Field Notes Inside an Integrated Communications Agency

I thought the commercial was a parody of ubiquitous pharmaceutical ads. The announcer starts, "Grow lashes. Grow longer, grow fuller and darker lashes."

Unfortunately it was a real ubiquitous ad. Thank God the FDA has approved Latisse — "the first and only prescription treatment for inadequate or not enough lashes." Seems the same company that brought us Botox — botulism for beauty sake — recently launched a cure-all for wimpy lashes. I'm no alopecia hater. I've even worked on clinical trials for hair growth. Clearly everyone is entitled to eyelashes but this is further proof that elective cosmeceuticals are the growing trend.

Get used to it folks. There's less hassle for pharmaceutical companies in products that focus on lifestyle and not just life. People in wealthy developed regions choose to pay for these treatments. Therefore price pressures and perceptions of health entitlement aren't in the mix. Heck, diseases like Cancer and HIV are just too hard and take too long to research. I only wish the same developed regions wanted to pay for treatments that helped them breathe better, increase mobility or prolong quality of life. Research dollars would flow.

Luckily, I was graced with long, dark, luxurious eyelashes. No Latisse for me. But unleashing a little botulism on a few laugh lines…hmmmm.

Do you really need a degree to report the news? According to the past week's coverage of the protest rallies in Iran...not really. For the past week and for the first time ever, CNN, The New York Times, BBC and other big news corporations have been reporting based on the updates of Twitterers and other social media users. Some broadcasters have deemed this phenomenon the "Twitter Revolution;" but personally, I'm seeing it as the "Social Media is Taking Your Job- Revolution."

This past week has been a week of unrest in Iran, following the presidential re-election of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. With claims and accusations of election fraud, Iran's Supreme Leader ordered a halt to the protests and a ban on international media coverage. This ban led to international news networks depending on civilian eyewitness reports received through social media sites.

Because of the rapidness of status updates and tweets, many are relying on social media sites for news. However, the fact that some of the most influential news giants are turning to Twitter to find out the news is ground-breaking.

But what are the downfalls of this increasing dependency on social media for information? People are depending on social media sites for news increasingly, every day; yet these same people are taking the chance of being misled. This past semester, there was a shooting at my university. The shooting happened on a Sunday at around 12:30 am; however, in a public relations disaster, school officials did not notify students until hours later. The local news station did not broadcast the story until the next afternoon and still had little information to share with viewers. Their mistake.

Students and parents were enraged. The only way people could find out what was going on was through reading random status updates on Facebook. By the time the school sent out the "emergency" alert, everyone and their mama already knew the information...

Sort of.

One downfall to depending on social networking sites for breaking news is the authenticity of what is being reported. Because of Facebook, I was under the impression that the shooter was on a rampage around the campus, hiding in bushes and wreaking havoc on random dorms for hours. Locked in my room, my friends and I stayed on Facebook until the university's "emergency" alert finally went out. (Much) later, we found out that the incident was not as severe as we had thought.

Reporting credible information is the chance that reporters are taking by depending on social media. Because Iranian authorities wouldn't allow international journalists to report on the violent rallies, CNN depended on "iReports" all day. Almost all of CNN's staff was monitoring Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Flikr, Blogger and other sites that were being used by Iranians to share the events with the world. While this allowed for thorough coverage of the events, the CNN news team was unable to authenticate its findings. With reports of hackings and deliberately misleading reports on social networking sites, no news network was able to confirm statements from twitterers.

So, what does this mean for Journalism, as we know it? The same way that CNN gained viewers by becoming the nation's first 24-hour news network, the Internet is taking over, and now social media is taking over. People want to know what's going on and they want they want the information quickly. But can 140-character tweets on social networking sites compete with relatively fast, detailed articles published online?

Well...I'm not even sure if it's a competition anymore. Social media is taking over, so I guess the real question could be: is your job next?

I have been toying around with LinkedIn for a year or so now, and it seems to be a valuable networking tool. The value, like all other tools both online or offline, being dependent on the time and energy one puts in to developing and utilizing that avenue. I'm sure that I have yet to unlock the full potential of something like LinkedIn. Aside from listing my job positions and connecting to a reasonably good sized selection of co-workers, business associates, classmates and friends, I haven't done much to expand my network.

Over the past few weeks I have noticed an increase in the number of connection requests I have received. Too bad for me it is not my growing popularity – the requests are not coming from people I know or have ever heard of, and they are seemingly generic requests. My guess is these are mass requests – sent out to entire groups or networks in hopes of simply increasing ones number of contacts. So I have been thinking… is this common practice? My personal philosophy – in terms of social networking – has always been more of a focus on quality rather than quantity. This might be due to my paranoid parents refusing to list our home phone number and address in the local phone book when I was a kid (so the crazy people didn't bother us.) Ultimately, I have seen social networking as a way to remain in touch with people I value in my real life – simply an extension of what goes on offline. Sorry – but if I don't know you, I am not "friending" you on Facebook. I'm not sure I want you to know any of my personal information! I have taken this same approach with LinkedIn.

