Hitting On Someone in Social Media: Know Your Platform

I should really start a relationship series. It would go something like: How Not to Date in Social Media

Maybe this is the first installment of that...

The overall theme, of which I've blogged about before, is that guys, for whatever reason are unable to construct the time-honored tradition of, "Hey, wanna go out? I know this great Cuban place to take you for dinner," or "This hot new movie is opening this weekend. Wanna go?" Complete and utter failure on that regard. Perhaps all that is too much of a commitment, and they just want sex. Fine. Just cross me off your list now then.

Here's what I've been getting a lot of lately: "Wanna chat?" or, if they feel really close, "Hey, I wanna chat with you sometime."

First of all, I spent most of the 90s and a good part of the 2000s chatting. I've seen the good sides of chat, and the horrific sides of chat (that being when one guy wanted to "chat" with me while he watched a porno in the background, and showed me said nonsense on his videocam). Chatting, for most guys these days, is the precursor to "sexting." And it doesn't take long to get from one to the next.

Which is why, these days, I only "chat" with friends and family. SELECT friends and family. They had to beg me, in fact, to turn on my FB chat. I used to chat with hundreds, and be open to the whole world, but not these days.

Here's the other thing, though. FB chat (which turns into emails of the person you're chatting with) isn't strictly old-school chat, but it functions as such sometimes. IN NO CIRCUMSTANCE, however, is Twitter to be used as "chat."

Do people not realize this?

Every Tweet you type goes out to your ENTIRE TWITTER FEED. Every one I type back goes out to MY ENTIRE TWITTER FEED, which is close to 2000 people. I don't want to bore 2000 people with this convo: "What's up?"
"Not much. You?"
"Not much either."

SERIOUSLY?

First of all, I am APPALLED at your social gaffe, to not realize this collossal social blunder you are committing here.

And even taking this convo to DMs, which is proper social etiquette, is wrong on a personal level, because in any forum, I'm bored silly by this convo.

"We should chat more," he says. Really? You sure aren't convincing me of that.

Not to mention that because you use Twitter as your own personal "chat" stream, I've seen you hitting on other girls this way. Very uninteresting.

Here's how it works for me.

For the most part, I use Twitter to hear and talk to the masses of people on the Earth. I'm most open to following new people on Twitter, just to hear their voice, and the kinds of things they say.

When I've listened to them awhile, if what I've been reading is pleasing, I will accept a friend request on Facebook. But even there, I get the random, "Let's chat," in email.

This guy, for example. "I'd like to get to know you."

Mind you, my feed on FB, as my friends will tell you, is pretty much Michelle as an open book. There are all kinds of things that I'm posting, which are of interest to me, that you could comment on. We could see if we have similar interests. That's how I get to know YOU.

No. He doesn't do that. He "wants to chat." Tells me, in English and Spanish, that I'm "so beautiful." Not much more than that. As if I'm so gullible that hearing someone call me beautiful is going to make me trip into their arms. Um, no.

Wow me. Impress me. Stun me with your witticisms. Or, for heaven's sake, ASK ME OUT.

Why is that so difficult for boys today?

As for both of the two in this (true life) story, I've unfollowed/unfriended them. Life's too short.

Oh, and another thing: Don't call me "dear." It's demeaning.

And don't describe intimate sexual things you want to do to me if you haven't even KISSED ME. Seriously, people. Have some decorum.

**************************************************

UPDATE: As I went to unfriend the FB guy, I read that his profile just went from "married" to "single." So all these months, when he's been trying to initiate chat with me, he was MARRIED anyway. *eyeroll*

************************************************

Social Media With No Social: Pinterest

Again and again, people talk about the next hot thing. MySpace faded, then Facebook appeared. There's always a next hot site around the corner.

So it was with great interest that I went to seek out this new Pinterest thing that everyone's talking about.

In fairness to Pinterest, it does solve a need that wasn't really being filled. Pictures just by themselves always seemed very out of place on FB. So thanks, Pinterest.

