When Alan from The Thin Red Line posted a message on Blog Catalog saying that he and Dane Morgan were running a writing contest at Chain Drop, my interest was instantly piqued. After all, I'll take any excuse to write, and this excuse had the added benefit of being sponsored by a couple of bloggers I like and respect. What a deal. Or so I thought until I read the description and discovered that they wanted me to write about social networking and how to use it to your advantage.
That deflated me a bit for a moment, because...well...I DON'T use social networking. I just kind of go out into the blogging and Internet forum world and do what I do in real life. It took about sixty seconds for me to see the irony in my assessment. There I was, contemplating how sad it was that I had nothing to contribute to the effort set forth by these two interesting, knowledgeable bloggers I'd really come to appreciate in the Blog Catalog forums...you're way ahead of me, right?
So I thought I'd stop over and check out the actual rules, and this is what I found about midway through the opening paragraph: "Dane says to me 'what we need is to bring in all those Writers like in Tiffany’s writing group….They would write good pieces about how they use social networking'. " I guess that writers' group had slipped my mind for a moment. It's part of my non-social-networking campaign, I guess. It currently has 627 members.
So while I'm not doing any social networking, rarely thinking about driving traffic to my blogs, and posting to my blogs when--and only when--the impulse strikes, I am in fact getting regular traffic from a couple of social networking sites, meeting a lot of interesting bloggers, and amassing a writing group of several hundred members. Here's my secret: I show up in online places and do exactly what I'd do in real life. I talk to interesting people whose thought processes intrigue me and I answer questions when I can and lend a helping hand where I'm able. And people respond--at least a fair number of people--by visiting my blog and commenting on my posts and linking to me and Stumbling my posts, and the next thing I know, there's traffic.
Don't get me wrong. I'm quite sure that if I took a more calculated approach, there would be MORE traffic. But I think on some level, the foundation is the same as it was when our parents were whispering advice as we headed out the door to kindergarten or on our first dates: Just be yourself.
Wednesday, January 30, 2008
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
Cut the Drama
I have to admit that there was a part of me--a fairly large part--that wanted to title this post "Please Don't Say Stupid Shit Anymore". I thought I'd reined it in, but apparently not, since I felt the need to share that with you all. Still, "Cut the Drama" seemed appropriate. That's what my mother used to say when I, at 12 or 13, wailed that she was "ruining my life" because she wouldn't let me go to some slumber party or mortally embarrassed me by picking up the phone and saying it was past my bedtime while I was talking to a boy. In my mind, that's a pretty good analogy for the drama that's sweeping the Internet right now.
Just a couple of days ago I wrote about free speech, and how everyone whose language is criticized or whose post is removed from a message board starts howling about the 1st amendment, having clearly missed the little part about how it only restricts governmental agents. And yes, I'll be honest: part of the problem is simply that inaccuracy makes my brain explode. I'd swear that I actually felt my brain melting a little this afternoon when someone in an online forum protested that Paypal had "labeled him a criminal" because they'd asked him to supply proof of identity. But there's a much bigger problem.
Let's take censorship, for instance. Censorship is a serious political issue. Governmental censorship can prevent the population of a country from obtaining accurate information about economics, international relations and much more. It can eliminate the conduits for information that allow people to cast educated votes, and even to make more dramatic decisions if and when they're called for. It once was, and should be, a powerful term. When someone suggests that censorship is taking place, we should all sit up and take notice and take steps to learn whether or not that allegation is accurate. But do we? Of course not. And the reason is crystal clear: every whiny-ass college kid who has ever had an article pulled from his association newsletter because he gratuitously used the f-word a dozen times or bored housewife whose comment was moderated on someone's blog is yelling "censorship!" With all those clamoring voices shouting the same word (and most of them coming to nothing), how would we ever be able to distinguish the occasional true voice in the crowd? Would we be able to reclaim that word and use it correctly if, for instance, the United States government prohibited publication of photographs that might tend to illustrate the number of young citizens we're losing in Iraq? Would we be able to separate out that kind of censorship?