My question is… am I going about this all wrong? In order to achieve my personal best results with LinkedIn, should I be connecting to everyone and their grandmother in hopes of finding that special person who might help me later on in life? I guess I just see these mass connection invites come across as petty. These people don't really want to know me, they just want my connection. Is this not the same thing as a man climbing up on a table at some networking event and announcing to 300 people, 'my name is John Doe, and I am a valuable person for you to know. Come sign up now to be my friend – don't miss out!'

Ever get the strange feeling that you're being watched?

Well...SURPRISE! You are.

Recall that time when you walked into work or class, minding your own business. Now, you didn't realize it, but someone was discreetly peeking at you thinking, "Oh...(s)he's here."  Recall that time when you spoke up in a meeting or group discussion. That person was thinking, "Oh...(s)he's talking, let me pay attention." Now recall that time when you were with a group of friends in a public area; yes, that person was still looking at you.

It sounds creepy doesn't it? As "stalkerish" as it sounds, the truth is that we often serve as the object of someone's attention, whether they know us personally or not. Our life, as they see it, is on display for them to critique and analyze, out of (hopefully) innocent curiosity. It could be someone that you speak to in passing, or it could be that random janitor that comes in at the end of the day. Whether you realize it or not, someone is thinking about you at this very moment, and honestly, they're probably scanning your Facebook page for its latest update.

Social media has brought about a new age of accessibility for people to get to know each other, without the "inconvenience" of having a face-to-face conversation. These people know what you like, who you associate with and they may even know about that strange obsession that you thought was personal. Their habit of keeping tabs on you has evolved from peeking around the corner and asking others about you, to spending time scanning your latest tweets.

Now, the anonymous attention may be flattering for some, but it can also be downright scary. Users of social media sites have often treated it as something more personal than it really is. We can be so candid in our status updates and random tweets, not realizing that someone is closely following every single one. Singer Erykah Badu recently twittered through the birth of her daughter. She told the world when she was finally in labor, then proceeded to inform followers about the timing of her contractions. Her husband finally took over (I guess she was busy) and proceeded to describe the baby's crowning. He said, “I see the head, full of hair!”

Can you say, "TMI?"

The truth is, you are being constantly being watched. Even though you've set your privacy settings and may only have close friends and colleagues on your list, these social networking sites are like small towns; and nobody (I repeat, nobody) talks to every single person in town, regularly.

I have tried to narrow my own friend lists down to the people that I would at least smile at or say "hello" to in passing. But does that mean that I'm comfortable with them following me so closely? I don't know.

As social media grows and expands to include employers, co-workers, moms, dads, the little kid you used to babysit and even Grandma (yes, Grandma); we've got to be very cautious about how we present ourselves online. Someone very close to me came very close to losing a scholarship because of something he posted on his own Facebook page. So, remember that people are always looking, and taking special attention to you, in particular. Your online representation and presentation should be like a mirrored reflection of yourself...

but try to think of it as a "Funhouse Mirror" and makes sure that it's presenting you in the most positive light (without the hairy mole and uni-brow).

There was a terrific article in the New Yorker last week that points out why the debate is Washington over how to "fix" health care is focused on the wrong things.

Fans of a single-payer system -- as legion and ardent as any crowd of Deadheads you'll ever meet -- subbornly equate "reform" with a government run system.  Period.  Anyone with doubts about putting 16 percent of our nation's GDP in the hands of the same folks who brought us FEMA trailers are painted as reactionaries, obstructive, self-interested or worse.

This confuses universal coverage with public sector control. Yes, Canada and England have a single system, but Germany and Australia get the job done with a public-private mix.  Or think about how Medicare and private supplemental coverage works.  While our current system doesn't pool risk as effectively as it could, the primary problem is not the funding mechanism.

Which brings me to a terrific article in the New Yorker by Atul Gawande.  Dr. Gawande examines two Texas towns of similar demographics and health status, but startlingly different health care costs.  Why, Gawanda asks, is McAllen, Texas, the "most expensive town in the most expensive country in the world?"  An interesting question, especially since Medicare costs in the demographically similar population in nearby El Paso county are HALF what they are in McAllen.

The good folks at the Darmouth Atlas program have been documenting such oddities in great detail for a quarter of a century.  Yet local health care providers, from specialists to hospital administrators, couldn't explain this cost differential, and some were surprised to find that their costs were high in comparison to other markets.

The evidence supports none of their guesses as to why this is.  We give better care.  (But outcomes aren't measurably better.)  We have so many sick and poor people here. (But McAllen's population is not very dissimilar from many other locations with much lower costs.)  Our town is more litigious. (But Texas tort reform has significantly curtailed malpractice costs.)

What seems to be the problem is that McAllen's health care providers simply provide more care, LOTS more care, of virtualy all kinds. And there are more of them in McAllen doing it.  Why not?  That's what our do-more, earn-more reimbursement system rewards.

We could, instead, pay for the most cost-effective care. Federal stimulus legislation funds studies on comparative quality in health care that would make this possible.  Creating a comprehensive database on what methods, devices and drugs work best should be a road map on how we should reimburse health providers and manufacturers. 

Resistance to this small section of the bill was fierce, and it only passed when it was specified that this research would not impact reimbursement practices.  See, you can't cut health care costs without someone making less money.  And what group or organization will volunteer to do that? 

Any system, public or private, that doesn't break this logjam won't give us the real reform we need.