The Passion of the Teenager

Since when have teenagers (or "tweens" for that matter) become so influential?

Most don't work.  As far as consumerism goes, they are at the mercy of their parents or guardians for stimulating the economy, with allowances and all that jazz.  Years ago, my mother worked for a company that did tween and teen focused makeup lines.  It was seriously one of her biggest sellers.

Teens set the trends, and I'm baffled as to why and how.  Yet it seems the next bastion of teen influence is going to be in social media. 

Seems to them the almighty Facebook has jumped the proverbial shark. 

(Of course, I'm showing my age by using that reference.  But that's besides the point.)

I've gotten older and crankier as time has gone on, but I have to say I agree with them.  I'm on my second Facebook detox of this year, and I have to say, I am not eager to get back.  Quite frankly, it's been too distracting.  Sure, I can just not log in, and no one in any way is forcing me to stare blankly at my iPad, and comment on my friends' pictures.  But if I don't have the temptation, I won't go on.  And it's been great! 

According to research done in previous years, Facebook was the king of all social media to teens, Twitter was behind.  With the advent of Instagram, and almost it's instant gratification to a degree, Twitter has emerged as a more popular medium.  I can get behind that, I suppose.  Instant gratification is easy to understand. 

Yet, there's a simple reason why teens are flocking to these alternatives to Facebook: expression.

“Teens who used sites like Twitter and Instagram reported feeling like they could better express themselves on these platforms, where they felt freed from the social expectations and constraints of Facebook,” the (Pew Research) report said.

It's hard enough being a teenager these days what with peer pressure, school stress and feeling like living in fish bowl.  Facebook can be too much of a good thing, expression-wise and getting noticed.  For a culture that thrives on ADD activity like Twitter, Facebook may be too slow of an instant gratification process. 

Expression is something else to consider.  I had a lot to say, but really no outlets when I was a teen.  I don't know if Facebook would have been good for someone like me when I was a teenager.  But getting a constant flow of info, like Twitter or visual like Instagram. 

There's also the element of hobbies and activities.  Sites like Tumblr, Twitter or Instagram can be easily customized to get tailored info for what interests you - the true definition of user-generated news. 

So what is the real issue at hand?  Are teens really that influential?  Or is their leaving Facebook an epidemic?  It could be, because it seems that what made Facebook unique and special isn't so much anymore.  I often said that when Facebook was new, it was great.  Then it grew, and it's more of a sounding platform of businesses and a place to share memes.  We could go elsewhere for that.  There seems to be a gravitational pull of mini-sites to take away what we like about Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and make that the focus.  I like the photos and info sharing.  I can keep in touch with my friends in other ways. 

Facebook used to be one giant distraction.  In 2013, there are multiple elements to distract us.  That's the ADD culture I am used to. 

Ill Communication

When I worked in data management, there were terms such as "dynamic" and "static" to explain data sets.  We can almost use the terms to discuss friendships or any sort of relationship.  Heck, even personality types!

But let me ask a question: would you rather be a "dynamic" person?  Or a "static" person?  Meaning, would you like to adapt and change to the times...or would you just rather stay the same?

I guess on some levels, we can keep some of key qualities but adapt to the times.  Or constantly rethink a position.  However you want to look at things, we can look at things as being "active" or "passive."

Do you take an "active" approach or a "passive" approach to life?

Which leads me to my ultimate point.  I've noticed that since the "good ol' days" (which basically our only forms of media were of the mass approach like television, radio and movies...not the "social" media layer), people have been convenienced out of being personal.

Remember when you could go to the supermarket and ask your check out girl/guy or courtesy desk professional how their families were?  Even then, there were "lifers" in that industry, so you could build relationships and trust.  Nowadays, how many of us even chat with the people at the registers of a supermarket...let alone GO to one, since many stores are outfitted with "self" checkouts.  Even my coblogger and I were talking about how she uses a "gun" to scan her items, then just needs to bag her items and pay when she's all set (think of it as killing two birds with one stone).

Yet I think these conveniences for our busy lifestyles have infiltrated our personal lives.  We have seemingly dozens of ways to communicate.  Besides Ma Bell, there are even seemingly antiquated methods like "chat" or "messenger," but if you own a smartphone, there's texting, Kik'ing, Tweeting, and even emailing.

And there's Facebook. 

I've been on a Facebook cleanse since February.  There was no "over the edge" kind of moment.  In fact, I had just responded to someone in a message.  There wasn't an event or any major argument that set me off.  It just...felt like I needed to do it.

But I also had a revelation as I went off, and people started to ask me when I would return.

I'm not sure if I need to.  I feel as though I have a clear idea of what's going on with the people I care about.  I have kept my Twitter feed active, and there's some overlap there.  I am even Instagramming photos. 

But there's something else.  I felt as though I was being a passive friend.  And I think our culture of being convenienced out of being personal has allowed this to be "okay."

It's easy to drop a note on someone's wall to say "Hey, thinkin' boutcha" or "Happy birthday!"  Our culture has made it easy to never pick up a phone.  Even writing a letter or a written notes of thanks is foreign.

My friend has written a book on Table Manners, and how to integrate this into raising the next generation who will be pointing, clicking, gaming and no doubt texting at a very young age.  My fear for the next generation is that there will be NO ONE who chats or communicates by talking anymore.  In fact, think of how many families eat dinner at night and are attached to their smartphones.  I'm just as guilty.  I'll be at lunch and have my phone at the ready while talking to a guest.  Shouldn't my attention be focused on ONE person, the one I'm eating lunch with?

 Lastly, we live in a culture where calling someone to say hello is almost unheard of.  Just this past week, I decided to reach out the old fashioned way to talk to people.  I reached out to three friends, and even called someone who had a birthday.  Ironically, I wouldn't have known it was his birthday four years ago, when we reconnected on Twitter.

The sound on his voice was surprised...yet he was laughing because he said, "Man, I was just telling a story that I think you would appreciate!"  And he proceeded to tell me.  Now, maybe if I had reached out on Facebook, he might have told that story.  But the phone call was straight, sweet, to the point.

Shortly after my Facebook hiatus, I visited some friends down by where I grew up.  It forced me out of my comfort zone. I was able to make plans in person.  This is what I mean by being a less passive friend.  It's something that the technology driven environment has allowed us to do.

Think about how many people you know "online" whom you'll never ever meet in person.  Think about those you have meaningful relationships with in person, but you feel like you're enough in contact with them that you don't need to check in to see how things are.

Being off Facebook makes me wonder - hey, what's going on with these people?  It makes me be more available, and what I feel to be more of an active friend.

I'd rather be that dynamic person but wants to appreciate some of the simpler things in life.  I can adapt, but I don't want to be in a false sense of security in my relationships.

I want to be an active participant.

You Probably Think This Post Is About You

For years and years, the songstress Carly Simon was rumored to have written her epic "You're So Vain" about Warren Beatty, after seeing him walk into a party and someone commented, "Well he looks like he just walked onto a yacht."  Now, rumors are rumors, she's apparently only told one person on record about who the song, if anyone, was written about. 

Rumor has it, Beatty himself believed the tune was about him.  There have been some other attachments to it, but the idea is...a person obsessed with vanity thinks the world revolves around them.

What I find funny is that the title itself of the very song says much.  "You're So Vain/You Probably Think This Song Is About You" speaks to the very truth of social media.  Substitute "Facebook status/Tweet/blog post" for "song." 

How many times does one believe that a blog post, a tweet or a Facebook status is about THEM?

I wrote a blog post last week on an item in baseball news.  I was responding, in general, to mainstream media hysteria, which is pretty easy to do.  Yet, someone sent me an email, defending their position. 

Please note: I hadn't called this writer or person out, and at that point, hadn't even read their response on the topic I had written about.  I felt it telling that this writer, someone I respect on so many levels, felt the need to address it. 

When I hadn't even called that person out, personally.

There is truth, of course, to times that I do take issue with someone, and you will know about it.

There's the phenomenon of "subtweeting" that is basically calling someone out on Twitter without calling them out, specifically.  Say, someone is writing about their cat.  Then someone else following that person says something about a cat, without addressing the original tweeter, but definitely undermining or calling them out on something. 

I've certainly done my fair share of subtweeting, but it's usually in reference to several tweeters in general, not just a single person.  Although during the MLB playoffs, I was calling out specific and multiple holier-than-thou tweeters, and someone did respond to me.   Yet, I didn't mind chatting about the topic.  I wouldn't have written about it if I didn't think it was significant (silly or fair).

Then there's the topic of Facebook status, where a vague status is suddenly thought of as "OMG IS THAT ABOUT ME?????!!?!" 

I know a story of someone who had several friends outside of Facebook, and they all interacted there. All of a sudden, many of them weren't speaking to each other.   Why?  Someone had written a vague Facebook status, and one of the parties thought it was about themselves.  It was about a family member, but the damage had been done. 

It makes me wonder, however, what light people seem to think of themselves.  If someone writes something degrading in a post, and someone else thinks it's about them, why is that?  Do they feel like a bad person, or someone who needs to be the center of attention?

Which leads me what I think Mark Zuckerberg's famous social experiment is about: the narcissism and voyeuristic nature of humanity.

We like to watch and stare, and can either covet what others have or be happy for one another.  Then add in a layer of being self-centered and all of a sudden, the "ME" generation thinks everything is about them, even when it could be the furthest thing from the truth.

I had a conversation with a friend of mine before, and we talked about my recent Facebook purge, where I took a break.  I haven't been on in two weeks, and it's been very cleansing.  It frees up a lot of time, and to say I've suffered from burn out would be an understatement.  And yes, my friend, this paragraph WAS about you.

I found that my need to be connected at all times is very tiring, not to mention time-consuming.  But the very thing that draws us to these types of media can sometimes consume us: the need to be around people.  But what draws us away, the narcissism, over-sharing and vanity layer, can wear thin. 

Fine Lines of Friendship

My esteemed co-blogger and I have made no secret that we met via social media channels and became friends (and co-bloggers) that way.

We also have friends outside of the social media world that we've known for years.  Take for instance the person I know outside of anyone in my family the longest in my life.  We met "traditionally" and then when social media became prevalent, we had another method of keeping in touch.

But what I've discovered over the years of this way of life is that the definition of friendship is perhaps a little broader than what we originally thought.  Indeed, the landscape may be changing as well.

So the literal Merriam-Webster definition of "Friend" is:
"a : one attached to another by affection or esteem b : acquaintance."

By sorts, the definition of a "Friendship" is:
"1: the state of being friends; 2: the quality or state of being friendly."

