Tag Archive: Friends


“Opinions are like assholes, everyone has one.” – Clint Eastwood as Dirty Harry

Weren’t we all repeatedly told by mumsy to never discuss religion and politics in polite company?

Wouldn’t you expect this admonition to particularly apply to your dear friends and family?

And what are the impacts of these unwise political discussions on the most important public relations of all? Your own PR and personal brand.fbpolitics

Then why do far too many of us insist on bloviating and pontificating our unrestrained and unvarnished political views on Facebook, and other digitally eternal social media sites including LinkedIn, Twitter and others?

Don’t we have enough to do?

Before delving any further into this issue, Almost DailyBrett must pose the following rhetorical question: What are we expecting when we bombard our family and friends (or LinkedIn connections) with unrestrained political diatribe, regardless of whether it comes from the progressive left or the patriotic right?

Don’t the vast majority of our friends and family already know our political views? Don’t they harbor their own political opinions? Are they really persuadable at this point in time?clintontrumpdebate

For most Americans, you have to be living under a rock if you don’t have a well-formed and mostly unchanging opinion about Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump. According to the Real Clear Politics average, almost 59 percent of national poll respondents have a negative view of Hillary and nearly 62 percent are thumbs down on The Donald.

The political pros tell us these two are the most unpopular respective nominees in the long histories of the Democratic and Republican Parties. As a result, most of us have formed an unalterable opinion about both of these pols, and they are hardening, not softening … if that’s still possible.

If all the above is true, Almost DailyBrett must ask why do we bother offering our political views to people who we regard as friends and family? Do we enjoy making them react as if someone took their finger nails to a chalkboard?

Do we secretly enjoy being passive, aggressive?

Unfriending A “Friend” Because of Politics

Who is ultimately responsible for an unfriending decision because of political digital intercourse?

  1. The “friend” who frequently offers political opinions to one and all via a few digital key strokes with no consideration of how these comments are going to be construed.
  2. Or the “friend” who takes personal affront to repeated political commentary, more often than not, negative about the opposition, and angrily unfriends the so-called friend.buckleyquote

The late conservative commentator William F. Buckley is probably smiling from heaven as a result of the Pew Research Journalism Project, which revealed that liberals are more likely than their conservative counterparts to unfriend someone with contrary political views (e.g., conservatives).

However, the same study opined that conservatives are more likely to gravitate to their own kind online and have less exposure to competing points of view.

Which is better? How about none of the above?

If the Nielsen ratings folks are correct, the Monday, September 26 debate between Hillary and The Donald will be the most watched and streamed presidential debate in the history of the country, if not from a purely infotainment standpoint.

If that is indeed the case — and there is zero reason to suggest it won’t be — then why will we insist upon offering our biased opinion before-during-after this encounter to our friends and family via Facebook and other social media?

Weren’t they also watching the same feed and avoiding the Monday Night Football game between the Atlanta Falcons and New Orleans Saints?

Didn’t they already form an opinion about what they watched on their own and/or had their views reinforced by Charles Krauthammer on Fox News, Chris Matthews on MSNBC, George Stephanopoulos on ABC or David Axelrod on CNN?

Former football coach Lou Holtz once said: “If you can’t add value to silence, then shut up.”

Considering that minds have been made up and are unlikely to change … and we really respect and value our friends and family … wouldn’t it be best to refrain from offering our own version of political invective?

Silence can indeed be golden.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2014/10/21/liberals-are-more-likely-to-unfriend-you-over-politics-online-and-off/

http://www.journalism.org/2014/10/21/political-polarization-media-habits/#social-media-conservatives-more-likely-to-have-like-minded-friends

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton_vs_johnson_vs_stein-5952.html

 

 

All social media sites are not created equal.

They are not monolithic. They are not one-size-fits-all.

Facebook gives you access to your “friends.”

LinkedIn provides you with “connections.”

In all due respect to Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg and Sandra “Lean In” Sandberg, which group of people – “friends” or “connections” — is going to be most beneficial in finding a job, building a network or running down business leads?

Wall Street, based on the performance of the two respective stocks, knows for certain the answer to this question. Are you still not convinced and/or “connected”?

“In my opinion…you would be serving the department best by working in public relations,” – San Francisco PD lieutenant.

“Opinions are like a..holes, everyone has one.” – Clint Eastwood as Inspector “Dirty Harry” Callahan in “The Dead Pool.”

resume

When it comes to writing a cover letter, preparing a curriculum vitae or using social media for a job-search campaign, everyone has opinions. Here are some of mine.

Some contend that hiring managers and recruiters don’t read cover letters. I couldn’t disagree more. Every job worth its salt deserves and requires a carefully crafted, targeted cover letter.

Some say that hiring letters should repeat everything in the resume. I respectfully disagree.

Think of it this way:

The cover letter is intended to entice the hiring manager/recruiter to read the resume.

The resume is intended to convince the powers that be to bring you in for an interview.

The interview leads to references being checked and a big fat HR packet being overnighted to your place of residence.

Some worship at the altar of the one-page resume. I opine that your resume should tell your story, tell it truthfully, tell it completely and most of all, tell it well. And in this digital age where everything is submitted online…who cares (besides the Flat Earth Society) whether a resume takes more than one page? I don’t.

Some are relatively agnostic about LinkedIn. I say it’s time to keep the digital faith.

Upscale six-figure employment search strategy website, The Ladders, surveyed 30 recruiters and found they spent only 6.25-second on the average resume. In particular, they check out a candidate’s name, current title and employer; previous title and company; previous position, start/end dates; current position start/end dates, and education.

There is no reason to question this empirical research. Everything else in our digital-information-overload society is being reduced to 20-second bites, six-second videos and 140-character tweets, so it just makes sense that recruiters are spending only 6.25-seconds on resumes. What that means is that resumes need to effectively tell your story and tell it quickly and concisely.

The same is true with cover letters. They need to fit within the borders of one computer screen because they need to be cut-and-pasted right into the email. Don’t ask for someone to click on a document unless you want to risk her or him tapping the delete key instead.

And let’s not forget that recruiters are pounding PC and tablet keys to access their social media outlet of choice, LinkedIn.

So what are strategies that one should adopt in preparing a LinkedIn profile page? Here are few of my humble suggestions:

linkedin_logo_11

● Sweat the details when it comes to your introductory JPEG mug shot. One immediate difference between a conventional resume and LinkedIn is the ability to incorporate a photo. A good photo is worth a thousand words. What kinds of words does your photo convey about you? What does your photo say about your professionalism, competency and ability to work well in a team?

● If a recruiter/hiring manager is only spending an average of 6.25 seconds with a resume, conceivably the same can be true with your LinkedIn profile…unless you make effective use LinkedIn’s plug-and-play tools. Begin with a profile statement that immediately outlines your raison d’etre, your strengths and immediate Return on Investment (ROI).

●Add your blog. Add your PowerPoints. Add your videos. Add your conference papers. Add your awards. Add your published work. Add your classroom work. Recruiters think of LinkedIn as one-stop shopping, so should you. http://www.linkedin.com/in/kevinbrett

● One of the key differentiators between LinkedIn and a conventional resume is your digital profile goes so much further than a standard curriculum vitae. Besides the ability to incorporate your digital content, you can also use the social media to market your personal brand through the use of references. As opposed to the standard, “References Available Upon Request” at the bottom of a resume, your LinkedIn page can include a dozen or more references sprinkled throughout the recap of your present and previous positions. Word-of-mouth advertising is without a doubt, the best advertising.

● The Boy Scout motto is simply, “Be Prepared.” Don’t wait for caca to happen to you when it comes to your career, even if you believe your job is secure. Your LinkedIn profile is a living, breathing digital tool. You can change it anytime, 24/7/365. Don’t wait until you are surprisingly laid off or cashiered to start building your connections into a network. This is a process that should never end. Trust me, people notice if you have 500+ connections, and they want to know who has accepted your LinkedIn connection requests..

Think of it this way: Every connection is a friend. And just like dollars in my wallet, I want to have as many “friends” as I can.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/susanadams/2012/03/26/what-your-resume-is-up-against/

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303812904577293664148110928.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheryl_Sandberg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hVlYMctb7Y4

https://almostdailybrett.wordpress.com/2012/07/17/linkedin-resume/

“The cab driver boasted that his daughter had just graduated. But then he admitted that her journalism degree from the University of Wisconsin had cost $140,000. Since journalism is an ill-paid job that requires no formal qualification, this sounds like a waste of money.” – The Economist, Universities challenged, August 31, 2013

cabdriver

Those are fightin’ words.

Doesn’t The Economist benefit from well-trained and clever journalists?

Should we just shut down all journalism and mass communication schools nationwide, if not worldwide?

Would the last J-school student be kind enough to turn out the lights?

This revealing provocative lead in which the Economist writer shared her/his intimate conversation with a Chicago area cabbie (so much wisdom is imparted in cabs) actually concerned the state of affairs of higher education. Namely, the upcoming federal Department of Education (DOE) ratings system in which colleges and universities conceivably will be judged for federal hand-outs based upon cost, graduation rate and how much students earn in their careers.

And you thought the Bowl Championship Series (BSC) metrics were Byzantine? Thank Darwin we only have to endure this system for one more year. The DOE standards/regulations could be with us into the indefinite future…which could be, forever.

Now that we have clarified the basic premise of the article, let’s go back to the notion that journalism is “ill paid,” that it requires “no formal qualification” and the implication that university journalism schools are a “waste of money.”

Other than that Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?

Considering that I have two journalism-related degrees (one undergraduate and the other post-graduate) and I spent more than three-decades as a reporter (a few years) and as a public relations practitioner (a lot of years) and lately as a college instructor (a few more), I have a problem or two with the gross oversimplification exhibited by The Economist.

There is no doubt that college is damn expensive and not getting cheaper anytime soon. And yes, traditional Gutenbergesque journalism is in trouble. The business model doesn’t work anymore. Having acknowledged the obvious, these conclusions miss a major point: The global desire and yearning for instantaneous-and-accurate information on a 24/7/365 basis has never been greater.

The ability to tell the story, and to tell it well whether it be a reporter/editor, a public relations practitioner or advertising professional is in constant demand and cannot be effectively outsourced or offshored en masse.

The methods for telling, reporting and disseminating the story are changing. The world has moved from analog to digital. The demand for information outstrips the supply, and this trend is accelerating. This is an upward-to-the-right market.

And how will future journalism, public relations, advertising, social media and multi-media professionals learn these information development and dissemination skills? How about these supposedly “waste-of-money” journalism schools?

lecturehall

1.)  Writing effectively will always be in demand, particularly by those who can quickly come to the point, provide insightful analysis, and write professionally and skillfully, employing AP Style.

2.)   Understanding the concept of the inverted pyramid in which the crux of the story is in the lead and all the supporting information flows from there.

3.)   Determining whether a story is newsworthy (or not) for target audiences. Learning how to ask the What? When? Where? Who, Why? And How?, ascertain these answers and transmit a complete-and-clear picture succinctly to news transmitters, whether they are conventional or digital.

4.)   Grasping and using “Big Data” in the form of compelling infographics to quickly and efficiently present useful information to critical audiences.

5.)   Appreciating that social media is not monolithic. There is a distinction between “connections” and “friends” online. Yes, you can digitally self-publish in 140-characters or less. Blogging is alive and well. Social media can be radioactive as digital miscues are eternal.

6.)   Comprehending the societal and technological shift from two-way asymmetrical communication theory (one to the masses) to digitally enabled two-way symmetrical communication theory conversations (message receiver responds publicly to the message sender).

7.)   Gaining the skill sets to generate professional digital photos, audio and video and use state-of-the-art software (e.g., Final Cut Pro) for compelling multimedia pieces.

8.)   Garnering the knowledge of financial communications including relevant SEC disclosure rules and being able to distinguish between fiduciary responsibility and corporate social responsibility.

9.)   Overcoming glossophobia and becoming more confident in delivering presentations, particularly those that are conversational in style and using supporting graphics.

10.)  Securing the confidence to perform instinctively in a crisis communications setting, quickly develop relevant messages and ultimately protect an organization’s reputation and brand.

crisis1

There is little doubt that journalism, public relations, advertising, social media and multi-media educators, graduates and students can add to the Almost DailyBrett list of J-School attributes cited above, including cultural distinctions inherent in international communications.

What’s more important is that when one considers and weighs the skill sets that are being taught and learned, particularly in a rapidly changing technology landscape, the value of a solid journalism education is maybe as valuable as it has ever been.

Society’s insatiable demand for news and information has never been greater.

The Genie is simply not going back into the bottle.

http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21584393-barack-obama-wants-degrees-be-better-value-money-universities-challenged

 

 

One team is winning and the other is losing.

The respective IPO dates of two rival social media platforms are only separated by one year and one day, but the reception by Wall Street investors could not have been more different.

As a result I completely unfriended Facebook today, selling my remaining shares of “FB,” while maintaining and considering adding to my position in LinkedIn. The LinkedIn connection has been slightly lucrative, thank you very much.

According to the Wall Street analysts, the heavy sell off in Facebook is attributable to the company not presenting a convincing argument during Thursday’s conference call on how it well monetize mobile platforms. Closer to the heart of the matter: Facebook is not providing guidance to investors going forward, making it difficult for buy-and-sell side analysts to build their financial models.

From this humble perspective, it seems something more basic is coming into play: Schadenfreude.

There are a growing number of people, who resent Mark Zuckerberg, his hoodie, the “Social Network” and his billions. Can we simply chalk it all up to old-fashioned jealousy of those who achieve? As the leader of the free world recently said, “You didn’t build that.” Au contraire.

zuckerberghoodie

As many of us know, it all started in Harvard’s Suite H-33, Kirkland House (Isn’t Harvard private? Do the public roads leading up to the campus negate all student and faculty accomplishments?). Zuckerberg is an entrepreneur with a dream that succeeded beyond his fondest dreams as 900 million subscribe to Facebook. And with this success came private equity, in fact too much private equity. Zuckerberg was essentially forced by SEC rules to go public. It may have been the world’s first kicking-and-screaming IPO.

During the investor tour leading up to Facebook’s May 18 (NASDAQ: FB) public offering, there were complaints that Zuckerberg sported his trademark hoodie rather than standard-issue Brooks Brothers suit with the Thomas Pink shirt and cuff links. Has this man no decency?

And just yesterday Maria Bartiromo and the other talking heads on CNBC were conjecturing whether Zuckerberg would even show up for his company’s first-ever investor conference call. Maybe analyst calls are not cool enough for the 29-year-old founder and chief executive of the world’s largest social media platform. Zuckerberg showed up, but the stock still closed today at $23.70, miles below its $38 IPO price. One analyst has set an 18-month $40 price target. I will hold off in placing an order.

Contrast the disastrous performance of the Facebook IPO with a similar public offering a year earlier by LinkedIn. The latter came with virtually no investor frenzy, but the results are impressive.

LinkedIn (NYSE: LNKD) went public on May 19, 2011, debuting at $45, quickly jumping to $85 and closing today at $103.42. Not bad.

One key differentiator between LinkedIn and Facebook is the former is targeted almost exclusively toward business. Need to find a job? Open and populate a LinkedIn profile. Be sure to include the details of your resume (curriculum vitae), your academic background, your recommendations, your PowerPoints, your blog and even your mug shot. This URL is one-stop shopping for recruiters.

linkedin

Want to research a recruiter, a hiring manager, a business partner, a customer, just simply head to the LinkedIn search engine. In a few key strokes, you know where she or he went to college; how long she or he has held the present position and where she or he has been before. This site is a great way to do your homework and to be prepared.

Another key differentiator is your “connections,” their connections and the connections of their connections. Who do you know? How important are your connections? What do your connections say about your readiness for a job, particularly a rain-making position that benefits from a deep roll-a-dex?

Almost DailyBrett opines that “connections” are more important in the eyes of Wall Street than “friends” and “likes.” Sure, Zuckerberg has access to the living patterns of almost one-seventh of the planet and $50 billion in market capitalization. LinkedIn only has a mere 161 million subscribers and only $10 billion in market cap…and yet Wall Street better understands the LinkedIn business model. Facebook in contrast offers friends and FUD (Fear Uncertainty and Doubt).

Most of all there is no uncertainty whether LinkedIn co-founder Reid Hoffman will participate in his company’s conference calls. Thumbs up.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/does-wall-street-hate-facebook-192938528.html

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390443931404577551344018773450.html

%d bloggers like this: