I have friends who would be lost without Spell Check. Their documents and emails would be barely readable if not for that omnipresent sentinel of the vernacular. First drafts are often festooned with so many red underlines that it would be faster to count how many words were NOT spelled incorrectly.

Am I suggesting that my friends are illiterate, or at least ignorant of the finer points of grammar and good writing? Not at all. The people to whom I refer are in fact quite literate and intelligent, and are quite skilled at crafting the written word. The problem, dear friends, is Spell Check.

Now, before I go on, let me clarify something. This is not a Luddite tirade about the evils of technology and how we'd all be better off scratching messages on animal skins instead of using email and other such 'tools of the devil'. I am a strong proponent of technology and of the Internet. I believe that the Internet is the most inclusive, and collaborative tool ever invented by man. It is however, only a tool. Like any good tool, it must have fuel to work. Whether that fuel comes from human muscle, gas, or electricity, the quality of the work produced by the tool is only as good as the quality of the fuel used to power it.

In its (no doubt laudable) attempt to help us improve our written communications, Spell Check and its brethren - Grammar Check and the much maligned Autocorrect - have served to dilute our ability to craft the language in a compelling way.

The problem with relying on Spell Check for our writing is just that - the fact that we are relying on it. We are handing our editing - and on some level our creativity - to a piece of software that uses cold logic and an arbitrary list of 'accepted' words to make our ideas clear. This is particularly true of Autocorrect, a feature common to any smartphone user, but one that is also starting to appear in desktop word-processing software. The Internet is replete with complaints about Autocorrect and its less-than-ideal suggestions, but my concern goes deeper than that.

There is an ineffable quality to the written word that is lost when we rely on software to choose our words for us.

As our world becomes more and more instantaneous, we spend less and less time truly considering our words and their impact. So-called conveniences like Autocorrect and Spell Check feed perfectly into the need for speed, to get those ideas out before anyone else. In my 40+ years of life I have noted a definite deterioration in the writing ability of students. In the excellent book 'Academically Adrift: Limited Learning on College Campuses', authors Richard Arum and Josipa Roksa analyzed more than 2,300 undergraduates at twenty-four institutions, and found that 45 percent of those students demonstrated no significant improvement in a range of skills—including critical thinking, complex reasoning, and writing—during their first two years of college.

Obviously this is a complex issue and there are many factors that contribute to it, but I would submit that our increasing reliance on 'convenience' technologies such as Spell Check and Autocorrect are degrading our ability to communicate. When you rely on your own editing and proofreading, you pick up on subtle nuances in tone that no software program would ever detect. Self-editing forces you to slow down and actually read what you have written, rather than simply skimming it to ensure there are no obvious errors. This can only improve written communication skills.

Comedian George Carlin once said (quite correctly as it happens) that the quality of our thoughts and ideas can only be as good as the quality of our language. While Spell Check, et al, will ensure things are technically correct, it ends up being homogenous and sterilized. There is an ineffable quality to the written word that is lost when we rely on software to choose our words for us. Writing is very personal and individualistic, so much so that we can often identify a writer simply by their choice of words. Put simply, language is a living thing. It can be subtle, nuanced and delicate. It can be blunt, heavy, and aggressive. It is, truly, a reflection of the complex creatures who use it.

At the risk of sounding pretentious, writing is a craft. A professional writer will often spend hours pouring over a single paragraph, ensuring that each word conveys the tone and carries the story they wish to tell most effectively. It is, quite simply, an art. An email or a business report is no less important and worthy of our literary attention than a work of finely crafted fiction.

Spell Check and Autocorrect have their uses, but beware of relying on them. The suggestions they make are logical, but that doesn't necessarily make them right.

I recently attended the 2013 Go Beyond Pixels Design/Development Conference, organized by Levin Mejia (@fourandthree) in St. John's, NL and it was, in a word, brilliant. I'm not a web developer by any means, but I do like to dabble in design, and I'm curious enough to want to know more about the process of web development. (I think it involves eye of newt and the sacrificing of a goat, though I can't be 100% sure). 

Full Disclosure: The Go Beyond Pixels Conference was sponsored in part by JAC, a firm for which I work as Content Manager.

With excellent talks from such industry leading speakers as Jeffrey Zeldman (@zeldman), Jonathon Snook (@snookca) and Jonathon Stark (@johnathonstark), the ideas came fast and furious, and I found myself inspired to learn more, and even (heaven help us) try some of the ideas they discussed. Of particular note was the heroic effort made by Mark Otto (@mdo), who was almost forced to use interpretive dance for his talk due to severe allergies taking his voice.

With the exception of a remarkable live coding demonstration by Lea Verou (@leaverou) on some truly unique capabilities of CSS, every talk that day was theoretical, not practically based. And there, I think, lies an important distinction. 

There is a school of thought which says that the only thing that matters is the practical, the 'useful'. Many who follow this line of thinking find 'theory' to be a waste of time, preferring instead to move straight to real use cases. They tend to be impatient with and even dismissive of people who simply 'talk' about new ways of doing things, often derisively referring to 'professional speakers' who no longer actually work in their respective fields. It is an alluring mode of thinking. Practical work provides measurable, quantifiable results - there is something to show for all the work at the end.

"In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, they are not." - Albert Einstein

On the other hand, theoretical ideas are less solid, less measurable. It involves talk, and thought, a lot of thought. The idea behind the theoretical (in this admittedly limited scenario) is that ideas can be presented in new and unusual ways, sparking debate and conversation. From this, new ideas are created. In theory, (pun not intended) it creates a kind of 'breeding ground' where thoughts and ideas combine to form new thoughts and ideas, greater than the sum of their parts.

I would submit that while the practical is exceptionally important, it is built almost entirely on the 'blueprints' of the theoretical idea. Let's use the web development example: Going to a conference and listening to a speaker presenting a new way of thinking about, say, responsive design, can inspire a developer to go home and apply this new methodology in a practical way on a real website. From that point, new distinctions can be made about the feasibility of the idea. 

The dichotomy we've created between the practical and the theoretical is entirely artificial, and ultimately, it can stifle our thinking. Without practical applications, theoretical ideas are simply that - ideas that never see the light of day. However pure practical thinking, devoid of theoretical ideas, can often end up in a 'dead-end'. When we stop thinking ahead, when we (to paraphrase the words of author Arthur C. Clarke, "…discover the limits of the possible by pushing past them to the impossible"), crystallization and stagnation sets in, and no one wants that.

Probably the biggest distinction between theory and practice and that realistically, there isn't one. They are interdependent, relying on each other to justify each other's existence. Conferences such as Go Beyond Pixels provide the ideas, and it is up to the people in the audience to adapt those ideas in a practical way. From this symbiotic relationship, innovation is born.

At the end of the day, innovation is why we're all in this business. Right?

Let me start today by asking you a question. Could you do business with someone anonymously? If you walked into a store, and all the customer service people were hidden behind opaque screens, would you shop there much? Or at all? Putting aside the obvious weirdness of such a scenario, it's reasonably safe to assume that you'd be mildly uncomfortable doing business with someone if you couldn't see their face.

The funny part is, we do this every day. Over the phone, through email, and online, we consistently do business with organizations and individuals who are essentially faceless.

Human beings are primarily social creatures, and our interactions are greatly improved when we know something about the people we are dealing with. This is due mainly to the fact that we gravitate toward people who are like us, who share our beliefs, our hopes, our likes and dislikes. We complain loudly about the dearth of customer service, and yet the anonymous people we do business with (particularly over the phone), would barely pass the Turing test.

The existence of the online business model creates a unique situation. Organizations have the ability to give a glimpse into their culture -- in other words, their beliefs, likes and dislikes. This is done though the long suffering, often ignored, 'About Us' page. 

When companies plan a website, the About Us page is invariably tacked on and then forgotten about. A small blurb is usually written about the company's 'vision' (has anyone ever read one of these things?), and occasionally there will be some descriptions of the Principals. The interesting part is, these bios are often dry, full of self congratulatory 'dig me' facts, lacking any sort of insight into the people themselves, and (worst of all) written about people the customer will probably NEVER interact with.

The About Us page of a website is the perfect opportunity to start the interaction process with potential and existing customers before a sale is ever made. The opportunity exists to create a real, human connection with people, no matter the company.

How do you do that? I'm so glad you asked!

Keep it personal.

