What Happened to . . . Energy?

A perfectly consistent behavior these days is . . . nothing. Doing nothing. Or at least not doing what you told someone you would do. We here at Positively Writing have seen this with alarming regularity, and we're compelled to address it now.

Yes, you can certainly make the case that the sky has indeed fallen at some point during the last two years. We've since been bombarded with an unstoppable, overwhelming flood of negative information, rumor, forecast and "analysis." Often we are provided this input by people whose sole purpose seems to be that of doomsayer—at precisely the time when we need the opposite.

I'll reprise the line, from an earlier blog posting below, which remains the single best description of where we are right now as a society. It's from an article about irrational, dishonest negativity by The Wall Street Journal's David Wiedner: "It's one thing to call the glass half empty, but these days we deny the existence of tableware."

We see two main reason for this intensely negative climate. One, some truly serious, negative things have happened to millions of people. Two, these people—and virtually everyone else—have been further beaten down by the banal talking heads and others in the media who focus incessantly on the negative.

One consequence of this, in our view, is that seemingly automatic behaviors have disappeared. Why is this? Why does a colleague or business contact tell you they'll get back to you and then . . . nothing? Why do you find out information after the fact, when prior knowledge could have made a major (positive) difference to you? Why do ostensibly standard initiatives now take 10 times longer than they should?

We've had friends and colleagues describe myriad instances like these. And we've formed an opinion about why they happen. First, your memory does get affected by "too much information." Research demonstrates a heightened difficulty at navigating basic tasks when the brain is overwhelmed by information, stress, and other items that demand attention. And when your short-term memory is hindered, so is your ability to operate efficiently. You slow down.

Second, social media and electronic communication have enabled a decidedly informal way to communicate. So informal, in fact, that communication itself has become sporadic. Somehow it's now "okay" to not follow-up, keep someone in the loop, or tell someone you don't yet have a piece of information they need. This, friends, is not good. It's not respectful and it can negatively affect someone else's job performance . . . or even worse, their life.

Third, because (in general) we're not particularly happy, we're not laughing very often. What does laughter do? Among other things, it stimulates enzyme production in the body, increases circulation, delivers oxygen to blood cells, and can even act as an anesthetic—it can actually relieve pain. 

So, energy . . . you've been trumped by . . . a lot of stuff. But now that we understand the negative impact all this stuff can have on our brains and bodies, maybe we can re-frame a bit and start helping ourselves. 

Turn off the computer, And the TV. And the iPhone. For a few solid chunks of time, every day. Give yourself a break from all the information you've been trying to process. And maybe take with a grain of salt the gloom and doom of the irrational boors that have your ear. And, yes, laugh a little. (Okay, you can start by just smiling if the whole laughter thing feels like too big of a leap.)

Then maybe you'll feel a bit more energy creeping back into your bones. Your psyche. Your heart. And that will be a very, very positive thing. For all of us.


Don't you think?

Pitfalls of the "Me" Plan in the Social Age

Are you on the "me" plan? 

When someone asks "how you are," do you tell them? I mean, really tell them? Or when you ask someone how they are, do you listen for a second or two . . . and then tell them how you are?

Then you probably are on the "me" plan. It's the plan that tells the world that everything, pretty much, is all about you. Now, a healthy sense of self and strong self-confidence are important; we here at Positively Writing acknowledge and endorse that fully. But in excess, they spread a negative image of yourself, and send negative signals to your "friends" and everyone else around you.

Egocentric people make little effort to empathize or understand your feelings. Their feelings are paramount; often they are the only ones that exist. When these people talk, they reveal their focus. They speak of their "accomplishments" or the "cool" things they do, and they exaggerate these things to reinforce their egos, to convince themselves their lives are extraordinarily important.

We're all for independence, independent thinking, standing up for ourselves. Who could argue against those? But extreme self-centerdness has the effect of separating individuals from all those around them. And, trite as it may sound, we really are all in this together.

So we're here to campaign for  a little humility. And a sense of community. And to ask those on the "me" plan to take a breath—take a deep breath—and actually listen to someone. We talk and talk and talk about being "connected" via social networks and blogs and microblogs and online communities and . . . wouldn't it be nice to exchange a warm, real moment with someone?

So to all you digital dudes and doyennes, a humble suggestion: Take the next critical and most telling step in your connectedness: feel what that someone is telling you. Don't just tell them how you feel, truly connect with their feelings and tell them what you understand about them. That could be the first step in getting onto the "we" plan. And very simply, it's just the right thing to do.