What it does NOT do well, in fact, does really abysmally, is connect one person with another.

Really, of all the social networks out there, the only one getting this right at the moment is Twitter. Twitter knows how to connect people with other people. It knows that's what people WANT.

All these homages to narcissism (and the new FB Timeline is even WORSE in that direction) are all well and good, but I wanna know what OTHERS are thinking, doing, feeling, experiencing today. I already know where I'm at, and everyone in my life does too.

Let me explore others' ideas, thoughts, or, in the case of Pinterest: pictures.

First, of all, it gives you some possible choices that are an SEO's dream. You can just see the potential advertisers salivating as they explore everyone's favorite travel sites, for example. Or clothing decisions. Do I really care to show that to the world? Or to see what beauty soap anyone else is buying? Um. No.

So, ok, let's assume that I love showing people photos, which, as it happens, I do.

Even as a photo site, Pinterest fails. It has no ability to crop or change photos or put together collages. It just lets you pin stuff from the web as it shows up. And then these pictures that you've selected go out into the world, to be viewed, and if you're lucky, "repinned." Woo!

Seriously?

You would think it would at least have (something one would think is de rigeur for any social media site these days), a stream of info available. Things people are currently pinning. If it's there, it wasn't apparent.

I supposedly added a bunch of FB friends, but I can't see them or their Pinterest boards. Not easily, anyway. How will they be able to find mine, should they choose to? Very frustrating.

All these social marketers are just spinning with the newest hottest thing, but they are all forgetting why we are here in the first place. WHERE'S THE SOCIAL? Let us connect with others. If you don't have that on your website, whatever your website is, you are FAILING as a social media site.

Sizzle or Steak?

I consider myself a journalist first and foremost. News beats in every fiber of my being. After that, maybe a designer, maybe a writer.

I want to comment on this article a friend sent me, based on several things that happened this week.

http://www.web-strategist.com/blog/2011/02/28/expand-your-social-media-mix-twitter-alone-is-not-enough/

First, the Associated Press, long our go-to news source (and yes, we newspapers paid heftily for the priviledge) chastized their reporters publicly for "Tweeting" while they were in the thick of the drama down at #OccupyWallStreet this week.

The traditional way, you see, would be for said reporter to get said news, go back to the newsroom with it (hopefully getting at least two sources for said news along the way). Give it to one's editors, and then the editors would do what they do, bending it, shaping it, making it ready for public consumption (in the case of AP, on all (paid) outlets that AP streams out on).

Twitter has changed that.

I also covered (as a journalist) the events of #OccupyWallStreet and #OccupyLA and other events in the Day of Action this week (Nov. 17). Using the social media at my disposal: mostly Twitter, also Facebook.

Twitter changed the way I process news.

I like and respect Jeremiah Owyang, and read him on Twitter and other outlets. However, in this instance, he's missing the point.

As a designer, they used to tell me: know your tools. Know which one to use for which purpose. So it is, too, with social media.

While all his comments about permanency and Twitter are valid (sure, I wish they had an archive function, or a timeline thingie like Facebook is about to have, but they don't). Permanence is not the importance of Twitter, nor is "time spent there wasted."

Twitter for me (sorry, AP) has become my primary news source. We have raised a generation of news junkies, and we want it now, and we want it fast. Twitter gives us that primacy.

Let me illustrate for you a story, of part of my week, how my "social media" life went.

I spent a good chunk of the early morning Day of Action online. I was multi-tasking between Twitter and Facebook. (I have a large contingent of friends on Facebook who still don't see the value or need for Twitter. Sadly.)

So, as the story of the day: Day of Action, mostly #OccupyWallStreet was breaking (a story, I might add, that MSM journalists were barred from covering, thanks to Bloomberg's "media blackout"), I was manning the controls. I had my news sources in action who were in the thick of things.