This week alone I've seen multiple references to censorship on message boards and in discussion forums. I've read an allegation that someone's free speech rights were violated when a discussion thread on a privately owned forum was deleted. I've read the sad tale of the man "labeled as a criminal" by the big bad financial company that wanted to be sure he was who he said he was. And I've been asked (in a group setting) whether I'll miss my "free will" because California is considering energy saving measures.
Do we really live in a world where our biggest problems are having comments rejected on blogs and being asked to conserve limited natural resources? I hope so. I really do. And it's not just because that would be an awfully cushy world to live in. It's because we've expended so much energy and drama, used up so much powerful language and overworked our soapboxes on those little issues that we won't have any way of getting people's attention when something more serious rolls around.
Just a couple of days ago I wrote about free speech, and how everyone whose language is criticized or whose post is removed from a message board starts howling about the 1st amendment, having clearly missed the little part about how it only restricts governmental agents. And yes, I'll be honest: part of the problem is simply that inaccuracy makes my brain explode. I'd swear that I actually felt my brain melting a little this afternoon when someone in an online forum protested that Paypal had "labeled him a criminal" because they'd asked him to supply proof of identity. But there's a much bigger problem.
Let's take censorship, for instance. Censorship is a serious political issue. Governmental censorship can prevent the population of a country from obtaining accurate information about economics, international relations and much more. It can eliminate the conduits for information that allow people to cast educated votes, and even to make more dramatic decisions if and when they're called for. It once was, and should be, a powerful term. When someone suggests that censorship is taking place, we should all sit up and take notice and take steps to learn whether or not that allegation is accurate. But do we? Of course not. And the reason is crystal clear: every whiny-ass college kid who has ever had an article pulled from his association newsletter because he gratuitously used the f-word a dozen times or bored housewife whose comment was moderated on someone's blog is yelling "censorship!" With all those clamoring voices shouting the same word (and most of them coming to nothing), how would we ever be able to distinguish the occasional true voice in the crowd? Would we be able to reclaim that word and use it correctly if, for instance, the United States government prohibited publication of photographs that might tend to illustrate the number of young citizens we're losing in Iraq? Would we be able to separate out that kind of censorship?
This week alone I've seen multiple references to censorship on message boards and in discussion forums. I've read an allegation that someone's free speech rights were violated when a discussion thread on a privately owned forum was deleted. I've read the sad tale of the man "labeled as a criminal" by the big bad financial company that wanted to be sure he was who he said he was. And I've been asked (in a group setting) whether I'll miss my "free will" because California is considering energy saving measures.
Do we really live in a world where our biggest problems are having comments rejected on blogs and being asked to conserve limited natural resources? I hope so. I really do. And it's not just because that would be an awfully cushy world to live in. It's because we've expended so much energy and drama, used up so much powerful language and overworked our soapboxes on those little issues that we won't have any way of getting people's attention when something more serious rolls around.
Monday, January 14, 2008
Freedom of Speech...Let Me Tell You What It's NOT
The right we refer to as "freedom of speech" is, as you probably know, a Constitutional right. It's part of the 1st Amendment to the Constitution, one of the amendments known collectively as the Bill of Rights. Do you know what it says?
If you do...if you're really, really sure you do...you don't need to read any further. But if you're like the dozens and dozens of people I seem to encounter in online forums every day, you'd better check this out:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
It's a short little amendment packed with important concepts, and maybe that's why one of the most critical concepts of all tends to get overlooked. You might have noticed it this time around. Yep, I'm referring to the introductory clause (Who pays attention to those? You just write those to help stretch your paper to meet the minimum page requirement, right?) that MAKES IT CRYSTAL CLEAR THAT THE FIRST AMENDMENT LIMITS ONLY GOVERNMENTAL ACTION.
In fact, if you simply look at the language of the amendment itself, you'll note that it refers only to Congress. What about states? Surely states are limited, too? And, in fact, they are. That's because the restrictions on Congressional action set forth in the Bill of Rights have, in large part, been explicitly extended to the states and other governmental agencies.