There's nothing wrong with listing out your qualifications and education in a bio. It is important to show that your people are knowledgeable and professional. But part of the bio should contain some non-academic or professional information. It could be as simple as a 'Did you know?' fact: 

"Did you know that in addition to being able to juggle the needs of three executives and an entire office, Mary is also an ballroom dancing instructor? No wonder she handles everything with such grace!" 

No one reads the President's Message.

More often than not, large businesses will post a comprehensive bio on the upper management of the company. Sometimes they will include a 'President's Message'. These pieces of copy are carefully crafted in intricate detail. They have also never been read by anyone save the person doing the proofreading. When I look at the About Us page for a business, I want to know something about the people I will be doing business with. Will they be pleasant to work with? Will they understand (or at least try to understand) my needs? Since the likelihood that I will be dealing with the President is very slim (for a medium to large organization at least), a carefully crafted, marketing-fluff infused, keyword smorgasbord from the President is probably not what I'm looking for.

Change is good.

I have been using the term 'About Us' because it is the most common name for this page, but it is not the only one. In fact, in keeping with a recent (and I would argue beneficial) movement to remove bland (and frankly misleading) jargon from websites, more and more designers are opting for titles such as 'Who We Are', etc. Who We Are is a particular favourite of mine as it says very clearly that this page talks about the company as a collection of 'people', not as a single faceless 'entity'.

A website allows you to talk about your business and how it can benefit your customers and clients, while the About Us page allows you to focus on that most precious of resources, your people. 

Because at the end of the day, customers want to do business with human beings, not a bunch of CVs.

After taking a little break last weekend I have returned with some new thoughts and ramblings. After a particularly challenging week at work I was left pondering the nature of the work ethic. For a long time I have noticed a distinct and continuous downgrade in the frequency - and more importantly the quality - of work coming out of many businesses.

One only has to walk into any 'big-box' retail store to see this in action. The (inappropriately named it would seem) Customer Service Representatives often lack knowledge of (or interest in) the products they are selling, and many are unhelpful to the point of being a hinderance. Occasionally you will find one who at least has a modicum of life, but it quickly becomes obvious that this person is eyeing you in the same way a vulture eyes a wounded animal. I have personally encountered Customer Service Representives or 'Associates' (changing the name doesn't make them any more effective) who I'm reasonably sure would be willing to claim that this particular model of computer/phone/car/etc. would cure cancer if it looked as if I might buy. All of this of course is based on the assumption that you can FIND one. They do tend to scatter like gazelle spotting a cheetah.

Now I realize the customer service example is an obvious one, but I would argue that the problem is not limited to the retail business space. More and more I am seeing businesses of all types falling down on the job (as it were) when it comes to service and the quality of work.

Why is this? Why would someone go to work and not want to give 100% to their job? What happened to the work ethic?

There are two explanations that seem to make sense:

#1 THE FUTURE IS SCARY

In 1904 German sociologist Max Weber published a now famous collection of essays called The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, in which he observed (I am simplifying things here) that there was a distinct connection between religion and economics. He concluded that devout religious belief often led to the rejection of worldly affairs, including the attainment of obscene amounts of wealth and rampant materialism. From this seminal work, many other theories have been developed, most notably the idea that the financial turmoil that has descended upon much of the Capitalist West is due to a lack of 'moral underpinnings', such as the steady, slow and ethical building of wealth. Simply put, we have become far too impatient, and have abandoned any concept of slow, steady growth, and as such our business models, popular culture and economy reflect this. 

Ok, I hear you say, but what does all that have to do with declining work ethic?

The 21st century has seen the rise of the disposable, on-demand culture. We want everything, and we want it now. The future is no longer a distant goal we work toward, but the next moment of gratification. It is as if we cannot see farther than a day or week into the future, and because of that, we work only to make it to the next day.

I think this is partly due to the rate of change we are now experiencing. I'm 41 years old, and looking back at my childhood, I am constantly amazed by what has been achieved in that time. I have seen the birth and evolution of the personal computer, now almost unrecognizable from the loud archaic behemoths of my youth. If I try to project ahead 40 years, I find myself unable to imagine what the future will look like. I think people are now having the same problem, and it is affecting the way they work.

In the past, we worked toward a future that was at least comprehensible. The rate of change then was impressive, but did not move at the blinding speed it does now. Advances that may have taken years or even decades when I was a child now happen in months. It is very difficult to plan for something of which you cannot even conceive. 

The 21st century has seen the rise of the disposable, on-demand culture.

#2 PEOPLE ARE JUST LAZIER

This is obviously a much simpler idea, one that does not require the ruminations of an early 20th century sociologist and political thinker. The idea states that people have simply become lazy, that the 21st century's technological advances have lead to a society with a deep seeded feeling of entitlement. It's easy to see why one would think this. A cursory glance at the entertainment or sports news will provide ample evidence of multimillionaire celebrities having very public (and often quite messy) tantrums about one thing or another. One is left to wonder about the detrimental effect on the youth who look up to these figures as role models.

So what is the answer? I think the truth, as usual, falls somewhere between these two extremes. I think there is a definite feeling of entitlement among many (not just the young), but there is also something to be said for not being able to plan for a future you cannot even imagine. There is however, some good news.

The entrpreneurial, 'startup' culture that has been steadily growing over the past few years, primarily out of the technology industry, is giving many people hope that this downward trend could be reversed. I once heard a friend say that he had never heard of a lazy entrepreneur, for the simple reason that his/her enterprise would fail before anyone even noticed it. This makes a lot of sense, and I continue to hold out hope, particularly in light of the many initiatives being started to encourage entrepreneurship, such as Startup Canada. 

What I find particularly intriguing about all this is the rise of social media. Social media sites like Twitter and Facebook are providing businesses with an unprecedented opportunity to give greater customer service than ever before. Conversely, social media is giving the customer more power then they have ever had before to make their desires (and their complaints) known.

What will happen when the declining state of the work ethic and customer service meets the incredible connective power of social media? It is difficult to say as many businesses are still trying to understand this new paradigm (sometimes successfully,  sometimes not so much).

I can only speak from my own limited experience, but I do see a greater amount of apathy toward work. I meet people all the time who feel that they should only do what is expected of them - and no more. I find this a sad state of affairs and a stressful one, as it often means others have to pick up the slack. I can only trust in the fact that there is a natural state of attrition for these types of people. Laziness is noticed, but it is never rewarded.

Have you experienced a downgrade in the work ethic, or in customer service? Do you have a positive or negative view of the future of work? Let's discuss it in the comments.

Whenever there is a major newsworthy event, we invariably hear the lamentations concerning journalistic integrity. News agencies, forever locked into the desperate need to be the first with the report, often find themselves reporting news that turns out to be either partially or entirely incorrect. The gaffes made by media giants such as CNN have become almost legendary.

The recent events in Boston are, of course, no exception to this. From stories of four explosive devices (there were, as far as is known, only two) to conflicting reports that a suspect had been arrested/not arrested/non-existent, the average person's disillusionment with modern media has reached the breaking point. At the moment, many Americans are more inclined to trust Comedian Jon Stewart's satirical news program 'The Daily Show' than they are the real news programs.

Nearly every site hosting some form of news, even those covering very specific topics like technology, had stories, and more to my point, images of the bombing and its aftermath. What struck me was the varying degree of something I like to call 'editorial integrity'. When content is created for a website, it is often 'massaged' by an Editor/Content Manager prior to posting. This massaging could involve selecting which images to use to strengthen the piece, selecting key passages to use as block quotes, and in some cases, making adjustments for length. 

What people do not realize is that this process can often change the overall effect of the content, whether this is desired or not. For example, the choice of header image can set the tone of a piece before a single word is read. A poorly chosen block quote can change the emphasis of an article drastically.

This is even more pronounced on the internet, where most users tend to skim pages before they read them. This means that block quotes and images (the things a reader is most likely to notice when skimming a piece) gain much greater prominence.

There is a lot of pressure to generate more click-throughs, more shares, more likes, and often this can cause sites to produce content that is simply there to shock, to titillate. It may be successful in the short term, but it informs no one.

During the events in Boston, many sites latched on to the incredible images that had been captured of the wounded and the rescue attempts. These images were presented often without any warning of their graphic nature. In fact one site used the overhead image of a blood soaked sidewalk as a header for a story. This is not only shocking, but entirely irresponsible. Putting aside the fact that younger viewers could easily have stumbled across these horrific images, the entire tone of the articles, many of which spoke of incredible heroism on the part of regular citizens, was lost in the apoplectic anger and fear that images like that tend to generate.