I was monitoring my Twitter feed. When items came across, I would cross post them (RTing them to my stream (2000 people) and posting them on my FB wall (1300+ people). Who then reposted to their streams and walls. I posted pictures, I posted video, I posted commentary. I heard when the first people got arrested, I heard when the police captain offered himself up. I was, as much as I could be, right there in the thick of it.

That's how news works today. (Several people sent me emails that day, thanking me for my coverage.)

The AP journalist KNEW that, yet was chastized for it. (It's against company policy.) If you are right there, on Wall Street, you have the news as close as your Twitter feed. That's as much as you have control of it today, because everyone around you also has a camera and access to the world.

So for me, monitoring my Twitter feed (which I do at least daily) takes the place of reading my daily newspaper. It is certainly "steak" for me on great news days, though when people are just talking about nonsense, it isn't.

I don't consider one iota of time that I spend on Twitter "wasted." I wish I could spend MORE time there. I wish I could've spent all of the Day of Action on Twitter, for example.

Owyang says: "if you Tweet more than 20 times a day, you should have just blogged."

Everyone uses these tools differently. For me, I use Facebook as a platform to get information to my friends and family. (Especially those who, for whatever reason, aren't even ON Twitter yet.) I use Twitter as a short-term news source, but also for whatever bursts of items I may want to discourse about: whatever's happening on Survivor or Dancing with the Stars, some movie or song I just experienced, etc. If it's a longer thing that warrants a blog, I'll write one. I have two blogs, in fact.

But while many people use Twitter to post links to people (I primarily use FB for that), I most frequently now ReTweet others. I follow 2000 people. I ReTweet the interesting bits for others in my stream. As far as my own posts, I probably don't do 20 in a day, but on some news-heavy days, I can be RTing 100+ times.

I also "live blog" frequently on Twitter: the Oscars, the Emmys, Survivor and its finale; or sometimes conferences that I'm at. The first few is to share a communal experience with people, the conference stuff is for people who can't get there.

It has never been (for me) about "what did I have for breakfast?" It is very much about "what am I seeing/hearing/feeling/experiencing right now?"

Owyang wants to get people over to things that make money for him. I am about documenting our social journey. For me, Twitter IS the steak. If I had to only live with ONE choice for social media, it would be Twitter, in a heartbeat.

If people want to know more deeply how I feel about an issue, they can friend me on Facebook, or read my blogs. Or listen to my podcasts. There are vehicles for everything. I think anyone who forcefully weans themselves from any social medium is an idiot. (As is anyone who still isn't anywhere on this value chain.) We are all still learning and growing with these new tools, and learning how they best work for us.

I have a friend that I had to drag, kicking and screaming, to get onto Facebook this week. He's an actor, wondering why his agent isn't calling him so much. "Are you on Twitter? Facebook?" I innocently asked him one day. Turned out, he hadn't ever even SEEN a Facebook page. (This was about a month ago.) I'm sorry, but that's inexcusable.

I mean, I suppose, if you really have a spiritual vow to be a hermit, it would be ok. But if you are living, breathing and alive in the world, it's inexcusable. Especially if your work is as an actor!!! When you are depending on casting directors to cast you. "Did you know about all the casting directors who are on Twitter?" I asked him. His face paled, he looked incredulous. "Well, no." "Huh. And have you been working a lot lately?" I continued. "Well, no."

EXACTLY.

Twitter is a news source, a job source, a living breathing hive of activity. To cut oneself off from it... you might as well be typing on an electric typewriter and watching a black/white TV.

I understand Owyang's point. There are lots more types of new software coming at us that we have to learn. But we have to put a stake in the ground with the ones we have, and realize why they are important. If you choose two social media to be on: Facebook and Twitter would be the ones right now. And you should be checking both every day.

And, if you also want to visit my blog or listen to my podcasts and give me money: hey, that's OK too! ;-)

"Social Network" prism as multifaceted as Zuckerberg himself

Two things are the most fascinating after watching "The Social Network," easily the most fascinating movie of this year. One: most of the people involved with making this movie don't have a Facebook page themselves.

Two: People can see the exact same movie and come away with totally different viewpoints on who did what. Aaron Sorkin, the screenwriter, wasn't kidding when he likened this movie to "Rashomon." It is an incredible script, one that is sure to garner Sorkin a long-overdue Oscar. It is as easy to understand if you are a longtime Facebook user, or never even looked at Facebook in your life.

It is a machination of plot, spinning around the transcripts of real court cases. Friend against friend, classmate against classmate. And yet, it speaks to the quintessential question of our techie age: how can we create a cool app/product/website that everyone is going to love and use and make us rich in the process?

What a strange dichotomy that someone who seems to have such difficulty making friends creates the most social product out there.

My friend viewed this movie and came away with an image of Mark Zuckerberg as a "manipulative asshole." I saw the same movie and saw, finally, the whole story laid in front of me. Saw how Zuckerberg pretty much had to do what he did. I don't fault him at all, and I was rooting for him. In fact, in finally paying the amounts in question, he did right by his friends. Saverin is back on the Facebook masthead. All is now right with the world.

And just to be safe, he donated to some New Jersey schools on the day the movie opened. No, I see Zuckerberg as a good guy here.

Incredible director David Fincher also excels. The movie is stunningly shot. Harvard has never looked so good. Jesse Eisenberg, in the lead, does a fantastic job of walking us through the story. His best friend, Eduardo Saverin, played by the new Spiderman, Andrew Garfield, really makes you feel the pain he's going through. Justin Timberlake is just perfect as Sean Parker, creator of Napster.

It's like a multi-faceted prism. You can see each side clearly, as well as how they are all battling to be most beautiful, or in this case, most right. Wars of class and culture come into play. And out of all this morass, we have the incredible Facebook.

If there is anything faulting this movie it is Sorkin's lack of knowledge about Facebook. And the fact that really, its key battle: the privacy wars, was completely neglected in this story. Maybe they are saving that for "Social Network 2: Privacy." I can only hope they have someone who really knows the Internet writing about it this time.

Cause here's the thing. Nora Ephron got it wrong too, when she wrote the almost instantly dated, "You've Got Mail." It's different when you live here. When you live on Facebook, online, on Twitter. There are nuances and details that it's obvious this writer, though brilliant, missed though he combed through mounds of testimony and facts, and got an incredible story fashioned out of it. He missed the heartbeat of Facebook.

This is Facebook basically from the genesis of the idea until it starts branching out into other countries. Then the storyline drops the Facebook part, and focuses on Zuckerberg battling the court cases. By which time, he's already a billionaire. You're just not really sure why, if you aren't already on Facebook.

I can just imagine the Twitter movie. Sigh. I heard Craig Ferguson (who used to mock Twitter himself until he actually got on it and used it) talking to two celebrities this week (on the same show). Both celebrities used the tired old canards: "why would anyone care that I'm getting a haircut? or eating a sandwich? or blah blah blah..." Obviously, they don't get it. It's like that with this Facebook movie too.

And, I'm sad to say, that's what keeps it, for me, anyway, from being one of the best movies ever. It's like Sorkin was so busy making all the partners dance that he kinda forgot what the party was there for. I'll bet, if you asked him right now, he couldn't even explain why Facebook's growth was so incredible (and continues) and MySpace got huge and stopped growing. That's pretty key to this story, and would've served him well as a screenwriter.

So much of the story is built around the "college campuses" idea, it doesn't even really branch out into when other people besides colleges started using it. Or why. Why moms and grandmoms are suddenly on it. There is really a deep rich story there, too.

But for now, if we want the Facebook genesis story, this is it. I think it's a wonderful film. I think it's going to win the Best Picture Oscar and an Adapted Screenplay Oscar for Aaron Sorkin, and it's deserved. Go see it, come home arguing with your friends!

*******************************************************************

Adding Friends in Social Media: A How-To

After my recent Twitter etiquette guide, the question came in: what about following people? How does one do that properly?

Well, I've talked about this on my podcast a bit, but let me explain my theories a bit further here. Mind you, they are only my theories. Everyone does Twitter the way it works best for them.

I really think it's different, depending on which form of social media you are using. For example, on Facebook, which I use mostly for friends and family and business colleagues, I don't just add people helter-skelter (1,268 friends). Remember, Facebook has a max cap of 5000 friends, but this includes friends AND things you are fans of. So if you have a lot of fan pages, those add into your 5000 total.

So on Facebook, I evaluate each new Friend Request carefully. Is this person friends with people I know? Someone I do business with? What are their interests? Similar to mine? Politics? Etc. What compels me to add this person? I can promise you that someone with no profile (barely a profile) and/or no picture in their avatar is someone I will Ignore. I've also taken to ignoring people from India and the Phillippines because for awhile, it seemed like the spammy stuff was coming from these kinds of profiles.

I take nearly the opposite approach on my MySpace profile (20,000+ friends). I pretty much add anyone that asks (http://www.myspace.com/michebel). I don't add people who don't even take the time to put a picture in to represent themselves. Nor do I add obvious advertisements, instead marking them as Spam. I don't add people who look crazy or have violent avatars. Other than that, you're pretty much in with me, no matter who you are. That said, I would say that 90% of the people who request friendship are bands, asking me to listen to their music. I don't. I'll add them, but that's it.

Blocking is my friend. If bands take the proper approach and send their music to me through the MySpace email, wonderful. If they spam my comments with it (and people do this a lot when you have 20,000 friends), they get ONE chance to do that, and then I block them. I have more people on my block list on MySpace than many people have friends (2000+).

The dealbreakers for me in comments are: people who post self-playing music players, anything at all that looks like an ad, people who post every other day to your comments section (Happy Thursday!). Other than that, they can post as they like. If you check my comments section, there is some pretty trippy stuff. You should see the stuff I delete! Man!

But as a social media site, I spend the least amount of time on MySpace. I never check my mail there (since it is all bands). I never devote any serious time there anymore. It's been usurped by Facebook and Twitter.

Which brings us to Twitter. Twitter is somewhere in the middle. Initially, I added everyone (a MySpace approach), and quickly reached the (unmarked anywhere) limit of 2000 people followed (http://www.twitter.com/michebel). If you follow 2000, you can't follow anymore. Period. That proved very counterproductive. Since I hadn't known this when I started, my only option was to start another Twitter account (http://www.twitter.com/michebella). I wouldn't recommend this. I learned the hard way. It's much better to have one account and use it well.

So hopefully you can use my hard-learned advice in building your Twitter profile. 

For me, a good Twitter following list is well-crafted. Add people you know you want to follow (friends, family, colleagues). From that point, you want to build up a good strong list (at least 100 people, IMHO). On my Michebel account, I'm following 2,667 (I had over 3000 before they instituted the cap on followers.) On Michebella, I hover right around my max: 2,001. Can't add any past that.

Here's the situation with that. You can add up to 2000, basically, with no problems. You can add more when others start following you. For example, someone like Ashton Kutcher, who has 5,149,830 followers as I write this, COULD add that many that he is following. That would be a bit crazy, but would sure make for a lively Twitter stream.

Someone like Conan O'Brien, who famously is following ONE person, is an idiot who doesn't know how to use Twitter properly. No ONE person is fascinating enough that all you want to read is their Tweets. No one.

So you want a mix. What I look for in my stream is a combination of things I'm interested in (entertainment, music, comedy), people who are funny, people who are inspirational, political people, people up on current events, people who get Twitter.

Most of all, I think it's important that YOU not be bored with your Twitter stream. If you are sitting there, following only 10 of your closest friends and family, and no one's Tweeting anything, you're just staring at a blank screen, saying, I sure don't get this Twitter thing, you might wanna add some more folks.

Here's what I suggest. Take someone that you respect, whose Tweets are interesting/topical/funny to you, someone with a lot of friends, but someone who TWEETS. Don't use Oprah as an example. Love her, love her show, but she's terrible as a Twitter user. She still doesn't get it. Take, for example, someone who, when you look at their profile, you like or find funny or are interested in nearly every one of the things they Tweet. Use THAT person. Go to their list of people they are following, and cull from there.

And yes, it is more time-consuming, but I would suggest, especially initially, going through and reading, or at least glancing at, every profile of everyone you add. Look at that first page, and see if you are amused, then add them.

My former roommate was really struggling with Twitter, and she pretty much found everyone boring. I worry about her, and she's probably still not on Twitter. Twitter is an engagement medium, though. You give and others give back to you. If you're not interested in that, don't waste your time there.

But if you stay, you are looking for people you'd want to be friends with, hang out with, date, get to know socially, get a job from, just like in real life. If someone is a sports fanatic, and you loathe sports, you probably don't want them in your stream. No harm, no foul. It's your place, you craft it.

Personally, I banish Republicans and mommy bloggers from my stream. I'm sure they are wonderful people. I'm sure they have nice things to say, I just don't wanna hear "Joey just threw up" one more time. Some people take it very personally if you don't add them, or worse, unfollow them. Too bad.

It's your stream, you're reading it, it's gotta be vital to you. VITAL. And you're the one who makes it so. Today I rely on Twitter for my most current news, my sports scores, earthquake stats, news about celebrity deaths, all sorts of things I get there first before anywhere else.

I also make it a practice not to add companies that you know are going to spew ads at you, radio stations that just spew their playlist, things that in general are annoying. In fact, if you add someone that you think is fine, then they start spewing a bunch of crap, unfollow them. Without hesitation. Or if you read a bunch of Tweets from someone and they bore the crap out of you, unfollow them.

I cull my Twitter list now every day. Since I'm at my max of 2001, I add and delete people constantly, and keep a list of those I hear about that I want to follow, when I'm able to. It used to be proper Twitter etiquette that anyone who followed you, you could automatically follow, but that's fallen out of fashion (in my case, only because of the Twitter limits). There was talk of Twitter possibly adding a feature where you could automatically add those who followed you, but it hasn't happened so far.

People sometimes ask if it's difficult to read the stream of 2001 people. No, because not everyone's every Tweet shows up. I wish they had the Facebook feature where you could highlight those you REALLY want to read every Tweet from, and let others fall where they may.

I will say this, with 2001 people, there is always an interesting mix of stuff coming over Twitter. I have people on my list from all over the world, so my Twitter never sleeps (if you only add people in your area, your Twitter will be dead for eight hours a night). I personally think you need to be following at least 1000 people to have a good mix, but everyone's view on this is different.

Would I follow 25,000 people if I was able to? Certainly.

Also, if you are tired of culling through profiles one by one, and just want a bunch of suggestions of who to follow, try these things. 

1. Lists

Good Twitter users have developed lists for the people on their stream. This is really good for job hunters, as many people have lists about job possibilities. But while you are culling through people's profiles, if you see that they have lists, check them out. Add people from them that you find interesting. Especially if there are people who have the same interests you do.

2. Follow Fridays

You'll hear about this a lot. Here's what I know. People who participate in Follow Friday are good Twitterers, period. In short, it's people on Twitter recommending a group of people for others to follow. In my case, I recommend people who either have made that week fun for me, or people who I know always have good Tweets that I think others would benefit from. I don't do it every week anymore (depends how busy I am), but it's an important part of Twitter culture. Look to those who do it, and do it yourself. I also do a "Celeb Follow Friday" occasionally. (By and large, celebs on Twitter are a waste of time, but there are those worth following sometimes.)

The people who are good Twitterers are those who are active and engaged. Who thank you for RTing them, for FollowFridaying them, for responding. Good citizens, good netizens, people with good hearts. That's why I love Twitter. To find so many like that all over the world. You have 2000. Choose them wisely.

**************************************************************