Observed

Are we sacrificing our ability to communicate with one another in thoughtful, measured, memorable ways...in favor of the speed driven by our appetite for greater social intensity?

I sometimes see IM’s that include an apology.  The author seems to realize they’re about to send out something that’s pretty unfiltered and unedited.

Or, as they put it, it’s *raw*.

What a sweet, old school gesture!  I see enough tweets and the like to know that politeness isn’t much valued in the IM world.  It slows things down.

Courtesy may be just one of the things we’re losing as we deepen our attachment to the digital end of the spectrum in the ways we communicate. (more…)

The recent incident with Steve Martin at New York City’s 92nd Street Y might hold several lessons.  In this morning’s Times, he suggests that things could have worked out better if people had shown a little more patience with their mid-interview e-mailed questions and suggestions.

I have a slightly different take.  I wonder, Why do we give so much power to the digital? (more…)

Q. You mentioned you’re doing less e-mail.

LBJ was a master at face-to-face persuasion. Rhode Island’s Senator Theodore Green was, in this case, the mastered. Johnson would probably prefer to cut off one of his own fingers than to send an e-mail.

A. I think e-mail is very often disruptive in corporate cultures. You sit next to people and send e-mail to each other instead of walking over or making a call or just trying to look for the personal interaction. I use e-mail more and more as text messaging — just very, very short messages. It’s very efficient, but I am convinced that e-mail does not replace presence. Also, I never read cc e-mails.

From “Corner Office,” Aug. 29, 2010, in The New York Times, an interview with Kasper Rorsted, the chief executive of Henkel, the consumer and industrial products company based in Düsseldorf, Germany.

According to some, "computers and cellphones, and the constant stream of stimuli they offer, pose a profound new challenge to focusing and learning."

Maybe all of us have a touch of ADHD in our hard-wiring.   Maybe that’s what helped keep us safe from the sabertooth or the tar pit or the whatever.

Fast-forward several eons.  The average amygdala is getting a real work out in the Digital Age.  We’re bombarded with stimuli, constantly shifting and sorting — alert to threats and opportunities — and feeding our addiction(s).

This morning’s New York Times suggests we’re paying a price for this innate urge, particularly among the young.  Consider: (more…)

I wonder what price we pay nowadays as a result of having a device or app or a something to tickle every fancy. Whether we stunt or lose our ability to imagine. The kind of imagination it took when all we had were a few radio stations...and the glow from the dial.

[Note:  This was first posted on my Facebook page, June 11, 2009.]

A Facebook friend recently posted an I-don’t-get-it message about Twitter. He speaks my mind, and we’re not alone in our resistance.

He reminded me of an article I read recently (OK, on-line) by Michael Winerip in the New York Times.   Winerip and I came right after the generation for whom radios and telephones were still slightly novel. It’s from our parents and grandparents that he and I learned to appreciate the simpler basics. (more…)

There’s a vast literature on the psychology of images.  About how, for example, we learn from birth to read faces.  About the gender differences in how visual stimuli are processed.

I’ve already offered the short version of how this relates to newsletters and other marketing communications.  How an arresting image will be the first thing the reader’s eye will land on long enough to process it.

Here’s a bit more… (more…)

Some things are better left long. Most business writing is not one of them.

Long is hard, and hard doesn’t get read.  Period.

So…

1. Four pages is the max for hard-copy. If you’re one of the smart ones still in print, delete something if you’re on-line and further tighten what you do post.  Studies have shown that we read 25 percent slower when something’s digital.  If you have more to say than four pages, save it.  Or, re-purpose it somewhere else.  Over four pages is a waste.  Or worse.
2. 250 words is really long. At least for anything you expect to get read by the busy business person.  Especially if it’s in a newsletter or on a Web site.  300, maybe…if what you have is RFG.
3. Captions. I’m getting ahead of myself.  Pictures (lots of them) are essential because they are what we go to first on the page/screen.  They arrest the eye, particularly if it’s a (pretty) human face.  The next place your reader will land is on the caption you’ve written for whatever shiny thing grabbed their attention.  Use this.  Use it judiciously, with a super short cutline.  It’s OK to stretch grammatical conventions.  Partial sentences?  No sweat.

Need help?  Read a really good newspaper.  Pay attention to how tight good writing can be.  Emulate it.

FYI:  This post is 224 words.

If you’re Who cares, don’t bother reading further.  If you think newsletters are a good way to communicate with clients and prospects, I can tell you how to do that better:

1. Be really brief.
2. Use lots of pictures.
3. Make it about someone or something other than you.

I’ll tell you what these look like in the next few posts.  Plus some other things to think about.

Stick around.

When Odysseus left for the Trojan War, he realized he needed help while he was away.  So, Odysseus asked his friend, Mentor, to be in charge of his son, Telemachus, and his palace until he returned.

While the meaning has changed a bit, we still seek and offer mentoring.

What’s the best platform for such a trusted relationship?  According to my friend, Nick Gargala, Ed.D., the best results occur when the mentoring happens face to face.  In interviews for his recent dissertation, Nick found that over the phone is a distant second, and e-mail mentoring is the weakest.

Where trust is important to a relationship (e.g., in business development), the more personal the better.