Then, when I go to work, I’ll have 349 Connections in my office with me. Often, I’ll add a couple hundred more Followers in the room – it can be very difficult to get work done, but sometimes they help me, too. I just have to be careful what I do with them all in there.

And I’m not making this stuff up. Sure, it’s a little bit of make-believe. But this line of thinking helps me keep my online privacy in order.

With my Facebook Friends, my LinkedIn Connections, Twitter Followers and others, I am often communicating with potentially large groups of people, all at once. Some I know better than others. With some I care to share more personal or private stuff – but not with all. So when I’m on these sites, if I’m not willing to share information with all these people, I don’t share it with any. That’s a simple rule.

I suggest you enact the same rule. If you’re not willing to share something with everyone you know – and potentially everyone they know – then keep it off Facebook.

Privacy is Yours If You Really Want It

According to QuitFacebookDay.com, 32,567 current Facebook’ers plan to quit any day now. What’s that? Maybe one percent of one percent of the reported 400 Million people who have a Facebook account? QuitFacebookDay.com was created for a potential mass exodus of Facebook users on May 31, 2010 over concerns the site owners are being dishonest when it comes to user privacy. The mass exodus did not happen.

According to web-tracking site Alexa.com, Facebook’s “reach” is up nearly 3% and the site is still ranked #2 overall in the U.S. and about 25 other countries. And if you compare using Compete.com, Facebook counts more than 3 Billion visits in the month of April, beating the otherwise top-ranking Google.

Still, all the talk about privacy on Facebook makes me believe people do really care about the issue. Adults like to remind high school seniors that college recruiters can look at Facebook. They like to remind friends not to complain about their bosses on Facebook. They encourage pre-teens to be wary of friend requests from strangers.

They just don’t care enough about privacy to do much about it themselves. Or they just care more about posting photos announcing they are on vacation in Hawaii (would they post the same on the front door of their home?).

Besides Facebook, LinkedIn, and Twitter, I’m active with Foursquare, Flickr, and YouTube. And I have accounts set up on many more that I just haven’t done much with yet. Plus, I read and comment on lots of blogs. All these social networks are unique in what they do for me; I use them differently and for different reasons. They do, however, have one thing in common that I love: they help me build relationships much more easily than I could have a few years ago.

Still, few of these relationships are the kind where I really want to share a lot of information. Yes, it’s great fun to post photos and to espouse political opinions and to cheer for my favorite sports team. I would do any of those things with my 200+ friends in my living room, or 300+ colleagues in my office. If you wouldn’t, then don’t. And don’t do it on Facebook or LinkedIn or any online social network.

For some of you, my overly simple rule may seem silly. And you want more data so you can have better control of your information. For you, plenty of resources exist to help you learn more.

Most of these sites have a blog where developers and even guests share more detailed information about best ways to use these sites. For example, blog.facebook.com has articles about the new privacy practices. At blog.linkedin.com, you can learn about best ways to use the site, including security and privacy. If you have serious concerns about privacy on any of these sites, check the “Privacy Policy” – it should be easy to find on any social or commerce-driven website today.

Privacy on Twitter? That may not be a big issue on the site that doesn’t ask you to build a profile or share much of anything. Photo-sharing site Flickr, however, will demand much more vigilant care of information sharing.

But that’s the problem – potentially. All these sites are about information sharing. So it can be difficult to complain about privacy issues in a world built on sharing. Way back when, part of your commitment to participating fairly in kindergarten was that promise you made to share. Okay, you didn’t make that promise willingly; your parents made it for you. You did, however need to learn to share judiciously – at some times and with certain things – way back in kindergarten.

Online, it’s the same thing. You really do have complete control over the information you choose to share. And you can choose with whom you share. Or, if you just want to keep the good crayons to yourself, you can do that, too.

You never define a term by saying what it’s not. You never define a phrase by stating how difficult it is to define.

And you never say never.

Everyone has an opinion on What Is Social Media? It may be limited by their limited use – that means Facebook or quick glances at YouTube shared via e-mail. Business professionals may include some Blogging experience, or a once-used Twitter account. Social Media is difficult to define, no doubt.

We didn't create Social or Media. We just do it differently

Too often, this craze is defined by the technology that dominates the news. But by focusing on the ever-changing technology trends, we miss the applications and benefits afforded by participating in Social Media. There it is, the definition.

What? Where? By my definition, Social Media is news, opinion and communication publicly created for active sharing and open dissemination. This doesn’t say electronic file sharing, mobile apps, and digital technology. So by my definition, our grandparents created social media, or maybe their grandparents. We’ve just gone crazy with it and made it fit our high-tech lifestyle.

Social Media is not new. Its evolution, however, has exploded thanks to the increased use of tools like smart phones and laptops. Yes, it’s the increased use of these tools, not the tools themselves, that makes Social Media so powerful today. Technological tools will come and go.

Don’t focus on the tools or the technology, but what they can help you do. Our desire to share stories, pictures, videos and music was strong years ago, and will outlast today’s and tomorrow’s tools.

Using this definition of Social Media removes the doubt, the apprehension and the unknown. Now it’s simply a matter of trying. You’ve already started, by finding this fresh news-sharing platform. And you learned how to share in kindergarten. Text your friends and tell them to read this. Leave a comment and we’ll continue the conversation.

Let’s see how you can embrace Social Media if you simply focus on the sharing of content and don’t worry about the tools.

The two go together, of course, but in no way are they exclusive pairs. I mean, you can thoroughly enjoy the first without skills in the second. So don’t let Techno-Fear keep you from fully enjoying social media.

That small percentage of passionate people can keep all our Techno Hunger fully satisfied.

First of all, there is no scientific backing to this whatsoever. But that never stopped anyone else from making up numbers, so it won’t stop me.

I spend a good deal of time on Twitter and in other social media zones, but I place myself fully in the green “Techno-Envy” zone of that pie chart. I’m trying not to let it get the better of me. And it doesn’t. Sure, I still long for an iPhone and to become “Mayor” of somewhere. But I am completely happy with what I can do in and around social media.

I interact with far too many people, however, who are in the Fear zone, afraid to explore even Facebook for fear their entire personal life will instantly be broadcast to the world. I also come across a number of business leaders who simply refuse to explore even the simplest possibilities of a LinkedIn “company profile,” or the depth of Twitter search for brand sentiment analysis.

Here’s my hope as a self-proclaimed “social media advocate.” I hope that people who have a fear will simply embrace one technology tool for its most simple rewards. Try the above-mentioned Twitter search (search.twitter.com). You don’t even need a Twitter account. Or go to Flickr.com with a few digital photos, create an account (you may already have one through Yahoo!), then post and share a few images. I did this again recently with some shots of roses in my backyard, and I made a new “friend” – in Italy, I believe – who likes rose photos.

And if, like me, you’re Green with Envy, just relax and let the amazing tech geeks create all the beautiful tools for us to enjoy.

Will you try this, today?

I have spent the last year getting to know a few industries new to me. As a communicator, I spend a lot of time asking what the initials mean. Many of the people I work with in these varied enterprises like to think theirs has the market cornered on acronyms. It simply arms me and my ARP – that’s Acronym Reduction Project!

The Death of Communication
The May issue of Inc. Magazine has an excellent article on the failures of business communication. Phrases like “full-service solutions provider” have certainly given marketing a bad name. But worse, I say, is the proliferation of acronyms only understood in narrow business segments, and even there more often misunderstood.

I sat in a meeting a few weeks ago where the presenter used so many acronyms even she – when questioned – couldn’t define them all. At that point, she should have simply left the room, not to return until she knew what she was saying. She continued, however, proving she was simply wasting our time and hers by “communicating” incoherently.

I can understand the use of acronyms in Twitter where a character limit demands brevity. But in a Powerpoint presentation? In a corporate newsletter? In regular e-mail communication? How much time or ink or pixels are you really saving? And at what cost?

Journalists know to spell out the words upon first reference, even if the reader might understand the acronym. When I’m writing for business, I make sure an acronym never sits on a page or screen without being defined at least once.

My Acronym Reduction Project will continue until I bring them near extinction. Then I will change the name to Acronym Elimination Project. I wasted a few minutes just now trying to come up with a better name where I could use a funny acronym … oh no, what am I doing?

Have you encountered mysterious and overused acronyms in business communication? Will you join me to stop their use?

That’s what I’m asking when I glance at headlines on the morning newspaper, and when I scan through Google Reader, trying to decide into which story I want to dive more deeply.

What happened on the oil rig off the Louisiana coast? What is happening in Congress as our elected officials attempt to prevent further fiscal fallout? What are my Minnesota Timberwolves going to do in the off-season to improve for next year?

I want the facts. I want the truth. And I expect to get that information up front without the personal analysis of the writer. Along the way, I might learn why the oil rig failed, and why our economy collapsed (though probably not), and why the T’Wolves bombed last season. But I read (or listen to, or watch) the news in a facts-first mission.

When I encounter “news” delivered with a “because” up front, I’m suspicious. With my examples of oil rig, economy, or Timberwolves, do you think there is any one reason (or even 2 or simply 3 reasons?) “why” the facts played out as they did?

I even watch my diverse Twitter feeds in a similar fact-finding mission. And I have to filter out a lot of opinion and promotion to get to facts via Twitter, but I know that and I’m okay with it.

But I was quite surprised recently when a particular journalism expert I follow tweeted the following: @10000Words: Now that I’m on the other side of the coin I realize journalists would yield better answers if they asked “Why?” instead of “What?”

I have followed @10000Words for months, and am generally impressed with the information and insight he provides. But this tweet just had me asking “Why?” Yes, journalists should ask Why as part of the 5 Ws and 1 H questioning (Who, What, Why, When, Where and How). But to ask Why instead of asking What is to destroy the foundation of journalism.

In fact, I might say that you could eliminate the Why from the 5 Ws and 1 H. It’s the single question that does not require a factual answer. The remaining 4 Ws and 1 H, all provide verifiable factual answers that could be tested by the likes of PolitiFact or other fact-checking organizations. “Why” most often leads to opinion, a one-sided spin. Yes, asking “Why” can also lead to valuable analysis. But it seldom delivers the facts.

Ask “Why.” But not at the expense of the facts.

I’m proud to see this same communication style put to use by our elected officials, namely Congressman Gary Miller.  He represents my 42^nd district in Southern California.

Perhaps this is the signpost that leads Congressman Miller to work.

“Much has changed in the way we communicate with each other,” says Congressman Gary Miller in a survey he sent out recently. The one thing that has changed, Mr. Miller, is that we used to communicate like this to be funny. You do it now to promote an agenda.

My post here is not about politics. It’s about communication. We communicate more frequently, with increasing volume and with broader reach. And by doing so, our communication can carry far more weight. The Congressman’s photo on this survey mailer shows him smiling; maybe he is trying to be funny.

Here are a few samples of the questions Mr. Miller asked his constituents in this survey. I’m going to try one or two of these on my kids and their friends.

#4. From what you know about the health care reform legislation pending before Congress, would you support or oppose this legislation? (my emphasis)

• Yes
• No
• Unsure

#9. Should Congress require individuals to purchase health care insurance or face a tax penalty?

• Yes
• No
• Unsure

#20. Should captured suspected terrorists be treated as “common criminals” or as military combatants?

• Yes
• No
• Unsure

Mr. Miller, do you really want people to answer these questions? Or do you carry your lunch?

Not necessarily. Communicating with snakes is a challenge, unless you’re Harry Potter. Similarly, communicating with journalists can be a challenge, too. (Full disclosure: I love snakes. So don’t read any negative “media members are snakes” references into this!)

Just because it's making eye contact, that doesn't mean it's listening.

For effective communication, you just have to know where the ears are. (Snakes, by the way, have no outer ear. They pick up sound waves through vibrations which are processed by the tiny snake brain.) Knowing that, you’ll communicate much more effectively with our ground-slithering friends.

So how about journalists? If you spend much time listening to “experts” on Twitter, you’d think journalists lived there and that you need to get media members to follow you for effective PR and marketing communication. I spend a good deal of time listening, searching and reading on Twitter, and am often lead to believe that e-mail is dead, as is the traditional press release. The only way to speak with journalists, then, is to somehow get them to follow you on Twitter, or to comment on their blogs until they notice you.

But I met some journalists recently who aren’t even on Twitter (yet). Or they set up an account and “really haven’t done much with it” (yet). These were journalists with credentials, real members of the media with bylines and everything. And they still use e-mail.

So know that I know where their ears are, I know how to communicate with them. I’ve reached out to other journalists who are completely into Facebook, or even LinkedIn.com. Still others might uses SMS. And one or two actually speak on the telephone to this day. It’s true.

I’m an e-mail guy myself, but am also using Twitter more and more. Most importantly, I realize that to most effectively talk to a snake, I have to know how they hear.

If you don’t know who he is (and that’s okay, it’s not like he’s Guy Kawasaki, or anything) you can Google him.

Okay, Brogan posted on his blog a book review with accompanying request for stories about story-telling. And since I’ve spent most of my professional life writing stories, I am responding to his request.

Now I don’t write stories in the same way that Theodor Geisel (Dr. Suess) or John Irving wrote stories. Mine are and have been real stories (and not like Sarah Palin’s “Real American Stories” either). No, mine – hence the grammar in the headline – are Real stories about factual things, like safety in the workplace, or motorcycles and ATVs, or the business of hosting an MMA fight at your gym.

Yes, stories. Real-ly. I do my best to take the mundane and make it a story with a beginning, middle and end. Plus interesting, funny, and educational stuff mixed throughout. And I love doing it. In fact, it’s now my business. Like, my own.

I seldom call myself a writer, even though I write often and for money. Nor do I often refer to myself as a story-teller, even though, again …

But tell and write I do. Months ago, I began this blog, and I’ve used it to tell some very personal stories. Factual and personal and opinionated. And it often feels very good to do that, not only to write the story and record it, but to broadcast it, as widely as this little blog can carry a story. Because that’s when a story is best, when it’s healthiest and most productive. Yes, stories are living things, and they need to get out, to socialize and be seen and heard. Good stories and bad stories need this.

Thanks, Chris Brogan, for encouraging the telling and sharing. Pass it on.

She's all for Life, Liberty and the right to Lie

It was California’s esteemed Secretary of State Debra Bowen talking about Ballot Signature season. She advised citizens confronted with signature gatherers to “just tell them a little white lie, like ‘I don’t live in this county’, or ‘I already signed that.’”

My local NPR affiliate – Southern California’s KPCC – was discussing the process of garnering signatures for ballot initiatives. California residents are confronted with these signature requests as they walk into a Target store or Albertson’s grocery store. Some of these people can be relentless in their pursuit of your coveted John Hancock.

It’s certainly appropriate for KPCC to discuss this issue with the Secretary of State’s office. What’s not appropriate is the response given by the leader of that state’s election process – Secretary of State Debra Bowen. Perhaps she had a very negative experience or two with ballot signature takers.

So if that’s the best advice she can give, I wonder what she tells her employees during the day. What’s the culture in Sacramento that would have Bowen say this to a reporter? What are her bosses advising Bowen? Arnie, what’s going on?

How about telling citizens they have the right to simply deny their signature to anyone asking. How about telling citizens they have the right to disagree peacefully with anyone inciting heated political discourse. How about telling the truth.

I don’t “shop” much. When I’m in a store, it is a purposeful event (bicycle stores, ski shops and Hollywood’s Amoeba Records excluded). I go to purchase a product or service. Yes, I am often a victim of the “upsell” process, but I generally buy what I need, when I need it. And, most importantly, I will frequent stores that serve me well and at a fair price.

Make a personal connection and communicate to create a Customer Service miracle.

After a few recent spending trips (they’re not shopping trips for me, remember), I will now be shopping – for a new place to get my oil changed, for one thing. Customer service is dead, I didn’t watch it die, but I have seen the rotting corpse. And it amazes me that it would die now, when business owners should be doing everything possible to retain existing customers and attract new ones.

And I think I know how Customer Service died. It was left unfed or without personal attention. It would be like if I left my dog alone for days or weeks. First, it would likely turn angry, then it would simply perish. That’s what happened to Customer Service. Through personnel cuts or budget re-allocations or re-aligned management priorities, the one service that is often most valuable is no longer stocked at many stores.

Other products are there. Jewelry is in cases. Food is on store shelves. Mechanical services are provided. But personal communication and care, attention to customers’ needs, and personal service is gone. Left to Facebook and Twitter? Maybe. But like a recent story in The Miami Herald reports, social media often acts only as a “Band-Aid” to much more serious problems.

Hold on, there is a sign of life. It may be possible to revive Customer Service, and to save humanity in the process. After one of my recent encounters with the deceased (or near-deceased) I completed an online survey and voiced my remorse for the death. That same day, I received a phone call from a human being. It was a living, breathing human being who worked for this company, and he seemed to care for my needs. That means, of course, he cared for my money. And I’m okay with that. I was so glad he cared.

Through a simple act of personal communication, Customer Service may live to see another day. I’m not going back to that store right away. I bet it still has the stink of death on it. But I am elated in the hope that communication – personal conversations, not just tweets and status updates – can deliver other miracles of life.