Saturday, February 27, 2010

LjjSpeaks: Blogpost - What To Do When Your Bootstraps Break | Lynne Jarman-Johnson

By Lynne Jarman-Johnson
February 27, 2010

When The Bootstrap Breaks

We’ve heard the term, “pull yourself up by your bootstraps.”   Where did it come from and does it accurately give us inspiration to improve our own situations by our own efforts?  In 1922 James Joyce wrote in Ulysses*: 

"There were others who had forced their way to the top from the lowest rung by the aid of their bootstraps."  

This is most likely the first time “the bootstrap” was put in written form as a motivational tool.

What happens when the bootstrap breaks?  Why can some people pull themselves out of the most horrific, awkward, confusing, scary, life-threatening, bottom of the barrel situations and others cannot get a leg up?

I believe that there are those that won’t help themselves even if they have the tools to do so. I also think that there are those that receive the tools but have never been taught the steps to feel the pride from success shine from their heart to their eyes, so they stay in the same situation, or fall lower.  Yet, I think the overwhelming majority of us who find ourselves facing something that is uncomfortable or negative simply do not know how or when to ask for help.  

Just the term “pull yourself up by your bootstraps” says, “Do it yourself. Don’t ask for help.”  What we need to do is be open and honest on every level. We need to face our situation and understand it and show that we have the gumption to get out of the mess.  We need to share our fears and our hopes and dreams.  We need to lay everything out on the table.

Once we start to pull ourselves up it’s time to reach out and ask for a hand up.  (This my friend is not the same as a hand out) 

How do you mend a broken bootstrap: 

1) Face the reality of your situation and show you are taking steps to fix it. 
2) Don’t be afraid to let others learn about your situation and help where they can.
3) Communicate openly and honestly every step of the way. 
4) Stop the blame game.
5) Thank those who help you.

A bootstrap can be broken. It can also be mended. We’re all in this together.  Thanks to all of you who help me out every day.  I’ve got some amazingly strong bootstraps thanks to you! 

Posted via email from LJJ Speaks!

LjjSpeaks: Content works after hard work & success. But only for 20 minutes. Then it's time to un-content yourself & move ahead.

Friday, February 26, 2010

LinkedIn Searching Advances SEO: Get To The Point: Marketprofs.com

Original Post:  http://pauldunay.com/linkedin-search-optimization-lso/


LinkedIn: Time to Plug and Play

The rise of search engine optimization (SEO) was a huge change for the marketing profession. But for B2B marketers, there's a new game in town: LinkedIn Search Optimization, or LSO, as Paul Dunay dubs it in a recent Buzz Marketing for Technology post. You can use LinkedIn's advanced search feature—it's similar to plugging in keywords for a search engine query—to see where you and other technology executives appear. If you haven't already done so, it's a good time to explore LSO.

Start by searching for terms where you would expect the major executives in your company to appear, says Dunay. If they don't surface on the first page of the results, then edit the profiles to clarify what the individuals do and what their strengths are. Here are some specifics to keep in mind when editing an exec profile:

  • Use keyword-rich statements in bios and current role descriptions.
  • Make sure an exec's headline contains information on his/her current expertise—not last-job details, which is the default.
  • Email addresses should be at the end of the summary area or in the contact field labeled "public."
  • All execs should make a habit of frequent status updates.

"People in their network are most likely interested in their new projects and professional achievements—why not keep them abreast of what's happening so they can refer them to a friend," says Dunay.

He concludes by citing personal-branding expert Dan Schawbel, who suggests crafting profiles that are rich in common keywords such as "Facebook Marketing" and "Social Media."

The Po!nt: With LinkedIn emerging as an essential marketing tool, LSO is a new practice that B2B marketers need to keep a close watch on.

Source: BuzzMarketingforTechnology. Read full post here.

Check out our online seminar, New Tips on Marketing with LinkedIn Today, for the inside scoop on LinkedIn's newest features and tools from the company's community manager. For even more great info, get LinkedIn Success Stories, a new collection of 11 case studies on how companies are using LinkedIn to boost their marketing plans.


Lynne Jarman-Johnson is a Premium member of MarketProfs.com

Posted via email from LJJ Speaks!

Facebook Dominates Social Content-Sharing: EMarketer.com

Original Post: http://www.emarketer.com/Article.aspx?R=1007530


Facebook Dominates Social Content-Sharing

FEBRUARY 23, 2010 

Widgets widely used to share entertaining content


While Q3 2009 data showed e-mail on top for content-sharing, February 2010 information from social optimization platform Gigya points to Facebook as the Web’s top social sharing hub.

