Sui Generis

My Thoughts on the Daniel Brusilovsky Situation

Feb 8, 2010 life, People, Technology

Thanks for coming back. =). Glad to see you. If there's anything I can do for you, I'd love to hear from you. Drop me an email, or leave a comment, introduce yourself. I'd love to connect with you. Or if you have your own blog, why not let me promote your work?

By now, those of you in the social media scene have probably heard of the incident with Daniel Brusilovsky and TechCrunch. For those of you who don’t, here’s a rundown of the situation. Daniel was interning for TechCrunch, and allegedly asked for a Macbook Air in exchange for a post about a startup. TechCrunch found out about it, and fired Daniel, who followed up with a personal statement, admitting that “a line was crossed”, but not quite saying much else.

To be perfectly honest, I’ve been quite intrigued by the whole scenario. I honestly did not know of Daniel before this (though I probably should have), so it was interesting. To see another young blogger do something like this, and the reactions that its received.

Personally, I think what Daniel has done is indefensible. A group of us bloggers in Singapore recently had a meetup where we were just talking about the up-and-coming culture of bloggers asking to be paid. And I’m personally hugely against it. So, that’s where I stand on the whole issue. Daniel was wrong, and deserved to be fired.

The main two things that catch my attention, though, are these.

Firstly, Daniel’s statement. He doesn’t quite admit to anything on this. He says “a line was crossed that should have never been”, but that he “[does] not want to go into details”. He also seems to make excuses, claiming his youth. He then makes a request for privacy. You know what the statement reminds me of? Tiger Woods’ statement after his accident at the end of last year. It feels like a crafted statement, to reveal as little as possible, and try to sweep everything under the rug as quickly as he can.

Dewey Hammond put it perfectly well when he tweeted the following:

Ppl praising @danielbru ask yourself this: After getting caught red-handed what other choice did he have but to apologize?

And that’s what it strikes me as. An apology (not even an apology, but a statement), for the sake of it because he was already busted. Of course, I could be wrong, but personally, reading that, it didn’t seem particularly sincere or remorseful. I’d like for him to come out and be straight about it, and say “I did this. It was wrong, there was no excuse for it.”

Secondly, and more importantly, I think is the fact that lots of people are saying that people should cut him some slack because he is a kid. Yes, he is a kid, but kids can and do take on responsibilities too. (And for what it’s worth, from the way his statement itself is crafted, it seems to me that he’s more than smart enough to have known what he was doing.)

Granted, I’m a couple of years older than him (and am not quite anywhere near his level of fame), but speaking as a kid, I don’t think he should be excused on those grounds. Us “kids” are always asking to be treated and respected as adults, and well, to quote Spiderman, “with great power comes great responsibility”. You can’t have it both ways – you can’t ask to be respected as an adult, but hide behind the image of being a kid if you make a mistake.

If you want to hide behind the label of a kid, stay in the playground. Once you choose to step out, you need to face the responsibilities of being an adult – and own up to your mistakes. It may sound harsh, but that’s my 2 cents.

Tags: apology, daniel brusilovsky, kid, payola, responsibility, techcrunch, transparency

Using a Hammer Could Get You Fired

Feb 5, 2010 Technology

It could, if you used it to hit your boss, or a co-worker. Or if you used it to smash your office desk to bits.

My point is, the hammer is just a tool. It’s how you use it that could get you fired (or not). It’s the same for these social networking tools, such as Facebook and Twitter. There’s lots of press lately about how using these tools could ruin your reputation, or get you fired. The latest example being this article on MediaPost.

And yes, what they write is completely valid. Companies are still not fully adjusted to this new world of social media, and if you overstep the bounds that they set, you could get fired. So yes, you probably do have to be careful, to a certain extent.

At the end of the day, though, it’s not about the tool. Twitter, Facebook – these are just tools. How you use it could get you fired, true. But that’s the same of any tool.

Tags: facebook, tool, twitter, usage

Experience, Not Effects

Jan 11, 2010 personal branding, Technology

I finally got around to watching Avatar today, the 3-D, IMAX version of it. It was an interesting show, the plot definitely has a bit too many similarities to Pocohantas for my liking (as many have pointed out). I liked the mini-satirical messages in it, though.

That’s not what I want to write about, though. What struck me the most about Avatar was the 3-D. And it struck me the most actually because it didn’t stand out. In most 3-D movies, the fact that it’s 3-D is extremely noticeable. In most 3-D movies, the 3-D doesn’t really seem natural or real, to the point of even causing giddiness at times. Or maybe the giddiness is just me. Either way, the 3-D is normally too noticeable, in a bad way.

Avatar was different, though. The 3-D effects were natural. It almost didn’t feel like I was watching a 3-D movie, until I specifically paid attention to the depth and all. It was done so well, it seemed completely natural, and it just immersed you into the world.

I think this is important. That the effects (and at the end of the day, 3-D is just an effect) don’t take away from the movie. The effects have to blend in, seem natural, and enhance the movie, not stand out so much that it detracts from the overall experience.

And I think it’s true for any product we build as well. It’s easy to get distracted by features and enhancements. It’s easy to think add more an more things, in an attempt to make the product more impressive. But we have to remember that, at the end of the day, it’s about the overall experience, not about features.

It’s also something we need to consider when building our personal brands. We need to remember the main overall message we want to send out. It’s easy to get distracted by other things. I know I’ve suffered from this. For this blog, for example. It’s so easy, and I’ve done this too, to come across a new plugin and think “I need to have that”. But I think we need to really consider how each additional “feature” we add will affect the overall experience, and as such our overall brands.

We need to stay focused, and remember that it’s about the whole experience, not about special effects. Special effects should only be there to enhance the experience.

Tags: 3-d, 3-d film, avatar, experience, features, special effects

One Day, One Job

Jan 2, 2010 ideas, Technology

I came across One Day, One Job a while back, and thought it was about time I shared it. I think it’s a great blog, really useful for students. Nothing much for me to add to it, just that it’s a great, simple, straightforward site. Does what it says, provides good content that you expect.

I think there’s an opportunity here, though. Take a leaf out of Willy’s book. Do something like that for your city. Or do one specifically for online/virtual/telecommute jobs. Or one specifically for design jobs.

Lots of ways to spin that angle, that could be just as successful. Just thought I’d throw the idea out there.

Tags: one day one job, telecommute

Privacy vs The Social Web

Dec 30, 2009 personal branding, Technology

A few days ago I asked what you are hiding. And suitably, I just came across this story about Eric Shmidt saying that “secrets are for filthy people”.

I know this is going to spark some huge disagreement, but I can’t say I completely disagree with him. But that’s besides the point. What I want to bring attention to is how everyone seems to be protesting vehemently and insisting on their privacy.

Yes, I do understand where they are coming from, but the fact of the matter is this. Privacy as we know it is a thing of the past, and that trend is not likely to stop. These people insisting on their privacy sound very much to me like Tiger Woods’ request last month for “some privacy” after his accident.

It may seem like a reasonable request, but like it or not, it was never going to happen. We all know how that turned out for him, and how he’s suffering from it now. The basic fact is, as a celebrity, people are always going to be “intrusive”, and having privacy is almost impossible. He can’t have it both ways – he can’t be in the limelight and make millions while he’s doing well, and ask to slink into the shadows when things don’t go his way.

And neither can we. We can’t say we want the benefits of micro-celebrity and the value of social interactions that come with the web, but refuse the intrusion of privacy that comes with it. It’s tough, but that’s the way it is.

So what can you do? You are left with one of two choices, in my opinion.

1. Refuse anything that comes with branding yourself/getting known on the web, and get your privacy with it. This means minimal or no Facebook or social networking, no blogs, etc. You lose the huge opportunity the web gives you to stand out, but you gain your privacy. Some people are perfectly happy with this option, like my mother, and manage it quite well.
2. Embrace the social web, and everything that comes with it. Make use of it to develop your personal brand and build connections. Try to be as authentic as you can, and with nothing to hide, of course. But be prepared that if you have secrets (and face it, we all do), they might easily come back to haunt you. And learn to manage that scenario accordingly.

I think it’s obvious that I’m in camp number 2. What about you? Are you ready to accept that you have little (or no) privacy, as a trade-off to the benefits of the social web? Or do you think there’s a middle ground?

Photo by stevendepolo

Tags: micro-celebrity, personal brand, privacy, secrets, social web, tiger woods

Real Gifts, Virtual Addresses – A New Opportunity

Dec 29, 2009 Companies, ideas, Technology

Have you come across TigerBow yet? If you haven’t, you should check it out. I haven’t got the chance to use it yet, because it doesn’t accept my Singapore postal code (which has 6 digits vs America’s 5), and as such cannot authenticate my credit card. That said, I think it’s a great idea. Sending a gift to a virtual recipient.

I think this speaks greatly about the nature of relationships nowadays, and how they’re moving online, but that’s not what I want to highlight here. What I do want to highlight is the opportunity here for other companies. Imagine if Amazon implemented something like that. They already have an option to ship an object as a gift to someone else, why not allow the shopper to send the gift to a virtual recipient in the same process that TigerBow does? Shouldn’t take too long, and shouldn’t be too hard for them to implement.

Or what about other startups? Why hasn’t someone built a system like that, but allowing the user to choose any object from Amazon? In my mind, it could be as simple as a 3 page process. On the first page, let the user input his name, the recipients name, and the Amazon product url. On the second, let the user select a delivery method, and optional wrapping/card, etc. And the third page would be for checkout. The system then sends a message to the recipient, like Tigerbow does, and if the recipient wants to receive it, he inputs his mailing address. The system can then place an order on Amazon for the object, ship it to the startup’s office, where it can be wrapped and all, and then send it out to the recipient. If the startup’s office is in America, the shipping costs wouldn’t increase too much, I think (it’d just be one additional local shipment to America).

It’d take some manual effort, but I definitely think it’s feasible. What do you think? Anyone up for trying it?

Tags: amazon, gifts, opportunity, startup, tigerbow, virtual recipient

The Problem with Twitter Trust Metrics

Dec 27, 2009 Technology

Charles Green from Trusted Advisor just wrote a post about measuring trust on Twitter.

I think it’s an interesting measurement, but there are issues with it. He mentions the biggest one, saying

clipped from trustedadvisor.com

The biggest problem comes not in the measurement, but in the subject matter. So it is with trust. In the TweetLevel tool, trust is largely a function of how many people cite you. That’s perfectly reasonable. People definitely hang on Perez Hilton’s words a lot more than on mine.

But it does beg a huge trust question: trust Perez Hilton to do what? To say what? To behave how? What is it that we trust about John Mayer–and is it the same thing as for which we’re trusting Oprah?

That speaks for itself, I think. Nothing more to add there.

My biggest worry, however, is the possible effects this measurement may have. As much as I see the value of measuring something, a measurement like this brings a lot of false promises. Most importantly, trust is a very personal thing. What matters is how much each individual trusts you, it’s not a question of broad statistics, in my opinion.

The issue of a trust metric like that is this. Once you put a number to something, people tend to strive for higher numbers. It’s the nature of human competitiveness, kind of. And I fear that the more we put a number to trust, the more people will try to game the system just to get higher numbers, making more retweetable tweets, etc. And that could easily lead to even less personal interaction.

TweetLevel measures how often you’re cited, and that’s certainly valuable. But we need to not confuse this too much with trust. Yes, it’s probably a reflection that people trust what you say, and think you have valuable input. But do they really trust you? And I think that’s the main question. You can be having personal conversations on Twitter, things that others don’t retweet. Your trust metric won’t go up, but because your conversations are personal, the person on the receiving end gets to build a relationship with you more and gets to trust you. Is this any worse than being retweeted often? I’d say not.

A while ago, Chris Brogan wrote this:

clipped from www.chrisbrogan.com

I’d go to Savvy Auntie because Melanie Notkin will give me advice that would help me buy for kids, where Amazon’s just too big to feel helpful in that regard.

I’d go to Wine Library because Gary Vaynerchuk will take the fear factor out of buying something I’m not educated about.

I’d go to Glynne’s Soaps because I appreciate Gayle and Jennifer’s efforts via social media, so it’s like buying from a friend.

And I think that’s more important. What you do with the “trust” that you have. It’s all well and good having high numbers, with people retweeting you all the time.

But you need to remember to ask two things. Firstly, what are they retweeting? And secondly, how are you relating to those who are retweeting you? It’s not all just about retweets. There’s also huge value (perhaps more) in a personal relation, that cannot be captured from that.

Tags: authenticity, measurements, relationships, trust