Broadcasting Brain » communication

Inside baseball or what the hell does that mean?

markdykeman — Wed, 27 Jan 2010 12:17:00 +0000

Sometimes clarifying metaphors or terms just add more confusion.

I remember the first time that I heard the term full court press in a business context. I’m not a basketball fan, so I hadn’t heard it used before. In the context of the E-Mail in which I discovered the term, I deduced that this was a metaphor for sustained effort to achieve a business objective.

Obviously somewhere in my education I had forgotten to brush up on (let alone play) sports as a means of business communication. Every industry or even business function develops its own shorthand and constructs acronyms at a speed that multiplying rabbits would envy. Businesses model themselves after the military or competitive sports teams, so it’s natural that terminology carries over from one realm to another.

One sport that I do (or did, haven’t followed it for awhile) know something about is baseball. (Aside: I don’t know much about hockey, though. I worry that the government will revoke my passport and transfer my citizenship to some other country, but so far they haven’t. After all, Canadians have the hockey gene, right?) I know a bunch of terms about plays, statistics, tactics, and so on.

When I started to see the term inside baseball being used a lot by some people on Twitter (largely used by PR, communications, marketing and social media folks), it took me a little longer to pick up on what they meant by that. I eventually did figure that out. Inside baseball originally meant a kind of baseball strategy which focused on keeping the baseball in the infield (if the three bases and home plate of a baseball field form the shape of a diamond, then the infield is the area within that diamond shape) so that various players who had positions in the infield could collectively work together to prevent the other team from scoring runs.

But look at this:

Inside baseball – a description of this metaphor from Wikipedia:

The expression “inside baseball” is sometimes used as a metaphor for details or minutia of a subject so detailed that they generally are not well known by outsiders.

You would conclude, then, that inside baseball is used when people catch themselves speaking in the jargon of their industries and need to use more generally known language to make their point to outsiders. As in:

“Talking about conversions, PPC, whuffie are too inside baseball – we need to speak to the general public.”

I find this amusing, though, because a number of people will just use the term inside baseball and then not explain it. Therefore, outsiders like me have to figure out what they really mean.

In an ironic twist of fate, the term inside baseball becomes, in fact, inside baseball.

Next up (someday) on Broadcasting Brain: moving the needle. Is this a term used by:

dentists
race car drivers
social media marketers
heroin addicts
audio engineers
or accupuncturists?

Don’t touch that dial!

A lesson in which words have multiple meanings = communication failure

markdykeman — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 01:52:17 +0000

VS

Images by choking sun and psd

Hello class. Today’s lesson is about how to communicate poorly while trying to give a humorous speech. Pay close attention, this could be good for you.

As I’ve mentioned before I’m a member of Toastmasters. Today was meeting day. I’m working on one of my Advanced Communicator designations and I’m finally trying to complete all of the requirements. It’s been dragging on for far too long.

I had an idea for a humorous speech where you’re supposed to tell a couple of funny stories while trying to make a serious point. So, naturally, after procrastinating unduly, I came up with the idea of working in two of my travel stores (I used to travel a lot). Both of my stories involved my misplacing (OK, losing) something at an inopportune moment. I quickly put together an outline in my head and mentally rehearsed it a bit. I needed a speech title with an opening line.

The speech title was “I’m A Loser”.

I tried to inject some humor and surprise into the speech. I decided to start the speech in a seemingly self-denigrating way, just like Beck’s first hit, “Loser”. However, I wanted to convey the idea that I’m actually a loser (i.e. I lose things, possessions, etc.) not that I’m, um, not a winner.

After I gave the speech and got my evaluation (you always get an evaluation of your speech at a Toastmasters meeting), I reflected a bit and came to the conclusion that maybe, just maybe, no one got the joke that I was trying to make. You know, that I’m a loser, not a loser. A misplacer, not a non-winner.

Hindsight’s 20/20, as they say. In retrospect, I either should have prepared much better for the speech or, even better, tried a much less ambiguous joke. I think I try to be too sly in my humor, sometimes. I also feel like I try to be a bit too sly in my writing, but for some reason I think that my readers can pick up on it.

So, clarity is the key. Repeat.

How about you? Do you have any funny miscommunication stories?