Almost one-half of article links, videos, photos and other content shared via Gigya’s widgets are posted to Facebook, with another 29% broadcast through tweets.

Social sharing widget AddThis also distributed the most content on Facebook (33%), followed by a long tail of other options. Similar results were posted in summer 2009 by the AddToAny sharing widget; Facebook, with 24% of shares, took the top spot.

In addition to sharing content with contacts, social site logins are often chosen as a method of user authentication on third-party sites. Facebook was No. 1 for this purpose as well, but usage was dependent on content type, indicating that Facebook users may be most concerned with sharing fun, entertaining content on the network.

The social giant’s 52% share of authentications on entertainment sites dropped to just 31% on news sites, where Google made a close second place showing with 30% of logins. Yahoo! also boosted its share to one-quarter of news site authentications.

Keep up on the latest digital trends. Learn more about an eMarketerTotal Access subscription today.

Posted via email from LJJ Speaks!

Get People On Board! How To Combat Resistance to Change! Harvard Business Review

FEBRUARY 26, 2010
4 Tools for Battling Change Resistance
Any change effort is likely to face a few change resisters. Unfortunately, even if these resisters are few and far between, they can quickly erode momentum and stop change in its tracks. Here are four tools to help you get people on board.
  1. Cold, hard facts. Use evidence to show that change is necessary and possible. Get your facts from multiple sources and be diligent about details; even a small error can discredit your case for change.
  2. Counter-arguments. Know what your opponents are saying and be prepared to acknowledge their concerns and offer a compelling argument for your case.
  3. Big picture. In the short term, change is uncomfortable. Look at the big picture and explain why the change is the right move for the long term.
  4. Repetition and pressure. Stay on message, repeat your best arguments, and apply the necessary pressure to turn the change-averse around.

Posted via email from LJJ Speaks!

LjjSpeaks: Ready! Aim! .........Inspire!

Lynne Jarman- Johnson
iPhone: 616.666.1969
www.TheJjWay.com

Posted via email from LJJ Speaks!

Wednesday, February 24, 2010

Harvard Business Pub: Forced restructuring of boards is not positive for companies. Is it Gender or Age/Experience?

Original Post:  http://www.bus.umich.edu/NewsRoom/ArticleDisplay.asp?news_id=18682


ANN ARBOR, Mich. — New SEC rules will require public firms to disclose what role, if any, diversity plays in appointing members to their corporate boards, but Ross School researchers say any forced restructuring of boards in the name of equality could hurt companies.

"Boards are chosen in order to increase shareholder wealth," says Amy Dittmar, associate professor of finance. "Placing restrictions on the composition of a board will reduce value."

Currently, there is no SEC-mandated definition of what constitutes diversity and there are no restrictions on who companies can appoint to their boards. Corporate nominating and governance committees may consider such factors as professional experience, education, gender, race or national origin.

A new study by Dittmar and Ross School colleague Kenneth Ahern, assistant professor of finance, analyzes the impact of a 2003 Norwegian law requiring all public-limited firms to have at least 40 percent representation of women on their boards of directors by 2005. At the time, only 9 percent of board seats in Norway were held by women. After voluntary compliance failed, the law became effective Jan. 1, 2006, with a two-year transition period. Firms that did not comply by January 2008 would be forced to dissolve.

Using a panel of 130 publicly listed Norwegian firms from 2001 to 2007, the researchers found a negative impact of the mandated board changes on firm value—a result that may be applicable to the United States and Britain since Norway's system of governance is similar. A few other European countries are also considering gender quota laws or initiatives.

Dittmar and Ahern found that the stock price of an average firm dropped 2.6 percent in the three days following the first announcement of the new law and 5 percent for firms that had no women on their boards at the time of the February 2002 announcement.

The researchers also used a common market-based measure of corporate governance to determine firm value: Tobin's Q, a ratio of a company's market capitalization to the replacement cost of its assets (the sum of total assets and market equity less common equity divided by total assets).

They found that when a firm experienced at least a 10-percent increase in the proportion of women on its board, Tobin's Q dropped 18 percent.

"The negative effect of the regime shift supports the hypothesis that board structure affects value," Ahern says. "Firms that were required to make the most drastic change to their boards also suffered the largest negative returns. Our results indicate that boards do matter and that constraining the selection of board members has a large negative impact on value."

Dittmar and Ahern are quick to point out, however, that a loss in firm value was not caused by the gender of the new board members, but rather by their young age and lack of high-level work experience. In fact, gender effect is not significant once you account for these other experience-related differences, they say.

"The constraint imposed by the 40-percent women quota led firms to recruit women board members that were younger and had different career experiences than the existing directors," Dittmar says. "It is reasonable to suggest that these changes led to decreases in firm value because new directors did not have the same monitoring or advising capabilities of the other directors before the imposed change.

