A few days back the New York Times online and LinkedIn (a very popular social network for professionals) joined together in a substantial content deal that will mutually benefit the giants. Its like Web content's Panama Canal joining two oceans of users with a cleverly-placed shortcut.
This
is significant for the two sites. LinkedIn is seen as a network
reference-only site that is infrequently sourced by an enourmous based
of members. The New York Times is a news giant who's seeing their
numbers decline like all other news orgs. This is a marriage of
convenience that is significant for many reasons.
First, the New York Times is in a unique position to help LinkedIn with catch-of-the-day content relevant to sectors suiting their members' interestes. LinkedIn has seen fresh subscribable content as their Achilles heel. People only visit when they have a specific networking need. The New York Times can address LinkedIn's content freshness with little additional cost or effort.
Second, this is significant because LinkedIn boasts millions of members who aren't currently visitng the New York Times. Ad revenues will likely increase as a result right out of the gate.
The question is, will people who happen to be confirming the occasional Link request use LinkedIn as their news portal? And will the New York Times online drive more people to LinkedIn? It remains to be seen. I predict this marriage will favor the New York Times as their merely opening another channel for incoming traffic which will boost the money they can make on advertising. LinkedIn, at least in the beginning, will not likely see reciprocal traffic from their new partner because people who are quickly accessing their daily news fix are less likely to jump into relationship building.I use Google Maps on my Blackberry. When I log on, it shows me my location wherever I am within about 1700 feet, I am told. This is cool. I needed to find an intersection last Sunday. I pulled out my Blackberry, clicked on the Google Maps icon and within 3 seconds there was a little blue beacon blinking on a map of a location somewhere outside of Charlotte. Yep that's where I am. I zoomed out on the little map and WHAM! there was my answer. Don't turn here, go another intersection further south. Wow. Blackberry and Google really helped me out while I felt totally lost.
Then I saw an electronic billboard about 75 feet up in the air, as I zoomed by, that I swear was a Blackberry ad with a Google Maps example on the screen. WHat?!? You have to be kidding me. No way. I started to slow down, bite my lip and wonder if I needed to turn around for a second look. Did it also say my name?
Point here is we are experiencing convergent marketing where this stuff, whether I saw it or not, is becoming more of a reality.
Location-based, personal advertising is not out of the realm of now. Would it be difficult for my cell phone/mobile data provider to signal the server powering that billboard after it received a signal from my blackberry? While I am in eye shot of that billboard, is it inconceivable that it could send a 3 second message from a company that I looked up on Google from my blackberry the hour before?
How well do they know me?
What will happen to all my information when I die? As of today, I have over a TB of music, movies, files, documents, images and other stuff on disks and drives. Some of it is in my possession and some of it is on servers all over the world, just a password away. When I pass away, hopefully that won't be for several more decades, I may have thousands of terabytes.
When I pass away someone will grab one of those big drives and do what with it? Presumably it would be a family member...maybe one of the more luddite ones. They will throw it in a box or a garbage can. All of the data I have stored on servers spread across the world don't know me or have any connections to me and will have no idea.
What do they do with aging data? Does it have a life? Does privacy keep everyone from accessing it? Does your data have a will? Do you have impossible passwords that will guarantee no one will ever see it? Weird to imagine, isn't it?
This afternoon we jousted peeps.
Here is how its done.
1.You take a peep and equip it with a toothpick or cocktail sword.
2. Line 'em up and prepare them for the joust. We put them on a paper plate and then place our bets.
3.Place them gingerly into the microwave.
4. Whichever peep falls last or whose sword (toothpick) lands on top, wins. Enjoy!
I had lunch with a colleague this past week and we were talking about recruiting design talent.
We chatted about what it was like when designers come in for an interview and "blow smoke" regarding how much they like our current design portfolio.
We agreed how refreshing it would be to have a designer come in and tell us something less flattering. What does that really accomplish for either person in the interview?
Because in the end, we strive on constant improvement and we aren't that interested in people, specifically design talent, that like what we have or where we've been. We want someone that has the courage, vitality and vision to tell us where they would like to go.
(full disclosure statement: this is about you, superstar. Give us a call.)
I hate very little. But today I have launched a new war on something I hate a lot. A war on something so despicable it deserves the grizzliest of all deaths. I want to launch a war on softspeak. Sawdust. Diet interjectives like "kinda" and "sorta". What the hell is wrong with us? Why do we all seem to say these? Really strong speakers are saying these things. I sorta want you to notice if you are kinda hearing these things too. Or is it kinda just me?
When people fill their sentences with "kinda" and "sorta" I immediately wonder if they know what they are talking about. Is it just a confidence thing? Then like a timid monkey, I start doing it...unknowingly aping them with this scourge of conversation. I hate it! I hate that I say it too.
There is another one too. "I mean." Oooo I hate that one more than the others despite it being slightly less prevalent.
"I mean, I kinda want to make sure we are sorta giving you what you sorta paid for in the first place. I mean, you know what I mean?"
My war has three parts.
Part one: I want to know if it is truly as pervasive as I think. So I am reaching out to everyone to check the communal pulse on this one. Is it just me?
Part Two: If it is as truly epidemic as I think it is, I want to come up with a strategy to get people to notice it and how ridiculous and destructive it is and sounds, and to take note of its sour consequences.
Part Three: Let's come up with a way to help people regain the courage to talk without filler words like "kinda" and "sorta" and "like" and phrases like "I mean". This will be the hardest part. But I think it will be worth the effort.
So, what do you say, are you with me?
Have you ever noticed how some designers take notes? I work with a lot of designers in a strategic communications agency and we talk a lot about how to help our clients meet their goals. Much of what we do is story-telling through design. In our agency we do an enormous amount of brainstorming in special brainstorming rooms.
When we are running through dozens of ideas for a particular client several days after a brainstorm some of our designers will pull out a moleskin or sketchpad they used to record the session. In that book are a multitude of doodles or sketches having what seems to me to have nothing to do with the brainstorm we both attended.
Our designers will open to the page and read back through their sketches, recalling exactly what happend in a strikingly accurate blow-by-blow.
I am so impressed by that. It is like a parallel syntax they use with fluency. What's more, in much of our work, it gets used in our creative concepting and its smart.
So, if you are in a brainstorm and your designers are doodling, don't worry, its their way of taking notes, passing time, rapid prototyping and rendering a flurry of ideas into an indellible picture for later.