Search Our Newsletters

Are you In?: Fame 101

May 1st, 2009

Wouldn’t it be great if “fame” was not synonymous with vapid notoriety? That was rhetorical. I’ll answer it: It wouldn’t be merely great, it would be unbelievably awesome.

“Fame” has been usurped by people who don’t mean anything, and I don’t like it. “Fame” should refer to those who are authentic, those who are confident—those who are remarkable. Having “Fame” means you are known for right reasons. (Not because you nailed a guy on video, Paris.)

I propose that starting today society should take back “Fame.” I refuse to call dumbass “celebrities” famous. I think we should call them “Dumases.” ($1 to the guy from Shawshank Redemption.)

This should go in the Education section.

The point is this, friend: We spend entirely too much time concentrating on people and situations that don’t matter. Consequently, we end up with the TMZ.com’s of the world taking over [though I do have to say TMZ on TV is a very funny program for reasons I don’t have time to discuss today]. News is inundated with stories about what Dumas has done what. It is a lot of effort, and I for one am no longer willing to put up with it.

That means I have to stop watching TMZ on TV, I guess. Harumph!

In this new world, you can HAVE Fame. It’s a simple choice. You have to decide: Are you in?

On or off?

Twitter www.twitter.com/laermer for more like this, and not too much either.

Can’t We All Just Get Online? (and a few image tips to boot up)

April 28th, 2009

richardscreaming.gif

By now, we’ve all received the message that our online reputations and images are as important, if not more important, than their off-the-Web counterparts. Unfortunately, no one is quite sure what comprises a great online presence. There is no ascertainable standard – it isn’t written in any books except for a few that you and I won’t read—and it purely isn’t obvious.

I’m in the image business and I’ve got a decent idea of what it takes to rise from the ground floor to a higher level. Here are a few time-tested suggestions to transport your online presence from wherever it is to where it needs to be. Ignore them if you will, or apply them and prosper professionally:

1. The salutation on email messages you compose have to be absolutely genuine. Each one is different—each one is personal. Take the time, it will show otherwise. Just as you would not greet every person you meet the same way you should not address each emailee the same. You can’t have “Best, Richard” be part of your signature. Your laziness will piss people off. Speaking of the all-crucial signature, a few lines of “who I am” will suffice. The rest go in a single link for promotional items you hope we care about

2. Despite what Twitter thinks, incorrect use of lower case is a no-no. The (correctly) written word is still the language of everyday; use it wisely. See to it that messages are not comprised of multiple fonts and colors. An email should resemble a typed letter. Given this rule, you should know that cutting and pasting from another application will almost always create a formatting problem. If you must cut and paste—don’t, because it’s boring — use a plain text editor to avoid all formatting.

3. Any picture of you should contain the appropriate file name. “SexyMe.jpg” will not work for a headshot. People can read document names.

4. On a similar vein, document names had better be cool. When given the choice between attaching “john_smith_resume.doc” and “resume_revised(2).doc,” make the obvious selection.

5. If you send links from a specific Web site, its subdomains should be clearly denoted. Clicking on a link should take the visitor to an innocuously-named page instead of 50 characters of nonsense that only a computer understands. Your visitors are not computers—sometimes those links are cutely devised by a geek who could care less about text recipients can read on the way down!

6. Your address should be professional and easy to remember—and try not to look like you work from home (AOL, anyone?). The days of Laura22@hotmail.com have passed us by. Though gmail.com or live.com are acceptable domains, the cost of buying yourcompany.com is so low there is no excuse not to. Otherwise you may as well be sending spam. (Also, when choosing the sender name when setting up a new email account, go with First Name followed by Last Name.)

7. Don’t CC a whole bunch of addresses and make people feel like they’re add-ons. Send the email to different folks, one at a time. Being online is no longer a numbers game.

8. Every photo of you that appears on the Net must express the idea that you are a professional, and not just some loon whose friends think he’s chill. This goes double for us in recessionary times. This goes triple for you recent grads. This goes quadruple for anyone looking for a gig. The photos on Facebook memorializing the time you did four consecutive keg stands must be deleted. Also, be sure to de-tag yourself from anyone’s photos that show you in a questionable light—or with someone questionable.

9. Do not send text messages to people who speak or write English unless you intimately know a recipient’s likes and dislikes. Like your Momma told you: Sarcasm does not travel well. Cutesy SMSes read awkwardly and are dismissed.

10. Spell check is your friend. Mac OS has had system-wide Spell Correct since 2001. MS Word’s spelling program is less annoying now (do NOT depend on Grammar check for your sentence structure–dangerous). Turn it back on if you have it off; you can even Spell Check on the iPhone. Your reputation as an eloquent communicator depends on your being able to spell “you’re.” And no, I was not a Grammartician in my last life! (Please note: Word does not automatically check the spelling of capitalized words. You are on your own for those, that is unless you unclick “Ignore Capitalizations”.)

11. Stop using your initials when dealing with outsiders. The unsolicited use of those two initials makes you look like you find yourself more important than you are. You have, as Jim Croce adroitly said, a name.

12. Please—please—stop confusing your reader. When did being quippy become more crucial than getting to the point? Say what you mean. Mean what you say. Don’t be obscure; you know when you’re writing gibberish. Send the sort of messages you hope to get. You should reread everything you write with a third party’s eyes. Does it convey the message you want it to? It is acceptable to ask someone to check your work. I call it editing!

13. These are all small choices to make and can get you noticed with a less jaundiced (some might say more appreciative) eye. As the Web and its babies grow in size and scope, online comm grows in importance. Now is the time to figure out how to use online so you are liked more and eye-rolled at less. Don’t wait to get burned.

Now go and study.

….I’m Twittering at www.twitter.com/laermer

Reliable Sources (and the People Who Love Them)

April 24th, 2009

News came this week that the New York Times Company has but $34 million left in the bank. Industry watchers have even suggested that the company might shutter the Boston Herald in an attempt to save some operating costs. That would definitely work, but I think I have a better idea: Get rid of your paid opinionmakers.

Paul Krugman is a Nobel Laureate in Economics. He has several bestsellers that have made it into multiple editions. The man’s an economic genius. That said, why is the Times paying for his opinion when the “open source” version is available for free? Dr. Duncan Black (aka Atrios) has a Ph.D in Economics from Brown University. He has worked at the London School of Economics, the Université catholique de Louvain, the University of California, Irvine, and, most recently, Bryn Mawr College. He is now a Senior Fellow at the media research group Media Matters for America. That’s some street cred. The man knows what he is talking about, and he gives it all away for free, via his own weblog: http://www.eschatonblog.com.

Don’t get me wrong: I love Krugman as much as the next Americano-drinking liberal New Yorker, but I’d rather the Times resume publication of the weekend City section than employ him and other columnists to tell me things I (usually) already agree with.

Further, is Maureen Dowd’s fixation on Mrs. Obama’s arms worth whatever crazy sum the paper is paying her? It could have saved itself a week’s wage and simply linked Perez Hilton.

In the end, it is silly to think that we need “learned and articulate” people to tell us what to think. It is even sillier to think that we have to pay them to tell us what they are thinking. People with valid opinions exist outside of journalism’s bubble. They are called “humans.” Better yet, readers, stop waiting for people to tell you what to think! (How’s that for meta-criticism? Pretty good, right?)

As the newspaper business withers away, I can’t help but think that it isn’t doing all it can to save itself. But that’s just my opinion.
@Laermer