Branding, and Brand-Speak's Negative Effects

Nissan hires Robert Downey Jr. to do voice-overs and in one of his first spots, he has to say "sport-cross" when describing a new vehicle. Sport-Cross. This absurd hybrid descriptor not only tries much too hard to position the vehicle as something that doesn't actually exist, it clearly does this by attempting to create a term that "sounds like something." But it doesn't. As cool a guy as Downey is, it's just a poor and truly misguided attempt at branding.

(Lexus actually created the term "sportcross" in 2001 for a product that failed. Miserably. So full blame to them, as well.)

Even worse, perhaps, is a Buick Regal ad in which it calls itself a "sport-injected" sedan. Interesting. They've obviously developed a way to inject "sport" right into the engine itself, as they further use the term "sport-injected performance." I laughed at this incredibly feeble attempt to compare their Buick to European brands. (Want to know how to do it Buick? Watch the BMW 5 Series ad that uses 3rd-party reviews to describe the car. One states the car "defies the laws of physics." No announcer blathering on. No overstating. Just type on a screen with an appropriate attribution. Simple, believable, powerful.)

These are two examples of ridiculous brand-speak, which do nothing but convince audiences that they are being sold to. And sold to in a sleazy way, a way that clearly is not plain spoken or plainly honest. This is an example of why advertising is viewed with such deep disdain in so many quarters of our culture.

Another way of describing these branding blunders: negative media experiences. Can anyone honestly say to themselves, "Wow, a sport-injected car, finally!"?  Well, no, they surely cannot. So that small moment becomes a negative moment because of the distrust it conveys.

We're pretty much done with being sold to. Hence the massive explosion in social media and its vastly different user experiences. And for users, the experience is almost universally positive, for a number of hugely important reasons.

First is that social media is, in effect, about conversations, not commercials. What's more pleasant? Engaging in a conversation of your choosing or being exposed to a commercial you would rather not see?

Commercial marketing interrupts you; social media engages and informs you. And don't underestimate how important this distinction is. Think about this: You're having a conversation with someone who interrupts you with unrelated tidbits over and over and over. It's fair to assume you would limit, if not eliminate, your interactions with this person in the future. Isn't it?

But marketers—traditionally based marketers—don't seem to get this. Digital marketing is maturing and becoming an essential component in virtually every serious marketing strategy. But now those old-school marketers are injecting their "interruptive" techniques into the digital arena to a degree that has become troubling to us digitally aware marketers.

Proof? Anyone logging onto The New York Times website within the last few weeks has been jolted by a drop-down banner ad that expands to roughly 75% of the screen as soon as the page loads. Is this why you went to NYT.com? To have an unwanted branding message prevent you from accessing the information you're after? So you are forced to deal with another negative marketing experience, this one in a medium in which your expectations had been set to be positive. Ugh.

The web is loaded with these interruptions now, unfortunately. Video and accompanying audio blast away at you when you land on myriad sites (e.g., ESPN, Huffington Post). You Tube and other videos do not start when you click a play button; advertisements start and in most cases runs their course, like it or not. 

Many online users, we bet, are even taken aback by rich-media executions like Eyeblaster ads that frequently "interrupt" our online experience in more visually dynamic, interesting ways. (We at Positively Writing are less offended by these simply because we appreciate the creativity and technology involved.) But these are still interruptions no matter how you slice it. Negative moments. Again.

So the language of advertising and the techniques employed have steered us to interact online with friends, and yes, also with brands with whom we want to share. This is the power of social media. Communities and content created by the people, for the people. And largely controlled by the people, thank goodness. And even better: These same people are willing, often happy, to invite marketers into their world. If we marketers play by their rules.

So let's do that. Don't interrupt. Don't BS somebody. Listen to them. Speak with them as if they were a friend and—magic!—they may become a friend. An advocate. A true influencer. But if you don't give that person the space she/he deserves, you may be jettisoned. Permanently. 

Learn the rules and be respectful. Create positive experiences for your existing and potential customers and they will assuredly create the same for you. And whatever you do, don't try to "sport-inject" them; they're BMW. And you might be Buick. 

How scary a thought is that?

3,300 Shots to the Dome

Nielsen reported last week that U.S. teens average more than 3,300 texts a month. Believe it?

We here at Positively Writing do. Absolutely. One reason we believe is that the same groups' phone conversations dropped 14% during the three-month survey period. How many texts equal a phone call? Who knows, but let's assume "a lot." So that's a partial reason for all those texts.

