1. Pull up most recent Word doc with partially written case study that was not finished due to the gorgeous weather on Friday
2. Crack knuckles to mean business
3. Open report that case study references
4. Type one full worded sentence riddled with business jargon
5. Check to make sure the word "align" hadn't been used in the prior 3 sentences
6. Start next sentence
7. "I wonder where I can get Guinness ice cream" ~friend
8. Google [Guinness ice cream] (phrase match, obvi)
9. Stumble upon AccidentalHedonist.com
10. Read several articles on beer
11. Get inspired to blog
12. Open up Blogger without a real topic to talk about so start creating a chronological list
13. Realize it's been 30 minutes since the last half constructed sentence for case study
14. "Do you want to see Brittany's new tattoo?" ~friend
And here we are. I think I need the constructs of an office to really get anything done. However, I am feeling rather like a literary arteest with my laptop and lemonade at the local Panera. It's the look that counts, right?
Saturday, March 19, 2011
Sunday, February 20, 2011
A Culture All Its Own
Office politics exist - I'm not naive enough to believe that it doesn't. However, I do believe that managers can single-handedly affect the level of office politics within a team based on their own biases.
It's not enough to want to avoid office politics for your team. Just because a manager doesn't want office politics doesn't mean office politics will be completely ignored. A manager needs to physically set the example and demonstrate that office politics will not be tolerated. Anything that can me construed as gossip and is damaging to a person's character needs to be actively stricken from everyday conversation.
I bring this up because I've gotten into a situation recently where office politics is clearly in play. For me, it's almost become a fascinating study of human nature as I watch things unfold from a somewhat active sideline position. I know one party in question sees things through the lens of needing to play in the game of office politics. That there's even a strategic game to play. From this point of view, there's no way everyone else won't get sucked into the gameplay as well. Everything move is deliberated on, an intricate game of chess where some pawns don't even know they're playing. I'm lucky enough to have been brought into the know so that at least I understand I'm a part of the game.
I personally approach this situation as a course that needs to be studied. I've unintentionally enrolled in a school of manipulation, but I don't regret it. I believe that in order to know how to avoid or at least limit involvement in office politics, it's necessary to understand when it's happening and what the rules are. Otherwise you'll (unknowingly!) be dragged back and forth by the people who are really controlling the situation. Manipulating the puppet strings, if you will. And I refuse to be played like that.
However, I still believe it's best to steer clear of derogatory statements about coworkers no matter how tempting it would be to bitch and complain. I've given into temptation in the past, but I try to remember that I don't often see the full picture, and misunderstandings often occur simply because everyone's approaching the situation with different backgrounds. The key to avoiding office politics is to keep all defamatory opinions away from those not involved. If something really needs to be said, it should be said to the other party directly, a manager, or an HR representative.
Business runs with its own social constructs. If I had gotten into social psychology, this would be where I would focus most of my studies. It's definitely a fascinating area that's really difficult to study because not too many companies would allow a social psychologist within their midst to expose such intimate secrets about company culture and behavior. Maybe this is what I'll focus on when I write my post-retirement book.
And I realize this post is littered with cliché analogies (puppetmaster?? game of chess??) but I felt it was appropriate because these are totally acceptable/expected when writing emails or notes for around the office.
It's not enough to want to avoid office politics for your team. Just because a manager doesn't want office politics doesn't mean office politics will be completely ignored. A manager needs to physically set the example and demonstrate that office politics will not be tolerated. Anything that can me construed as gossip and is damaging to a person's character needs to be actively stricken from everyday conversation.
I bring this up because I've gotten into a situation recently where office politics is clearly in play. For me, it's almost become a fascinating study of human nature as I watch things unfold from a somewhat active sideline position. I know one party in question sees things through the lens of needing to play in the game of office politics. That there's even a strategic game to play. From this point of view, there's no way everyone else won't get sucked into the gameplay as well. Everything move is deliberated on, an intricate game of chess where some pawns don't even know they're playing. I'm lucky enough to have been brought into the know so that at least I understand I'm a part of the game.
