweets, it’s the links. Though the tweets themselves are short, grammatically incorrect, jumbled (etc), they almost always refer readers to a more complex article, story, or video via a link. Some anecdotal evidence of Twitter’s positive effects: I have a friend who used to be very apathetic about the news, particularly international news. Now that’s he on Twitter and follows a handful of politically minded celebrities who tweet links to news stories and opinion pieces, he’s much more informed.

So is it the brevity of mediums that can lead to knee-jerk reactions, or is it their social element? If you use Twitter to follow the news, think about the degree to which your news could be biased based on who you follow. If you’re a conservative and you’ve chosen to follow Sarah Palin, Fox News, and the Tea Party, and use their links to keep up with the day’s breaking news, you’ll end your day chest-high in ideas in which you were already knee-deep. Likewise, if you’re a liberal who follows Cecile Richards, Stephen Colbert, and President Obama, you’ll end up in the same situation. The news is becoming increasingly social, just look at the Huffington Post. It’s brilliant, it makes money, but it doesn’t necessarily encourage challenging oneself to consider another point of view. We don’t use social media to connect with people we don’t agree with. We “like” things like ourselves.

As I said in my last post, we must approach media critically. The medium doesn’t just deliver, it constructs. None of what I’m saying is new, of course. Cultural theorists and media educators like Bob McCannon and his cohorts at ACME have been making this point for quite some time, as do professors and graduate students at most academic institutions. But this point isn’t made nearly enough in the mainstream media. It’s no longer enough to be literate; we need to be media literate as well.

Marshall McLuhan: 100 Years Later, then Six Years Ago

July 28, 2011

Marshall McLuhan, famous academic and cultural theorist who studied our relationship with media, was born 100 years ago this week (On the Media produced an excellent story commemorating his birthday.  Check it out here.).  I was introduced to McLuhan in my first Cultural Studies class at the University of Virginia and was fascinated by his prophetic conclusions about media.  His ideas about the importance of the medium as tantamount to the content (his famous phrase: “the medium is the message”) and that the media affects not only what we think about but how we think were framed by the appearance of the television in the homes of Americans in the 1950’s and 1960’s.  What struck me, though, is how applicable his theories were to contemporary forms of communication, like instant messaging and the internet.  After hearing On the Media’s story about McLuhan’s quirky, complicated ideas, I dug up one of my old papers about him.  In the short six years that have passed since I wrote the paper about how McLuhan’s observations can be applied to the internet,the way we use the internet to communicate has advanced quite a bit.  To show how, let’s look at some of my points from 2005.

A younger version of me wrote: “McLuhan suggests that when a media of communication becomes the dominant form, making the previous form outdated, the outdated media does not disappear but rather conforms to the rules of the dominant form. This seems to be the case as the internet becomes the dominant media of communication.  In the 90’s, as the internet became increasingly popular, several movies such as The Net, Hackers, and You’ve Got Mail used the internet as their main topic.  Popular television shows such as The O.C. acknowledge that internet is a dominant form of communication, incorporating the language of instant messaging into their dialogues.”

There’s more compelling evidence today to support the idea that television isn’t disappearing, but adapting.  Television networks are going much further now to use the internet as a complimentary, not competing, medium.  Most shows have websites where viewers can learn more about actors and view extra material unavailable on TV, like webisodes, outtakes, and interviews.  Some television shows even offer their episodes for free on the internet the day after they air (although some networks are changing this policy).  Many networks have been able to leverage social media, mainly Twitter and Facebook, to both engage their audience and improve their content.  At the Digital Media Conference East (DMCE) earlier this summer, Gayle Weiswasser, VP of Social Media for Discovery, reported that she closely monitors the Twittersphere while new shows air to gather audience feedback.  Along the same lines, many shows are combating the power of the DVR by promoting live tweets with actors during the show’s timeslot, encouraging viewers to watch the show live (with all those money-making ads) and interact with the stars of the show on Twitter.

My younger self’s ruminations on instant messaging reveal a stark contrast between online communication of 2005 and 2011.  I wrote, “A conversation via AIM could be classified under McLuhan’s system as a `cool’ medium.  Cool mediums require the viewer to fill in gaps of information, engaging multiple senses and creating a very active and interested user.  During AIM conversations, very little information is provided to participators.  The subject must fill in the aspects of conversation that are missing: sound, intonation and inflection of the voice, emotion, and facial expressions.  Because all this information must be supplied, AIM certainly engages the user as a whole.”  How quickly things change.  Just a few years later, AIM is a completely outdated form of communication, replaced by G-chat, Twitter, and Facebook messaging.  The basic characteristics of instant messaging have stayed the same, despite the different companies that host them, but I’m still skeptical of my previous classification of instant messaging.  I’m not sure that it’s a popular medium because it engages our senses and requires us to fill in gaps of information.  In fact, it’s the gaps themselves that make the medium popular.  We like this form of communication because it allows us to multi-task, to use multiple forms of social media simultaneously.  It’s the ease with which we can disengage that makes it useful.

This isn’t to say that McLuhan’s theories can’t be at all applied to this medium.   McLuhan also argued that the younger generation of his time would develop a new way of thinking because they grew up with television as the dominant media of communication.  He said the younger generation demands more participation in classes, discussion instead of reading, etc., because television is a cool and participatory medium.  The same holds true for the younger generation today that has been raised in a world of instant messaging.  Many young folks offend their older colleagues when they check their smartphones for new email during meetings or reply to a text during lunch.  They simply assume that conversation involves some element of interruption.

McLuhan’s ideas about media were (are) groundbreaking, thought-provoking, and, at times, difficult.  In particular, his writings about technology as the extension of or even the replacement of the self, for example, “When you are on the phone or on the air, you have no body.”  But it’s these “Mcluhanisms” that are most relevant today, as we project ourselves into the world via digital media.  We’re not just communicating our ideas but our selves, via photos, language, videos, and connections.  The ability to create and recreate our self through digital media leads people to questions about when and how are virtual selves and real selves disconnect.  I subscribe to a LinkedIn group called “Digital Marketing” and was swept up in the myriad of responses that the post “What happens to your digital profile when you die?”  It’s questions like these that McLuhan encourages us to ask.

Whether or not we agree with his metaphysical take on media and language, we should celebrate his legacy and continue to examine our media (ourselves) through a critical lens.

5 Workplace Phrases You Should Never Use Again

July 27, 2011

Workplace jargon, the kind we employ when emailing a colleague or client, relies on certain customs that mark the communication as “professional.” We close our emails with “Thanks,” we provide contact information, we CC relevant parties. These rituals signal to our readers that we are sending the email to communicate official business. While the traditions of professional communication are helpful in some ways, the clichés they constantly recycle are not. So many meetings, emails, and newsletters that I see are teeming with clichés—hackneyed phrases that have lost their meaning.  Readers perceive them as symptoms of laziness.  More importantly, many of the standard office cliches do not work. Their meanings are confused and their purposes wrongheaded. Let’s examine a few.

1.“Your Baby”

How it’s used: “You should make all necessary arrangements for this conference.  It’s your baby.”

Why it’s used: To impress upon the listener that the item in question is solely his/her responsibility, something that is completely under his/her control.

Why it doesn’t work:  At a literal level, the logic of this cliché is flawed.  A baby is something that is made by two people, not one, and most working adults understand the basics of human reproduction.  A baby grows and develops slowly, often independently of and in the opposite direction that its parents intend.  A baby shouldn’t be examined for defects and forced through rigorous quality assurance checks.  Referring to an important project as “your baby” understates the achievement.  It downplays the achievement by referring to it in a colloquial, slang fashion.  Think of the difference between your boss telling you, “You did a great job with the pitch.   You really made it your baby,” versus, “You did a great job with the pitch. I can tell that you were the driving force behind its completion.”  Calling the project and the project manager by their rightful terms ensures that the credit is received when it’s due.

2.“Reach Out”

How it’s used: “Have we heard back from the finance department?  Let’s reach out to the CFO to get some closure.”

Why it’s used:  To replace simpler terms like email, call, contact, or walk into his/her office.

Why it doesn’t work:  We use reach out in the workplace because it sounds fancier than its literal meaning: contacting someone. Reach out evokes an image of an arm reaching out into space to make physical connection with another body, an action that requires much more effort than the real action, which involves clicking a button or two.  The phrase is problematic, though, because it’s not specific.  It could refer to leaving a detailed voice mail or sending a generic invite on LinkedIn.  When you use reached out,  you risk sounding like you’re exaggerating the significance of your action and concealing details.  Remember, speaking clearly is speaking smartly.  Use the more accurate expression, and expel this overused phrase from your lexicon.

3.“Get in Bed With”

How it’s used: “We’re already in bed together—the teaming agreement’s been signed.”

Why it’s used: To show that two people or groups are partnering.