"When firms were free to choose directors before the rule, they tended to choose women that were similar to men directors. This is consistent with the idea that the large demand and small supply for women directors after the adoption of the 40-percent quota forced firms to choose directors that they would not have chosen otherwise."

Posted via email from LJJ Speaks!

LjjSpeaks: Let's just say the early bird gets the worm. That means the late worm pretty much is golden.

It's the year to say Yes to saying No! Awesome ideas: Harvard Business Publishing | Alexandra Samuel

      Subject: Join our new working group?

      Subject: Time to meet for coffee?

      Subject: Beta invitation for new web app

      Subject: Sign up for 2010 lecture series?

      If your January inbox looks like mine, it's full of requests and invitations. The problem with the New Year's holiday is that everyone resolves to do more at the same time. So each January brings a new batch of eager clients, exciting projects and easy-to-make commitments. It's when we resolve to try new technologies, commit to new communications channels, and become regulars at new web sites.

      You can look forward to the stimulation and excitement that comes with all of this, but it's a fine line. If you're not careful, you'll hit Groundhog day facing overload and exhaustion. You have to be selective about what you take on — and disciplined about retiring longstanding activities to make room for new ones. In other words, you have to be able to say, No. Frequently, politely and effectively.

      The good news is that the same technologies that threaten to overload you with to-dos and appointments can also help you to say no. Here's how I use my computer and the social web as allies in the discipline of saying no:

      Set your intentions. Before you start saying no, make it clear to yourself what you want to say yes to. Sites like43Things.com and SuperViva.com invite users to make a list of goals they want to achieve and experiences they want to have. Taking the time to write down your dreams can help you clarify what's important to you, identify what you want to cross off this year, and get the community support to achieve it.

      Prioritize your commitments. Use a spreadsheet to capture every single project you're working on — even projects you've only started in your mind but know you want to attack. Create a second column to assign a priority level to each project, ranking items from 1-5 based on your gut level response. Then create a third column to jot down the name of anyone who could take over or help with each project on the list. Sort your projects according to priority, and set aside all but the top-priority items that can only be handled by you personally.

      Make it easy to say no. When my e-mail inbox piles up with unanswered messages, you can bet that it's full of e-mails that require a no — ones that I can't bring myself to write. To make the process easier, I have created a few different signature files in my e-mail client, with polite "no" messages for different circumstances. I'd love to join you, but my schedule is really booked for the next month; or Thanks for thinking of us, but we're only taking on a certain type of client right now; or That sounds like a great project, but my pro bono work is already committed for this quarter. Using these removes the burden of working up the energy to say no so often.

      Streamline your online communications. Between e-mail, text messages, social networks and voicemail, and others, you may have ten different communications channels you need to process on a daily (if not hourly) basis. Consider a digital cleanse to help you evaluate the footprint that all these channels have on your productivity and happiness. Take a week in which you limit your online communications to a bare minimum. At the end of the week, close down your accounts on any networks that take more time than they're worth, or edit your profile on those networks to tell people you prefer to be contacted by other means.

      Make "no" your default answer. Plan on saying no to all new social network invitations, projects, and events. Say yes only if the invitation or opportunity meets a short set of criteria. For example, I look for conferences that combine business development (getting clients), professional development (improving skills or knowledge) and personal development (regeneration or personal growth) and only attend events that promise meaningful value on at least two out of three of those fronts. Write your criteria down and stick them to your screen, or put them on a digital stickie note. Soon, you'll be saying yes to only those opportunities that meet the criteria staring you in the face.

      None of these practices eliminates the anxiety that comes from saying no, or the fear that you may be passing up a fantastic opportunity. But it's precisely because saying no is so difficult that we need tools and systems to help make it a little easier, and a little more habitual. The more you say no, the better you'll perform when dealing with the important few projects or tasks that get a big yes.

      Alexandra Samuel is the Director of the Social + Interactive Media Centre at Emily Carr University, and the co-founder of Social Signal, a Vancouver-based social media agency. You can follow Alex on Twitter as awsamuel or her blog at alexandrasamuel.com.

      Posted via email from LJJ Speaks!

      Tuesday, February 23, 2010

      Americans spending less time yet doing omore online. Marketing Charts

      Original Post: http://www.marketingcharts.com/interactive/americans-spend-less-time-do-more-online-12037/?utm_campaign=newsletter&utm_source=mc&utm_medium=textlink


      US internet users spent less time online in January 2010 than December 2009, but did more with the time they spent, according to data from The Nielsen Company.