But do other reasons exist? They must, surely. We think one reason that rarely gets mentioned is a pretty simple one: It's fun. It's cool. Why wouldn't you want to do something cool and fun if you're a teenager?

Lost in our myriad discussions about technology and social media and connecting and community is a very basic human desire: to feel good. Any good therapist will tell you that one of the most important things you can do for yourself is to feel good. Think thoughts and do things (within certain limits) that make you feel good. Your emotional health depends on it. 

So maybe all those texts are a good sign. Maybe they are telling us that teens are demonstrating an innate ability to act in a healthy way. They feel good when they text. So . . .  they text. 

When you were a teenager did you spend hours on the phone discussing . . . pretty much nothing? Most of us did, and if you're incredulous at the Nielsen text numbers you may be disregarding your own equivalent behavior at the same age. 

Sir Ken Robinson, in his TED talks and elsewhere, demonstrates with amazing clarity and logic how we are teaching our kids to be less creative. We hammer them with rules, with scores and grades, and we discourage divergent thinking by telling them there is one right answer. One right answer? Sure, maybe to a math or science problem, but in the social sciences—in life—is that really a good thing to tell a kid? 

Before any of us goes off on a teen-tech bashing spree, let's all remember that our kids, for all the electronic resources at their disposal, have pretty complicated lives they're living. And we might complicate them further by telling them to suppress their instinct to connect with their friends. To grow their circle of friends. To grow.        

Encourage. Be positive. Encourage positive thinking and activity. When you talk with kids. When you talk with colleagues. When you look in the mirror. Seems like a pretty healthy thing to do, don't you think?

We here at Positively Writing suggest that before you cast the first stone, about texting and otherwise, you consider whether you used available technology to connect with your friends—just as teenagers are doing today.

Do You Really, REALLY "Like" Me?

What do you think of Malcolm Gladwell? For us, he's alternately a blowhard and way too impressed with his own hair. But he deserves great credit for his piece "Small Change" in the October 4 New Yorker.

His gist is that the Internet's ability to connect us all has distorted the meaning of friendship, motivation, and activism. And we at Positively Thinking think that, despite his hair, this time he's got it exactly right.


First, you're not truly making me a "friend" me on Facebook; you're "acquaintancing" me. Am I really a friend if you contact me once a year on FB to tell me you hiked in Yosemite last week? If, conversely, you had dinner with me and and  looked me in the eye, and then we talked about our families and happiness , then yes, you could be a real friend. Especially if we shared time in person more than once a year.


FB "friends" often—very often—have weak ties. Ties that have very little meaning in their lives.We're not suggesting there is anything inherently wrong about "friending" (now there's an example of language evolving appropriately) a person or organization. We're just think people have lost some perspective about what a true connection feels like.


(Gladwell does not mention the marketing implications of "likes." But as marketers, we think it's relevant to mention the critical importance of  "likes" on a company's FB page. The more "likes" a company has, the higher their Google ranking (that's a fact, folks). So their friends or acquaintances or whatever you'd like to call them can have a direct impact on that company's business.)


The Internet continues to be the wild, wild West in many ways. It's almost universally free; anyone can access anyone or anything at any time. For the moment, anyway. And security/privacy issues notwithstanding, these are good things. 


But perspective can get lost in the loosely drawn, decidedly informal web we all create for ourselves. Making contact with others to establish and grow real relationships—whether this is done by an individual or organization—can be the beginning of a truly valuable relationship.The beginning.

Gladwell describes instances in which online communities can have literally life-saving impact, such as lightning-fast money-raising efforts for medical procedures. Those kinds of initiatives are truly inspiring should make everyone proud.


But a larger point he makes it's that these kinds of efforts succeed because they are "easy." All you need to do is click and contribute a dollar. You're not going out of your way, devoting time or energy or sacrificing yourself to help another person. 


Here's perhaps his best line about social 'activism': " . . . it succeeds not by motivating (people) to make a real sacrifice, but by motivating them to do the things that people do when they are NOT motivated enough to make a REAL sacrifice." (Those CAPS are mine, for emphasis.)


Maybe that's overly cynical or harsh, but we think he's right, again. Sure, feel good if you contribute a dollar, but don't fool yourself into thinking you've just "given" of yourself. You spent a minute or two and did a small, good thing. That's fine. But that's it.


Social networks are, by definition, not hierarchical organizations; they lack much structure, procedure, and authority. So their value is not their ability to effect change; it's to provide a forum to communicate opinions and information. It's to promote participation, not motivation. Great Gladwellisms all.


Friendship, in our view, is best when it's created the old-fashioned way: when you earn it.