MY URBAN KVETCH

Manifesto: Social Media and Jewish Organizations

I "virtually attended" this year's JFNA General Assembly via Twitter, specially noting the tweets about the social media workshops and the night-time Tweetup: the sense of excitement was palpable, not just that people who already use Twitter showed up for drinks, but that there were many older people there, people who were less experienced with social media, but wanted to learn. 

There was a time in my life when I might have considered myself primarily a freelance writer. But as Jewish journalism struggles with its relationship to technology, it has also cut back on freelance budgets. Although I still primarily define my life's work as writing, this year I've done more paid work in blogging, social media and online marketing/PR consulting than I have Jewish journalism. My clients have been individuals and non-profit organizations, have hailed from both New York, Los Angeles and Canada, as well as Israel. (Some L.A. clients I still haven't met in person). Nearly all of my work is through personal referrals - people who trust my expertise and approach and refer me to other people they know and are inspired by. I felt comfortable moving to L.A. last October because I had "met" enough people online to build a community with offline, even starting over in a new city. This world - of social referrals and connections - is my professional and personal world, but increasingly, it's how we all live. 

It was for this reason that "You Can't Tweet Your Way Out of This Dilemma," Gail Hyman's post in eJewishPhilanthropy, caught my attention and inspired what has become a somewhat lengthy post about social media's culture and impact potential for individuals and Jewish organizations. 

Hyman writes (emphasis mine):

The good news is that lots of people who either wanted to ignore or minimize the importance of the rapid rise in social media, are now paying attention. The not-so-good news is that they are stressing over their own ignorance about how to effectively use the new tools, how to respond to pressures from some of their younger, hipper supporters to get proficient and get onboard, and most importantly worrying about where to find the talent to lead their newly important technology-driven marketing and communications efforts and make them look good.

Stress over ignorance

While this fear and stress is true for some organizations, I've found a steady demand from Jewish organizations who need decently-priced, accessible expertise to help them understand the culture of social media and suggest solutions to take them to the next level. (I know that some of my colleagues, including my friends at Darim Online, will agree.) These organizations are a delight to help, because they a) are forward-thinking enough to consider what their futures look like in the technology age, and b) acknowledge that they need someone to help who can respect organizational history and still offer solutions that will advance their mission. To invoke the old "how many psychologists does it take to change a lightbulb" joke, "the lightbulb has to want to change." The culture of change is very difficult to embrace, but if there's anything that Jews believe across denominational lines, is that ignorance is not a chronic condition, and learning is good. 

History, Short-Attention-Span Style: Newsweek and Facebook Present "The Decade in Seven Minutes"

Do you remember the world before Facebook? Before music lived on a computer, or was transmitted through your white earbuds from your iPod? In the last ten years, there's been death and destruction, human and natural, worldwide. There were cultural advancements and economic depressions. Go back even further. Remember Y2K? Elian Gonzalez? Hanging chads? And then, of course, there was 9/11. And everything else.

We know all of this, of course, because we lived it.  

But in case we forgot, Newsweek teamed up with Facebook and presents "The Decade in Seven Minutes" - the images are packed in there densely, the narrator speaks speedily, and of course, the news items are mentioned with no analysis. The entire decade passes again before our eyes. 

Newsweek recently redesigned the content and format of its print magazine to focus less on news and more on analysis, an act of submission to the changing world of journalism. This liaison with Facebook also seems to evoke a white flag raised to the reality of how today's citizens get and process their news. It seems that Newsweek hopes that the interest online will translate to an interest in the publication, however it evolves in the years to come. Meanwhile, I'm letting my subscription to print-edition Newsweek expire, but joined the Fan Page; while this is more convenient for me, how does it pay a publication's staff? 

It's a smart strategy to involve social media. But it also emanates the sadness of the industry's great unknowns. 

Digital Hollywood: Publicists, Writers, Content Developers Talk Blogs, Celebs and More

For a woman like me, this Digital Hollywood conference is like a crash course in some things I know and some things I don't know, all at the same time. Obviously, being at a professional conference specifically geared for the entertainment industry in the town I moved to a year ago is a new experience for me: I don't know who the players are; how a TV writer hones her craft and makes connections; how a celebrity gets his or her press; or how Hollywood views the internet. 