Why do media force dumbed down communication?

markdykeman — Sun, 09 Aug 2009 18:30:10 +0000

You know you’ve made it when you are forced to communicate simply and broadly or else risk tarnishing your reputation and other interests. This appears to be the situation that New Marketing Labs president Chris Brogan finds himself in at this moment. I think this sucks and I’m going to explain why.

Pardon me, Chris, but I’m going to quote quite liberally from your blog post My Pledge To You:

In the unintended consequences department, I’ve come to a realization: I have to drop satire and sarcasm as a vehicle for education, with regards to this blog. If you read the comments on this post, you’ll see what I’m getting at here.

I had no intention of misleading people with my satirical attempt.

My pledge to you, hence forth, is that if I’m telling you about something here, I’ll write from the perspective of positive improvement.

Because I have NO memory, please remind me if I ever blow this. I’m human. I get sad and frustrated and stuff.

The backstory to date: Chris wrote a couple of satirical posts in early August 2009 about how to get more Twitter followers and how to be a social media expert. Ironically, of course, Chris is one of the few people out there who has legitimately written about this in the past based on his own experiences. For whatever reason, he chose to try writing a couple of posts which mildly lampoon the type of bogus posts that many, many scammers or neophytes try to write. By all indications he got some decent traffic out of the posts.

NOTE: the first post, which was written in a parody of the style of a number of so-called expert posts, actually contained a lot of good information and was tagged with the phrase imnotkidding. Clear enough, at least if you take the time to read it. The second post was clearly not serious and, to make it more clear, Chris tagged it with the word parody.

However, after reading the various comments and seeing the other feedback he’s gotten on the posts, he seems to be worried that he crossed a line in how he feeds information back to the rest of the world. Perhaps he’s concerned that the posts, which I think he tried to have some fun with, run contrary to his normal modus operandi and that he risks deviating too far from his desired persona as a trust agent: the kind of person that we can look to for valuable help, recommendation and information even if we’ve never met him in person. He’s pledged to only write from the perspective of positive improvement, which seems to eliminate humor, satire, parody, or anything other than simple, easy to understand prose.

Here’s why I think this sucks: because it seems to show that, in the end, it’s not really a big new media world out there after all, it’s the same old one with a few different toys.

This is a case study in mass media communication and consequences. What, you say? This occured on a blog, via Twitter, etc. so this means it’s social media and the rules are different, right?

Apparently not, especially when your audience is significantly bigger that the average social media practioner’s readership.

The approach that Chris appears to be taking seems to similar to the prescripted, sanitized, “keeping the analysts happy”, bland, and occasionally misleading world that old school PR and communications have been tagged with for years. Don’t you dare devitate from the script or the message or the platform or face the consequences. Only create communications that won’t offend, won’t cause trouble, and that are distinctly inhuman.

Don’t get me wrong. I think that Chris has a good (and big) heart and that’s trying to do what he thinks is best. After all, if you are trying to be a trust agent, then you really don’t want to ever seem like you are misleading your readers.

On the other hand, if you have to assume that your reader only has a basic education and an unsophisticated sense of humour… well, life would become a bit less enjoyable, wouldn’t it? If you can only show one side of your personality or creativity, doesn’t that make you a little bit less real?

I’m not ragging on Chris Brogan in this post, I’m just lamenting certain aspects of human behavior and listening skills. In his comments, Chris notes the following:

I am forever smacking into the “can’t win” wall. I realize that I shouldn’t try. I just feel for people.

That’s honest and legitimate. So is having a nuanced sense of humor and being able to express it.

I realize that it’s easy for me to say these things as this blog is pretty securely separated from my day job and my livelihood. It’s much harder for Chris to do this where he’s a much more public figure than I am and there’s so much overlap.

I don’t have any grand answers for this. I just think there should be ways to express multiple aspects of your personality, even if you are a visible public figure. More importantly, is this going to happen to any or all bloggers who pass a certain threshold in their audience size and success?

A verb you will never hear me say

markdykeman — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 10:00:57 +0000

Words are powerful; if you are reading this sentence, you realize that this is true. Words start wars, break hearts, spread joy, educate and inform, and thousands of other things. Many of our societies advocate free speech. I’m generally in favor of unrestricted communication. However, my family has chosen to avoid using a particular word and I’d like to explain why.

The word is hate.

Early in our relationship my wife and I were talking about something and I believe that I said “I hate that.” She took offense to my use of the word “hate”. We talked it over for awhile and we both came to the conclusion that we didn’t want to encourage the concept of hate within our family. Therefore, we made a conscious decision to stop using that word. And, with only a few minor exceptions, we haven’t spoken that word aloud in over ten years.

Is this a kooky thing to do? Good question. We don’t hear the word hate in our house, again except for a couple of exceptions. Does this have any affect on our thoughts or behavior? I’ve only heard the kids use the word once or twice each. Does that mean they don’t get angry? Heck no, they’ve both got tempers, just like their parents! But I’d like to think that maybe it’s having a positive effect on their thinking.

Generally speaking I don’t use the word hate when I write. Probably it’s because I don’t write a lot of emotional posts and I generally don’t go on tirades, either. I guess I’ve modified my own behavior to the point that I won’t willingly use the word hate (this post excepted, I guess). Do I still feel the emotion? Generally not, but I can’t say that it’s completely banished, either.

I’m not writing this to say that by eliminating a word that you banish the subject that it represents.

Maybe, just maybe, though, you can set a positive example that could have a positive impact on other people.

So, I’m curious. What do you think?

Promotional thought for the day – repetition

markdykeman — Thu, 21 Aug 2008 19:12:38 +0000

There’s a line between repeating a message to get through noise vs. spamming.

Marketers must master that distinction, I think.

Broadcasting Brain loves E-Mail!

markdykeman — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 00:38:08 +0000

In an attempt to lower a potential barrier to communication, I’ve done away with the Contact form on my Contact page.

If you ever want to get in touch with me by E-Mail, just drop me a line at contact@broadcasting-brain.com.

As well, I frequently check out my Twitter account.

It’s the 21st century, why not make it a bit easier to get in touch?

I can even give you some blog ideas.

Context, Reputation, and Sponsorship FTW!

markdykeman — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 06:30:52 +0000

Does something’s value really increase because of a recommendation from a trusted source or association with someone else or with some organization?

I’ve been thinking about the idea of how someone’s recommendation, sponsorship, or support can make you seem better than you might actually be. Conversely, name recognition is a form of social proof. I’ve been reading Seth Godin’s Small Is The New Big which includes one of his blog posts, Placebo Affect, The. The post contains the following phrases which triggered some more thinking:

“Why do some ideas have more currency than others? Because we believe they should.”

We’re going to talk about the power of context, reputation, and sponsorship in this blog post because if you don’t believe that they have a meaningful effect on bolstering your social media profile, or your profile in any field of interest, you need to think again.

Godin provides examples of credibility through celebrity/presence/reputation:

People trust that Chris Anderson and Malcolm Gladwell will always write excellent things based on their previous work.
Arthur Anderson audits used to be a powerful sign of approval (pre-Enron, of course)

I’ve personally seen the “star” effect in play with some of my own work. My examples:

My Problogger guest post from earlier this month drew more comments at Problogger.net than any of my own posts have. Granted, it was a good post, but I don’t think it was my best. The fact that this post was on Darren Rowse’s blog was the reason that it got more comments than on my own blog. Darren has created a strong brand, through great content and hard work, and most of those blog comments were as much to get the attention of his audience, and Darren himself, as to get my attention. But that’s fine, it’s part of the game.

Another example: a few days ago, Rob Diana included my blog in his list of required social media reading (and thanks again, Rob!). I got a couple of visits to my blog from his article, which was cool. Then Rob’s post went popular on Digg. As of the time that I’m writing this post, I’ve gotten 174 visitors to my blog from his blog. That is the Digg effect in action, dear reader. Plus, I only got a fraction of the visits that Rob’s blog would have gotten. Digg popularity is a form of social proof, even when it’s fleeting.

(And by the way, if you’re a new or returning visitor who found me via Rob’s blog: hello and thanks!)

My first big break in social media, though, was when Jay White (editor/publisher of Dumb Little Man) linked to one of my articles at Socyberty (about five different ways to tell if you’re being manipulated), praised it, and helped to throw over 5000 views to my article. [BTW, I much prefer Dumb Little Man to other good blogs like Lifehacker or 43 Folders – it just seems more personal. OK, maybe I'm biased, but it's a great blog, really.] If Jay hadn’t linked to my article, it’s hard to say whether I would have maintained the motivation (see Maslow’s hierarchy for more on motivation) to keep writing, then later focus on blogging.

The thing is, any content stands on its own: it’s either good, bad, or mediocre. However, getting that magic link or endorsement does two things:

1) Tells the world that your content is out there

2) Tells the world that your content is valuable

In the three examples that I’ve provided above, I profited from the following:

Context: having a guest post at a highly respected blog (Problogger.net) placed my writing in the context of a well-known and successful blogger.

Reputation: my blog’s reputation was indirectly bolstered through the hopefully permanent boost to Rob Diana’s blogging reputation due to his article hitting Digg’s front page.

Sponsorship: Jay White did not overtly sponsor me, but linking to and praising my Socyberty article gave me a boost early in my social media career, an early vote of support. I felt like Jay thought I was a good writer and that helped.

Now, here’s the million dollar question: do these examples of social proof really matter? Are they really valuable? Did they improve my work by association with them?

No. They did not improve my work, just as Arthur Andersen’s audits didn’t appear to lead to any improvements at Enron.

However, these three scenarios promoted and validate my work. At the risk of sounding trite, that’s important.

Seth Godin brought the phrases “purple cow” and “remarkable” to the marketing masses by pointing out the obvious opportunities of products that are so noteworthy that clients can’t help but talk about them. Do client testimonials actually improve the products?

No!

Instead, client testimonials and referrals draw the attention of a receptive audience to those products. This is important in an era where the number of blogs and user generated content works continue to grow and grow and grow. Everybody needs a way to stand out. Even a purple cow doesn’t really seem remarkable until the first cow or color enthusiast sees that cow.

Of course, it’s important for something to be genuinely good as well as remarkable. But that doesn’t help if no one knows that that great restaurant, novel, movie, or blog post exists.

My point, after all of this explanation, remains the following: endorsements, referrals, testimonials and other support are damned valuable. This should not come as a shock to anyone. I’ve personally experienced this effect during the three examples that I noted above and in other situations.

I used to hate marketing, advertising, and promotion. I still have a love/hate relationship with it, because I’m not the type of person who likes to brag. However, I can’t deny that it makes growth a hell of a lot easier. And growth of this blog is my main priority in social media.

The takeaway is this, dear reader: the secret to success in social media, based on my experience to date, is finding people who will support you and who you can support. In my own way, and in several other posts in this blog, I’m trying to acknowledge the people who have helped me in the past while pointing out other people who are doing good work.

If I’m going to link to something, I’m giving it the same seal of approval that someone else has given me. I believe in that thing enough to share it with someone else, just as other people do for me. And THAT is the real currency of social media.

Smells like social media

markdykeman — Tue, 24 Jun 2008 06:30:44 +0000

In today’s post I’m going to play out a situation that happened almost 20 years ago and I’d like you to tell me if you think it was an early example of social media.

In 1988 and 1989, DC Comics (the publisher of popular comic books about Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman, the Flash, the Teen Titans, Green Lantern, and many other characters) ran a multi-part story in their Batman comic book called A Death In The Family. This story occurred several years after the original Robin, Dick Grayson, had adopted a new superhero identity while a boy named Jason Todd took over the Robin identity. This story, a mystery in which Jason attempted to find his birth mother, featured a number of classic Batman characters, including his nemesis the Joker.

DC Comics did something quite extraordinary for the times with this story. DC Comics editorial was aware that a number of comic book readers did not like the Jason Todd character, so they decided to put some decision making power in the hands of the readers. The penultimate chapter of the story was left as a cliffhanger, where Jason was placed in a situation where he could die. DC then set up two phone numbers that fans could call: one to spare Jason’s life, a second to lead to the character’s death.

As the story goes, after the votes were tallied, a slim majority of callers voted to kill off Jason Todd.

Jason Todd was killed in the final issue of the Batman story.

This was a clear example of getting reader input and reacting to it. The technology wasn’t Web enabled or housed on the Internet, but it had some similar characteristics.

My question to you: was the use of these phone numbers to kill off a character an example of social media in action? I’d really like to know what YOU think, including your arguments FOR or AGAINST the idea.

Literacy rocks

markdykeman — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 09:52:34 +0000

Just a quick post to talk about literacy.

It’s very simple: those who can’t read miss out on a lot of great opportunities and joys.

I haven’t done a lot of online research about literacy, but Jason Falls did show me the following website devoted to literacy: NCFL Literacy Now.

Let’s all take a moment and reflect on the fact that we are very, very fortunate to know how to read. The ability to read and write blogs is just the tiniest fraction of the benefits we all enjoy through literacy.

