The Fine Line of Attribution

New York City is home to many people who hold what we deem a "slash" career.  A lawyer - slash - English as a second language professor.  A bartender - slash - screenwriter.  I'm a real estate saleperson - slash - health coach.  Somewhere in there, you will see improvisational artists or actors or comedy writers, and all they want is to participate in an event or have their one big script gain traction.  Maybe make a little bit of money.  Maybe even get famous.  Or even just have that 15 minutes of fame and then fade away into obscurity.

The advent of social media in these careers should theoretically add another layer of immortality to their career goals.  But what we've seen is the scale get skewed in many different directions that still  cater to the big guy and allow people with not-the-best-of-intentions to profit from the creativity and property of the little guy who may or may not have the types of connections that the "big guy" has.

I've said for awhile that being a "blogger" is a dying art form (yes, I do recognize the irony as I write a blog post on it myself).  People are eager for all types of content, whether video, photos or microblogs.  Short, sweet, to the point in this electronic day and age where opinions and info are plentiful, and so is attention deficit disorder.  The blogs that we see with tons of traction or followers usually have a built in following, and many people who try to build their brand organically have to have an unusual mix of luck, timeliness...essentially, being at the right place at the right time.

Majoring in English literature and minoring in writing/journalism, I wrote a lot of papers, as one could imagine.  I always erred on the side of caution by maybe including too many quotes and attributing my sources to as many as possible in my footnotes.  I had a professor try to counsel me, but far it be for me to get expelled over something as simple as misrepresenting a quote or a source.

On social media, the only people who threaten your way of life by non-attribution or "plagiarizing" are the little guy.  And people can always get away with stealing digital property by claiming they "didn't know" or that "I thought we were cool and that I could use it."

I learned my first lesson long ago when I started my baseball blog.  I had a friend who had sent me a picture she had taken, and said if I wanted to use it, just be sure to give her proper attribution...which I did in a blog post.  However, I posted it as a link on my site too, where it wasn't really clear that it was hers.  She wasn't upset; she just pointed it out.  I quickly fixed it.  No harm, no foul.  I was lucky we were friendly; I was relatively new to the blogosphere, and this could've been career suicide for me. 

A few years ago, I noticed a fine line of attribution occurring on Twitter.  Twitter reactions are very real-time based, and I've mentioned several times on this site that I am a sports nut.  During a game, two people I follow (and I am actually very close with) had almost identical tweets, creating a name for a player in the process.  Later that evening, a prominent analyst on a sports network used the same line in his report.  Both of the tweeters (while I am sure they were not the only two who had used this moniker, it was just unique and very timely) mentioned that this reporter had taken their content.

I've had several people use my terms and wit, that I have repeated several times and use in my daily vernacular if I'm talking about my sports teams.  Sometimes people give me credit; some don't.  I am not trademarked.  It shouldn't bother me.  For the most part, it does not.  But recently I've had "discussions" with people who claim they were the people who came up with a line that I'm sort of synonymous with.  And I know this because each time I've used it, they were the first to say it was clever.  Now they're taking credit for it.  Since this is Twitter, unless you're immediately trademarking it or using it in other forums from long ago, it's your word against theirs.

"The Fat Jew" Josh Ostrovsky had a fallout this week.

And mind you, I am pretty small time! I do not have the following that say, the "Fat Jew" Josh Ostrovsky does.  I heard about this guy, probably from someone sharing one of his photos from Instagram, which are usually meme based.  Here is a guy who has 3.5 MILLION (yes, you read that right) followers on Instagram.  I don't know this guy from a hole in the wall.  He's everywhere in New York City, his likeness that is (I've seen him on Seamless web billboards, as an example, and he's been featured on NBC's Today show in addition to being interviewed by Katie Couric, influential in her own right).  With the mindless entertainment that a simple meme or photo can provide an audience, he seems to have really found his niche.

Not so fast.  A few days ago, several media outlets, comedians, improv artists and other creative types started lambasting Ostrovsky in the media, claiming that his memes and shared items are not his property and that he has made his empire on the backs of other comedians with zero attribution.  Essentially, we are going back to writing term papers in college, but this time with social media.  Attribution is important, and not crediting the proper creator is akin to plagiarism.  Except you cannot be expelled from the real world.  (The worst that happened was a creative deal with Ostrovsky was apparently pulled from Comedy Central, though both sides claimed this fell through before the creative accusations were happening).  The only claim he's had in the past with people claiming he stole their creative property was that an intern must have gotten it, or he simply "forgot."

With great power comes great responsibility.  And regular Joe Schmoes like Ostrovsky are all of a sudden given a boatload of power in social media.  And unfortunately, it translates into real dollars lost for those whose creative property is stolen without attribution.

I've seen this first hand in sports blogging.  I've seen regular guys come to great power by creating online products that fans use religiously.  Yet, if the owners of these sites are called into question with unethical practices, they'll use the same excuses thrown around by Ostrovsky, either blaming an intern, promising to take down the questionable item on their site, or using the phrase, "I'm just a fan like you" (meanwhile, they make money off the same fan machine their passions do).  Meanwhile, with great power, the responsibility of appeasing someone who does not have same power they do is not something they prioritize.  "Regular fans" do not have the back-up of millions of fan followers or more back-up in the form of profits that the people they steal creative works from do.

A passionate baseball fan and photographer I know who travels a lot to different stadiums has had several run-ins with powerful figures in the social media universe.  She is very gracious about posting her work via social media forums; however, very recently she has taken to task several of their influences when they've taken property of hers and have redistributed it without proper attribution.

This has happened several times, and because of the influence of the user, her work was recirculated without her permission or credit to the original author.  And as we all know through social media, it becomes very much like that old school shampoo commercial.  "I told one person, and they told one person...and so on, and so on and so on!"  It gets tough to give original attribution, and then we have cautionary tales like Josh Ostrovsky.

And so on, and so on, and so on...(source: old shampoo commercials)

For the original poster, it becomes a question of misappropriation, which happened to my baseball buddy.


As for the likes of Josh Ostrovsky or the powerful members of the sports social media whom I know, they'll walk away scot-free without a care in the world.  Ostrovsky's scandal even got him MORE air time on the Today show, where he said he was going to make things "right."  The reality is, he's barely lost any followship, and I'm sure his likeness will not disappear from the billboards that get his name around.  

I'm not sure there is a reasonable and workable solution for this right now because the numbers on the Web are certainly larger than we can ever imagine.  I'm a big believer that we should be a little more kind to each other, and the Internet has certainly served as a way for people sitting in their underwear in their mom's basement to grow a set of virtual balls that allows them to say things they'd never ever say in real life.  Proper attribution is one way to do this.  If I see a cool picture or funny meme, you better believe I'm going to be extra careful in giving proper attribution.  

With great power comes great responsibility.  That doesn't just occur in Peter Parker's world with his Uncle Benjamin, but when you realize a piece you are sharing doesn't necessarily belong to you, be sure to give credit where it is certainly due.

(And PS - it looks like Stan Lee might have pilfered that power/responsibility from somewhere else.  How appropriate.)

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.

Fair Game

Fair or Foul?

A few weeks ago, I was using Twitter, like many in this universe, and I heard from several people that my Tweets were found on GardenVision, and I see them scroll during games on MSG Network.

When they pop up on the screen, it gives full attribution and your Twitter handle. 

So my question is, what is fair game in the world of Twitter?

It's been well-documented that employers can use social media or Google to check your social media history.  So if you're posting anything illegal, they can certainly see that.  Free speech is certainly protected, so think of Twitter as another means of using information and a soapbox that is constitutionally protected (though you may be outed as an idiot). 

But where do we go?  I guess when I was growing up, I was so fearful of plagiarism, or taking items that weren't my own and representing it as my own I knew was not cool and most importantly, ILLEGAL and grounds for me to get kicked out of school.  Or at the very least, failure in my courses.

So I'm careful that if I take information on Twitter, or anywhere really, I do my damndest to give proper attribution.  It's something called the "Retweet" on Twitter, that you may agree with and share the same views (or you may be outing someone else as an idiot, but that's neither here nor there).

I ask this question because two of my friends were affected by a reported on a major network.  Now, attribution is tough in Twitter, especially since there is a chicken-or-egg thing going on.  Since things happen so quickly, and you can't possibly be following everyone available in the Twitterverse, you could say something and five people could see it or 1000 people could see it.

I have a friend who was retweeted ad nauseum for a picture she posted, and she won an award for it.  Everyone knew it was from her.  Yet, over the weekend, my two friends had used a term and tweeted it, only to have it appear on a major news network with, you got it, NO attribution,  According to the reporter, Twitter is fair game. 

Is it?

Look, I know if there is something not really clever that's being posted and several people use it, chances are it's not easy to figure who came up with it first.  But at the very least the Twitter handle could be used or an image of the Tweet could be used in the broadcast.  Neither of them were used.

At the end of the day, a major news network with its own marketing and sales team, and worldwide recognition was using information or creative control from a schmoe on the Internet.  When we're in school, we learn early on that plagiarism isn't just wrong, it's illegal.

What about Twitter though?  Can we use things with reckless abandonment that are on the Internet without proper attribution?

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.

Be Careful What You Wish For

Having a huge background in customer service related jobs (I used to be one of those "courtesy desk" gals at a supermarket when I was in college, and was a client service rep at one of my first jobs out of college), I do believe in the old adage "The Customer Is Always Right" but within reason.

I hate to admit it but when I was working the courtesy desk, if I had a "repeat offender" (a multiple-time complaining customer who just wanted to whine about the quality of the air she breathed, and would leave chicken in her car overnight expecting a refund for HER mistake), I would be less apt to help them than say, someone who was genuine in what they were asking -- not that they expected it per se, but it was a legit gripe like getting twice billed for the same thing.

For me, though, when I wronged as a consumer, look out! I take to the airwaves for anything. I am firm believer in the written word -- that is, in the right hands of course. There was one year for instance where I got a lot of free stuff simply for airing my grievances in letter form to CEOs of companies. Now, I know that the CEO of the chain of Best Westerns isn't going to care much about little me...but if a letter shows up on his desk, I like to think that the executive office takes it seriously and escalates it to the proper people. I've gotten free weeks at hotels, free flights, free months on my phone bill, gift cards, etc, simply by complaining about what I feel to be legit gripes to people who can take action.

I guess what companies do believe in is that the squeaky wheel will certainly get the grease.

Here's the thing though: when I would write my letters, I would take the high road, not implying I would take my business elsewhere, but that I would like to continue to do business with them, as it would hurt me more to not conduct business there.

Today, though, there are multiple channels to voice one's complaints, and not to mention one...the millions.

A few weeks ago, the mail-order online video rental company, Netflix, had some very bad PR when they announced they would be raising prices for their service. To be honest, I have never used the Netflix service. I can understand though the impact of raising prices to what their customer base may deem as unreasonable. Especially since there are many different ways to get these items for free or streaming for a fraction of the cost.

Yet, their vocal customers took to social media tools like Twitter to express their discontent. The vocal mob, though, didn't do much to distract Netflix. In fact, they are not coming out contrite saying, "OK OK we'll lower our prices, just come back." The fact is, Netflix must think they have a loyal enough customer base to justify raising prices.

Then I started to think about times I've publicly flogged a place I've patronized, only to get a response from their marketing department or customer service reps. It's funny, because they not only care but they do want to ensure the happiness of their base.

I once flogged McDonald's for forgetting to put sausage in my husband's sausage biscuit. Yeah, that happened. I then got upset at a Dunkin Donuts I was at because they kept screwing up my simple coffee order, and their marketing folks wanted to make sure everything was all right. I was making fun of a ferry ride I was on, saying their boats had not been updated since 2001 yet I was paying like quadruple the price I did back then. And they asked me if there was something that happened and how they could change it for the future (unless they drop their prices and/or get newer boats, I don't see them taking my advice to heart).

Mostly, though my newest outlet to use my voice as a means of consumer change is on Yelp. I know it's been around for awhile, but I just came around on it recently. Yes, I was slamming a service that I really wanted to change, and they never reached out to me. Yet, I gave not-so-favorable reviews and have gotten gift cards and an offer of free drinks for my "experience" at another place (though truth be told, I didn't leave THAT bad of a review, but I guess they want to make sure they get repeat customers).

I guess my point is, with the two-way feedback that is social media, consumer complaints are not only heard instantaneously practically, but they are dealt with so long as they are reasonable complaints so that they can get a favorable review.

And here I was, thinking that true customer service has gone out the window. True, we may get that gum-snapping bored-looking kid behind the counter who would rather play video games than help us...but the highers-up may be hearing something...and that might promote change on the front-end.

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.