Marketing Analysis: There are over 15,000 jobs available and nobody to fill them. But I’m so happy we will once again have plenty of coal.

Yep. 15,000.  That is the approximate total number of jobs that come up when you type in the terms google analytics, marketing data analyst, and advertising data analyst.  Go broad and just type in Data Analyst? 50k. FIFTY THOUSAND JOBS OPEN.

imagesI don’t write often and when I do it’s very obvious I’ve had a bad week. Or maybe month. That something has really “gotten my goat”. Today it is this. Data and the lack of people available to analyze it.

Oh I know – everyone is talking about big data. It will save us, it will kill us, who needs it eventually Watson will be inside every home and he will kick Alexa’s butt to the curb — blah blah blah. But I’m just talking about small data.  The kind of data that organizations who have just really started to pay attention and focus on their digital activities past the number of Facebook followers are now looking at.

Simple data. What is making people sign up at my website? Where is my website traffic coming from?  And it’s smart smart SMART people who can’t figure this out. PHD’s. People who own franchises. People who are qualified to invest your retirement money. People who work with OTHER kinds of data — but not marketing data. Not digital marketing data. I’m talking about people who can’t afford a 15,000 per month attribution system. I’m talking about medium to small sized businesses who are now feel like they have to have Stanford level Master’s degrees to implement a Google Goal Funnel.

Can someone explain to me why Google can’t just open up training centers around the country – physical ones. Not online. Not self motivated. But guided, hand holding training centers to help people get trained on these types of entry level support gigs. For free.  I’m mean it ultimately helps them — the more the world installs GA the more advertising they can sell against it.

But no. We are as a nation focused on reopening coal mines. Nobody talks about the fact that there are in fact jobs and we don’t make an effort to train people to fill them — corporate america doesn’t even make an effort to train people in service of their own needs.

What if corporate America worked like the Army sometimes? Hey – we will send you to college or to a technical training program for two years – but then you sign on and you work for us for 5 years.  How many people would sign on for that? I would have to imagine a lot. Look at the success of Teach For America. Everyone wants to privatize government programs. Private Corporate Data Analyst Scholarship Programs. There’s a program.

Sure we have STEM programs. You can’t go anywhere without hearing how important STEM is….but its not enough. We can’t wait for a 12 year old to make it out of the STEM system and when they do — they will most likely think “I’m going to invent an app and be the next Mark Zuckerberg”. Well…someone has to work for the next Mark Zuckerberg and they are not being trained.  This is a thought that is very related to a great article I read this weekend about how “leadership” is overused and the college admissions community needs to find value in followers too. It’s by Susan Cain, who is my hero as a champion for introverts.

Rant over.

I’m off to see if I can add more solar panels to my roof in defiance of today’s announcement.

 

product development and marketing

Your Roadmap for Product Development and Marketing

This is a snapshot from a FANTASTIC report from Altimeter about Content Marketing and Development. As we move ahead and more and more companies are moving into the Content space (past the traditional press release or white paper) this map is a great thing to hang over your wall.  Does what you are planning to create (mobile app game? Mobile app informational service? blog? video series?) does it fit into one of these bubbles and more importantly; does it fit into the RIGHT bubble?

This is a great one to hang on the wall above the desk and look at during those conference calls about content strategy. Most people don’t really know what content can be – this can help!

You can download the full report here:

Altimeter

social media and job searching

New Era of Discrimination?

 

The article below caught my eye. Social Media has become such a powerful way for people to express their voices. But consider this: Many of the questions that are illegal for a potential employer to ask you – or at the very least in appropriate – can be answered by looking at your social stream. Are we facing a new era of silent discrimination? You wouldn’t be human if your opinion of a person was not somehow swayed in either direction based on postings about politics, religion, sexual orientation, etc…

Corporate Culture is more important than ever – and Social allows a company to either protect it’s culture, grow it or diversify it in new ways that were not possible prior to the age of personal broadcasting.

Oh the tangled webs we weave…will social just end up being “self filtered”? Where can one express one’s opinion in public without it affecting them in private?

1 in 5 Tech Firms Rejected a Job Applicant Because of Social Media

by , Yesterday, 12:37 PM

Social media profiles are a great way to network and promote yourself, both personally and professionally, but they are also a great way to sabotage yourself with stupid, incriminating content.

And indeed, it turns out that one out of five technology firms has rejected a job applicant because of something they included on their social media profile, according to the 2012 annual technology market survey conducted by Eurocom Worldwide and its associated agencies.

