While scouring through Digg a few days ago I came across this article by Marcia Conner about business leaders’ refusal to integrate Twitter into their communication mix. For those of you who are unaware, Twitter is a micro-blogging service allowing users to send out “tweets” which are text-based updates of up to 140 characters in length. These “tweets” can be received on your laptop or phone in many different forms (sms, rss, web, email, applications). Having gotten a taste of the struggle between tech-friendly early adopters and “old-school” business leaders this summer during an internship, the article got me thinking about the real usefulness of Twitter in a corporate setting. In my opinion there are many advantages to being open to Twitter integration and I hope to explore a couple of these advantages in this post.
Twitter is paramount to helping us to be more efficient. The first thing it could do is rid us of the pain of receiving a deluge of responses to a group email about a topic that you have no interest in at all. I fell victim to this in the past week. An event was announced. Nothing special, a weekend gathering between friends. The invite was sent, I declined, and then, like raindrops announcing a storm on the horizon, my inbox started to fill up with responses, both on and off topic, distracting me from my work and quickly forcing me to read through each mail to check for importance and then delete. This went on for 3 days!!! As the great Tom Petty screeched, “Darlin’, too many words have been spoken.” If you are like me, this scene is all too common. Twitter could have easily been used in this instance to facilitate planning: One tweet to announce the plan, followed by subsequent tweets from responders about the topic. This probably would not have led to less banal discussion about what to wear, but at least it would have taken that outside of the inbox and allowed non-interested parties to follow passively instead of actively.
Helping to alleviate email clutter is one major advantage. However, the real beauty of Twitter lies in the fact that it is an exercise in conciseness. Something which many corporate leaders, along with the general population, deeply lack. 140 characters, the length of approximately 2 well planned out sentences, is all you have to work with when sending a “tweet.” This forces you to think about what you say and to make your words count. Unlike meetings that last hours where the important phrases are often lost in the jumble, with Twitter, the jumble is erased so that all that is left is the essential point that one is trying to get across. It is my belief that this sort of to-the-point conversation is much more effective and meaningful to the recipients because they feel that the sender values their time and is doing all he can to avoid wasting it. It also leads responders to give their answers in the same concise and direct method. Twitter allows for simple and efficient collaboration on a grand scale. This means that problems are solved much more quickly profiting both from the lack of useless banter and from an increased listener base. In bringing more people to the table, Twitter also destroys information silos and helps to break down barriers between teams within a firm. Twitter can be used to quickly tackle small problems that do not really warrant a meeting or conference call. This saves time so that more important matters can be discussed during meetings and more time can also be given to employees to be creative and more efficiently complete their assigned tasks.
It is perhaps prudent to note that one of the major problems with Twitter in corporate situations has to do with the question of security as, like most social media, it is relatively easy to post things yet somewhat difficult to control who has access to them. Twitter still being relatively young as a service, I am sure that these issues will be addressed as time progresses in order to make the service more attractive to businesses seeking a communication solution. In fact, a Twitter-like service, Yammer, launched 2 months ago, has already gotten recognition for addressing this concern by using corporate email addresses for enhanced security.
Given the makeup of the readers of this blog, this post may be akin to preaching to the choir. However, I also have faith that if enough of us speak our minds and push for new tech solutions to be integrated into the classic business model, we can show the laggers the benefits of these technologies and improve the adoption rates in business. No matter what your opinion, let me know what you think @chodge89.
PS. Stay tuned for a future post about how businesses are using Twitter to stay in touch with customers.
Friday, November 21, 2008
Fringe: My half-season recap.
With Fringe (Fox Tuesdays), creator J.J. Abrams set out to answer one question: Is it possible to create a show that is more annoying than LOST? After giving Abrams the benefit of the doubt for 8 long episodes, I think that the answer is a resounding yes!
For those of you who don’t follow the series, this hour-long sci-fi drama follows the investigation of unexplained phenomena by a female FBI agent (Anna Torv, who’s biggest previous role involved voicing a character in a video game), a former scientist (John Noble) who went mad and was placed in an asylum, and his equally brilliant but cynical son (played by heartthrob Joshua Jackson). Picture a less credible version of the X-Files and you will have a good idea of what the show is all about. Up to this point, each episode has followed the same basic pattern:
A strange and disastrous event occurs.
Agent Dunham is informed of the event. (She usually gets emotionally involved!)
Dr. Bishop remembers something about his past research that can solve the case while arguing with his son. (This frequently leads to them realizing how alike they are, and thus, strengthening their tarnished relationship.)
A totally unbelievable experiment is conducted (i.e. talking to a dead person) in order to get the missing clues.
The perpetrator is arrested but nothing is explained.
The show finishes with an unexplained twist…fade to credits.
The general goal of each episode, much like LOST, is to answer just enough questions to string the viewer along week after week, while at the same time leaving the big questions unanswered and creating tons of new ones.
This technique worked wonders for the X-Files for many seasons and works to some extent for LOST. However, in my opinion it doesn’t work in the case of Fringe because Fringe lacks what both of the other shows excelled in: Having characters that the viewer actually cares about! Whereas we ached to see Mulder’s beliefs be confirmed or to see what would become of the Jack-Kate-Sawyer love triangle, Anna Torv’s lifeless portrayal of Agent Olivia Dunham leads us to not care whether she lives through each episode. X-Files was nothing without David Duchovny. LOST would be nothing without Matthew Fox. However, in watching Fringe you get the sense that if the whole cast was mysteriously replaced one episode, you would barely notice, and the show might be better off because of it. In my opinion, the key to a sci-fi/mystery driven drama series is creating characters we want to get to know and either love or hate, characters we feel strongly about, and scripting out sub-plots (romance, vengeance, personal quest) that will immerse the viewer in the lives of those characters so that we can forget the fact that we will never know the mystery behind a disappearing deserted island or little green men. It is because of this lack of character development and intriguing side stories that Fringe is, to quote a popular internet expression, the epic fail.
In closing, I will admit that it took me a season to really fall in love with the X-Files and I am still not convinced by LOST. I hope that Fringe will prove me wrong and that by the end of this season I will feel attachment with the cast, or at least feel more deeply immersed in the story. I don’t expect to see the next Duchovny who is, in my opinion, one of the greatest TV actors of all time. But I would at least like to see Torv show the least bit of emotion and see the relationship between Walter (Noble) and Peter (Jackson, the most talented actor on the show) evolve and take more prominence. Please Charlie Conway, don’t let me down.
For those of you who don’t follow the series, this hour-long sci-fi drama follows the investigation of unexplained phenomena by a female FBI agent (Anna Torv, who’s biggest previous role involved voicing a character in a video game), a former scientist (John Noble) who went mad and was placed in an asylum, and his equally brilliant but cynical son (played by heartthrob Joshua Jackson). Picture a less credible version of the X-Files and you will have a good idea of what the show is all about. Up to this point, each episode has followed the same basic pattern:
A strange and disastrous event occurs.
Agent Dunham is informed of the event. (She usually gets emotionally involved!)
Dr. Bishop remembers something about his past research that can solve the case while arguing with his son. (This frequently leads to them realizing how alike they are, and thus, strengthening their tarnished relationship.)
A totally unbelievable experiment is conducted (i.e. talking to a dead person) in order to get the missing clues.
The perpetrator is arrested but nothing is explained.
The show finishes with an unexplained twist…fade to credits.
The general goal of each episode, much like LOST, is to answer just enough questions to string the viewer along week after week, while at the same time leaving the big questions unanswered and creating tons of new ones.
This technique worked wonders for the X-Files for many seasons and works to some extent for LOST. However, in my opinion it doesn’t work in the case of Fringe because Fringe lacks what both of the other shows excelled in: Having characters that the viewer actually cares about! Whereas we ached to see Mulder’s beliefs be confirmed or to see what would become of the Jack-Kate-Sawyer love triangle, Anna Torv’s lifeless portrayal of Agent Olivia Dunham leads us to not care whether she lives through each episode. X-Files was nothing without David Duchovny. LOST would be nothing without Matthew Fox. However, in watching Fringe you get the sense that if the whole cast was mysteriously replaced one episode, you would barely notice, and the show might be better off because of it. In my opinion, the key to a sci-fi/mystery driven drama series is creating characters we want to get to know and either love or hate, characters we feel strongly about, and scripting out sub-plots (romance, vengeance, personal quest) that will immerse the viewer in the lives of those characters so that we can forget the fact that we will never know the mystery behind a disappearing deserted island or little green men. It is because of this lack of character development and intriguing side stories that Fringe is, to quote a popular internet expression, the epic fail.
In closing, I will admit that it took me a season to really fall in love with the X-Files and I am still not convinced by LOST. I hope that Fringe will prove me wrong and that by the end of this season I will feel attachment with the cast, or at least feel more deeply immersed in the story. I don’t expect to see the next Duchovny who is, in my opinion, one of the greatest TV actors of all time. But I would at least like to see Torv show the least bit of emotion and see the relationship between Walter (Noble) and Peter (Jackson, the most talented actor on the show) evolve and take more prominence. Please Charlie Conway, don’t let me down.
James Bond – Quantum of Solace (Slight Spoiler Alert…you have been warned.)
Before writing I feel obligated to state that I am a spy film fanatic. Therefore, going into the cinema for the viewing of the 22nd installment in the Bond series, I was already guilty of Cognitive bias. That said, I will try to remain as objective as possible.
Needless to say, this film offers the viewer everything they could want in a classic Bond flick. There are exotic locations, beautiful Bond girls, dirty henchmen, double agents and enough fast-paced action and over-the-top stunts to keep you entertained and talking for days. As with many Bond epics, the opening scene leading up to the theme song was one of the best in the entire film. The story picks up right where Casino Royale left off with Bond on the run from villainous henchmen in his Aston Martin in a perfectly scripted car chase. Bond’s daring escape is the jumping off point for a film that moves at a frantic pace spanning 6 countries and keeping you on the edge of your seat until the final credits begin to roll. Not wanting to give too much of the plot away, I will just say that the film focuses on MI6’s attempt to gather information about a criminal organization knows as Quantum while also attempting to stop a French eco-terrorist who is attempting to restore a Bolivian dictator to power in order to gain control of this country’s natural resources. Sound like fun? It is!
To the detractors who criticize this film, citing its lack of classic Bond-isms and wit, I would point out that in rebooting the franchise, the creators of the film sought to redefine who Bond is, “-isms” and all. The producers have publicly stated that Bond is being reborn and will not be a “whole” character until the end of the next film. We are witnessing something that has been lacking in past Bond films: character development across installments. That said, I would ask detractors what could have made this film more “Bondish?” Except for the line “Bond, James Bond,” Daniel Craig’s portrayal of our favorite super-spy was more than on par with Brosnan, Dalton, or even Sean Connery. He seduced women with his British charm. He killed everyone in his path without remorse. He even jumped out of a plane with no parachute managing to land safely in a mine shaft which happened to be the holding area for Bolivia’s stolen water supply (A sequence which would only be feasible in a true Bond classic).
In conclusion, no matter what you have read about this movie, I urge you to go and see it with an open mind. Of course, if you are looking for a feasible plotline and deep characters, you will probably be a bit disappointed. However, who has ever gone to a Bond flick in search of these things. You go to see Bond to have fun and this films offers lots of it. For people still nostalgic for Sean Connery, you may feel that Daniel Craig does not live up to your expectations. That being said, I think what Craig has done better than any other Bond actor is to make the character his own. His Bond has a distinct personality and that is to be praised. Happy viewing and have a martini for me, shaken, not stirred.
Needless to say, this film offers the viewer everything they could want in a classic Bond flick. There are exotic locations, beautiful Bond girls, dirty henchmen, double agents and enough fast-paced action and over-the-top stunts to keep you entertained and talking for days. As with many Bond epics, the opening scene leading up to the theme song was one of the best in the entire film. The story picks up right where Casino Royale left off with Bond on the run from villainous henchmen in his Aston Martin in a perfectly scripted car chase. Bond’s daring escape is the jumping off point for a film that moves at a frantic pace spanning 6 countries and keeping you on the edge of your seat until the final credits begin to roll. Not wanting to give too much of the plot away, I will just say that the film focuses on MI6’s attempt to gather information about a criminal organization knows as Quantum while also attempting to stop a French eco-terrorist who is attempting to restore a Bolivian dictator to power in order to gain control of this country’s natural resources. Sound like fun? It is!
To the detractors who criticize this film, citing its lack of classic Bond-isms and wit, I would point out that in rebooting the franchise, the creators of the film sought to redefine who Bond is, “-isms” and all. The producers have publicly stated that Bond is being reborn and will not be a “whole” character until the end of the next film. We are witnessing something that has been lacking in past Bond films: character development across installments. That said, I would ask detractors what could have made this film more “Bondish?” Except for the line “Bond, James Bond,” Daniel Craig’s portrayal of our favorite super-spy was more than on par with Brosnan, Dalton, or even Sean Connery. He seduced women with his British charm. He killed everyone in his path without remorse. He even jumped out of a plane with no parachute managing to land safely in a mine shaft which happened to be the holding area for Bolivia’s stolen water supply (A sequence which would only be feasible in a true Bond classic).
In conclusion, no matter what you have read about this movie, I urge you to go and see it with an open mind. Of course, if you are looking for a feasible plotline and deep characters, you will probably be a bit disappointed. However, who has ever gone to a Bond flick in search of these things. You go to see Bond to have fun and this films offers lots of it. For people still nostalgic for Sean Connery, you may feel that Daniel Craig does not live up to your expectations. That being said, I think what Craig has done better than any other Bond actor is to make the character his own. His Bond has a distinct personality and that is to be praised. Happy viewing and have a martini for me, shaken, not stirred.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
