Nestle's Facebook Crunch

Well, I'm a day late (actually a few days late) and a dollar short (or whatever a candy bar costs these days) but I guess there was recently a huge hubbub regarding Nestle's fan page on Facebook. It has been covered in hundreds of articles and commentaries, and I'll link to a few that I found worthwhile.

Long story short, Nestle had a fan page (still does). As Caroline McCarthy on CNET does a good job of recapping, the environmental group, Greenpeace, has been trying to get Nestle to stop using palm oil because it supposedly wreaks all sorts of havoc on the planet and endangered species. Greenpeace supporters started posting comments to Nestle's fan page, accompanied by having changed their own profile pictures to derisive modifications of Nestle product logos. Nestle threatened to pull the comments--considered a Facebook faux pas--of anyone using a modified logo, and the back and forth got nasty as the Thought Gadgets blog recounts.

According to an opinion offered by Blake Bowyer of EyeTraffic Media, "Nestlé didn’t recognize three inalienable consumer rights of a new media era:

1) Freedom of speech
2) Freedom of assembly
3) The right to petition

Having read over the pieces linked here and some others, I agree that whoever from Nestle was replying to the comments didn't do it very tactfully, and in coming off rather snarkily, poured gasoline on the fire. I am also respectful of environmental concerns, and aware that some multinational conglomerates may put the almighty dollar ahead of the common good and set themselves up for activist harangues (or worse), but I don't know enough about the specifics to really take sides on the original issue.

While I believe that Web 2.0 is a good thing, in giving everyone a voice, we all know that "haters" express their opinions much more vociferously than those who like a certain product, company, person, etc. So I'm not sure what Nestle was supposed to do in terms of handing the situation "correctly." People were violating Nestle trademarks in negative ways, and for reasons that I assume Nestle thinks false. Certainly the PR team could have responded more calmly, but if thousands are posting egregious claims--or what you believe are egregious claims--to your fan page, "falling on the sword" as one comment suggested doesn't quite seem just either.

I'm an advocate of company Fan Pages, as social media is just too prevalent to be ignored, but this episode shows why the business world will never be fully embracing. And why, perhaps it shouldn't.

Found on Google: Principles

A day after the U.S. House of Representatives did the right thing, in my humble opinion, in passing the health care reform bill--and whatever your stance, you can't deny the guts shown by many Democrats who voted their conscience when it may very well cost them dearly in November--America's best company gave us another reason to be proud.

Thwarted in efforts to keep its promise to stop censoring search on its site in China, on Monday Google pulled the plug on Google.cn. While it has said (on its official blog) that it will "continue R&D work in China and also to maintain a sales presence there," and will still operate online maps and music services in China, it is redirecting searchers to its Hong Kong site.

While this certainly isn't good news, for it intimates a worsening business climate in China for U.S. companies and demonstrates how polar Chinese policy continues to be with the West, Google is to be applauded for standing by its principles. 

Yes, it is a global powerhouse with a $170+ billion market cap and oodles of cash reserves. And yes, according to the New York Times, China "accounted for a small fraction of Google’s $23.6 billion in global revenue last year." But Google is a publicly-traded company, walking away from the world's largest internet market--with 400 million web users--and its stock price on the NYSE has dropped more than $15 since yesterday.

I doubt it would be completely correct to say that Google doesn't have to answer to anyone; from the Chinese government to the U.S. government to the international business community to Wall Street to millions of web users in China, I bet there are many who aren't exactly thrilled with the company at the moment.

But while many people and organizations, in myriad realms, would kow tow to pressure for financial gains, Google stood its ground on its intent to operate in the way it believes is just, costs be damned. And while I won't pretend to have expert insight into its decision, the ramifications nor the company's future plans, from a layman's perspective, all I can say is:

Bravo, Google. Bravo.

Online Reviews Under Review in Wake of Yelp Allegations

On the Chicago Tribune's front page yesterday, right below the story on the health care vote was a story about how Yelp, the highly popular online review site, is facing multiple class-action lawsuits "alleging that Yelp representatives offered to remove or modify placement of negative reviews in exchange for advertising dollars."

The same story, or more precisely two different versions of it--here and here--was also the top headline on the Tribune's website on much of Friday. (Beyond the notably different slants, it's strange that the two stories by the same authors would differ on Yelp's traffic stats.) Pretty prominent coverage--especially next to that of the biggest piece of legislation in years--for news about a website that exists to post customers' reviews of restaurants and other business establishments.

But social media is big news these days, and as the Tribune articles relate, Yelp gets approximately 30 million visitors per month to read and add to its database of an estimated 10 million user reviews. So the lawsuits' allegations that reviews are--individually or as a composite overview--slanted for mercenary reasons is worthy of note. And the stories state that the lawsuits come "a year after dozens of businesses voiced similar allegations in articles published in several newspapers, including the Tribune."

As a Yelp reader for the last few years, and active reviewer since the start of 2010, the allegations are troubling, nebulous and somewhat predictable all at the same time.

I feel empathy for any restaurant owner, especially in tough economic times, who not only has to learn to navigate the new world of virtual word of mouth presented by sites like Yelp, but may face unscrupulous business practices. In the Tribune articles and on its own site, Yelp tries to explain that it actively attempts to ensure reviews--both glowing and negative--are legitimate, so as to avoid numerous raves emanating from the restaurant's staff or jeers from the joint next door. This is an imperfect practice, so honest reviews on both ends might be wrongfully purged, or phony ones occasionally published.

If the lawsuits allegations are proven true, that Yelp has manipulated reviews--or simply offered to--for financial reasons, clearly this is a gross offense to the plaintiff restaurants, their competition, anyone who depends on Yelp for dining decision guidance and even those of us who like to share our honest opinions on the site.

But while the lawsuits are likely months from settlement and whatever consequences yet to be seen, all this lends itself to my words of advice on online 'consumer' reviews: Learn from them, let them provide you with insight and guidance, even heed their suggestions, but always take them with a grain of salt and never consider them gospel.

Now, I'm guessing this isn't really telling you anything you didn't already know. Which is why the Yelp allegations feel a bit nebulous, at least as they pertain to personal practices, and even somewhat predictable.

While we all value the advice of others to help us make decisions that bring enjoyment and avoid the wasting of time and money, the truth is, we don't all see and experience things--even the same things--in the same way.

Consider for a second the divergence of even the most professional of reviewers. In Friday's Chicago Sun-Times, legendary movie critic Roger Ebert gave 'Diary of a Wimpy Kid' 3-1/2 stars (out of 4). His Tribune counterpart, Michael Phillips, gave it 1-1/2 stars. Chances are, you can see it with your best friend and greatly disagree on its artistic merits. So the extent to which we rely on professional reviewers--and now on Yelp, Amazon, TripAdvisor and myriad other Internet outlets--perfect strangers, is somewhat laughable to begin with.

Long ago it was intimated to me that as devious minds are usually years ahead of the pure, the planting of positive Amazon reviews or the manipulation of Google search results, has long been par for the course. And the story of Sun-Times rock critic Jim DeRogatis having been fired from a job at Rolling Stone for writing a negative review of a Hootie & the Blowfish album that publisher Jann Wenner objected to, echoes my awareness that true objectivity is often at odds with the media's business interests. 

Even if you look at my reviews on Yelp, which I'd fully testily are my own personal honest opinions, you'll see the unavoidable imperfections of online reviews. Of the 17 restaurants I've reviewed so far in 2010, I've given 5 Stars to nine and 4 Stars to eight. This would imply that you would like all 17 restaurants I've eaten at, and unless your expectations of a "good meal" are vastly different than mine, unless you happen to get a terrible waiter, unless your food is undercooked, etc., etc., I fully believe you should like all 17 I've recommended.

But the flaw, understandable but perhaps unfair at the same time, is that I don't like to give negative reviews. Perhaps to movies, albums and professional theatrical performances, but not typically to restaurants. I generally have too much regard for people just trying to make a living--owners, chefs, cooks, wait staff, hosts, etc.--that I don't feel it is my place to publicly dissuade anybody from patronizing a place. Especially, as per the last sentence of the paragraph above, a bad experience might just be a one-visit fluke.

So while I won't inflate the reviews of restaurants I didn't much care for, I just won't review them on Yelp. Sure, I'm likely to personally avoid them and not suggest them to friends & family, but I won't go public with my disdain, unless there was something egregiously and directly offensive. The problem is, not everyone on Yelp feels the same way. And perhaps they're the right ones; give an honest opinion--including when scathing--of everything. Thus, their negative reviews of restaurants I enjoy will offset my positive ones, but not vice-versa.