This finding is especially remarkable because a previous wave of the study found that only around 40% of the tech executives surveyed were even looking at profiles of job applicants at all. While that number has probably increased, the fact remains that a large proportion of executives who look at social media profiles are finding something they don’t like.

Mads Christensen, Network Director at Eurocom Worldwide, offered a summary of the findings which makes me want to climb in bed, turn the lights out, and pull the covers over my head forever: “The 21st century human is learning that every action leaves an indelible digital trail. In the years ahead many of us will be challenged by what we are making public in various social forums today.”

More positively for social media, the Eurocom survey also found that 49% of tech executives said they plan to increase spending on social media in the next year. Of course, social media is still haunted by the unresolved question of ROI, as 57% of surveys said they are still unable to measure the impact of social media spending.

Read more: http://www.mediapost.com/publications/article/170498/1-in-5-tech-firms-rejected-a-job-applicant-because.html#ixzz1ph7bWnKe

social media ROI

Great Points….thanks involver.com!

Three Social Media ROI Myths

Some social media marketing myths still persist despite the growing understanding of how to use the new marketing channels. Here are three of them.

Social Media is NOT free

1. Social media is free.

Signing up for a Facebook page or a YouTube channel may be free, but that doesn’t mean social media is. At the very least, successful social media content still takes time to plan and develop, and someone in the business is being paid for that time. However, the good news is that once a social media marketing strategy has been decided upon and people have been allocated to the project, the cost of social media remains relatively flat, while profitability increases over time. Whether or not profitability happens, though, totally depends upon the success of the social media campaign.

2. It’s impossible to assign a monetary ROI value to social media marketing.

Although marketers are still learning how to measure the ROI of social media efforts, stating that the monetary value of a social media campaign cannot be measured at all is not true. As you will see in the next section of this article, many businesses are already successfully measuring the dollar-value of their social initiatives.

3. Social media costs more than it makes.

This is a “myth” that is actually true–for businesses who are poorly executing social media campaigns because they don’t understand their audience, don’t understand their technical tools, or just don’t understand social media itself. Businesses who do not invest the time it takes to learn about their audience, how to grow that audience, and how to interact with that audience will ultimately spend more on social media than social media brings back to them, but this is not the fault of social media itself.

Six Examples of Social Media ROI

Want to see some recent concrete examples of businesses who are measuring the results of their social media campaigns? Try these on for size:

Social Media ROI

1. Best Buy’s innovative “Twelpforce” enlists knowledgeable, everyday employees to answer customer support questions via Twitter. Best Buy estimates that this “social help desk” saves them $5 million annually in support. [1]

2. Bonobo’s social business became 13 times more cost effective (CPA) in acquiring a new customer from Twitter than from other marketing channels. [2]

3. Paramount Pictures’ #Super8Secret (hashtag) Promoted Trend created a tremendous spike in conversations: Tweets of the hashtag reached nearly nine million impressions in less than 24 hours and mentions of the movie skyrocketed to more than 150 per minute. Receipts for the sneak preview exceeded $1 million, and Paramount said weekend box office surpassed expectations by 52%. [2]

4. Petco’s 1% of shoppers use “Ask and Answer,” that influences a 10% increase of revenue on their website. [3]

5. Sprint’s monitoring of online conversations about their brand enabled them to tweak their social media campaign messaging. As a result, the company says it picked up an extra $133 million in revenue. [4]

6. Sephora Community Users spend 2.5 times more than average customers, and their superfans spend 10 times more. [1]

careers of the future

65 percent of kids born today will have careers that don’t exist yet

finally we might be at the beginning of the end. the doomsday technology chant that educators have been harping on is challenged by a Duke University professor. Why is it that we assume that just because we are older we know better? Why in this day and age with the rapid advancements in health, power (sort of), communication, etc…are we still primarily convinced that technology in kid’s lives is a bad thing? why aren’t we applying moore’s law to kids’ ability to learn and to change the world?

Research shows mobile technology is really changing children’s brains. An expert explains how we use that for good

Our kids' glorious new age of distraction

Children are not what they used to be. They tweet and blog and text without batting an eyelash. Whenever they need the answer to a question, they simply log onto their phone and look it up on Google. They live in a state of perpetual, endless distraction, and, for many parents and educators, it’s a source of real concern. Will future generations be able to finish a whole book? Will they be able to sit through an entire movie without checking their phones? Are we raising a generation of impatient brats?

According to Cathy N. Davidson, a professor of interdisciplinary studies at Duke University, and the author of the new book “Now You See It: How Brain Science of Attention Will Transform the Way We Live, Work, and Learn,” much of the panic about children’s shortened attention spans isn’t just misguided, it’s harmful. Younger generations, she argues, don’t just think about technology more casually, they’re actually wired to respond to it in a different manner than we are, and it’s up to us — and our education system — to catch up to them.

Davidson is personally invested in finding a solution to the problem. As vice provost at Duke, she spearheaded a project to hand out a free iPod to every member of the incoming class, and began using wikis and blogs as part of her teaching. In a move that garnered national media attention, she crowd-sourced the grading in her course. In her book, she explains how everything from video gaming to redesigned schools can enhance our children’s education — and ultimately, our future.

Salon spoke to Davidson over the phone about the structure of our brains, the danger of multiple-choice testing, and what the workplace of the future will actually look like.

Over the last few years, there’s been a lot of concern that new forms of technology, like smart phones, video games and the Internet, are ruining the next generation of kids — that they can’t concentrate on anything, that they’re always distracted. You don’t think that’s the case?

Back in the ’80s and ’90s, there were findings that suggested this new technology would be great as an education and learning tool. Then Columbine happened, and you could see all the research money go from “Wow, we’re in this new digital age and it’s going to be great for all of us” to “How is it that this digital era is destroying our kids?” It’s email, it’s the Internet, it’s video games, then when texting comes along, it’s texting, and when social networking comes along, it’s social networking. So whatever the flavor of the month in terms of new technologies are, there’s research that comes out very quickly that shows how it causes our children to be asocial, distracted, bad in school, to have learning disorders, a whole litany of things.

And then the Pew Foundation and MacArthur Foundation started saying, about three or four years ago: “Wait, wait, wait, let’s not assume these things are hurting our kids. Let’s just look at how our kids are using media and stop with testing that’s set up from a pejorative or harmful point of view. Let’s actually look at what’s happening.” So we’ve wasted time — but we can make it up. I think the moralistic research really, really colored over a decade of research, especially on kids.

So tell me, why isn’t all this distraction bad for our kids’ brains?

The phenomenon of attention blindness is real — when we pay attention to one thing, it means we’re not paying attention to something else. When we’re multitasking, what we’re actually really doing is what Linda Stone calls “continuous partial attention.” We’re not actually simultaneously paying equal attention to two things: One of the things that we’re doing is probably being done automatically, and we’re sort of cruising through that, and we’re paying more attention to the other thing. Or we’re moving back and forth between them. But any moment when there is a major new form of technology, people think it’s going to overwhelm the brain. In the 1930s there was legislation introduced to prevent Motorola from putting radios in dashboards, because it was thought that people couldn’t possibly cope with driving and listening to the radio.

As you point out in the book, the reason why certain things distract us more than others has to do with the way our brains develop when we’re young children.

We used to think that as we get older we develop more neural pathways, but the opposite is actually the case. You and I have about 40 percent less neurons than a newborn infant does. A baby pays attention to everything. You’ve probably witnessed this — if there are shadows in the ceiling or sand blades are making peculiar patterns, we adults don’t recognize that, but it can be utterly mesmerizing to a child. They learn what not to pay attention to over and over and over again, and learn what to pay attention to, and that makes for neural pathways that are very efficient. They’re what we tend to call reflexes or automatic behaviors, because we’ve done them so many times we don’t pay attention to them anymore.  As an adult, you feel distracted when you learn something new and you can’t depend on those automatic responses or automatic reflexes that have been streamlined neurally over a lifetime of use.

Younger generations are being exposed to all these new stimuli — texting, Facebooking, Googling — from an early age. Does that mean their brains, their neural pathways, are built differently than ours?

When my students go to the Web and they’re searching and they’re leaving comments and they’re social networking and they’re Facebooking and they’re texting at the same time — those are their reflexes. They are learning to process that kind of information faster. That which we experience shapes our pathways, so they’re going to be far less stressed by a certain kind of multitasking that you are or than I am, or people who may not have grown up with that.

