Privacy: It grows fainter and quainter

April 7th, 2011 Leave your comment »

In a recent workshop on social media for small business, one owner remarked that she didn’t want to start using Facebook for her business because she doesn’t want information about her personal life to be available to strangers online.

After an explanation that it’s now possible to keep business and personal lives separate on Facebook, I flippantly suggested that the era of privacy is over anyway.

Many people under the age of, say, 25, seem comfortable sharing every moment – for better or worse –  with their extended network (often numbering in the thousands) of “friends.” And as that generation ages, our notion of privacy will become ever fainter and quainter. It will become a nostalgic memory, like retirement and puppet shows.

For example, I’ve just learned from CNET.com that the U.S. Department of Justice insists that e-mail messages should not enjoy the same protection as written correspondence or information about phone calls. The difference? Warrants are required when law enforcement officials want corporations to turn over your phone records or letters – but not necessarily e-mail. And DOJ wants to keep it that way.

Why? To make it easier to conduct fast criminal investigations of events that have either transpired our are about to transpire. I can see their point. I can also see why the main law covering such issues needs to be revisited; it was last updated in 1986, about 10 years before most people received their first e-mail.

But I hope the Justice Department softens its stance before privacy really is a thing of the past.

The choice to be a tiger mother

January 25th, 2011 1 Comment »

I admire Lance Armstrong; he is an amazing athlete with an iron will. But I wouldn’t want to be like him. I wouldn’t make the sacrifices he was willing to make along the way.

That’s the truth: People like Lance Armstrong choose to go all-in. Most of us choose otherwise.

Amy Chua went all-in. Her book, Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother, has attracted widespread disapproval. And venomous response. And death threats.

She is a Yale law professor and author of (now) three books. Her parenting style can best be described as uncompromisingly tough. It included rejecting her daughters’ homemade birthday cards because they weren’t good enough; demanding straight A’s; refusing to allow her daughters on play dates and sleepovers; making them play a piano piece to perfection before being allowed to go to the bathroom.

I am not the parent that Amy Chua is. I have chosen to be more permissive and indulgent with my children. So far, I’m glad to report, they seem to be turning out just fine – even if I have an uneasy feeling that Chua’s kids are likely to have a higher career trajectory than mine.

Why did I chose not to be more like a Tiger Mother? Let’s be honest: I didn’t want to work that hard. There are other ways to justify it, but why bother?

That’s probably why people are having such a strong reaction to her and her book. It plays into Americans’ anxiety that we are being eclipsed; it seems to affirm our most secret fear that this isn’t happening due to circumstances beyond our control, but because we’re soft and lazy.

I suspect those who wish Chua harm are most upset by the fact that they too could have aspired for their children to be exceptional. But they chose not to.

For them, Chua’s parenting isn’t upsetting as much as it is threatening.

Buy good equipment; take good care of it

January 15th, 2011 1 Comment »

Call this Rule #1 for life. Maybe it’s not the most important rule; it’s not the Golden Rule or even the Rule of 72.

Let’s call it the Hard Goods Rule: Buy good equipment and take good care of it.

Nothing provides better affirmation and aids in a better outloook than moving through the details of the day with equipment that works easily, well and with the rarest of failure.

If you need to buy a printer for your office, don’t settle for the $25 model that comes along as a premium with your computer. I’ve learned that lesson too many times. Go out and spend what you it takes to buy a durable, solid printer that runs and runs. Buy the features you need and just pay the price. If you find yourself leaning toward a cheap compromise, imagine yourself being late out the door and suddenly remembering a document you forgot to bring along. You’re in your winter coat and boots, leaning over the computer, the dog is barking because he thinks you’re going to take him for a walk, and you get a paper jam, or a message that the printer is out of magenta. With a cheap printer, this seems to happen 1 out of 2 times (thought it’s probably more like 1-in-5).

Visualize this and you’ll spend the good money.

A corollary to this rule is the Hard Goods Corollary: More power/fewer features.

Here are some tools and equipment to which the Rule of Hard Goods and Corollary apply:

  • Computer printer
  • Power tools (A drill shouldn’t drill just some stuff. For an extra $60 you can get a drill to drill any stuff. That’ll amortize to about $1.50 anytime you need to drill something really hard over the next 10 years).
  • Lawnmower
  • Computer (The reason people pay more for a Mac.)
  • Camera
  • Snowblower (If you want to wrestle with a piece of equipment, you’ll spend less and fare better against a snow shovel.)
  • Winter coat
  • Washer/Dryer (It’s all about power. Features break over time; a powerful machine runs forever.)
  • Stapler (Unless you never plan to staple more than 4 sheets at a time.)
  • Sporting goods (Whatever your passion – golf, tennis, baseball, sailing, jai alai – equipment that doesn’t go all the way just saps the fun. You may as well stay home to figure out what’s wrong with that g-d- Scanner/Copyer/Fax/Printer/Stickintheeye.)

There’s a place in the world for cheap stuff. If you’ve never been camping, never want to go camping, but you absolutely have to go camping just this once for one night with your son and the Cub Scouts, then go to Wal-Mart and buy the $39 two-man tent. You can buy a good tent for the next time you go.

Microsoft Internet Explorer: Power to the Peeps

December 8th, 2010 Leave your comment »

According to a report in B2B Magazine, the next edition of Microsoft Internet Explorer – IE9, to be released during 2011 – will include a feature that enables users to block 0nline tracking of their internet browsing by marketers.

Thank you Microsoft, for taking our privacy out of the hands of the calcified Congress, and putting it back where it belongs: with each of us. If you’re not careful, people might start to like you again.

