A Marketing Issue: Presence in Social Networks

Source: TalkPoint

It's often heard nowadays, from marketing gurus to self-appointed connoisseurs, that any organization that doesn't have an internet presence - and particularly a social network presence - it's doomed. Is this true? Not so much, as the need for this tool (the web presense) depends on what the goals of the organization are. To give you an example, the need to advertise the organization is different for a corner store that serves a given community, and wouldn't have the capability to serve a larger market, than the requirements of a franchise that extends nationwide.

What would be the point of a Mom&Pop's store having an Instagram profile, uploading pictures hourly, viewed by the whole world, when they only sell in their neighborhood? And, no, not everybody wants to grow global. It's ok to say "enough".

Then, there are organizations that clearly can pull larger profit by having a web presence. However, here the question is, "What kind of Web Presence?".

The thing with the Internet presense is that organizations need to be mindful of what having this presence entails, what people expect and what does it demand from the company. The web presence, it's design and it's managing can make or break the whole image of a company. These cyber-spots - to call them somehow - are not an advertisement spot (only), but a booth, a virtual store, even when you can't sell your products and services through them. It will be there for clients, potential clients and people who are against the organization. Visitors will want to talk to someone knowledgeable, and have a satisfactory answer soon.

Many organizations, however, think that all they need is someone - anyone, maybe a Millenial - to pay marginal attention to this points of contact, and after they go on a spree to set profiles on any and every social network known to men, the maintenance and management falls short.

For a visitor - arguably - it could be better not to find a profile for a given organization on a web platform, than find one and discover that it is non-responsive. If you you find no profile, no web presence, you keep looking. If you find one, contact them (or try to and find no option), you are left with the feeling that "they don't care".

Let me give you an example from my own recent experience. I used to be a HUGE Starbucks fan. HUGE. I've got their mugs, their travel mugs, shopped at them for gifts, bought my ground coffee from them monthly, tried out their blends, and visited a store every week on average, though often, more than once a week. I had a date with myself (my Letter Writing Mondays) that took place at a Starbucks store. I easily left around $1000.00 yearly with them.

A month ago, I made a purchase through the Drive-Thru of one of the stores, on my way to class, and when I've got to the Uni, I realized an item was missing. I tweeted about it, tagging the company's local profile. They answered two days after, only because it was causing uproar, but the answer was insatisfactory, since they sent a cookie-cut message, promised to get back to me, but they didn't. 

They never did, regardless of the uproar it was causing. 

Three weeks after the incident, I tweeted again, told my followers that I was severing ties with Starbucks. I had given them time, and they have me a cold shoulder. I told my followers that I will not only no longer visit their stores - not locally, not abroad - but though I would not throw away my mugs, I will no longer feature the company logo or products in my social media. There was again uproar, people shared their experience about the company ignoring their complaints and so on, which is so weird, when you consider the excellent attention you get at the stores themselves, worldwide.

I wondered if it was because the person in charge of the social networks only checked in once a month, but upon checking, there was plenty of activity. The manager, however, was only interested in posting advertisement and replying to compliments.

Regardless of the excellent in-store eperiences I had, the terrible online treatment left me thinking the company actually doesn't care. The barista cares, the company doesn't give a flying fig. This was enough to move my $1000.00 business to another coffee shop, or a selection of coffeeshops and a new hobby of coffeeshop-discovering I've been doing lately. Totally love it, by the way.

But my case isn't unique, as the people who contacted me to complain show, and neither is Starbucks' case unique. Organizations that impose from the top the marketing decision of having web presence and do research about the social networks their target segment prefers, often forget that it's not enough to plan-design-decide-launch, but there needs to be awareness of what the effort entails. It requires understanding, dedication and resources, and also, a deep understanding of what the organization really needs, what their target segment really wants, and what can be afforded.

When you spend sometime on social networks, or in groups of people with intense social network presence, you are bound to find self-appointed experts that claim "social network presence is a NEED for any organization that wants to be successful". I've no doubt many marketing managers, and CEOs also buy into this idea, and so they stamp it on their companies as the must-to-succeed strategy. Just because everybody does it, you don't need to do it. Don't listed to marketing-know-it-all-gurus or trends. Listen to your clients, your target segment and your own company. Don't embark on something you don't have the capacity to finance or upkeep.