I personally approach this situation as a course that needs to be studied. I've unintentionally enrolled in a school of manipulation, but I don't regret it. I believe that in order to know how to avoid or at least limit involvement in office politics, it's necessary to understand when it's happening and what the rules are. Otherwise you'll (unknowingly!) be dragged back and forth by the people who are really controlling the situation. Manipulating the puppet strings, if you will. And I refuse to be played like that.
However, I still believe it's best to steer clear of derogatory statements about coworkers no matter how tempting it would be to bitch and complain. I've given into temptation in the past, but I try to remember that I don't often see the full picture, and misunderstandings often occur simply because everyone's approaching the situation with different backgrounds. The key to avoiding office politics is to keep all defamatory opinions away from those not involved. If something really needs to be said, it should be said to the other party directly, a manager, or an HR representative.
Business runs with its own social constructs. If I had gotten into social psychology, this would be where I would focus most of my studies. It's definitely a fascinating area that's really difficult to study because not too many companies would allow a social psychologist within their midst to expose such intimate secrets about company culture and behavior. Maybe this is what I'll focus on when I write my post-retirement book.
And I realize this post is littered with cliché analogies (puppetmaster?? game of chess??) but I felt it was appropriate because these are totally acceptable/expected when writing emails or notes for around the office.
Saturday, November 13, 2010
Query-based Marketing
It's been a while since I've gotten this question, but my dad and I were recently talking about my job again. He turned to me, like he's done in the past, and asked once again, "What exactly do you do?" So I tried to keep it simple and replied that my job is to put text ads on Google. And very practically, he responded, "Your job will probably become obsolete."
The more I tried to justify my job, the more I realized putting ads on Google or Bing is just a small fraction of what I do. Thus, I think it's time to ditch the name Search Engine Marketing (SEM). It's gotten to the point where this old title is too restrictive when compared to what search engine marketers actually do. In their never-ending quest for information, people are moving beyond the search engine for research. If you compare Google to all of the other ways people are searching out there rather than just the big three search engines, I'll be you'll find that Google has actually been losing market share.
Query-based Marketing (QBM) is a more appropriate name for the practice. The goal of query-based marketing is maintaining presence wherever people are searching, whether it's on a search engine or something else. Whenever someone is looking for information, a brand should be where it's relevant.
With a new name like Query-based Marketing, the marketer's goal is not just to optimize the most cost efficient ad on a search engine. It's much grander than that. I think the goal is to manage sponsored pull-marketing opportunities, where searchers are already requesting content about a product or service. This opens up the future for SEM, where marketers get better at predicting questions before someone even asks it. It looks like I'm about to get into the premonition business.
Perhaps this is one of those "a rose by any other name.." scenarios, but there have been times when a simple name change affected the whole goal of an operation. And if that's the only outcome of a name change, I'm already on board with it.
The more I tried to justify my job, the more I realized putting ads on Google or Bing is just a small fraction of what I do. Thus, I think it's time to ditch the name Search Engine Marketing (SEM). It's gotten to the point where this old title is too restrictive when compared to what search engine marketers actually do. In their never-ending quest for information, people are moving beyond the search engine for research. If you compare Google to all of the other ways people are searching out there rather than just the big three search engines, I'll be you'll find that Google has actually been losing market share.
Query-based Marketing (QBM) is a more appropriate name for the practice. The goal of query-based marketing is maintaining presence wherever people are searching, whether it's on a search engine or something else. Whenever someone is looking for information, a brand should be where it's relevant.
With a new name like Query-based Marketing, the marketer's goal is not just to optimize the most cost efficient ad on a search engine. It's much grander than that. I think the goal is to manage sponsored pull-marketing opportunities, where searchers are already requesting content about a product or service. This opens up the future for SEM, where marketers get better at predicting questions before someone even asks it. It looks like I'm about to get into the premonition business.
