Being “online”: what does it mean today?

The online world has changed more rapidly in the past 5 years than perhaps any industry in history has changed in the same time frame. Five years ago, being online in business meant that you had a website – perhaps you did ecommerce on it, perhaps not. That was it. A website. If you were a blogger, your blog was your website, and you wrote and posted blog posts, period. We all know that the goal of a website 5 years ago was to drive traffic to your site. That was even the goal 2 years ago.

What is the goal of corporate and personal websites today? Is it to drive traffic to your site or to drive customer engagement? It is to drive engagement. It’s all about content. You want your customers/readers/followers to engage with your content, share it, use it. Ultimately, if you're in business, engagement with your brand online drives business. Yes, ROI is difficult to measure, but in order to compete, you need to go where the people are. That is on social sites, not on the traditional internet.

Being online is no longer about going to websites. We engage online in a variety of ways in 2012. Yes, websites are still important. But how do people access your content? No longer is the traditional desktop the main avenue of online engagement. People do still engage from their desktop, yes – but they also engage from their laptop, their tablet, their phone, through apps, mobile sites, and yes, still the good ol’ internet.

We no longer have a Field of Dreams internet. If you build it, they might come. But they’ll come by their preferred means of transportation. If you want them to come, you have to make it easy. Let people engage where they are. Don’t force the method of engagement, or you’ll find that you are left far, far behind in this rapidly changing technological world.

Here are several examples that all happened to me just this morning (and I admit they are all a daily occurrence):

I follow several hundred blogs. Many are for work, many are for pleasure, many are political (no, that doesn’t count as pleasure, obviously!). But to make my life easier, I aggregate all those blog feeds into a single feed reader. I use Google Reader, but there are tons of feed readers out there. I want to be able to go through my blog feed each morning, read the news and engage where I choose. That means rapidly moving through blog posts, reading them, and if I choose to, either sharing them via social media or email or clicking through to comment on them. It used to be that commenting on a blog was the only way to engage with others on that post. If you limit yourself to that today, or if you gauge success by the number of comments on a particular blog post, you are not seeing the full picture. People share, people talk on social media. That is still engagement with you, your brand, your online presence, even if it isn’t actually engaging on your internet website itself.

Where do I read all these blogs in my Google Reader? Usually on my mobile device, which is mostly my phone. You may have a tablet, but it may not always be with you. You may have a laptop, but it may not always be with you. Your desktop is only with you at home or in the office. But my phone? Aren’t we all attached at the hip (sometimes literally) to our phones? Mine goes almost everywhere with me. Unless you ask my kids, who frequently want to know why I didn’t answer their texts.

Point is, I read blogs on my phone. Therefore, my use of the traditional internet, while not hampered, may not be as easy a process as I might like. When I read blog posts, I want to read the entire thing before I decide to engage or not. If you make me click through from my feed reader (which is an easy to use app on my phone) to the big bad internet just to read your post (not having chosen to engage yet), it’s just too much trouble. I have 300 other posts to read, and I don’t have the time to wait for my phone’s browser to load only to discover the site isn’t mobile friendly, and it’s a pain to read your post. That is just not going to happen.

What does happen if you don’t include your entire post in your feed? I delete your feed. Therefore, I don't see your content at all!

We need to make it easy for people to engage. I can share a blog post on Twitter or Facebook straight from my feed reader, along with a comment about it. From there, I can engage other users about the content in that post. I can email the link straight from my feed reader to my husband (who despite my best efforts) isn’t all that tech savvy, and would rather read it online, and tell him to read the article. This is still engaging with your content, even though I haven’t commented on your post.

Major social sites need to make sharing content easy. And for the most part they succeed. But my irritation was triggered this morning when, while checking Facebook on my phone via their mobile app, I wanted to share something. Facebook has become all about sharing content. But the one item missing from their mobile app is the Share button. If I want to share a picture, I either have to go to the full site (NO!) or download the picture and repost it, which defeats the entire purpose of the “Share”. Not to mention that it can bring a whole host of copyright infringement issues because it makes it that much more difficult to attribute content to a specific user.