The worst of both worlds

December 8th, 2010 Leave your comment »

I had breakfast with an entrepreneur who is at that point where his young business ought to be gaining traction. But he’s bogged down in building the next generation of software that supports the business.

The problem is that he and the software developer – to whom he has given equity in exchange for the development work – disagree on their vision for the 2.0 version. They’ve been deadlocked for six months as competitors begin to pop up around them.

I suggested he set a two-week deadline to either achieve a shared vision or amicably end the partnership.

Good people become entrepreneurs because they want to get things done without the slow and layered process of corporate decision-making.

Good people work for corporations because they want to get things done without the cash-flow constraints of a small business.

Either is fine. But if you find yourself in a position where you can’t move forward and you don’t have cash, then you need to change position.

A bit more on the royal nuptials

November 23rd, 2010 Leave your comment »

A direct quote from the 9 a.m. ‘news’ segment of NBC’s Today Show:

“Finally, the moment we’ve all been waiting for since the announced engagement of Prince William and Kate Middleton: the day and location of their wedding. So mark your calendars for April 29…”

As if NBC isn’t going to remind us.

The royal engagement and authenticity in the media

November 21st, 2010 Leave your comment »

Why do the breathless reports of Prince William’s engagement to Kate Middleton have such a negative impact on me?

I have no ill will toward the couple; they are charming, attractive and – considering the circumstances – appear humble and likeable. In England, where the royal family is some kind of national treasure, I might understand such over-the-top, second-to-second pursuit of each detail as they proceed toward a royal wedding.

But here in America, Will and Kate are not our own; interest in their nuptials strikes me as being borne of respect for our longstanding relationship with England as a friend and ally. Does it require sending squads of journalists to stand outside the gates of Buckingham Palace to get weepy and about the storybook nature of their love?

Simply: No. It doesn’t have the same meaning in England and America. There it’s a fairy tale; here it’s a pleasant news item. The mass media’s effort to transport the fairy tale aspect of it across the ocean and across cultures is not reporting; it’s editorializing.

It’s not journalism; it’s distortion. And it’s part of that problematic blurring between news and entertainment that seems to have infected all for-profit media.

First they tell you to swipe your credit card…

August 20th, 2010 Leave your comment »

First they tell you to swipe your credit card.

Then they tell you to push cancel.

Then they tell you to push credit.

I wish they’d make up their mind.

Who’s really behind Steven Slater’s spectacular resignation from Jet Blue?

August 17th, 2010 Leave your comment »

Once you get past the viral thrill of rehashing Steven Slater’s “bailout” from a career as a flight attendant that he could no longer stand to hold, the debate – to the degree that any debate is required at all – quickly gets to the question of who was more wrong?

Was it Slater, who cursed at his passengers, deployed the emergency slide on the Jet Blue plane to which he was assigned, and (worst) stole two cans of beer before escaping?

Or was it a still-unnamed woman passenger, whom he accuses of berating him and hitting him in the head with either the door of an overhead compartment or one of the bags in that compartment?

How about this third option: It’s the airlines.

They have to accept responsibility for helping to turn passengers into snarling beasts with overbooked flights, endlessly punitive fees, optimized fares that make no sense to consumers, and a practice of setting flight schedules that they can’t possibly maintain. Then they exacerbate the effect of all these insults by bombarding us with irreconcilable advertising campaigns to convince us how much we’re going to love the experience.

Further, they have to accept responsibility for their role turning flight attendants and other customer-facing personnel into recalcitrant and uncaring bureaucrats. The tools? Serial layoffs, confrontational union negotiations, low pay and a general disregard for their value. (When stranded near Chicago O’Hare during the 9/11 crisis, I met a dozen flight attendants from a handful of airlines – all of whom told me the hotel and meals were on their own dime during the unscheduled grounding.)

I’ve flown enough to know the truth of the matter. Some passengers, maybe even many, are simply boors who shouldn’t be out in public. And some flight attendants should probably find another line of work before they give their next safety briefing.

But for the rest of us, the airlines need to shape up. I can only imagine how complex and difficult it is to operate in this industry. Executives throughout the industry make incremental decisions that help the bottom line, and they are skilled at justifying why these decisions are in the long-term best interest of the customers.

But it’s simply not the case; there is no justification for selling a ticket and then notifying the passenger a day later that the flight is overbooked and an extra $25 will guarantee he isn’t bumped (this has happened to me a handful of times).

It’s simple really: Each airline needs to figure out a way to make money while treating passengers and employees like something other than refugees and wardens, respectively.

The Rules of Social Media Content

July 20th, 2010 Leave your comment »

Rule #1:
They don’t care how much you know until they know how much you care.
(Attributed to many sources including Theodore Roosevelt and Martin Luther King Jr.)

Rule #2:
It’s not about what you say; it’s about what they hear.

Rule #3:
Fast. Short. Meaningful.

Rule #4:
An incomplete solution now is better than a complete solution later.

Rule #5:
Instead of giving a lecture, tell a story.

Rule #6:
You can’t educate ‘em if you don’t entertain ‘em first.

Rule #7:
You can keep your audience busy with quotes and retweets. But to build an audience, you need to be original.

Rule #8:
Of course you’re there to sell. But your audience isn’t necessarily there to buy. Remember it and respect it.

Rule #9:
One sales pitch for every 20 pieces of non-selling content. Maximum. And that’s if your content is really good.

Rule #10:
More like H.L Mencken. Less like Billy Mays.

Rule #11:
You’re not a guru until OTHER people call you a guru; so don’t even bother trying to prime that pump.

Rule #12
Write like you talk, and talk well.

(More to come, or suggest your own)