Our tools are substitutes for those things that society has taught us aren’t worth paying attention to and aren’t really valuable — and our neural pathways have followed right along. Back in the days when the slide ruler was invented, people thought it was terrible and you would lose math abilities. Well, they were right, we did lose certain math abilities, and no one cared. So kids today, I think, because of the way they learn, they are used to lots of different media, and they are learning in a different way than kids who were trained by television, for example, in a previous generation. It’s not that one is better or worse than another, it’s just that they’re absolutely different. There’s always something that is easy for a kid not because they’re superior, but because that’s exactly the thing that shaped their neural pathways.

In the book, you have this fascinating statistic that 65 percent of kids born today will have careers that don’t exist yet. Right now, under No Child Left Behind, the school system puts tremendous emphasis on standardized multiple choice tests, which, as you point out, don’t exactly train kids to think creatively about the technological future.

The whole point of standardized testing was invented in 1914 and modeled explicitly as a way to process all these immigrants who were flooding into America at the same time as we were requiring two years of high school, and men were off at war and women were working in factories. The multiple choice test is based on the assembly line – what’s fast, what’s machine readable, what can be graded very, very rapidly. It’s also based on the idea of objectivity and that there’s a kind of knowledge that has a right answer. If you chose a right answer, you’re done. It’s really only in the last 100 years that we’ve thought of learning in that very quantifiable way.

We’re now in an era where anybody can find out anything just by Googling. So the real issue is not how fast can I choose a fact A, B, C or D. Now if I Google an answer I’ve got thousands of possibilities to choose from. How do you teach a kid to be able to make a sound judgment about what is and what isn’t reliable information? How do you synthesize that into a coherent position that allows you to make informed decisions about your life? In other words, all of those things we think of as school were shaped for a vision of work and productivity and adulthood that was very much an industrial age of work, productivity and adulthood. We now have a pretty different idea of work, productivity and adulthood, but we’re still teaching people using the same institutionalized forms of education.

So what do we do to change that?

First I’d get rid of end-of-grade tests. They demotivate learning, in boys especially. Establish more challenge-based problem-solving kinds of education. This is hardly revolutionary. Montessori schools do this. I would like to see more attention paid to how you go from thinking something to making something. If I’m learning about numbers, how will that help me understand the financial situation that no one in the world seems to understand right now. You’re lucky that you’re 27; imagine being 15 right now, and hear every pundit saying that your generation is the first generation to be poorer than your parents, you’re not going to have jobs, we’re going to go into a worldwide depression, and the Internet has made you dumb, shallow, stupid, lonely — that’s a lot to deal with.

One of the things you advocate is getting rid of the traditional grading system in favor of something more group-sourced. How would that work? I find it a little shocking.

There are all these really stunning computer scientists that are just frustrated as heck about how badly we’re training scientists. And many of them feel that A,B,C,D and numeric grades are disincentives to exactly the kind of inductive thinking, creative thinking that is the scientific method. Top Coder is the world’s most important certification system for people who are doing open Web development around the world, and they’ve come up with an incredibly complex badging system, where if I’m working with you on code and I see you’re doing a great job, it’s part of my job as a member of the Top Coding community to give somebody points. So if I think you’re doing a great job solving some problem in C++ that I can’t see a solution to, I might give you 20 points. If I’m a third developer, and I say I really need somebody who can help me with some really complicated stuff on C++ , and I see you have a badge with 1,000 points on it on your website, I can click on your badge and it will give me in minute and excruciating detail, how you earned every one of those points.

There are now a group of computer scientists who are working together to see if we can’t come up with ways that textbooks — particularly online and interactive textbooks; there’ve been some wonderful ones for algebra, for example — could be based on testing that works in some similar way, where a teacher would give you points for succeeding at a problem, where you would automatically get points for getting the correct answer. You wouldn’t even worry about giving negative points because it doesn’t matter; all you do is get points when you do something well. Even saying that is a conceptual breakthrough. When I told my students that we don’t have to worry about trolls and criticism, all we have to do is make really sound, conscientious, articulate judgments about positive things, it was as if a cloud opened.

Work life is also changing. It’s weird, I go to an office every day, and sit at a desk, but as soon as I open my laptop my non-work life floods back in. I’m answering emails from my parents, or checking my Facebook page, or getting texts from friends. Our work life has become very porous.

Right. It’s bizarre — we go to work, and then we live in a workplace that is our desktop, which brings all the whole world to our workplace with us. Why are we going physically to work to then be subjected to everything else in the world that isn’t work along with everything that is work? It’s all jumbled up together. We’re in a very transitional moment. But that’s going to get fixed too, I think grading is going to get more sophisticated and I think we’re just going to have more and more complex ways of working .

Do you think that we’ll just all be telecommuting, eventually?

You know, I love talking about IBM because what stodgier company is there on earth than IBM? There, people are reshaping the workplace to the task before them. Sometimes they physically come together, sometimes they’re in a 15-person phone call, sometimes they’re on their laptops [IM’ing]. I think the dexterity of work is just something we’re beginning to explore. I think you need some really solid infrastructure so it’s not exploitative. It would be great to have universal healthcare because if you had universal healthcare you actually could employ people in variant ways. Like I might want to work 10 hours a week at Salon, and 20 hours a week at NYU, and 15 hours a week at the New York Times. I think flexibility and variability will be more important in the future.

I think basically everybody in the white-collar field has noticed that this change goes both ways — our personal life intrudes into our workplace, but our work is increasing intruding into our personal life. We’re answering emails on weekends or checking our BlackBerrys at night. Is this something we’re just going to get used to?

We could either get used to it, or we could say no. Computers could have software that said how much time I was logged in [and then paid me accordingly]. Why couldn’t that be the new work life? We have to think very carefully about what we want from work now that those new conditions and possibilities exist. That’s why I teach my students about judgment.

Thomas Rogers is Salon’s Deputy Arts Editor.More Thomas Rogers

how about water instead of pepsi?

i love this idea. and when i think how it could do good in the world “i’d like to buy the world a dasani and keep it company” oops. wrong drink – wrong brand….but you get the point.

seriously. i have been working alot lately on the idea of “social media for social change”. this is a far cry from using social media to sell hip hop records and rock and roll but it is so unbelievably fulfilling – and i see this and think wow – Jaimie Oliver needs to drop one off at every school filled with WATER.

did you know that many schools do not have DRINKING WATER? it’s true. And then let’s take it larger to underserved nations. Imagine if you could randomly donate a bottle of water to an inner city school kid who only has a choice of soda or sugared fruit punch at school? Imagine if you could drop this machine in the middle of an area recently struck by natural disaster and allow people to donate bottles of water to survivors.

The concept right now is harnessed around pepsi – but truly it could be anything inside that vending machine – food, water, medical supplies – really anything.  How awesome is that?

Pepsi’s social vending lets users buy drinks for friends remotely

It was not long ago that we wrote about frinXX, the German service that enabled users to buy drinks for friends remotely via Facebook. Now, in a similar vein, Pepsi’s new “Social Vending System”, lets users buy PepsiCo drinks for their friends through a digital vending machine.

Users of the touch screen vending machine can choose to buy a drink for themselves, subscribe to the Pepsi Refresh Project, send a drink to a stranger, or to gift and redeem a drink from a friend. In order to send a gift, users choose a drink, enter the recipient’s name and mobile phone number, and type a personalized text message to be sent along with a unique code to the recipient’s phone. There is also the option to then record a video message using a camera built in to the vending machine. Once the text message has been received by the gift recipient, the code can be entered at a Pepsi social vending machine to redeem the gifted drink, and the pre-recorded video message will be played back on the touch screen.

report on Mashable claims ‘a PepsiCo rep says Facebook or other social media integration “are Phase 2 — being explored as it evolves’’. With or without any further development, this remains a fine example of an established brand innovating with social media. (Related: Pharmacy vending machine offers location-based specials through Foursquare
— Vending machine rewards mental agility — Vending machines sell after-party shoes.)

Website: www.pepsico.com
Contact: www.pepsico.com/Contacts.html

republic of letters

Using Today’s Tech to Map Social Networks of the Past

Exploring Correspondence and Intellectual Community in the Early Modern Period (1500-1800)

 

This project by some students at Stanford is pretty fantastic. One thing I have noticed over my adult years is that I read more biographies. As I read and read and read – and realize certain connections; it gives me a perspective that I feel like my history classes never could. For instance – reading Katherine Graham’s autobiography and learning that it was her mother that supported the gallery that forwarded Alfred Steiglitz’s photography as “art”; that made photography and art at all! – it was an “aha moment”. I’ve often thought that professors should require biographies more often as part of reading lists.

Back to this post…. I love reading collections of letters – there is something about the voyeuristic nature of them that allows me to feel as though I am uncovering truth. Even in today’s blogosphere and all of the social networking – how will it be archived? How will future historians trace the twitter feeds between the luminaries of today? One of my favorite books long ago was Posession by Byatt. Two PhD’s, a love story, history – all unfolded through the discovery of a piece of paper locked away in a box. (Even enough to tolerate a it being turned into a not so fabulous movie…more than one viewing admittedly!)

I love the idea of using modern mapping technology to bring a deeper understanding to the connections throughout history. Click the image to see the project — and make sure you have an hour or so!

it’s so funny how we don’t talk anymore

Pew’s latest information on texting shows that adults are increasing in their use of texting. Some of the subtleties are fascinating. Love the question “do you sleep with your phone” (parents do so more than non parents) There is a definite difference between parents and non parents usage that is interesting but also confusing at times. take a look. One thing is for sure – kids are forcing their parents to communicate with them on their terms – and that’s via text.

Adults, Cell Phones and Texting

PrintEmailShare

Overview

Texting by adults has increased over the past nine months from 65% of adults sending and receiving texts in September 2009 to 72% texting in May 2010. Still, adults do not send nearly the same number of texts per day as teens ages 12-17, who send and receive, on average, five times more texts per day than adult texters.

  • Adults who text typically send and receive a median of 10 texts a day; teens who text send and receive a median of 50 texts per day.
  • 5% of all adult texters send more than 200 text messages a day or more than 6,000 texts a month. Fully 15% of teens ages 12-17, and 18% of adults ages 18 to 24 text message more than 200 messages a day, while just 3% of adults ages 25 to 29 do the same.
  • Heavy adult texters — those who send and receive more than 50 texts a day — also tend to be heavy users of voice calling. Light texters, who exchange one to 10 texts a day, do not make up for less texting by calling more. Instead, they are light users of both calling and texting.

The original purpose of the cell phone is still the most universal — nearly every cell phone user makes calls on their phone at least occasionally.

  • The average adult cell phone owner makes and receives around five voice calls a day.
  • Women tend to make slightly fewer calls with their cell phones than men — while 53% of women make and receive five calls or fewer per day, 43% of men say the same. Men are a bit more likely to make slightly more phone calls in a day; 26% of men send and receive six to 10 calls a day, while 20% of women exchange that many calls. Men and women are equally likely to be represented at the extreme high end of callers, with 8% of men and 6% of women making and taking more than 30 calls a day.

Americans especially appreciate that their cell phones make them feel safer (91% of cell owners say this) and help them connect to friends and family to arrange plans (88% agree). Still, some users express irritation with their phone for the disruptions it creates, though the heaviest users of the phone are no more likely to express irritation with their phone than lower level users. Two-in-five (42%) cell phone owners say they feel irritated when a call or text message interrupts them. Cell phones are such a vital part of American’s lives that many users will not be parted from their device, even as they sleep:

  • 65% of adults with cell phones say they have ever slept with their cell phone on or right next to their bed.
  • Adults who have slept with or near their phones are also more likely to feel positively about their phone. They are more likely to appreciate the way the phone helps them to make plans (94% vs. 78% of those who don’t sleep with their phone) and to see the phone as a source of entertainment (52% vs. 14%). Phone sleepers are just as likely to express irritation with the phone as those who don’t sleep near their handset.

Spam isn’t just for email anymore; it comes in the form of unwanted text messages of all kinds — from coupons to phishing schemes — sent directly to user’s cell phones.

  • 57% of adults with cell phones have received unwanted or spam text messages on their phone.

African American and Hispanic cell phone users are more intense and frequent users of all of the phone’s capabilities than whites. Minorities send more text messages and make more calls on average than their white counterparts.

  • African American and English-speaking Hispanic adults are slightly more likely than whites to own a cell phone, with 87% of African Americans and English-speaking Hispanics owning a phone, compared with 80% of whites.
  • African American and English-speaking Hispanic cell phone owners are more likely than whites to initiate and receive large numbers of calls each day. One-in-eight (12%) Africa American phone owners and 14% of Hispanic cell phone users make and receive more than 30 calls on a typical day, while just 4% of white cell phone users make and receive the same number of calls.
  • African American and Hispanic texters typically text more on average than white texters, with a median of 10 texts a day for African Americans and Hispanics and 5 texts a day for whites. White adults are a bit more likely than English-speaking Hispanic adults to say they do not send or receive any texts on a typical day (10% vs. 4%).

Parents with children under age 18 in the home are also keen users of the cell phone. Parents are more likely to own a cell phone than non-parents, and more likely to make five or more calls per day than non-parents (63% vs. 44%), though they do not text more overall. They are more likely to have slept with their phone on or near their bed, and to use the phone for talking for all types of purposes. Texting is less definitive — mostly parents use it for the same reasons and similar frequencies as non-parents. Parents are also more likely than those without minor children at home to appreciate the way the phone allows them to check in, plan on the fly and stave off boredom.

  • Parents (90%) are more likely to have a cell phone than adults without children under 18 at home (78%).
  • 72% of parents have slept with their phone, compared with 62% of non-parents.
  • Parents are more likely to use their cell phone’s voice capabilities several times a day for work calls (32% of parents vs. 19% of non-parents), to check in with someone (28% vs. 17%), to say hello and chat (31% vs. 24%) and to have long personal conversations (13% vs. 7%) than are non-parents. Parents are also more likely than non-parents to coordinate a physical meeting (18% vs. 13%) daily.
data mining

I love data mining….as long as it isn’t my data being mined!

Having worked in social media since before it was called social media – i have quite a few friends and colleagues who have built entire companies around the idea of data mining. In 1994, when i started to work on overseeing the build of a consumer database for the first time, I remember the excitement around finally being able to communicate directly to people about things they would want to hear about.

Somewhere at some point someone had told me that the difference between marketing and sales was this: a salesperson sells you something you dont need and a marketer tells you about something you might like. I personally always liked to think of myself as the marketer. And then – email, the click to buy button, the add to cart button, conversion rates etc…marketers became sales people. one by one by one we fell. Yet – all this data mining – the ability to take all our junior sociologist/anthropologist tendencies and put them to actual work making money? How could you not! All those salespeople always asking what marketing people actually DID all day! Harumph!

I read the journal article linked at the end of this post and it really hit home for me. I’ve been shopping online for a dress to wear to a friend’s wedding. Rather than drive all over town, spend hours in traffic – i am that online shopper that fully takes advantage of free shipping and returns. My bedroom is the dressing room, the UPS man my personal helper that brings me another size or color.

I AM FREAKED OUT LATELY BECAUSE I AM BEING FOLLOWED ONLINE BY SHOES AND DRESSES AND COOKWARE.

I use like.com (not to be confused with ilike.com for music) – visual search shopping when you want to see every navy blue maxi length dress in the world? It’s amazing! Best deal on that particular marc jacobs dress or want to monitor the sale price of a cashmere sweater? Bow down to shopstyle. These are PHENOMENAL shopping/marketing/CRM tools.

But then – it happens. I go to a blog, i’m reading a hard core diatribe about some new technology and there in the corner…..a banner…..scrolling through black suede boots – the very shoes i was looking at yesterday — like the devil – like a stranger offering me candy at school!

I finally decided to click on the “i” for information on how in the world this company was achieving this. And it wasn’t just every once in a while…it was everything lately – i shopped for a gift of kitchenware, visions of all clad dancing in the corners, – it was anytime i did a search on anything it seemed.

I hated it. And I loved it.  Criteo.

You geniuses. You peeping Toms. how dare you peep while I am bra shopping online!  After clicking on the “i” in the banner ad I was told I could remove the Criteo tracking tool from my computer….after i downloaded a  PDF and spend a half hour removing it! This is so NOT the 2 clicks “unsubscribe me” button that we now take for granted to opt out of anything at any time quickly and easily (thank you DMA).

It was maddening – i didn’t have time to put on my “IT Guy” hat and dig into find the hidden file. It’s still there. Oh what the hell – I thought – I do this for a living I shouldn’t remove it – I need to understand.

I found the press release. It wasn’t just my paranoia – it WAS in fact happening more and more because on APril 9th, 2010 Criteo moved its offices from Paris France to Palo Alto. They hired 20 US salespeople. They have two US data centers.

And it’s working. And I’m waiting for the other shoe to drop. I want an unsubscribe button. Black pumps are a distraction I don’t need when I’m doing research on mobile video content delivery. I’d like to decide when I’m going to shop and when I’m going to work without having to spend a halfhour programming my computer for each site. Maybe even just a “not now” button in the corner of the banner.

I’m just not strong enough to ignore the shoes in the corner.

Here’s the article:

THE DANGERS OF WEB TRACKING – THE GREAT PRIVACY DEBATE BY NICOLAS CARR FOR THE WALL STREET JOURNAL.