If I belong to a specific online networking community (like a Ning, for example) for professional purposes, I want to be able to access that easily on my mobile device. Not everyone uses an iPad. Like I said, my mobile device of choice (by the default rule of convenience) is my smartphone. Make it easy to network and access content in that community on my phone. Otherwise, I’m not likely to participate in your community.

So if there is a point to my post today, it is this:

1. Let your readers engage where and how they want, whether you’re a huge brand or a small blogger.
2. Include a FULL feed of your content in your RSS.
3. Make it easy to share content (looking at YOU, Facebook).
4. Re-evaluate how you determine success. It may mean that you change the metrics at which you look on a monthly basis. Instead of number of comments, look at number of shares. Find the count of your social mentions. Look at backlinks. Engage with your customers (readers, whatever) where they are and where they want to be, on social sites like twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn (for companies), Reddit (look at President Obama’s AMA on Reddit yesterday!)
5. Don’t force people to use the internet in any particular way, like forcing them to your site to read your content. It will only lose you readers, not gain you engagement.

I'm interested to know what you think. Agree? Disagree? Do you have a full feed or do you limit it to a few words of content, trying to entice readers to your site for more? Tell us how you engage online.

What's with all this rape foolishness?

Now we have definitions of rape like Forcible rape and Legitimate rape?

What the fuckitty fuck?

This week, Rep Todd Akin of Missouri (who is running for Senate against Claire McCaskill, and in a sad statement on the people of Missouri, is actually ahead in the polls) has made a complete ass of himself.

Being a cosponsor along with VP Candidate Paul Ryan of HR3 (referenced above) that tried to redefine rape wasn't enough. Now he continues his fight to redefine rape as "legitimate" vs not legitimate. Because if you're legitimately raped, all your baby-making parts shut down so as to avoid pregnancy. Thank goodness. Because if there's no pregnancy, then no harm, no foul. Phew!

Except that the American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology (that horrid, academic journal written by smart people who went to college and all) did a study on this, and found that

The national rape-related pregnancy rate is 5.0% per rape among victims of reproductive age (aged 12 to 45); among adult women an estimated 32,101 pregnancies result from rape each year...

A total 32.4% of these victims did not discover they were pregnant until they had already entered the second trimester

Now I know we can't trust these book-lernid dockters and all, but still, even if they were just making it all up, it's something to think about.

Not only that, but Akin believes that criminalizing marital rape only gives the woman ammunition to use against her husband in the event of a divorce.

First, YES. RAPING YOUR WIFE SHOULD BE USED AGAINST A HUSBAND IN A DIVORCE. Oh, and to THROW HIS ASS IN JAIL.

Second? Why all the need to compartmentalize and categorize rape?

RAPE IS RAPE.

Looks like we are back to the whole rape is a sexual act thing. No, it is not. Rape is an act of violence. An abuse of power. Carried out in the most humiliating, most painful way possible for the victim.

The end.

There is no qualification that needs to be attached to it. If you qualify it, you do just what Akin has done. You legitimize it.

Of course, in typical 2012 GOP fashion, he tried to get a do-over, claiming he "misspoke". That's Republican for "Crap, I got caught, dammit."

You don't make statements like Akin did without a deeply held belief built over years that you are right. That men should have the right to rape their wives. That some rapes are actually ok. That women can't get pregnant if they're really forced into having sex.

Which brings me back to Akin's fundamental misunderstanding of rape. It is not an act of sex.

Rape is an act of violence, perpetrated by one with more power over another.

I DARE the mainstream media to give this story a voice and to claim that Akin is wrong. This is a story that directly affects the future of the Senate.  They should be giving this airtime, and not just stating that Akin said "oops, didn't really mean that."

In the same week, Akin has put out all this garbage, he also decided it was time to starve poor kids and  repeal the Voter's Rights Act. Maybe he's on to something. If we starve all the poor folks to death, there's no need for a Voting Rights Act. Because then all those black and brown and un-moneyed and lazy and old people (hey, they're gonna die soon anyway right?) couldn't vote against his party.

George Carlin once said: "Garbage in, garbage out. If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're going to get selfish, ignorant leaders."

Looks like we're there already, and if they all have their way with our education system, we'll have selfish, ignorant leaders for decades to come.

Yay America!

Here's the thing about Paul Ryan

There are questions as to whether Paul Ryan was a genius pick for VP or a dud. There are arguments for and against.

Paul Ryan definitely appeals to the far right conservative tea party base. He wants to gut all government services while at the same time preserving tax breaks for the wealthy. His hero is Ayn Rand. He's led a completely obstructionist House and managed to stop President Obama from getting anything productive done since 2010, all the while blaming President Obama for getting nothing done.

I have no doubt that in many cases Ryan is exactly what he appears. He seems a dedicated family man. He has a beautiful young wife, 3 adorable young kids - all of whom he seems to love tremendously. He's a good Catholic (except for the whole caring for the poor part). He's a good looking wholesome guy next door (if the guy next door hated everything you stood for). All the photos that have been surfacing this week via social media portray him as just a regular guy. The guy who carts his babies around in a sling. Who played sports in high school. The prom king. The guy who tragically lost his dad at the age of 16 - and there is absolutely no sarcasm intended here - that is indeed a tragedy for any child. The guy who was voted biggest brown-noser of the Class of '88 (HA - love that!).

I'm sure that in addition to appealing to the far right, they thought he'd help with the ladies, too. After all, we girls love our handsome, dreamy legislators. I know that's how I choose a candidate, and I'm sure all my sisters-in-arms can agree that the cuter a candidate, the better he'll treat me. He's young, good looking, and loves cheese. Be still my heart.

Here's the thing, though.

Ryan is that guy. You know, the high school jock who smiles super pretty and talks sooo sweet, and then once you've given it up, treats you like crap and tells everyone in the whole school what a piece of trash whore you are.

He's a cosponsor of HR 212, which would bestow personhood upon fertilized eggs, even before implantation. Thus, pretty much making almost all forms of birth control illegal, as well as imposing a death sentence on women with ectopic pregnancies, with any life-threatening illnesses (including mental illness) and basically gutting our rights to any autonomy over our own bodies. Yes, the old incubator argument.

He wants to basically do away with Medicare as we know it - privatizing it and giving seniors vouchers worth approximately half their current benefits to purchase their own supplementary insurance. Which would be superdy duper, except aside from cutting benefits in half, he also wants to repeal the ACA, meaning that seniors would be subject to all sorts of pre-existing condition restrictions AND insurance would cost them more if they could even get it at all, only they'd be getting only half the benefit amount to assist them that they were previously receiving. Which they'd have to pay for using their now non-existent social security benefits, which for many is their only source of income.

He freely admits his hero is Ayn Rand, who would screw the poor and laud the rich until the cows came home.

He wants to do away with government programs that help the poor, elderly, and underserved, including Medicare and social security, yet he went to college on the social security benefits he received as a survivor when his father died. Apparently what's good for the goose is definitely NOT OK for the gander.

The Republican party has been challenging President Obama's experience for 4 years now - claiming he had no private sector experience (a lie, BTW). Yet Ryan went straight from college to an internship on Capitol Hill to a Congressional seat. That is an entire career in public service. Which, BTW, I think is admirable, except that when a Democrat (or a less wealthy person) does that, it's called a lack of experience and a detriment to their understanding of how the "real world" works. Additionally, they would have you believe that because Ryan drove a Wienermobile and waited tables during college he has worked as a professional in the private sector. Ummm... ok then.

Double standard, anyone?

NOT that I don't respect waiters and Weinermobiles. I waited tables in college. And I love wieners (heh). But that doesn't qualify me to be the next President of the United States... errr.... Vice President of the United States.

By all indicators, Ryan had an upbringing no different than yours or mine. Nice midwestern family. Popular high school kid. College on a shoestring budget. You would think that he would get it. But that's where it all ends. Ryan married into a boatload of money. I have no doubt that had he not, he might have some compassion left in him for those less fortunate. I'm sure that he believes that putting money on the plate every Sunday in church means he's doing his part to support the poor.

But here's the thing.

When you're a legislator, your responsibility to care for your constituents goes beyond the cash you give every Sunday. It goes beyond saying you're a nice religious family man. You don't get to toss your money in the plate and walk away because you did your part. Being a legislator means that you have to look outside your own worldview and understand the plight of all people. Because you serve all people. Not just handsome midwestern family men with adorable wives and children who give $10 every week just like you. You also serve the homeless guy on the corner, and the Wisconsin teacher who just got fucked by the state, and the guy who plunges out your toilet when your adorable kids toss their Hot Wheels cars down it.

What - that doesn't happen to you, too?

You're responsible for the poor, the elderly, the rich, the teachers, the doctors, the homeless, the plumber, the lady who sells you shirts at Sears, the lady who sells you shirts at Nieman Marcus, the cropduster, the farmer, the construction worker, and everyone in between. And when you're the VP, you're not only responsible for those in your state, you're responsible for the whole damn thing.

Yes, Ryan is a good guy next door from the midwest. He loves his wife and kids and church.

But he doesn't love Americans. And that's who he wants to represent.

It can be done

Tolerance. Respect. Embracing difference. It can all be done.

We'll be sending our son off to college in a couple of weeks. He and his friends have been having lots of parties to say goodbye to each other. A lot. As I see all the pictures getting posted on Facebook, it occurred to me that yes, it can be done. Spirited debate, but debate that never loses respect. Tolerance for different backgrounds and races and religions.

I've said before that we live in what I like to call the bible belt of our county. It's a highly Republican, highly fundamentalist Christian area. Church, Elton Gallegly, Buck McKeon, guns, and God. Here is the breakdown of the demographics for the school district in 2011:

Race/Ethnicity	# students	%
African American/Black	259	1.30%
Asian American	1,437	7.21%
Caucasian/White	11,791	59.15%
Filipino	362	1.82%
Hispanic/Latino	5,577	27.98%
Native American/Alaska Native	109	0.55%
Pacific Islander	29	0.15%
Multiracial	369	1.85%

source: www.kidsdata.org

In a city that's 88% white and Latino, my son has a group of friends that consists of Jews, Indians, Japanese, Venezuelans, Italians, African-Americans, and Mexicans, among others. That is just the core group of friends.

They are everything from Jewish to Catholic, to Unitarian, to fundamentalist, to Hindi, to evangelical Glenn Beck lovers. Some are planning on 4-year universities, some on community college, some on the military, some will just try to find jobs. Some come from "intact, nuclear, traditional" families. Some from divorce. Some with single mothers, some with both parents. Some are abstinent and some are having sex like rabbits.

But the one thing all of these amazing kids have in common is tolerance. They are born with it. They embrace their differences and come together on their similarities. They respect that each of them has a viewpoint and that it may or may not differ from their own. They argue over issues. Hell, they argue over what to put on their pizza.

And yet, they manage to spend almost every day together. Without petty disagreements over whose god is better, or whose interpretation of the bible is right. Without pulling a gun and standing their ground. Sure they have political discussions - what group of educated 18 year olds can be completely blind to this election? (Really, don't answer that.) And many of their political views were shaped by their parents.

Just like kids everywhere.

But...

Every one of them is unfailingly polite, well mannered, educated, and non-judgmental (except in that judgy way that teenagers judge). They are very much a "live and let live" group of kids. I couldn't be prouder of my son and his group of friends. They are everything that one would hope that kids would grow up to be; the embodiment of what America is and should be. They are our future.

I'm sure there are groups of kids like this all over the country.

So why the hell is it so hard for the grownups to do the same?

Adults can learn a lot from observing and respecting kids. My kids and their friends do not live in fear. They aren't afraid that someone will try to take their god away from them. They aren't afraid to voice their own opinions - hell, to form their own opinions. They aren't afraid to learn. To expand their world view. They aren't afraid to dissent (oh, if only they didn't dissent on our rules and decisions in the house!). They value other's opinions, and they value their own opinions. They have a strong sense of social justice, of right and wrong. They live by the Golden Rule. Mostly. (They are teenagers, after all.)

They are heading off to college, yet they are not snobs. They will vote in November - not all of them will vote democratic. In fact, likely very few of them will vote blue. Why suppress their vote and their voice?

Let these future politicians and doctors and soldiers and mothers and fathers and cashiers and lawyers and Wall Street execs have their say. And respect what they think.

Watch them. Learn from them. And yes, emulate them. Because they are doing a hell of a lot better than many of the adults they are supposed to emulate.

The thing about Chick-Fil-A

So here’s the thing about Chick-Fil-A. Yes, they are owned by a bigoted idiot. Yes, I would never eat there. However, Dan Cathy, Chick-Fil-A’s owner, is well within his rights to have an opinion and to state that opinion. And I can even applaud him for having the balls to come out and give that opinion publicly, even if I disagree vehemently with the strength of a thousand suns. He has every right to own a business. And as long as that business doesn’t violate any laws (which is debatable as of now), his business is all his to do with as he sees fit. If Cathy wants to be a bigot, that is certainly his right as an American. And all the people who supported Chick-Fil-A last Friday are completely entitled to their bigoted opinions, too.

More power to ‘em. OK, well, actually, no. I hope not.

But here’s the thing. I have the same First Amendment rights as Cathy does. So that means it’s also my right to tell anyone who will listen that Cathy is a bigot.

And if you aren’t sure what a bigot is, then here’s Merriam Webster’s definition (caps direct from M-W):
a person who is OBSTINATELY or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance

So he doesn’t have to discriminate against the LGBT community to be a bigot. He only has to regard them with hatred and intolerance.

So, as I was saying. It’s my right to not patronize Chick-Fil-A if its owner’s politics bother me. It’s my right to not patronize Chick-Fil-A if I don’t agree with the way they may spend their profits generated by my business.

For years, I refused to buy Dominos Pizza, much to the dismay of my teenage boys. Under their previous ownership, they were heavy donators to the Right to Life Foundation and other anti-choice groups that live to suppress the rights of women in our country and abroad.

Similarly, I recently cancelled my subscription to Angie’s List, who is still advertising on Rush Limbaugh’s show. The obstinately refuse to remove their sponsorship. Ironically, Angie’s List is run by a woman who tries to make it easier for homeowners to find reliable servicepeople (a task that usually falls to the woman within the household). And BTW, they made it virtually impossible to cancel my subscription – you can’t do it online. You have to call and go through a customer service rep who will at first refuse to refund you any money for the unused portion of your subscription. Keep at it! I finally got him to delete my account & refund my remaining subscription. Why must companies make it so damned difficult to stop receiving their services? I get the whole “We want a chance to convince you otherwise” thing, but gah! This made me more determined than ever that even if Angie’s List were to stop advertising on the Rush Limbaugh show, I would never do business with them ever again anyway.

But I digress.

My point is this: It violates nobody’s first, second, third, or 570th Amendment rights or anything that came before the Amendments if Dan Cathy is a bigot. It just makes Dan Cathy a bigot (and an asshole). Similarly, it violates nobody’s first, second, third, or 571st Amendment rights or anything that came before the Amendments if I choose not to give Dan Cathy or any other organization a dime of my hard earned money.

So here’s the thing. The great thing about our country. We get to spend our expendable income however we see fit. And yay for us! Capitalism lives and breathes in America, regardless of what Fox News would have you believe.

Just because I don’t agree with someone’s point of view doesn’t make them a bad person, except in the case of Cathy, who thinks that gay people are an abomination when in fact he’s the abomination, and oh, in the case of Fox News because they constantly lie to the people about what’s happening in America and the rest of the world, and oh, these people who are the ultimate in douchebaggery and who are the prime example of why education is so damned important. Jeez, people. Learn grammar and how to spell! Oops, off on a tangent again. Where was I? Oh yes. I can disagree with you and still respect your thoughtful approach and intelligence on any particular topic. I disagree with people all the time, and I don’t boycott their businesses. BUT, and a mighty big but it is…, I also have the right to say out loud if I think you’re a total douchebag who deserves to only sell his product to other douchebags. In case that was too subtle, yes, I just called Dan Cathy a douchebag.

You are entitled to your opinions. And I’m entitled to mine. And we’re both entitled to shout them from the rooftops. Yay America! Lest you get overly cocky, I’ve been told my voice is very loud. And if you ask my kids, I’m sure they’d tell you that I’m a super duper most excellent shouter. So never doubt that I will outshout you from the rooftops and that you will be on the wrong side of history.