A few weeks ago, the friend I've known for over 30 years "deactivated" her Facebook account.  People do that to much fanfare usually, but sometimes those looking to get in touch with these persons who deactivate are left in arrears.

"OMG, did they delete me?"

"I'm dying to share this funny joke with them!"

"Is everything okay?"

Yet, with all these modes and channels of communications, we usually miss these announcements and take them very personally if we don't know what's going on.

In some ways, the social media stuff has added a layer of friendship that I'm very grateful for.  I met my husband through them, and I can't say for sure that we would have met otherwise.  I just have no other way to know.  I know someone who reconnected with someone they graduated high school, and they are now dating! (they weren't very good friends otherwise).  You just never know.

Yet, at the same this has substituted the idea of calling someone to see what's going on or trying to find out what else is making them tick.  Too often, we substitute this for just writing on someone's wall and communicating via "Inbox." 

We blame the dumbing down of our culture on reality TV, and 24-hour news cycles have almost given us too MUCH information, exposing biases and not really giving us slanted information to tell us how to think.  Have friendships become more disposable as a result of social media?

That same friend I referred to that I've known forever...she has some stories about some people who got upset about a miscommunication on Facebook and never spoke again.  Friendships that were solid outside of this layer that became almost narcissistic to a degree.  "OMG ARE THEY TALKING ABOUT ME?" 

On the other hand, people who didn't know each other outside of these channels, met and otherwise found they didn't have much in common...does that make their friendship less valuable or valid, for that matter?

The answer on one hand, is almost, who gives a shit?  A friend is a friend is a friend, right?  On the other hand, there are plenty of people who are your "online friends" in name only, and have no intentions of ever meeting you outside of the safe cyberworld where committal is little.  (See, I just made that up, catchy isn't it???).

In the meantime, I still find one item prevalent in these relationships.  That people will still one another for granted, the same nosy people will dig for the information they want, there will be the obsessive people, the people who care very little or those who will find a way to keep in touch with you, even when you are taking a "Facebook break."

Friendships may have gotten another level, but the complexities behind them are still in our faces whether we like it not.  They take work and understanding and not necessarily in that order. 

The Pony Express

A few weeks ago, someone asked me my opinion on merging two LinkedIn accounts.  Turns out this person (like many) created a LinkedIn profile many moons ago, and made another one, meanwhile had connections on one account they still valued but no longer wanted to use their old account.  How to merge the accounts into one?  Doing a quick search on their Help Site, you can shoot them a quick email, answer some questions and bang-o.  You have one new account and then you're good to go.

But are you?  I was reading an article in the Times this morning about how a gentleman who opened  a Twitter account to promote a charity devoted to his daughter was locked and couldn't talk to anyone about why it was such.  What could have been a simple phone call to determine a) why it was blocked (never found out the reason why) or b) to discuss options if it was blocked for a reason (it was later reinstated after a few emails) was avoided because - ta da! - these new social networking sites don't offer a customer service number for its customers.

On one hand, I can understand, almost.  For the most part, these are free sites for the public (with the exception of LinkedIn, which has a premium account that you can opt into), and the cost of adding a help desk situation can be prohibitive.  Especially in the case that most of the questions can be answered by clicking around the Help Desk or FAQs of the site.

But it still makes me question the lack of responsibility or passing of the buck by these organizations.  I find that the most successful corporations or organizations on these sites are also coincidentally the most socially responsible.  So it would be nice to see them practice what they preach. 

I find that for myself, it's easier for me to make appointments over email or texting friends, but the reality is, it's tough to blow off a phone call.  I'm in the network marketing business, and you can email people to your heart's content.  Yet at the same time, it's easy to delete or blow off those messages. 

But the lack of phone support for many companies, not even the big three in social networking, is mind-blowing, especially when you are paying for a service. 

If I have a bad experience somewhere, anywhere, I can make the conscious decision to never use that product or patronize that establishment again.  You're kind of stuck in a consumer rock or hard place with technology based companies, however.  I mean, where else are you going to go?  Facebook?  They have your pictures or your company page profile!  Twitter?  All that content you've invested in? Good luck leaving it.  LinkedIn is what gets me though -- when I first lost my job a few months ago, I invested in a premium account.  I found it did not give me a competitive advantage.  I tried to cancel it, but it was not that easy.  If I did what they suggested in their Help Center, I would essentially lose my contacts, the contacts I've built up over a five year relationship, contacts that I still keep in touch with and use for potential business deals.  So as they would say, they have me by the balls. 

What I would normally do is call and try to eliminate the charges, give me my basic account and call it a day.  But hey, look at that, no 800 number, no customer service.

Whatever happened to that?  Customer service, you know the "Customer is always right" credo.  I find that these days, technology companies embrace Shannon Hamilton's philosophy that "the customer is always an asshole."

What's more is that places that you're spending money seem to take their customers for granted.  What I've found is that maybe over the past decade or so, companies have either outsourced or eliminated their help desks to the extent that it's almost impossible to talk to anyone.  What's worse?  In the event you DO get help, turns out that one department doesn't know what the other department is doing.  Then there are those synergies where you need to explain 900 times why you're calling.  It's not even places you are a consumer -- I have a friend who has been dealing with pension issues for the last four years or so, and still cannot get a straight answer from anyone. 