Better be small and smart, than big and fail.

Notre Dame

Yesterday our beloved Notre Dame Cathedral fell into flames and was consumed in a great part while over 400 firefighters struggled to save here, while billions watched her around the globe, while many came to stand around her, mibile phone cameras held high to capure her old bones crunching under black and orange licks of heat. Our hearts shrunk at the sight of that great, proper, wide Dame standing dignified while her roofs turned into smoke, collapsed and fell, while vitrals blackened, exploded, melted, fell into shards and were long gone.

I watched her from many, many miles away and felt those flames in my heart, certain that - regardless of the damage - the Great Lady would stand beautiful and proud again.

Yes, the damage is great and the loss is incalculable, but I choose to believe that this Wise, Great Dame - tall and proud and wise like a Goddess of Old - has chosen to teach her people a valuable lesson.

The world has been coming apart, ones turning against the others, fighting over imaginary grievances, giving in to pety arguments and consuming with large spoons the poisonous porridge of malicious, fake information. People has chosen to feed their own anger, resenting what others get and what other earn because they can't seem to understand why are they not getting it. Even when they don't need it and even when they don't want it. Even when none of it ever affect them. People have allowed themselves to become bitter when facing the good fortune of anyone else. They have made themselves into easy preys for those who seek to loot, rob them of their hard earned rights, and turn those into privilegdes they will no longer be able to enjoy. And blame the inmigrants, the poor or the other political party for it.

Europe is being divided, even within the greatest sign of their union. It was never a perfect union, but it's like marriage: it's never perfect, but often times it's worth fightng for it. And this comes from a consumated single, childfree woman, so you should listen to me.

Latin America is also bing divided between the ecologists and pro-Human Rights camps and the zealous religious conservatives. The United States... well, yeah. They have placed themselves as the epithome of internal and fierce division, one that goes so deep, it roots out even basic elements we have all thought there was global consensus over.

In this frame, and in the Holy Week, Notre Dame caught fire and let her roofts burn up and collapse, years of history go up in smoke, invaluable stories and art and craftsmanship be lost. Wise and Proud she stood in the middle of the day, where she could be seen, sheltered in her island, crowning the Seine with fire so that people would understand that divisions destroyed, and destruction isn't something to feed spite, to ignore, to blame on the other side, but is a brand that touch us all. She sent her roofs up in flames so people would understand what they were allowing to be lost. She called around her her brave sons and daughters to teach a lesson of preservations, and now, wrapped in her mourning raiment, she calls upon her people to stop being stupid and work diligently to recover their shared history, their shared love and pride and work shoulder by shoulder to build up a new roof, new dreams, new hopes and a new future. Ones that take inspiration of the old ones, but improve them, make them better and work as a reminder also of the slowly degrading bones of society, the pains and fragilites that will always snap at some point, and which need to be tended with love and care.

Monday is Here

Source: property of Stormberry

After the weekend, this is the routine: wake up early again, do the morning exercise, get ready for work, jump into he car, drive to the office - oh fuck, I forgot the Company had closed off some parking spots to organize the inauguration of some grass spots -, go to the office, fill my bottle of water, get the coffee going and start the day with reading the news. (I'm still in the middle of that.)

Normally my day also includes jumping on YouTube, selecting some music list and put it on for the day. Today, however, I just put my headphones on, but I had no music. Sometimes I like to check some news that come with videos, and it's not funny to have to stop Guns'n'Roses to listen to a piece of news. Anyway, as I was minding my own business, I heard my coworkers talk.

One of our major political parties had its former CFO and someone else sentenced for fraud relating the money that went through the campaing in the 2014 campaing. Mainly that they created all sorts of fake bills in order to cash more money from the Government. Obviously - because politics is full of vultures - many other politicians came forward denouncing... what has already been denounced and judged. This is kind of funny, because some of the people who came raging about this "indecency" belong to parties that have also been accused of similar crimes, or are currently accused of taking money from bribes and setting up a double financing system, into which money entered from obscure sources.

