Jack of All Blogs

My Name Is Everywhere

Andrew G.R. — Tue, 02 Feb 2010 21:00:59 +0000

Ever meet someone with the same name and get that warm fuzzy feeling? That doesn’t happen to me. In fact, I have the opposite reaction: I get pissed.

See, it’s not just my first name…it’s my last name too! Both are common. A quick Google search turns up the CEO of a major clothing company, an orthodontist in Tucson, a big-time radio exec—even a director of gay pornography. Well I’m none of those things…thankfully. I’m me.

A name is supposed to be uniquely yours. It’s not something that should be shared with thousands of undeserving strangers.

Naming a kid is tricky business. I would imagine every parent is faced with the difficulty of finding something they can see themselves yelling for the rest of this life time. And when they finally figure it out, there are other hurdles to clear:

– You can rule out the name of almost everyone you have ever known or met. Anyone who has made some sort of impression on you (be it good or bad) has claimed ownership on moniker. Most people we meet leave an indelible impression on us. – To honor or not to honor. Different ‘rules’ apply to different religions, but many people are faced with the struggle of incorporating the names of loved ones into their child’s name. – There is a generational desperation to deviate from the norm, meaning that most people can relate with the fact that I hate my name doppelgangers. In order to combat that, people have chosen “new” names. But after a while, these names become the ‘Johns” of today. Yell the name “Jayden” in any city park and you’ll see 10 kids turn back.

I guess there are some good points to having a common name. For instance, my ex-girlfriends probably get a kick out of thinking that I might be the gay director when they Google my name. It also means that when people finally do track me down, I know they’ve put some effort into it.

There are no winners in this name game. Just a bunch of us who are called the same thing. Sometimes I think about writing my name twins and asking them to make a change. Or perhaps getting us all together to see what we have in common. That means they probably hate me too!

Apple Launches iPad, Tampon Jokes Ensue, I Disconnect

Andrew G.R. — Wed, 27 Jan 2010 19:44:34 +0000

The iPad. No, it’s not an absorbent digital tampon that whisks away menstrual cycles via Wi-Fi. Rather it’s another page in the exorbitant chapter of an era that heralds electronic gadgets over basic humanity.

Ripe for the “tiny hands” campaign from Burger King, the iPad looks like an iPhone on HGH. Starting at $499, I’m constantly amazed that people have the money for secondary and tertiary electronics. We all have computers. We all have cell phones. And many of us have laptops. We’re spoiled to begin with! Do we really need to introduce more clutter into our lives?

Ironic given the fact that Steve Jobs years ago talked about the ‘noisy world’ we live in. Well, buddy, you just cranked the volume up even more.

I’m not against the device; it could be the greatest technological advancement of our time. But today I’m not in the mood. It could be that images of an earthquake-ravaged Haiti are rattling in my brain. Or the fact that last night I looked up at the moon and marveled at the simplicity of its amazing luminosity. Maybe I’m just tired.

As much as I love the digital revolution – spending an absurd amount of time starting at electronic screens – I’m starting to find it dizzying. Overwhelming.

All this talk of being connected…yet we’re more isolated than ever before.

TV Reporters Manipulated by Social Media

Andrew G.R. — Tue, 26 Jan 2010 15:04:34 +0000

Beyond all of the usual modern techno-marvels that we’ve become accustomed to when watching the nightly news, the more recent advent of Twitter, Facebook and YouTube have revolutionized the electronic media. Because rather than use these as tools to help provide better coverage, the media moguls at the major cable stations have chosen instead to use these instant audience inputs as a vehicle by which to superficially tailor their coverage, and the behavior of their reporters. So instead of richer content and context, we get what could almost pass for a soap opera.

Sure, we’re all saddened by the dramatic destruction that the recent earthquake in Haiti has caused. The human cost is graphically portrayed by the legions of TV camera crews that fan out daily across the remnants of Port au Prince. Under bright sunshine, the ruined white concrete infrastructure stands out in bold relief against a stunning bright blue sky. It seems that the ground not covered by sheet-wrapped corpses is occupied by the newly homeless, as they wait in seemingly endless queues for food and water. There’s no disputing that, from both a humanitarian and news perspective, we do indeed need to see these images. Actually, and largely as result of viewing such footage, the usually generous American public has responded to this disaster by donating beyond all expectations.

The media has always thrived, even before the Twitter age, on its’ claim to immediacy, to bringing us, the viewing public, the latest in what’s happening. And so they perennially try to scoop each other, competing for our nightly affections-and the profits that more sponsors bring them. We rightly or wrongly rely on reporters, who by the very nature of their profession, are supposed to give us a clear lens through which to see the world. Supposedly dispassionate, and free of all prejudice or bias, they are paid to observe and communicate. It’s a cold-blooded business, but they get paid damned well to do it.

Yet, the role that Twitter and other instant messaging vehicles played in the changing behavior of some cable reporters during the Haiti coverage is remarkable. I can understand how viewers can become upset by seeing such horror, especially in graphic detail. Many have, albeit unfairly, criticized on-site reporters for not becoming rescuers. As an example, and very much as a result of audience twittering, Anderson Cooper of CNN was no longer simply covering the Haiti story. He now became a part of it, as he was extensively taped carrying a small child through the rubble, to safety. And CNN played this rescue over and over in it’s promos.

Don’t get me wrong, hi-tech can, and is, often a great thing-especially in the TV news business. But, when instant comments from Twitter cause instant reactions from the media honchos, the result is at best cheap and at its worst just phony. Anderson Cooper as John Wayne? That’s even a stretch for TV.

Let’s All Unsubscribe From Marketing E-mails

Andrew G.R. — Sun, 24 Jan 2010 14:14:42 +0000

Who opens all of this junk e-mail? Not the messages from a Nigerian prince or your mother, but from companies trying to sell you something?

I’ve spent the last few weeks better educating myself on e-mail marketing. And despite the abundance of data and advice floating around the Web, I keep coming back to one central question that has me baffled: Why are people opening these e-mails?

It’s always the illusion (most of the time) of limited-time, expiring-soon, one-of-a-kind savings. Like, if you don’t act on this e-mail immediately, which by the way, you believe you were hand-picked for, you will miss out on THE deal of the century.

The subject lines aren’t even that clever. There’s always something for free. Or a ‘must-read’ tip.’ You can lure people with a list, i.e. – 7 Reasons to Read This E-mail. I’ve had enough of this tactic to last me a lifetime. Or you can get “personal.”

“Hi, Andrew! This E-mail Is for You”

Marketers are always touting the effectiveness of name dropping. In this case, using the recipient’s first name. Really? Does anyone under the age of 70 care that they are being addressed by name. I know the ‘data’ will prove me wrong, but I’m Jack of All Blogs, and I say otherwise.

No matter what the subject line, I guarantee you the same old bag of tricks is waiting for you inside. A big shiny button. Several images. A bunch of links selling something. And somewhere buried at the bottom, a tiny little “unsubscribe” link.

I’m thinking of putting together a campaign that would encourage people to take a few seconds out of a day to opt-out of the e-mails they longer need. It won’t save the environment, but it will save the sending companies a few cents – and that’s real savings that can be passed on to consumers.

Would you join my unsubscribing campaign?

The Underestimated Value of a Link

Andrew G.R. — Tue, 19 Jan 2010 16:16:55 +0000

Some people want a hug, I just want a link.

Many major media organizations are stingy when it comes to link love. I’ve had the good fortune of getting several of my blogs mentioned in the mainstream press. However, it is a rare day when they actually link to my Website. And boy does that piss me off.

It’s like an ice cream sundae without the ice cream; steak and potatoes without the meat. I appreciate the blog mention or using me for a quote, but when you leave out the link, you deflate my heart. I’m left to wonder what could have been. Where would traffic had gone if that little ol’ URL was included?

And why are these links left out? Because ‘journalists’ don’t want to do their jobs. They are too lazy to vet out the good links from the bad ones. (It’s really not that hard). The organizations that hire reporters set policies that do very little to help bloggers. Because the reality is, they acknowledge bloggers – the very people who have shaken the foundation of their industry – because they have to.

It might be enough for Oprah to simply mention your name, but that is not true of established media outlets. Sure, getting your blog out there on a TV show or in a newspaper helps – but it’s nothing compared to what a link would do.

Perhaps your experience has been different. Let us know in the comments section below.

But in the future, I will only lend my time to help the media if I am guaranteed a link.