"The hothouse environment of a collaborative circle can make the ideas and achievements of the participants develop faster than if the participants were all pursuing the identical goals without sharing. Our ability to simultaneously pursue our own goals while being mindful and supportive of other people’s goals is fundamental to human life—so fundamental, in fact, that we actually have trouble turning it off."
I love Lady Gaga. The girl is nuts, there’s no denying that, but she’s dedicated to her work and her fans. She writes her own music, and that’s something to be said in this age of music. She’s controversial, but that’s part of her appeal. Everyone is always wondering, “What will Gaga do next?”, well at least I am anyway. That’s why I was so excited when “Telephone” came out. Talk about collaboration. Beyonce, and Gaga, can you say, “Powerhouse duo”? But, putting Beyonce on the track wasn’t the initial plan. Lady Gaga originally wrote “Telephone” for Britney Spears, and not Gaga and Britney, just Britney. Britney rejected the song (thank the music gods), but Gaga wasn’t going to let the song die in music heaven. In my head I imagine Gaga thought, “I have this bitchin’ song, screw Britney, I’m going to sing it, and to put icing on the cake Imma call my girl Beyonce”, or something like that. The song dominated the charts, and the duo got praise for the video (ironically, they had collaborated on Beyonce’s “Video Phone” previously, guess they really like phones?).
The point is that collaboration is key, two heads are better than one, two voices better than one, or in the case of Carlos Santana, one voice and one guitar are better together. Santana is a God. I drove by his house once. I have pictures if you ever want to see it. Everyone loves his single classics, Oye Como Va is my favorite. He’s experienced great success throughout his career, snagging Grammy’s since 1988. Despite his great success before the 21st century, he didn’t dominate until Grammy’s until 2000. Every year there’s an artist who sweeps the Grammy’s and 2000 was Carlos Santana’s year. Wonder why? Collaboration. His album Supernatural won nine Grammy’s. He teamed up with Rob Thomas, Eagle Eye Cherry, Wyclef, Lauryn Hill, and Eric Clapton just to name a few. The album was such a success that he stuck with the same formula for his next album, pairing up with Michelle Branch, Seal, and Chad Kroger.
Producer, Timbaland followed the model for basically every song he’s ever been on. He’s literally made a career out of collaboration. I just looked through my iTunes and the only song I could find that Timbaland did solo was called “Ease off the Liquor”, I doubt you’ve ever heard of it, and I’ve listened to it twice, and I don’t remember either time. There’s a reason no one’s heard of this song. I’m not trying to discredit Timbaland by any means, but collaboration is key.
I wonder if Shirky would call music collaborations intrinsic or extrinsic. As a fan I would like to think these artists had intrinsic intentions, they didn’t do it for the money, they collaborated because they enjoyed it. But as I sit and dream about how awesome it would be to hang out with Lady Gaga and Beyonce, I’m a little sad to think that maybe Santana, Timbaland, and any other collaborative artist simply chose the musician they collaborated with for commercial reasons. They were looking for a sure hit, a moneymaker, a chart topper, and they knew exactly who to team up with. The cynic in me can’t help, but be disappointed.
But wait, there’s a light at the end of the tunnel. The greatest musical collaboration of all time, “We Are The World”. The song, written in 1985, and every famous name from the 80’s is on the track. And the best part? The song was written to raise money for African relief. Then, in 2010 when Haiti was devastated by an earthquake stars came together again for a great cause. Yes, the reward of raising money for charity was extrinsic, but when the artists came together for reasons other than to make a buck, I’m sure part of their motivations were the chance to work with each other, which is purely intrinsic.
Wednesday, April 27, 2011
Thursday, April 14, 2011
Beep Bo Beep Bo (Gadget Noises)
I think Lanier has been spying on our class, but then again when I proposed that I thought our landlords were spying on us, my housemates laughed and called me paranoid, so take my paranoia with a grain of salt. But back to Lanier. As I was reading I Am Not A Gadget I couldn’t help but think that we had talked about a lot of points this book discusses. I don’t know how he did it, clearly a (hot tub) time machine was involved since he wrote this book was written before we started our class. Lanier took many of the issues we discussed in class, identified them in his book, then offered some solutions to them. Obviously the book covers issues we have not discussed (but we might discuss them in the future, so maybe there even more). He probably spied on other classes all around the country in all time periods.
Lanier opens the book with a bit of a negative tone; he talks about technology’s role in everyday life and the relationship of technology and the human condition (hence the title). He says, "The deep meaning of personhood is being reduced by illusions of bits. Since people will be inexorably connecting to one another through computers from here on out, we must find an alternative.” As grim as this may sound, he does offer some light at the end of the tunnel with a list of things to do to still maintain your human qualities while using technology. Memorize this, or you will be lost to technology!! (JK).
From Lanier’s First Chapter
• "Every save-the-world cause has a list of suggestions for “what each of us can do”: bike to work, recycle, and so on."
• "If you put effort into Wikipedia articles, put even more effort into using your personal voice and expression outside of the wiki to help attract people who don’t yet realize that they are interested in the topics you contributed to.”
• "Create a website that expresses something about who you are that won’t fit into the template available to you on a social networking site”
• "Post a video once in a while that took you one hundred times more time to create than it takes to view."
• "Write a blog post that took weeks of reflection before you heard the inner voice that needed to come out."
• "If you are twittering, innovate in order to find a way to describe your internal state instead of trivial external events, to avoid the creeping danger of believing that objectively described events define you, as they would define a machine."
I realize we didn’t discuss technological takeover in class, but we have discussed the integral role of technology, web 2.0, and certain websites like Snopes (my new favorite site), College ACB (my least favorite site), YouTube (which is in everyone’s top 10 favorite sites), etc.
Trolls, Lanier identifies them as, “an anonymous person who is abusive in an online environment." I just googled the term for nostalgia sake (remember those weird dolls with the neon hair, don’t deny it, you had one), but Wikipedia has a similar definition of troll. Clearly Troll doesn’t have a positive connotation, so it makes me happy to learn that internet bullies are widely associated with the repugnant. We all know the internet offers us vast tools to seek and dispense information, but as we discussed in class, some of that information can be hurtful, and too often unnecessary.
A common thread throughout the book, and through out our class, is the freedom of information. We can read digital publications of newspapers at no cost, we can download music for free (well, Prof Littau doesn’t), but there are many places to get free music, both legally and illegally. Lanier was seriously spying on our class, when he wrote about the struggle of journalists, musicians, artists, and filmmakers struggle to make a living in the web 2.0 era. But being in a room full of Journalism majors (Mr. Flowe aside), we are constantly worrying about our job future. I feel like Lanier took our concerns, mulled them over, and tried to offer solutions, but his “fixes” are tailored to the music industry
• "The giant musical act from the old days of the record business, grabbing a few headlines by posting music for free downloading:”
• "The aggregator: A handful of musicians run websites that aggregate the music of hundreds or thousands of others. There are a few services that offer themed streaming music, for instance."
• "The jingle/sound track/TV composer: You can still make money from getting music placed in a setting that hasn’t been destroyed by file sharing yet. Some examples are movie and TV sound tracks, commercial jingles, and so on”
• “The vanity career” (I didn’t completely understand this one, but I think it’s just people pretending to be musicians, aka Rebecca Black)
• "Kids in a van: You will make barely any money, but you can crash on couches and dine with fans you meet through the web. This is a good era for that kind of musical adventure."
Later Lanier also makes up some words (which are definitely from the future). These silly sounding words are actually solutions to a doomed future where all information is free and everyone is in the poorhouse. His first solution: Telegigging (sounds like a 22nd century dance move to me), This is Lanier’s explanation, "If canned content becomes a harder product to sell in the internet era, the return of live performance—in a new technological context—might be the starting point for new kinds of successful business plans." On a small level Lanier proposes “telepresent performances”, where small productions are holographed into homes. On a larger level Lanier proposes, “…"big stars and big-budget virtual sets, and big production values in every way, were harnessed to create a simulated world that home participants could enter in large numbers. This would be something like a cross between Second Life and teleimmersion”
His next solution is the songle (are you starting to believe he traveled to the future and brought these words back yet?). He proposes that ordinary object house songs rather than iPods or computers "Songles would provide a physical approach to creating artificial scarcity.” And how does it work? "You might wear a special necklace songle to a party, and music enabled by the necklace would come on automatically after you arrived, emanating from the entertainment system that is already providing the party with music. The necklace communicates with the entertainment system in order to make this happen. The musical mix at an event might be determined by the sum of the songles worn by everyone who shows up."
Also, I’m pretty sure Lanier “incepted” professor Littau. I am paranoid, maybe, but I could be right. Professor Littau is always talking about the importance of linking back to the original article, website, picture, etc. And Lanier discusses the grandfather of linking, Ted Nelson. Lanier credits Nelson with inventing the idea of linking back, and even proposes a world where people would make money on the content they create, because no copies would exist, only links. So, people would always see the original, and by them viewing it, the creator would turn a profit. Lanier says that in Nelson’s world there would be no copyright protection needed (there goes Media Laws and Ethics as a core class of the Journalism dept). I know the idea of linking is very important, but how cool would it be to say you know someone who was incepted?
Everything boils down to the fact that Lanier is a trickster, but I like him. He starts out sinister. He talks about how we are locked into technology that may not be efficient, but everyone has it so we’re locked in, and he’s spot on. My friend had a blackberry, hated that people could tell when she had read their bbms, changed to a droid, realized she was missing the conversation between all her friends happening on a bbm thread, and had to switch back. He identifies the theory that the development each new generation of machine is faster than that of the one before it, and that soon the development will become so fast that machines will become so intelligent they will make decisions (like Watson, or the computer developed by Deep Blue that beat the world’s best chess player). But, he also highlights the benefits of technology, like expanded lifespan.
As an interesting side note, Lanier does not discuss his development of time travel. Very suspicious I’d say.
Lanier opens the book with a bit of a negative tone; he talks about technology’s role in everyday life and the relationship of technology and the human condition (hence the title). He says, "The deep meaning of personhood is being reduced by illusions of bits. Since people will be inexorably connecting to one another through computers from here on out, we must find an alternative.” As grim as this may sound, he does offer some light at the end of the tunnel with a list of things to do to still maintain your human qualities while using technology. Memorize this, or you will be lost to technology!! (JK).
From Lanier’s First Chapter
• "Every save-the-world cause has a list of suggestions for “what each of us can do”: bike to work, recycle, and so on."
• "If you put effort into Wikipedia articles, put even more effort into using your personal voice and expression outside of the wiki to help attract people who don’t yet realize that they are interested in the topics you contributed to.”
• "Create a website that expresses something about who you are that won’t fit into the template available to you on a social networking site”
• "Post a video once in a while that took you one hundred times more time to create than it takes to view."
• "Write a blog post that took weeks of reflection before you heard the inner voice that needed to come out."
• "If you are twittering, innovate in order to find a way to describe your internal state instead of trivial external events, to avoid the creeping danger of believing that objectively described events define you, as they would define a machine."
I realize we didn’t discuss technological takeover in class, but we have discussed the integral role of technology, web 2.0, and certain websites like Snopes (my new favorite site), College ACB (my least favorite site), YouTube (which is in everyone’s top 10 favorite sites), etc.
Trolls, Lanier identifies them as, “an anonymous person who is abusive in an online environment." I just googled the term for nostalgia sake (remember those weird dolls with the neon hair, don’t deny it, you had one), but Wikipedia has a similar definition of troll. Clearly Troll doesn’t have a positive connotation, so it makes me happy to learn that internet bullies are widely associated with the repugnant. We all know the internet offers us vast tools to seek and dispense information, but as we discussed in class, some of that information can be hurtful, and too often unnecessary.
A common thread throughout the book, and through out our class, is the freedom of information. We can read digital publications of newspapers at no cost, we can download music for free (well, Prof Littau doesn’t), but there are many places to get free music, both legally and illegally. Lanier was seriously spying on our class, when he wrote about the struggle of journalists, musicians, artists, and filmmakers struggle to make a living in the web 2.0 era. But being in a room full of Journalism majors (Mr. Flowe aside), we are constantly worrying about our job future. I feel like Lanier took our concerns, mulled them over, and tried to offer solutions, but his “fixes” are tailored to the music industry
• "The giant musical act from the old days of the record business, grabbing a few headlines by posting music for free downloading:”
• "The aggregator: A handful of musicians run websites that aggregate the music of hundreds or thousands of others. There are a few services that offer themed streaming music, for instance."
• "The jingle/sound track/TV composer: You can still make money from getting music placed in a setting that hasn’t been destroyed by file sharing yet. Some examples are movie and TV sound tracks, commercial jingles, and so on”
• “The vanity career” (I didn’t completely understand this one, but I think it’s just people pretending to be musicians, aka Rebecca Black)
• "Kids in a van: You will make barely any money, but you can crash on couches and dine with fans you meet through the web. This is a good era for that kind of musical adventure."
Later Lanier also makes up some words (which are definitely from the future). These silly sounding words are actually solutions to a doomed future where all information is free and everyone is in the poorhouse. His first solution: Telegigging (sounds like a 22nd century dance move to me), This is Lanier’s explanation, "If canned content becomes a harder product to sell in the internet era, the return of live performance—in a new technological context—might be the starting point for new kinds of successful business plans." On a small level Lanier proposes “telepresent performances”, where small productions are holographed into homes. On a larger level Lanier proposes, “…"big stars and big-budget virtual sets, and big production values in every way, were harnessed to create a simulated world that home participants could enter in large numbers. This would be something like a cross between Second Life and teleimmersion”
His next solution is the songle (are you starting to believe he traveled to the future and brought these words back yet?). He proposes that ordinary object house songs rather than iPods or computers "Songles would provide a physical approach to creating artificial scarcity.” And how does it work? "You might wear a special necklace songle to a party, and music enabled by the necklace would come on automatically after you arrived, emanating from the entertainment system that is already providing the party with music. The necklace communicates with the entertainment system in order to make this happen. The musical mix at an event might be determined by the sum of the songles worn by everyone who shows up."
Also, I’m pretty sure Lanier “incepted” professor Littau. I am paranoid, maybe, but I could be right. Professor Littau is always talking about the importance of linking back to the original article, website, picture, etc. And Lanier discusses the grandfather of linking, Ted Nelson. Lanier credits Nelson with inventing the idea of linking back, and even proposes a world where people would make money on the content they create, because no copies would exist, only links. So, people would always see the original, and by them viewing it, the creator would turn a profit. Lanier says that in Nelson’s world there would be no copyright protection needed (there goes Media Laws and Ethics as a core class of the Journalism dept). I know the idea of linking is very important, but how cool would it be to say you know someone who was incepted?
Everything boils down to the fact that Lanier is a trickster, but I like him. He starts out sinister. He talks about how we are locked into technology that may not be efficient, but everyone has it so we’re locked in, and he’s spot on. My friend had a blackberry, hated that people could tell when she had read their bbms, changed to a droid, realized she was missing the conversation between all her friends happening on a bbm thread, and had to switch back. He identifies the theory that the development each new generation of machine is faster than that of the one before it, and that soon the development will become so fast that machines will become so intelligent they will make decisions (like Watson, or the computer developed by Deep Blue that beat the world’s best chess player). But, he also highlights the benefits of technology, like expanded lifespan.
As an interesting side note, Lanier does not discuss his development of time travel. Very suspicious I’d say.
Wednesday, April 6, 2011
Betty White!
My nana is the best. I know everyone says that, but she really is. Everything, minus her health, is awesome. My Nana’s chocolate cake recipe is the best. She makes the best rolls. My Nana introduced me to Cherry Limeades at Sonic. She loves the Denver Nuggets, and is still really upset about Melo and Chauncy. She’s so nice to everyone. Her worst insult is “Dumb Bunny”. Like what is that, it doesn’t really feel insulting, but that’s as dirty as her mouth gets.
Obviously I’m biased, I’m sure a lot of people adore their Nana, Grandmother, Grandma, G-Ma, Nonna, Nonni, Abuela, Abuelita etc. There are a million names out there for Nana’s, because every grandmother is a little different…right? Of course they all have unique quirks, but in theory grandmothers have the same characteristics. They are all caring, and kind. All of them spoil their grandchildren. They all are amazing cooks. They usually host the family gatherings. They are all funny without meaning to be. These common thread are why we all love comedical grandmas in movies. One of the funniest grandma’s of the silver screen is Ellen Albertini Dow, who plays the grouchy, senile grandma in wedding crashers. She epitomizes the grumpy old lady rule (the one great thing about growing to be that old, is that you can say whatever, literally whatever, you want). She also plays the cute lady who raps in the wedding singer.
But, if there’s one Nana who is a blockbuster, it’s Betty White. Her last name, and her hair, may be white, but everything she touches turns to gold. Everyone loved her as Rose in the Golden Girls, but really made her comeback in the Proposal. She killed it in the Proposal and really she was the only person who did. She’s sweet and funny, and this 91-year-old legend isn’t afraid to let loose. She carries all the great aspects of Nanas, which is why I think people love her so much. I haven’t watched Hot in Cleveland, but I’m guessing she steals the show.
Last May, Betty White hosted Saturday Night Live. It was an epic performance, which was ironically contrasted with musical performances by Jay-Z, who would ever think to match them up (but thank God they did). Interestingly enough, Betty White wasn’t originally supposed to host the show. During White’s opening monologue she explained that after several months of campaigning via Facebook, her fans had convinced NBC to let her host the show. In fact, it was her fans idea. According to an article from the Christian Science Monitor, a Facebook page called Betty White to Host SNL (please?) was started in January of 2010 by David Matthews. As time passed the grassroots campaign grew exponentially, and finally it was big enough to get NBC’s attention. White didn’t start the campaign; it was all started by her fans (http://www.csmonitor.com/From-the-news-wires/2010/0507/Thanks-to-grassroots-Facebook-campaign-actress-Betty-White-to-host-Saturday-Night-Live)
The power of the masses is undeniable. Fiona Apple hit it big with criminal. Zuniga tells the story of how her fans started a grassroots campaign for the release of her sophomore album, which had been shelved by her record label Sony. Apple said she made the decision to shelve it, but her fans are completely responsible for the album’s release.
"Take charge of your message, your strategy, and your effectiveness. Don’t wait for orders—seek out your own fellow troops, join or start networks, and be a catalyst for change. Find creative ways to get the word out, in new and unexpected venues, tailored to your local conditions and audience,” (Zuniga, Taking On the System).
It’s unlikely Betty White incepted David Matthews into starting a Facebook page for her; she didn’t even know what Facebook was. David did exactly what Zuniga cites at the beginning of Chapter 2. He rallied the troops using Facebook to get Betty White onto the SNL, and he got a ticket as well (not too shabby, my friend). Many of Zuniga’s other pieces of advice weren’t necessary for Matthews to use (he didn’t need to craft the hero, Betty White was perfect, and he didn’t have a villain to target, maybe NBC, but not really), but he hit “Mobilize” spot on. With mediums like Facebook and Twitter the distance between fan and celebrity or artist is bridged. The distance between fan and industry executive is also bridged. Fans can finally have a voice; you can surpass the gatekeepers to choose the entertainment you want. Betty White can be in the same vicinity as Jay-Z. T
Obviously I’m biased, I’m sure a lot of people adore their Nana, Grandmother, Grandma, G-Ma, Nonna, Nonni, Abuela, Abuelita etc. There are a million names out there for Nana’s, because every grandmother is a little different…right? Of course they all have unique quirks, but in theory grandmothers have the same characteristics. They are all caring, and kind. All of them spoil their grandchildren. They all are amazing cooks. They usually host the family gatherings. They are all funny without meaning to be. These common thread are why we all love comedical grandmas in movies. One of the funniest grandma’s of the silver screen is Ellen Albertini Dow, who plays the grouchy, senile grandma in wedding crashers. She epitomizes the grumpy old lady rule (the one great thing about growing to be that old, is that you can say whatever, literally whatever, you want). She also plays the cute lady who raps in the wedding singer.
But, if there’s one Nana who is a blockbuster, it’s Betty White. Her last name, and her hair, may be white, but everything she touches turns to gold. Everyone loved her as Rose in the Golden Girls, but really made her comeback in the Proposal. She killed it in the Proposal and really she was the only person who did. She’s sweet and funny, and this 91-year-old legend isn’t afraid to let loose. She carries all the great aspects of Nanas, which is why I think people love her so much. I haven’t watched Hot in Cleveland, but I’m guessing she steals the show.
Last May, Betty White hosted Saturday Night Live. It was an epic performance, which was ironically contrasted with musical performances by Jay-Z, who would ever think to match them up (but thank God they did). Interestingly enough, Betty White wasn’t originally supposed to host the show. During White’s opening monologue she explained that after several months of campaigning via Facebook, her fans had convinced NBC to let her host the show. In fact, it was her fans idea. According to an article from the Christian Science Monitor, a Facebook page called Betty White to Host SNL (please?) was started in January of 2010 by David Matthews. As time passed the grassroots campaign grew exponentially, and finally it was big enough to get NBC’s attention. White didn’t start the campaign; it was all started by her fans (http://www.csmonitor.com/From-the-news-wires/2010/0507/Thanks-to-grassroots-Facebook-campaign-actress-Betty-White-to-host-Saturday-Night-Live)
The power of the masses is undeniable. Fiona Apple hit it big with criminal. Zuniga tells the story of how her fans started a grassroots campaign for the release of her sophomore album, which had been shelved by her record label Sony. Apple said she made the decision to shelve it, but her fans are completely responsible for the album’s release.
"Take charge of your message, your strategy, and your effectiveness. Don’t wait for orders—seek out your own fellow troops, join or start networks, and be a catalyst for change. Find creative ways to get the word out, in new and unexpected venues, tailored to your local conditions and audience,” (Zuniga, Taking On the System).
It’s unlikely Betty White incepted David Matthews into starting a Facebook page for her; she didn’t even know what Facebook was. David did exactly what Zuniga cites at the beginning of Chapter 2. He rallied the troops using Facebook to get Betty White onto the SNL, and he got a ticket as well (not too shabby, my friend). Many of Zuniga’s other pieces of advice weren’t necessary for Matthews to use (he didn’t need to craft the hero, Betty White was perfect, and he didn’t have a villain to target, maybe NBC, but not really), but he hit “Mobilize” spot on. With mediums like Facebook and Twitter the distance between fan and celebrity or artist is bridged. The distance between fan and industry executive is also bridged. Fans can finally have a voice; you can surpass the gatekeepers to choose the entertainment you want. Betty White can be in the same vicinity as Jay-Z. T
Wednesday, March 23, 2011
eeekkkk sorry i forgot to put this up earlier
The Heaths squared discuss proverbs and catchphrases as sticky because they are compact. I went through (and still find myself going through) a phase when I often said, “You win some, you lose some.” It was a joke amongst my friends because I was saying it so often. The one thing I realized about my usage of, “You win some, you lose some” was that when I used it appropriately, I was only saying it when someone had lost something. After all, if someone wins, do you really want to tell them they might lose next time? If you don’t like them, then you might, but otherwise you probably won’t say it. The more I said it, the more I realized, I wasn’t highlighting anyone’s, including my own, success.
This brings me to another phrase, which is, “there’s a time and a place for ____” in this case, “There’s a time and a place for catchphrases”. For me, I appreciate when the time, place, and catchphrase, aren’t in coordination. Other times, and this is really the best, when someone’s response, is just too perfect. The time a dog named Nessa came to visit was one of those times.
Nessa is a lovely puppy. Initially, she belonged to my housemate’s, boyfriend’s sister, but she stayed with my housemate’s boyfriend, Derek for a while. Derek lives in Hoboken, and he had to travel for a week, so his girlfriend (my housemate) offered to take Nessa in while he was away (are you following so far?). We aren’t sure what mix she is, but boxers, pit bulls, and possibly labs are most likely involved in her pedigree. When Nessa came to visit, the other dog who lives at our house, Reese, had a fun playtime partner. Nessa was a cuddling pup, with an energetic personality, but she wasn’t very well trained when she came to visit. As puppies sometimes do, Nessa had an accident in our basement, and not the liquid kind. I offered to clean it because Nessa’s caretaker was in class, (and Nessa had ripped up her tempurpedic pillow only hours before). Later that day, one of the other girls I live with texted me to ask how Nessa was doing. I said, “Nessa pooped in the basement” she responded, without even thinking about her response, “Shitty”. I laughed and said back, “Yup, shit happens.”
The story of Nessa’s accident is one of those times when a catchphrase is just too perfect. As a side note, the story of Nessa has a very happy ending; She went to police dog training and now has impeccable manners, and perfect potty skills.
The Heath’s squared taught me that catchphrases resonate because they are compact and teach lessons. Everyone appreciates a good catchphrase, especially if you’re not highlighting their loss, and everyone most likely appreciates a catchphrase that’s too good, but I there’s one type of catchphrase that’s way too underrated; the completely inappropriate, irrelevant catchphrase. A while ago I started pulling the Ron Burgundy, “When in Rome” thing and would sometimes use catchphrases when they didn’t apply, unfortunately, I have some friends who weren’t perceptive enough to get that I was joking, and I ended up looking like an idiot. Also, random people who heard my “witty” remarks usually thought I was out of the loop as well, and I got some weird looks. As of now, I’ve scaled back my proverb use, but every once in a while, when the scenario really doesn’t fit, but the company is right, I’ll whip one out. It’s unfortunate that society isn’t accepting, but, you win some, you lose some. Am I right?
The one thing I wonder about is, if you use catchphrases, do people take you seriously? Sometimes, when people say catchphrases to me, I feel like they aren’t very genuine. Are people using the catchphrase because they don’t know what else to say, and don’t really care, or are they saying the catchphrase because it is the best thing to say. I’d like to believe catchphrases are used genuinely because I employ them often myself. Also, they clearly ring true otherwise people wouldn’t say them.
Clearly, I feel passionately about catchphrases. Why? Because sometimes there’s no better way to get your point across. It goes back to the idea of stickiness. If you want to send a message, and if you want to make that message memorable, it has to stick. If it’s a catchphrase, something people already know, the message will be relatable, it will be memorable. My conversation about Nessa’s accident happened months ago, but because a catchphrase was involved, I’ll never forget it.
I appreciate the classics, but I also love quotes from movies, TV shows, and songs.
Here are some of my go to’s:
“Better late than never”
“Early bird gets the worm”
“I’m blue, daba dee daba diii”
“You can’t always get what you want”
“If at first you don’t succeed; try, try again”
“When it rains, it pours”
“It’s a small world after all”
“I whip my hair back, AND FORTH”
“Ten points for Gryffindor!”
“Follow Your Heart” (A personal favorite for when people ask for advice and I have no idea what to say)
“Actions speak louder than words”
“Jingle bells, batman smells”
“Samantha Maes likes this” (Facebook inspired)
“It’s raining cats and dogs”
“If you like it, then you should have put a ring on it” (Still one of the best music videos out there)
“You get what you give”/ “You reap what you sow”
“Money doesn’t grow on trees” (My dad’s favorite)
“Never eat yellow snow”
“Who lives in a pineapple under the sea?”
“The rings stay on!” (Southpark Jonas Brother/Mickey Mouse episode)
“You’re a mean one Mr. Grinch”
“And now I have the freshest cereal” (Forgetting Sarah Marshall, also, any other line from that movie)
“WHOOP, there it is”
“It’s tricky to rock a rhyme, to rock a rhyme that’s right on time, it’s tricky”
“To be or not to be, that is the question”
“What’s the number for 911?”
“Girls rule, boys drool”
“I do not like green eggs and ham, I do not like them Sam I Am”
“Liar, liar pants on fire”
“Honesty is the best policy”
“Everything in moderation, including moderation”
This brings me to another phrase, which is, “there’s a time and a place for ____” in this case, “There’s a time and a place for catchphrases”. For me, I appreciate when the time, place, and catchphrase, aren’t in coordination. Other times, and this is really the best, when someone’s response, is just too perfect. The time a dog named Nessa came to visit was one of those times.
Nessa is a lovely puppy. Initially, she belonged to my housemate’s, boyfriend’s sister, but she stayed with my housemate’s boyfriend, Derek for a while. Derek lives in Hoboken, and he had to travel for a week, so his girlfriend (my housemate) offered to take Nessa in while he was away (are you following so far?). We aren’t sure what mix she is, but boxers, pit bulls, and possibly labs are most likely involved in her pedigree. When Nessa came to visit, the other dog who lives at our house, Reese, had a fun playtime partner. Nessa was a cuddling pup, with an energetic personality, but she wasn’t very well trained when she came to visit. As puppies sometimes do, Nessa had an accident in our basement, and not the liquid kind. I offered to clean it because Nessa’s caretaker was in class, (and Nessa had ripped up her tempurpedic pillow only hours before). Later that day, one of the other girls I live with texted me to ask how Nessa was doing. I said, “Nessa pooped in the basement” she responded, without even thinking about her response, “Shitty”. I laughed and said back, “Yup, shit happens.”
The story of Nessa’s accident is one of those times when a catchphrase is just too perfect. As a side note, the story of Nessa has a very happy ending; She went to police dog training and now has impeccable manners, and perfect potty skills.
The Heath’s squared taught me that catchphrases resonate because they are compact and teach lessons. Everyone appreciates a good catchphrase, especially if you’re not highlighting their loss, and everyone most likely appreciates a catchphrase that’s too good, but I there’s one type of catchphrase that’s way too underrated; the completely inappropriate, irrelevant catchphrase. A while ago I started pulling the Ron Burgundy, “When in Rome” thing and would sometimes use catchphrases when they didn’t apply, unfortunately, I have some friends who weren’t perceptive enough to get that I was joking, and I ended up looking like an idiot. Also, random people who heard my “witty” remarks usually thought I was out of the loop as well, and I got some weird looks. As of now, I’ve scaled back my proverb use, but every once in a while, when the scenario really doesn’t fit, but the company is right, I’ll whip one out. It’s unfortunate that society isn’t accepting, but, you win some, you lose some. Am I right?
The one thing I wonder about is, if you use catchphrases, do people take you seriously? Sometimes, when people say catchphrases to me, I feel like they aren’t very genuine. Are people using the catchphrase because they don’t know what else to say, and don’t really care, or are they saying the catchphrase because it is the best thing to say. I’d like to believe catchphrases are used genuinely because I employ them often myself. Also, they clearly ring true otherwise people wouldn’t say them.
Clearly, I feel passionately about catchphrases. Why? Because sometimes there’s no better way to get your point across. It goes back to the idea of stickiness. If you want to send a message, and if you want to make that message memorable, it has to stick. If it’s a catchphrase, something people already know, the message will be relatable, it will be memorable. My conversation about Nessa’s accident happened months ago, but because a catchphrase was involved, I’ll never forget it.
I appreciate the classics, but I also love quotes from movies, TV shows, and songs.
Here are some of my go to’s:
“Better late than never”
“Early bird gets the worm”
“I’m blue, daba dee daba diii”
“You can’t always get what you want”
“If at first you don’t succeed; try, try again”
“When it rains, it pours”
“It’s a small world after all”
“I whip my hair back, AND FORTH”
“Ten points for Gryffindor!”
“Follow Your Heart” (A personal favorite for when people ask for advice and I have no idea what to say)
“Actions speak louder than words”
“Jingle bells, batman smells”
“Samantha Maes likes this” (Facebook inspired)
“It’s raining cats and dogs”
“If you like it, then you should have put a ring on it” (Still one of the best music videos out there)
“You get what you give”/ “You reap what you sow”
“Money doesn’t grow on trees” (My dad’s favorite)
“Never eat yellow snow”
“Who lives in a pineapple under the sea?”
“The rings stay on!” (Southpark Jonas Brother/Mickey Mouse episode)
“You’re a mean one Mr. Grinch”
“And now I have the freshest cereal” (Forgetting Sarah Marshall, also, any other line from that movie)
“WHOOP, there it is”
“It’s tricky to rock a rhyme, to rock a rhyme that’s right on time, it’s tricky”
“To be or not to be, that is the question”
“What’s the number for 911?”
“Girls rule, boys drool”
“I do not like green eggs and ham, I do not like them Sam I Am”
“Liar, liar pants on fire”
“Honesty is the best policy”
“Everything in moderation, including moderation”
Wednesday, February 23, 2011
Samuel J. Maes, the Connector. Samantha J. Maes, the wannabe.
I’m jealous of Roger Horchow. He’s Gladwell’s example of a connector. Horchow knows so many people that he scored a 98 on the last name test in 10 minutes. I could only come with 37 names in seven minutes, but I don’t think given more time I could link more names. Also, my aunt’s last name is Weber, so I kind of cheated because she has a lot of kids. According to Gladwell, I’ll give myself a little credit, my score is higher than Gladwell’s calculated average for college students (20.96), but I don’t want to get too cocky.
Instead of studying for my Introduction to Rock and Minerals exam, which as it turns out is not “Rocks for Jocks” like I hoped it was, and covers complex technical information, I thought about connectors. On Sunday I became obsessed with the idea, my jealousy consumed me. I was talking about it with my friends; they didn’t share my passion. I thought about it all Monday, when I should have been studying crystal systems, and the ratio of silicon to oxygen in the subgroups of silicates (see, that is definitely not covered in “Rocks for Jocks”). How can I be a connector? I know I’m only 22, and should assess my last name count when I’m older, but I can’t stop thinking about connectors. I want to be Samantha J. Maes, the Connector.
I called my parents to wish them a happy anniversary earlier today. My dad wasn’t home, so I talked to my mom for a while. I told her about connectors, and about how fascinated I was by Horchow. I told my mom it wasn’t a skill, but a lifestyle. Meeting people was just something Horchow did on the reg. Then my mom said it, the thing that made me feel so lame, “Your dad seems like a connector, he literally talks to everyone, it’s so embarrassing. Just the other day, when we were leaving the…..” Blah, blah, blah another story about how my parents were together and my dad had to stop and talk to someone somewhere about something. My mom and I are always joking about how my dad doesn’t know the meaning of stranger. He literally talks to everyone. My dad and I used to play a game when we would go places. Basically we would count how many people we knew in the place we were at, and whoever knew the most people won. Sometimes neither of us would know anyone, but most of the time my dad knew at least one person.
By connecting Horchow to my dad, I realized being a connector really is a personality trait. My dad loves meeting new people. He will go up to anyone and ask them about something they’re wearing. He’ll talk to the people waiting in line, any line, anywhere. In high school I applied for a job at the athletic club my family goes to, I ended up getting it. My first day, and almost everyday after that, the people I worked with would talk about my dad. Either he had told them an elaborate, most likely, untrue story, or he had done something weird and funny. I started to wonder, did I get this job, so the people who work here would be able to figure out my dad’s crazy story (the fact that people actually believe my dad, who is 65, was shot out of a canon a few years ago baffles me).
My dad goes to the same bagel place everyday. Everyone knows his name, and they know his order. He goes at all times of the day, but everyone knows him. My dad goes our club almost everyday, and everyone knows him. He talks to the staff, the old ladies, the hot cougars, the body builders, shriveling old men who come to steam. My dad goes to physical therapy for his knee. He talks to all the staff and patients there. Some of the patients are players for the Colorado Rockies. He wanted to talk to one of them one day, and he tripped in a pot hole on the way. The player picked him up and everyday he saw him after that would call my dad “Crash.”
Whenever we’re at the airport my dad sees someone he knows. He’ll know someone in line, or he’ll know the lady working behind the counter.
Not only does my dad know a lot of people, but he stays in touch with those people he doesn’t see regularly. He’s always on the phone with family and friends. He did some contract work in outside of Richmond, Va. and Pittsburgh, Pa. a couple years ago and he still catches up with many of the people he met there. Not just the people he worked with, but the lady who worked at the diner, his neighbors, to name just a few.
My dad is one of the friendliest people I know, and at first I felt lame for being less of a connector than my dad, but then I started feeling pretty good, like maybe since connectivity is a personality trait, I could inherit it?
Instead of studying for my Introduction to Rock and Minerals exam, which as it turns out is not “Rocks for Jocks” like I hoped it was, and covers complex technical information, I thought about connectors. On Sunday I became obsessed with the idea, my jealousy consumed me. I was talking about it with my friends; they didn’t share my passion. I thought about it all Monday, when I should have been studying crystal systems, and the ratio of silicon to oxygen in the subgroups of silicates (see, that is definitely not covered in “Rocks for Jocks”). How can I be a connector? I know I’m only 22, and should assess my last name count when I’m older, but I can’t stop thinking about connectors. I want to be Samantha J. Maes, the Connector.
I called my parents to wish them a happy anniversary earlier today. My dad wasn’t home, so I talked to my mom for a while. I told her about connectors, and about how fascinated I was by Horchow. I told my mom it wasn’t a skill, but a lifestyle. Meeting people was just something Horchow did on the reg. Then my mom said it, the thing that made me feel so lame, “Your dad seems like a connector, he literally talks to everyone, it’s so embarrassing. Just the other day, when we were leaving the…..” Blah, blah, blah another story about how my parents were together and my dad had to stop and talk to someone somewhere about something. My mom and I are always joking about how my dad doesn’t know the meaning of stranger. He literally talks to everyone. My dad and I used to play a game when we would go places. Basically we would count how many people we knew in the place we were at, and whoever knew the most people won. Sometimes neither of us would know anyone, but most of the time my dad knew at least one person.
By connecting Horchow to my dad, I realized being a connector really is a personality trait. My dad loves meeting new people. He will go up to anyone and ask them about something they’re wearing. He’ll talk to the people waiting in line, any line, anywhere. In high school I applied for a job at the athletic club my family goes to, I ended up getting it. My first day, and almost everyday after that, the people I worked with would talk about my dad. Either he had told them an elaborate, most likely, untrue story, or he had done something weird and funny. I started to wonder, did I get this job, so the people who work here would be able to figure out my dad’s crazy story (the fact that people actually believe my dad, who is 65, was shot out of a canon a few years ago baffles me).
My dad goes to the same bagel place everyday. Everyone knows his name, and they know his order. He goes at all times of the day, but everyone knows him. My dad goes our club almost everyday, and everyone knows him. He talks to the staff, the old ladies, the hot cougars, the body builders, shriveling old men who come to steam. My dad goes to physical therapy for his knee. He talks to all the staff and patients there. Some of the patients are players for the Colorado Rockies. He wanted to talk to one of them one day, and he tripped in a pot hole on the way. The player picked him up and everyday he saw him after that would call my dad “Crash.”
Whenever we’re at the airport my dad sees someone he knows. He’ll know someone in line, or he’ll know the lady working behind the counter.
Not only does my dad know a lot of people, but he stays in touch with those people he doesn’t see regularly. He’s always on the phone with family and friends. He did some contract work in outside of Richmond, Va. and Pittsburgh, Pa. a couple years ago and he still catches up with many of the people he met there. Not just the people he worked with, but the lady who worked at the diner, his neighbors, to name just a few.
My dad is one of the friendliest people I know, and at first I felt lame for being less of a connector than my dad, but then I started feeling pretty good, like maybe since connectivity is a personality trait, I could inherit it?
Monday, February 7, 2011
Two things are for sure, Eiffel65isawesome is a hater, and Justin Bieber is an angel
As I was reading my side notes of Here Comes Everybody, I found that the lengthiest notes I made were from chapter 3, Everyone is a Media Outlet. Some of my notes were in disagreement with Shirky’s points, others took a different angle into consideration, still, others were that he totally missed the point. I would reference page numbers, but rumor on the street is that the ereader’s pages are different, so I’m not sure how helpful that would be.
Right before Weblogs and Mass Amateurizations Shirky asks, “What happens when there’s nothing unique about publishing anymore, because users can do it for themselves?” I think this question is ridiculous. The fact that users can publish content themselves makes it unique. My main criticism with this question is that Shirky forgets the most important part of publishing content, the content, not the means of publishing. The content of the message has relevance, if your message has relevance than your message is unique; the medium in which you use to disseminate your message is tied for second place with your status as user or professional.
In Mass Amateurization Breaks Professional Categories, Shirky misses a big point about photographers and cameras in general. Technology has taken cameras to the point where professional shots are easier to take without any background knowledge of how to use a camera. In some ways it’s the camera that makes the picture beautiful, not necessarily the photographer.
Shirky’s photography section made me think of Panasonic’s commercial with the slogan, “You don’t have to be a great photographer, to take great photos.” The ad features your average Joe showing off his beautiful photos at a gallery. Artsy vistors, in their artsy clothes and glasses and hairstyles, are asking him about the photos. Their questions are technical. They’re questions a professional photographer would know the answers to, but he doesn’t even know the terms they’re spitting at him. The commercial is pretty funny, but some people (Debbie downers [no relation Debbie Pearsall in our class, she is quite lovely], negative Nancys, pick your alliterative) were offended.
Eiffel65isawesome said, “God, I truly hope this isn't the future of photography. If everyone just picked up a camera and made "art", then well, it becomes less of an art form. The thing I love about photography is that it merges bits of science and art, and if setting aperture and shutter speed and such to have a good photo become extinct, we'll have lost an amazing art form.”
Like why are you such a hater Eiffel65isawesome (also, why is that your handle? The only awesome song by Eiffel 65 was “Blue”, and that song is soooooo 90’s)? The J198 classes have been taking pictures with their Kodak cameras and they look great, what’s so bad about that? If someone can capture the beauty in our world without the professional background, why should they be criticized?
Oh no, Eiffel65isawesome, you scoundrel you. As I wrote the last sentence to the paragraph above, I realized I’m a bit of a hypocrite. I’ve had a grudge against citizen journalists because I fear they’re going to replace professional journalists. I’m threatened by their ability to gray the definition of “Professional Journalism”. Don’t get me wrong, I think it’s great that citizens like Alisara Chirpongse, aka gnarlykitty, are reporting from the front lines of events professional journalists may not have access to, but at the same time, they didn’t take journalism classes, they weren’t on the Brown and White Staff, they didn’t make a video about Amore Farms, like me. How can I defend citizen photographers, who are taking beautiful pictures with awesome cameras, when I, for lack of a better term, discredit citizen journalists? But then again, maybe I’m not as much of a hater as I thought, after all, wasn’t I emphasizing the importance of content just moments/ paragraphs ago?
Now, I feel I’ve typed in circles. Am I a hypocrite, am I not? Is it about the content, or the professional who publishes it? What is the meaning of the world? Why am I here? I’m feeling so confused and plagued by the heavy questions of humanity. Oh woe is me.
But wait, my final lengthy criticism may just be the key. This was the note I made:
103 in a world where producing music is cheap, and anyone can do it; talent has an opportunity to shine through. If anyone can do it, only the best will make it big. BIEBS
Like I said, page numbers on ereaders are whack, but Shirky’s points on music are also in Mass Amateurization Break Professional Categories. Shirky discusses how anyone can make music with the technology currently at hand, and he’s right, even Paris Hilton made music, but her songs weren’t that big because they weren’t that good. But Shirky misses the point that talented people are discovered because of technology. I don’t want to discredit the struggling artists out there, but if you’re good, people will notice. Look at Justin Bieber, he started out as a meager YouTube performer, but Usher noticed his videos and BAM, he’s a teen idol with a famous haircut and sick dance moves, who is on a poster in almost every girl’s bedroom (Never Say Never comes out this Friday, I’m such a B-lieber). Without YouTube there would be a million more lonely girls instead of “One Less Lonely Girl”. Without a guitar, camera and YouTube account, the world would be deprived of Bieber’s angelic voice. Only Canadians walking the streets of Statford would experience his lyrical sweetness.
So how is Justin Bieber the key to my questions? Well, he’s not really the key, but so much fun to talk about. The key is that if making music is cheap and anyone can do it the best will be noticed. So, if making content is cheap and free, the best content makers will be noticed. If journalists want to keep their street cred, they have to be the best. Citizen journalists are forcing professional journalists to adapt, to be on their toes. Awesome cameras should make photographers do the same thing. If anyone can be the best, then the professionals better start stepping up their game, they shouldn’t be threatened, they should take the rise in amateurization as a challenge, and as inspiration. If someone writes a jaw-dropping story about a massive event, journalists should jump to cover that event unlike the media’s blasé approach to Trent Lott’s racist comments. If average Joe snaps a stellar photo with his new Panasonic Lumix, Eiffel65isawesome better start going out into the world with his/her fancy shmancy camera to save the art of photography. If Paris Hilton wants to have the talent and success of the Biebs, well, who am I kidding, like that will ever happen.
Right before Weblogs and Mass Amateurizations Shirky asks, “What happens when there’s nothing unique about publishing anymore, because users can do it for themselves?” I think this question is ridiculous. The fact that users can publish content themselves makes it unique. My main criticism with this question is that Shirky forgets the most important part of publishing content, the content, not the means of publishing. The content of the message has relevance, if your message has relevance than your message is unique; the medium in which you use to disseminate your message is tied for second place with your status as user or professional.
In Mass Amateurization Breaks Professional Categories, Shirky misses a big point about photographers and cameras in general. Technology has taken cameras to the point where professional shots are easier to take without any background knowledge of how to use a camera. In some ways it’s the camera that makes the picture beautiful, not necessarily the photographer.
Shirky’s photography section made me think of Panasonic’s commercial with the slogan, “You don’t have to be a great photographer, to take great photos.” The ad features your average Joe showing off his beautiful photos at a gallery. Artsy vistors, in their artsy clothes and glasses and hairstyles, are asking him about the photos. Their questions are technical. They’re questions a professional photographer would know the answers to, but he doesn’t even know the terms they’re spitting at him. The commercial is pretty funny, but some people (Debbie downers [no relation Debbie Pearsall in our class, she is quite lovely], negative Nancys, pick your alliterative) were offended.
Eiffel65isawesome said, “God, I truly hope this isn't the future of photography. If everyone just picked up a camera and made "art", then well, it becomes less of an art form. The thing I love about photography is that it merges bits of science and art, and if setting aperture and shutter speed and such to have a good photo become extinct, we'll have lost an amazing art form.”
Like why are you such a hater Eiffel65isawesome (also, why is that your handle? The only awesome song by Eiffel 65 was “Blue”, and that song is soooooo 90’s)? The J198 classes have been taking pictures with their Kodak cameras and they look great, what’s so bad about that? If someone can capture the beauty in our world without the professional background, why should they be criticized?
Oh no, Eiffel65isawesome, you scoundrel you. As I wrote the last sentence to the paragraph above, I realized I’m a bit of a hypocrite. I’ve had a grudge against citizen journalists because I fear they’re going to replace professional journalists. I’m threatened by their ability to gray the definition of “Professional Journalism”. Don’t get me wrong, I think it’s great that citizens like Alisara Chirpongse, aka gnarlykitty, are reporting from the front lines of events professional journalists may not have access to, but at the same time, they didn’t take journalism classes, they weren’t on the Brown and White Staff, they didn’t make a video about Amore Farms, like me. How can I defend citizen photographers, who are taking beautiful pictures with awesome cameras, when I, for lack of a better term, discredit citizen journalists? But then again, maybe I’m not as much of a hater as I thought, after all, wasn’t I emphasizing the importance of content just moments/ paragraphs ago?
Now, I feel I’ve typed in circles. Am I a hypocrite, am I not? Is it about the content, or the professional who publishes it? What is the meaning of the world? Why am I here? I’m feeling so confused and plagued by the heavy questions of humanity. Oh woe is me.
But wait, my final lengthy criticism may just be the key. This was the note I made:
103 in a world where producing music is cheap, and anyone can do it; talent has an opportunity to shine through. If anyone can do it, only the best will make it big. BIEBS
Like I said, page numbers on ereaders are whack, but Shirky’s points on music are also in Mass Amateurization Break Professional Categories. Shirky discusses how anyone can make music with the technology currently at hand, and he’s right, even Paris Hilton made music, but her songs weren’t that big because they weren’t that good. But Shirky misses the point that talented people are discovered because of technology. I don’t want to discredit the struggling artists out there, but if you’re good, people will notice. Look at Justin Bieber, he started out as a meager YouTube performer, but Usher noticed his videos and BAM, he’s a teen idol with a famous haircut and sick dance moves, who is on a poster in almost every girl’s bedroom (Never Say Never comes out this Friday, I’m such a B-lieber). Without YouTube there would be a million more lonely girls instead of “One Less Lonely Girl”. Without a guitar, camera and YouTube account, the world would be deprived of Bieber’s angelic voice. Only Canadians walking the streets of Statford would experience his lyrical sweetness.
So how is Justin Bieber the key to my questions? Well, he’s not really the key, but so much fun to talk about. The key is that if making music is cheap and anyone can do it the best will be noticed. So, if making content is cheap and free, the best content makers will be noticed. If journalists want to keep their street cred, they have to be the best. Citizen journalists are forcing professional journalists to adapt, to be on their toes. Awesome cameras should make photographers do the same thing. If anyone can be the best, then the professionals better start stepping up their game, they shouldn’t be threatened, they should take the rise in amateurization as a challenge, and as inspiration. If someone writes a jaw-dropping story about a massive event, journalists should jump to cover that event unlike the media’s blasé approach to Trent Lott’s racist comments. If average Joe snaps a stellar photo with his new Panasonic Lumix, Eiffel65isawesome better start going out into the world with his/her fancy shmancy camera to save the art of photography. If Paris Hilton wants to have the talent and success of the Biebs, well, who am I kidding, like that will ever happen.
Wednesday, January 26, 2011
We The Media Brings Up A Sensitive Topic (Bitterness Ensues)
As I was reading Gillmor’s section of the read-write web I had to laugh to myself when he mentioned receiving text messages from airlines. Traveling back and forth between Denver and Bethlehem for the past four years, I’ve really come to rely on e-mails and text messages from Orbitz. My parents have used Orbitz almost every break or holiday to book my flights. They’ve had my e-mail address and my parents e-mail address in their system for four years, and I’ve gotten e-mails from them before every flight booked through their service, well almost every flight I booked with them…
Only a few weeks ago, I was packing my bags to come back to Lehigh for my final semester. My flight was at 6:05 a.m., and according to Denver International Airport’s suggestions, passengers are supposed to arrive two hours before their flight. Unfortunately, the United Airlines ticket counter does not open until 4:30a.m., which I did not know beforehand. I followed the airport’s suggestion, so I had to wait at the ticket counter for 30 minutes with a group of hormone infested high school athletes, who were all flirting with each other and being obnoxious. I know I was in high school once, and I know I was probably like that, but I’d like to think I wasn’t THAT bad. Needless to say, I was in a foul mood. As I was awaiting the opening of the check-in counter, a representative started walking up and down the line yelling, “Only flights to Philadelphia, and San Francisco should be in this line”. My thought process? “Um, I’m flying through Dulles, a.k.a. Washington D.C., our nation’s capital, the airport with ‘Star Wars’ vehicles that transport travelers between concourses. WHAT ABOUT ME?” Obviously I voiced part of this internal monologue, only to find out that not only had my flight been cancelled, but this flight in general had been cancelled…for a while. THANKS ORBITZ.
I complain about Orbitz because they didn’t give my any forewarning, but at least they did switch me to a flight that flew through Chicago (which is a city I avoid flying through during the winter, but whatever). It was a flight at 9 a.m. However, despite Orbitz’s obligation to switch my flight, they didn’t pass the info to me, well not until I was already at the airport. I mentioned earlier that I had received e-mails from their service in the past, well, no such e-mail about the change in flights ever found it’s way to my e-mail account (or my parent’s e-mail account). I could have had several (highly valued) hours of sleep. I will give it to Orbitz, and the subscription Gillmor praised, I did get a text around 8 a.m., to tell me the new flight, which I hadn’t been informed about, would be on time, even though I had arrived at 4 a.m. for my original flight.
The point to my story is that we are immersed in the Information Ocean Gillmor describes, and sometimes the ocean overflows and floods us with too many details, but what about when we are so used to the bombardment of info that we are left helpless when the flood doesn’t come. I was so used to receiving e-mails, that I took their arrival for granted. I can’t make an excuse for Orbitz, and frankly I still think I deserve an apology (hint, hint…free tickets to anywhere please), but their lack of communication is absolutely unacceptable in this day and age. They could text me about my new flight being on time, but couldn’t e-mail/call/send a postcard/telegraph me/maybe bring back Morse code about my new flight in general. COME ON, MY FAMILY HAS BEEN A CUSTOMER FOR FOUR YEARS.
This isn’t just a rant, but obviously I took advantage of our assignment. We have so many means of communication, but we still can’t fully communicate. We can sift through the abundance of information available with tools like RSS, but companies can’t tell me that my flight has been discontinued. What do we do when we have our floaties, snorkel and flippers on, ready for the huge wave, and it never comes? Well in my case you show up several hours too early for you flight.
In the end, things worked out. At least I was too early, and not too late for my flight. I ended up being on the same flight as one of my best friends, and Chicago had better weather than D.C., but you won’t catch me giving any of these benefits to Orbitz, no way Jose. I am bitter. Orbitz had a million ways to contact me. The service had several years worth of the same info to update me or my parents, and I still did not receive a word from them.
Tuesday, January 18, 2011
Cluetrain reflection
Throughout reading the Clue train Manifesto I tried to relate the points to my life. The authors made so many points about business that at first, I didn’t think I could relate, since I’m only 22 and don’t participate in e-commerce. Obviously I understood the main point, markets are a conversations and relationships, and the Internet gave the little guy, the consumer, a voice, but how did this all affect me? As I read I would make side notes about different stories in my own life, and telling those stories is how I plan to reflect on the Cluetrain Manifesto.
Searls tells the story of a Nigerian Pastor he met on his flight. Sayo Ajiboye put the relationship between a buyer and seller into the transaction of a good. I immediately became nostalgic for Turkey. I went on the Lehigh in Turkey trip two summers ago. We would walk through the famous Bazaar where there are thousands of merchants. There are many merchants who sell hookahs, but we had been going to the same hookah place every night we were in Istanbul and felt loyal to the owner, Sadullah. At the end of our trip almost everyone bought a hookah from him. He was really knowledgeable and honest about his products. He told us which hookahs were of good quality and he gave us a fair price. Had we gone to buy a hookah in the Bazaar we definitely wouldn’t have had the same experience because we didn’t have a relationship with them. All of the authors go on and on about marketplaces both virtual and real, but every time I read the word “marketplace”, I was immediately taken back to the Grand Bazaar in Istanbul.
The authors discuss how human voice is respected more than generic word. This made me think of an essay contest my English teacher held in class my senior year of high school. Mr. Rowe was one of those teachers students love. His lectures weren’t boring, and he did fun activities. On the first day of class he wanted us to write an essay about a basic lesson we had learned. After a lazy summer I had a hard time getting back into the swing of writing. My friend Stacey, who had been studying for the SAT, was already in school mode. She began writing vigorously, and the girl was busting out SAT vocab words left and right.
I reflected back on my summer, and the lessons I had learned. The only thing I could think of was how I had accomplished to mow the lawn the weekend before. My essay ended up being about an experience that had two lessons. The first lesson was that I learned to mow the lawn, but the bigger lesson was that I learned not to procrastinate. I talked in detail about how I had told my mom I could mow the lawn, so she wouldn’t have to deal with the hassle of calling a service since my dad was away working in Pittsburgh. I had been putting it off, because I didn’t actually want to do it. By the time I started mowing, the grass was way too tall and thick for a girl of my stature to tackle.
I turned in my essay last because I had spent so much time thinking about what I wanted to write. Obviously Stacey had turned in her essay first and was glowing with a smug smile, as if she had the contest in the bag. I’m guessing you can predict what happened the next day when Mr. Rowe announced the results. I had won, and it was awesome, but I didn’t gloat about it in front of Stacey, well not a lot anyway. After class, I ask Mr. Rowe why I had won, a question Stacey clearly wanted answered since her essay was about her fabulous trip to Greece. He said simply, “You wrote with your voice.” Even though I hadn’t thrown out the cornucopia of impressive words Stacey had, I had told a funny story through my eyes, and it was a story that was relatable, a story where people who had ever put something off could identify. Mr. Rowe talked to our class that week about the value of voice in writing, and how it make a story or whatever being written more genuine and personal.
After that, I started to find that I liked reading pieces that had voice. I completely agree that too often companies give out pieces of information that have been so edited and generic they lack any genuine substance.
A final point that struck me was this statement, “However much we long for the Web is how much we hate our job.” I don’t know the page number because I bought the electronic version, which apparently means there are more pages, but it’s in the “Our Voice” section. I can relate to this statement. Last semester during my internship, on the days when I had nothing to do I longed to watch TV shows on the Internet, and “stumble” to look for new and fun websites, but obviously I could not do such things. On the days when I fun tasks assigned to me, about subjects I found interesting, I didn’t long for these online distractions. The correlation is definitely valid.
Clearly as I read my mind would wander, but through all the babble, I definitely related and understood Cluetrain’s messages, and I think it’s interesting to see the predictions and understanding the authors had about the Internet ten years ago. The Internet has become such an integral part of our world, and it will only become more so in the future. People can connect quickly and without borders, this can be both good and bad, but miraculous nonetheless.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)