If your goal is to get read (much less, remembered), keep your content short.  Probably under 250 words for anything you might consider a page — such as a bio, practice group description, About Us…or, this blog post.

The Neilsen Effect is why.  As in Jakob Neilsen, a Danish software engineer considered to be one of the foremost user experience gurus.

Neilsen and others have found, for starters, that we read online content 25 percent slower than we read the same content in hard copy.  As Neilsen characterizes this and other Web visitor behaviors,

“[U]sers are selfish, lazy and ruthless.”

Here’s a still-timely 2008 Michael Agger post that explains this and more…including the average user’s unwillingness to scroll.

Distractable

We’re addicted to Anything But This.  I check Facebook, listen to BEP on YouTube, look out the window, tweet something…etc., blah.  You?  It’s not in the DSM (yet), but some psychologists label it Fear of Missing Out.

And, my sense is that it’s in our DNA.  That we survived on the ocean or in the jungle or on the savannah or prairie by being hyper-alert and hyper-vigilant.

In other words, we didn’t have the luxury of The Long.  So, keep it short.

Newt Gingrich's campaign for the GOP presidential nomination seems undeterred by his campaign to sell his books. He and wife Calista often drive their handlers crazy by spending time signing books instead of stumping for votes. Or, are those the same things?

Doesn’t it make perfect sense that 2011 holiday book sales are strong…despite the growing popularity of electronic reading; or, perhaps, because of it?  Or, despite the loss of bankrupt Borders’s 650 stores from the retail mix?

Books — real books — are tangible.  All the better to put under the Christmas tree or hand to someone special as a gift.

And, to show that you care. Really care.

Retailers and publishers report, by the way, that sales of non-fiction titles are the strongest sector in their industry.  In addition, big, expensive books seem to be a niche unaffected by the recession or worries about online competition.

Personal calendars have roots in common with the secular timekeeping that flourished in the 15th Century in places like Piazza San Marco. Watches eventually joined these highly visible and audible clocks in helping us be where we needed to be, when we needed to be there. Do tangible, analog calendars respond to the same urge to be mindful?

There’s an interesting piece in this morning’s New York Times about our current calendar-keeping preferences.  Well, I’ve used both digital and analog — at different times — and know the advantages and disadvantages of both first-hand.

I’ve migrated back to an analog week-at-a-glance, and here’s something I’ve noticed that the Times barely touches on:

A hard-copy calendar helps me stay much more mindful of the what, who, when and where of my life.

When I have a tactile connection with my calendar, I have a level and type of awareness that I lack when my stuff is in the clouds — literally and figuratively.

It’s a feeling that reminds me of the difference we experience when we read a book or article on-line as opposed to spread out in front of us.  I’ve heard that the average reader reads 25 percent slower on-line, perhaps because it takes more time, energy and focus to be mindful on-line.

Seth suggests asking yourself this before hitting Send: Am I "taking advantage of the asymmetrical nature of email--free to send, expensive investment of time to read or delete?"

Of Seth’s 36 Questions To Ask Before You Send An E-mail, my favorite was Number 32:

If this is a press release, am I really sure that the recipient is going to be delighted to get it? Or am I taking advantage of the asymmetrical nature of email–free to send, expensive investment of time to read or delete?

Of course, this applies to IMs, Twitter and other digital platforms, yes?

Not that this would have done Anthony Weiner much good.  After all, making a stupid choice doesn’t make him stupid, does it?

Yet, too many of us (me included) would be smart to slow down, read the rest of Seth’s list and consider the following in addition:

1. How important is this relationship?
2. What does this client prefer?
3. How much is it worth to stand out?
4. Is it really either/or?
5. Is anybody there?

George H.W. Bush understood the importance of superficial impressions. In 1988, he used this picture of a hapless Michael Dukakis to win the presidential election. Bush's fabled campaign ads featuring escaped felon and murderer "Willie Horton" drove the final nail in his opponent's coffin.

We’re hard-wired to judge others.  And situations.  Some of us (e.g., parents of young children) seem to acquire this urge under the right circumstances.

Judging others factors into how much we trust and feel safe.  This is one reason why chemistry and even small, tangible details seem to figure into the hiring choices clients make and whether they remain satisfied with a vendor’s performance.

So, too, it seems when picking presidential candidates.  A recent story in The New York Times vetted several Republican favorites with an eye toward how they present the qualities it takes to win as opposed to govern.

According to the reporter, we tend to make important, lasting impressions and choices based on information that is little more than skin-deep.

A series of experiments has shown that subjects, even young children, can reliably pick the winners of races based solely on candidate photos. Now, most voters tend to support one party or the other no matter what. But swing voters tend to have the greatest susceptibility to the influence of superficialities. It’s therefore hard to imagine why party operatives might be pining to nominate a man who looks less like the popular conception of a president and more like the president’s accountant.

The experiments cited suggest “that candidates who merely look more capable or attractive perform better in elections.”

While this may seem cruel or stereotypical, science suggests its inevitability.  While the quality of your work is crucial, remember that clients and prospects are never going to get any better than human.