They have not, however, been extended to your next door neighbor. It is NOT a "violation of free speech" when he tells you to stop screaming at your wife in front of his kids. It hasn't been extended to your local video store owner--he's free to decide not to offer titles that contain material he considers offensive. It's NOT a "violation of free speech" when a message board administrator or blog hosting company takes down your comment. It's not even a "violation of free speech" when a wholly unreasonable right-wing religious leader points a gun at you and tells you to repent your liberal leanings or burn in hell forever. Some of these things are perfectly legal. Some fall into gray area--for instance, the message board administrators and blog hosts are typically bound by their own terms of service. Some--like the guy with the gun--are flat-out whacked and criminal offenses to boot.
But none of them...not a single one...implicates your free speech rights. Why? Because there was no governmental action. Period. A website cannot infringe on your free speech rights (unless it's operated by a governmental entitity). Another user on a message board or in a forum cannot infringe your free speech rights (unless he acts "under color of law", representing some governmental entity). A restaurant owner cannot infringe your free speech rights...you get the idea, right?
Fifty times a day, someone on the Internet yells "what about free speech?" in a context that has nothing to do with governmental entities--and those are only the ones I see. The only viable answer is, "What about it?"
If you do...if you're really, really sure you do...you don't need to read any further. But if you're like the dozens and dozens of people I seem to encounter in online forums every day, you'd better check this out:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
It's a short little amendment packed with important concepts, and maybe that's why one of the most critical concepts of all tends to get overlooked. You might have noticed it this time around. Yep, I'm referring to the introductory clause (Who pays attention to those? You just write those to help stretch your paper to meet the minimum page requirement, right?) that MAKES IT CRYSTAL CLEAR THAT THE FIRST AMENDMENT LIMITS ONLY GOVERNMENTAL ACTION.
In fact, if you simply look at the language of the amendment itself, you'll note that it refers only to Congress. What about states? Surely states are limited, too? And, in fact, they are. That's because the restrictions on Congressional action set forth in the Bill of Rights have, in large part, been explicitly extended to the states and other governmental agencies.
They have not, however, been extended to your next door neighbor. It is NOT a "violation of free speech" when he tells you to stop screaming at your wife in front of his kids. It hasn't been extended to your local video store owner--he's free to decide not to offer titles that contain material he considers offensive. It's NOT a "violation of free speech" when a message board administrator or blog hosting company takes down your comment. It's not even a "violation of free speech" when a wholly unreasonable right-wing religious leader points a gun at you and tells you to repent your liberal leanings or burn in hell forever. Some of these things are perfectly legal. Some fall into gray area--for instance, the message board administrators and blog hosts are typically bound by their own terms of service. Some--like the guy with the gun--are flat-out whacked and criminal offenses to boot.
But none of them...not a single one...implicates your free speech rights. Why? Because there was no governmental action. Period. A website cannot infringe on your free speech rights (unless it's operated by a governmental entitity). Another user on a message board or in a forum cannot infringe your free speech rights (unless he acts "under color of law", representing some governmental entity). A restaurant owner cannot infringe your free speech rights...you get the idea, right?
Fifty times a day, someone on the Internet yells "what about free speech?" in a context that has nothing to do with governmental entities--and those are only the ones I see. The only viable answer is, "What about it?"
Friday, January 11, 2008
Taser / MP3 Combo - What More Could a Jogger Ask For?
Looking for a little gift for the jogger who has everything? Why not a nice taser holster / mp3 player combo? Think of the space it saves! And, if you're on the fence, surely the fact that it's available in a nice leopard print will tip the scales for you. Yet another benefit to the combo is that taser victims tend to make an unpleasant screaming sound, and the mp3 player will help to drown that out.
It's interesting that Taser International, which until recently had successfully defended every lawsuit brought against the company as a result of a taser death, has opted to start quietly settling taser lawsuits at the same time that the company is actively marketing tasers to the general public. Aren't police departments across the country injuring and killing plenty of people with their tasers? Do they really need reinforcements? And do WE really need to hand them an excuse to use force against every kid with an mp3 player? ("I thought he had a taser, your honor--honest I did!")
It's interesting that Taser International, which until recently had successfully defended every lawsuit brought against the company as a result of a taser death, has opted to start quietly settling taser lawsuits at the same time that the company is actively marketing tasers to the general public. Aren't police departments across the country injuring and killing plenty of people with their tasers? Do they really need reinforcements? And do WE really need to hand them an excuse to use force against every kid with an mp3 player? ("I thought he had a taser, your honor--honest I did!")
Sunday, January 6, 2008
Customer Service...Need I Say More?
Recently, I saw a forum discussion on how difficult Paypal was to work with, and I was very surprised. I've done tens of thousands of dollars worth of business through Paypal, and I've never had a problem.
But did you catch what I just said? I almost didn't.
It seemed to me that Paypal couldn't be more user friendly. It was easy to get someone on the phone, and to talk to the same person more than once. Phone calls were returned; emails were answered promptly, and in such a way that it was obvious that they'd been read by a real human being.
That contrasted sharply with my experience of some other online businesses. Amazon.com, in particular, served as a counterpoint to Paypal in my mind. About a year ago, I purchased eight books all at once through Amazon. For reasons I still haven't been able to sort out, seven of those books were correctly billed to my current debit card and the eighth charged to a checking account I'd closed several months earlier. The ensuing nightmare still hasn't been fully resolved, and I'm an attorney with a background in consumer protection work--I can't begin to imagine what dealing with Amazon is like for the average person.
First, because I lived in the modern-day, real-world equivalent of Mayberry, the bank paid the charge despite the fact that the account had been closed for several months. However, the bank also sent notice to Amazon that the account was closed. So Amazon sent the charge on to Certegy for collection.
When I got a collection letter from Certegy (requesting, of course, my original $9 plus a $25 charge), I called them and pointed out that the charge had been paid, and that I had documentation from the bank to prove it. They told me I'd have to take that up with Amazon, because they got their information from Amazon.
Except when I called Amazon, they told me that it was "out of their hands" and I'd have to resolve it with Certegy. They seemed entirely oblivious to (or more likely, impervious to) their potential liability for passing along false information to Certegy and then refusing to correct it. All together, I spent more than four hours on the telephone with Amazon and Certegy. Amazon never budged an inch. No one at either company was interested in seeing my proof that the charge had been paid. Certegy, at least, was a bit more sensitive to the legal ramifications of trying to collect a debt that had never existed, and they went away.
Well, for the moment. I did hear from them again a few months later with a required disclosure letter letting me know that they'd had some sort of breach and personal data had been disclosed (good thing for me this all related to an account that had, by that point, been closed for more than a year, hm?)
So I was loving Paypal. I was STUNNED to hear someone describe something very similar to my story above. Why didn't they just call Jen? She was always such a help. It sounded like we were dealing with two different companies.
And then it hit me.
We were.
I might never have caught it were it not for my experience with Dell. A few years ago, I ordered a computer from Dell, and then just a few months later, my mother ordered a similar computer. There was only one significant difference: I purchased my computer through a corporate discount program offered by a multi-national corporation, and my mother ordered hers all by herself. MY computer was listed under the name of a company with hundreds of locations around the world, and it rapidly became clear that when I called customer service or tech support for issues relating to my computer, I was routed to an entirely different department than when I called about those same issues relating to my mother's computer.
Perhaps "I've done tens of thousands of dollars of business through Paypal and I've never had a problem" isn't evidence at all. Perhaps it's an explanation. And I'm not okay with that.
That doesn't mean that I think your biggest and highest-paying customers shouldn't get special perks. That's only good business. If you want to have a gold circle support team that assists the major accounts, that's fine with me. If you want to send them little gifts at Christmas time and offer small services for free that others might have to pay for, it's all good. But that all assumes a basic level of competent, well-intentioned customer service for everyone. We don't seem to be in a place anymore where the general public gets the basic service and the big spenders get perks--we seem to be in a place where the general public can't get service at all, and the big spenders get what used to be perceived as the basics.
I have a growing list in my head of what I think those bottom line offerings should be, but this post is already so long that it's in danger of being mistaken for an e-book, so I'll save that for another day. Suggestions are welcome.
But did you catch what I just said? I almost didn't.
It seemed to me that Paypal couldn't be more user friendly. It was easy to get someone on the phone, and to talk to the same person more than once. Phone calls were returned; emails were answered promptly, and in such a way that it was obvious that they'd been read by a real human being.
That contrasted sharply with my experience of some other online businesses. Amazon.com, in particular, served as a counterpoint to Paypal in my mind. About a year ago, I purchased eight books all at once through Amazon. For reasons I still haven't been able to sort out, seven of those books were correctly billed to my current debit card and the eighth charged to a checking account I'd closed several months earlier. The ensuing nightmare still hasn't been fully resolved, and I'm an attorney with a background in consumer protection work--I can't begin to imagine what dealing with Amazon is like for the average person.
First, because I lived in the modern-day, real-world equivalent of Mayberry, the bank paid the charge despite the fact that the account had been closed for several months. However, the bank also sent notice to Amazon that the account was closed. So Amazon sent the charge on to Certegy for collection.
When I got a collection letter from Certegy (requesting, of course, my original $9 plus a $25 charge), I called them and pointed out that the charge had been paid, and that I had documentation from the bank to prove it. They told me I'd have to take that up with Amazon, because they got their information from Amazon.
Except when I called Amazon, they told me that it was "out of their hands" and I'd have to resolve it with Certegy. They seemed entirely oblivious to (or more likely, impervious to) their potential liability for passing along false information to Certegy and then refusing to correct it. All together, I spent more than four hours on the telephone with Amazon and Certegy. Amazon never budged an inch. No one at either company was interested in seeing my proof that the charge had been paid. Certegy, at least, was a bit more sensitive to the legal ramifications of trying to collect a debt that had never existed, and they went away.
Well, for the moment. I did hear from them again a few months later with a required disclosure letter letting me know that they'd had some sort of breach and personal data had been disclosed (good thing for me this all related to an account that had, by that point, been closed for more than a year, hm?)
So I was loving Paypal. I was STUNNED to hear someone describe something very similar to my story above. Why didn't they just call Jen? She was always such a help. It sounded like we were dealing with two different companies.
And then it hit me.
We were.
I might never have caught it were it not for my experience with Dell. A few years ago, I ordered a computer from Dell, and then just a few months later, my mother ordered a similar computer. There was only one significant difference: I purchased my computer through a corporate discount program offered by a multi-national corporation, and my mother ordered hers all by herself. MY computer was listed under the name of a company with hundreds of locations around the world, and it rapidly became clear that when I called customer service or tech support for issues relating to my computer, I was routed to an entirely different department than when I called about those same issues relating to my mother's computer.
Perhaps "I've done tens of thousands of dollars of business through Paypal and I've never had a problem" isn't evidence at all. Perhaps it's an explanation. And I'm not okay with that.
That doesn't mean that I think your biggest and highest-paying customers shouldn't get special perks. That's only good business. If you want to have a gold circle support team that assists the major accounts, that's fine with me. If you want to send them little gifts at Christmas time and offer small services for free that others might have to pay for, it's all good. But that all assumes a basic level of competent, well-intentioned customer service for everyone. We don't seem to be in a place anymore where the general public gets the basic service and the big spenders get perks--we seem to be in a place where the general public can't get service at all, and the big spenders get what used to be perceived as the basics.
I have a growing list in my head of what I think those bottom line offerings should be, but this post is already so long that it's in danger of being mistaken for an e-book, so I'll save that for another day. Suggestions are welcome.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
LinkWithin
