Bo Jacobson's Posterous

helpful advice for @virginamerica

I've been pretty vocal about my displeasure with Virgin America over the past two weeks. It's been painful. For those of you who don't know, they recently implemented a new reservation and check-in system and it hasn't been a smooth transition. I actually like Virgin America. I like their brand, their nonstop flights, their entertainment setup, their staff - really I like everything about Virgin America except the current out-of-home campaign. (It's bad)

So how about I shift gears and try giving some helpful customer service advice? I think that would be the karma correct thing to do since I'm actually not a fan of complaining.

Core point: Directing users to Twitter for customer service is unwise.

During the recent issues they experienced big problems with their online services, and their kiosks, and everybody defaulted to their call lines which got super jammed up. (I waited on hold a total of 4 hours in the last two weeks) What did Virgin do? They recorded an automated message that said they weren't answering calls at the call center due to volume but you should follow them on Twitter and DM for help.

1. That's not how Twitter works. Following somebody doesn't let you DM them. I knew this so I found it just a little annoying that they got it wrong. For somebody who doesn't use Twitter that much, or doesn't understand how this works, it could create a service dead-end

2. Because you can't just follow Virgin and fire off a DM, you have to get their attention. The only avenue for this is a public mention. So lots and lots of people had private problems and Virgin funelled all of it to a public outlet. It's like they wouldn't help you unless you told all your followers you were having a problem with them. I understand the benefits of Twitter customer service very well. I've studied it, I've taught it, I've been serviced by it. The basic idea is that sometimes individual consumer frustration will bubble up and your brand can benefit by turning that negative into a positive. But that doesn't mean you should direct users to publicly voice their discontent and then clean up after them. Handle customer service issues quickly and quietly, while keeping an eye out for people who go to public channels instead of your discreet, effective perscribed method of problem solving. It makes them look silly for whining, rather than making you look like your service is on fire.

So many parts of the outage could have been handled better, but I'm sure that some of it was beyond their control. (technology fails - it sucks) What they can do, right now, is re-order their customer service process so that only edge-case users will shout at the heavens instead of that being the preferred method of logging a service ticket. (also - call people back when you say you will)

accepting the premise

Most projects come with constraints. It's just a fact of doing business. Usually you'll be asked to hurry up, spend less, or sacrifice quality. (a.k.a. Fast, cheap, or good; per the standard project management triangle)

Working within the guidelines requires creativity, intelligence, and perseverance. It also requires confidence. For people who approach projects with a first thought of 'I can do this', these constraints often melt away. Those people familiarize themselves with the challenge, work within the defined area of success, and demonstrate their extraordinary value.

Others attack the constraints. They question the boundaries and try to push out the defined area of success to increase the possibilities. In my experience, this is usually an attempt to make their job easier or more fun. (or to keep the people around them busy so they can have time to come up with the 'right' idea, thereby avoiding some personal pressure.)

Questioning the assignment can also be a trap of ego: a person who doesn't trust their teammates will dismiss any setup work, assuming that whatever thinking led to limitations must be by definition wrong. Some even take it as a point of pride that they never accept the facts of an assignment - they think it demonstrates their toughness to whomever crafted the assignment.

There's also a trap of comparitive greatness: The most amazing and revolutionary thinkers really do redefine the parameters and create whole new paths to success. But those people are few and far between - not everybody is in that special elite group, and mid-level talent can do some serious damage to their cause by emulating hall-of-fame players. Just ask Clint Eastwood.

The fact of the matter is that the best work is always done in the face of challenges. Sometimes, it's only by embracing the limitations of an assignment, believing in our fellows and charging forward that we can even hope to complete an assignment. Sure, it's good to think critically, ask questions, and familiarize oneself with the realities of challenging situations. But truly talented people can learn and work at the same time, and great teammates know that every game has rules and victory comes as a result operating to the best of your collective ability within those rules.

write the future

I've been writing a bit of process documentation recently and thinking through different ways to approach assignments. There's something I used to say all the time, but couldn't get to catch on with my peers. Then I heard it from somebody I really respect a few days ago and it's been bouncing around my head ever since: "What's the case study going to look like?"

It's worth considering early in development of an idea. If you look into the future at project completion, when you have delivered, and the campaign been exposed to an audience, what will you have accomplished? What will you learn? What will you do next?

Whether you use 'think it through' or "put it on the 't' axis" (©… no I'm not kidding) or any number of other cliche sayings, in marketing we often focus on how cool an idea is, equate that to the number of people who are going to love it and we call that success.

Assuming the idea goes off as planned, those spikes in interest or audience behavior are indicators of a successful marketing program, but real success in consumer communications is a sustained growth in awareness or warming of sentiment, rhythmically punctuated by those spikes that generate frenzied action. And in those moments of high interest, when your audience says saying "You're great, what's next?" wouldn't it be awesome to already know the answer?

I am not an extreme minimalist, and that's okay [consumerism + efficiency]

A few days ago I read a post by Andrew Hyde about his extreme minimalism project. (I think Ken Yeung tweeted it <- credit) Struck by the contrast between his fully functional arsenal of 'things' and the stuff I own that I haven't touched in forever, I had all the feelings one does when confronted with one's own abject, lazy and wasteful consumerism. Luckily, the feeling I settled on was inspired, which isn't bad at all. Remarking about Andrew on Twitter, I received encouragement from Brian Shaler as well as Andrew himself. So, busy though I was this weekend with writing a strategy deck and shooting an interactive spot, I was resolved to make some deep cuts in my possessions. So far, I've lessened my load by two large bags of clothes - tomorrow I go after the books, movies and games.

The following are some notes on what I experienced while purging my stuff, and some advice on how to play along if you suspect that you might not be as in control of your possessions as you'd like to be.

Letting go: I own things that I haven't used in 6 months, and that I haven't actually needed in quite a bit longer. I bought them, I wanted them, I made an investment, but at some point they stopped being things that made my life better or easier, and became baggage. The ROI maxed out and started to reverse. I had gotten all of the positive use I ever could out of these things and now I was just lugging them around from residence to residence. (Or, much worse, I wasn't getting the value I should out of the space I have in my apartment because I had to maneuver around them in the close, on the floor, in storage, etc.)

Some guidelines for getting started if you'd like to do this yourself:

What haven't you used in 6 months? Some things are seasonal wardrobe, or camping gear or the like, but others are just there. You don't want them anymore, but there's been no catalyst for getting rid of them. Here's the catalyst: get rid of them.
What wouldn't you buy today? Today is a great day. You should look your best, do something you love, and help build a better tomorrow. Which of the things in your life are more about yesterday than today. Likely you could just let them fall off and never even wonder what happened.
Wondering if you want a thing? Put it in the middle of your life. Would you wear it to work tomorrow or out tonight? Would you use it today? Would you feel good about putting it in the center of your living room.
One nice thing is worth 5 or more crappy counterparts. It never fails for me that buying a more expensive thing that I absolutely love is much more cost effective than buying a cheaper version just because it's seems like a bargain, and then trying to reverse-engineer interest. For clothing, nicer things fit better, and tend to get better with age, rather than wearing out. For electronics, I either feel amazing about a new gadget on day one, or I might as well just leave it in the store. Can't back into success with this one.
You already know when you don't have use for a thing anymore. Look at it. Do you have genuine affection for that item? Do you want to tell a friend about all the things that make it great? Pick your favorite thing. (Is it an iPad or a running shoe or a phone or a chair?) Put the questionable item next to it. Do you want to immediately remove the questionable item because you're embarrassed to be seen with it in front of your iPad? Get rid of it.

Some highlights from my experience:

5 years ago I bought a package of socks that don't were too big. I stil had every single sock. They were in the sock basket next to my favorite asics athletic socks, and for all this time had only served to lie to me about when it was time to do laundry.
3 years ago I bought a pair of cordoroy pants. They're brown and I thought it'd be great to have casual brown pants. I have never worn them. Not once. As of Sunday I won't own them anymore, and I'll be better for it.
10 years ago I bought a brown suede overcoat. It made me look slightly pimpish. It was awesome, and it's time has passed. Sad (but appropriate) to see it go.

Some traps I fall into:

Nice Clothes: I dress pretty casually to work and socially, but I have an occasional need for blazers, slacks and suits. I also like variety. So I have a tendency to buy several nice things, only wear one or two, and not come back to them until they're out of fashion or don't fit me anymore. This goes double for dress shoes, of which I had several pair that I don't love, and was able to part with on little thought.
Gifts: It's ok to get rid of a gift. It's okay to regift it, it's okay to sell it, and it's okay to throw it out. You shouldn't be wasteful or rude, but don't be trapped by guilt either. It really is the thought that counts, and after that it's just a mass and weight.
Repeat Items: I like shoes; Mostly casual kicks that tend to be interchangeable. I have 4 pairs of white casual shoes. I wear only one of them, and only every so often. In this process I got rid of all the others, and might soon get rid of the remaining pair. Shoes wear out, giving them a natural ending. I shouldn't be looking to replace them before their time, otherwise I probably didn't care for them too much in the first place.

Some allowances I make for myself:

I am okay with having a shelf with shorts and shirts for sports. I play softball and basketball (though not as regularly as I'd like these days) and it's just fine to have some old, comfortable stuff around for this purpose. That being said, I'm going to keep it to just the one shelf. I do not have need for every baggy t-shirt I've ever come accross. I just want a few options and I'm good.
As I've said, I like variety. I'm okay with owning a few things in the same category, but I have to watch myself with this point as well. When I'm routinely moving some items out of the way to get to my favorites in the same category, they simply have to go.

My goal in this continuing process is to own things on purpose. To appreciate them and use them to their fullest extent until they wear out or become obselete. I want to get maximum value out of them, and then to let go. (Throw them away, sell them, or donate them to those who could still get some value out of them.) This is my version of conscious consumerism.

seriously, you already have this information [productivity]

You keep an active google reader right? You might interface through Feedly, Pulse or Flipboard or any number of other apps, but you do keep a good set of RSS fed content from the top minds and sources from your industry/hobby/interest whatever.

So, when you have a question about a topic, why do you immediately go to Google search? Let's say you wanted to find out about a basic technology like QR codes. Google search is good for getting you to the wikipedia entry, or to a free QR code generator. But, even going through the News search, you're going to have to do plenty of on-the-spot filtering through spam blogs and disconnected references that don't get you where you want to go.

Enter your Google reader search. So what if you haven't checked your reader in two weeks/months/years and your 1000+ unread items are staring at you like so many freshly purchased and neatly stacked books you promised you'd read, reminding you that you are neither as organized nor as informed as you wish you were. What you've got is a direct feed from as many pre-qualified (by YOU no less) sources that you want. If your feed contained Mashable, TechCrunch, Business Insider and Fast Company, you'd have an awesome cross-section of posts, listed in chronological order.

The QR code example throwing you off? Cool - how about something like chicken recipes? If you've got Orangette, Chez Pim and Smitten Kitchen in your reading list, then you're moments away from some recent twist on Pollo al Horno, Tortilla soup or Chicken Cordon Bleu.

With such a simple, powerful and free tool at your disposal, it just seems silly to think that Readers are only for the hyper-aware, dry-eyeballed crowd who have a twitch in their index finger from click-click-clicking of the J-key all day.

So don't forget to search your reading list when you have a question (if you don't have one set up then find a few sources that you trust and start one today) It takes just a few moments, and will save you hours of manual data sifting in the long run.

what @bing really did wrong

Backstory at AdAge.

My take? Bing should have pushed back on Michael Ian Black, who was as guilty (if not more so) for using these tragic events as a platform for self-aggrandizement. Twitter is huge, and a guy with 1.6 Million followers told you to go eff yourself. So what?

Among others (like plenty of not-famous people) Ryan Seacrest and Alyssa Milano participated in the 'drive' without objection. You can't hit your knees and beg forgiveness because one caustic comedian decides to set his sites on you.

How about "We're sorry you disagree with us using twitter, but we're just trying to get the word out and help people." in one tweet and "if you'd like to contribute using other means, we encourage you to do so. Start here [link to American Red Cross page]" in the next?

Everybody is allowed their POV, but they don't get to dictate the terms of your charitable actions. Feel good about what you're doing and stand up for yourself? (and the people you're trying to help)

honestly, i'm not into it

This morning I had a quick back-and-forth with Jeremiah Owyang, a digital/business strategist, very smart guy, and somebody who I had the privilege of meeting briefly at SXSW 2010, when he endorsed a site called "Honestly" via twitter and I clicked through and voiced concerns about the service. (during the writing of this post, I found that others had similar initial reactions when the site was known as "Unvarnished") According to their site: "Honestly.com is an online resource for building, managing, and researching professional reputation, using community-contributed, professional reviews." Seeing my comments, they quickly jumped in and provided me with a link to their blog posts that were tagged with "safety". They've done plenty of thinking about user safety, and written about the safeguards built into their site.

That being said, here's why I'm not gung-ho about Honestly:

The content of the site is only visible once you sign in via Facebook connect. This always rubs me the wrong way. I want to check out the site, take a tour, see what other people are writing and get a feel for the breadth of the community and conversation. Can't be done here, and it's a red flag for me.
You can review non-members, and create a profile for them. I have a few social profiles, a blog, a twitter account and a linkedin profile among others. Anybody who wants to can use one of those platforms, or one of their own, and point to me in a positive or negative light. I'll see it, and I can respond to it. (or, if I see that the source isn't worth responding to, I can choose to ignore it) Reviews should be (1) about making the people we work with better and (2) about helping others assess working with that person. As a yelp user, I can see the inconsistency in this point of view, but yelp reviews are public, and businesses could see their reviews before deciding to sign up. Should I just be paranoid about what people might be saying about me, or should I *sign up now* to find out? (see point 1)
Reviews are on this site are anonymous. There is a place in our society for anonymous sources, but it should be reserved for people who would be legitimately endangered in some way by coming forward, or people who have uncovered something terrible and need to stay close to it so they can ultimately end it. Anonymity is for whistleblowers, not for assessing the performance of our business colleagues and teammates. A counter to this might be that internal company reviews are anonymous. That's true to some extent, but the reviews and the reviewers are evaluated by people who understand the feedback and can put it in context. Also, company performance reviews usually involve references to specific instances of excellence or failure, which further validates the information.

Long story short - knowing somebody is hard, bad hires get made all the time, and taking a new job comes with risk. I don't fault the makers of Honestly for trying to take a new angle at the very real problem. However, granting every overbearing boss, grudge-holding subordinate, and jealous coworker a forum for sounding off without putting their name right next to their POVs is not, in my opinion, a step forward.

Is the era of the twitter background over?

Since the launch of the new Twitter layout, I've seen that a lot of

twitter profiles have backgrounds that aren't 'compliant' with the new
specs. Even the users who went out of their way to make Twitter
backgrounds that followed the old best practices haven't updated.

So what's the deal? Is it just too much of a pain? Do people not
realize that a browser window has to be 1400 pixels wide read their
background? Or is it just another confirmation that everybody uses
Twitter through apps. (mobile and desktop)

I probably wouldn't even notice if there weren't so many. It's the
kind of indicator that makes me nervous about the health of a digital
ecosystem. It's like driving through a neighborhood and seeing
billboards for movies that are a year old.

New Model [Personal Data Rant]

So about.me got bought today by AOL, and today I was discussing the Facebook privacy issues with a colleague, and Apple just made me agree to new terms of service when I updated my iPad OS to 4.2 - this all got me thinking: do we need a new standard for personal data control in social media?

Okay, so at first read that's a little alarmist right, but hear me out: with it's purchase, AOL gets data on 400,000 about.me users (myself included) who used the service as a hub for connecting multiple social sites. Want to know the overlap among leading edge tech participators and flickr? Curious what percentage of users are representing themselves publicly with a link to their Facebook account? These questions and more can be answered with a peek at the about.me database, which these users freely gave their information to, not knowing it would ever go to AOL. This is a little troubling to me.

So what would the new model be? I think it would have to be some sort of shared ownership of the data that gave users first right of refusal on access or transfer. In other words, while I would get no say in the sale of about.me to AOL, I would get a say as to whether my data went along with the purchase. I would have the legal right to request that my data not be made available as part of the purchase. This model taken further, companies might have to offer to permanently expunge user data if they change their privacy policy or terms of service.

Truth be told, I have nothing against AOL. I use AIM for personal and work communication, and I don't have an issue with them getting to see my data in this way. That being said, I do feel a little powerless about how my personal information (usage data, a chosen password, a pretty accurate profile of my digital self) is being handled in this case.

ch-ch-ch-changes

As some of you know, this past Friday was my last day at Swirl. Being a part of the work and the culture at Swirl was a both an awesome opportunity, and a sincere pleasure for me. And, after a great two and a half years, I'm moving on to take a more senior position at EVB. I'm extremely excited about the opportunity and hope to continue to add value, teach, learn, and grow as I move into the next phase of my career.

This hasn't been the only change in my life recently. Aside from switching jobs, I've changed addresses. Moving is a hell of a thing. I packed all my worldly possessions into boxes and shuttled back and forth between the new place and old place like some consumer fire brigade. It's a sort of commitment to pick a thing up, put it in a box, and lug it along with me. If it's something I don't often use, it's like acquiring it all over again, but with an entirely different value proposition given that the only cost is that of taking it with me. Perhaps surprisingly, many things have not cleared this bar. With the opportunities and challenges ahead, it's nice to carry a lighter load.