      The total number of active US internet users rose 3.8% between December 2009 and January 2010, from 195.7 million to 203.1 million. Those users increased their sessions per person 7.8%, from 51 to 55, and also visited 8.4% more domains, 90 compared to 83. The number of web pages visited per person rose 0.3%, from 2,614 to 2,621.

      However, US internet users were doing more in less time. Monthly PC time per person dropped 8.2%, from 64 hours, nine minutes and 12 seconds to 58 hours, 52 minutes and five seconds. Average duration of a web page dropped 0.2%, but was still measured at 56 seconds after rounding.

      Facebook Time Surges among Parent Companies

      Looking at January 2010 internet activity for top parent companies/divisions, more unique US internet users visited pages and domains owned by Google, 162.5 million, than owned by any other parent or division. Google’s monthly audience grew 4.4%, but the average amount of time spent per person, two hours, five minutes and 19 seconds, decreased 11.7% on a monthly basis.

      Microsoft was the second-most visited parent company/domain, with 143.9 million unique visitors, a 5.9% increase from December 2009. Microsoft’s average time spent per person also decreased 4.1%, to one hour, 57 minutes and 58 seconds.

      Yahoo had the third-highest number of unique visitors, 138.8 million, 6.6% higher than in December 2009. Like Google and Microsoft, Yahoo saw its average time spent per person decrease. The average Yahoo visitor spent two hours, 28 minutes and 33 seconds during January 2010, a significant 15.8% monthly drop.

      Facebook had the fourth-highest number of unique visitors, 116.3 million, a 5.8% monthly increase. Where Facebook dominated its rival parent companies was its strong growth in average amount of time spent per person, which increased 9.7% to seven hours, one minute and 41 seconds. No other parent company or division even broke the three-hour mark. All the parent companies and divisions ranked five through 10 by monthly unique visitors lost average time spent on a monthly basis, with number eight Amazon seeing its average time drop 28.4% to a little more than 25 minutes.

      Facebook Also Dominates Brands in Time Spent

      Facebook was also ranked fourth among individual web brands for January 2010, with the same figures and percentages as it currently has no other independent web domains. As with parent companies and divisions, no other brand broke the three-hour mark for average time spent per person.

      Google came in first among web brands for unique audience with 153.1 million unique visitors, a 4.1% jump from December 2009. Google’s average time spent per person declined 14.4% to one hour, 22 minutes and 26 seconds.

      The most notable difference between the top five parent company/division rankings and web brand rankings was the appearance of Google subsidiary YouTube as the fifth-most visited web brand with 99.5 million unique visitors. YouTube’s unique audience increased 7.6%, but average time spent per person dropped 10.3% to one hour, two minutes and 27 seconds. Considering the relatively small spread between Google’s parent company/division unique visitors and brand visitors, it is clear that most YouTube users also use Google.

      Other differences between the upper echelons of the top parent companies/divisions and top web brands include Yahoo ranking second among brands, mainly because parent company Microsoft is counted as two brands: third-ranked MSN/WindowsLive/Bing and sixth-ranked Microsoft.

      Facebook Popularity on Dramatic Upswing

      Research from other firms also shows Facebook’s popularity dramatically increasing in the past year. In January 2010, Facebook drew about 133.6 million unique US visitors, according tocompete. This was enough unique visitor traffic to put Facebook ahead of Yahoo, which compete says attracted about 132 million unique US visitors last month. Google retained the top spot it has held since February 2008 with about 140 million unique visitors.

      From January to July 2009, Facebook experienced a sharp growth curve, growing from about 68 million to about 122 million unique US visitors, or a roughly 80% increase. From July 2009 to January 2010, Facebook experienced much slower, but fairly steady growth, of about 8%.

      In addition, Facebook experienced 105% growth in total visitors during 2009, according tocomScore. Figures from comScore indicate Facebook had 112 million visitors in December 2009, compared to 55 million in 2008. Facebook took the number one position among social networks for the first time in May 2009.

      Posted via email from LJJ Speaks!

      You've been ignored! Now What? Author: Peter Bregman | Harvard Business Publishing

      Original Post:  http://blogs.hbr.org/bregman/2010/01/when-your-voicemails-and-email.html?cm_mmc=npv-_-MANAGEMENT_TIP-_-FEB_2010-_-MTOD0223&referral=00203

      When Your Voicemails and Emails Go Unanswered, What Should You Do?

        A few months ago Alex, a marketing consultant I know, met with Sam, the head of marketing at a pharmaceutical company, to explore the possibility of doing a branding project.* They had a great meeting. Or so Alex thought.

        But a month later, after the emails and voicemails that Alex left for Sam remained unanswered, Alex was second guessing himself. He figured he did something wrong in the interview and lost the job.