Those images were of use only to the investigators who needed every scrap of evidence they could get their hands on. No one else was helped by this. Friends and families of the victims did not need to see their loved one being wheeled toward an ambulance, covered in blood. I expect this kind of behaviour from CNN and their ilk, but I hoped for better from small, nimble websites and blogs, those who are not bound by the draconian broadcast models of the news conglomerates.

Some responsibility must also be laid at the feet of internet users themselves. Every time we view and share this kind of irresponsible content, we send a message: "This is good, make more of this." Conversely, If we stop frequenting these sites, stop sharing content that is more titillating than informative, we send a different kind of message. This is our internet. It is a reflection of us.

Editors, Bloggers and Content Managers have a responsibility to their readers to present content in the tone that the writer intended. There is a lot of pressure to generate more click-throughs, more shares, more likes, and often this can cause sites to produce content that is simply there to shock, to titillate. It may be successful in the short term, but it informs no one. 

Someone recently said that news outlets are compensated for getting people's attention, not for informing them. I think we (Editors, Bloggers, Content Managers, etc.) can do better than that. One of the greatest strengths of the internet is its ability to change the way entire industries work. It is obvious to nearly everyone that the traditional news models are no longer working. I think it is time we changed the rules. 

Obviously events such as those in Boston change lives, often in ways we cannot imagine. Less obvious is the fact that the way these events are reported and recorded through social media, blogs, etc. can also change lives. Let us make responsibility and integrity (journalistic, editorial and otherwise), the foundation stones on which we build this new digital medium.

Personal note: For some perspective from an actual journalist, I recommend the excellent BuzzMachine blog by Journalist/Professor/Blogger Jeff Jarvis.

This is not a news update about the tragedy at the Boston Marathon. There are a million and one websites, TV channels and radio programs inundating us with information. The fact is, very little is yet known about the attack, aside from the fact that it does appear to have been a deliberate attack. The best we can do allow the authorities to do their jobs; to sort through the evidence and try to determine who is responsible and the reasons for it.

As many around the world are, I am sitting here, shaken and horrified by what's happened. Though I was born and live in Canada, I have a personal connection to Boston. My fiancee was born and raised near Boston, and held a love for the city I had rarely ever experienced before. Sadly she passed away several years ago, but I have held the connection to Boston in her honour ever since, making it my 'adopted home'. All I have been able to think about is her, among the injured, the helpless, doing everything possible to help. The thought breaks my heart (missing her as I do always does), but there is a part that lifts my spirit as well.

The events of today made me realize just how proud she would have been of her city and its people. From the runners who diverted to Massachusetts General Hospital to give blood, to the Police and other emergency personnel who reacted with courage and compassion, to those civilians who ran toward the explosion to help others, and those who opened their homes and their hearts to people who needed a place to stay, all of this would have made her so proud, even as her heart broke from the horror of the scene.

Boston, you have been dealt a tragedy that almost defies words. But you have shown that even in the darkest moments, there are points of light. People who, with the smallest gesture, can counteract all the hatred and evil in the world. Stand tall Boston, you should be proud. I myself am proud to have a connection to you, however tenuous. And I know she would be proud of you tonight.

My heart, and any positive energy I can give goes out to all those affected by this horrible act of cowardice. I know that the people responsible will be found and brought to justice. At the end of the day, these words may accomplish nothing, but writing is how I cope.

Thank you.

If you wish to help using Twitter, use the hashtag #BostonHelp. It is allowing Bostonians to get the help they need. 

One billion. That, according to Facebook, is the active user base as of December 2012.* It's hard to even conceive of numbers that large. Add to that the fact that over 80% of users are outside the U.S. and Canada, and a business could be forgiven for thinking that this is the ultimate method of marketing to a world audience.

Both the company and the endless supply of online marketing 'gurus' love to dangle that number in people's faces. Imagine your business being visible to roughly 1/7th of the entire population of the planet! It's a no-brainer right?

Hold up there kid. It's a no-brainer all right, but maybe not in the way you think.

What these modern day Don Drapers fail to tell you is that, because of the specificities of your product or service, and the limitations of the structure of Facebook, you will likely never reach even a tiny fraction of those people.

Still, it does sound enticing doesn't it? Every little bit helps right? Any exposure is better than none right? Right?

Not necessarily.

Hear me out here. We've all heard the hoary old myth that 'you have to go where the people are'. That was very true when mass advertising ruled, but this is a very different era now. The old 'firehose' method of advertising is far too inefficient to be used as a viable marketing model. The watchword now is 'engagement'. You are no longer selling to customers, you are educating people. This level of connection is far more direct, far more personal.

Now you may be thinking: "But that's what Facebook is, isn't it? It's a social network, used to connect to people on a personal level. It's perfect! I can create a Facebook page, and get a bajillion likes!"

Ah, the Facebook 'like' button. Never was there a device that promised so much and delivered so little. The business community has an misguided (not to mention entirely unhealthy) obsession with this little button. The belief is that likes equate to engagement, and as a result, the number of likes on a specific Facebook page often become the goto metric for many businesses. This a flawed logic that, while not disastrous, can certainly waste resources, time and effort. There's a simple piece of wisdom to be learned here:

Clicking 'Like' on a Facebook page is the equivalent of your commercial airing on television when a customer happens to be in the room.

One of the ways businesses chase Facebook likes is by purchasing Facebook ads to promote their Facebook page. Note my words there. Businesses are paying money to Facebook to promote their Facebook page. So they aren't truly promoting their own business, but Facebook's business. Their branding just happens to be tagging along for the ride.

Now to be fair, it does give the business more exposure to more people. The problem is, in many cases only a small fraction of the people who like the page actually see posts that go on the page. How much is a small fraction? Say anywhere from 1% to 5%. I'll say that again as it seems important.

As few as 1% of people who like a Facebook page, actually see posts that go to that page.

Facebook has responded to this problem with a 'promote' button that attaches, lamprey-like, to each post. This offers a business the opportunity to pay Facebook even more money to have their posts appear fleetingly in the feeds of anywhere from 500 to 50,000 people. 

Let me repeat that that: Your business now has to pay Facebook more money to have your posts appear in the feeds of people for whom you have already paid Facebook for access to. And note I said that your posts would appear in the person's feed. I said nothing about anyone clicking on them or even seeing them.

The bottom line here is that Facebook is simply not a mature enough platform for business, particularly small business. Facebook is great for personal use. It excels at connecting friends and family, especially those who live great distances away. It allows connection and interaction. However, their confusing and somewhat dubious advertising model is simply flawed and a waste of resources.

It truly is time for businesses to stop chasing likes. There are far more mature platforms out there for social marketing. Facebook was originally created by college students nearly a decade ago. If it wishes to be taken seriously as a social marketing platform for business, then it will have to provide more value than it currently does.

A billion users is very impressive, but at the end of the day, it's just a number.

* Source: Facebook for Business

I recently saw quote attributed to the late Steve Jobs:

"You can't just ask customers what they want and give that to them. By the time you get it built, they'll want something new."

On the face of it, one may dismiss this as 'typical Apple arrogance', an endless attempt to dictate user's needs and desires, but I think there is a much deeper lesson here, and one that goes far beyond electronics manufacturing.

If you asked me five years ago what I wanted in a car, a computer, or a marketing strategy, I'd have said things like "I want a car that's fast and compact, a computer that can run the latest games," etc. Ask me now, and you'll get an entirely different set of answers. "I want a hybrid vehicle with great fuel economy and a small carbon footprint, a portable computer with a lengthy battery life," etc. For the sake of this discussion, let's call these wants.

Beneath these surface wants, there are deeper concerns. I look for value, quality and the feeling I've made an intelligent purchase. We'll call these desires.

Wants are generally transient (ironically they tend to also be physical), affected by circumstances and mood as much as anything else. As time passes, our tastes can change. We mature, create new wants, and tear down old ones.

Desires on the other hand are far more enduring. They underlay all our wants and take far longer to change. They represent our fundamental values, and as such are generally intangible and difficult to describe in a few words.

Advertising has long been a proponent of catering to the emotions of consumers. Marketers carefully craft their messaging to trigger the emotional center of the brain, attempting to link positive emotions to their products or services. It is tremendously effective, at least in the short term. Using these marketing techniques, manufacturers spend billions every year chasing our ever-evolving tastes and wants, always ready with the newest, shiniest object to dangle in our faces.

As a result of this, we shun companies who fail to 'innovate' and give us 'what we want'. We label them as not consumer focused, as if giving in to our every superficial want is somehow a noble thing.

The problem is, it's like an addiction. The more new and shiny objects we're given, the more companies have to produce in order to keep us happy. We need a bigger and bigger 'fix' each time. The focus is on new, and more, not necessarily better. We have phones now that can play movies, control televisions and lights, access the internet and, for some, replace the traditional computer. On the other hand, have you ever tried making a phone call with one? Enough said.

Please don't misunderstand, I am not calling for an end to innovation. I think the benefits of innovation far outweigh the challenges. My concern is that companies are too focused on simply making new things for new things' sake. They cater far too much to our transient, superficial wants.

What if they started catering to our desires instead? What if companies began creating products that spoke to our deeper values, our desire for quality and usability? Thanks to the information age, the average consumer is better informed now than at any other time in history, and I believe that we will begin to see a paradigm shift in the next decade. People will begin looking deeper into the products they buy and the companies they buy them from. They will start purchasing products that align with their desires rather than their wants.

How do you determine a consumer's desires? First and foremost, stop thinking of them as 'consumers', but as people. The word consumer has a homogeneous feel to it that is almost as degrading as it is inaccurate. People are incredibly complex, with a million and one reasons for the purchases they make. Understanding these complexities is something that won't be found in a book or on a website (even - or some might say especially - this one). It can only come from talking to people as people, not as Customer #3342-A. The best way to do this is through social media.

Social media provides a fantastic venue in which to determine the underlying feelings people have when making purchases. The key is to use social media as an engagement tool, not as a survey. Speak to them, get them talking about the things they love, and the things they hate, and soon you will start to see patterns forming. The problem with survey-style questioning is that the answers tend to be superficial - in other words, wants. When you engage someone on a personal level and start to learn more about them, you begin to understand their deeper motivations; their desires. It's not the car they're seeking, it's the feeling of freedom it gives, or sense of accomplishment in making such a large purchase, etc.

Many companies struggle to find an 'edge', that point of difference that will set them apart from their competition. In the future it won't be a matter of making better products, it will be a matter of asking better questions.

If you do that, you won't give consumers what they want. You'll give people what they desire.

The Value Trap: Too Much of a Good Thing

There's a problem with your content. I didn't want to bring it up, but... well, there's really no delicate way to say this... it's put on some weight. Oh I know it used to be lean and trim, but over time, through neglect and advancing age, your once svelte content has bloated like the proverbial balloon. And that's not the only problem. Links are broken, the news section talks about events that occurred sometime during the Reagan Administration, and images of staff that left the firm years ago linger on the team page like the ghosts of employees past. What happened here? How did your content go from a sleek sports car to a bloated people carrier with more cupholders than horsepower?

The answer is quite simple, though it seems counter intuitive at first glance. You've become a victim of the Value Trap.

Everyone loves value. We strive to get the most of it in every transaction, every interaction. The belief states that if we are getting more perceived value, we are successful. This belief also works in reverse. If we provide more perceived value to the customer / client / user, then we are doing the right thing. The problem arises when we allow 'perceived value' to override true value.  

Size Matters - Though Not The Way You Think It Does

There is a long standing misconception that bigger is somehow better. (No I'm not talking about THAT, stay with me here people!) The perception, particularly with content for the web, is that the more content you have, the more value you are providing to your customers. This theory holds that a website should be overflowing with content, there to answer any question a customer may have. In reality, the exact opposite tends to be true. The more content you have, the harder it is to manage, and the more a customer has to wade through to find what they want.

One of the greatest errors made by an organization is to simply dump more and more content into a website in an endless attempt to add 'value'. Often when designing a new site, a deadly combination of excitement and lack of a content strategy (more on that in a moment) can lead to a situation where the site is so bloated with 'features' it becomes unmanageable and unusable.

There is a simple truth to creating content that I think is often overlooked:  

Users don't need more content, they need relevant content.

  All of this is lovely, I hear you say, but what am I supposed to do about it? What if my site is already the victim of the Value Trap? Can anything be done to lose the extra weight? Do I need to order a plus-size URL? Steady on dear reader, all shall become clear.  

Enter Content Strategy

Dictionary.com defines the word 'strategy' as: "a plan, method, or series of maneuvers or stratagems for obtaining a specific goal or result." In their excellent book 'Content Strategy for the Web Second Edition', authors Kristina Halvorson (@halvorson) and Melissa Rach (@melissarach) pointed out that, in order to be useful, content must achieve one or both of the following:

1. It must meet a business objective.
2. It must fulfill the user's needs.

Applying content strategy to your existing content is a lot like hiring a personal trainer. They do not do the work of getting you in shape, but they provide the guidance and knowledge to help you achieve your goals. A comprehensive content strategy can do the same for your content, ensuring that it remains in line with your objectives, and the needs of your users.

I could go on for pages and pages about content strategy, but you would be far better served by picking up a copy of 'Content Strategy for the Web' at your favourite bookstore.

Take a look at the content you currently have. Is it truly necessary? Does it meet your business objectives? Does it fulfill the needs of your users? Do you even know what those needs are? Answering these questions are the first steps to helping your content shed those extra pounds and ensuring you never again become a victim of the Value Trap.

Have you had any experience with the Value Trap? Are you curious about content strategy? Let me know in the comments.

An Open Letter to Women in the Technology Industry

Editorial Note: It has come to my attention that in my haste to make my point in this post, I neglected to offer up the back story that led to it. My apologies for the omission, I have included it here. - Ken On February 4, 2013, a Web and UI Designer by the name of Sarah Parmenter (@sazzy) wrote a powerful and moving blog post that talked about abuse she had suffered when doing a talk at a technology conference. In the piece, she explained how this type of behaviour was far more pervasive than most people realized. As a result of this post, several other members of the technology industry also began speaking up, including Relly Annett-Baker (@RellyAB) and Dr. Leslie Jensen-Inman (@jenseninman). Their words opened many eyes to this issue (mine as well I'm shamed to admit) and I applaud them for their honesty and courage (especially in light of the storm of trolls they had to endure when these blog posts went up.) I would strongly encourage you to read their blogs, and to follow them on Twitter, not only for their thoughts on this issue, but also because these people (and countless others) are tremendous contributors to the industry as a whole.

-----

Dear Women in the Technology Industry,

I feel I owe each of you an apology. First and foremost, as a male who works in the technology industry (however obliquely), I wish to say with absolute sincerity: I am so very sorry.

I'm sorry that we have created an industry where a person's gender garners ridicule and abuse at events meant to spread ideas and knowledge across the community.

I'm sorry that the discussions that DO happen across social media focus more on a person's outcome in the 'genetic lottery' than on the truly innovative and intriguing ideas they may have.

I'm sorry that we are a dozen years into the 21st century and are still dealing with issues that should have been resolved in the 19th century.

I'm sorry that when you do speak up about abuse or the shameful treatment you have received in the past, an army of trolls that would have made Tolkien blush descend upon you like a pack of very, very insecure wolves.

Most of all, I'm sorry that while many of you have been talking about this issue for years, and we've all heard, so damn few have been listening.

You may wonder if I have ever been the perpetrator of any of these shameful activities. I can honestly say that no, I have never done so. However, I still take responsibility for it. I work in this industry, and I've helped (in whatever small way) to make it what it is. For that reason (among others) I offer this sincere (if ultimately inadequate) apology.

In my opinion, every male in this industry carries a certain degree of responsibility for this thing we have created. Because it is we who have far too often turned a blind eye to mistreatment, often in the mistaken belief that it doesn't affect us, and we should not get involved. It is precisely this sort of 'stick our heads in the sand and hope it goes away' attitude that allow this type of unspeakable behaviour to continue. There are times when I am ashamed of my industry and indeed my entire gender. This is one of those times.

I wish I could back up this apology with the words "This will NOT happen again", but of course, I cannot. That is something that can only happen when the entire community works together to show those few who lack the maturity to interact with their peers that this behaviour is absolutely unacceptable.

I believe that our industry should be essentially 'gender agnostic'. The strength of technology is that it has the ability to bring ALL people together to share their ideas and visions of the future. The type of behaviour I've described is not only shameful, but ultimately counter-intuitive and destructive.

In the meantime, I will do what little I can, whether it be educating colleagues on the issue, reporting abuse when I see it, or actively stopping it when possible.

So I say to women working in the technology industry, or for that matter, ANY industry: Continue to speak up, and speak out. There are many of us who are finally listening. And I am truly, deeply, sorry.

------

I know I don't have many readers on this blog, but I ask those few I do have, indeed I implore you, to share this post far and wide. Take my name off it if you have to, but please, share it. Maltreatment of women in every corner of society has to stop. If these few words can have some small effect, then it will be worth it.

Thank you.

Monolithic Pronouncement or Meaningful Discourse? The Choice is Yours.

It's not often that I wander out of the marketing/business/technology sphere on this bog, but I've had something on my mind and I thought I'd take a moment to address it today. Today/tonight we celebrate Earth Hour, where we are encouraged to shut off power for one hour in a symbolic (and to some extent literal) effort to affect climate change. This is a fine gesture, and of course I will join with many others in observing this.

Watching some of the conversations on social media got me thinking about how people approach events such as this. The choice to support or not support a particular cause is entirely a personal and private one. However, there are some who go out of their way to announce to the world that they are not supporting a specific cause.

I have no issue with their choice per se. My feelings one way or the other are irrelevant. But I'm left to wonder; what are they trying to prove by publicly announcing their lack of support? No one asked, and yet they act as if we all need to know this particular nugget of information.

One could argue that a blog (much like this one) is a similar example of an unsolicited opinion, and I would have to say that, superficially, it seems like a fair comparison. However I would argue that a blog is meant to initiate discussion on a subject whereas coming out and announcing 'I am not supporting Earth Hour' (as an example) is not necessarily meant to trigger discussion.

From where I sit (and here comes my unsolicited opinion), statements like that come across as arrogant and immature, as if someone is saying: "I'm not supporting this, now deal with it." It also has the added effect of backhandedly insulting people who ARE supporting it, insinuating that they are mistaken (or worse) for doing so.

An alternative method would suggest is using blog (again such as this one) and saying something along the lines of: "Hey, I've decided that I'm not supporting such-and-such event, here are my reasons, what do you folks think?" This creates discussion, and it gives the statement a purpose that doesn't sound like an attention grab, or a childish attempt to prove something.

In this social age, what we say and how we say it have become particularly important to how we are perceived by our friends, our employers, etc. The opportunities for misunderstandings are almost incalculable, due to the fact that the audience contains nearly every worldview imaginable. (Excluding possibly those who do not like technology?)

As I stated, supporting or not supporting a particular cause is a personal decision. However if you're going to announce it to the world, don't be surprised if it garners a reaction, be it positive or negative. If you do, turn it into a discussion, let's talk about it. That's where ideas start.

Viral Advertising: When the Ad Overshadows the Product

I have a confession to make today. I must bare my soul and throw myself on the tender mercies of the Marketing gods. May they have mercy. I don't buy into the concept of viral marketing campaigns. I find them gimmicky, trite, and often far too reliant on low-brow, frat boy humour. More important than all that however, is the fact that more often than not, viral marketing campaigns overshadow the product or brand being featured.

Now don't misunderstand me, I have watched and enjoyed viral campaigns in the past. One notable example is the 'I Believe in Harvey Dent' and 'Harvey Dent for Gotham District Attorney' video ads that were scattered throughout the net in promotion of Christopher Nolan's 2008 film 'The Dark Knight'. Clever use of characters from the film fed the media buzz, while also adding slightly more depth to certain plot points.

Another obvious example is the Old Spice 'The Man Your Man Could Smell Like' campaign, which I've written about recently. It should be noted that while the campaign worked in the beginning, I would argue that much of the viral momentum it gained later was far more about Isaiah Mustafa's hilarious portrayal of 'Old Spice Man' than it was about the product itself.

These campaigns were well made, entertaining, and seemed (at least superficially) to achieve their purpose. The problem is, I believe these are anomalies and FAR from the norm.

Whenever I bring this up in discussion, I am usually reminded by someone that XYZ company did a viral campaign and it got a bajillion views on the various social media networks. They say it as if 'views' or 'clicks' are the most important metric here.

It is true that views, shares and clicks are important measurements when running any sort of marketing campaign in the online space. However I believe the most important metric for any brand is whether or not the consumer, having clicked, viewed or shared the ad actually responds to a call to action and makes a purchase at any point. In other words, do these viral campaigns actually translate into conversions? I'm not sure that they do.

I have often heard people say that the goal of viral marketing is 'brand awareness', on the logic that in the future, when the consumer is ready to purchase, they will somehow remember the brand because of the funny cat video the person shared six months prior. It's an interesting argument, and to be fair brand awareness is a very powerful tool for marketers, but I think it's pretty shaky ground on which to build a marketing platform.

What often ends up happening with these viral videos is that people remember the video, ad, etc., but not the brand or product to which it is referring. This is particularly prevalent in ads that have little or nothing to do with the product. (These ads are source of particular vexation for me, but they will have to wait for their own blog post.)

Let me leave you with a final (though admittedly unscientific) example. Some time ago I was speaking to a group of friends when the subject of advertising came up. I asked the group if they remembered an ad in which a large red button was placed in a town square somewhere in Europe with a sign that said 'Push to Add Drama'*. When, eventually, some brave soul did so, a series of incredible events, from car chases to gun fights suddenly exploded around him, leaving the person shocked and amazed. My friends remembered this readily, each one excitedly giving detailed accounts of the various elements of the ad. Several of them had seen the ad multiple times, and all had shared it with at least five friends.

So these people had been throughly entertained (even to the point of multiple viewings), and had shared the video with their friends, who had presumably done the same. By the normal metrics used for viral videos, this was a definite win. Intrigued, I then asked what brand the ad represented. After a short period of thought, the group responded with utter silence.

Therein lies the problem with viral marketing. While in certain circumstances it can work (film seems to be particularly well suited for this), all too often the campaign itself is the only thing people remember.

Most, if not all businesses have a fervent wish to be talked about by consumers. This often leads to increased sales, which leads to greater profit margins, which allow companies to make better products and services. Everybody wins. However with viral marketing, a business runs the risk that the only thing consumers will be talking about is the ad itself, not the product or service it represents.

If that happens, everybody loses.

*For those who are curious, the 'Push to Add Drama' video referred to here was from television network TNT Belgium.

On March 14th, 2013 (Pi day for those wondering) Samsung, the world's largest smartphone maker, unveiled its new Galaxy S4 device at a massive live event at Radio City Music Hall in New York. Samsung was hoping to use this new Android-powered device to steal market share from its long time rival, Apple. Now you may think that this is about to turn into a long winded discussion about the phone and its specs and what it means for the smartphone industry, but no dear reader! The phone is in fact quite irrelevant (in more ways than one). My concern here is with the event itself, and how it spiralled from a bizarre, clumsy, comedy of errors into a nightmare of 50's stereotypes and off-message (not to mention off-colour) marketing gaffes.

When a company unveils a new flagship product, they tend to do so with understandable pride and fanfare, hoping to ignite the excitement of consumers in an increasingly crowded marketplace. In its fervour to show you why their particular type of widget is more wonderful than any other, sometimes there are statements made that, in retrospect, could be considered 'laying it on a little thick'. In the case of the Samsung Galaxy S4 event, it wasn't laid on thick. It was paved.

Samsung's approximately fifty minute event fell flat from the beginning. The Emcee for the show, Broadway actor Will Chase, started the evening's 'festivities' with some repartee with Jeremy, the young boy from the 'Unpacked' teaser commercial. Mercifully, this attempt at humour was relatively short. He then fell into the requisite welcoming messages, regaling us on the new Samsung Galaxy S4 and how it would allow us to (and I'm quoting here) "…make all of our lives, and all of our life tasks that much easier…" and "…experience life without boundaries, and without limitations."

We ARE talking about a phone here right?

Possibly to give Chase a break (or possibly to save us from the stilted attempt at humour), the stage was then taken by JK Shin, the President and Head of Samsung's IT and Mobile Communication Division. Despite having a somewhat thick accent that occasionally caused me some difficulty in immediately understanding him, Mr. Shin spoke with a believable amount of passion about Samsung's commitment to innovation. That is, until he suggested that Samsung was using innovation to live "…a richer, simpler, and more full life." Mr Shin then went on to call the Galaxy S4 a 'Life Companion'. A Life Companion.

We are still talking about a phone right?

Immediately following Mr. Shin's presentation was Will Chase and Ryan Bidan, Director of Product Marketing. Chase described features of the phone and Bidan provided elaboration on those features, the all important specs that the gathered members of the technology press had been waiting for. The interplay between them was awkward and forced, but the important information was delivered by Mr. Bidan with suitable enthusiasm. One of the odder moments however came when he described the phone as being 'mind-blowingly' thin. Really? Mind-blowingly? If it was paper thin and threatened to fold over when I picked it up - THAT would be mind-blowing. This? Not so much.