I am an AT&T customer.  Cell phone companies are a bit curious because it's like they're in collusion with one another.  Either way, you're locked into a contract, either way you've got a phone that unless it's "jailbroken," it's not translatable to another company.  So if I theoretically wanted to move my business elsewhere, I'd lose my phone number (that everyone has), I'd have to sign a contract, I'd have to spend a gazillion dollars on new phones.  The cell phone companies, in a sense, have your balls in a vise and they know it.  So what incentive is there to, you know, treat their customers with respect?

Because of their lack of customer service on the phones (for a PHONE COMPANY, for crying out loud), I've had to resort to sending letters to the CEO.  No, seriously.  This is the most effective way of getting the answers you need.  I feel like sometimes, the Pony Express would be more sufficient than trying to get someone on the phone who can actually answer your questions. 

Luckily for me, I'm the queen of letter writing, and can subsequently get the answers I need that way.  But why does it come to that?  Would it kill these companies that make their money off consumers to invest a little in customer care or better yet, a premium service that can answer a doggone question when you have it?

I get that there are some nuts in the world.  I get that there are people who will spend all day calling a help desk just to talk to someone.  Trust me, when I worked on a help desk, I used to deal with those people all the time.  That doesn't mean, however, that those customers are less valued.  In fact, some of them have the best suggestions, it might just take them awhile to get to the point because they are so starved for human interaction.  You just don't know.  And wouldn't it be ultimately better for the bottom line of these companies to engage their customers?  Isn't that the very root of social responsibility?

At the root of it all is a denial of basic customer service perks for your customers.  Saving money for your shareholders may be attractive to your bottom line, but customers can get stronger in numbers if you deny them this action.

The Catch-22 of Self-Promotion

Catch-22: A logical paradox arising from a situation in which an individual needs something that can only be acquired with an action that will lead him to that very situation he is already in; therefore, the acquisition of this thing becomes logically impossible. Coined by Joseph Heller in book by same name.

Twenty years ago, if someone told you about this new contraption called the "world wide web" and that your business needed a website, chances are, you would have thought that person crazy and sent them packing. Today, we all know that if a business does NOT have a website, they are anything from bogus to out of touch to secretive...all recipes for disaster in creating a successful business model.

Add the term "social media" today, and you probably get the same looks.  I can't tell you how many people I discuss blogging and Twitter, among others, with business owners in this area, and they are shocked that they need to add yet another layer of marketing/communications to their business model.  There, in and of itself, lays many paradoxes in a successful business.

A business can create a Facebook "Fan" Page, which essentially gets followers, yet the number of followers one has doesn't necessarily mean that "quantity" is better than "quality."  If you create a fan page and have a huge hoopla behind it, then neglect it, chances are your clients or "fans" will lose interest and go someplace else for their info.  Same could be said for Twitter or other social media layers in promoting one's business or self. 

But then comes the Catch-22 of business.  I mean, at the end of day, all businesses are trying to promote ourselves and our business and what other products/services we are trying to sell.  But how do you try to sound like you're not trying to do all that?

Several blogs I know and follow are guilty of the shameless self-promotion.  I have a friend, as an example, whom I adore but his Twitter antics are legendary.  Generally, when he publishes a blog post, everyone and their brother/cousin/uncle gets a link to it.  It's legendary in that I find if I get notice that it's published, I tend to read it before he can "spam" with it.  Yet, it's something I think about -- we tend to do the same things for self-promotion just to get "page views."  But at the end of the day, is it really just a glorified pissing contest?  "I get more page views than you do."  Kind of silly, especially when we are not truly selling a product.

But then apply that to business.  I am on an email distribution for a social media "university" of sorts, and I decided to sign up for a webinar.  The course was scheduled for an hour and a half, and the first half hour I guess was the real "meat" of the deal.  However, they blew through the first half hour, then spent the next half hour promoting what THEY could do to help you.

Granted, I didn't pay for it, it was a free webinar.  So one could argue that you get what you pay for.  On the flip side, they just literally came off telling us that a tool like Twitter could be used for certain things, but not for "spamming" either links to the site, or sounding like a press release.  Which is exactly what they did after telling their listening audience NOT to!

No wonder so many people/business owners are reluctant to do a social media layer.  They wonder what's in it for them!

It's not that I didn't take anything away from it.  I mean, at the end of the day, we use social media for different purposes.  This could be for education, or following our favorite actors and actresses, getting updates from our favorite media outlets, and to converse with friends and family about common interests.  I often tell business people that you get what you put into Twitter, as an example.  If you find that Twitter isn't useful and that you're wasting time on it, chances are...you are!  But it's obviously the next layer of marketing that is essential in survival in business. 

Yet, building your own buzz is a Catch-22 in social media.  You have to follow several people, and make your mark by being accessible while answering and asking several questions in the field you are promoting yourselves in.  Learning and staying abreast of the newest technologies.  At the same time, you can't overtly "self-promote" like my friend can do.  Although the people he is respected in the community take it with a grain of salt, there are others who think that self-promoting is a turn-off. 

So which is it?  Can it be both ways?  If you're in social media for whatever reason, chances are you've hit the Catch-22 of self-promotion too.  It's a pain in the ass, but a necessary evil in today's technology.  Which is in and of itself, a Catch-22.

Oy.

It's Not About You (Sort of)

My blolleague Dee was throwing some raging bull over at the new Facebook designs.  She certainly was not the only one.  Some of the common refrains I have heard from those who were vehemently opposed to the new set up were they did not like the "rolling ticker" on the right hand side, basically allowing one to "stalk" their friend list and what they were doing (including liking, commenting and posting on their friends' walls, even if you were not on the friend list of that "other" friend), pictures in the main feed were larger than they were used to seeing, and just basic complaining about the drastic changes. 

I took a "wait-and-see" approach.  Humans are naturally resistant to change (especially for change they did not agree upon or made themselves consciously), so I tend to not jump in head first with the rest of the crowd typically. But for me, I don't mind the changes and think of it as a new way to view the people I've become friendly with over the years. 

I have not been using Google + basically because I find Facebook easier to use and more visually appealing.  This is more of a conscious I-don't-want-to-change decision, but also because I think Google is significantly more evil than Facebook is portrayed (especially with people information).  Google is a publicly traded company and has shareholders to answer to.  While Google has never charged its user base for use of basic items like Gmail and using their search engines, Facebook also has not and never plans to (despite what viral status updates you might read in your friend feed).

And don't get me started on MySpace (owned by the evil of the evil News Corp!), which I left probably before it was ever "cool" to jump from that ship.  I was always timed out on that piece of crap, and I found it incredibly tedious to use.  I knew the good it could do, but it was such a pain in the ass that I never wanted to log into the system.  Once I found Facebook, I took to it like a fish to water and never looked back.  I might be a little annoyed by some of their changes but it's a free service and it's enhanced my life for what I like to think to be the better (especially with the flow of information and people meeting I have done over the years as a direct result of it).

Since the new rollout, I haven't heard much from folks in the complaining aspects, but I don't know if that's a combination of complacency, people just not using the application as much or just getting used to things.  A few days ago I had a bunch of status updates of people requesting that I unsubscribe to their feeds.  I'm sorry...I love you people...but I have better things to do than go through each of my 400 friends and manually unclick themselves from my feed.  Not to mention, I really wouldn't know what was going on then!  My friend Matt Cerrone (who founded Metsblog and is a social media consultant) basically hit the nail on the head with this analysis on his Facebook wall:

Did Facebook fans actually forget this is a billion dollar business based on advertising and data collection? The reaction I see from non-tech people to what FB is doing is shocking... and the fact that some people think they can avoid the changes or game the system is down right hilarious...This is a savvy, aggressive company with serious goals in mind. They're an amazing organization, bordering on an institution, and to pretend otherwise is naive.

Just remember, when you post that you ate at Chipotle, or rooted for the Mets this weekend, or needed to go to Rite Aid to find batteries for your radio during the hurricane, Facebook is collecting those bits of information to have those corporations better target their audiences.  Meeting people and friending and networking is a fringe benefit we get from using the service.  

Here's my take on the ire: we get used to the changes that are made to the service over the years, and just accept them with maybe a little holding our nose and swallowing difficulty, but we do it.  We feel as though the changes are not about "us," the user of the system and essentially the consumer, but more for Facebook, a "billion dollar business" as Matt suggests above.  Well, you would be right.  Facebook doesn't give a crap about us, as people...they care about the information that we provide them that they are able to sell as advertising to MAKE MONEY and give themselves a product. 

But as the article link suggests above...we are the product, not the consumer.  And this is where our difference in thinking lies and potentially needs to change if we want to continue using the service.  If not, then try out Google + or get on the Diaspora waiting list.  But realize they use people information in the same vein as Facebook does, so don't be fooled that it somehow "gets better" or "is better." 

It's not about you, it's about them.  Them using information YOU give them, but don't be fooled it is about them. 

Google+ Survival Guide

We have Google Earth, Google Reader, Gmail, Google News, Google Maps...What's next? Google Galaxy? It's looking that way. How about a social layer? Well, okay!

From the last few weeks, does this conversation sound familiar to you?

"Anyone have an invite to Google Plus?" (Editor's note: usually listed as Google +)

"Hey...can you give me an invite to Google +?" (Editor's note: usually when you find out a friend has a few)

Having an entrepreneurial spirit, and knowing several sole proprietors and small business owners in the New York City area, the question I often get, or maybe even a matter-of-fact statement is..."I don't get it." I used to get that about Twitter, but now the item I get questions on is Google Plus, or Google +.

I have to say, even I am overwhelmed with this new technology. But Google +, like many other social media, has its pitfalls yet has it's bonuses as well. Since it's been released and widely sought out, I have had time to look at it and play with it. Like many other tools, there is a learning curve, but there's also been a ton of literature out on it as well, so allow me to digest it for you.

**As a disclaimer, I took a step back from Facebook and even Twitter for a short time (but it's tougher for me to stay away from Twitter, for whatever reason) to try to understand it better and process it all.**

From a marketing standpoint, businesses have been using Twitter campaigns to get their company message out to the masses as well as interaction on Facebook pages. Google + is trying to take the guesswork and tediousness out of those elements. I mean, if you think about it, having to manage your Twitter account and Facebook page as not only a writer or casual user or even a business owner, it takes a lot of time. David All, the Chief Creative Officer at David All Group, says there are six things marketers need to know about Google +.

Two things out of this list that can hold for businesses and personal use are creating "circles" and the "hanging out" feature. Circles are similar to "groups" you can create in Facebook, but it's supposedly easier in Google +, as you can take more control over it. Another cool nifty aspect of Google + is the hang out feature, as you can actually now have video chats with up to 10 people at the same time. Since I am pretty Attention Deficit Disorder about this stuff, I doubt that would be helpful to me...but Facebook recently added a video chat layer with Skype. Apparently, this layer is synonymous with "jumping the shark." But of course, since I believe that blogging is a dying art form (as I'm blogging about it), video chats could be indeed the next wave of the future.

