It's Not About The Sales

I've been taking some heat from people about my tradition of hitting the outlets and the malls on Thanksgiving night. It seems some people have a problem with what has become the very popular tradition of holiday shopping on, well, a holiday.

Look, don't get me wrong. There is a part of me that feels bad for those who have to leave their dinner tables and their families to go into work and put in a very stressful and tiring overnight shift. But don't blame ME. Don't tell me that if it wasn't for people like me, stores wouldn't be open. Because guess what? Yes they would! Don't tell me that it's my mentality that makes it possible for stores to pull this off. If you ask me, most people in these retail positions aren't really concerned about working Thanksgiving night. It's not about the holiday. It's working the crazy overnight shift, period, that gets them. 

The thing is, I don't have a big Thanksgiving celebration. It's just my mom and me, and we use this opportunity to spend time together and make memories. For us, it's not even about the sales or the shopping. We have no children to need the season's hottest toys, we already have laptops and televisions and iPhones, and honestly, how much less expensive do we really expect to find that cashmere sweater we've been eyeballing all autumn long?

And if you think about it, how is Thanksgiving different from holidays like Veteran's Day or Memorial Day? Why aren't stores closed on those holidays and why don't I hear anyone bitching about it? Or what about the movie theaters and 7-Eleven stores, or liquor stores and bakeries, pharmacies and supermarkets that are open DURING the day on Thanksgiving? Somebody's working those jobs, right? 

Better yet, how about all the servers and bartenders and DJs who work on New Year's Eve so that the rest of us have somewhere to go? I bet you they'd rather be ringing in the New Year with their own friends and family somewhere other than their place of employment. 

The thing is, these holidays aren't religious ones. They're commercial ones. And while every holiday has different meaning to every person, it's not like the malls are defying some holy tradition by opening on Christmas Day or Easter Sunday. 

Look, I work in the accounting industry. We have our busy seasons, work crazy hours, and don't get to spend time with our families sometimes. It's part of the job we took. If you don't like it, then change careers.

Yes, Thanksgiving is a day to be thankful for your family and friends and to enjoy the time with them. But I am doing that the way I choose to. And I don't think I'm being selfish about it one bit. 

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.

An Apple A Day

Every morning on my way to work, I stop at 7-Eleven to get myself coffee and a buttered roll. One morning, I reached the door to go in and I noticed another woman heading out with a coffee cup in each hand. So I held the door open for her. She made eye contact with me and held it for a few seconds. However, she did not say thank you. It was almost like I did something wrong. How dare I hold the door for her!

Now, I didn't want to let some bitch with no manners ruin my day, but at the same time I couldn't help but keep thinking how some people could go throughout life without an ounce of niceness in their body. It started to eat away at me so much that I had to vent to someone. So, I called my mom.

I explained the story to her and told her that these are the reasons why it doesn't pay to be nice. She pointed out that we shouldn't stop being nice to people who appreciate it just because we come across someone once in a while who doesn't. And she's right. Because as I am about to share, there are still nice people in the world.

This past Thursday I went about my normal routine and stopped at 7-Eleven for coffee and a buttered roll. Only this day, I wasn't really in the mood for the roll. As I stood there in front of the donut case trying to decide what to get, a woman came over and told me that the apple fritters are delicious and that I should try one. I'm not a big apple person but they did look really good, totally covered in icing. The woman walked away and I pondered it for a few seconds. I finally decided to go for it.

I got on line to pay and the woman was on line in front of me. She turned around and I told her that I decided to try it. The cashier went to ring her up and she told her to include my apple fritter. I told her she didn't have to do that. She insisted, stating that she talked me into it and if I didn't like it, it would be money wasted. (What she didn't realize was that I had the buttered roll in my hand as backup lol.) I told her that was very sweet of her and thanked her more than once. That small gesture totally made my day.

It's funny how I experienced two completely different personalities at the same place in a matter of weeks. It just goes to show you, no matter how many rotten apples there are in the world, there are still some sweet ones out there. So don't let one bad apple spoil the bunch!

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. 

Post No Evil

Practically everyone I know or meet uses Facebook to stay in touch with people and keep up to date on what's going on in their friends' and family's lives. But what I've noticed lately is a change in the way people as a whole are using the social networking site.

When I first joined Facebook in 2008, there wasn't much you could do in terms of posting. You'd update your status or add a picture of your kid's birthday or the baseball game you attended over the weekend. Gradually, Facebook added a plethora of ways to post, including the ability to link to other social networking apps that would do the posting for you. Some of these apps include Twitter, Foursquare, Miso, GetGlue, and Yahoo. Before long, you only needed to be logged in to your Facebook account and your browser would automatically let others know what you were reading or watching in another window. And you could recommend things to your friends with a single click without even having to copy, toggle back to Facebook, and paste. But the latest trend is one of particular interest. And it concerns me for many reasons.

Take a scroll through your newsfeed. Notice anything? How many people actually update their status anymore with a, um, status? How many people actually take the time to write their own words; what they are thinking or feeling or doing?

All you see are pictures that are shared from not even another person, many times, but a page. A page that thousands or millions like just for the purpose of seeing pictures they can share so they don't have to say things themselves. Doesn't anyone have a mind of their own anymore?

Look, I'm guilty of sharing pictures too. Some of them are cute, colorful, funny, or too long and deep to put into a status myself without someone saying "get a blog!" But anyone who knows me knows that I have no reservations about stating my own opinions in my own words too.

Maybe it's not that people don't have a mind of their own. Maybe that was a poor choice of words. Maybe it's that people have been brainwashed and are too afraid to have and express their own opinions. They are worried that if they're not politically correct they might offend someone. But they're forgetting one thing. The First Amendment is not limited to actual speech. We have the freedom to speak our minds in the written form as well. If we choose to use our own Facebook wall as a platform to do that, well then so be it. Unless you're yelling "fire!" in a crowded Facebook room, you're not breaking any laws.

Now, that doesn't mean that it's okay to defame or bully someone on Facebook or any other site. Those actions should be punished accordingly. However, if you run the risk of losing friends simply because your religious, political or life in general views differ from theirs, then they weren't your friend to begin with. I think that while we should be considerate of others, we should not be silenced by them. We should not be taking the easy way out when expressing ourselves.

Not only does this behavior add to the lack of personal interaction but I think that by sharing the photos of generic Facebook pages, people are hiding behind the blame of the controversy caused by those photos. They sort of take on an "I didn't say it" attitude. No, but you shared it. You agree with it. Stop avoiding the issue. Either you stand for something or you don't.

**SPOILER ALERT**

NOTE TO ANYONE WHO IS ABOUT TO READ THIS BLOG.

WHAT YOU ARE ABOUT TO READ CONTAINS A ***SPOILER ALERT***. 

A SPOILER ALERT FOR AN EPISODE OF WALKING DEAD THAT HAPPENED IN THE FIRST PART OF THIS SEASON BACK IN OCTOBER OF LAST YEAR.

I NEED TO COVER ALL OF MY BASES IN CASE SOMEONE DOES NOT HAVE A CABLE PROVIDER WHO HAS AMC OR IF THEY DO NOT HAVE A TV.

NOW THAT YOU HAVE HAD AMPLE WARNING, I CANNOT BE RESPONSIBLE IF I SPOIL SOMETHING FOR YOU RE: WALKING DEAD.

@texasbennet oh for love of Pete. Stay off twitter. lol
— Taryn Cooper (@TarynItUpNY) February 11, 2013

Not a day goes by that I see a gazillion or more people complaining on Twitter or Facebook or whatever social medium they choose about an ending or episode or some television event about seeing a "spoiler."

Spoilers are nothing new.  I remember I used to work with a guy on Sundays, and he was a huge football fan.  Typically, he worked till around 4 pm, and if his team was playing the one o'clock game, he'd have to "tape" it (back before there were such things like DVRs or TiVo).  He would resist visiting sites like ESPN or CBS to see scores.  If someone was following the game, and they started to talk about it, he'd start covering his ears with the "LALALALALALALALALA I'M NOT LISTENING TO YOUUUUUUU" song.

He did well for a few weeks.  As he came home from his shift, just moments before watching the game he had taped, a cab had driven in front of him...with a prompter on the top of the car with scores from ESPN fed into it.

Guess what game he saw the results of inadvertently?

So you see, no one is perfect, and no method is failsafe when it comes to spoilers or avoiding them.  They do eventually slip through the cracks.  Now with social media, our universes have expanded so greatly that even with all our might, we still manage to find out the results of things whether we like to or not.

Here's my advice: stay the hell off either one if you do not want a spoiler or the chance of something being spoiled.

Seriously, my conversation with @TexasBennet a few weeks ago wasn't intentional.  He told me that he doesn't invest in cable but rather a Netflix account.  He's a little behind on the seasons.  Meanwhile, this episode happened several MONTHS ago.  It wasn't like it happened last week, and I shouldn't have said anything for fear people have DVR backup.

Generally, I give a few days grace period before talking about a critical episode.  Like last week, I had finished watching an episode of Law & Order: SVU, and since it was brand new, and people who are following on the West Coast might not have seen it, this is what I wrote.

Holy shit SVU was fucked up!!!!
— Taryn Cooper (@TarynItUpNY) February 14, 2013

See?  Simple.  My philosophy is that if you are dying to talk about a pop culture event, like the Oscars or a television show, chances are that the social media are going to be abuzz.   If you are purposely staying away from the event, or for reasons beyond your control cannot watch it as it unfolds real time, wouldn't it make sense to stay away from Twitter or Facebook while they occur?  Isn't it human nature to want to share what's going on, or make a reference to it without getting all up in arms?

Don't be so sanctimonious about it, for crying out loud.

And while I feel bad that I may have divulged a little much about what I thought was common knowledge amongst Walking Dead aficionados, the reality is, the event itself had taken place three or four months before.  I'm surprised he was able to last that long without finding out what's going on.  I mean, heck, when (Another **SPOILER ALERT** for anyone who is Netflixing Dexter episodes that are over THREE YEARS OLD) Rita was killed on Dexter, I had a friend who doesn't have Showtime nor watches the show who knew about it a few days later.

Spoiler alerts happen.  But if you're going to be up in arms about it, blame yourself, not the people who share it.  If you want the element of surprise, don't think Twitter is going to be discrete about it just because you want it to be. 

My Own Personal Festivus

I was never a huge Seinfeld fan.  In fact, any time it's on, I kind of roll my eyes, because everyone in my family was a big fan.  Including my husband, whom I clearly never met until the show was long off the air.

I can't deny its impact on pop culture though.  There are several lines that I can identify when people say them.  I don't think most of them are that funny, but I do know them.

One idea I can get behind from that show was Festivus - it was coined by the character played by Jerry Stiller (Mr. Costanza), who claimed he created the holiday as a secular celebration for "the rest of us."  The date occurred two days before the actual date of when Christmas is celebrated.  Yet, a large part of the "celebration" has to air the grievances of others.

Now, I get the idea that airing your grievances of past wrongs during a year sounds funny on paper, but airing your grievances to your family and friends?  What's the point in that?  Wouldn't a more productive thing to do be to tell your family and friends and loved ones how much they've meant to you, or how much they've helped you in the year?

I suppose for television though, it wouldn't be very funny to be all sappy and touchy-feely. 

But then I started to think about myself.  And the whole idea that when you point out someone's wrongs, that two fingers point back at you. 

I doubt there has been another year that I have been more disappointed in myself than in 2012.  And as I celebrated my something-th birthday yesterday, I figure I can do my own personal Festivus - my airing of grievances...on myself.

1) I watch entirely too much television.  And I don't even like much of what's on TV!  My husband is a Walking Dead fan, and I mostly just watch it to make fun of the stupid people on there.  Desperate Housewives was the only show I watched regularly, and that jumped the shark a long time ago, and went off the air several months ago.  That said, when we moved over the summer, we invested in FiOS, which gave us some free premium channels.  How many movies have I watched in lieu of reading books and/or writing?

2) I don't write enough.  I don't read enough.  See above.  When I had more free time and started working from home, I really thought - Wow!  I'll have time to sit down and write.  I didn't make time.  And then I start to look at either as a chore.  I wonder if burn out might have something to do with it.

3)  I hate that I let the marathon training rule my life for a better part of a year.  A marathon, by the way, that never happened. 

4) I'm not grateful enough.  My friend Shelley often tells me to "Look at what you DO have."  Of course, I look at what I really do have...and that's a whole lotta nothin'.  I had to leave my great apartment that I lived in for 3 1/2 years to downsize because I lost my job in 2011.  I resent where I live.  You see though? I have a roof over my head.  I should be grateful for that, no?  Of course, I'm not.  I come home to a place I resent most days.  That needs to change.

5)  I'm not a good multitasker.  See #3 above, where I let a marathon training rule my life for the better part of a year.  NEVER.  AGAIN.

6)  I should learn that I can't trust myself to get up without an alarm.  Otherwise I'd sleep till 10 am every day.  Although I work for myself, that's acceptable, sometimes.  But it's not a good habit otherwise.

7)  I hate that I'm in denial about being a businesswoman.  Yes, I go out and make an attempt at creating lives with people.  But the fact that I'm accountable to myself...I'm not really good at that yet.

8) I hate that I'm older, and I have nothing to show for it.  This needs to change, by being more grateful for what I do have. 

I realized that a lot of what I have in life and what I want in life is attainable just by being more grateful.  I try to be, but sometimes it's tough when a few things don't go my way.

I think at the end of the day, Frank Costanza might have had something when he came up with Festivus for the rest of us.  Instead of overcommercializing a season that just so happens to coincide with a time of the year things will start flying off the shelves, but airing with grievances to others isn't a nice thing to do.  I feel like what I've learned in business this year is that the only thing that can happen at the end of the day is accountability to yourself.  That's what airing of grievances with yourself is about right?  Being accountable, keeping yourself in check?

I hope so.  Otherwise, I just wasted a lot of time. 

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?