So, my coworkers are talking, and one of them - who supported a populist, far right, religious candidate - went on mockingly saying she was sure those of us who voted for the current Government must be regretting our vote. It's easy to say that from the losing end, but as someone who voted for this Government, based on the information we had at the time, no, I don't regret it. It's not the best, it's not ideal, but it is better than what we could have had with someone hell bent on getting rid of the rights of the LGBT+ community, who has used as shield and excuse for the rise of violence against this community. Someone who would have set back reproductive rights for women.

Little after, this same coleague is on the phone, angrily talking to her son because he took to school the wrong tracking suit. It was something about it being no longer good for him or something of the sort. As I listened on, I was wondering how could the kid take the wrong piece of clothing. Don't they discard the clothes that no longer fit them? Why do they keep clothes they can no longer use? And even if they do, why are they along with the clothes they use on daily basis? And why would the kid even put on something that no longer fits?

She has always been very overprotective of her child, to the point where she spends a large portion of her working day phoning her child, his school, her parents... More than a helicopter parent, she's a drone parent. I guess the kid has grown up thiking there are no responsabilities that would fall upon his shoulders, because his mother will always take care of everything. He can shrug off any of her berating, because in the end she will always do everything for him.

From here, I started tying things together. She believes she is doing an excelent job as a parent, by teaching her son how not to be responsible. At work, her priority is her son, so she often would seek the shortest way to deal with her assignments. She has no qualms about sneaking off from work early, as if there were no consequences for her ditching the job, which she does every single day. She's on the phone everyday with her mother, and yet her mother - whom she supports - complains that her other children love her better, because my coworker doesn't spend as much time with her as the other kids. Her mother seems oblivious of the fact that her other children have shorter work schedules and live with her, in apartments built in her backyard.

This strange, toxic circle of abuse makes me think about her political choices and comments as well. She thinks she's making a choice that personally  benefits her, and likes to act like she is in possession of insider information, that she has the contacts to take her to higher places. Truth is, she's being stringed along, exploited. She wants to believe she's better, shw knows better than the rest, that she's smart, even though her "smarts" are proven only by her hability to take advantage and sneak in. She gleefully witnesses the fall for fraud of members of a party, but willfully ignores the crimes of her own party, just the way she strives to look like the toughest mom on the teachers and the most dedicated one, while her child has grown irresponsible and unmanageable.

Another coworker and I believe her son might be gay. He just "pings" that way. If we are right, how will her mind spin and convolute her world view, her alleged inner information, her alleged high connections when they are tangled with an association that hates what her son might be?

This is my Monday and this is what mingles with my coffee today.

Please Stop This "Heteronormative" Crap

Source: Property of Stormberry

By the end of last month my mind was blown, and blown BIG. I had read the book Playing With Fire by Lawrence O'Donnell and... wow, just... wow. Honestly, after having read Fear by Bob Woodward, I thought it would have take me time to find another great book, but then came Mr. O'Donnell, and blew every other book I have read this year out of the water.

After such an impressive book, I clearly needed a mind-eraser, otherwise I could not be fair to my next reading. Every other book ever written was bound to pale in comparison with this one, or so I felt at the moment. So, I did what I usually do, and picked up myself some free gay romance. You know, something light and funny to bring my brain back from the wonderful depths of the previous book.

--- Oh yes, Playing with Fire is a book about American politics and what went on during the election campaing where Richard Nixon became president. Just in case you were wondering.

Anyway, the point is that I picked up a gay romance book to lighten up my head. I didn't want to pay for it, so I picked something from my sampled in Kindle that I knew I could borrow for free. I had been spending handsomely, so yes, I needed a free eraser. I picked some book that seemed to be good on it's cover. I actually read the sample I had and it was... well, it was bad, but didn't look that bad. Well, it was that bad.

That was three days ago, and I'm still on 20% of it, and I rather pick up a reading in German or do homework than read that crap.

Aside from all the fakery, and those annoying cliches and tropes of "oblivious of attraction", and "erections are actually alarms of the proximity of true love", and the detailed physical description, because love only happens to hot people, AND "hot people are oblivious of their good looks", one thing that got me murderous was this need to force the reader to believe that "true love" looks like toxic relationships and last century's heterosexual, gender role defined marriages.

Things like suggesting that lack of jealousy is a sign of lack of love because (literally), a person's lover is a possession and people should be viciously possessive of their lovers, or else they don't really care. Or, the idea that a true, lasting, real relationship needs a partner that's leading and protective and another that's homely, loves to cook, clean and has a nurturing personality. A lot of gay romance novels fall into this trope of one character taking the traditional role of a homemaker, cookie-cut from a Good Housewife magazine from the 50's, that go far and beyond even what an average person with a homemaking inclination might be doing.

Novels often do point out that the character has this inclination, has always wanted to be a homemaker, BUT the overabundance of it is what becomes troublesome. This gives the idea that love can only exist in this frame, like two people who like to be together, but also like to have independent lives, or neither likes to do any house chores, or maybe both like to travel all the time, are not fit to become a long term, serious, established couple.

And also, love only exist in pairs. There only one One, and you are lucky if you find it, and forever unhappy if you don't. All relationships are and should be aimed to form a family. Relationships are only successful when there is exclusivity, they live together and have or plan to have children. And are jealous! That's important. If there is no jealousy, no seeing your significant other as a thing to be own, and which can be stolen, then there is no love. Forget anything else: no jealousy, no love.

Now, this (take or leave the jealousy) is often refered to (as far as I know), as heteronormative, as if the normal of heterosexual relationships is to live in an asphyxiating, toxic relationship, aimed to oppress one half and exploit the other. Oh yes, you read that right. IF the couple agrees to be monogam, and they both choose, by their own free will, because they like it, to lead a relationship where one stays at home and takes upon a homemaking role, while the other brings home the daily bread, so be it, BUT not everybody is cut for that, and so, by declaring it a "norm" you expect every other heterosexual person to squeeze themselves into either being forced to support all by themselves a family (this role is socially assigned to men, so the couple isn't supposed to choose who takes care of this), while the other is to give up any hope and dream of personal or artistic realisation (or of any other nature, unless it is church related), and devote to having kids and taking care of the house - role by default assigned to women.

Gay romance writers (often women) who buy into this idea, force their stories to choose a man and a woman in a pair of men, and though they are both men, one becomes "more man", but becoming aggressive, protective and often possessive in a violent manner, while the other is the "designated" woman, and by that necessarily, more dramatic, MOTHERLY protective, and a homemaker. And his jealousy (remember, jealousy = love), is expressed in the form of scene making and drama and crying in pajamas over a pint of ice cream and a glass of wine, with the besties.

However, and outside all "heteronormative" (I hate that word), there is the idea that mistreatment is actually the victim's fault because instead of getting away of the person harming them, they should "understand" them, and help them heal. Really?

Now, let's take a look at this. To me, this talks about veiled homophobia, because actually there is no acceptance of the concept of love outside the narrow box allowed and prescribed to heterosexual couples. That, just to start, because with the toppling of all that toxicity, including the apology of toxic masculinity and the glorifying of "toxic love" (which is no love), abusive relationships are justified and normalized as that's what love is. People who don't "enjoy" it and rejoice in it, are the problem.

Now, please let's stop this trend. Love has many faces and many flavors and many wazs to be expressed, but none of them include disrespect, mistreatment, miscommunication, harrassment, bullying, violence, threats of violence, manipulation, demand of sacrifice - even when it is demanded indrectly, as something you should be doing by yourself, out of love, or anything that makes any partner uncomfortable.

Love is respectful and gentle. Love happens between people of any gender, any race, any creed and age (as long as they are LEGAL!). Love involves consent. Full, disclaimed, unmistakable consent. Love isn't just monogamous either. Love can happen to a person by themselves, but also to more than two. Love doesn't equal living together and raising a family. Love can be casual. Love can also be temporary. Love is not a life insurance, a fixed income, a source of validation, a stamp of proven maturity.

The day all romance authors actually discover that, the world will be a better place, because people will stop feeding toxicity, and placing disproportionate expectations on the shoulders of others.