Perhaps this is one of those "a rose by any other name.." scenarios, but there have been times when a simple name change affected the whole goal of an operation. And if that's the only outcome of a name change, I'm already on board with it.
Sunday, October 17, 2010
Is There Room for Introversion in the Workplace?
In a world where extroverts outnumber introverts 3:1 (according to The Introvert Advantage), how does an introvert stand out in the workplace?
Being an introvert means several things to me: needing to be alone and recharge after being in highly social situations, spending a lot of time analyzing situations internally rather than talking it out, and preferring to stand on the outskirts rather than being at the center of attention. It does not mean being shy or antisocial, though that can be the case sometimes. I'm not antisocial; in fact, I enjoy meeting and talking to new people. But, I do find myself having to take some alone time before being able to hang out again.
The question of introversion in the workplace arises from a recent situation, where I realized I might've benefited more by talking to other people rather than analyzing everything in my head by myself. I often trust my own analyses and emerge confident in my own conclusions after weighing all of the pros and cons rationally. I do sometimes talk things through with my friends, but not before I've already given it a considerable amount of thought. However, the disadvantage of internal debate is that I'm only analyzing based on information I have... and not everything is always how it seems.
When you work in a team environment, perhaps it's not the best method to keep feelings inside. I'm not afraid to discuss facts, but I didn't believe that feelings should be involved in business. However, when you work so closely with your teammates, it's unfair to keep them in the dark all of the time, especially if you're friends with them. And I think this is something I've just recently come to understand - that I don't have to rely on myself. Why can I trust my teammates with business problems, but I can't trust them with life concerns? I don't mean that I should unleash all of my crazy, but I need to learn to trust in others if I expect them to place their trust in me.
I often look to Douglas Conant, the CEO of Campbell's, when this question crosses my mind. He was a guest speaker at my school once, and he mentioned that he's an introvert. I haven't quite figured out how he's able to hold a position that requires him to constantly express both his vision and his concerns, but I believe that I'll eventually find a managing style that suits who I am and still gets things done. Each new situation is a learning experience.
Being an introvert means several things to me: needing to be alone and recharge after being in highly social situations, spending a lot of time analyzing situations internally rather than talking it out, and preferring to stand on the outskirts rather than being at the center of attention. It does not mean being shy or antisocial, though that can be the case sometimes. I'm not antisocial; in fact, I enjoy meeting and talking to new people. But, I do find myself having to take some alone time before being able to hang out again.
The question of introversion in the workplace arises from a recent situation, where I realized I might've benefited more by talking to other people rather than analyzing everything in my head by myself. I often trust my own analyses and emerge confident in my own conclusions after weighing all of the pros and cons rationally. I do sometimes talk things through with my friends, but not before I've already given it a considerable amount of thought. However, the disadvantage of internal debate is that I'm only analyzing based on information I have... and not everything is always how it seems.
When you work in a team environment, perhaps it's not the best method to keep feelings inside. I'm not afraid to discuss facts, but I didn't believe that feelings should be involved in business. However, when you work so closely with your teammates, it's unfair to keep them in the dark all of the time, especially if you're friends with them. And I think this is something I've just recently come to understand - that I don't have to rely on myself. Why can I trust my teammates with business problems, but I can't trust them with life concerns? I don't mean that I should unleash all of my crazy, but I need to learn to trust in others if I expect them to place their trust in me.
I often look to Douglas Conant, the CEO of Campbell's, when this question crosses my mind. He was a guest speaker at my school once, and he mentioned that he's an introvert. I haven't quite figured out how he's able to hold a position that requires him to constantly express both his vision and his concerns, but I believe that I'll eventually find a managing style that suits who I am and still gets things done. Each new situation is a learning experience.
Sunday, May 30, 2010
My Relationship with Brands
It just took me over 20 minutes to look up the name of my Management & Organizational Analysis professor, but I finally emerged victorious (working in search really hones your sleuthing skills). The reason I was Googling Reinhard Bachmann was because I wanted to admit that I finally understand the importance of his book Trust Within and Between Organizations. I never thought I'd actually be using information from my MOA class. It seemed like a colossal waste of time the whole time I was taking it (and long after), but I find myself thinking about the lessons more and more these days.
The personification of brands is not an uncommon practice. Ronald McDonald is the first example that comes to mind. But the difference between the brands of yore and the brands today is that today our information about brands come from a multitude of locations. Even though some people might find Ronald McDonald creepy, our image of him is still something carefully crafted by the wizards at McDonald's Corporation. And for the longest time, Ronald equaled McDonald's; when someone thought of McDonald's, Ronald was not far behind. Fast forward a couple of years, and Ronald is no longer the first thing people think of. With today's access to information, the customer service, the sustainability of the food, Supersize Me, and Ronald all hold keys to determining McDonald's brand in the minds of its stakeholders. Now if I were to personify McDonald's, Ron English's fat Ronald is more on target than the kind Ronald in charge of Ronald McDonald House Charities.
Which one is more on brand?
I believe that brand personification has a new meaning these days. It's not just about creating a character for your brand. Aunt Jemima, Mr. Clean, and Eddie from Accounting are no longer the sole brand reps. The new brand character is the imaginary person you invent in your head when you combine all of the information you've learned about a brand. BP might claim it's a green company, but in my mind BP is a woman who claims she has a compost heap but in reality just throws all her trash in her neighbor's yard.
This is where I start thinking about how trust plays into today's world of brand definition. If a corporation says one message through its marketing channels, but somehow consumers experience another message, trust in the brand decreases. In order to gain the consumers' trust, a company has to make sure that the brand message from all angles is consistent. That doesn't mean making sure advertising campaigns match what's in the corporate press releases. I mean taking the time to ensure that actions match the words. Would anybody ever trust a person who promised to help move furniture while running quickly in the opposite direction? No. Then why would anyone trust a company that does the same thing?
If a company manages to earn trust, consumers (aka the trusting party) will be more willing to allow the feeling of vulnerability and follow a company as it grows. I know that people make mistakes so I'm willing to forgive and forget if someone I trust fucks up occasionally. If someone I don't trust screws up, that just reinforces the belief that I shouldn't trust that person. I hold corporations to the same standard.
The role of search and social influence marketing is becoming more important in determining the brand character people build in their minds and in helping corporations maintain consistent brand messaging. Both of these channels are able to interact with people just as they're thinking about the brand. The power of search ads comes from their ability to address needs at the exact time someone wants answers. Twitter and the likes take that to the next level by allowing direct communication with the brand. JetBlue understands that. Zappos understands that. Intel sorta gets it but still mostly pushes corporate news.
So my one bit of advice is to be true to who you are. People will appreciate the honesty. Don't pretend to be someone you're not because you will always be found out in the end.
The personification of brands is not an uncommon practice. Ronald McDonald is the first example that comes to mind. But the difference between the brands of yore and the brands today is that today our information about brands come from a multitude of locations. Even though some people might find Ronald McDonald creepy, our image of him is still something carefully crafted by the wizards at McDonald's Corporation. And for the longest time, Ronald equaled McDonald's; when someone thought of McDonald's, Ronald was not far behind. Fast forward a couple of years, and Ronald is no longer the first thing people think of. With today's access to information, the customer service, the sustainability of the food, Supersize Me, and Ronald all hold keys to determining McDonald's brand in the minds of its stakeholders. Now if I were to personify McDonald's, Ron English's fat Ronald is more on target than the kind Ronald in charge of Ronald McDonald House Charities.
Which one is more on brand?
I believe that brand personification has a new meaning these days. It's not just about creating a character for your brand. Aunt Jemima, Mr. Clean, and Eddie from Accounting are no longer the sole brand reps. The new brand character is the imaginary person you invent in your head when you combine all of the information you've learned about a brand. BP might claim it's a green company, but in my mind BP is a woman who claims she has a compost heap but in reality just throws all her trash in her neighbor's yard.