Mostly, a lot of what All brings up is common sense. I've said before that I took to Facebook like a fish to water since it was visually appealing and easy to use. Like Twitter, which had a larger learning curve for most people, Google + gives you what you want out of it.

All suggested that Google + may be too new to fully generate marketable content for businesses. After all, if you think about it, it took awhile for that to happen for Facebook. So for personal use, Craig Kannalley suggests starting small, by linking to friends and family first. This was easy since I am on most Gmail lists, so anyone who had my gmail account was able to reach out first. Similar to how Facebook started to work when you were able to reach out to people you didn't know but had common interests, Google + can provide the same cushion. The circles can be helpful in organizing your interests, and providing interesting content (which was another thing David All suggested, for engaging others in your circles). The common thread is to provide and filter interesting content to your masses.

The biggest piece of advice is to not treat Google + like Facebook. Christine Trapolino suggests that if you don't follow people you don't already know, you're going to get bored. How many times have I suggested that Facebook has jumped the shark by seeing the same filter of friends administering the same content or similar thoughts over and over again? I can get that from Twitter during a sporting event, as an example. And in a more digestible fashion.

While you love your friends and family, chances are, you might get a little bored with the trappings of it. Trapolino says if you engage with users you don't already know, you are getting a fresh perspective on passions or things you might not have even thought about.

Lastly, this Mashable column has it pretty much laid out in its aptly titled "Google Plus Guide" by Ben Parr. It's taken all the guesswork out of Google + and has given it to you in lay terms.

Most of all, Google + doesn't seem to be going anywhere, so I am not quick to discount it just yet. I mean, if I'm taking a Facebook vacation in order to understand it better, chances are it's going to be something I might grow to like better, kind of like when I liked Facebook better than MySpace, now Twitter in some ways better than Facebook.

Facebook Etiquette, According To Dee

I know I'm going to end up ruffling some feathers with this one, but there are just some things people need to learn if they plan on keeping their heads above water in the Facebook community.

And so, I give you the official Facebook Etiquette, Dee-style.

Rule #1 - You don't have to "like" every one of my statuses, comment on every one of my statuses, or "like" every comment on my statuses.  I know I've griped about lack of interaction on Facebook, but too much of one thing is not good either.  Everything in moderation.  While I want to interact with you, that doesn't mean I want to see you all up in my business every second of the day.  That's just weird.

Rule #2 - Rule #1 goes for my pictures as well, and probably even more so.

Rule #3 - Don't be creeping on my friends list to see who YOU can become friends with. If you don't know them, don't request them!  Oh, and tell YOUR friends the same thing when it comes to requesting me.

Rule #4 - Don't use the "poke" feature.  Seriously, it's pointless (no pun intended).  There are plenty of other ways to tell someone you want to "get in their pants" without letting all of Facebook know. 

Rule #5 - Wish your friends a "Happy Birthday" on their special day.  It's the LEAST you can do.  If you can't even do that, then why be friends?  

Rule #6 - Don't start cursing and mouthing off on a thread where your friend's mother or father (or maybe even grandmother) is involved, unless you know them well enough to know it's acceptable.  I'm not saying you shouldn't be yourself, but have a little respect when you need to.

Rule #7 - For couples only:  Don't use a friend's wall to have it out with each other. Facebook is NOT the place, no less someone else's page!  It causes awkwardness for the friend and kinda puts a damper on the feed.

Now that you know all of this, I ask, how is YOUR social networking etiquette???

My Biggest [Facebook] Pet Peeve

I can NOT pass up this opportunity.  Who knows when it will come along again.  A chance to call out people for their misuse of Facebook.

Now it all makes sense why some Facebook relationships are so one-sided.

My entire News Feed is full of comments posted "via iPhone", "via Android", or via some other mobile phone application.  I especially like the "via text" and "via email" ones.  What is that all about???

I love these people.  Well, the ones who only post status updates on their phones, but never bother to read their News Feed.  They want to share THEIR stories with the Facebook world, but never take an interest IN the Facebook world.  And then they wonder why they miss things.  Don't you get it?  Don't you know how all this is supposed to work?

Look, it would be nice to see some feedback from you.  You know, a comment or a "like" every now and then.  Ooooh, here's an idea!  How about signing on to a computer once on a while?  Which brings me to my next point ...

Has the use of Facebook Mobile and apps of the like ruined the Facebook experience?  I think, perhaps.  If the only way to access the networking site was the traditional way -- on a computer or mobile web -- we might just see more quality content, and definitely more reciprocation (<----- there's my favorite word again!).

I know in today's world everything is rush-rush.  We just barely squeeze in a status update before having to get back to work.  But come on, if you're not going to use it correctly then don't use it at all!

How Do I Love Facebook? Let Me Count The Ways

I read somewhere that Facebook has become the new Myspace.  Well, if Myspace is the new booty call and Facebook is the new Myspace, then what could we conclude here?

A recent study revealed that approximately 40 million people changed their Facebook status from "In a Relationship" to "Single" in 2010.  Only about 28 million changed their status from "Single" to "In a Relationship".  It may have nothing to do with Facebook, but I believe that some networking sites (and I use the word "networking" loosely) make it so much easier for people to have inappropriate relationships outside their "committed" ones.  The personal exposure is unlimited and to some, a real ego-booster -- making it easy to stray.

Girls love the attention they get from guys when they post sexy pics of themselves, and guys love looking at them.  It's one thing to be attractive and receive compliments, but when the lines are crossed, you tend to back away from those habits -- and the people who encourage them. After a while, you realize that the negativity you generate far outweighs the compliments.

I sincerely believe that just like Myspace, Facebook is no longer what it was intended to be.  At least for me it isn't. I guess to some degree, just like life, Facebook is what you make of it.  You can't get more out of it than what you put into it.  However, and I could be wrong but, despite its recently announced $50 billion worth, and all the privacy and security settings and features that come with it, I think Facebook is going to see some big changes in 2011, and I don't mean on their part. 

More and more Facebook users will be cautious when it comes to putting their lives out there for everyone to see.  In other words, private will become the new social. They will start by choosing their friends and their statuses more carefully.  Either that, or they will use the site less frequently or even shut it down totally.  There are moments where, if not for my blogging, I would consider deactivating my account altogether. 

So one could argue that if I feel this way then why even have Facebook at all?  I've thought about it and that is definitely a valid point.  However, why can't I still enjoy all that Facebook as to offer and share my life with the people that I choose to remain in touch with?  Facebook can reach all of my friends at once, in one organized and convenient place.  Can't do that on a cell phone.

It all comes down to one thing: What am I looking to get out of Facebook?  What do I really want?

Maybe I have gotten all I am going to out of it.  Maybe it has served its purpose for me.  Maybe Facebook just isn't enough for me anymore.  The thing is, the list of people we are "connected" to on Facebook is called "Friends".  But as I scroll through my list, I wonder how many people really are "friends"?  They are acquaintances, and honestly, I'm not looking for more acquaintances.  The networking aspect of it is nice, but that's as far as it goes for me lately.

And so, we enter cleansing mode.  And it usually starts with a new year.

For some, it's a time to get rid of dead weight - those who just take up space on our news feed, whom we couldn't care less about and who don't care what we have to share either.  We don't interact with these people, and if we do, there's no reciprocation.  For others, it's a time to get rid of the creepers and stalkers and nosy/busy-bodies.  Who needs people who only gawk at our pics, are jealous of our accomplishments or take pleasure in our pain?  For others, they may just not want to see things they don't want to see.  You know the old expression, what you don't know won't hurt you.  And still for others, it's a time to realize who our real friends are, as opposed to just "online" friends - those we probably would never go out of our way in real life to meet and/or spend time with.  Not that these people aren't nice and don't deserve a fair deal, but honestly, we can barely spare the time these days for our real friends and family.

But Dee, isn't that the beauty of Facebook?  To be able to maintain relationships that you normally wouldn't be able to?

I'm sorry, but I just don't feel the need to be connected to people I don't associate with outside of Facebook.  I know Facebook is supposed to help you stay connected to those people, but if I need a networking tool to help me do that, then what kind of relationship really is it that I am trying to hold on to?  Look, it's nothing personal.  The people I have chosen to remove myself from -- and there are many -- didn't necessarily do anything wrong.  In fact, I may end up regretting some of my decisions.  But this is just something I feel the need to do.  Just because I "know" you, or am in your company once a year at a mutual friend's function, doesn't mean I have to be connected to you on Facebook.

All that being said, there are still going to be the people who don't care who they are friends with and what they share with them.  Someone, somewhere, will learn a serious lesson the hard way, and have something they posted come back and bite them in the ass. But for now, it's the "so-what" attitude and, unfortunately, a popularity contest.  I could easily have anywhere from 600-800 "friends", between former schoolmates, former co-workers, distant relatives and those I've met throughout the sports/blogging community.  But I am down to literally a handful of people (and believe me, there are more I wish to delete, but some people you just can't) who I would consider a part of my real-world life, not just my online one.  People I knew BEFORE Facebook, and will continue to know even after, should that time come.  I don't want to have to rely on something in the virtual world, to help me live out my life in the real world. Quite honestly, that goes for texting and Kik messaging as well, but that's on a much smaller scale, and a whole other post that I am not quite ready to entertain.........

My "New" Space

MySpace.  A Place For Friends.

I originally joined MySpace in April of 2006.  My best friend IMed me and said, "You have to try this new thing!"  I was like, "Oh no, not a dating site!?!?!"  But I later came to realize what MySpace was.  And now, I realize what MySpace has become.

MySpace started out as a networking tool (shocker!) and a place for people to stay in touch with their families and friends.  The concept was great, but no one thought about what it was REALLY going to turn into.  Somehow though, I knew.

I admit, within a month after joining MySpace, I met a guy who I liked, who actually worked for the same company that I did at the time, and we went out a few times. Nothing ever came out of it, but for me, my first experiences with MySpace resembled those of a dating site.

In November, 2009, I deleted my MySpace account because most of my friends had moved on to Facebook and no one was using MySpace anymore.  However, in the spring of 2010, I was curious to see what changes MySpace had made.  I kept hearing about how it mimicked itself after Facebook, and wanted to see what all the hype was about. So I rejoined, but only for about a month.  Once again, I got nothing out of it, except for messages and friend requests from guys I didn't know.  In these messages, they would tell me how hot I was and how they'd like to meet me.  Like I didn't know what their intentions were.  But they didn't know what kind of girl I was, and whether or not I would take the bait, so they did what they were there to do.  I, on the other hand, deleted my profile.

Now, that's not to say that things like that don't take place on Facebook.  But it was always joked that MySpace is the new "booty call" and Facebook is more family-oriented. I think that's slowly changing as well, but because most people are friends with their family members on Facebook (mainly because I think Facebook is a little more appropriate and user-friendly for the older generations), I don't think it will ever become as bad as MySpace.

Now I hear that MySpace is on the auction block, and looking to lay off 50 percent of their 1,100 employees before this coming spring.  The owner of MySpace (NewsCorp.) confirms that many meetings are scheduled in the upcoming weeks to discuss the fate of the networking site.  But sources indicate that many more lay offs will be necessary to prove to potential investors that the company is on track to be profitable again.

With Facebook hitting one out of the park, MySpace has quickly taken a back seat in the social networking scene.  But here's the thing.  I actually rejoined MySpace, yet again, for the purpose of doing this post, and I have to say that it doesn't look all that bad.  They've made tremendous improvements on the layout and navigation of their site, that one can almost start to wonder if MySpace had done it first, would they still be at the forefront of the social networking scene, rather than Facebook?  The problem is that MySpace got old fast, and when Facebook came on the scene, it was something new and different.  It flowed better and offered more features.  And while MySpace's privacy settings were outstanding since day one, it wasn't enough to keep users entertained.  People started to migrate to Facebook, and now, no matter what MySpace does, it seems it's always a step behind.

I don't plan on keeping my MySpace account this time either.  If I do, it will be totally private and only used for research purposes such as this blog. Unless, of course, MySpace makes a major comeback.  Guess we'll just have to wait and see.

The Great Facebook Experiment: The Prequel

So, Dee and I have made no bones about how we met, which was through shared interests on Facebook. Turns out we had a lot more in common, and now we have a blog in common.

But sometimes, we disagree, as many good friends do from time to time. Luckily, we are able to grow and learn from these experiences as they are not terribly harsh.

Such as a topic we hold near and dear to heart, and that's -- you guessed it -- Facebook.

We were reminiscing the other day about the good ol' days (circa 2006) of MySpace. Then I suggested we write about some of the trivialities of Facebook to make it fun and lighthearted since it's become a place of drama and questionable behavior.

Dee wanted to take a more serious and thoughtful approach. I thought we'd be able to merge our thought processes together, but when we started writing, it took us in different directions. Hey, it happens.

So then what do we do?
Well, we give you double the pleasure, double the fun, as only CoopDeeVille can do!

So in the next day or so, we'll have two posts, one with That's What Dee Said's take on Facebook, the other with a View from the Coop.

So enjoy this two-fer that we have planned. We hope you won't be disappointed and take it in the spirit with which it was intended!

Anti-Social Media

Picture it: New York City, 2010. A young professional urbanite woman runs on the city street, phone in hand, busily tapping away at the screen of her smart phone. She stops in front of the movie theater, presumably her destination as she walks in the door. What happens next?

She taps on a phone app and "checks in," before meeting up with her friends to go into the movie theater.

I guess the real question is...is she the mayor?

We're all guilty of it: using our smart phones as busy-time, kind of replacing the old tapping of our foot or even reading a book on the bus or train these days, providing some sort of personal entertainment be it videos, music, texting, Facebooking, Tweeting or most importantly, the new hip application of Foursquare, which is yet another social media app that allows you to check in at establishments or events. As an example, the annual Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade took place in New York City, and there was a special "badge" one earned when you checked in. Because of the amounts of people checking into the venue (which could have theoretically been anywhere), I truly thought I was part of something unique...until I saw friends of mine from Ohio checking in on their Foursquare apps, just to get the badge (sorry for outing you guys).

Although I have to admit, Foursquare is cool. I'm the "Mayor" of several of my favorite establishments, which include my frequent watering holes and bakeries...On second thought, maybe it just shows how pathetic and a creature of habit I am.

Anyway, I have to say that the publication Time Out New York had a superb article detailing whether these applications enhance the New York City (or any city, really) experience in the aptly titled "Is Social Media Bad for NYC?"

I have to say, Dee and I are just as guilty of it. Whenever we go someplace, she and I are automatically on our Foursquares, telling the world (or rather, our little universe on Twitter and/or Facebook) where we are having dinner or meeting for drinks. We are letting people into our lives, willingly, but at the same time, we are taking time away from actually talking and interacting with each other, face-to-face. Not that either one of us complains. Sometimes, the feedback we get from our mutual friends is enough to give us ammo to talk all evening. Not that we need that anyway.

I thought the article was a bit pretentious, more about the idea that those who live in the Greater New York area label themselves as "tourists" when they are active users of these apps. Perhaps Foursquare (or Facebook or Twitter to a lesser extent) was making what used to be clandestine behavior very out in the open, at least in your sphere of influence.

Then again, it brought up some significant issues. Social media is changing the way we socialize, and what's more, is that we want EVERYONE to know about it.

Most importantly, these devices might take away from the actual experience and take away from New York City, in general. Now, New York City is a big place, and it will take a lot to change the dynamic here. But how many times is the first thing we do is grab our phones and shout to the world -- Hey everyone, I'm HERE!

Personally, if checking in someplace makes me "uncool," then so be it. As for being clandestine, I am very selective to where I tell people my whereabouts. After all, do I really need to be THAT available?