And yet, I do.

Sure, there are some processes and politics that are specific to the industry of Hollywood and celebrity gossip. But publicity, whether it's for Spencer and Heidi (whatever) or for a name change at an umbrella organization of Jewish federations (see here), is about two things for a publicist: crafting the message and getting that message out. What the message is is situation-specific; and the modes used for distributing that message should be as well. One could point out a vital third component with two parts: relationship - both the relationship between the publicist and his/her client, and the relationship between the publicist/client entity and members of the press. 

Several ideas and experiences seemed familiar or intuitive to me, but were hailed as innovative by the audience, which consisted of an eclectic group of underemployed, self-employed, publicists, writers, editors, actors, producers, content developers, web designers, techie coder geeks, advertising representatives, lawyers, event planners and professional schmoozers. With a group that large and diverse, programming had to be similarly diverse in terms of appeal and approach, and in many cases it was. But it's hard to speak to a group with so many degrees of online literacy

For instance, if you didn't realize that making it in Hollywood was hard, well, you would after attending the conference - at one point I imagined Debbie Allen in the corner, leaning on a dance stick, giving her monologue ("You got big dreams? You want fame? Well fame costs...and right here's where you start paying -- in sweat." FAME!). Also, did you know that "Glee" was popular in part due to its premiere over the summer and then the anticipatory build until the season began in September? Or, that "The Office" didn't have that strong a following at first, but then built because of the online audience? Or that "Dr. Horrible" was financed personally by Joss Whedon? Or that the "Mad Men" characters have been Tweeting, but that they're not supported by AMC - they're a fan initiative? I've never been to a tech conference before, but I, in fact, did know all these things. But the oohs and aahs of the audience proved that not everyone reads Entertainment Weekly like I do.

There also seemed to be unrelenting criticism of bloggers as panelists and attendees seemed to alternately thank the bloggers for mobilizing fans online and condemn them for their unpredictability, and for not following traditional journalism's rules. This constant reference to all bloggers as unprofessional (which is not the same thing as calling them "not journalists") highlighted the fact that people don't get it: blogging is a tool, and all kinds of people use that tool to do all kinds of writing. (This disconnect is something those of us in Jewish journalism/commentary have seen before, if you remember "Jewish Bloggers Are Not the Enemies of Jewish Storytelling.")

Some bloggers write journalistically, others juvenilely.  And there's a continuum, of course. Many of us do employ a different tone than traditional journalism, and write in this tone because the medium's democracy and immediacy lends itself to the personal lens that most bloggers take to the subjects about which they're most passionate. But for the most part, I heard people blame bloggers more than thank them: for leaking stories, for lying, for being a source of negative press, for being uncontrollable, for being unprofessional, for ushering traditional journalism toward its deathbed...I was waiting to hear how bloggers were responsible for higher taxes, Michael Jackson's death, and 9/11, but I guess I missed that session. 

Using Social Media to Stalk Your Kids

It's funny because it's true. And what's even funnier is that I was sent the link to this video by my parents. Gotta love the Onion - this broadcast is pitch perfect, capturing the super-sunny morning vibe of the AM talk show, complete with chipper hosts and manufactured banter between them and the expert. Seriously: remember, I've been there myself.
Facebook, Twitter Revolutionizing How Parents Stalk Their College-Aged Kids

And My Purim Costume Was...

I was my Facebook profile for Purim. Awesome.

Many of the people who saw this picture thought I had just sent them a picture of my Facebook profile. They didn't get the 3D nature of it - which I credit to my amazing acting skills, that I am able to visualize myself as a photograph and appear two-dimensional.

As many of you know, I have many halfway decent ideas throughout the course of the day, but generally lack the artistic ability to make something like this happen. Which is why I had the forethought to live with a talented visual artist and graphic designer. All I had to do was utter the idea, and Eileen said, "that's easy - should take an hour or so" - and off we went, designing, copyediting, resizing, printing, cutting, pasting and taping the thing into submission, and at the end of the hour (or so), I had an awesome costume.

Eileen's great, creative and freelancing, so send work her way.
Here are more pictures of the project in its various stages of development.

Lindsay Lohan Considering Judaism?

The Daily Mail brings us the latest news about Lindsay Lohan, who is rumored to be considering conversion to Judaism. In case you've been living under a rock, the reason for Lindsay's religious shift is not a driving desire to celebrate the upcoming holiday of Purim but because Lindsay's girlfriend Samantha Ronson is Jewish.

The occasion for the latest frenzy over Lohan's religious affiliation was that she attended Ronson's half-brother's bar mitzvah at a Westminster synagogue:

Showing her seriousness about converting, Lindsay had also visited the synagogue the day before with Samantha and her designer sister Charlotte. Entering the synagogue, a photographer asked Lindsay if she was switching religions, to which she replied: 'I'm trying.' Updating her Facebook status this week, Lindsay wrote 'I'm converting'.

Many commenters on a similar story on Haaretz doubt Lohan's commitment to the religion, and Lindsay's own dad thinks it's another phase of religious exploration, noting that she's already plowed through Kabbalah and Scientology. "But either way, she's involving God in her life, and I'm happy about that," he said.

Besides, we all know that Facebook status updates need to be taken seriously. If I ever convert to another religion, I promise to let you all know about it via Facebook.

Scrabulous: G-O-N-E but not F-O-R-G-O-T-T-E-N

In the aftermath of the demise of Scrabulous--the Scrabble-style application for Facebook that was recently yanked for copyright infringement--there's a lot of finger-pointing by angry fans feeling the loss in their fingertips. Facebook has said they're just an impartial third-party, but CNET has a different perspective: that Facebook has actually long-policed the applications for various reasons, and made a decision to leave Scrabulous alone:

Scrabulous was a Facebook favorite. Founder Mark Zuckerberg professed to being an active user, and company insiders spoke highly of the game. There was good reason for it: Scrabulous was a brainy game devoid of zombies and vampires, it was created by small-time developers rather than an "app factory," its roots in a classic board game gave it cross-generational appeal, and it was addictive enough to keep Facebook users glued to the site.

It was also extremely popular. If Facebook had pulled Scrabulous on its own, the PR ramifications could've been just as bad as getting ensnared in a legal tiff. Claiming to be "neutral," however dubious a claim, was a very calculated response on Facebook's part.

In an article about the new look of Facebook, Charged notes that one of the site's improvements is something called "Great Apps," which "will recommend popular applications which are known to be reliable and attractive."

But none of this changes the fact that Scrabulous is gone. And adjustment to the post-Scrab era is R-O-U-G-H, as this new piece (written by yours truly) at Pajamas Media notes. How are you adjusting? Comment here, or there, or anywhere.

President's Conference Update/Rumor Mill-Updated

So, here's what I heard...

There was supposed to be this "crowned heads of internet" type panel at the President's Conference, featuring Sergey Brin from Google, Sue Decker from Yahoo and Mark Zuckerberg (not Zuckerman, as many of the press releases indicated) from Facebook. Note my use of the term "supposed to be." Rumor has it that Zuckerberg has canceled and will not appear. Speculation is that he's a little uncomfortable with my "Weekly Zuckerberg" category. Or perhaps this is a reflection of the recent migration of several of Google's top people to Facebook? Or more likely, that he's really just too busy. Although I don't see why Sergey can't just pick him up in his private jet on the way east. (UPDATED MAY 7: This release lists Brin and Decker, but not Zuckerberg, so I guess it's official.)

So to recap: Zuckerberg out. But Voight in. Angelina's dad, actor Jon Voight,  is coming to Israel to attend the conference and to pay a solidarity visit to the city of Sderot, as well as welcome Chabad’s Children of Chernobyl’s (CCOC) 80th rescue mission airlifting children from irradiated regions in Ukraine, Belarus and Western Russia.

Seinfeld fans remember the episode about Jon Voight's car...here's Voight on the episode:

Engaged for a Day: The April Fool's Facebook Experiment

Did you ever wonder how much technology was taking over your life, and if your online persona was capable of doing things that your offline persona would never do? The one-step-removed aspect of online interaction is one that I find endlessly fascinating, as is the culture of Facebook, which allows people to follow my moves with as much information as I give them (and as much time/inclination as they have to do so).

I've mused before about the numbers of "friends" we all have on Facebook. The likelihood that most of them are actually friends of the sort you'd invite to your birthday dinner or to seder with the family is very low. I mean, people have hundreds of them. I tried to keep my list down, but it was fruitless. Even the restriction of "only accept friend requests from people you know in real life" doesn't help: I meet 120 people each summer. I went on tour with Coolooloosh and Subliminal/the TACT Family. I go to conferences with hundreds or thousands of people in attendance. I live on the Upper West Side. I think I just met five new "friends" while writing this post drinking my coffee in my apartment. Keeping my magic number down is not an option. And I realize that's a blessing.

But the question remains. How much do those people really know me? And how finely tuned in to my status update are they? If I suddenly became the opposite of my public persona, on April 1, no less, would people realize it was a joke, or assume that because they read it online it must be true? Or would people think it was a technical error? Or am I just suffering from blazing egomania in even thinking that people stay tuned to as silly a mechanism as the status feed?

Facebook Fools' Day Experiment: Change "Relationship Status" from "Single" to "Engaged"

Duration: 18 hours: 12:30am-6:30pm April 1

Findings: 35 respondents=15 email messages, 20 wall posts in a 18-hour period. About 70% of responses understood that the status change was a joke. About 25% of responses wished me mazal tov and wanted to know who the lucky guy was or why they were first hearing about this now. And 5% were threatened marriage proposals. From guys who are already in relationships. (Just to give you an idea of what's out there.) Most of my regular posse of New Yorkers knew better than to even respond. Or maybe they're too busy.

Analysis/Conclusions: I was expecting a few people to fall for it, and for most to understand that it was a joke because it was April 1. That my expectations were met proves that people (even my non dinner party friends) actually know me a bit better than perhaps I might have thought. I did think that someone might think it was a technical glitch, like when the JDate site redesign reset all women's profiles to read "I do not plan on having any children."

It did teach me that with over a thousand friends, I can't stay in close contact with all of them, and as a consequence, so much of the public perception of me is based on the information I share online. That's a power I need to continue to wield responsibly and accurately.

Still, some people need to get out more.

I have to admit that being engaged for a day was pretty fun--I'd like to do it for real someday, maybe with someone else to share the joy with.

Other resources: today's Urban Dictionary definition.

Any great April Fool's jokes to share? If you fell for it, admit it here and feel all better. (UPDATED: Here's one I fell for. Those darned Googlers are so funny...)

Zuckerberg=Paris Hilton? To Blame for SXSW Interview?

Although most people are blaming journalist Sarah Lacy for the interview with Zuckerberg at SXSWi this week, ZDNet's Steve O'Hear says he blames Mr. Facebook himself--as well as the instant commentary of Twitter--for how wrong it went:

[...] Lacy might have done a better job. But Zuckerberg’s relentless attempts to stay on message and lack of charisma (on stage at least) is ultimately what killed it for me. However, I think another factor in the keynote’s downfall was the use of Twitter as a so-called ‘back channel’. With keynote attendees able to share live commentary instantly, a negative response can spread like wildfire in a profound way that is very different to what’s possible without such connectivity.

Chantelle Oliver at The Walrus (Canada's Magazine of the Year) reads into the event as an anti-feminist "Punk'd"-style stunt, comparing Zuckerberg to Paris Hilton, who recently punk'd the paparazzi with help from Ashton Kutcher:

[Lacy] had been punk’d by the newest would-be reality show: Cewebrity Priapus. Zuckerberg played the part of Paris Hilton and the audience was his shaman. Like Ashton poking fun at the paparazzi, Cewebrity’s producers are poking fun at the idea a woman journalist ought dare to question a cewebrity. Spurred into action by the recent reports of the feminization of the Internet the show actively defends the genitalia of founding fathers of social networking and their lemming sons.

Lacy is one of the only women reporting on tech, and seems pretty nonplussed in the afterwards of it all, talking about how it went.