"Another virtue is simplicity. Typewriters are good at only one thing: putting words on paper. 'If I’m on a computer, there’s no way I can concentrate on just writing,' said Jon Roth, 23, a journalist who is writing a book on typewriters. 'I’ll be checking my e-mail, my Twitter.' When he uses a typewriter, Mr. Roth said: 'I can sit down and I know I’m writing. It sounds like I’m writing.'” -- The New York Times, March 31, 2011

“It’s about permanence, not being able to hit delete,” he explained. “You have to have some conviction in your thoughts. And that’s my whole philosophy of typewriters.”

That’s what Louis Smith, a 28-year-old hipster from Brooklyn had to say about laying out 150 bucks for a refurbished typewriter that was nearly twice his age.

He and others are [re-]discovering the beauties of keys, ink and paper, according to an article in this morning’s New York Times.  About how having something to touch affects humans in ways that the abstract or digital cannot.

I know I am far more present to what’s going on around me, for example, when I get in touch with what’s going on inside me.  So, I work on intentionally slowing down, noticing my own breath, the sounds I hear, how I feel emotionally and so on.

The better I do that, the better able I am to be impeccable in whatever I ship.

Here’s something related from Seth:

Small screens and big decisions

My take: the smaller the screen, the more hurried and less informed the decision ends up being.

Yes, there’s more currency, more immediacy, more with-you-right-now-all-the-time and more data being collected. But……

If you’re working with a spreadsheet or a thread of correspondence or a set of data, I’m not sure you’re doing your best work if you’re doing it on an iPhone.

Does anyone care to speculate why phone sex is (was?) popular? Is there something *special* about aural (ahem) stimulation? Something for which humans are hard-wired?

All hat and no horse.  That pretty much describes the feature piece in today’s New York Times about the demise of the phone conversation.

Yeah, I know that phone time is trending downward and that texting is trending up.  But the author’s anecdotal musings do little to advance insights into why, who and the like.

I don’t know about you, but I still spend a LOT of time on the phone, including time with clients, vendors and other colleagues.  Mostly, it’s for the sake of efficiency.  It’s also because there aren’t many better ways (other than face-to-face) to create a sense of personal connection and I-care-about-you trust.

Judging from the frequency and number of clients who want to talk with me on the phone, I’m not alone.

Plus, consider, for example, New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo.  While he hasn’t called me (yet), the phone is his self-described communication tool of choice.  Shades of LBJ.

It’s worth sharing the governor’s view of Why The Telephone and his fondness for Mr. Bell’s invention:

Mr. Cuomo also relishes the visceral feedback of a phone call, he said: the sound of the other person’s voice and the sense of his or her mood.

“I am not an e-mail person,” he said. “You don’t get context, you don’t get emotion and you don’t get a connection.”

Back to the notion of trust.  If someone is thinking about hiring me and all other things are equal, sooner or later, they’re going to ask, “Can I trust Doug?  Can I trust him enough to hand over this project to him?  A project with a lot riding on it?”

Well, they’ll trust me to the extent I can demonstrate (not merely assert) to them that I care about them.

Showing that I care requires a tangible act of sacrifice that shows I care.  So, I’ll ask you, Which does that better?  Hitting SEND or picking up the phone?

PS:  Save your comments about how We Can’t Go Back to Using Smoke Signals.  I’m no Luddite.  (And, I don’t have a hat or a horse.)  And, I’m sufficiently polite to ask whoever I call if they have time to talk.

Here’s a brief clip with five questions to help you weigh the relative benefits of analog and digital marketing communications. It’s a companion to an article published by my editorial home, MarketingProfs.com — http://xrl.us/BeforeSend.

I’m not sufficiently naive to believe that the genie’s going back in the bottle.  But a story in today’s New York Times about Gov.-Elect Andrew Cuomo’s fondness for the phone gives me hope.

Mr. Cuomo also relishes the visceral feedback of a phone call, he said: the sound of the other person’s voice and the sense of his or her mood.

“I am not an e-mail person,” he said. “You don’t get context, you don’t get emotion and you don’t get a connection.”

He’s no LBJ.  But Cuomo gets something that Lyndon and others have known for a long time.

Namely, that the more tangible, the more personal.  And, the more personal, the more persuasive.

Every politician has gotten this.  Even our Blackberry-wielding President Obama.

John Kralik's book -- 365 Thank Yous: The Year a Simple Act of Daily Gratitude Changed My Life -- extols the virtues of the tangible...and how it benefits all of our relations, including the one with ourselves.

On NPR this morning, there came a story about John Kralik, a product of the Midwest (born in Cleveland and educated in Ann Arbor, Mich.) and now a superior court judge in Los Angeles.  It was about the fruits of writing — and receiving — hand-written notes.

As he puts it…

“In this day and age, a handwritten note is something that people really feel is special.”

Kralik says he is often moved by how many people have saved his notes: “It’s up on their wall,” he says. “It’s like part of you that’s there.”

So, check out what else Judge Kralik has to say and let me know if this speaks to you.  Give me your mailing address, and I’ll write you a note.