(By the way, for those who may be wondering, the Galaxy S4 is in fact 7.9mm thick, while the iPhone 5 is actually 7.6mm thick. I'm not sure about you, but my mind remains unblown.)

By this point, you're thinking, "Ok so it's a typical tech event where the company promises the sky and prattles on endlessly about how wonderful the product is and how every time one is bought, a kitten gets a new home, yada, yada." But there you would be wrong dear reader! This event turned out to be quite unusual indeed.

Seeing as they were in Radio City Music Hall, it only made sense to bring out some Broadway performers to demonstrate the various features of the S4. And that is where, as my British friends would say, Samsung lost the plot.

On top of the failed jokes, stiff deliveries and melodramatic messaging this already bizarre event suddenly took a turn for the tone deaf when the performers portrayed characters taken from The Lazy Producer's Big Book of Gender Stereotypes. The young men were pubescent twits, and the females were straight from Central Casting. Circa 1955. There was even an elderly gentleman referred to by Chase as "the old man".

I could go on with an endless tirade about the rampant stereotyping and sexism inherent in this bizarre event, but I think Molly Wood, Executive Editor at CNET says it with far more eloquence than I ever could.

As for the phone itself? It could bring the dead back to life but I'm not sure it would matter. The utter lack of social mores and the cultural and gender stereotyping of this event makes me want to buy something, ANYTHING, as long as its not made by Samsung.

There are those who will say I and others are overreacting, or that this was just a gaffe, or (my personal favourite) "it was all in fun!" as if setting back gender equality (not to mention good taste) by fifty years is the height of hilarity. It's an opinion I guess, but I would point out to those people that when they purchase those products, when they excuse tone-deafness like this, it is, in a very sense, tacit approval of the behaviour in question.

At one point, Mr. Shin said that Samsung designed the Galaxy S4 based their "observation of real life". I'm not sure what "real life" they're observing, but if this event is any indication, I am absolutely sure it looks nothing like mine. This kind of vapid, tone-deaf, pseudo-mysogynistic garbage is not acceptable from anyone, much less a company with Samsung's size and (one would assume) maturity.

Sorry Samsung. Sexism is not a feature.

In February 2010 Old Spice aired a television commercial that would quickly gain a life of its own far beyond the initial campaign's scope. Entitled 'Smell like a Man, Man' or 'The Man Your Man Could Smell Like', the campaign was created by the ad agency of Weiden+Kennedy. Despite a mixed reception from journalists at the time, the spots became immensely popular through video sharing sites like YouTube, and it quickly achieved the status of a 'viral' video. The first Old Spice commercial: The Man Your Man Could Smell Like

The basic premise of the ads featured the eponymous "Man Your Man Could Smell Like" (played by actor Isaiah Mustafa) engaging in rapid fire, almost smug monologues, maintaining constant eye contact and a nonchalant manner while all types of surreal activities occur around him. The ads were directed primarily at female viewers, on the logic that women tended to make most of the household purchasing decisions concerning hygiene products.

While I may disagree with that faintly sexist stereotype, I have to admit that the campaign itself was a work of genius.

And therein lies the problem.

Any time a product, service, ad campaign, band, etc. becomes successful, imitators are almost inevitable. Whether they are an honest homage or an attempt to cash in on another's success, they start appearing almost immediately.

It was inevitable then that the Old Spice commercials would garner their share of imitators. In the case of one such imitator, Dairy Queen, we can learn a valuable lesson about the difference between copying and adapting.

The Dairy Queen commercial: Dolphin Guitar

The Dairy Queen commercial features a handsome young man moving through a surreal landscape with confidence and nonchalance while the dialogue becomes more and more bizarre. This could be dismissed as Dairy Queen's clumsy attempt to recreate the magic that vaulted the Old Spice commercials to internet fame. However there is a bigger lesson here.

Marketing and advertising have always been about finding the right story to tell to the target audience and connecting on an emotional level. It is less about the product itself and more about how the product makes people feel. The genius of the Old Spice campaign was the way it connected with consumers in an entertaining way. Mustafa was funny and engaging, and the surreal, 'continuous shot' style of the commercial fascinated and entertained viewers. Once the commercial reached the internet, the pieces were in place to create a viral sensation. The commercials succeeded in convincing younger men to explore Old Spice's products and sales rose as a result.

The Dairy Queen commercial on the other hand, fell flat. The basic elements were there, but the execution was far from the mark. In the same way that tossing a pile of automotive parts into a box will not spontaneously create a car, tossing the elements used by a successful commercial into an ad will not spontaneously create a internet phenomenon.

Putting aside the obviously different production values of the two commercials, the biggest difference between them, and (in my opinion) the reason one worked and the other did not, was that in the Old Spice ad, Mustafa's 'Old Spice Man' had a narrative. In the first commercial, he was telling a story, branding Old Spice bodywash as an aspirational product. There was a definite and contiguous narrative thread running through each commercial, connecting the product on an emotional level.

The Dairy Queen ads were simply a study in randomness. It was as if the creators of the campaign saw what Old Spice had done, but only in the most superficial way. The settings and elements were disconnected, and in no way evoked an emotional response to the product, which at best felt like an afterthought. There was no narrative thread connecting the product with the viewer. To be honest, it seemed as if there was no target audience in mind, which only seemed to dilute the message even further.

The bottom line here is that being inspired by another company's idea is not a bad thing at all. Often you can learn from their successes (not to mention their mistakes) to craft something even better. The problem arises when the idea is simply 'copied and pasted' without thought to the deeper narrative, or even to the target audience.

It's been said that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. That may be true, but sometimes, it's just laziness.

Some time ago I wrote an article for this blog called Social Ecosystems and the New Rules of Engagement. In it I argued that the rise of social media was forcing businesses to rethink the old 'firehose' method of advertising. Products and services could be targeted to the people most likely to respond favourably and share with their friends. In this post I'd like to look at a specific part of 'the new rules of engagement' by looking at a specific social network: Twitter.

Much has been made of Twitter, the 140-character social networking and microblogging service, but in my opinion (and I have to stress that this is just an opinion) it is one of the most important tools ever created for the internet.

You may think that is something of a bold statement, but I ask you to read on and try to follow my logic. Lets look at some of the key aspects of this service and see how it impacts our work, our play, even our everyday lives.  

Brevity: Making your words count

Twitter has a built in limit of 140 characters per post or 'tweet'. This seems like a strange limitation at first, and may new users will sometimes grumble at not being able to make their point clear with such a limitation. I would argue that it is this very limitation that makes points more clear. The writer is forced to abandon ambiguous and circuitous language and get to the point. This has the added effect of limiting and sometimes even eliminating 'non-speak' or 'fluff' from a message. (assuming the entire message was not fluff to begin with)  

Networking: Hello my name is...

If you are looking for work, or are at all interested in forwarding your career (especially in the fields of technology, marketing, etc.) then you need to be on Twitter. Because of the global reach, it is conceivable that something you say or write could be viewed by some of the top people in your industry. Take a moment to think about that - an industry leader could be seeing your ideas. Makes you think, doesn't it? At the very least, you should be following them to learn what they're thinking about and working on. Making these types of business connections can open doors you never knew existed for your career. I've literally made hundreds of valuable connections in the fields of content strategy and marketing through Twitter.  

Hashtags: Put it in context

In its simplest form, a hashtag is a word or a phrase prefixed with the symbol #, a form of metadata tag. Twitter uses these to allow related messages to be 'grouped' together on the same subject. The hashtag has evolved however from its IRC beginnings to also be used as a way of putting a message in context, or to add another level of meaning to a message. This is often used in a humourous way.  

The Bad News: There's always a fly in the ointment

As with anything, there will be those who will point out the flaws inherent in the system. I'll address the most common one here:

"Twitter is just vacuous blather and people talking about what they had for breakfast."

My rejoinder to that would be: Who are you following? A person could read a selection of pulp romance novels and then conclude that all literature is mindless drivel. The problem is not the medium, the problem is in the person's data set, their 'representative sample'. The quality of the content on Twitter is only as good as the people you are following. Many people join Twitter and follow their favourite celebrities. Often this turns out well, people such as Canadian astronaut Commander Chris Hadfield, (@Cmdr_Hadfield) actor/author/raconteur Stephen Fry, (@stephenfry) actress Jeri Ryan, (@JeriLRyan) and singer/songwriter Amanda Palmer (@amandapalmer) are quite active on Twitter, using it as a method of connecting with people and sharing ideas. However many Twitter accounts are vacuous, full of spam messages, or worse inactive. The best advice is to be selective with your choices, and cull your list from time to time. Follow people whose work and ideas you respect and be as selective with Twitter as you would be in real life.

Twitter is a 'connector', the spark that starts a blaze. It may be that a conversation begun there will shift over to email, video conference or even an in person meetup, but Twitter is the catalyst that brings people together.

The internet has become the most powerful force for human collaboration ever created, but it is still largely an untapped (or imperfectly tapped) resource. Twitter is becoming a vital tool for harnessing that resource and using it in new and creative ways, in much the same way that we can harness the awesome (but largely uncontrolled) power of electricity to operate the device that is allowing you to read this blog.

Now is the time to connect, to collaborate. The world is waiting.

"The Internet allows people from all over the world to communicate and collaborate." This simple sentence is such a ubiquitous part of our lives that it has almost become cliché. The World Wide Web permeates almost every aspect of our society, from birth to death. We're told that the Internet makes the world smaller, connecting us all in one, large global village. But does it really?

Is your content truly global? Let me give you a scenario.

Have you ever been speaking to someone you just met, someone relatively new to your country, and halfway through the recitation of a hilarious story, you realize that the other person has NO IDEA what you're talking about? You feel confused, even embarrassed, until suddenly it hits you: Being new to the country, this person isn't familiar with the multiple cultural references you've just made. Hold that thought for a moment, we'll come back to it.

Quite a lot of noise has been made recently in Content Strategy circles about making content sound more 'human'. Far too often web content reads as though it's been fed through the Über-Jargon-otron 5000X:

"...leveraging our core competencies and synergies while energistically actualizing ethical paradigms and matrices. Moving forward."

(You laugh, but some executive somewhere is writing this sentence in a report RIGHT NOW. Be afraid.)

So making content more 'human' is a great idea, but again I return to my original question: Is it global?

The problem with making content more natural is that we often carry presuppositions about what our readers will understand. My blog for example has at least one reader from India, one from Pakistan, and one from Singapore. (And if any of these people are reading now, welcome!)

If my tiny blog has readers from such far flung countries (in case you were wondering, I'm based in Canada), imagine what kind of demographics a larger, more established website or blog might have. I'd recommend setting up and checking Google Analytics (if you aren't already using it) to see where your visitors are coming from. You'll be surprised.

Returning my initial scenario, if I told the person I just met that I had met a guy who sounded exactly like Stompin' Tom Connors, he would be utterly lost as to what I was talking about, having no cultural reference to draw on.

This may sound like a very specific example, but it is very easy to fall into the trap of assuming that the people we are 'talking' to online have the same cultural references, or even the same business practices that we have.

An interesting side note here to illustrate my point: There is a comedy panel show in the UK called 'Mock The Week', in which comedians go through some of the biggest news stories of the past week and poke fun at them. What's interesting is how rarely the United States (or North America for that matter) is mentioned on this, or any other show of the type.

It is extremely important that when you write content for your business or blog, you ensure that readers from nearly anywhere can understand your message. Even a tiny blog like mine can attract readers from all over the world. If your content must use culture-specific references, then it is important that you provide ways of explaining ideas or references that may be foreign to a reader from a different part of the world. For example, in this post I have made several references that would be unknown to a lot of my readers. To aid their understanding, I have provided links to relevant sources on the Internet that will help them understand.

This brings us to the subject of language. Still one of the greatest barriers to human communication, (second only to the inexplicable popularity of the 'Harlem Shake') language can limit the number of people who can access your content. While it would be amazing if we could translate our content in real-time on an 'as needed' basis, this technology is still some years away from being universally available. (Though Google is working on it.)

By now you're thinking: "Wait, does this mean I have to translate my content into multiple languages?" Not necessarily. The fact is, the resources and costs required to do this are prohibitive for all but the largest companies. Thankfully, (or maybe unfortunately depending on who you ask) English is the language of business, though Canadian websites and blogs could do no harm being available in both French and English, or English and possibly Spanish for American websites and blogs.

What the owner of every website or blog CAN do is ensure that their content is clear, unambiguous, and not full of cultural or regional references. (Or properly cross referenced if they are.)

The Internet has opened the paths of communication and collaboration to people around the world, but it is only a tool. It is up to us - the wonderfully flawed and horrifyingly talented human race - to acknowledge and celebrate our differences and similarities, and to somehow fully realize the potential of this thing we've created.

Take a look at your content. The world is waiting to hear what you have to say. Will they understand?

Just a short one today, channelling my inner Seth Godin. The internet is abuzz with news that Yahoo!, now being run by former Googler Marissa Mayer has told its workers that as of June they will no longer be able to work from home, or 'telecommute'.

The argument seems to be that people who work from home are not as productive as those who go into the office.

The problem is that the world of work has changed drastically. The advent of cloud computing, wireless access and the ability to virtually 'meet' with almost anyone on earth in real time has opened up endless opportunities for business and productivity.

Given the choice, I would love to work remotely. I tend to work (especially write) best when alone and in silence, something that I find near impossible in an office environment. As a result, I have to have headphones on to drown out the distractions, which never really works.

The bottom line is this: If your company has people working remotely and they are not productive, then you probably have the wrong people.

Editorial note: I have made a small adjustment to this post, mainly on my feelings toward QA. When I wrote this, I had gone through a particularly difficult project that had taxed both my patience and my skills, and as a result I was somewhat... 'raw' when I wrote this. In it I used the word 'hate'. Firstly this is not really true about my feelings toward Quality Assurance testing. More importantly, 'hate' is a word that is used far too easily for its strength. Hate is a word we should really remove from our language, and I'll do my small part here. As the late comedian George Carlin once said, "...we think in language, so the quality of our thoughts and ideas are only as good as the quality of our language." Too true. My sincerest apologies to anyone affected by my poor choice of language. - Ken

Quality Assurance. A term used by many, understood by few.

The strictest definition of Quality Assurance or QA Testing is as follows:

"...the systematic measurement, comparison with a standard, monitoring of processes and an associated feedback loop that confers error prevention." (Source: Wikipedia)

For the purposes of this article, let's define QA as a systematic testing process, meant to ensure a consistent and error-free user-experience.

First, let me give you some background. Most of my professional experience (such as it is) has been in Quality Assurance. I started working with a major Canadian financial institution in their internet banking division doing something called 'User Acceptance Testing' or UAT. The idea was that the people doing the testing represented as much as possible the actual users of the product. Put another way, the vast majority of internet banking customers were not programmers or software developers, and it was felt that it was important to replicate as much as possible the end user experience. In a sense, this was an early, somewhat clumsy version of the 'personas' now used in much of the tech industry to better understand (and presumably improve) the user experience.

Nowadays I work with JAC as a 'Content Wrangler', a suitably vague job title that doesn't really cover all the hats I wear from one day to the next. One of the more important jobs I do is cross-browser testing for the many websites we create.

Now that we have that out of the way, something of a confession. To be perfectly frank, I have a very difficult relationship with Quality Assurance Testing. It is, by its very nature tedious and repetitious. It is also the most critical for any business that offers a product or service for customer use, and I am proud of the fact that my small contributions in this area have led to better quality products. Allow me to explain.

In 2001 a friend told me he had applied for a job as a QA tester for a computer game developer. He was excited at the prospect of being able to, as he put it: "...get paid to play games all day." I had to patiently explain to my friend that he was no more going to be playing games all day than a Quality Tester at a brewery would be enjoying a cold one all day at his job. Testing usually involves following scripted activities in various controlled situations, meant to replicate likely user scenarios. To use the game developer example, his job may involve hours of making the game character 'jump' endlessly, to ensure that the physics engine responded correctly, or that there were no clipping issues (objects passing through other objects). It would be tedious and repetitive.

This is not to say that QA is not a rewarding career. There are many people who (bless them) love this type of work and as a result, are exemplary in the role. As a side note, my friend applied for an got the game testing job. He loved it, and to this day works at the company, albeit at a much higher level.

Another issue of QA that is often overlooked is the stress level. It is not an easy thing to go to a developer or team of developers who have literally spent several months working 14 hour days on a project and tell them: "I'm sorry guys but this isn't working." (And by the way, yes, I have had to do this.) Developers create incredible things using code in ways that, to me, look like nothing short of witchcraft. They work long hours, and having the responsibility of telling them that it doesn't work 'in Internet Explorer 8 on a Tuesday if its raining' is not a task I would wish on my worst enemy.

As the products and services we use become more and more complex, we find our need for top-notch QA increasing at a blistering pace. As a famous (if fictional) Engineer once said: "The more you complicate the plumbing, the easier it is to stop up the drain." Too true. The difficulty is, the QA department is often one of the first areas to be 'trimmed down' in tough financial times. Remember the financial institution I worked for? After a significant merger, it was decided that having a User Acceptance Testing team and a development testing team, (the software developers would do their own light testing before handing off to us for final sign-off) was extraneous, and the UAT team was cut. Just like that. In one fell swoop, an entire mode of quality assurance had been removed from the equation.

It should be noted that just prior to this, after we had completed a massive, multi-million dollar project, the company gathered all its people together for a celebration of the launch. The head of the division stood up and individually thanked each of the teams that had worked 14-hour days for months to make the project a reality. Expect the UAT team. All of us simply sat there, stunned, wondering whether or not we should get up and leave, while everyone else looked vaguely uncomfortable. I guess the writing really was on the wall.

This belief that companies can skimp on QA leads to an end result we have all experienced - products that simply don't work as advertised or a service that is plagued with problems or outages. I, for one have difficulty reading a novel with a typo in it. I don't understand how such a glaring error could get past the editors.

So if we end up with buggy products or services that don't work, who's to blame? The Quality Assurance testing team? Possibly. The company's management for not placing enough emphasis on Quality Assurance? Again, quite possibly. The bottom line is that Quality Assurance should be one the LAST areas affected by budget cuts. Many companies have learned to their peril, if the quality of their product or service slips enough, customers will stop using them, and then those cuts will only be the beginning of a downward spiral.

"There is no expert on the subject; I mean, there is no wise old man. There's - s***, there's just us." In the 2000 film 'Thirteen Days', Special Advisor to the President Kenny O'Donnell tried to explain to then-President John F. Kennedy that there were no 'experts' who could deal with the growing crisis with the Soviets in October of 1962. This situation would later become known as the Cuban Missile Crisis. His somewhat inelegant but absolutely true assertion highlights the situation faced by many businesses today as they try to navigate the world of 'social media marketing'.

It is physically impossible to navigate the web now without seeing an advertisement for someone selling a "100% guaranteed, sure-fire, done deal, no-risk, no fuss, no muss, if-it-doesn't-work-we'll-flog-ourselves-for-a-year" method for increasing your likes, followers, conversions, etc. They've become the net equivalent of the late night infomercial. Invariably at least one out of every say five ads you'll see  will claim that the person in the ad (interesting to note that it's usually a person, and not a company - easier to trust a face one assumes) is an 'expert', or a 'master' or (heaven help us) a 'guru'.

Of course, this is not restricted to social marketing. These types of 'experts' have been around as long as there have been people to believe in their particular brand of snake oil.

Now you may be thinking that I am being unduly harsh here. "Surely some of them must be legitimate," you cry. Well you are correct, some of these people truly do believe that they have the ultimate secret to the enigma that is social media. With more and more businesses 'going social' and with the rise of more and more social networks, knowing how to best utilize this emerging technology becomes increasingly difficult. Businesses (particularly small businesses) who do not have the resources to research these 'experts' to determine their legitimacy end up having to take their chances, sometimes with disastrous results.

Dr. Cheatem's Social Media Cure-All

Let us first focus on the less-reputable type of 'expert', since they are the most dangerous type. In the 17th and 18th century, disreputable businessmen preyed on the public's ignorance and fear of illness to sell patent medicines, pitched as 'cures' for anything from baldness to insanity. In many cases, the 'medicine' was harmless enough, but sometimes the cure would end up causing serious complications in the sufferer, even leading to deaths.

In the social media marketing world, these 'snake oil salesmen' will gladly sell you the secrets to social media marketing, invariably for a hefty sum. However what you get is often, at best, information you could have gotten for free from many reputable blogs and sites, and at worst, 'tips' and 'tricks' that are useless or even legally questionable. Many people are truly and honestly ignorant of social media and its use in small business, due mostly to the subject's sheer complexity. Unfortunately, these people are the perfect victims of this kind of 'patent medicine'.

The Best of Intentions

Among the snakes, there are those who genuinely believe they understand this thing called social media. They are not trying to scam anyone, but they can be nearly as hazardous to a small business who is trying to find their place on the Web. They provide their advice, which proves to be accurate, but often out of date. These people have the best of intentions, but they approach social media like you would accounting, or any other business subject. As we'll learn a bit later, this is ultimately a futile gesture.

The issue here is that no one can truly call themselves an 'expert' or 'master' of social media marketing. (Let's not get into self-proclaimed 'gurus') Social media marketing is a subject that is, by its very nature, constantly in flux. Social media is still a relatively new concept, and as such, the rules of navigating the 'social space' are changing almost daily.

Don't misunderstand me here, there are plenty of firms out there who are quite skilled in utilizing social media for marketing. An excellent example is the Oreo Superbowl blackout response that went up within minutes of the lights going out. Genius.

The thing to look for is a slightly different attitude. Take Kung Fu for example. In traditional Shaolin Kung Fu, the teacher is known as 'Sifu', which loosely translates as Master. However, this title is merely an honourific. A true Sifu will tell you that there are no 'masters' - he or she is merely a student, like you. They simply have reached a higher level of skill and understanding. They are always learning, always fluid, ready to take in new ideas as they come.

Social media is an ever-evolving, malleable, and some would say untameable, beast. The secret to harnessing the immense potential of this 'beast' is to approach it with humility and an open mind. Experts and gurus need not apply. If you seek outside help, research the company thoroughly. Do they claim to have the 'ultimate secret' to harnessing social media marketing, or do they simply think of themselves as students, a little farther down the path?

At the end of the day, as Kenny O'Donnell said, there is no wise old man, There's just us. And this thing we've created.

We live in a 'wow' society. Most forms of advertising, nearly all of the entertainment industry and, increasingly, consumer manufacturers, are geared toward the 'wow' factor, the transient big bang that will bring in eyeballs, fans or customers. This wow effect has become so ubiquitous that when companies release products that are not totally new, different and shiny enough, we pooh-pooh them, chastise their lack of 'innovation', and 'punish' them in the stores and on the stock market.

The same holds true in the world of web design. Often I come across sites that are beautiful and technically brilliant, but a deeper look reveals that the content is thin and weak, offering no incentive to read further. The content has become an afterthought, something that has to be 'poured' into the rigid mold created by the designer. Worse still, I have come across sites where the bulk of the design and content is held on the front page, like a wooden facade on an old-style western movie set. Clicking on a link drags you into a bland, lifeless world where both the content writer and the designer appear to have simply given up. Often the focus is placed on the 'front facing' of a site, puffing up the design, the content, or the headlines to generate user traffic and hopefully get click-throughs for the banners that often festoon these sites like a race car driver's jacket.

These may seem like extreme scenarios, but they are far more common than you might think.

We have reached a point where companies believe that we want new, innovative things, regardless of whether they have a real purpose or not, and this attitude is spilling over into web design. Designers create websites that are lovely to look at, but are so restrictive in structure that they don't even take into account the content the design was supposed to support.

Listening to a content guy like myself rant, you could be forgiven for thinking that I believe design is not important. This could not be further from the truth. Design is far more than simple aesthetics. It helps guide the user through the content, highlights areas of importance, and creates a positive visual experience for the user. The problem is, it is often the design where much of the 'wow' effect is found. So much is made of design, (awards, etc) but the content is often downplayed or entirely forgotten about.

The title of this blog is 'Everything is Content | Content is Everything'. This is not just a play on words, it is a truism. The simple fact of the matter is, when a user goes to a website for any reason, they are going there to consume content. This content could be text, video, imagery, etc., but in every case the user is there to consume that content.

Great content doesn't make you say wow! Wow! is like an explosion. An impressive bang at the beginning, but in seconds only devastation remains. Great content is not 'trendy' or 'of the moment'. Great content is (for the most part) timeless, it puts forward ideas and concepts that stay with people long after they leave your site. Great content encourages people to click your link, buy your product, read your blog.

Great content is compelling.

Wow is an effective attention grabber, in much the same way that yelling 'FREE BEER!' is an effective attention grabber. While wow can bring a lot of people to your site, compelling content will make them want to stay.