Does anyone else have any links to literacy websites?s Better yet, any examples of how they are trying to use social media to help (which might be very tricky, given the clientele)?

ChatterCrack – a social addiction

markdykeman — Fri, 06 Jun 2008 06:30:04 +0000

Modern society is beset by an insidious drug that is overpowering our population, consuming productive time, and turning relationships into dust. ChatterCrack, the overwhelming need to communicate frequently online, is continuing to attack our society in waves.

Here are the carriers:

Twitter
Pownce
Jaiku
FriendFeed
SocialThing
Social networking (Facebook, MySpace, Mashable site)
Instant Messaging/E-Mail
Forums
Chat Rooms

and now…

Plurk.

They’re all agents that provide the ChatterCrack high. And, much like eating a bag of potato chips, once you start, there’s no going back.

It doesn’t matter that all of your friends are doing it! Resist, stay strong… just say “no” to ChatterCrack!

# # #

Some of you are probably crying “bullshit” at this point, and rightly so. After all, Broadcasting Brain is a blog about communication and social media, so it’s not like I’m going to take a dump where I live, you know?

But, but, but, but… social media is all about communication and the number of communication-oriented applications and services seems to swell in ranks with each passing month. We can have a different mode for every day of the week, every mood and so on.

However, when we put people in front of the keyboard, what do they have to say? Sometimes it’s a lot of banal, trivial stuff, which seems like a waste. Other times, there’s some important exchange of ideas that occurs.

I’m in social media for the latter reason. I’m not much for small talk in my off-line activities, no doubt a tendency from being a mighty introverted guy, but I can rise to the occasion most of the time.

My passion is discussion of concepts, ideas, theories and analyzing these things down to their component atoms and then I forget what the heck I was talking about.

However…

The methods of communication continue to develop new shapes, sizes, and textures. Plurk is one of the latest and it’s better at conversation tracking than most microblogging platforms.

But, it is yet another service to adapt to. Maybe it will best its competitors. Or maybe Twitter, the microblogging version of VHS video tapes, will prevail because of the critical mass of users that it’s obtained.

Perhaps different services will adapt to the wants of their users. That may change the landscape over the next couple of years. For now, however, we take on each new application with the understanding that we have to balance our facilities, energy, and time amongst them.

What I do like about the ChatterCrack Plurk strain is that people are asking some meaningful questions, at least in the context of this new service. Will that last? Hard to say. But I’m sure lots of people will spend lots of time and energy in spreading their words through each new service.

In addition to our other numerous addictions, we humans are addicted to talking, regardless of whether or not we have anything meaningful to say. That’s not to say that every conversation has to be deep, insightful, or meaningful in a deep way.

But some of them should be.

Maybe we don’t need dozens or hundreds of online communication tools. Maybe we don’t need up to the nanosecond updates of what everyone else is saying.

Maybe, instead, we need to get better at talking about problems (or opportunities for those of you who’s glasses are half-full), motivations, and observations without bias, emotional clouding of judgement, or preconceived ideas. Maybe we need to learn to check our egos and self-promotional tendencies at the door and prepare to engage meaningfully.

I have every belief that social media is an excellent toolset to accomplish this kind of communication.

We just need to remember that when we warm up our brain cells through idle chatter that we channel our ChatterCrack addictions to meaningful conversations so we can really take advantage of the opportunities that we could exploit using this toolset to share, learn, grow, and collaborate.

Failing to capitalize on these capabilities would be a terrible waste.

Broadcasting Brain » communication

Inside baseball or what the hell does that mean?

Other posts that you might enjoy reading:

A lesson in which words have multiple meanings = communication failure

VS

Images by choking sun and psd

Most Commented Posts

Why do media force dumbed down communication?

Other posts that you might enjoy reading:

A verb you will never hear me say

Other posts that you might enjoy reading:

Promotional thought for the day – repetition

Other posts that you might enjoy reading:

Broadcasting Brain loves E-Mail!

Other posts that you might enjoy reading:

Context, Reputation, and Sponsorship FTW!

Other posts that you might enjoy reading:

Smells like social media

Other posts that you might enjoy reading:

Literacy rocks

Other posts that you might enjoy reading:

ChatterCrack – a social addiction

EDITED for grammar on June 6/08

Other posts that you might enjoy reading: