tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-54780393113460511062024-03-05T12:03:04.065-07:00BrososkablogMarketing, behavioural economics and the fuzzy grey area where the two meet.Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15052276787105341528noreply@blogger.comBlogger19125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5478039311346051106.post-35738198657112593682015-07-06T18:41:00.000-06:002015-07-06T21:46:32.763-06:00Please Don't Punish The ArtistsAngry. Seething. Incensed with a side of outraged, and a generous sprinkling of righteous indignation on top.<br />
<br />
Fringe Theatre Adventures' decision to reject Daniel Hughes as a volunteer, with a form letter, and an icky token offer of, well, a token, was appalling, unforgivable and revealed a fundamental gap in their understanding and valuing of <strike>volunteers</strike> humans.<br />
<div id="fb-root">
</div>
<script>(function(d, s, id) { var js, fjs = d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0]; if (d.getElementById(id)) return; js = d.createElement(s); js.id = id; js.src = "//connect.facebook.net/en_US/sdk.js#xfbml=1&version=v2.3"; fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js, fjs);}(document, 'script', 'facebook-jssdk'));</script><br />
<div class="fb-post" data-href="https://www.facebook.com/daniel.hughes.37454/posts/10153515161639587" data-width="500">
<div class="fb-xfbml-parse-ignore">
<blockquote cite="https://www.facebook.com/daniel.hughes.37454/posts/10153515161639587">
It upsets me that I cannot volunteer at the Fringe this year as I have many years ago as a friendraiser greeting people....<br />
Posted by <a href="https://www.facebook.com/daniel.hughes.37454">Daniel Hughes</a> on <a href="https://www.facebook.com/daniel.hughes.37454/posts/10153515161639587">Saturday, July 4, 2015</a></blockquote>
</div>
</div>
It showed a disturbing able-ist mindset within the organization, one which might not be shared by everybody connected, but by enough people that it influences policy.<br />
<br />
And since the Fringe Festival gets <i>thousands of unpaid hours every year from their volunteers</i>, the philosophy of "treat them better than gold" should not be rocket science.<br />
<br />
Apparently for some it is. Whoever was at the helm of their social media <b>doubled down</b> with the contradictory statement, "The Fringe is an inclusive organization that provides many opportunities for people with disabilities to volunteer," ironically after conclusively proving that they are not.<br />
<br />
<div class="fb-post" data-href="https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=940212739351244&id=114717868567406" data-width="500">
<div class="fb-xfbml-parse-ignore">
<blockquote cite="https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=940212739351244&id=114717868567406">
The Fringe is an inclusive organization that provides many opportunities for people with disabilities to volunteer where...<br />
Posted by <a href="https://www.facebook.com/pages/Edmonton-International-Fringe-Theatre-Festival/114717868567406">Edmonton International Fringe Theatre Festival</a> on <a href="https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=940212739351244&id=114717868567406">Sunday, July 5, 2015</a></blockquote>
</div>
</div>
This was followed by one of the worst, most diminishing statements I have ever seen by Executive Director Jill Roszell (and as a communications professional, I actually <i>study this stuff</i>).<br />
<br />
<div class="fb-post" data-href="https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=940236442682207&id=114717868567406" data-width="500">
<div class="fb-xfbml-parse-ignore">
<blockquote cite="https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=940236442682207&id=114717868567406">
I am on holidays right now and this will be my only response to this until I get back. Please realize that like many...<br />
Posted by <a href="https://www.facebook.com/pages/Edmonton-International-Fringe-Theatre-Festival/114717868567406">Edmonton International Fringe Theatre Festival</a> on <a href="https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=940236442682207&id=114717868567406">Sunday, July 5, 2015</a></blockquote>
</div>
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjkGXnGC2w5FvGcAG0bNLOgDMJNoTOF5UPYl157H6pHoYYYxOQ3SZjDvuchIY2v-c6BLpje6ekMQsmuVf5Ww_6_5tjMFb9RTIhHPhxbKs9UvJbDD203VLyjWi2K5u_LBygOY1LJq8GRMWU/s1600/image.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjkGXnGC2w5FvGcAG0bNLOgDMJNoTOF5UPYl157H6pHoYYYxOQ3SZjDvuchIY2v-c6BLpje6ekMQsmuVf5Ww_6_5tjMFb9RTIhHPhxbKs9UvJbDD203VLyjWi2K5u_LBygOY1LJq8GRMWU/s320/image.jpg" width="264" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>Seething anger. Seething.</b></div>
<br />
The community came unglued. (I am still looking for some crazy glue to reassemble myself.) And rightfully so. This was a horrible situation that was terribly handled.<br />
<br />
An apology was demanded. And finally, it came:<br />
<br />
<div class="fb-post" data-href="https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=940350602670791&id=114717868567406" data-width="500">
<div class="fb-xfbml-parse-ignore">
<blockquote cite="https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=940350602670791&id=114717868567406">
Dear Edmonton Fringe Family,Today the Fringe was not at its best. There are things that we need to take responsibility...<br />
Posted by <a href="https://www.facebook.com/pages/Edmonton-International-Fringe-Theatre-Festival/114717868567406">Edmonton International Fringe Theatre Festival</a> on <a href="https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=940350602670791&id=114717868567406">Sunday, July 5, 2015</a></blockquote>
</div>
</div>
For the record, it is a great example of <i>what they should have said in the first place</i>. The Fringe took full responsibility for their mistakes, weren't defensive in the least, and promised to not only fix the problem but keep the public informed as to how exactly they are going to fix it.<br />
<br />
Whether they accomplish that goal remains to be seen. And we, as the public, need to keep their feet to the fire to make sure they do so. We owe it to ourselves, and we owe it to the entire community they completely diminished with their actions.<br />
<br />
They have a real opportunity to make a change for the better here. Let's give them a little breathing room to do it, but not let up on the scrutiny, or our expectations that they make this right.<br />
<br />
And they may fail. In fact, even if they recover, they will still likely bear the brunt of this mistake at this year's festival, and perhaps they should.<br />
<br />
<b>But please, please don't punish the artists.</b><br />
<br />
Having performed at the Fringe many times over the last 20 years, there is one thing that has always bothered me about the setup of the festival. There is nothing to be done about it, and it is patently unfair, but that's just the way it is: <i>The artists have no leverage over the festival.</i><br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEidbdQ0BEwyYp-5VhxvgIE124lb4ly4XCJcs0Q5VG-YQakPA_vFLlrwcvz8TKw_EaOMa1e30WtdV9URuUR-L4aAmuyThjrHZLByuAGRY3nq15AFgOE5-A-vaSJ31dG_0IIp0T90SsNpwEo/s1600/Fire+Breath+-+Copy.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEidbdQ0BEwyYp-5VhxvgIE124lb4ly4XCJcs0Q5VG-YQakPA_vFLlrwcvz8TKw_EaOMa1e30WtdV9URuUR-L4aAmuyThjrHZLByuAGRY3nq15AFgOE5-A-vaSJ31dG_0IIp0T90SsNpwEo/s320/Fire+Breath+-+Copy.jpg" width="215" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>Even if you breathe fire.</b></div>
<br />
There has been a lot of talk about boycotting the Fringe this year. And though I understand the urge to do that (see: <i>"Seething anger. Seething."</i> above) it's important to understand that the effect of that action is going to be relatively insignificant on the people who made the mistake, and <i>devastating to an entire community of artists who had nothing to do with it</i>.<br />
<br />
<b>Artists are dependent upon the Fringe, not the other way around.</b> For each ticket you refuse to buy, you're withholding a couple dollars from the Fringe - a large organization with corporate sponsors - and over $10 from artists who earn close to the poverty line, and are counting on this festival for a much needed chunk of change as part of their annual income. In this instance, punishing the artists does nothing but <i>punish the artists</i>.<br />
<br />
<b>It's kind of like kicking your dog to punish your son for pulling his sister's hair.</b><br />
<br />
So what can we do? How do we make our voices heard? How do we constructively vent our outrage?<br />
<br />
<ol>
<li>Make sure the Fringe knows what the core of the problem is. Letters, phone calls, social media, etc. Don't just rage at them, but offer <i>genuine feedback</i>. Show them what they did wrong and how to fix it. Although it is absolutely no excuse, I fear that the people who made these decisions really didn't know better. That's seriously problematic, but this is an opportunity for the Fringe to really up their game.</li>
<li>Give them some time to come up with a very visible response that actually speaks to the core of the problems. They promised it, let's give them the opportunity to deliver.</li>
</ol>
<br />
So, what if they don't fix it? I am hopeful that the Fringe can make good on this. There are excellent people within the organization and on the board. They likely feel as angered by this as the rest of us do. But, what if this situation isn't resolved, and you are still outraged? Here's how you can make your feelings known with the least damage to the artists:<br />
<br />
<ul>
<li>Don't buy programs. It's all online anyway, so you're not necessarily missing out.</li>
<li>Don't go to the beer tents. The Fringe makes a noteworthy chunk of change there. The local businesses would probably be thrilled to sell some more pints.</li>
<li>Don't buy merchandise. If they continue to make mistakes like this, do you really want a keepsake reminder of the year the Fringe went bad?</li>
<li>Let their sponsors know, as visibly as possible, what you think. Make sure it's clear to them that you see their businesses in a poor light for supporting a festival with this policy. The Fringe losing a sponsor over this would be a massive shakeup.</li>
</ul>
<br />
But first, again, <b>I strongly suggest giving them time to fix it</b>. Not letting it go, but saying, "Alright, you say you want to do better. Show us." And holding them to it.<br />
<br />
The Fringe has an opportunity to learn from this. To fly or fail. This could be a chance for the Fringe to learn what inclusiveness actually means. And if they fix it, go, enjoy the beer tents, buy merchandise, drop donations at the gate. Send a letter to the senior executives of a sponsor to say how impressed you are. Reward the Fringe for making it right.<br />
<br />
But whatever happens, please don't punish the artists. See some shows, drop some bills in a street performer's hat. It wasn't their fault, they don't have any power in the situation. The last thing we want to do is punish the wrong people.<br />
<br />
<b>Isn't that exactly what we're angry at the Fringe for doing?</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b><b>____________________</b></b></div>
<br />
<b><br /></b>
<b>UPDATE: </b> Daniel and his family have also asked people to <b>not boycott</b> the Fringe. If we are upset on his behalf, we owe it to him to respect his wishes, don't we?<div class="blogger-post-footer">brososkablog.blogspot.com
about.me/randybrososky
twitter.com/randwulven</div>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15052276787105341528noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5478039311346051106.post-45875170012446659262014-01-30T11:48:00.000-07:002014-01-30T11:52:13.522-07:00It's Cool to Hate<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjOkQAt_LlDrY-jgenaD1Lcmi_LxQ22E9nRsIQNeiasu_woKvWH3aibcRDMy5wQeF9u9me7WUoYAch2t5Gd1zCuo4v7HqtOmqc6morrLcXG3fdSOd3R199sxcp3dWlD_wjGTVZkKBpKuws/s1600/2211185265_4a1f200532_o.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjOkQAt_LlDrY-jgenaD1Lcmi_LxQ22E9nRsIQNeiasu_woKvWH3aibcRDMy5wQeF9u9me7WUoYAch2t5Gd1zCuo4v7HqtOmqc6morrLcXG3fdSOd3R199sxcp3dWlD_wjGTVZkKBpKuws/s1600/2211185265_4a1f200532_o.jpg" height="277" width="400" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<i>Photo Credit: <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/44399660@N00/2211185265/">Ferran.</a> via <a href="http://compfight.com/">Compfight</a> <a href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.0/">cc</a></i>
</div>
<div>
<br />
Screw it! I hate it! It's the worst idea ever thought of, and I have a litany of reasons for why it is such a terrible waste of money, time and my tax dollars!</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
What is it? Doesn't matter. You name it, I'll hate it.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
'Cus it's cool to hate. And so easy.<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a></div>
<div>
Putting a bunch of lights on the High Level bridge? That's a dumbass idea if I've ever heard one. Sure we could have a cogent, valuable discussion about the effect the light might have on the nocturnal wildlife in the river valley. We could give credit for the excitement it has generated in the people who have already supported it. Perhaps it's even worth talking about a grass-roots movement that was going to be funded without tax dollars, that then had to change gears and ask the city for tax dollars. There are probably quite a few speaking points, on both sides of the debate, that bear consideration.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Nah, it's way easier to just hate it.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
A pile of balls beside the Quesnell bridge? Art? Should we discuss the 1% art policy? Even though the successful models of these policies open the competitions beyond the city of origin, should we explore making ours more locally focussed? Should we talk about other ways to make our city more visually dynamic and interesting, while recognizing that art is, was and always will be extremely subjective?</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Nah, hate it. It's ugly - and I can say this, with perfect accuracy because I speak for all artistic viewpoints in the world that ever have been or ever will be. It sucks. See? Easy.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Snow clearing? I don't care what they're doing, how they're doing it or why, they're doing it wrong. They're not doing it fast enough. They're not doing enough of it. And they're spending too much to do it.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Wow. I can do this all day. Bleeding heart lefties, or arts-eviscerating right-wingers? Hate 'em. Moderates? No guts, hate 'em even more. Nickelback? It's especially cool to hate them.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Look how awesome I am! I have very strong, polarized, indisputable opinions on just about everything that goes on in my city. I don't need to discuss, or explore, or learn. I'm full of self-righteous hatred for everything bad. And pretty much everything is bad.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
And by hating everything, I can make sure Edmonton never evolves, never changes, grows in area but not culture, taxes climb but value doesn't, the city doesn't become recognized or admired around the world, and is only good as a place to store my stuff while I make money either directly or indirectly from the oil industry.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Yay me.</div>
<div class="blogger-post-footer">brososkablog.blogspot.com
about.me/randybrososky
twitter.com/randwulven</div>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15052276787105341528noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5478039311346051106.post-63737590840578514762012-01-19T16:04:00.002-07:002012-01-20T15:20:15.595-07:00Edmonton's Biggest Challenge<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjnxcINPhDshI112yZGHXCTXirPj3_AdsuH7zt5Y7MDXPwfQQ4s6_xcw-BDBxFEM_JKTFD2R3C_TKcHrtBKOgJIKAY9yamaRRGtZWzzkikMR23cs0xNQQvFS3dWfRy9pC9w2NrVaEz_Ohs9/s1600/Cozumel-Edmonton.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjnxcINPhDshI112yZGHXCTXirPj3_AdsuH7zt5Y7MDXPwfQQ4s6_xcw-BDBxFEM_JKTFD2R3C_TKcHrtBKOgJIKAY9yamaRRGtZWzzkikMR23cs0xNQQvFS3dWfRy9pC9w2NrVaEz_Ohs9/s1600/Cozumel-Edmonton.jpg" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">From Cozumel to Edmonton - Copyrights <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/eschipul/" target="_blank">eschipul</a> and <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/badcomputer/" target="_blank">bulliver</a></td></tr>
</tbody></table><br />
<div class="Body1">As I write this, it's our last night in Cozumel. Soft sands, gorgeous skies. The friendliest fish this side of the Caribbean - a diver's paradise. As I sit here, the cool evening breeze is taking just enough edge off of the heat of the day to make it blissfully comfortable. Tomorrow we travel home. In the space of twelve hours, the temperature we experience will drop by over <i>sixty degrees celsius</i>. Eeep. But that's okay. Why?</div><div class="Body1"></div><a name='more'></a><br />
<div class="Body1">I'm going home. To Edmonton. YEG as many of you know it. Where the heart is. And I love it.</div><div class="Body1"><br />
</div><div class="Body1">My love affair with Edmonton started as any other would. As a kid coming from a small town I was infatuated by the possibilities of the 'big city.' It grew on me. Close enough to my parents to have ready support. Far enough to enjoy independence. And in the last couple years, I have really started to make fascinating, valuable connections with amazing people. Driven people. People of vision. Of passion. People who resolutely call Edmonton home and cherish it for the rich community that makes up its heart.</div><div class="Body1"><br />
</div><div class="Body1">So what do people think when they hear Edmonton? This:</div><div class="Body1"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjLNRrguPc7aL5b54OYG1msnAOGOj3hyt8LBVRcWRzxc7HoJNk85If_Ost4VoXp4ZTipw0a51i6eIJJgUYl_eLGQrUzQqoj7mX3ctsWRaDukJTpC7EUG6xf-NT3VBggXVQH6hkRgcxv0TCp/s1600/WhatWeNeedToChange.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjLNRrguPc7aL5b54OYG1msnAOGOj3hyt8LBVRcWRzxc7HoJNk85If_Ost4VoXp4ZTipw0a51i6eIJJgUYl_eLGQrUzQqoj7mX3ctsWRaDukJTpC7EUG6xf-NT3VBggXVQH6hkRgcxv0TCp/s1600/WhatWeNeedToChange.jpg" /></a></div><div class="Body1"><br />
</div><div class="Body1"><br />
</div><div class="Body1">This image was passed around 'the internets' a month or so ago. Many people shared it, commenting on how funny but true it was. Chuckling. LOL-ing. 'Liking' it and Tweeting it. People found it quite entertaining.</div><div class="Body1"><br />
</div><div class="Body1">I didn't laugh when I saw it. I felt quite different indeed. A lump in my stomach. A sense of defeat. A hopeless psychic shrug. It doesn't matter how many fascinating people I meet. How many great plans and initiatives are started. How much drive and ambition we have.</div><div class="Body1"><br />
</div><div class="Body1">This is how we are known. Worse, this was mostly shared by Edmontonians. <i>This is how we see ourselves</i>.</div><div class="Body1"><br />
</div><div class="Body1">I've written about <a href="http://brososkablog.blogspot.com/2010/12/brand-new-edmonton.html" target="_blank">Edmonton's branding problem</a> before. I am far from the only one. Todd Babiak has written and spoken about it as well. All these vibrant people. All these fantastic ideas. <a href="http://www.startupedmonton.com/" target="_blank">StartUp Edmonton</a>, <a href="http://www.artssceneedmonton.com/" target="_blank">ArtScene</a>, #YEGalleyburger, Festival City, some of the best damn recycling programs in the world, <a href="http://whatthetruck.ca/" target="_blank">WhatTheTruck</a>, a river valley that is the <a href="http://www.edmontonrivervalley.com/" target="_blank">largest stretch of urban parkland</a> in North America, an IT and media community that is collaborative instead of competitive, an incredibly talented film community, more theatre per capita than anywhere else in North America. And the poster above is how we see ourselves. That's what resonates with people. That's what gets shared on Facebook. That's what we identify with.</div><div class="Body1"><br />
</div><div class="Body1">I stared at my computer in stunned silence for a while. I considered moving. I have the belief that Edmonton can become a vibrant place that is world renowned - for tangible reasons, not for the crap that usually comes raining down on us from the mouths of politicians pushing agenda. That belief went out like a candle in a rainstorm. Work that I had already been postponing sat on my desk with no hope of catching my interest ever again.</div><div class="Body1"><br />
</div><div class="Body1">This was it. This was our 'brand.' This was who we are. This was everything we didn't want to be.</div><div class="Body1"><br />
</div><div class="Body1">Hmmmmm.</div><div class="Body1"><br />
</div><div class="Body1">I stared. I listened to the radiators creak. The sun went behind a cloud and my office seemed colder.</div><div class="Body1"><br />
</div><div class="Body1">Everything we didn't want to be.</div><div class="Body1"><br />
</div><div class="Body1">Everything we <i>didn't want</i>.</div><div class="Body1"><br />
</div><div class="Body1">Huh.</div><div class="Body1"><br />
</div><div class="Body1">Well would you look at that.</div><div class="Body1"><br />
</div><div class="Body1">Here's a checklist of all the problems with our image. Our identity. Neatly laid out. And there were two ways to look at it: something to be depressed about, or something to inform change.</div><div class="Body1"><br />
</div><div class="Body1">We can't come up with an identity on a piece of paper and then follow it. No city can. We have no choice but to find ourselves - new-agey as that might sound. But that doesn't mean we have to do it without guidance. I looked at the poster in a new light. This is it. This is the Edmonton that we don't want. Much as businesses look at their vision statement to decide what actions will drive the company <i>toward</i> their goals, we can look at this to make decisions that will drive us <i>away</i> from what we don't want to be. What we cannot afford to believe in. An image of Edmonton that <i>we ourselves</i> mock mercilessly.</div><div class="Body1"><br />
</div><div class="Body1">I started to smile. Whoever designed this little poster perfectly encapsulated what we want to steer away from.</div><div class="Body1"><br />
</div><div class="Body1">I thought about it. Why was there so much resistance to the plans for the new museum? Because it will look exactly like the pedestrian outdated buildings that this poster mocks. Sure, there was resistance to the new Art Gallery too, but there is resistance to everything. Ask any politician. The question becomes, what resistance is worth putting up with? What battles do you fight, what hills do you die on to make the world a better place than it was when you got there. How many people do you hear still complaining about the AGA vs the number of people who speak positively about it?</div><div class="Body1"><br />
</div><div class="Body1">Why was there so much furor over the airport development? It was a mix of this same resistance to change, plus a generous heap of hope that what will come out of it steers us away from the idea in this poster.</div><div class="Body1"><br />
</div><div class="Body1">We're not sure who we want to be when we grow up. We're still young, in the scope of the world. But we certainly know who we <i>don't</i> want to be.</div><div class="Body1"><br />
</div><div class="Body1">So here's your mission, should you choose to accept it. Save that poster on your computer. Hell, print it out. Just put it somewhere where you can see it every couple of days. Look at it. Learn it. And if you ever make any decision or choice that has even the remotest chance of affecting Edmonton, steer as brightly and boldly away from the idea in that poster as you can. The trap is not choosing. The trap is safe decisions and non-decisions. (Capital Ex anyone?) The sides of the trap are laced with the belief that others will decide and that there is nothing you can do. The bottom of the trap is flooded with complacency and inertia. This is not just about what councillor you vote for or being on your condo board. This is about a philosophy, a belief, that we can be more than "Alberta's own frozen wasteland" and it is a belief you need to embrace deeply, and to act on. In every way you can. The opportunities may be few or frequent, but there is nothing more powerful than an idea. And once that idea catches on, we can make Edmonton the city that it is capable of being.</div><div class="Body1"><br />
</div><div class="Body1">Tonight I leave Cozumel - home of the friendliest fish this side of the Caribbean, the diver's paradise. Tomorrow I return to Edmonton. What am I coming home to? It is <i>not</i> the world's biggest social bubble. But changing that idea is up to all of us.</div><div class="Body1"><br />
</div><div class="Body1">We can shed the shackles of the 'cards we're dealt' and start making new rules to the game. We can be the captains of our destiny, without having to be rich enough to own a hockey team. Let's make it our mission that some day, soon, people will look at this poster and say "Really? Edmonton used to be like that?" Let's make this image, this negative idea, a thing of the past.</div><div class="Body1"><br />
</div><div class="Body1">Who's with me? </div><div class="Body1"><br />
-------------------------------------------<br />
<br />
<b><i>Update:</i></b> Here's the <a href="http://ironcladfolly.com/2011/08/29/visit-edmonton-today/" target="_blank">original source</a> of the poster, and the <a href="http://www.mikekendrick.ca/visit-edmonton/" target="_blank">artist</a> who created it - check out his excellent portfolio. Thanks to <a href="http://ayiman.tumblr.com/post/16138182401/mastermaq-via-brososkablog-edmontons-biggest" target="_blank">âyiman</a> for the clarification.<br />
<br />
</div><div class="blogger-post-footer">brososkablog.blogspot.com
about.me/randybrososky
twitter.com/randwulven</div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com9Edmonton, AB, Canada53.543564 -113.49045253.3833415 -113.7112415 53.703786500000007 -113.26966250000001tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5478039311346051106.post-32084324963709926752011-08-31T14:48:00.002-06:002011-08-31T14:58:57.956-06:00Art vs Advertising: What Fluid Hair Salon didn't know...<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://storage.canoe.ca/v1/dynamic_resize/sws_path/suns-prod-images/1314637270865_ORIGINAL.jpg?quality=80&size=650x" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left:1em; margin-right:1em"><img border="0" height="270" width="406" src="http://storage.canoe.ca/v1/dynamic_resize/sws_path/suns-prod-images/1314637270865_ORIGINAL.jpg?quality=80&size=650x" /></a></div><br />
The uproar has been deafening. People's social media feeds have been flooded by the debacle. Fluid Salon in Edmonton produced the above ad, and it has caught the eyes and ires of people across the country.<br />
<br />
I don't need to discuss whether the ad was good or bad, appropriate or not. The people have already spoken on that one. You can see the creators' defenses <a href="http://fluidhair.ca/?p=665">here</a> and <a href="http://fluidhair.ca/?p=659">here</a> and Ryan Jespersen's <a href="http://blogs.btedmonton.ca/ryan/pulling-no-punches">incredibly well written response here</a>. There have been a number of PR professionals who have used this as an opportunity to share conflict management strategies. (Namely, accept that people got offended, apologize and make good. Simple. Reminds me of another mess with an Edmonton actor at <a href="http://brososkablog.blogspot.com/2010/08/leaping-into-fray.html">last year's Fringe festival</a>.) There has also been a lot of anger.<br />
<br />
The ad has been defended as art. That there is perhaps more going on than the obvious interpretation. But there's a problem with that. There's a logo. There's a tagline. It's not art, it's advertising. Although I believe that there is artistry in creating ads, <i>advertising and art are not interchangeable words.</i><br />
<!-- more --><br />
I'm not going to try to define "art." Philosophers have been struggling with that one for centuries. But I am going to distinguish it from advertising.<br />
<br />
<b>Art</b> is meant to be dissected. Discussed. Unpacked. Pondered. Ruminated upon. <b>Advertising</b> is meant to be instantly meaningful. Straightforward. The smart advertisers tap into the skills of excellent creatives to manufacture powerful images. Images that tell compelling stories in as short and efficient a time as possible. Stories in seconds. No time to look for hidden meanings below the surface. An ad can make you think, but the first conclusion people come to had damn well better be the right one or you're sunk. What you get at first look <i>needs</i> to be the intent of the ad.<br />
<br />
A first look at the Fluid ad is pretty clear. "Abuse is fine as long as you look good, and we'll help you look good." That's it. And that's all anyone can be expected to take away from it because it's an advertisement.<br />
<br />
All ads operate a certain way, whether they are effective or not. An ad conveys a businesses beliefs and values, and promises an emotional benefit. Ads are supposed to resonate with those who share those values and beliefs, and who crave that emotional benefit. What does the Fluid ad say about what the salon values? What is the emotional benefit promised by this ad?<br />
<br />
Jef I. Richards, an advertising professor, made an interesting distinction when he said, "Creative without strategy is called 'art.' Creative with strategy is called 'advertising.'" One has to ask Fluid what their strategy was. I think they didn't have a solid one, and are now suffering the backlash.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.donovancreative.com/featured/domestic-violence-isn’t-‘pretty/">An excellent post by Fiona Farrell</a> of Donovan Creative draws attention to the fact that ads are also a request for business. Fluid wants your money. That's fair, every business that places an ad wants the same thing. But by using domestic violence to ask for it, they imply that they believe domestic violence is a way to get your money.<br />
<br />
I know that's not what they were trying to do. But advertising isn't about intent. It's about effect. The road to hell, you know. And there's a lot of amateur creatives at the end of that road.<br />
<br />
This is your brand people. Your identity. What you are asking people to believe of you. Your brand is the emotional mythology of your company. There are some messed up emotions tied into that ad. And the biggest surprise? The people most likely to be offended by the image are the heart of Fluid's target market.<br />
<br />
I don't think any of them knew that the target would be their right eye.<br />
<div class="blogger-post-footer">brososkablog.blogspot.com
about.me/randybrososky
twitter.com/randwulven</div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5478039311346051106.post-6781415263794672312011-08-22T19:53:00.001-06:002011-08-22T19:55:30.780-06:00The Captain Morgan Spiced Rum campaign, and why it's never gonna work...<br />
<center><a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/66560688@N06/6071516186/"><img border="0" height="400" src="http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6209/6071516186_0beb5091c1_b.jpg" style="margin-bottom: 5px; margin-left: 5px; margin-right: 5px; margin-top: 5px;" width="299" /></a></center><br />
<br />
Give the gang at <a href="http://www.diageo.com/">Diageo</a> credit, the concept behind the 'Captain and Cola' campaign is subtle and clever. It shows an ambitious strategy and the potential to greatly increase their market distribution.<br />
<br />
Too bad it will never work...<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a>The concept is clever. Instead of trying to sell directly to the consumers, convince the liquor purchasers at drinking establishments to carry <a href="http://www.captainmorgan.com/">Captain Morgan Original Spiced Rum</a>. If you can convince the customer to show a brand preference, then the liquor establishment will have pressure to carry that specific brand. For an example of how effective this can be, think of how many times you've heard someone order a "rum and coke" versus a "rum and pepsi." A significant amount of Coke's market share can be attributed to the fact that it is in the common vernacular to order a beverage with cola by saying "_____ and Coke." Another testament to that is the verve Pepsi fans exhibit when they order a "______ and Pepsi." It is much less common to hear, but it speaks strongly to brand loyalty.<br />
<br />
"If only people ordered Captain Morgan Spiced Rum by name," ponders the marketing executive, (or by nickname as the case may be) "then more bars and lounges will feel pressure from their consumers to be brand selective. More purchasers will buy our brand." Sure, brand to the end-user, to increase sales to the distributor.<br />
<br />
However, there are three problems with this approach. In fact, let me be so bold as to say three reasons why it will never work:<br />
<br />
<b>1) Mouth Economy</b> - Okay, I just made up this phrase, but it's been known for a while that people like to use as few sounds as possible to name things. (If you don't believe me, ask yourself how many people you know that have nicknames.) Sometimes it comes down to flow of words. Sometimes it's sound and how easy it is to annunciate. But most of the time, it's the number of syllables. Try it: Say "I'll have a spiced rum and coke" out loud. (Apologies for strange looks you may get in your coffee shop.) Now say "I'll have a Captain and Cola." Odds are that the "Captain" version will not feel as comfortable in your mouth. Count the syllables. "Spiced rum and coke" is four. "Captain and Cola" is five. Subtle, but it's been proven that it makes a difference.<br />
<br />
<b>2) Ordering a 'Captain'</b> - Other than the irony, have you ever ordered a 'Captain' anything? It's a little strange. If you said "I'll have a Captain and Cola" and the waiter looked at you funny, not understanding what you meant, how silly would you feel. Maybe a little, maybe a lot, but it is still one more reason that people would be resistant to ordering a "Captain and Cola."<br />
<br />
<b>3) Rewriting Behaviour</b> - The biggest irony of this campaign, is that while trying to 'code' their customers with a specific behaviour, they are simultaneously trying to erase the identical behavior with the word "coke." Diageo has no affiliation with Coca-Cola, so they can't say "Order a Captain and Coke" (which might have a better chance of succeeding). They have to say "_____ and cola." So, while trying to get customers to <i>start</i> saying something they were not saying in the first place, they are forced to try to get customers to <i>stop</i> saying something that's been part of the vernacular for decades. "Hey people, that thing you've been doing with 'Coke' for years? Stop doing it with coke and start doing it with our product!" Does this sound unreasonable to you?<br />
<br />
I was briefly involved with a Captain Morgan Parrot Bay promotion a long time ago (late nineties) when Seagram's still owned the brand. This strategy has been running since then. It's at least a dozen years long in the teeth, and to my knowledge, with my highly scientific research of asking the handful of wait-staff I know, no one has ever actually ordered a 'Captain and cola.' Yet they're still pushing it.<br />
<br />
At its core, this strategy is about being lazy and demanding. They are trying to get their end customer doing the branding of "Captain" for them. I'm sorry, but that's not your customer's job. Customers will take a brand and run with it, but they do it at their own speed for their own reasons. You cannot expect a customer to do the work of developing your brand for you, according to your direction. The net result is that Diageo is <i>telling</i> people to be loyal to Captain Morgan and trying to dictate how people should show that loyalty. It's an imperative. A command.<br />
<br />
And customers never respond well to commands.<br />
<br />
Thoughts?<br />
<br />
<br />
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad<div class="blogger-post-footer">brososkablog.blogspot.com
about.me/randybrososky
twitter.com/randwulven</div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5478039311346051106.post-45601041252819908002011-08-17T16:03:00.004-06:002011-08-18T09:50:56.916-06:00Fringe Festival Handbilling as Marketing 101<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3448/3835390061_b5c3194ff8_d.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="500" src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3448/3835390061_b5c3194ff8_d.jpg" width="333" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;">Copyright <a href="http://www.pixelens.com/"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: black;">Pixelens Photography</span></a></span></td></tr>
</tbody></table><br />
It's amazing really. I watch people handbilling on the grounds of the <a href="http://www.fringetheatre.ca/">Edmonton Fringe Festival</a> and I see a microcosm of all things marketing. Sure, it makes sense. People doing shows have a product and they are trying to find a consumer to pay for that product. But the number of basic advertising tenets that manifest themselves in these many transactions, both good an bad, continues to amaze me.<br />
<br />
I know a bunch of people who hate handbilling. Mostly because they hate interrupting someone to thrust an unwelcome, uninvited advertising message upon them. Which is a good reaction to have. Because people hate to have unwelcome, uninvited advertising messages thrust upon them.<br />
<br />
Read on to see just a few of the marketing lessons that can be gleaned from watching an earnest actor simply trying to plug their show.<br />
<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<b>What doesn't work:</b><br />
<br />
<b>Quantity:</b> Many performers simply try to make sure their handbills are <i>everywhere</i>. Thousands of them. Just like Nike putting their logo on everything, the hope is that if it is pervasive enough, it will sink into the subconscious and make an impact. The problem is that others are doing the same thing. Potential audience members (customers) get bombarded with dozens of handbills (advertising messages) every day and they eventually become noise. If you could actually blanket every square inch of the city with your piece of paper this <i>might</i> work. Of course you would totally alienate the environmental crowd after slaughtering that many trees.<br />
<br />
<b>Irrelevance:</b> Performers will walk up to anyone and try to convince them to see their show. It doesn't matter if the potential customer would be interested. They try to convince <i>everyone</i> that it's the perfect show for them. This conveys a subtle message that the performer doesn't mean to convey, but the listener picks up on: I'm more interested in your ticket money than giving you an experience that is meaningful. It becomes all about bums in seats, and not about relevance.<br />
<br />
I am doing two shows at the Fringe. If you like historical plays about Canadian women and the First World War, check out <a href="http://www.maapaa.ca/wordpress/">Firing Lines</a>. If you don't, I have no expectation that you'll click that link. If you like improvisation, are heavily into social media and would like to be able to use Twitter during a show to interact with the actors during the show, check out <a href="http://yegprov.wordpress.com/">#YEGprov</a>. I have told very few people about both shows because they are usually very different audiences. I want to make sure a show is the sort of experience that an audience connects with <i>before</i> I try to sell a ticket.<br />
<br />
<b>Claims of Quality:</b> If I could teach my clients only one thing, this would be it. Don't say your show (product/service) is the "Best" or the "Funniest" or the "Most Dramatic" or that it's "Excellent." Of course you think that. The listener knows you're biassed. And they tune out that claim. That part of your message gets edited out by the listener. So don't waste time with it. The more you push it, the more they wonder why you have to tell them and - ironically - the <i>less</i> they believe you.<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>What does work:</b><br />
<br />
<b>Making a connection:</b> I've seen performers walk up to people for five minutes, and chat about all sorts of things that have nothing to do with their own show for most of that time. They have a meaningful conversation and finish it with a plug for their show. It takes longer but each handbill that is given out has a much higher chance of turning into a ticket. (ROI anyone?)<br />
<br />
<b>Offering value:</b> I used to stand at the info boards and wait for people to walk up. When they did, I would ask them what sort of show they were looking for. I would share all I knew about the upcoming shows. What I had heard, the good, the bad and the ugly. I would never slam a show, but I would try to assess what they were looking for and try to find the best match for them. I would also, very honestly admit that one of the shows was mine, and that I was understandably biassed about it. If my show was a comedy and they were looking for a drama, I wouldn't plug it, but I would mention it. Amazingly, almost everyone would take my handbill and even if they weren't looking for my sort of show, they would usually buy tickets. Why? Because I had willingly offered them assistance with their needs, regardless of my own. Then, as a fair exchange, they would willingly listen to my pitch. I know that you perceive your show (product/service) as being of high value, but anyone you meet likely does not. If they do, they're already your customers. Find out how you can help them, and they will be willing to help you.<br />
<br />
<b>Sincerity:</b> The curveball in all this is that some people push their show hard, against all these rules, and still do well with handbilling. Why? Because they are sincere. Absolutely genuine and passionate about their work. And they want to share it with the world. That sincerity should always be there, no matter how you connect with people. If you don't believe in your show/product/service/widget then why should anyone else.<br />
<br />
Head down to the Fringe grounds. Watch people pitch their shows. Take a few handbills. You'll see examples of the good and the bad. Then ask yourself: When I'm trying to sell something, what kind of 'handbiller' am I?<div class="blogger-post-footer">brososkablog.blogspot.com
about.me/randybrososky
twitter.com/randwulven</div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5478039311346051106.post-72333852463972813312011-03-18T17:08:00.000-06:002011-03-18T17:08:46.914-06:00What Starbucks Did Wrong With Their New Logo<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiMLwU6tNMQMUifoh2Hq5ooTDQFreZgWp4mmNUHnYcv-GB71FO4NswoAtTOBVJCDLQpUCiLfAhTk8k7cIKUB810p3_iuVcO3pvIensAwmekDDzoTP0onnCfwpFSNdSrq-RHQ9yKSwSjFew6/s1600/photo.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" r6="true" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiMLwU6tNMQMUifoh2Hq5ooTDQFreZgWp4mmNUHnYcv-GB71FO4NswoAtTOBVJCDLQpUCiLfAhTk8k7cIKUB810p3_iuVcO3pvIensAwmekDDzoTP0onnCfwpFSNdSrq-RHQ9yKSwSjFew6/s1600/photo.JPG" /></a></div><br />
<a href="http://www.starbucks.com/">Starbucks</a> officially launched their new logo last week. Stores were running out of stock with the old logos and had to 'hold on' until 'new logo day' to replenish their stores. It looks like the official launch day was relatively uneventful. But of course, that's because the ruckus had already occurred a few months ago when Starbucks announced their new logo. People were shocked, outraged, even though the logo wasn't drastically changed from its previous incarnation:<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.logodesignlove.com/images/evolution/starbucks-logo-evolution.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="308" r6="true" src="http://www.logodesignlove.com/images/evolution/starbucks-logo-evolution.jpg" width="400" /></a></div><br />
Some even went so far as to ask where the idea for "the mermaid" came from, even though you can see the siren has been a part of the logo since the beginning. So why all the fuss? Why the complaints? Sure, it wasn't <a href="http://mashable.com/2010/10/11/gap-logo/">the backlash that Gap experienced</a>, but it was definitely there. Why were people so put out about a change to the logo?<br />
<br />
Because, Starbucks forgot their own brand promise.<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
In a world with coffee shops on every corner, where meetings happen, business deals are negotiated and graphic designers set up remote offices, the coffee shop industry is highly competitive. Starbucks has spent years working their way into the hearts of their customers by making and keeping a very solid brand promise. You don't go to Starbucks to buy a cup of <em>their</em> coffee. You go to buy <em>your</em> coffee.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.neatorama.com/2010/08/21/starbucks-facts-it-has-87000-possible-drink-combinations/">Starbucks has over 87,000 possible drink combinations</a>. One would think that such a level of variety on the menu would cause paralysis of choice. Too many options. But it's not the case. Customers very quickly find their way to their own drink, or couple of drinks (grandé wet cappuchino, or grandé soy Tazo chai, in case you're ever buying for me). So the brand promises to sell you <em>your</em> drink, every time. Ask the baristas. They get to know you by your drink, often offering it before you have a chance to order it yourself. They have to work to learn your name but they know your drink. This makes a purchase from Starbucks a very personal experience. Customers have a tremendous sense of ownership in the brand. And this is gold for any brand. This is the kind of customer loyalty that marketing executives will sell their first-born for.<br />
<br />
So then Starbucks decides they want to change their logo. The reasoning? Ostensibly to extend their line beyond coffee. Basically removing the words from the logo to be able to expand the brand. And among the design community, the assessment of the simplification is pretty positive. Designers like it. It's iconic, clean. And it has a history of being an image associated with the product since day one.<br />
<br />
But it's not <em>their</em> logo. It's <em>your</em> logo. It's <em>our</em> logo. And they decided to change something of ours without asking. It's like coming home and finding out your pet has been replaced. But hey, the new one is younger, healthier, eats less and cleans up after itself. Sorry, don't bloody care, I want my pet back, warts and all!<br />
<br />
The crazy thing is they could have reached out to their customer base and involved them in the process. They could even have come up with exactly the same logo, but by being transparent, asking for feedback from their customers and starting a conversation about it, they could have strengthened that bond instead of challenging it.<br />
<br />
Brands spend billions of dollars around the globe every year to get that kind of loyalty, that kind of brand ownership. Starbucks has it. So it's sad that they forgot all about it when they changed the logo.<br />
<br />
The lessons to be learned?<br />
<br />
<strong>One:</strong> it's proof that a logo is a shortcut to an emotional association with your brand. The logo itself might not even be seen - "Where did the mermaid come from?" - but it is <em>felt</em>.<br />
<strong>Two:</strong> You don't own your brand. You can shape it, nudge it, even manage it, but you don't <em>own</em> it. Your customers do. And if they don't, you have your work cut out for you.<br />
<br />
<strong>Three:</strong> In a world of social media that connects you so closely to your customers, you no longer have an excuse to be distant. Involve your customers. Share the ownership of your brand, because that's where your loyalty will grow.<br />
<br />
This won't hurt Starbucks. In fact, they may not have even noticed a blip in their sales. But that loyalty base was tested. And just as you can't measure the emotional connection your customers have with your brand, you also cannot measure the damage these sorts of things can do. Not until it's too late.<div class="blogger-post-footer">brososkablog.blogspot.com
about.me/randybrososky
twitter.com/randwulven</div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5478039311346051106.post-90990868614636265752011-02-18T15:34:00.000-07:002011-02-18T15:34:21.734-07:00Beauty Scars<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhB-vcnog6sUb4KZkQftCiXMfr3SW57PBMUqSzzG7N9_ndRtXxetnzMUMw_hEJFnXMn4rBF3juF_iHNubpmxb-3DMDq-5ObLsXEYbFzPpgNshYnFK4RDBVq1Evih6kyOfHn8Fi8s1FpC2Tx/s1600/scar.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="277" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhB-vcnog6sUb4KZkQftCiXMfr3SW57PBMUqSzzG7N9_ndRtXxetnzMUMw_hEJFnXMn4rBF3juF_iHNubpmxb-3DMDq-5ObLsXEYbFzPpgNshYnFK4RDBVq1Evih6kyOfHn8Fi8s1FpC2Tx/s400/scar.jpg" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Aesthetics of Surgical Scars by Jackson McConnell</td></tr>
</tbody></table><br />
The next time you're walking through <a href="http://www.enterprisesquare.ualberta.ca/">Enterprise Square</a> in downtown Edmonton, check this out. In fact, make it a special trip. There's a display from a design class called <b>The Aesthetics of Disability</b>. It's a fascinating display of ideas about "rethinking ... the aesthetic direction and qualities [of] an assistive device..." Every time I walk through the square, this picture catches my eye. The entire display is excellent, showing all sorts of futuristic prosthetics that embrace technology and aesthetic design, but this one really seems to crystallize the core idea which I believe is at the heart of this exhibit, and is an idea we <i>all</i> need to embrace.<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
I have discussed <a href="http://brososkablog.blogspot.com/2010/09/how-your-brand-affected-your-chances-of.html">personal branding in a previous post</a>. I don't think that personal branding (like product or company branding) should be something that is pasted on, added to, or painted over what is already there. It must grow out of the genuine truth of what is within. We see it, on an intuitive level, with advertising all the time. Packaging that is far superior to what the product could ever be. Advertisements that promise impossible benefits. These things ring hollow. We don't believe them and credibility is lost.<br />
<br />
Many of us have a remarkable sense about people that operates the same way. We see someone, often a block away, that is flaunting the latest fashions or some trend, not because the style resonates with their core personality, but because it is 'fashionable' and they are trying to define themselves as 'fashionable.' Indeed, some people can be trend-setters, because it is part of their nature. I'm talking about those who seem to wear the fashion, or use the lingo, or adopt the attitude as a surface patina. It's an ever changing coat of paint, that is based on the trend, but not the object being painted.<br />
<br />
These are the people who seem like they are 'always on' and are never giving a true representation of themselves. We sense it. We take everything they say with a grain of salt. And then we are pleasantly surprised when we meet someone else who does their own thing, saying "They just seem so genuine!"<br />
<br />
One can't help but wonder if they are afraid to be true to themselves, the inner self. Perhaps like the example in the photo, they see themselves as 'scarred' and see those scars as ugly things that need to be hidden. The brilliance in the example above is based on personal acceptance. An acknowledgement of everything that we are, the good, the bad and the ugly. Then an embracing of those qualities. Turning a scar that is permanent and inescapable into artwork is true to the core of personal branding. Who <i>are</i> you? How can you embrace that, value it and share it with the world.<br />
<br />
Of course, we're all stuck in thoughts of who we <i>want to be</i>. Until we can look at ourselves truthfully, scars and all, we're never going to be sharing ourselves fully with the world around us. And that is a true tragedy.<div class="blogger-post-footer">brososkablog.blogspot.com
about.me/randybrososky
twitter.com/randwulven</div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5478039311346051106.post-14678668766846261852011-01-27T17:25:00.000-07:002011-01-27T17:25:42.468-07:00Treading Carefully Between Faith and Reason<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgr6FRe4D0T5OmZY23S5Qvr0sJ-pNu16NySCiZGC0Nn2BqHB0du4BS0bLsjUlcYqraRiYJsiPiTQl5C7QxBqAdI6PDHtfclUUgtM2O332s6qqtTXKxr5CvsagUHInDKAIy-2qmNZ9_r8LmW/s1600/3317932664_c420216fee_z.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgr6FRe4D0T5OmZY23S5Qvr0sJ-pNu16NySCiZGC0Nn2BqHB0du4BS0bLsjUlcYqraRiYJsiPiTQl5C7QxBqAdI6PDHtfclUUgtM2O332s6qqtTXKxr5CvsagUHInDKAIy-2qmNZ9_r8LmW/s400/3317932664_c420216fee_z.jpg" width="305" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">© <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/annagaycoan/">Loca Luna</a></td></tr>
</tbody></table><br />
Okay, here’s the caveat right out of the gates: I am exploring this issue to generate discussion. There is no judgment here. In fact, <i>any comments on this post will be moderated viciously to make sure there is nothing inflammatory posted</i>. I just think this bears open-minded, intelligent, honest, rational discussion. And an important note: In this discussion, when I use the word ‘faith’ I am not referring solely to religious belief. It’s also political or philosophical ideals. Even psychological. However, the religious argument is the biggest lightening rod for this discussion.<br />
<br />
Still slightly fuelled by my <a href="http://www.blogger.com/">last post</a> and the discussion on it, and going through the Critical Thinking course, I stumbled upon a hot-button point. An obstacle to proper critical thought is the ‘blind faith’ paradigm, “It just simply is that way.” In a discussion analyzing truth and ‘how things work’ we are often driven, even subconsciously, to believe things on a gut level that can be proven to be wrong. But we are usually afraid to let go of our ideas, even in the face of overwhelming evidence. Possibly because they resonate so strongly within us. Possibly because we are afraid to have a strongly held belief that could be wrong – a factor which only increases as we get older and thus more ‘experienced’ in the ways of the world. As was discussed in my last post, it takes a rare sort of bravery to expose our ideals to critical thought with a willingness to change them if they are proven to be incomplete or unsubstantiated.<br />
<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J%C3%BCrgen_Habermas">Jürgen Habermas</a> is a communication theorist with many decades under his belt. If he (and others who have read or studied his work) will forgive me for a gross oversimplification of his theories, then we can say that he has a belief that a rational population, given all the factual information in a discussion, will come to the same conclusion, because it follows logically from the evidence. In fact, <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/five-fascinating-psychology-studies-that-challenge-what-you-think-you-know-2011-1#myth-if-the-other-side-tea-party-crackpots-bleeding-heart-liberals-union-members-management-just-had-the-same-information-i-had-theyd-see-things-as-i-do-theyre-just-ignorant-3">studies have proven</a> that since we <i>all </i>think that’s true, we automatically assume that detractors don’t have all the information. It simpler (an example of being a <a href="http://www.psychwiki.com/wiki/Cognitive_Miser">cognitive miser</a>) to assume we know everything, they don’t and that if they knew what we did, they would agree with us. It’s much harder (and against our psychological tendencies) to believe that maybe none of us knows everything, and if we did, maybe we’d find out that <i>we’re</i> the ones in the wrong.<br />
<br />
<br />
Where can faith and critical thinking overlap and where do they cancel each other out? Perhaps faith can be a logic leap to close a gap when critical thinking falls short of a complete analysis, but should that gap not remain open for discussion if new information comes to light? The crux: When is faith of any sort used as a crutch, a shield or an easy out? Do we use faith to <i>help</i> us make decisions and value judgments, or do we use faith to <i>prevent us from having to change</i> our decisions and value judgements.<br />
<br />
<br />
To delve into the religious example of this argument for a moment… I have a friend whom I haven’t seen in a long time. She impressed me by being very critically religious. She refused the temptation to adhere to ‘blind faith’ and when issues or topics came up that weren’t satisfactorily answered by her religious tenets, she continued to seek out her own answers through critical thought and made her own peace with her religion. She acknowledged its shortcomings. I feel like she earned her faith, because she wouldn’t simply accept the ‘blind’ parts of it.<br />
<br />
I believe in spirituality, connection to an essence that is ineffable, beyond our current understanding. But I’m also a strong adherent to the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_men_and_an_elephant">six blind men and the elephant</a> idea. Whatever exists beyond our ken is, well, beyond our ken. I don’t believe there are easy answers, yet we are capable of such amazing thought and discovery that we can continue to find answers. But we are arrogant to believe we have them all now. Or (in my opinion) that we ever will. <br />
<br />
Who of you has strong religious or political beliefs? Who doesn’t? Why? What was your journey to your particular location on the path between faith and reason? Did you come to it through struggle and self-discovery or was it a part of your family environment for as long as you can remember? Did you inherit your belief systems or did you fight for them? Is your journey still continuing? Do you believe that faith is something we should just adhere to, whether it conflicts with our rational minds or not? Or do you believe that nothing is valid without concrete evidence, that faith is simply a crutch?<br />
<br />
Or are you somewhere else, delicately treading the path between faith and reason?<br />
<br />
<i>A comment reminder: Anything that is personally inflammatory to anyone involved in this posting will be removed. Be bold, be insightful, but don’t be judgmental.</i><br />
<i></i><br />
<i><br />
</i><div class="blogger-post-footer">brososkablog.blogspot.com
about.me/randybrososky
twitter.com/randwulven</div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5478039311346051106.post-46323579452464074082011-01-06T16:47:00.000-07:002011-01-06T16:47:10.238-07:00Perhaps None Of Us Are As Smart As We Think We Are<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiEfDDE0vle1yvgIHl72TtY2sZ9I21P30ulg45BmRJK0ChmZu45VPmu8SiRInxFBJfBt1Jndyte07qOEFMgdzosY-K-A9UKe1jPKA30TCLbWQ1c82eOIF2HN-UlL8e1gC9rPczg4F6yPLEM/s1600/5152861849_1bf2d79c5a.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="368" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiEfDDE0vle1yvgIHl72TtY2sZ9I21P30ulg45BmRJK0ChmZu45VPmu8SiRInxFBJfBt1Jndyte07qOEFMgdzosY-K-A9UKe1jPKA30TCLbWQ1c82eOIF2HN-UlL8e1gC9rPczg4F6yPLEM/s400/5152861849_1bf2d79c5a.jpg" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.blogger.com/goog_858155261"><span id="goog_858155257"></span></a><a href="http://www.flickr.com/people/jonathangill/">© Jonathan Gill<span id="goog_858155258"></span></a></td></tr>
</tbody></table><br />
So, I'm taking a 'Critical Thinking' course right now. Yes, it's apparently a skill that needs to be taught. And yet, maybe it's not so apparent. Everyone wants to believe that they are critical thinkers. We all have strongly held opinions and we stand behind them, but it seems we need to be taught how to be critical about <span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: italic;">our own</span> thinking. It's a great question to ask. Am I a critical thinker? If I have a strongly held belief, will I change it if I am presented with irrefutable evidence to the contrary? Few of us will. We are experts at justification and rationalization. We can create amazing arguements for our case, but are they <span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: italic;">credible</span>? Do we have the bravery to change our views if necessary?<br />
<br />
If we ever want to change the world, we will <span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: italic;">all</span> have to become a lot braver.<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a>This is the heart of the 'behavioural economics' conundrum. Our brains and our hearts don't see, erm, "eye-to-eye." Appeal to our brains, we might understand, but we're bored. Appeal to our hearts and we may not understand but we're too excited to care. Yet you can't have one without the other. Advertising that simply appeals to the heart can be maniuplative and sell lousy products - once. Advertising that appeals exclusively to the brain gets ignored. Goverment policy must speak to the hearts of the people, but if there is no thought behind it, it's a sure-fire way to change the balance of power at the next election.<br />
<br />
How can we create environments where it's safe to be emotional and rewarding to be critical? How can we encourage ourselves to let our hearts slip the reigns on our decisions enough to allow the brains in? What can we do to prepare ourselves that <span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: italic;">we might be wrong about things we feel passionately about</span>?<br />
<br />
There are some excellent books about this subject. My current favourite is <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Switch-Change-Things-When-Hard/dp/0385528752?ie=UTF8&tag=mythographics-20&link_code=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969" target="_blank">Switch: How to Change Things When Change Is Hard</a><img alt="" border="0" height="1" src="http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=mythographics-20&l=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969&o=1&a=0385528752" style="border: medium none ! important; margin: 0px ! important; padding: 0px ! important;" width="1" /> by Chip and Dan Heath. They talk about how to generate change in others, be it individuals, entrenched corporate systems or inflexible government bureaucracies. There's also some interesting concepts in <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Drive-Surprising-Truth-About-Motivates/dp/1594488843?ie=UTF8&tag=mythographics-20&link_code=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969" target="_blank">Drive: The Surprising Truth About What Motivates Us</a><img alt="" border="0" height="1" src="http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=mythographics-20&l=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969&o=1&a=1594488843" style="border: medium none ! important; margin: 0px ! important; padding: 0px ! important;" width="1" /> - my current favourite book. But these all talk about changing <i>others</i>. What can we possibly do to be willing to change ourselves?<br />
<br />
We like to think of ourselves as open-minded, intelligent people. But are we?<br />
<br />
Thoughts?<div class="blogger-post-footer">brososkablog.blogspot.com
about.me/randybrososky
twitter.com/randwulven</div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5478039311346051106.post-61561617291091174272010-12-02T11:20:00.001-07:002010-12-02T13:24:17.410-07:00A 'Brand' New Edmonton<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjuZ8VZuILuTTmdwHFOU1vOtRXBHK2GyyA3bm5KEwHVQ-C4smshi2S79GsQvPGKbPrKkC8ewqqtuFSVcQqlWXUrQMuI9ERaKzv7eKQZUCUpTVMMQ44zm1ZYDEJQfdBSihVaj5Doztb0AsXb/s1600/2287373.bin.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="258" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjuZ8VZuILuTTmdwHFOU1vOtRXBHK2GyyA3bm5KEwHVQ-C4smshi2S79GsQvPGKbPrKkC8ewqqtuFSVcQqlWXUrQMuI9ERaKzv7eKQZUCUpTVMMQ44zm1ZYDEJQfdBSihVaj5Doztb0AsXb/s400/2287373.bin.jpg" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Artist's rendition of the Expo that could have been.</td></tr>
</tbody></table><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: bold;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: large;">Ever have your mom tell you</span></span> that you could go to a movie, then change her mind and say you can't? How about a boss that approves an expenditure for upgrading your office, who retracts the offer before you can cash in on it? Ever have a federal government encourage and support you in bidding to hold a world exposition in your city, only to change their mind at the last minute with tenuous reasoning?<br />
<br />
It's a lousy feeling. It's grossly unfair. It's a tremendous amount of money wasted pursuing a special event that's not going to happen.<br />
<br />
But is the money actually wasted?<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a>Having Expo 2017 denied to us by the Feds is gruesome. Especially after being encouraged by the same people to apply in the first place. But we can sit back and pout or we can put that work to good use. You see, we had a committee of extremely talented, diverse individuals, extremely committed to the city, looking hard at Edmonton and trying to come up with reasons for the world to visit us for three months in 2017.<br />
<br />
Why not keep that group together and task them with coming up with reasons for the world to visit us <span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: italic;">all year round</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: italic;">?</span><br />
<br />
It must be noted off the top that this is not a slag towards EEDC or Edmonton Tourism. These organizations work very hard to bring business and visitors to the city. Heck, even <a href="http://www.pr-inside.com/tour-edmonton-outdoor-activities-amp-r2282970.htm">Bigfoot is trying to promote Edmonton</a> as a destination. There is no question that many people in this city love it for many reasons and want to share those reasons with the rest of the world.<br />
<br />
But the problem with making Edmonton appeal to the world is a <span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: italic;">branding</span> problem. It's based on a faulty perspective of Edmonton as a grubby, cold, backwater oil town in the boonies that is devoid of culture. <a href="http://brososkablog.blogspot.com/2010/08/leaping-into-fray.html">Even people who live and work here are guilty of painting that picture</a>. I'm certain that's part of what caused the Feds to change their minds. The view from the outside is that we are not capable of achieving anything ambitious. Like the bullies on the playground, the outside world has assumptions about us and laughs at us when we claim to be able to do something spectacular.<br />
<br />
The city claims to have a <a href="http://www.edmonton.ca/city_government/city_wide_initiatives/city-vision.aspx">progressive city vision</a>, but there's a problem: it's not specific enough. It doesn't scream Edmonton. A basic branding exercise is to take your name out of your vision and put your competitor's in. A properly crafted vision will fall apart with a different name. Our city vision has some specific elements, but far too much of it could be said of a dozen other cities in the country.<br />
<br />
We need a stronger vision, something more specific and concrete. We need to give that to Edmonton Tourism and EEDC as a tool for continuing the work they do. But coming up with a strong, unique vision for our city - any city - is a challenge. It takes intelligent, divergent, critical thinkers. Individuals with vision. Individuals who are committed. People who live, breathe and love Edmonton and are passionate about sharing it with the world.<br />
<br />
People like the currently defunct Expo committee, maybe?<br />
<br />
Thoughts?<div class="blogger-post-footer">brososkablog.blogspot.com
about.me/randybrososky
twitter.com/randwulven</div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5478039311346051106.post-39364146022402590222010-11-24T13:59:00.003-07:002011-01-31T16:52:05.559-07:00Putting the Culture Back in 'Corporate Culture'<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhOqqJnHjyEm-Bqg64H9GXdQ31M-R0Re8iWhAZuI-SXDuTlECQXqflgBJpoz3yOI87b03GS_NYElMH1c1BBOsfhEZZdLfMe9qk8YJqdY7dlPT4Pqm2FwjFbA7T72FY_76HJxv38onwJa-Ws/s1600/2710407506_86a94b9e91.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="300" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhOqqJnHjyEm-Bqg64H9GXdQ31M-R0Re8iWhAZuI-SXDuTlECQXqflgBJpoz3yOI87b03GS_NYElMH1c1BBOsfhEZZdLfMe9qk8YJqdY7dlPT4Pqm2FwjFbA7T72FY_76HJxv38onwJa-Ws/s400/2710407506_86a94b9e91.jpg" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">© Katherine Stanfield</td></tr>
</tbody></table><br />
Imagine a group of individuals: relating to each other every day, sometimes sharing tasks, sometimes working separately, who value community and play, who wish to enrich their lives, excel at what they do, work with purpose, and are always on the search to find their place in the world. They have complicated relationships that shape expectations of themselves and others.<br />
<br />
Now is this a description of a Maasai village in Tanzania, or is this a description of the employees in a North American business.<br />
<br />
Both.<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
The culture of an organization is as integral a part of the staff's everyday lives as it is for African villagers, or indeed, any community of individuals that share spaces and common goals. To understand what really drives your business from within you need to get a sense of your corporate culture. First, you have to be aware that it already exists, that it is a composite of the needs, habits, work ethics, values and goals of the staff. You cannot create and enforce a corporate culture, you need to take the <span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: italic;"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnography">ethnographic</a> </span>approach, and discover what is already there. Then you have a new way to look at the functionality of your workplace, in a deeper way, which can inform some of the most important decisions of your organization.<br />
<br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #f1c232;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: large;">Hiring</span></span><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div>Many business books that discuss the way to hire the best staff often discuss the elusive 'fit.' Can you tell if the potential employee would 'fit' within the team that you are hiring for. Try looking at it from a cultural perspective. Would hiring this potential employee be like an arranged marriage between two African tribes, or more like replacing the tribal shaman with a pediatrician from Texas? How does your internal culture measure status and worth and how would this new employee stack up by those measurements? Selecting good employees can also be about minimizing culture shock.<br />
<br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: large;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #f1c232;">Internal Communications</span></span><br />
If you're developing an internal communications plan for a small consulting group where everyone is over 50, you're not going to be able to use the same plan for a large Silicon Valley start-up where no-one is over 21. The management goals for the plan may be almost identical, but the choice of tools will differ drastically. That's because the way these groups of individuals communicate is very different. Their lifestyle, habits and values dictate different means of sharing information. They have drastically different cultures. Imagine one of the consultants showing up in the Silicon Valley firm. They would be as out of their depth as the Texan pediatrician in the African village, for the same reasons. The language spoken is different. The social hierarchy is unfamiliar. The work ethic is foreign. An internal communications plan must be aware of how your staff already talk to each other, and any attempt to rewrite that system is creating unnecessary challenges.<br />
<br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: large;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #f1c232;">Innovation</span></span><br />
For over 120 years, there has been a line of research called <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffusion_of_innovations"><em>diffusion of innovation</em></a>. According to wikipedia, it is a "theory of how, why, and at what rate new ideas and technology spread through cultures." If you are bringing in a new management system, a different technology for manufacturing your products, or even new smartphones for your sales staff, diffusion of innovation theory will give you an idea of how fast (or not), how willing (or not) and how effectively (or not) your staff will embrace the change. You don't have to be a cultural ethnographer to get a sense of this. Just use the cultural metaphor and think carefully about what changes you are bringing in. Are you asking a group of <br />
<br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #f1c232;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: large;">Conflict Resolution</span></span><br />
The secret to conflict resolution is understanding the true source of the conflict. Many conflicts between staff are frustrating for management because they cannot see the reason for the argument. The actual 'facts' are rarely the source of the tension that leads to conflict. Often it is the relationships, the values, the undercurrents that create an atmosphere ripe for dissension. Understanding the culture of your organization means knowing these real factors that are contributing to a fracas or potentially leading up to one. If the 'shaman' of your corporate tribe doesn't like authority, they are going to be butting heads with the 'chief' no matter what policies you put in place. Do you eliminate the shaman with all his knowledge and power? Do you give him free reign? Or do you find a way that the shaman and the chief can be on equal ground in their own respective areas, to be able to work like a team?<br />
<br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #f1c232;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: large;">Marketing</span></span><br />
Marketing and advertising is not about product features - though many would argue that. Marketing is about discovering the values and beliefs of your customer and finding solutions to their problems that are in sync with those values and beliefs. How are you going to be in sync if you don't know what your own 'cultural' values and beliefs are? How can you craft a convincing, valuable message if you don't even know what you value? Good marketing is not sanitized and interchangeable. Good marketing is a communication from a rich, complex tribe to others who resonate with that tribe.<br />
<br />
The people in your workplace are a culture. They all have belief systems, values, opinions and goals. They all interact in terms of how those things relate. Your corporate vision will either mesh or clash with this culture. How can you make sure it meshes?<br />
<br />
There are many ways - other than what I've mentioned above - in which an organization can be looked at like a culture. Can you think of any? I'd love to hear some of your ideas in the comments!<br />
<br />
-----------------------------------------------------<br />
<br />
And for those who got here from the Twitterverse, you may have heard something about a free gift. I have four $25 gift certificates from <a href="http://www.studiojurbanspa.com/">Studio J Urban Spa</a> in Edmonton, Alberta, for the first four people who tweet this blog. Make sure you include my Twitter handle (@Randwulven) in the tweet and I'll contact you to see how I can get your present to you. 'Tis almost the season after all...<div class="blogger-post-footer">brososkablog.blogspot.com
about.me/randybrososky
twitter.com/randwulven</div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5478039311346051106.post-81540789719145347492010-10-12T21:52:00.001-06:002010-10-12T21:56:04.674-06:00Dangerous Emails: Are people reading it the way you wrote it?<table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgFzrfzIcurruoocawfhHJXRe2vymVX6oX5zAmjQ_yPImeQmtYNoJMZXvsOfWegzMW0S_xElkGKUnpwNUj_UZ8A7rwkNRQ2h9lQ1QW15gVjA-ehj0jOj1F4woMj2WwgECt15O6UwjVLhwjE/s1600/501636129_0176862148_z.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="342" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgFzrfzIcurruoocawfhHJXRe2vymVX6oX5zAmjQ_yPImeQmtYNoJMZXvsOfWegzMW0S_xElkGKUnpwNUj_UZ8A7rwkNRQ2h9lQ1QW15gVjA-ehj0jOj1F4woMj2WwgECt15O6UwjVLhwjE/s400/501636129_0176862148_z.jpg" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 12px;">©glowinthedarkpictures.com</span></td></tr>
</tbody></table><br />
Every time we come up with a new way of communicating with each other, we also develop new and interesting ways to really offend each other. A quote that is sometimes attributed to Oscar Wilde goes something like: "I'm sorry I wrote such a long letter, I didn't have time to write a shorter one." It is very difficult to maintain any sense of tone when we condense our words. The shorter the communication, the more tone we tend to leave out, for the sake of information. With fewer tonal clues put in by the writer, the more the reader tends to put in. Thus the easier it is to misinterpret the intent behind the message.<br />
<br />
With email, texting, Twitter, Facebook and instant messaging, our means of communicating is getting shorter and shorter.<br />
<br />
And a lot of people are getting really pissed off.<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
If communication between two people really is 80% body language, how can we possibly be clear when writing emails, texting, tweeting, instant messaging and Facebooking? The "old school" way, back when we were still writing letters, was developing and using conventions to create a tonal framework. Consider the conventions in addressing, salutations, body style, the complimentary close and signature of a letter? Ever read a letter that was missing some of these elements? The message appears curt and terse. And sometimes officious. Even downright offensive, which is ironic if it's <span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: italic;">the same information</span>. But we depend on these things to fill in the 80% of detail that the absence of body language is withholding. We crave this contextual information. And in the absence of it as presented by the sender, <span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: italic;">we fabricate it as the recipient</span>.<br />
<br />
An example: Say you have sent a request for information to a colleague. The response is:<br />
<br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Courier New', Courier, monospace;"> <span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: yellow;">What exactly do you mean by that?</span></span><br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div>If you know this person is overly friendly, and is a sticker for detail, you might read this as simply a request for clarification. They want to be sure to get you exactly what you're looking for, so they don't disappoint you.<br />
<br />
Now consider that you have sent the request to the most put-upon, argumentative member of the department. They always complain that their plate is too full, and that everyone is making unrealistic demands of them. Now how does it look:<br />
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><br />
</div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 13px;"> <span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: yellow;">What exactly do you mean by that?</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 16px;"></span></span><br />
<br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 13px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 16px;">It's easy to have the same words come across completely differently. Look at it one more time. This time you're sending it to a staff person you have never met before. You have no read on them and have heard nothing about them. It's a blank slate. How does it look now:</span></span><br />
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 13px;"> <span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: yellow;">What exactly do you mean by that?</span></span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><br />
</div>The main point here is that in text-only conversation, if the intent is not made clear by the <span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: italic;">sender</span>, the recipient <span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: italic;">will read it in</span>. The more streamlined and immediate the mode of communication is, the more this happens. We won't even get into usage patterns here (chronic email checker vs. twice-a-day reader) and focuses (he's a Facebook person, she prefers email, I live on my cellphone and you use chat exclusively). Those will be subjects for a later blog post. The important thing is to understand the obstacle you are up against every time you send a message by these channels: the potential for misinterpretation of tone is high, and odds are people will be more damning and less forgiving.<br />
<br />
So what can you do? Here are some suggestions. This may seem like more work, but a little extra effort here can save you a lot of work repairing a damaged relationship with a customer, co-worker, friend or even family member. These are also things that will quickly become habits, and not require effort.<br />
<br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: x-large;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #f1c232;">Writing Conventions</span></span><br />
There's a reason it's called E-Mail. It's an electronic letter. So keep as many of the conventions of proper letter-writing as possible. Don't forget a salutation, a proper closing and when possible, something personal.<br />
<br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Courier New', Courier, monospace;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: yellow;">I need the report by 2:00.</span></span><br />
<br />
Would sound a lot better as:.<br />
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><br />
</div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 13px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: yellow;">Mark,</span></span><br />
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 13px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: yellow;"><br />
</span></span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 13px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: yellow;">Thanks again for last week's report. I'm going into a meeting at 2:00 and will need to present this week's report then. Please let me know if you can get it to me by 2:00.</span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: yellow;"><br />
</span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 13px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: yellow;"><br />
</span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 13px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: yellow;">Thanks!</span></span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: yellow;"><br />
</span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 13px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: yellow;"><br />
</span></span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 13px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: yellow;">Michael.</span></span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><br />
</div>If the conversation is going back and forth, you can start to trim a bit of the small talk, but don't forget the conventions. Name, message, conclusion. Never just message.<br />
<br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 24px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #f1c232;">Initialisms</span></span><br />
Note, this is not for business communication, and many scholars think they shouldn't be used at all, but they may make the difference in communications with your family and friends. Initialisms are short acronyms like LOL (laugh out loud) IMHO (in my humble opinion) and JK (just kidding). One of the problems with short terse messages is that is reads as if you are speaking seriously and factually from a position of authority. Which doesn't go over well with anyone who might have a different opinion. My favourite initialism is IMHO, because it grounds whatever you are saying as just your opinion, not a fact you expect the recipient to accept unequivocally. Again, these should not be used in business communications, but there's no reason you can't just say "...in my opinion, I think a better choice is..."<br />
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 24px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #f1c232;">Err On The Side Of Obsequious</span></span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">If you make the effort to be nice, friendly and polite, there is less of a chance that the reader will be able to misinterpret your message. Think of it as a continuum: misinterpretation can only shift the message so far, so the more you try to make the message polite, the less angry it is likely to be read by another.</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 24px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #f1c232;">Stick To The Facts</span></span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">The faster and simpler the communication, the more you should focus on facts and details, not opinions. Especially in the world of texting and chat. If the conversation edges beyond simple details, try something groundbreaking - pick up the phone...</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 24px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #f1c232;">Tonecheck</span></span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">There's a neat new program called ToneCheck that you can use to pre-screen an email message to see if you are saying anything contentious. <a href="http://bit.ly/cHC8y5">Check it out here.</a> </div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 24px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #f1c232;">Smileys or Emoticons</span></span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">Those ubiquitous sideways faces grew out of the need to convey tone and intent in just a couple keystrokes. Sarcasm, particularly, doesn't come across well in text communications. A smile :) smirk :] or wink ;) can go a long way to make sure that a joke is read as a joke. Again, this one is not for professional usage.</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 24px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #f1c232;">Read It Out Loud</span></span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">This is a tip for any writing, but especially a message. The recipient will 'hear' it in their mind with your voice, so why not see how it sounds. Try it a few ways: obsequious, angry, sarcastically. If the message doesn't sound out of place when you read it angrily, there's a chance that the recipient could read it that way.</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 24px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #f1c232;">Be Forgiving</span></span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">Always remember that everyone you receive messages from is up against the same challenge. So when you receive a message that seems a little off-putting:</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: 'Courier New'; font-size: 13px;"> <span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: yellow;">What exactly do you mean by that?</span></span></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">Give the sender the benefit of the doubt. If you need clarity, get it, but make sure you are either <span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: italic;">really clear</span> yourself in your response message, or else make contact in person or by phone.</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">-----</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">You won't always be able to use all of these tools, but incorporating as many as possible will go a long way to avoiding miscommunication and hurt feelings. That may not sound important, but hurt feelings can lose you customers, destroy co-worker relationships and trust in a workplace, jeopardize friendships and make turkey dinner with the family a lot less enjoyable than it should be.</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">Please feel free to comment! I'd love to see any other strategies that people use, or hear any horror stories you might have. Thanks!</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; text-align: center;"></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; text-align: center;"></div><div class="blogger-post-footer">brososkablog.blogspot.com
about.me/randybrososky
twitter.com/randwulven</div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5478039311346051106.post-22800828018842212652010-10-01T15:35:00.000-06:002010-10-01T15:35:35.107-06:00Your Choice: Digital Privacy or Ads that Don't Suck<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjwgDbkpXfVE7HE3mFalyyXszNtPqjOndmLL-cM7LwzCFUnLCQSPlSqX0Ir4NDwjqNCdaRxbZ3hvQo5chUshsAJptveZiGTwUERVL7Vg5E53L9Whs5DencBmtOBT08XBikn5bkdXFKMycMl/s1600/4929251755_4a8c313027_z.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="266" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjwgDbkpXfVE7HE3mFalyyXszNtPqjOndmLL-cM7LwzCFUnLCQSPlSqX0Ir4NDwjqNCdaRxbZ3hvQo5chUshsAJptveZiGTwUERVL7Vg5E53L9Whs5DencBmtOBT08XBikn5bkdXFKMycMl/s400/4929251755_4a8c313027_z.jpg" width="400" /></a></div><br />
What would you rather have, a plethora of door-to-door salesmen that continually push their way into your house, trying to sell you things you don't need? Or a close, trusted friend overhearing you muttering about needing a specific widget and giving you a tip on where they got theirs? This is basically the continuum of advertising. An onslaught of messages about everything you need and everything you don't at all times, vs. a valuable pointer to a specific product that fits your needs, when - and only when - you need it. I'd vote for the latter. I think most people would. Most advertisers would prefer to offer the latter approach. Everybody wins, right?<br />
<br />
Sure, but you'll have to kiss your digital privacy goodbye.<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
Google ads (Pay Per Click or PPC) are kind of an advertiser's dream. They show up about a product when a person is actually looking for that product, and the advertiser is only billed if the viewer bites. It's trackable, relevant and non-intrusive. But advertisers who limit themselves to PPC are not going to bring in the numbers. People go other places for information. Friends, blogs, forums. Places where conversations are happening about the subject in question. So how do advertisers keep that relevancy and get more exposure to their potential customers?<br />
<br />
Facebook has been running ads for quite some time. They're pretty low-cost and a couple years ago, started becoming quite targeted. If a woman changed her status from 'Single' to 'Engaged' they started seeing more ads for wedding photographers and honeymoon getaways. This is a good thing, in theory. If you had just been jilted at the altar the last thing you would want to see is a bunch of ads for wedding services. But to give you these relevant ads, advertisers need to know a few things about you. The more they know, the more the ads serve you and them.<br />
<br />
Relevance is good, but at what cost? If an advertiser knows absolutely everything about you, they're not going to waste your time and their dollar trying to sell you something you would never buy. Awesome. But then someone you've never met who may have any sort of scruples now knows <span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: italic;">everything about you</span>. And who knows what they'll do with that information. Or even if their intentions are pristine, are they keeping that information secure? Once your preferences, address, statistics and other information is out there, well, it's <span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: italic;">out there</span>. Somewhere. And the new generation of digital criminals have quite the arsenal to crack into that information with.<br />
<br />
But the other end of the scale promotes more noise, more chaos, more volume. It means more intrusion, like Times Square and less <span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: italic;">value</span> in the advertising message.<br />
<br />
So how do we balance the scale? Can we get the best of both worlds? Can we eliminate the shotgun tactics of mass advertising and focus on valuable, targeted advertising, while still protecting our privacy. Is it even possible? And if so, how?<br />
<br />
Thoughts?<div class="blogger-post-footer">brososkablog.blogspot.com
about.me/randybrososky
twitter.com/randwulven</div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5478039311346051106.post-26337029383879321992010-09-20T18:16:00.000-06:002010-09-20T18:16:10.763-06:00How your brand affected your chances of meeting Stephen Mandel<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgqGUNLrrEXCBRjWvqnDgydlN1fbh6o_n3kO-WAyyFJQhH_2POxW3Dea3LF5SOmLp2XfQEs15D3ns8RobL-cWjqPnlzS2vIbhWZ1TnEQ1gLChqTz4sh76oTsm1a5U23PPBs9Z-PgvPQB4hs/s1600/3626736694_39cb1722fd.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="300" qx="true" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgqGUNLrrEXCBRjWvqnDgydlN1fbh6o_n3kO-WAyyFJQhH_2POxW3Dea3LF5SOmLp2XfQEs15D3ns8RobL-cWjqPnlzS2vIbhWZ1TnEQ1gLChqTz4sh76oTsm1a5U23PPBs9Z-PgvPQB4hs/s400/3626736694_39cb1722fd.jpg" width="400" /></a></div><br />
I had a fantastic opportunity to share. I'm allowed to invite a select group of individuals to a coffee event with the incumbent mayor, <a href="http://stephenmandel.ca/">Stephen Mandel</a>. In order to make sure it's a conversation instead of a rally, we need to keep the numbers low. So I needed to be very selective in my invites. A diverse group was necessary, not too many people who would discuss the same issues. Only so many arts types, just a few film-people, only a couple small-business people. One digital media producer. No media-types. I would have invited many more but I had to keep the numbers down while being representational. It's a Facebook event and I had to pour through my entire list. How did I select who's getting invited and who isn't?<br />
<br />
Very lazily...<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
I am guilty of ego-friending on Facebook. I have over 700 friends. I don't wave that as a flag of how cool I am, it's more of a symptom of how easily I get excited when people want to 'friend' me. That being said, I now tend to rely on Facebook as a warehouse of all my social contacts. So when an opportunity like this comes along, I plow through my list to see who I should pass the invite along to. 700 names is a lot to sort through, so I found myself 'pigeonholing' everyone. 'Arts Person.' 'Film Person.' 'Entrepreneur.' 'Activist.' Whoops, already have two Activists, I shouldn't invite another.<br />
<br />
As I was doing this, I felt a bit lazy. I know all these people are varied and complex, I can't just lump them all together. But I'm not the only person guilty of this. In fact, we all do it. And how do we decide what 'sort' of person a friend or acquaintance is? By their branding.<br />
<br />
We all brand ourselves. Whether intentionally or not. In fact, if we don't develop our own brands, other people will do it for us. Ask your teenagers. Why are they on Facebook and Twitter so much? Studies have shown that if they don't control their own 'online brand,' others will do it for them. This is the hole that most cyber-bullying pushes through. In our ever more connected, virtual world, this branding becomes even more important.<br />
<br />
So consider. What is your 'brand?' How are you perceived? What do others think about you and if it's not accurate, what are you doing to correct it? It's not easy, and some people will be affected by this more than others. But we all take short-cuts. We all pigeon-hole.<br />
<br />
What sort of hole are you shaping yourself to be thrust into?<div class="blogger-post-footer">brososkablog.blogspot.com
about.me/randybrososky
twitter.com/randwulven</div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5478039311346051106.post-27881881643842481962010-09-13T16:36:00.001-06:002010-09-13T17:20:00.619-06:00Dinosaurs Thrashing in the Tar Pits<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhCYJniWvqH-g8zGGtOZFOEaO01GOfhxZRkrQZ7ytbLH1JmuYFAycYQ6H3xMLWnxjnxbyLepeFe2mCaaMt3IM8XOnwhbCBawwnsf3TbHuMm3Z1OVc-DiC2yc1vwJJ9CBEMGXLvgTRVbLePq/s1600/Dinosaur+Tar+Pit.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="318" ox="true" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhCYJniWvqH-g8zGGtOZFOEaO01GOfhxZRkrQZ7ytbLH1JmuYFAycYQ6H3xMLWnxjnxbyLepeFe2mCaaMt3IM8XOnwhbCBawwnsf3TbHuMm3Z1OVc-DiC2yc1vwJJ9CBEMGXLvgTRVbLePq/s400/Dinosaur+Tar+Pit.jpg" width="400" /></a></div><br />
<br />
So here I am in a hair salon the other day, waiting to get a haircut for my show, <a href="http://bit.ly/aS9fwd"><em>Jailbait</em> at Northern Light Theatre</a> (opens on the 17th, runs to the 26th, plug, plug, plug...) and I'm killing time so I start flipping through an issue of GQ. I rarely page through a magazine, I usually browse the web on my iPhone or check the status updates of my friends on Facebook with the app. But my battery's dying and so is my tolerance for waiting. So I pick up the magazine and start flipping through. What I found, when looked at with a critical eye, was fascinating...<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
The first thing I notice is the number of watch ads. Eight. That may not seem like a lot, but seven of them were in the first third of the magazine. They were all high concept, fashion ads. I find watch ads interesting, because a $20,000 rolex doesn't tell time any better than a $20 Zellers special. So people are paying $19,980 for a logo. This is why the ads are so high concept. They are not selling a time-piece. Anyone with a cell-phone already has a time-piece. They are selling the identity of owning that type of watch. I get it, this is how much marketing works. Because we don't want to limit our lives to pure functionality. We also want to own things that say something about us. That tell the world, at a glance, what sort of people we are. There's nothing wrong with this. It's why there's such an industry for beer ads, a product where the marketers are 'selling the label,' since most beer drinkers cannot identify their own favourite brand in blind taste tests. Where it breaks down is if the product promises something and then doesn't deliver. Give Rolex credit, when you spend that $19,980 on an image, someone glances at your wrist and instantly knows something about you.<br />
<br />
But the real kicker was this.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhz3NOr3cv8BqnWivRj4MPvWLJVU4Hppa4S1rMqjwp3dX9lEUKldsR2GWTk8-HEixUtspnY4Q8mP-pHhZBPky3yX-oyBA4kjVkLXGGYcH1-Dl5zm-Gt1r0gjL5vs-wHu1GTncTwqEBDxmuv/s1600/TwitterMag.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; cssfloat: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="300" ox="true" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhz3NOr3cv8BqnWivRj4MPvWLJVU4Hppa4S1rMqjwp3dX9lEUKldsR2GWTk8-HEixUtspnY4Q8mP-pHhZBPky3yX-oyBA4kjVkLXGGYcH1-Dl5zm-Gt1r0gjL5vs-wHu1GTncTwqEBDxmuv/s400/TwitterMag.jpg" width="400" /></a></div><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
A two-page spread of Twitter feeds. Magazine publishing, along with traditional media, is struggling. With the changes in media consumption, magazines are trying to figure out how to fit in tomorrow's world. Some are showing a lot of potential, like Popular Science and Wired. They're still trying to wrap their brains around how to best develop their content for the new media devices and the ways people interact with those devices, but they're trying at least. They are aware that the world of media is changing.<br />
<br />
But GQ simply takes a snap-shot of four Twitter feeds, trying to cram the <em>new</em> technology into the <em>old</em> format. It's ironic how anti-intuitive that is. Yes, I said anti-intuitive instead of counter-intuitive. It is thinking in the exact opposite direction from the actual reality. Twitter is dynamic, constantly changing, always updating, trending at the speed of whim. This spread shows a frozen moment of the Twitterverse. When you check your Twitter feeds, you know what people are saying <em>right now</em>. By the time anyone read this magazine, whatever was printed here was more than just yesterday's news, it was <em>ancient history</em> in the world of social media.<br />
<br />
Anytime I see a type of media trying to hold on to it's old ways, especially in the light of how people consume and interact with information today, I can't help but picture dinosaurs thrashing in tar pits. They are going extinct, but instead of evolving, they are holding on to their old ways, making as much noise as possible, lashing about, hoping they can keep their dying business model alive through sheer willpower and moxy.<br />
<br />
And you can almost see how fast they're sinking...<div class="blogger-post-footer">brososkablog.blogspot.com
about.me/randybrososky
twitter.com/randwulven</div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5478039311346051106.post-87890556790107154582010-09-07T22:22:00.000-06:002010-09-07T22:22:45.714-06:00Who wouldn't want free milk?<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi7gBNbxIiy3araQc3ocwalJoxD2H96-2ZSz_YH-i2JYRntNvW9GUMn5bp1YGn_NbQTnyKYpRrxMlYAM1Q_pFAKriLz1vevGFG8roQSZcWsjClpOOt17YqRnBzmL6F1NrL5KtaBcpoUyQw1/s1600/cow.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="285" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi7gBNbxIiy3araQc3ocwalJoxD2H96-2ZSz_YH-i2JYRntNvW9GUMn5bp1YGn_NbQTnyKYpRrxMlYAM1Q_pFAKriLz1vevGFG8roQSZcWsjClpOOt17YqRnBzmL6F1NrL5KtaBcpoUyQw1/s400/cow.jpg" width="400" /></a></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">A sea change is coming. It has to.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">The distributors of media are in the middle of it. Book publishers, music producers, film and television makers. Even <a href="http://sethgodin.typepad.com/about.html">Seth Godin</a>, international marketing guru who has made a tremendous amount of money through publishing a whackload of books, has decided <span id="goog_329481066"></span><span id="goog_329481073"></span><a href="http://sethgodin.typepad.com/seths_blog/2010/08/moving-on.html">he’s never going back</a> to traditional publishing<span id="goog_329481074"></span><span id="goog_329481067"></span>. There was a time that a creative person could only share their stories with a handful of people on their own. They needed a distributor/broadcaster/record label to share their art with the world. That’s no longer the case. Artists can reach their audience directly online. Even if they don’t want to.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Especially if they don’t want to. Because people are getting their content for free. Even if the artist is not distributing it for free. It’s a digital world, baby, and as soon as something exists digitally, there is a way to get your hands on it without paying. The thing is, no one can be blamed for this. It’s human nature. It comes down to the old maxim:</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">“Why buy the cow, when you can get the milk for free?”</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"></div><a name='more'></a>This applies to more than just issues of fidelity and relationship commitment. It applies to almost anything. I know people, great people, people who wouldn’t hurt a fly and stand strongly by the letter of the law, who have pirated software or music. Who stream movies and television rather than pay for a satellite or cable feed. Who download ‘free’ books for their e-readers. And we can’t blame them. It’s human nature. We are all prey, at different levels, to that maxim. Why buy the cow?<br />
<div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">The publishers, the distributors, have all tried to fight it. “Well, let’s make damn sure the milk <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">isn’t</i> free.” There are copyright laws that carry fines which would bankrupt a third world country. Napster was shut down. Limewire sprung up. Limewire is constantly under threat of shutdown, but no one can touch the multitude of peer-to-peer torrent sharing. The lawyers are getting richer but the trend isn’t reversing. It is getting harder, on a daily basis, to make sure the milk isn’t free, because someone will always find a way to get it. This is totally fuelled by the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons">tragedy of the commons</a>. One person, stealing – er, downloading – a handful of books or movies isn’t going to collapse any of these empires. The problem is, everyone sees it that way. We cannot control the price of, or access to, the milk.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">What book publishers, music producers and broadcasters need to do, then, is stop trying to avoid the question, and instead, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">answer it</i>.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">“Why <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">should we </i>buy the cow, when we can get the milk for free?”</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">People are going to continue ‘stealing’ the milk, until they have an answer to this question. This is where our focus needs to be. It’s certainly the only way the publishers, distributors and broadcasters are going to continue to be a part of the game. How do we associate value with the work that is being created? As an artist, this has a lot of resonance for me. Fortunately, as a theatre actor, I don’t have to worry too much – I’ve never been onstage in a show that has been ‘bootlegged.’ But as a film actor, or writer or creator, how can I continue to do it, and afford to do it, when the probability of my work being watched or distributed for free is directly proportional to how many people find it enjoyable? In fact, are we approaching a point where an artist who only has a small loyal following is more likely to see money than someone who has a potential commercial success? You can find every Stephen King book for free somewhere, but I don’t think my friend Wayne Arthurson’s books will be hot torrent items, not for some time at least. And again, we think, “So what? Stephen King makes a kajillion dollars per book.”</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">But how long will that be sustainable? Music stores are closing, newspapers and television networks are going bankrupt and book publishers are fighting over who can produce electronic books cheaper. When is the bottom going to fall out?</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">When is someone going to answer the question, and share it with the world in a way that everyone believes, that resonates with them and that defeats the tragedy of the commons? Why <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">should we</i> buy the cow when we can get the milk for free? We all <span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: italic;">know</span> we should, but until that ‘why’ is shared in a common voice, no one is going to.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal">Thoughts?</div><br />
<div><br />
</div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 13px;"><br />
</span></div><div class="blogger-post-footer">brososkablog.blogspot.com
about.me/randybrososky
twitter.com/randwulven</div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5478039311346051106.post-32233288540631869672010-08-30T22:42:00.005-06:002010-08-30T22:48:27.449-06:00Does anyone else feel icky about the airport petition?<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2635/4045813826_aa5f743df6.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="285" src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2635/4045813826_aa5f743df6.jpg" width="400" /></a></div><br />
Democracy. That's the claim. Ensuring a plebiscite, making sure the question goes to a public vote.<br />
<br />
I'll be the first to admit that I haven't followed the airport controversy too closely. I think that a city so obviously suffering the sustainability effects of urban sprawl should be rewarded for driving to develop land that's in the core. But I don't know all the sides. All I know is that it's a controversial, highly charged issue. It's been on the table for years - decades, in fact.<br />
<br />
And that <a href="http://www.demandthevote.ca/">Envision Edmonton</a> has been quite manipulative in it's 'drive for democracy.'<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a>Well, they were to me. I already felt a bit icky about the offered <a href="http://www.edmontonjournal.com/news/Envision+Edmonton+offers+money+collecting+airport+petition+signatures/3397260/story.html">payment per signatures scheme</a> that fell through earlier this month. They weren't paying people for the signatures, they were paying community leagues for <em>collecting</em> signatures. That's pretty gray in my world. But then I discovered something...<br />
<br />
In the frenzy of the 'approaching deadline' signature drive, I was approached by a couple volunteers, once while I was on my cellphone in the middle of a call. What I was told, and what I had been led to believe through the radio ads, was that the petition was simply to call for a vote, not an actual stand on the issue. I confirmed this with the person sticking a clipboard in my face. "This is just to call for a vote, right? This isn't a vote itself, right?"<br />
<br />
"Right," I was told. Fine, I'll sign. So I took the clipboard and read the fine print. It was a vote to keep the airport open.<br />
<br />
Technically, enough votes to keep the airport open will force a plebiscite so that the entire city votes on the issue. Even if I was a die-hard supporter of keeping the airport open, my signature would only force the issue to go to plebiscite.<br />
<br />
Technically they weren't lying to me. Much.<br />
<br />
But I was being manipulated. So it made me wonder. How many people who signed the petition were misled? How many thought they were signing for democracy when actually they were picking sides?<br />
<br />
How many of those signatures should be considered legitimate?<br />
<br />
I don't trust agendas. Especially when they belong to someone else. After this, I cannot believe that Envision has the best interests of the City and its denizens at heart.<br />
<br />
They are in it for the win - at the expense of 'democracy' if need be.<br />
<br />
Ick.<div class="blogger-post-footer">brososkablog.blogspot.com
about.me/randybrososky
twitter.com/randwulven</div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5478039311346051106.post-44213920087136919082010-08-23T16:50:00.005-06:002010-08-27T23:02:02.784-06:00Leaping Into The FrayOkay – I have to weigh in. I’ve been meaning to start a blog for some time, but this has been running through my head for so long I decided that this was the way to get rolling.<br />
<br />
There are a tremendous number of issues that have been raised by the whole ‘HaslamGate’ controversy over this past week. Here’s your research, if you’re not sure what I’m talking about.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.onlyhereforthefood.ca/2010/07/31/teatro-la-quindicina-the-ambassadors-wives/">The blog post and comment.</a><br />
<br />
<a href="http://blog.mastermaq.ca/2010/08/17/why-edmontons-teatro-la-quindicina-and-actor-jeff-haslam-will-never-get-my-business-again/">The blogger's boyfriend's response.</a><br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.inews880.com/Blogs/BrittneyLeBlanc/BlogEntry.aspx?BlogEntryID=10132700">The first local press coverage.</a><br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.inews880.com/Blogs/BrittneyLeBlanc/BlogEntry.aspx?BlogEntryID=10132959">The response of the person in question.</a><br />
<br />
I believe some of the issues have been discussed to death, while some have remained curiously under-discussed. Here are my two cents on the topics. I encourage you to read them, discuss them, get excited or upset about them, challenge them, and above all else, whether you agree with me or not, discuss them. And please remember, wherever possible I’m discussing the issues, not specific individuals.<br />
<br />
Wherever possible, that is…<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a>First the obvious issues:<br />
<br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: bold;">Freedom of Speech - Blogs are Public - People are Entitled to Say what they Want</span><br />
<br />
Picture it as happening in a beer tent. My wife, has just seen a show by a theatre company. She gives her opinion on it to whoever will listen. It’s a generally positive review. In fact, she has nothing negative to say. Now, a member of that company, nay, the AD (Artistic Director) lambastes her from across the tent. You can be sure that like Mack, I would spring to her defense. And you can also be sure that when I got out of the tent, I’d be telling everyone who would listen about what had happened. Now if I pulled that actor aside and tried to get some clarification, would I also repeat at full volume what he said to me privately? I’d sure be tempted, but I probably shouldn’t. So, Mack posting Jeff’s private response email to him may have crossed a line. Especially if we’re discussing what’s public and what’s private. Free speech is pretty clear.<br />
<br />
But what Haslam seems to be forgetting is that as AD, he was putting words in the mouth of every member of the company. As AD, he is the spokesman for Teatro. I spent two years as AD of the theatre company across the street, making significantly less money than Haslam (it was a volunteer position, I wasn’t paid a cent) and I had to be careful, strategic and diplomatic about every single word that came out of my mouth for two years. Don't get me wrong - it was an incredibly rewarding experience. But I knew that everything that I said would be viewed as having come from the entire company. This comes with the territory of being AD. So when the vitriol is unleashed on a positive review, people who aren’t in the know (which is most of the people reading a public forum) are going to be making assumptions. Looking at the blog post and the comment in isolation, paints a pretty dismal picture for Teatro.<br />
<br />
But as far as freedom of speech goes: Is everyone entitled to it? Yes. Does that mean you should say whatever you want? Another blogger put it best when they said:<br />
<blockquote>"Freedom of speech means you can shout “Fire!” in a crowded theater.</blockquote><blockquote>Common sense means you only shout it when the building’s actually burning."</blockquote><a href="http://www.2amtheatre.com/2010/08/18/speechless/">The whole blog is here.</a><br />
<br />
<br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: bold;">Role of Blogger vs. Reviewer</span><br />
<br />
We look at reviewers as people who are getting paid to discuss theatre. Some are educated, some aren’t, some do research, some don’t. But they do it as a job, and as actors, we often have to remind ourselves that it’s only one person’s opinion. Bloggers are also only one person. Even moreso. They speak from the heart about their honest experiences without an agenda. There’s a reason Google rates blogs highly – they are the least likely to be influenced by outside sources and agendas. They are different beasts. But just to get a sense of the validity, take a look at the balance and flavor of comments on the blogs. Then look at the few local media mentions. Which are the stronger statements coming from? And where are the safe, try to please everyone statements coming from. Food for thought.<br />
<br />
<br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: bold;">Role of Artist vs. Audience</span><br />
<br />
Here is where I get my nose really out of joint. A <a href="http://maxfawcett.wordpress.com/2010/08/19/much-ado-about-something/">blog in response to the issue</a> made this comment.<br />
<blockquote>"Artists are mercurial, unpredictable, and socially unconventional – they don’t abide by the rulebook that governs the grey, protestant lives that the rest of us lead."</blockquote>Sorry, but artists exist to explore the human condition. The last thing they should have is license to be less than humane.<br />
<br />
His comment about theatre goers:<br />
<blockquote>"More importantly, when it comes to the arts, they aren’t customers, no matter how much the good people at the Fraser Institute might want us to see it that way. They’re people who are bearing witness to the work of an artist, and paying for the privilege of doing so."</blockquote>Horse puckey. Absolute crap. When I go to see a play, I am not paying for the privilege of watching an artist ‘work’ without their acknowledgement of the audience. There’s a term for actors who are exploring themselves without regard to the people watching them, it’s called “masturbating onstage.” <span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: italic;">(Note, I’m not implying that Teatro is guilty of this – I’m discussing the implications of this particular blog post in the grand scheme of things.)</span> The minute, nay the second an artist charges for their work, there is an exchange. I am giving them money and they are giving me something in return. The beauty of the arts is that they can give me food for thought, laughter, tears, beauty, ugliness, tragedy, comedy, and in fact, the whole gamut of human experience. But they are giving it to me, the ‘bum in the seat.’ This is the difference between live theatre and television, a difference that theatre artists continually espouse. Art, and theatre in particular should be a conversation. Not a lecture.<br />
<br />
And I am entitled to form an opinion. In fact, there was a time before blogs when we were encouraged to have and share an opinion. It’s called ‘word-of-mouth’ and it is the most valuable and intangible publicity tool a company (theatre, corporate, individual, government, you name it) can have. We live in a world where there is now universal access to word of mouth. There are theatre companies that would trade their grants to have someone so prolific, constantly chatting up the shows, all the shows, especially with such a large portion of positivity for so many seasons. And before you get on your horses about criticism, keep reading – I’ll get to that below.<br />
<br />
<br />
Now, the under-discussed issues:<br />
<br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: bold;">Implications Towards Arts Funding</span><br />
<br />
Here is the largest under-discussed ramification of this event, the one that scares me the most:<br />
<blockquote>"I wonder if she knows that her crappy 19 bucks goes to less than 40% of what it costs to pay all the artists she isn’t always smitten by? Do us all a favour lady. Write about food and take your entertainment dollar elsewhere."</blockquote>That statement has set the battle for arts funding back to the stone age. Show me a dyed-in-the-wool Albertan, who isn’t necessarily a theatre supporter (there are a lot of them and they vote) who won’t read this and make the following assumption:<br />
<blockquote><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-style: italic;">"More than half the money these actors make comes from grants. In fact, so much comes from grants that they don’t care if the audience comes or not. So my tax money isn’t going to help artists make ends meet. In fact, they live off of it so much that they’d rather not have audiences, so they can do anything without being accountable to anyone. No wonder they complain about arts funding, we’re not subsidizing them, we’re supporting them. I’ll be damned if they’re getting any more of my money."</span></blockquote>This is particularly dangerous coming from an AD. My guess, much of this will fade over time, but this… This is the element of this event that will haunt artists across the province the longest.<br />
<br />
<br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: bold;">The Role of Criticism</span><br />
<br />
And just a final note on criticism. Thick vs. thin skin has been discussed to death, so I won’t go any farther on that, but there is something about criticism that not many people know, yet it affects us all. An opinion with a measure of criticism has more credibility. Especially when it’s coming from a patron/customer. People are suspicious of undiluted enthusiasm. Reviews for products or services on websites strike us as peculiar if there are pages after pages of ‘Five out of Five!’ Nothing is perfect. No performance can ever please everyone who sees it 100%. The few negative notes that Yeo made over the years actually increased the validity of her glowing reviews.<br />
<br />
This is especially so in theatre. If someone ever wrote a show that was designed not to offend anyone, anywhere, it would be the most boring piece of work on the planet. The day we stop getting criticism is not the day ‘We’ve arrived.’ It’s the day we die as artists. It’s the day we no longer take risks. It is the day our growth is stunted. Why do we need arts funding? Because we cannot please everyone. We cannot create material that is perfect. But by pushing the envelope we stretch, and learn new truths, and develop. We grow. And by hearing what our audiences have to say, we learn how to grow further.<br />
<br />
Criticism should be viewed as a reward for our risks, as a learning opportunity. Keith Johnstone, improvisation guru and creator of Theatresports, said that during an improv show, if you haven’t failed miserably in at least one scene of the night, you weren’t trying hard enough. You weren’t taking risks. Reward lives behind risk, and criticism is the gatekeeper.<br />
<br />
I could go on. Hell, I could talk about this for hours, but there is one conclusion that needs to be made. This situation could be salvaged with some humble pie from all parties involved. People make mistakes. Mistakes live online forever. (I know of social media professors across North America who are trying to fit this into their curriculum for next year. Eeek!) But people love a good story, and if this one ends with everyone smiling and shaking hands, that part of the story will be the note people walk away with.<br />
<br />
It’ll only happen if everyone comes to the table though. Hell, I’ll brew the coffee.<div class="blogger-post-footer">brososkablog.blogspot.com
about.me/randybrososky
twitter.com/randwulven</div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com4