This is where I start thinking about how trust plays into today's world of brand definition. If a corporation says one message through its marketing channels, but somehow consumers experience another message, trust in the brand decreases. In order to gain the consumers' trust, a company has to make sure that the brand message from all angles is consistent. That doesn't mean making sure advertising campaigns match what's in the corporate press releases. I mean taking the time to ensure that actions match the words. Would anybody ever trust a person who promised to help move furniture while running quickly in the opposite direction? No. Then why would anyone trust a company that does the same thing?
If a company manages to earn trust, consumers (aka the trusting party) will be more willing to allow the feeling of vulnerability and follow a company as it grows. I know that people make mistakes so I'm willing to forgive and forget if someone I trust fucks up occasionally. If someone I don't trust screws up, that just reinforces the belief that I shouldn't trust that person. I hold corporations to the same standard.
The role of search and social influence marketing is becoming more important in determining the brand character people build in their minds and in helping corporations maintain consistent brand messaging. Both of these channels are able to interact with people just as they're thinking about the brand. The power of search ads comes from their ability to address needs at the exact time someone wants answers. Twitter and the likes take that to the next level by allowing direct communication with the brand. JetBlue understands that. Zappos understands that. Intel sorta gets it but still mostly pushes corporate news.
So my one bit of advice is to be true to who you are. People will appreciate the honesty. Don't pretend to be someone you're not because you will always be found out in the end.
Saturday, May 8, 2010
Home is Where Your Rump Rests
It may seem like my musings and ponderings have petered out, but I assure you, anonymous reader, that that is not the case. I just haven't had as much time to write lately with all of the work/good weather/couch naps I've been having.
But here I am today, and I would like to discuss the subject of the flighty living in New York. I just got back from a really rigorous round of negotiations (my roommate did most of the talking. I just nodded along) I had with my leasing office mad early in the morning (10:30 AM). Coming back, I realize just how little I've felt at home in New York in the past 6 years.
It's not that I don't call my various places of living "home". I like that I have a place to sleep at night, that I have a really expensive storage area for all of my stuff. But most of my important pieces of mail still go to the house where I grew up. I still have trouble saying "my parents' house" because I still consider that my house. I can still sit on the floor of my empty old bedroom (most things, including my bed, have been moved into the city) and feel like I belong there.
I wonder if this feeling is one that I alone experience or if it's a product of living in a place where you're ready to pick up and leave in one or two years. Perhaps this feeling is less pronounced when you buy an apartment or if you're settled down in a long term relationship, but for those who have neither of those, it's so easy to get swept up into the temporariness of all life in the city. Stores change hands all of the time. Your favorite bar could be there one day and gone the next. And if your rent gets jacked up, you're out the door looking for a new apartment. I have yet to live in an apartment for more than a year.
The ability to pick up and move at any second is not necessarily a bad thing. In fact, I don't even know where I'll end up in the next couple of years, so having temporary housing is preferable. Yet it still definitely adds to the feeling that I'm just another urban nomad until I can find a place to really call home.
But here I am today, and I would like to discuss the subject of the flighty living in New York. I just got back from a really rigorous round of negotiations (my roommate did most of the talking. I just nodded along) I had with my leasing office mad early in the morning (10:30 AM). Coming back, I realize just how little I've felt at home in New York in the past 6 years.
It's not that I don't call my various places of living "home". I like that I have a place to sleep at night, that I have a really expensive storage area for all of my stuff. But most of my important pieces of mail still go to the house where I grew up. I still have trouble saying "my parents' house" because I still consider that my house. I can still sit on the floor of my empty old bedroom (most things, including my bed, have been moved into the city) and feel like I belong there.
I wonder if this feeling is one that I alone experience or if it's a product of living in a place where you're ready to pick up and leave in one or two years. Perhaps this feeling is less pronounced when you buy an apartment or if you're settled down in a long term relationship, but for those who have neither of those, it's so easy to get swept up into the temporariness of all life in the city. Stores change hands all of the time. Your favorite bar could be there one day and gone the next. And if your rent gets jacked up, you're out the door looking for a new apartment. I have yet to live in an apartment for more than a year.
The ability to pick up and move at any second is not necessarily a bad thing. In fact, I don't even know where I'll end up in the next couple of years, so having temporary housing is preferable. Yet it still definitely adds to the feeling that I'm just another urban nomad until I can find a place to really call home.
Sunday, March 7, 2010
This I Believe
I think that we are all a product of our choices. At this exact moment, each person is the sum of all of his/her previous choices in life. Forget about both nurture and nature for a moment, and you realize that everybody is just the physical embodiment of their own histories.
Consequently, each previous choice affects the availability of subsequent choices. For example, if I were backpacking through Europe, at any given moment I could choose to go left, right, straight, or back. But I could not choose to go to Australia with the very next step. It'll take multiple steps to get to Australia from Europe. The same goes for life choices. If I decide to talk to a person, I can choose the topic of conversation, and I can choose not to talk to that person anymore, but I can't choose to go back to the time when I hadn't talked to that person.
I believe that in this way, we are all confined to a certain fate. I don't mean a fate that's dictated by a greater being but rather one that's forced upon us because of the limitations resulting from our life choices. With each decision, the permutations of the future are altered.
Perhaps "decisions" is not the right word to use because often things that happen to us are not decisions of our own. Our own actions are affected by multiple variables including genes and the actions of others which also end up limiting the way our own life can play out. Which means we don't exactly have the ability to control the way our life shapes out. Environmental factors make up a large percentage of our future actions. Though at the same time, we can definitely take some initiative to influence how those environmental factors can impact our lives. That's why the same single event can happen to two different people with two very different outcomes.
I have no regrets in the actions that have taken me to where I am right now. I was lucky a lot of factors that I can't control actually worked in my favor, such as growing up with a supportive family in a great neighborhood. I was lucky that my genes make me very receptive to facing challenges, which I think has made me more resourceful and open to new ideas. And I tend to live life without any regrets because I'm pretty happy with my current situation in life, which means everything I've done in the past has somehow worked itself out to bring me to this exact moment in life.
~Post inspired by NPR's This I Believe~
Consequently, each previous choice affects the availability of subsequent choices. For example, if I were backpacking through Europe, at any given moment I could choose to go left, right, straight, or back. But I could not choose to go to Australia with the very next step. It'll take multiple steps to get to Australia from Europe. The same goes for life choices. If I decide to talk to a person, I can choose the topic of conversation, and I can choose not to talk to that person anymore, but I can't choose to go back to the time when I hadn't talked to that person.
I believe that in this way, we are all confined to a certain fate. I don't mean a fate that's dictated by a greater being but rather one that's forced upon us because of the limitations resulting from our life choices. With each decision, the permutations of the future are altered.
Perhaps "decisions" is not the right word to use because often things that happen to us are not decisions of our own. Our own actions are affected by multiple variables including genes and the actions of others which also end up limiting the way our own life can play out. Which means we don't exactly have the ability to control the way our life shapes out. Environmental factors make up a large percentage of our future actions. Though at the same time, we can definitely take some initiative to influence how those environmental factors can impact our lives. That's why the same single event can happen to two different people with two very different outcomes.
I have no regrets in the actions that have taken me to where I am right now. I was lucky a lot of factors that I can't control actually worked in my favor, such as growing up with a supportive family in a great neighborhood. I was lucky that my genes make me very receptive to facing challenges, which I think has made me more resourceful and open to new ideas. And I tend to live life without any regrets because I'm pretty happy with my current situation in life, which means everything I've done in the past has somehow worked itself out to bring me to this exact moment in life.
~Post inspired by NPR's This I Believe~
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)