        This is not an isolated situation; I hear some version of this story at least once a week. One person reaches out to another with no response and they interpret the silence negatively.

        I called Sam who happened to be a client of mine and asked about the meeting. "It went very well," Sam told me, "I like Alex a lot. A good fit for the project."

        So why the unreturned emails and messages? "I haven't gotten back to Alex," Sam told me, "Because we don't have financial approval yet. As soon as I get it, I'll call."

        That's a perfectly logical explanation. Sam has nothing new to share with Alex, can't actually offer Alex the job yet, so why share anything at all? We're all too busy to make a phone call or write an email if we don't have to.

        But that leaves Alex in the awkward and insecure position of knowing nothing. Should he send follow up emails and voice mails, pinging Sam to let him know he's still interested and waiting for a response? I sent an email to my brother, Anthony, a film producer who receives over 400 emails a day, to ask what he thought.

        "If I were to get a series of emails from Alex concerned about my silence, I'd be nothing but annoyed. I know how to handle my business, and if I'm not answering someone, pestering me won't help them. They have to wait until I'm ready to answer — I can't have their needs trump my needs."

        "But isn't it an issue of respect?" I emailed him back that evening, a day before Christmas. "Shouldn't Sam send Alex a quick 30-second email telling him he's working on the funding and he'll get back in touch when he knows more?"

        I received Anthony's response when I booted up my computer the next morning: "If Sam has 400 emails to answer a day, 200 of which are crisis emails that he's prioritizing and answering at, say, 2 AM on a holiday night — LIKE THIS EMAIL — then it's not Sam's obligation to write 200 more 30-second emails to people who Sam doesn't need to write to. Alex just needs to wait."

        That's the reality of our work lives these days. We all get more emails than we can answer immediately. So we triage. We deal with the crisis and then, when time opens a little — maybe on a plane ride or a weekend break — we catch up with the less urgent ones.

        I have to admit that I've been in Alex's shoes many times and I've made the mistake of sending multiple messages to the unresponsive person. But as I thought about Anthony's email I realized something: not a single one of those multiple follow ups worked. Sure the people might have called me back eventually, but I never — not once — got the work.

        Because if they wanted to give me the work, they would have called me back without urging. And emailing every few days or leaving five messages doesn't communicate your great follow up skills, it just makes you appear needy.

        So, in this situation — in which Alex doesn't already have a working relationship with Sam — what should Alex do? There are two possibilities:

        One, elevate the follow up to a crisis email. If, for example, Alex let Sam know there was a competing project that Alex planned to commit to next week, Sam would have to respond immediately or risk losing Alex. I would only suggest saying that if it's true. If it's not, it's a perilous gamble.

        Two, recognize that it's not a crisis — at least not to the person you're trying to get a response from — and accept that they will respond in their own time or not at all.

        Then — and this is critical — manage your own emotions. How? Follow up once, after the meeting, and the moment you send that follow up — not a week later but as soon as you hit send or hang up the phone — assume they're not interested. They've said "no." Close the book. Take the follow up off your to do list. Move on to the next thing.

        If they do call or email back, it will be a nice surprise and you can discuss how to proceed. If they don't reach out, you haven't stalled in your other work, knocked your head into a brick wall, or wasted any energy stressing about it.

        You can always send other information unrelated to the open issue — articles, updates, referrals — that might be of interest and deepen the relationship. But don't follow up on the open issue.

        "Wait a second," people who read my blog regularly might be thinking, "didn't you write a piece about persistence, explaining how you didn't take no for an answer?"

        Yes, it's true and I do think persistence is essential in many situations, like practicing a skill or rescheduling canceled meetings with someone who is willing to reschedule. But sometimes, as in the case of an unanswered email or call, patience, distraction and the willingness to live with ambiguity are more vital.

        So, you may be wondering, did Alex get the job? How does the story end? The truth is, I don't know. I emailed Alex a few days ago but I haven't heard back.

        * some details have been changed to protect the company's identity

        Posted via email from LJJ Speaks!

        LjjSpeaks: This "word" makes you feel uncomfortable - If your actions match the "word" you make others feel uncomfortable too: Abrasive.

        Monday, February 22, 2010

        Thursday, February 18, 2010

        Awesome newsletter to subscribe to: From ChrisGuillebeau.com: Tips for Stress Free Travel

        Here is a GREAT newsletter to subscribe to!   

        Original post:  http://chrisguillebeau.com/3x5/tips-for-stress-free-travel/


        FEBRUARY 18, 2010

        TIPS FOR STRESS-FREE TRAVEL


        Greetings from an edgy and interesting Bangkok, Thailand. I've set up camp in the Silom area and have been having fun working, writing, wandering, and talking with people. 

        Last week I took my inaugural journey on Air Niugini Airways, flying on the Manila-Port Moresby night flight, and then later over to Singapore on my circle of the region. I don't think they'll be joining the OneWorld alliance anytime soon, but it wasn't that bad either. 

        ***

        The title of this post is somewhat of a misnomer: I almost never experience travel that is truly stress-free. For starters, not all travel can or should be predictable. Sometimes the unexpected is better than the planned. 

        Secondly, not all stress is bad, because some of the most challenging times in our lives are the most stressful. No risk, no glory--that kind of thing. 

        Yet, when heading out into the world, it helps to control as many variables as you can. I'd rather experience travel stress related to something fun than something preventable that was my own fault. With that in mind, here's a primer on low-stress travel--and your contributions are welcome too. 

        Pack everything in the same place every time. On most trips I take the same clothes and the same gear. I also try to put them in the same part of the bags every time. If necessary, I can now pack for a two-week trip in about 20 minutes. It also helps when packing and unpacking in hotels or guesthouses. I walk in the room and immediately unpack everything I need for the stay. The night before leaving, I repack. 

        I've recently switched bags and have been evaluating a new system. Thus far the verdict is mixed: I'll probably be better for it in the long-run, but in the short-run I hate the fact that I don't know where things are. I might even go back to the original, well-worn bags because the system was so ingrained. 

        Spend more money. I often get stressed out spending small amounts of money. Overall, this isn't always bad--it's led to a healthy paranoia about debt and a lifelong adherence to frugality. However, it has its downsides too, in that I can spend hours walking around trying to decide what to eat, or hours trying to figure out the public transit system somewhere instead of just flagging down a taxi. 

        It only took me about 100 countries--I'm a slow learner--but I finally created a $10 rule for myself that has been rocking my world. The $10 rule is that when I'm traveling, I deliberately avoid worrying about most things that cost $10 or less. As I said, this makes a big difference. I actually eat three meals a day now. If I can't find free WiFi, I'll walk into a hotel and pay for the connection. SO MUCH LESS STRESS. 

        If you get lost, look dumb. If something goes wrong in an unfamiliar setting, stand around for a while and look as lost as you are. Someone may show up to help, especially if you look different from most of the people who live in the country. If you don't speak the language, most of the time someone will show up to help with that too.

        Side note: in my experience, this practice does not work in Russia. In Russia, you're on your own.
        Carry three copies of your passport in different places. I've lost two iPods, one Nintendo DS, and countless other things around the world. Thankfully I haven't lost my prized passport yet, but just in case, I've got multiple copies that would make the replacement process easier if it happened. One goes in one bag, the second goes in the other bag, and the third goes in my wallet. 

        Know that you'll probably make the flight. The times that you think you're going to miss the flight but then make it greatly exceed the number of times you actually miss the flight. Most of the time, you'll probably make it, so don't kill yourself if you're running late.

        Personally I like hanging out in airports, so I usually pitch up quite early. However, because of transfers, a meeting, or general ineptitude, I've also been OMG SO LATE so many times--but in almost every case, the flight was still waiting. And the few times when it wasn't, well, something else worked out. 

        Memorize your passport number. This is how you tell an experienced traveler from a beginner: before an international flight lands, everyone is given a landing card to fill out. This card always asks for your passport number. Look around and see who has to pull their passport out of the bag to look it up versus who has it memorized. If you start traveling around the world, you'll need your passport number for a lot of things, so you might as well memorize it.

        Side note: I like to play a fun game where I try to fill out the landing card as quickly as possible. My personal record is nine seconds. It turns into even more fun when the immigration official makes me complete a new one because he can't read my handwriting--perhaps disqualifying the record.
        Get free airline lounge access anyway you can. Most lounges in the U.S. suck, but they're better than sitting outside. Half of the blog posts I file while traveling are uploaded from various airline lounges. I've probably spent a cumulative total of several days inside the Cathay Pacific lounge in Hong Kong. 

        How you get access varies depending on the situation. I have elite status with all three alliances due to status matching, which helps. You can also wrangle a premium ticket, pay for a membership, or find someone willing to let you in as a guest (it doesn't usually cost them anything). Whatever you have to do, if your goal is reducing stress, and even more so if you're working on the road, the lounge helps a lot. 

        Be proactive if something goes wrong. If you have a complaint with an airline or hotel, don't just tell them what's wrong--tell them exactly what you want them to do to fix it. Propose an alternative solution, ask if there's anyone else you can talk to, whatever. Just do something. 

        Note that standards of customer service vary considerably around the world. In many places, no one will take the initiative to fix something for you unless you are proactive about making it happen. If the situation is important, don't wait for someone else to correct it; take action yourself. 

        ***

        You Want Adventures, Right? 

        Remember, the goal is low-stress travel, not stress-free travel. A couple of trips ago, I came home to Portland after 20 hours of flying from Asia. It was 11pm by the time the airport train dropped me at the bus stop. As I walked to the stop I could see the bus leaving. I was a mile and a half from home, and the next bus didn't come for 24 more minutes. 

        Instead of hanging out, I decided to walk the rest of the way. My feet were sore from wearing the same shoes for weeks and then flying all day... but I'm supposed to be a runner, so what's 1.5 miles? I had to carry my bags, but that's why I travel light, yes? It rained a little, but hey, I live in Portland. 

        The walk home gave me time to reflect back on the trip and consider the various things that had gone right or wrong. All things considered, I love my adventures and wouldn't trade them for anything. 

        Have anything to add? Feel free to share your advice for others in the comments.

        ***

        You can follow me on Twitter here
        You can join AONC on Facebook here 
           










         
         
        The Art of Non-Conformity by Chris Guillebeau 

        Web: http://chrisguillebeau.com
        Twitter: @chrisguillebeau
        Snail Mail: 4110 SE Hawthorne Blvd, Portland, OR 97214

        If you don't love these updates, click the link below and I'll vanish forever.
        http://www.aweber.com/z/r/?LCwcDCyctCysTIxsbIystEa0bMyM7KxsnA==

        Posted via email from LJJ Speaks!

        Here's a checklist that helps me organize my time Social Networking - I hope it helps you too!

        LjjSpeaks: Social Networking is a great way to communicate - not the only way to communicate.

        Wednesday, February 17, 2010

        IAB Smartbrief: Microscopic skin moisture, heart rate and other biometrics help create new Campbell Soup Label.

        Original Post:  http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704804204575069562743700340.html?mod=dist_smartbrief

        The Emotional Quotient of Soup Shopping

        Campbell's Taps 'Neuromarketing' Techniques to Find Why Shelf Displays Left Some Customers Cold

        The bowls are getting bigger and steamier, but the soup spoons are going away.

        Those are among the biggest changes Campbell Soup Co. is making in decades to the iconic labels and shelf displays of its condensed soups—the company's biggest single business, with more than $1 billion in sales.

        The changes—expected to be announced Wednesday—will culminate a two-year effort by Campbell to figure out how to get consumers to buy more soup. Condensed soup has been a slow-growing category in which budget-conscious consumers have little tolerance for price increases.

        The company hopes the label and display changes will help shoppers connect on a deeper level to the products and boost its condensed soup sales by 2% over the next two years.The problem: It's not easy to know what prompts people to buy soup, except for something warm to eat on a frosty day. When asked why they eat more soup or not, people tend to "say they don't think of it," says Doug Conant, Campbell's chief executive.

        For two years, Campbell researchers studied microscopic changes in skin moisture, heart rate and other biometrics to see how consumers react to everything from pictures of bowls of soup to logo design.

        This "neuromarketing" approach is a fresh attempt among consumer-good companies to understand how consumers really respond to marketing and advertising.

        Technological advances have made the research cheaper and faster, making it accessible to more companies. Scientists also better understand how near-instant brain and body responses relate to how people generate meaning from new information, says Robert Barocci, president of the Advertising Research Foundation.

        For years, Campbell's researchers asked consumers whether they remembered an ad and whether it made them more likely to buy a product. But a 2005 Campbell analysis revealed that, overall, ads deemed more effective in surveys had little relation to changes in Campbell sales.

        Robert Woodard, Campbell's vice president of global consumer and customer insights, says the traditional interview had limited usefulness because people's words didn't fully capture their unconscious responses. He says Campbell needed approaches that would help it understand the neurological and bodily responses to an ad rather than how people thought they'd reacted.

        By 2008 Mr. Woodard settled on the biometric tools combined with a different type of deep interview to more accurately gauge which consumer communications worked better. Campbell then hired Innerscope Research Inc., a Boston company that measures bodily responses, and other firms to help conduct research.

        To be sure, neuromarketing techniques have their doubters. And biometrics tell only if a person reacted to something, not whether they liked or disliked something, and sample sizes tend to be small.

        Carl Marci, an Innerscope founder, says his tools can' t pinpoint what emotions a person feels. But if all the biological metrics move simultaneously in the same direction, the subject is likely to be emotionally engaging with something.

        Campbell began dissecting its condensed-soup marketing that summer, around when executives had started considering how to refresh the product line.

        Researchers interviewed about 40 people at their homes and later in grocery stores. The team also clipped small video cameras to the 40 testers at eye level and had them later watch tape of themselves shopping for soup. Vests that the testers wore captured skin-moisture levels, heart rate, depth and pace of breathing, and posture. Sensors attached to the video monitor tracked eye movements and pupil width.

        The researchers found that warmth and other positive attributes people associated with Campbell's soup at home evaporated when they faced store shelves.

        Typically, consumers show simultaneous blips in most of their biological metrics when they decide to buy something. These indicate the emotional reward they feel for making a choice and may help drive future purchases, Mr. Marci says.

        But the array of condensed soups so overwhelmed many participants that they would quickly scan the category and select soups while evidencing little biometric response.

        The people who spent more time exploring varieties showed more and bigger simultaneous spikes in biometrics—and tended to put more soup cans in their baskets.

        The Campbell team figured it could boost sales by triggering more emotional responses in stores and prompting more people to focus on more soups.

        Another round of research showed that Campbell's large logo at the top of shelf displays draws more attention than necessary. At first glance, the logo's bright red background makes all varieties of soups—from the classic chicken noodle to the jazzier Italian Wedding Soup—seem to blend together, the company learned.

        In interviews, participants also said the soup pictured on the can and shelf labels didn't look warm. And the big spoon holding a sample of soup on each label provoked little emotional response.

        Shoppers will begin seeing changes in the Campbell section of supermarkets this fall. Among them: Condensed-soup varieties will be sectioned into four, color-coded categories such as "taste sensations" in orange and "classic favorites" in light brown. The company's logo will be smaller and moved lower so it's not as prominent.

        Campbell's three biggest sellers—chicken noodle, tomato and cream of mushroom, the soup can labels immortalized by Andy Warhol—will remain the same. But on other labels, steam will rise from larger, more vibrant pictures of soup in more modern, white bowls. And those unemotional spoons will disappear.

        Write to Ilan Brat at ilan.brat@wsj.com

        Posted via email from LJJ Speaks!

        IAB Smartbrief: $3.4 million spent per day and still a failing grade for search engine optimization. MediaPost

        Original Post:  http://www.mediapost.com/publications/?fa=Articles.showArticle&art_aid=122604

        Fortune 500 Companies Fail At SEO

        by Laurie Sullivan


        Search-Visibility

        Fortune 500 companies fail at search engine optimization, and many still don't link paid-search keywords to SEO campaigns, although they collectively spend about $3.4 million daily on 97,559 keywords, according to a report.

        The Conductor Research Q4/2009 Fortune 500 Report released Wednesday identifies that only 25% of those keywords rank in the top 50 natural search results on search engines such as Google, Microsoft Bing or Yahoo. The Fortune 500 report analyzes national search results and optimization effectiveness, as well as trends and integration plans for the corporate and the consumer brands during the December 2009 quarter.

        Analyzing the most expensive keywords that companies bought allowed Conductor to measure intent by assuming these words should float to the top of natural search in query results.

        "Since they spend all that money on paid-search keywords you would expect these companies would want the keywords in natural search to correlate with investments on the other side and make them as visible as possible," says Nathan Safran, senior research analyst at Conductor Research.

        The group made slight improvements in aligning natural search with their paid campaigns, increasing the percentage of companies in the top 50 natural search results to 25% in the December 2009 quarter -- up from 17% in the year-ago quarter, but overall the Fortune 500 remains largely invisible in natural search.

        Results also identify that only 2% of the domains surveyed show a significant number of terms in the top results. Many companies still have not adopted a culture that identifies what it takes to build and support a natural search campaign, Safran says.

        Still, 15% of the companies demonstrate mid-to-strong presence for their most advertised keywords. And, 53% have no natural search visibility for their most advertised keywords.

        Fortune 500 natural search visibility decreased with longer search queries, and 68% of keywords were found on a landing page, such as amazon.com/cell phone, compared with a top-level domain page, such as amazon.com.

        Compete ranked each keyword, gave it a score and averaged it into a grade. Grades A and B note the best, but Grades C through F average poor visibility across keywords.

        Compared with Q4 2008, the results this year identify a major gap between the companies that rank well for some terms and ones that have poor visibility. Even among the top performers, there were no companies that had a majority of terms ranking in the top 25. The group also did not improve on their overall visibility score, rating a 'D-' and scoring 61 on the visibility scale, the same score it received in our previous research.

        The report breaks down the companies by market segment, including retail, finance and insurance, manufacturing, transportation and warehouse, food services, construction, science and technical, and more. It shed light on keyword distribution of the retail and information subcategories, and search visibility by industry.


        Posted via email from LJJ Speaks!