No. Let me explain.

It begins with the letter, ‘N’, and while you reckoned a three letter response, yours has only two. Not one of them is a ‘Y’, ‘E’, or ‘S’, as you may have fancied, so I strongly advise you reassess things.

It is, you’ll find, the exact opposite of your expectations. You were likely anticipating a wide smile, corners furling in affirmation; but, instead, you were met with tight lips. Do not misinterpret this as a playful “kissy-face”; inasmuch, you may sense derisive undertones… and you would be quite astute.

Further, do not presume any change. Ever. When earth reverses polarity, when North becomes South, concrete direction may prove ambiguous; however, rest assured, my answer will not.

No means no.

Don’t ever ask, “what do you do?” without an exit strategy.

Done right, an elevator pitch effectively communicates occupation and value. Done wrong, it inflicts great amounts of boring and anxiety. Generally, people suck at elevator pitches. Here’s how to avoid getting stuck between floors.

(By the way, they call it an “elevator pitch” because the “pitch” should be about as long as an elevator ride. Living in New York City, I can assure you both elevator rides and elevator pitches feel much longer than they actually are. My friends will note that I just signed a one-year lease on a walk-up.)
 

1. Don’t ask the question.
   Find an alternative. My favorite: “What’s your story?” If they look like the droning type, append, “in 10 words or less… and make it interesting.” It gives your new acquaintance the opportunity to avoid their poorly-rehearsed pitch.
    
2. Don’t try to network.
   Sure, you went to a networking event to, well, network; but really, your career counselor gave you bad advice. Approach people, even at networking events, as you would a stranger in a bar or at a book signing. Tell a story or a joke, ask what they thought of some recent news, or just make some funny faces. Your stranger will become a friendly, see value in you socially, and tell you what they do without all the sales bullshit (because they too think it sounds like bullshit). Then, if they know how to help you, they’ll do it without prompting. And hell, you might even like them as a person.
    
3. Don’t take the bait.
   It’s better to be interesting and vague than boring and specific.

   Your response to, “What do you do?” should be succinct: 10 - 15 words, tops. Your goal is to get your questioner to show genuine interest in what you do and not just wait their turn. If what you say isn’t interesting to them, just stop talking about what you do and talk about something else. If they are interested, they’ll let you know and get more out of you than you ever could from a canned response. Additionally, your conversation partner will likely follow the same format.

   (By the way, I run a music company that teaches private, in-home lessons.)

4. Interrupt and segue.
   Without prompting, warning, or permission, your newest contact has launched into an elevator pitch. Let her finish her first sentence, and then stop her. Quickly and politely. Ask how her company’s different than competitors. Or, how she likes her job. Or, ask anything that should be contained in an elevator pitch. Then, exchange business cards and move on. If her goal is to sell you on a service or product without asking anything about you, she’ll take solace that you’ve taken her information with a promise to check it out and follow up.

A skilled communicator articulates the information you want to hear without you having to ask, converting elevator pitches into relevant conversations. Unskilled communicators hand you a verbal pamphlet.

Learn to say, “No, thank you.”

Starbucks can save the world, if it has the balls.

I was reintroduced to Chris Jordan though his TED talk, Picturing Excess, in which he uses images to demonstrate to the enormity of American’s subconscious behaviors in aggregate. The results are staggering and the implications are catastrophic. Worse yet, Americans are apathetic to their own, marginal impact. So, what’s the fix?

Start with paper cups.

Americans use 16 billion (with a ‘B’) paper cups every year. You’ve likely used one or two today to transport your Caramel Macchiato and thought nothing about the aggregate impact. Neither does anyone else, nor do most people care– therein lies the problem:

1. Bringing your own cup is inconvenient, albeit cost effective.
2. One paper cup has virtually no impact. 

Solution: Starbucks should stop serving beverages in disposable cups, driving change through ubiquity.

Starbucks should take a cue from the milkmen of yore and dispense beverages with a meaningful (say, $10) container deposit. Any container can be returned to any Starbucks, and Starbucks will sterilize any returned container for reuse. And it’s not that inconvenient: Starbucks is everywhere. (And, if they’re fully committed to their containers, they can include RFID to track customer coffee drinking habits and share that information with them… but I digress.)

Immediate Effects

1. Overnight 15% reduction in paper cup usage.
   [Starbucks printed 2.3 Billion (again, with a ‘B’) paper cups in 2006.]
2. Increased awareness that local efforts have global impact. 

Secondary Effects

1. Increased acknowledgement that local efforts have global impact. 
2. Increased local action.
3. More companies will follow their lead.
4. The homeless (and other financially challenged individuals) will ensure these containers are returned or recycled.

For many Americans, coffee is the alpha and omega. In ridding Starbucks of disposable containers, it’s a constant reminder that our local actions do affect global change. 

Unfortunately, I suspect SBUX stockholders might sue. Admittedly, this is a risky plan; though, I would hope that corporations with the power to affect change would, instead of merely “protecting shareholder value”.

Maybe Dunkin’ Donuts, a privately-owned company, will have the chutzpah.

I hope someone does.

–

More: B-Corporations, Sustainability is Sexy.

Is Google really an Evil capitalist? Maybe not, but they’re sending a mixed message. 

Google’s GMail, Search, Calendar, Doc, etc. are slick for a reason: they wants you to use their free products so they can show you more ads and generate more revenue. However, Google’s bread-and-butter product, AdWords, resembles a 1990’s back-end business app coded in Oracle. It must be purposeful: it makes them more money.

If you haven’t played with adwords, I suggest you try it. Visit http://www.google.com/adwords/. 404-page? Right. Try again without the trailing slash. 

The first thing you’ll notice is that your Google login doesn’t work. The systems aren’t integrated. Go ahead and set up a new account (and make sure you use an acceptable password… my usual Google Account password is too short).

Great! You’re in. Buying ads for keywords is easy. Just search some keywords, set some bids for a top-3 spot, click continue, click continue again, make sure you accept the terms, click continue, click continue, and you’re good to go! 

Let’s track how you’re doing. Login to Analytics. Set up the tracking code on your website, and *BAM*, you’re tracking your pageviews. (Now, wait a few days for results to populate.)

(Just don’t forget to link your Analytics account to your AdWords account– I’m still not sure how I did it or if it’s working.) 

So, you go back to AdWords. Oh, were you logged in with an account (your Google Account, not your Google AdWords account) that already has an AdSense account? Don’t worry, Google will let you know that you probably wanted AdSense, and forget to give you the option of logging out or linking to your AdWords account. So, browse to Google.com, sign out, and get back to AdSense. (Remember to omit the last slash.)

The first thing you’ll notice is that your convergence goals aren’t tracking. That’s because you didn’t put in the convergence tracking code into your website. Now, wait a few more days. Note: this is separate code from the Analytics tracking. Also note: You’re still not exactly sure how or if your Analytics and AdWords accounts are linked.

Alright! So we’re up and running. You’re getting visitors, they’re converging, and you’ve started tracking which keywords work and which ones don’t. Now, scroll through the 1,000 keywords you’ve purchased and start weeding out the bad ones. … One at a time… It might take all night, but it’s worth it. Get those convergence rates up and start a bidding war on those valuable keywords.

…

Ultimately, most buyers of AdWords won’t get that far. It’s not in Google’s interest. They want most people to be over-bidding and spending less time with the system, optimizing their AdWord purchases. But, given Google’s proven ability to create slick, well-received apps, this tactic feels borderline evil.

There are too many “Sorry I missed your birthday” cards. This bodes poorly for society. 

Since when did breaking commitments become acceptable social practice? The market for witty proxy apologies is booming.* Diligent and timely communication, thanks in part to cellphones and text messages, gives way to half-assed correspondence and lackadaisical relationship management. 

Enough, already!

For the sake of brevity, let’s get to it:

Gruen’s Rules of Integrity. 

1. Rule: If you say you’re going to do something, do it… even if at great cost to you.
    
2. Rule: If you must break Rule 1 for whatever reason, notify any relevant parties immediately.
   The broken commitment may be due to unforeseen circumstances or prohibitive cost– the reason is less important than the effort. People can sense insincerity.
    
3. Rule: Make up broken commitments as soon as possible.
   Be extra sure not to break that one.
    
4. Rule: Number 2 is the exception, not the rule.
   If you find yourself breaking commitments often, stop making commitments that you will likely break. Learn why you do this, and fix it.
    
5. Rule: Being “flighty” is not an excuse.
   However, pragmatically, it is OK to break commitments with flighty people after they have personally demonstrated their flightiness to you. With these individuals, it’s OK to make other commitments provided you inform the third party of the situation. 
    
6. Rule: Don’t overcommit. Say No.
   Committing to everyone means committing to no one. It’s OK to say ‘no’, or ‘no for now’. 
     
7. Rule: Be Honest.
   Don’t lie. Though, there’s no obligation to speak the entire truth or offer information. 

Succinctly: Be Considerate.

More on this later. (And you can count on that.)

–

*Don’t believe me? Visit your local card store or pharmacy and take notice of “regret” cards.

It’s great that people blog– I just wish they’d stop saying the same thing.

Through school, students write papers to demonstrate subject knowledge, less so to articulate original thought. Old habits die hard, people start blogging, and in this age of instant worldwide publishing, we end up chewing on a lot of cud.

It’s not that people are boring, stupid, or have nothing to say– (though, that’s debatable…) Years of response-based writing inclines people to offer reactions than articulate their own, original ideas.

It’s much easier to write reactions than create ideas and be wrong. Save nothing of the social anxieties for being wrong, describing new ideas is a hard thing to do.

People tend to follow the path of least resistance and thus the blogosphere saturates itself with commentary. And, since the blogosphere moves with such great velocity, it’s near impossible to keep track of everything that’s been said. 

Unfortunately, all contributions — and I use that term loosely – are indexed and compiled into the same channel. We call it “Google”, and the signal-to-noise ratio goes up. Way up.

Responses typically fall into certain categories. (Ask anyone who grades papers or reads hundreds of blogs.) With blogging, there’s just more. It seems more people are interested in demonstrating knowledge than contributing new thought.

My theory is that this happens subconsciously. Years of response-based education create this need– it’s how we were graded by our superiors and evaluated by our peers. People need to show that they know something.

There’s no problem with that, except that this need generates millions of blog posts. In result, we saturate our knowledge space and make it near impossible to wade through.

Misplaced faith can ruin an industry just like misplaced laughs can ruin comedy.

George Carlin packages his routine into essay-style rants. While he occasionally injects a one-liner to keep the joke lively, the real humor is his thesis. Yet, some people crack-up after every line whether he tells a joke or not.

Unfamiliar? Watch this. (If you listen carefully, you can hear scattered laughter between clauses.)

Consensus says George Carlin is funny. So, the theory goes, if he’s performing than everything must be funny.

Good comedians use feedback to evaluate their material. Poor George Carlin doesn’t get the luxury of an “honest” response. Consequently, his work deteriorates and his comedy becomes less funny.

Likewise, as “thought leaders” (I hate that term) gain larger followings, their cheerleaders become more vocal. Consequently, they hear less useful feedback and their whole world deteriorates.

I’m starting to wonder if tech thought leaders and their followers are getting too loud.

More: George Carlin - Religion is Bullshit, George Carlin - Pro-life is Anti-Woman

(more…)

In our attempt to remain connected at all times, we spoil opportunities to connect in real life.

I have this romantic notion that the deepest friendships come about only through face-to-face interactions. Regrettably, I feel we are losing our ability to appreciate and understand the complexities of each other unless it’s though a blog post, e-mail, or text message.

Technology enables us to be ‘on’ all the time– which practically means we’re never off. Modern communication is instantaneous, interruptive, and incessant; and, we cope with it by multitasking. And with technology always on, we’re losing the ability to turn multitasking off.

This is especially disconcerting in social situations: we automatically anticipate distractions in moments when there’s nothing to distract us, and that awareness distracts us from each other. Sometimes we’ll artificially create a distraction to fill a void. We can’t help but multitask; and when we do, we lose detail, complexity, and depth. (Yes, even you.)

The funny thing is that technology enables us to maintain close relationships with a greater number of people. But, in doing so, we implicitly devalue face-time and forgo possibly deeper relationships. Something feels off when I feel closer to friends through e-mail and blogs than through time spent together.

I hope this isn’t the case with me. In fact, that’s the point of this post: if you ever feel I’m not giving you my full attention or I am using technology as a blanket, call me out on it. Unmediated communication is too important and I’d like to stop being a victim of my distractibility.

More: NPR: How Multitasking Affects Human Learning, Time: The Multitasking Generation

If people are going to stalk me, I want them to have to work for it.

Services like FriendFeed make it easy for users to aggregate statuses, feeds, and notifications so their “friends” can conveniently track their every move. Narcissistic, maybe, but it’s not particularly bothersome. Services like Spokeo and SocialThing! make it easy for users to track their “friends’” every move… without their knowledge.

This is bothersome.

Aggregation isn’t inherently bad– it’s just not always wanted. With social capabilities making their way into nearly every web service, it’s easy to forget how much you’re revealing about yourself. In fact, it’s now trivial to find your Amazon.com Wish List, Blockbuster Queue, latest [boy|girl]friend’s name, and everything else automatically at a finger’s reach in real time.

To combat unwanted aggregation, I use a spam-protection hack that employs single-use e-mail addresses. Services like Spokeo search major websites for accounts with identical usernames and e-mail addresses. Simply differentiate e-mail addresses using the aforementioned hack and you’re golden– and spam-free!

Give the spooky Spokeo a try. It’ll scour your e-mail account for addresses and aggregate all of your contacts for you.

Try not to become too much of a stalker.

I’m trying a new prose form that should improve clarity and eschew verbosity. This blog will only use this form.

In my last post on michaelgruen.com, I charged that blogging tends towards inanity and verbosity. That sentiment remains; but, in following a strict set of guidelines, I think I can satisfy my laconic inclinations while still providing digestible content.

Think word sushi: delicately-prepared high-quality content that’s easy to consume.

The guidelines:

1. The post should take no longer than a minute or two to read. The average adult can read 250 words per minute. 300 words should be more than sufficient to make a point.
2. The post opens with a statement of 140 characters or less because anything worth saying can be compressed into a Twitter-sized nugget. This statement is the core message of the post. Additionally, it doubles as a summary so visitors need not re-read the entire post to remember the punch line. And, quite obviously, it provides a “tweetable” hook to the content.
3. A short phrase cannot always capture an entire thought. So, a brief introduction follows to contextualize the opening statement. 50 words or less should do.
4. Following the Twitter-sized précis and brief introduction, the bulk of the post is largely free-form. In this case, it’s an enumerated definition of a new form.
5. The post concludes with an optional final thought, consideration, or link to more information.

This post opens with 112 characters. This entire post comprises 271 words and takes under a minute to read. It took me just under an hour to write.

And that’s the point: Posts should take longer to prepare than to digest.