Answer Guy Central

OK Seriously, this is getting out of hand.

I’ve been pretty clear on how I feel about Twitter, and despite using it, my assessment isn’t pretty. So let’s look at it from the opposite side:

Now open for “business”, or whatever they do there, is Woofer. It looks like Twitter, it acts like Twitter, and people are using the darned thing. But instead of forcing you to compress your thoughts, Woofer sends you away unless you have quite a bit on your mind: No entries of less than 1400 characters are accepted.

There’s a part of me that loves this. Now, speaking your mind and backing it up is encouraged! Woofer is a vehicle that proudly proclaims that soundbites are NOT a good way to communicate. I like VERY much that Woofer says “be literate”.

On the other hand, who has time? Forget how long it takes to write something Woofer-able; People don’t seem to want to read even the short messages that Twitter demands, so how can we get them to read long ones?

BY THE WAY: EVERYTHING WRITTEN BEFORE THIS LINE ADDS UP TO JUST 783 CHARACTERS.

Whichever side you come down on in the verbose vs. taciturn debate that Twitter vs. Woofer opens up, the one thing clear here is that change, as always, is what our business lives have become all about.

Will you change? Let me know . . .

This post owes its existence entirely to Nicholas Kristof and Michael Moore.

You probably know Mr. Moore’s work. The guy has been churning out one left-wing documentary after another for about twenty years now, and when Sicko came out a couple of years back it managed to get enough attention to finally catapult Moore into the mainstream.

Kristoff, on the other hand, is not someone with whom very many people are that familiar. A columnist for the New York Times, he spends a lot of time in the third world trying to do good. Yes, he too is pretty far left. Sorry about putting you in that box, Nick.

This week, Kristof wrote about Wendell Potter, a guy who you’ve probably never heard of. Mr. Potter spent a similar amount of time serving as a health insurance executive trying to deprive premium payers of their benefits as Moore has spent making noise about people like him. And he’s switched sides.

This is not a small shift.

While Mr. Potter’s new position may never translate into the kind of change that President Obama is trying to make happen in health care, it does show one thing: You can change the way you do things.

Open your mind. Change is all around us, and it’s driving the way your business and your life will look next year.

Let the nasty notes fly . . .

So this week Apple releases Snow Leopard. It’s the latest and greatest version of the Macintosh OS, otherwise known as OS X Version 10.6. And I have to tip my hat to them; it’s a great release for many reasons, and at just $30 it will be a great seller (And should be!), even though you might not notice the differences from what’s in Macintosh OS X version 10.5.

Volumes have been written already, and my pal David Pogue at the New York Times has covered this subject as exhaustively and accessibly as anyone. I recommend his take on the subject highly.

But for me the real issue is one that gets discussed . . . oddly every time it comes up. Apple has taken steps to address it in Snow Leopard, and it goes to our topic of business change:

Macintosh Computers Are No More Safe From Viruses than Windows Computers

Not a popular position to take when Apple fans are in the room, and one that Windows users stopped caring about a long time ago; they simply deal with the reality of viruses, spyware, and other such nuisances as part of their day.  But one of the things that Apple is acknowledging in Snow Leopard is exactly that: Macintosh computers are virus-susceptible, and steps need to be taken to protect them.

A tip of my hat to Apple for taking steps on your behalf, and I’ll be fair: big raspberries to Microsoft for making you deal with the subject (almost) all by yourself. The real message for you, though, is this:

If you’re going to believe what you read, make sure your reading material is coming from sources you can trust.

OK, so I threw Michael Jackson in there on purpose.

Today, right now (12:14PM EDT), the Fifth-Most-Blogged-About subject on Google is that antivirus company McAfee has anointed the lovely Ms. Jessica Biel as the most dangerous celebrity on the Internet. Senator Teddy Kennedy’s death is number one. Barack Obama is in there. So is a product announcement from Sony, and the sentencing of Chris Brown for beating up his girlfriend.

Now I’ll use Chris Brown’s girlfriend’s name: Rhianna. Now I’ll mention Jessica Biel again. Oh: and here’s a mention of Jessica Biel’s boyfriend’s name: Justin Timberlake.

ZOOM! Up go my rankings. Here are those search terms again, arranged in a different order: Jessica Biel,  Michael Jackson, Rhianna, McAfee Antivirus, Justin Timberlake, Teddy Kennedy, Senator Edward Kennedy,  Chris Brown sentencing, Barack Obama.

While I think it’s important that we all understand the implications — one in five chance of getting a virus, says McAfee — of clicking on a link involving Jessica Biel (did you see me slickly throw those two link-bait terms in there again?), I’m a little frightened that this is the thing that bloggers find fifth-most-important today.

Change, my friends, it’s everywhere.

My best friend is going to read this, recognize herself, and feel vindicated in her oft-stated position that blogging is the death of journalism. And I’m beginning to wonder whether she’s right. I like that anyone can write their opinion and maybe become a star. I also like that the Maureen Dowd’s of the world (that’s Maureen Dowd, Columnist for the New York Times, and yes, I just did it again) might find this little musing of mine, be engaged for a moment, and become my pal.