Anyway, long story nearly wrapped up, it's an imperfect, imprecise world, and online reviews are no exception. I have long loved reading what others think of music, movies and books I'm considering buying on Amazon, and value many of opinions people share on Yelp and the like. And as someone who is now posting reviews on Yelp, my personal blog and IMDB, I hope my recommendations are of some value to those reading them. But, even if the insinuations posed in the Yelp lawsuits are proven false--and let's not forget that the Tribune, which owns and is actively trying to boost similar use of Metromix, may not have been completely "pure" in its high-profile coverage of Yelp's legal and credibility issues--I will continue to be wary, for the acuity and purity of online reviews should never be overrated.

Sharing Some Sound Advice

In addition to this blog, on which I try to cover topics of a professional nature, I also maintain a personal blog called Seth Saith. Usually the right blog to post on a given subject is pretty clear, but occasionally there is some overlap.

On Seth Saith, I recently posted a comprehensive guide to free online music sources. Whether you are an avid music listener or, per a more professional angle, someone interested in tracking new web-based technologies and resources--of which my post cites more than a few--you may be interested in reading it.

Facebook Far Out in Front

Although it truly encompasses a whole lot more, in a generic sense "social media" basically seems to reference Facebook, MySpace and Twitter. And in terms of hype, it would seem that once-dominance MySpace has become an afterthought and Twitter is now paired with Facebook as the two social media outlets that matter.

While this article about Twitter's adoption by Fortune 500 companies suggests it has made impressive inroads in the business community, overall site traffic remains dwarfed not only by Facebook, but by MySpace as well.



This seems to jibe with my personal usage, for while I use Facebook on a daily basis and occasionally visit MySpace simply for its Music resources, I explored Twitter only because its popularity was made to seem explosive. But truthfully, it has always seemed like a whole lot of nothing to me, and has fallen far out of my daily routine, whether in terms of posting Tweets or merely to see what others are saying. In a bigger social media picture, I avidly use YouTube, Yelp, LinkedIn, blogs and other interconnection outlets.

So the fact that not only is Twitter's monthly traffic just a trifle compared with Facebook, but has been stagnating if not truly declining of late, seems to validate my thinking that individuals--and companies--looking to connect and communicate with others, should take the hype in stride.

Although the still evolving social media age has shown more than a trifle of user fickleness, in terms of actual usage statistics, right now Facebook is the reigning champ, with no real challengers.

"Word of Mouth" still motivates, quite literally, in Social Media Age

Today's eMarketer newsletter article turned me onto a fascinating new study regarding the of proclivities of Adult Social Media Users versus those who aren't (whom I'll dub Non-SMUs). By clicking here, you can access a free downloadable PDF of a special analysis of the BIGresearch® Simultaneous Media Usage® Survey (SIMM® 15) compiled for the Retail Advertising and Marketing Association, a division of the National Retail Federation. That sure sounds like a mouthful to me, too, but I always like to give proper attribution.

Although any one study or its interpretation should never be taken as gospel, there were some eye-opening findings. Most notable to me was that among Social Media Users and Non-SMUs, all over age 18, literal "Word of Mouth" (i.e. Face-to-Face) communication reigns supreme in terms of motivating online searches for specific products & services, as well as in how people most commonly communicate with others regarding products, services and brands.

Referencing the top chart below, I'm struck by how prevalent Radio remains in stimulating online searches among both groups, even more so the SMUs. (Even in reading the detailed analysis, it's unspecified if the Radio and Cable TV responses include both Content and Advertising on these media as motivating factors, or simply advertising.) Both charts below certainly lend much credence to the thought that while social media should now be part of almost any organization's marketing mix, it by no means should comprise the entirety or bulk.




For anyone interested in the ever-evolving realm of social media, and how it is impacting the world of business, downloading and reading the report from the NRF website is a must. It gives you much more insight than I capsulized above and even the raw survey data is available.

I'll end by referencing the chart below, which to me validates my very sparse use of Twitter. It has always seemed redundant to how I use Facebook and LinkedIn, and while it's occasionally interesting to see how "the world at large" is responding to a big event or news story (by doing Trend Searches), I'm never really surprised or enlightened by what I read; more often saddened by the rampant crassness and stupidity.

While anecdotally Twitter may still seem to be "all the rage" as I keep hearing about celebrities Tweeting, unlike Facebook, LinkedIn and my own blogging, Twitter hasn't really added anything to my life and I'm not dismayed to see that its hype is seemingly far greater than its general acceptance.

Creative Heroes Linked By Diversification

As noted in the brief bio on my new Google Profile, I derive great fulfillment from creativity, both my own on a professional & personal level and in exploring the work of wonderful artists in a variety of arenas. As such, although I didn't find last night's Oscar telecast to be all that scintillating in itself, I had seen all ten Best Picture nominees and agree with The Hurt Locker and its director, Kathryn Bigelow as very deserving winners.

This past Saturday was an exploration of the new for me, as I attended the Third Coast Filmless Festival, which featured radio documentaries and emphasized the art of listening, and upon a last minute invitation, saw the great singer/songwriter John Prine for the first time at a benefit for the Old Town School of Folk Music.

Both were quite enjoyable but I want to focus here on two of my foremost creative heroes, both of whom I had the pleasure of exploring anew over the past 10 days. As detailed here, last Thursday I greatly enjoyed seeing Stephen Sondheim give a conversational overview of his career as the greatest Broadway composer & lyricist of the last 50 years. And as I described here, the previous Friday I took a tour of two Frank Lloyd Wright architectural masterpieces, the SC Johnson Wax Administration Building in Racine, WI, and the nearby "Wingspread" home designed for F.H. Johnson, the company CEO in 1938.

Aside from my own affinity, and generally-accepted global regard as artistic geniuses, there may not seem to be much linking Sondheim and Wright. But what heightens my--and likely public--esteem, is that they were both creators who demonstrated the ability to maintain excellence across a variety of styles throughout their careers.

As shown below, Wright initially designed homes with echoes of his boss Louis Sullivan, soon created his famed Prairie-style homes, and even with great variance within this realm left it largely behind by 1909. Over a 60+ year career, he would go on to design houses and buildings as disparate as LA's Ennis-Brown House, Fallingwater (in PA) and New York's Guggenheim Museum.




Sondheim, as he conveyed in conversation with director Gary Griffin, always felt he had the ability to be a composer and lyricist, but began his Broadway career writing just the lyrics for West Side Story, as Leonard Bernstein was already in place. Although he knew he couldn't--and gladly didn't--pass up this opportunity, Sondheim worried about being pigeonholed as merely a lyricist and was proven correct when Ethel Merman perceived him as such in insisting that composer Jule Styne partner with him on Gypsy.

On his subsequent show, A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum, and more than a dozen that followed, Sondheim amply showed that not only could he write both music and lyrics, he could do so with more dexterity than anyone who had come before or since. From his episodic compositions for Company to the waltz-infused score for A Little Night Music to the Japanese-influence on Pacific Overtures to the dark humor of Sweeney Todd, no two Sondheim shows are really alike, aside from the wit and sophistication that carries through his entire body of work.











While I certainly don't pretend to be on a level anywhere near the genius of Frank Lloyd Wright, Stephen Sondheim or other creative heroes who made major stylistic transitions while maintaining brilliance, such as the Beatles and Picasso, I do see some parallels with my career as a copywriter and creative director.

As showcased in my portfolio, I have worked in a variety of advertising & marketing arenas--recruitment, business-to-business, consumer, political, retail, real estate and more--across a range of media (print, web, direct mail, etc.) for a variety of industries, clients and messaging objectives. Proudly, my output has been highly praised by clients and employers alike, and has generated impressive results across numerous realms.

And as experienced by both Wright, who at times went years between commissions, and Sondheim, who hasn't had a newly-penned work open on Broadway since 1994, I am in the midst of a dry period, professionally speaking. In this high supply, low demand employment marketplace, translating my creative versatility into a new full-time opportunity has been challenging, as ad agencies and others with creative openings understandably desire depth of experience in their specific niche (as a resume-siphoning device if nothing else), and perhaps mine has yet to be a precise match.

Still, with the examples of my creative heroes to both inspire and sustain me, I am confident that my core talents--unique imagination, clever wordplay, the ability to synthesize dense information into powerful & persuasive messages, etc.--can readily translate to success in myriad manifestations, and that I, and my next employer, will be all the better for my multifaceted experiences and influences.

To discuss any full-time or freelance opportunities, please contact me at setharkin@msn.com

Post Office Woes Deserve to be Properly Addressed

When the U.S. Postal Services isn't being taken for granted, it's usually being referred to in a derisive manner. "Going postal" has become a generally accepted synonym for those who commit workplace massacres (or even to jokingly reference anyone percolating with rage), despite the percentage of postal workers who have ever done harm to co-workers being truly infinitesimal. Very rare instances of sacks of mail being found under viaducts have also devastated the USPS' PR for years, while periodic postage increases and long lines at the post office are routinely the stuff of punchlines or water-cooler derision.

But if you actually think about what things cost today, the fact that you can put a letter in a mailbox in Key West on Monday and reasonably expect it to reach Fairbanks by Friday, if not sooner, all for a whopping 44¢, is pretty astounding. Just consider the manpower, automation and gasoline involved in getting it there.

Yet in an age where even fax machines have become antiquated, everything from short messages to high-res photos to multi-page PDFs can be emailed in moments (if not transmitted even faster via texting, instant messaging, web posting, etc.), long-distance calling costs practically nothing, the art of letter writing seems as archaic as rotary phones and everyone you owe prompts you to accept paperless billing, it can't be shocking to hear that the U.S. Postal Service is drowning in money woes.

As detailed in a Chicago Tribune article on Wednesday and summarized in the accompanying chart below, the postal service has been losing billions for the past several years (including $3.8 billion in 2009), is facing a $238 billion loss over the last decade and handles about 30 billion less pieces of mail annually than it did a decade ago.

It does surprise me, as the third chart illustrates, that the USPS still handles much more mail than it during the 1980s, when fax machines, email and other instant distribution technologies didn't exist. And with 177 billion pieces of mail cris-crossing the country just last year, it's not like the post office will become completely obsolete anytime soon.

But it clearly is suffering, and thus is again considering raising postage rates--although 44¢ will remain the cost through 2010--and as the Tribune article conveys, is contemplating the elimination of Saturday mail delivery. While the article doesn't directly address staffing cuts, past, present or future, I can't imagine layoffs aren't in the offing if mail usage continues to decline, despite the likelihood that the infrastructure can't change all that much. After all, less mail isn't going to shorten mail routes, but fewer carriers would lengthen them and thus increase the burden on each one. But then, less business often means more work for those who survive staffing cuts.

Clearly, there aren't easy solutions to a problem essentially created by progress, and I can't readily offer any except to suggest that Hallmark invent more holidays and that parents introduce their kids to the beauty of physical magazines (and subscription savings).

And yes, you haven't been not seeing things; as the Tribune graphic shows, there really are half as many mailboxes around as there used to be.

But perhaps next time you're jesting about "going postal" or whining about waiting in line the week before Christmas, you'll give some thought to how important mail service remains, in general how good it's been and, amidst an ever-evolving world, how it can best remain viable.

My Two Cents Worth (despite only being offered a penny for my thoughts)

I'm not sure where I've been for the last year, and I'm no numismatist, but it never really registered with me that the U.S. Mint issued four new penny back designs in 2009 to commemorate Abraham Lincoln's 200th birthday. I think I once noticed something different--ironically while I was visiting Lincoln sites in Springfield, Illinois--but I didn't ever realize that there were four separate designs, as shown below.



But now that I know, it seems like a cool idea and the four designs are all pretty stellar, aesthetically and in commemorating major aspects of Abe's life. I bring this up because I just read that the U.S. Mint has issued a new penny back design for 2010, as shown at left. To me, this one isn't as much of a success.

With a little reading on the U.S. Mint website, I did learn that there is a bit more going on here than meets the eye. The 13 vertical stripes of the shield represent the states joined in one compact union to support the federal government, represented by the horizontal bar above, and the union shield was used widely during the Civil War. But at face value--one cent, I guess--and in truth, even after knowing all this, it's just boring.

I mean, the number of talented artists looking for work could probably form a line stretching from Springfield to Washington, and this is the best the Mint could come up with?

Honest Abe, I think they should have just reverted to the classic back. Clean, simple, powerful, and allowing for the discovery--at some point in one's youth--of Abe's sculpture being clearly discernible in the midst of his memorial. For my money, pennies or otherwise, the new version is relatively worthless.

eMarketer Article Reveals Small Business Use of Social Media is Growing in a Big Way

Every day I receive and read an excellent e-newsletter from eMarketer, which I strongly suggest you sign up for here (it's completely free and doesn't generate a bunch of other offers).

Most days, their articles and statistics are quite insightful, but I find today's especially worth sharing, as it piggybacks well on my blog post from last week, about business use of social media.

The eMarketer article focuses only on small business usage and results, but while unknowingly echoing my point about how business should--but isn't, at least in any measurable way--do more to spur peer-to-peer interaction about favorite restaurants, wonderful employers, etc., it does reveal that business use of social media is on the climb and delivering solid--though not yet hugely profitable--results.

Read the full article for yourself; the chart below is just one of the interesting components and is a bit misleading unto itself, for as I interpreted it, the percentages below represent tactics used by the 24% of small businesses--up from 12% a year ago--that said they are using social media for marketing purposes. While 1/4 of small business adoption is impressive, it isn't the 3/4 that the chart in itself may imply.