Why it doesn’t work: I’m no prude, but yuck.  In an increasingly co-ed and multi-generational professional world, this phrase’s creep-factor is high.  Its slimy feeling grows when it’s used, as it often is, to talk about potential relationships, as in, “How can we get the client to get in bed with us?”  Of course sales and marketing have a seductive quality, but is this the best way to characterize it?  Realistically, representing a fulfilling, long-lasting relationship with this image is not accurate these days.  Getting out of the bed, never to return, is just as easy as getting in it, so this cliché is not only borderline-icky but also dated.  .

4.“At the End of the Day”

How it’s used: “At the end of the day, we have to lower prices.”

Why it’s used: To emphasize the goal rather than the process

Why it doesn’t work: Unlike some of the other phrases mentioned here, this logic behind this cliché does work on some level. We use this phrase to tell our coworkers that the final product must be produced, the deadline met, regardless of the actions that get us there. By focusing on the end result instead of the process, though, we risk alienating our team members. Many folks may be irked by this phrase because it’s usually spouted by out by someone who isn’t involved in the process at all. When we dismiss the work, we dismiss the workers, and that does not lead to effective collaboration. Furthermore, wouldn’t it be ideal to have the work completed before the end of the day, so we have some time to proofread? I think so. It’s time for this generic sentence to be retired.

5. “Revisit”

How it’s used: “You told the client to take a cab from the airport? Let’s revisit that.”

Why it’s used: To replace more straightforward phrases like fix it or do it again

Why it doesn’t work: When we tell a coworker that she should “revisit” the third paragraph of her proposal, we’re actually telling her that we believe she should rewrite that paragraph. What’s so heartbreaking about this sentence: “I think there are some errors in that third paragraph. You should go back and revise”? When we select words like revisit, we’re subscribing to the idea that direct language is confrontational language. It’s entirely possible to be forthright without being offensive. If a project or action is in need of fixing, editing, or a good-old-fashion do-over, just say so.

My Grandmother and Her Social Media

July 25, 2011

I can judge my grandmother’s health by the number of chain e-mails she sends me per day. On days when she’s feeling particularly energetic, she’ll send me four or five. The subjects of these emails, when they’re not cut off by the browser on account of the “FW:FW:FW” that precedes them, are exercises in persuasion: “MUST READ: UNBELIEVABLE SANDCASTLES” or “Staircase vs. Elevator: BRILLIANT-MUST WATCH!” or “SISTERHOOD- Let’s see who sends this back to me, don’t break the chain!” These emails make my inbox look like that of my AOL account circa 1999.

My grandmother first started sending me chain emails three years ago, when she was introduced to the internet and email. Unaware of advanced email capabilities like Bcc’ing or copy/pasting, Grandma would simply click “forward” and blast the chain emails to her entire address book. It took me several minutes to scroll through the previous email headers to finally get to the real content of the email. After a few months, when it became clear that Grandma’s forwards would be a daily occurrence, I began to ignore them. If she wanted to speak to me, or share something with me, wouldn’t she send it to me directly, instead of everyone she had ever emailed? Who really expects responses to mass-emails, anyway?

Grandma did. When I called her, she would ask if I saw her email about staying safe in parking garages or the hidden cleaning powers of Coke. She actually expected me to not only read, but respond to her emails. That’s when I realized that chain emails are my grandmother’s social media.

Think about it: when you post a You Tube video to your wall on Facebook, you’re instantly distributing it to hundreds of people. Surely you don’t have your friends list memorized, but you might have a few people in mind who you believe might find this video particularly funny. When they don’t respond—or when no one responds—don’t you feel disappointed, or even slighted? Despite the mass distribution, you expect a response. So did my Grandma. What’s more, my Grandma considered the content of those chain emails her content. By taking ownership (authorship?) of the content in the email and sending it out to her friends and family, she was making a statement that the content was a representation of herself and her ideas. We perform the same re-purposing when we share on Facebook. We post funny quotes or compelling news stories because we hope our friends will enjoy them, but we also hope the masses will see the content as a reflection of ourselves, of our humor, of our interests.

Grandma, despite her late debut into the virtual world, understands that online media is social. She expects, she demands, that social interaction will accompany her media. She propels her chain emails out into the world as a projection of herself and is unsatisfied when the world doesn’t respond. Her attitude is testimony to the increasingly social, collaborative nature of online media of all kinds. It’s no longer enough to read a news article– we want to read it, comment on it, read others’ comments, and then share it with our friends (both real and virtual).

I’m interested in how the social element of online media affects our language, our expectations of the results of language, and the way we employ language to persuade others. What do you think