I like that the Internet has made a place where many opinions can become so easily expressed and accessed.

But I don’t like that VOLUME OF NOISE is the predeterminer of success, and I sure don’t like that so many people care enough about Jessica Biel and her danger status relative to software that a story about the subject is ranked up there with the death of an American icon and the steps that our president (that’s <wink> Barack Obama) is taking to achieve peace in the Middle East.

Manage Change. Especially in a world where this has become a standard it’s on you: Manage Change.

How easy do Facebook, Twitter, and other social networking sites make cheating? Very Easy.

Or Not.

I’ve been telling clients for years that their use of public or semi-public resources need to be controlled and careful. I’ve been telling my kids that for just as long; years ago I warned my two oldest sons (both college age) about the dangers of putting up compromising pictures of themselves on MySpace, for example, and had the sentiment echoed by the Athletic Director of a major Division I University.

And now, cheating has been elevated to a new level of brazenness. Thank you, Facebook, Tip o’ the hat, Twitter.

Imagine sitting in an exam, exchanging notes with a friend. Imagine your professor had specifically warned you against Twitter or Facebook use before the test began (as though she should need to!). Imagine you were holding your Smartphone, using it during a test (REALLY?) and your professor reminded you that looking up information or exchanging information with others during the test was cheating.

As frightening as all of those might seem, imagine the complete disrespect and lack of thought that exists when you post on Facebook, a time-stamp is created, your profile is set to ‘public’ so anyone can see it, and then when accused of cheating you try to claim that you did nothing wrong.

I have nothing else to say on this topic.

Simple: Because They Don’t Get It.

I’m not about to go off on a the-iPhone-is-the-best-thing-since-sliced-bread rant. In fact, let me state, right here, right now, for the record, that I am not a user, and on my last birthday was offered one as a gift and just couldn’t do it. I TRIED, by the way. I went to an AT&T Store, explained to a very nice associate that I needed to be left alone to play with one, was set up to do so, spent nearly an hour, and walked away hating the iPhone.

Anyone that knows me knows that I like gadgets. But I don’t like them in the way that most people would think. I like gadgets when they make my life easier, better, or more fun, not because they are cool, and to be honest I haven’t come across too may things that strike me that way lately.

Is this because I’m old and curmudgeonly? I hope not, but can’t promise anything.

The iPhone is undoubtedly very cool. And I’ve had a chance to play with iPod touch devices—which work exactly the same way and do everything the iPhone does except make phone calls—many times. They are just plain . . . neat. VERY cool. And sure, I like what they can do for you from time to time: Need a restaurant? Directions? Something that makes having the Internet in your pocket and accessible from almost anywhere as easy as possible? The iPhone is the way to go. But I hate the iPhone, and here’s why:

The iPhone is still too hard to use because there’s no easy way to rearrange your application screens.

Anyone who’s used an iPhone for a while and downloaded apps to it knows what I mean, and will be happy that Movement now exists. Click the link, look at the picture on their front page, and you’ll understand instantly what Movement does. And it will make sense.

And you can’t use it unless you hack your iPhone in a way that’s too hard for most users, might be illegal, and certainly puts you at risk of turning your iPhone into a paperweight.

Apple could fix this. There are rumors floating about that they might, but every time I use an iPhone—or a Macintosh computer, since I’m being honest—all I feel is that I WISH I LIKED IT. Apple creates amazing stuff, makes it as easy to use as they think makes sense, and then stops, because “they know best” and we, like children, are not supposed to question their parental wisdom.

That was fine in a world with few choices. But in the world we inhabit today, a world where change happens so fast you can miss it, where we have hundreds of television channels, unlimited free access to magazines and newspapers that used to cost money, choice of the computers, phones and software we use, REAL change happens when you make the change clear, and make the change easy.

Change is everything. And it doesn’t stop with a pretty user interface. Take that, iPhone.

Want to change your business forever? Change the way you look at meetings.

I’ve recently noticed how much I want to change the way Outlook schedules my meetings. You’ve probably noticed, too;  it always wants your meetings to be exactly 30 minutes long, or 60 minutes, or whatever you change it to use as a default.

I understand why software needs a basepoint and I need to implement change to make it happen. So why do we all schedule our meetings like software robots, incapable of change?

I once made a successful bid on a house by offering a figure with an unusual number. It implied to the seller that I had done my homework on the house’s value, got their attention, and got me the house at way below the asking price. I CHANGED THE BALANCE OF POWER.

How about if you change the way you schedule meetings? Say, start at 3:25 instead of 3:30?  See what that does? Your colleagues get the sense that you are in control, precise, and busy enough that they need to respect your time. Talk about change!

Now that you’ve started something new, change what’s expected of people: give them action items to accomplish ahead of the meeting. Not prepared? Not welcome. Now set a hard limit on the end of the meeting. We start at 3:25, we end at 3:50, and when the appointed end-time arrives, Get up and walk out.

You know how hard change seems? This change isn’t hard at all. It takes little preperation, and just a small amount of strength. And you’ll be more productive, and change the way you’re seen.

For the better.

Wow. I don’t know which troubles me more,  this post’s title, or the time I spent trying to spell out Ho in the plural and have it still be a recognizable word. At least Skanks was easy.

Onward: this week a ruling came down in a court in New York City (Download the 3MB PDF File for the Skank and Ho Ruling) compelling Google and anyone else who has information regarding a Blogger’s rantings about a fashion model to give up that information so he can be identified. And then presumably sued for defamation, libel, or whatever else a group of lawyers can invent. This post tells you everything you need to know about the decision, by the way.

No problem. We’ve talked about getting sued for posting opinions in a public place before, and the rules (and laws) are still being written.

What you need to think about, though, is this: in the changing world that the internet is creating, everything you say (or that is said about you) is public.

Just keep that in mind.

Back in February, I wrote a short piece on the subject of how Amazon.com was dealing with the State of New York’s efforts to force them to collect sales tax on products delivered to New York residents. It is, to be sure, one of the scariest prospects for small business I’ve ever seen.

Amazon’s response to New York’s overreaching taxation efforts was strong, and swift. They discontinued the accounts of all New York-based merchants. This effectively put a bunch of small businesses out of business, and while it doesn’t make me any more fond of Amazon’s business practices (see also this piece), it was the thing they needed to do under the circumstances.

Recently, a client asked me about the government’s right to tax him if he did business with out-of-state entities. I put on my favorite “I’m not an attorney” hat, and then moved forward to say “they can’t”. But of course, that’s not a complete answer.

The highest taxing authority you answer to (your country) has the right to tax you any way it sees fit. If a lower authority taxes you in a way that conflicts with the higher taxing authority’s plans, it will generally not be successful . . . unless by “successful” you mean “they got your money before the laws caught up with them”. That’s what the State of New York and several others are doing now, and what Commission Junction is talking about here.

Let’s take this to its most ridiculous end. My client is in California, one of the states doing a grab. My company (a contractor to him, not an employee), is in Nevada, with ‘operating authority’ in New Jersey. Our phone number originates in New York. Under these circumstances, three other states could claim that my client is “in” their states and force him to collect sales tax on anything sold in there.

Even weirder: New York could try to force my company to collect sales tax on anything we sell to to NY residents simply because our phone number begins with 646—a “New York Area Code”. Oh, and by the way: that’s New York City, and they have their own tax, too!

Does your head hurt yet?

Especially in the current economic environment, I’m hoping that Amazon.com, or some other company with deep enough pockets to fight this fight, sues New York and the other states playing this game before business gets stifled. Outside of a US Supreme Court decision to the contrary—and one that I don’t expect to see—I believe they’ll win.

In the meantime, manage your change very carefully.

Have you stolen a movie today? What about music? Or maybe you’ve just exchanged some really large files with your co-workers.

The last one is legal. The first two, by simple inclusion of the word “stolen”, are not.

This is about to get heavy, my maybe-a-thieving-pirate-torrent-criminal friends, so you might like to read this before we go any further.

Ready? Here goes:

BitTorrent is perhaps the most useful piece of software to come along in about a decade. Except it isn’t a piece of software in the way most of us think; it’s what’s called a protocol. BitTorrent is a way for people to share files, and if you want to take advantage of it you need a BitTorrent client. There are many; the most popular is called µTorrent. Install it, and you can use BitTorrent to exchange files with other people.

Not a big deal in its own right. You can do that with e-mail. But what if the files is really big? E-mail won’t work. You could post the file on a server somewhere (assuming you have one), but that’s not always the best solution, because just the phrase “post it on a server” is too geeky for most people to handle. What BitTorrent does is make it so that if you and a dozen (or more) friends or co-workers each have a copy of the file on your very own computer, then when someone new needs a copy they can grab pieces of it from everyone simultaneously. It reduces problems exchanging big files by an order of magnitude, and speeds things up tremendously. If you start grabbing the file from twenty people who were available when you begin to download the file, and while you are downloading three go off-line; the other seventeen still work and pick up the slack automatically. And you don’t have to know anything. It just works.

Trading movies and music (big files!) benefit tremendously from this approach, but without commentary to whether that is the primary purpose of BitTorrent file sharing or when or under what circumstances it’s legal, it’s clear that there are legitimate uses for the technology.

The thing about BitTorrent that makes it a little bit complicated is that since any time someone downloads a file using BitTorrent, they are not actually getting the file from anyone in particular, and don’t even know where they are getting it from. Meaning that there need to be libraries describing the files and helping each computer using a BitTorrent client find participants sharing the files they’re looking for.

In a few days, when The Pirate Bay either shuts down or starts working very differently that it has until now, a VERY important library will disappear. Unless you download it and share it with the world.

Decide for yourself. Change sometimes leads to more change before people even understand it. Pay attention.