Archive for the ‘Communication’ Category
I admit it I am an unabashed correct spelling snob. I am not proud of this since there are not any good things in being termed a snob. Obviously when people write they should use the correct spelling of a word. Spell check is ubiquitous. Context checking, sadly, is not by the way.
It’s almost as if my eyes scan a document on a never ending search for a misspelled word. I am not thinking this constantly but find myself often shaking my head at how badly people spell. Yet today I received an email back from someone with whom I have rare correspondence and while I noticed a misspelled word in the reply what horrified me more was my own error. And it was not even a spelling error. I wrote “I so deeply sorry”…instead of “I am so deeply sorry”. While that’s not a misspelling and I have been diligently studying Mandarin for 17 months, it is not my intention to speak (or write) broken English.
There are some errors that are regular which are not spelling mistakes – like the use of “their” instead of “there” (or even they’re) which are spelled correctly but misused. I am sure it will be easy to come up with a number of most misspelled/misused words.
What we all know is that people make mistakes. Often those can be simple typing mistakes that may not appear as such. Habitual bad spelling is one thing but turning one’s nose up at a spelling error or two is just bad form. Everyone I know is working longer and harder than ever before and (me included) in our collective haste – we occasionally make mistakes.
So the next time you shake your head at what looks like a dumb spelling mistake think about cutting the person some slack. I am going to try to do the same (but old habits die hard).
In the meantime if you have any shining examples of improperly spelled words please do share – we could all use a laugh or two.
Posted in Communication, Living in the World Today | Tags: Misspelled words, misuse of words, snobbery, spell check
Today (Valentine’s Day 2012) a company called Aereo announced (Barry Diller of IAC did the announcing) in the NY Times Media Decoder blog from Brian Stelter http://nyti.ms/y5uJfZ it will begin offering a new television service that will stream local television stations to internet users. It will cost $12/month. Many people already have ditched their cable television service so it’s not exactly ground-breaking. In fact what I found most interesting were the comments from readers.
Here are samples of a few and I found them to be extremely interesting and indicative of an audience that has a both a good understanding of the landscape as well as some interesting alternative solutions.:
“This could work in Manhattan. Antenna’s do not pull in hardly any channels for many of us in the city. I would happily pay $12/month for network television only.”
“I own a television machine, but I haven’t used it in years (I do dust it occasionally). But I do have basic cable through Time Warner only because I need to have that in order to get my high speed Internet service (talk about lousy deals).“
“On those very rare occasions I might feel compelled to watch a broadcast, I have Windows Media Center on my computer, which is hooked up to a $5 antenna (I bought that at the dollar store in my neighborhood and it works quite well). I pick up all the broadcast networks, their sub-networks, and several radio stations. Seems like a much better deal than yet another service like Aereo.”
“I use Remote Potato (an iOS app) with Windows Media Center to do this and it cost me the price of an antenna, digital tuner, and the app.”
“Good-bye TWC!”
“This is going to completely change the way cable service providers do business. NYC today, nationwide tomorrow. It will be interesting to watch how cable companies change the way they engage with their existing/ new customer base in order to remain relevant.”
“TWC doesn’t advertise it, or make it easy to use, but if you ask they will sell you basic broadcast channels only for around $18 a month. I’ve been using it for a few years, connected to a dedicated computer which I use as a DVR, netflix streaming box and blu-ray player. I tried an antenna but it didn’t work for me because I’m on the wrong side of the building. My total cable/internet bill is $53 a month. “
“TV service for $12 a month? That will soon double. Still, every cable TV outfit around will try to destroy these guys immediately. And I wonder how they plan to keep it only in NYC. Of course they will feature the same low quality programming and the same “all or nothing” menu that is the norm today. Let’s see what happens!?
“I don’t understand – they’re “offering” to make me pay for channels I can get over the air for free?”
“Bravo. Living in an area without cable. Satellite is the only available service. The monthly cost is too high for a very light TV user. This service is an answer to my prayers. “
“Add this to the list of streaming services that choke my cable broadband connection. Let’s take OTA HD programming (which is free and which already has its own spectrum) and stream it needlessly over the internet, doubling the overall bandwidth that it takes to watch TV and increasing the costs. Great idea!”
I actually learned a few things just from reading the comments and that’s the most interesting thing about the article itself. A $5 antenna? And who refers to their set as a ‘television machine’? Reader comments are not always that interesting but often are don’t you think?
Like Yogi Berra says – you can observe a lot by watching.
I have looked at many resumes over the years. Most of them are conventionally boring as if a resume writing service had advised the candidate to play it safe. Consequently most resumes are anything but memorable.
Your resume should supposedly be updated continuously. There are several reasons for this suggestion but my sense is that having an updated resume ready for anything saves you the anguish of having to update things from your career over the past however many years. And if you are anything like me you probably don’t have a resume at all. I’ve not had a resume updated or otherwise for more than two decades. But having an up to date LinkedIn profile (for me) suffices as a living and breathing version of my work history and interests – that’s pretty much what a resume does don’t you think?
I don’t necessarily regularly update content related to my work experience but even there I do change things periodically to update what I’ve been working on, new skills and projects etc. Since I am not currently looking for a job why do I keep my LinkedIn profile updated? The primary reason is that I want people have the ability to get a sense of what I have done (work experience and projects), like to do (groups I am in) and people with whom I associate. It also is a place where I consistently post content and comments on things that I find to be of interest. A traditional paper or email resume seems so limiting.
How about having a video of you talking about what you have done and can do on your LinkedIn profile? But be prepared to update that video from time to time to keep the content fresh! A LinkedIn profile is self-reported (at least most of them are) as is a resume. But as I have said many times, whenever I have a first business conversation or correspondence with someone I immediately check on their LinkedIn profile. Even if I cannot see all that much because I am not connected it does give me a sense of background, work history and schooling, not all that much less than a resume! In fact when I go to LinkedIn and see that someone does NOT have a LinkedIn profile I am both surprised and a bit aggravated.
I will admit my LinkedIn profile is far from exemplary and in no way should be taken as any kind of standard. But it has so much more about me than any resume ever would.
What do you think? Will resumes go the way of the fax machine?
Giant fans are still rejoicing this Monday morning following an entertaining and closely contested Super Bowl. The drama went down to the wire and when Tom Brady and the Patriots were facing a 3rd down and 16th and Brady connected for a first down I thought Brady was on the verge of doing something legendary. It turned out that did not happen and the Giants held on in one of the best games in the history of the Super Bowl.
In addition to football, Super Bowl Sunday also offers the Super Bowl of advertising. At
$3,500,000 per 30 second spot the ad inventory was again sold out for this year’s game and the broadcast will likely have reached more than 110 million people around the world. Since big money and big stakes were at hand the anticipation was high prior to the game for some ground-breaking advertisements. Like the Patriots final drive – most of the Super Bowl ads fell flat as far as I am concerned.
Like many, I watched a number of the preview spots before the game. I liked the longer web version of the Honda CR-V spot with Matthew Broderick reprising Ferris Bueller. It was a great job of melding story and product. Clint Eastwood took on Eminem’s role as spokesperson for Detroit in a great spot from Chrysler/Jeep. Tweets during the game suggested Clint should be running for President.
But for me, many of the spots were just okay at best and some worse than that. The Teleflora spot with the gorgeous Adrienne Lima ended up being patronizing and annoying. And the Coca-Cola Polar bears spots left me scratching my head – didn’t they do that already? Sort of like Career Builder and the chimps. I didn’t think they were that great the first time around. GoDaddy – ugh. The madcap Doritos spots are somewhat amusing and the bag of chips looks shiny but far from brilliant advertising. The Taxact.com spot suggesting that peeing in a pool was akin to the relief you will get by using their product was by far the strangest association. I suspect the Taxact.com website was not crashed by customers clamoring to learn more during or after the game.
Volkswagen about a dog getting in shape was several steps down from the Darth Vader spot of 2011’s Super Bowl. The Cars.com double headed dude was just kind of creepy although I did like the song. Jerry Seinfeld and Jay Leno for the Acura NSX were a nice combination highlighting their well-known reputation for being car collectors. And the car looked great. Toyota and Lexus ran a few spots that were ho-hum. The same is true of Budweiser and Bud Light (dog trained to get beer – didn’t they do that already?). The Skechers spot with dogs wearing shoes was fun. Bridgestone’s quiet technology exhibited by Steve Nash dribbling a basketball that made little sound was interesting and well done. GE did a couple of nice brand spots that were a welcome relief from the inanity. NBC did a nice job promoting its new show SMASH.
Overall I cannot pick one spot that was head and shoulder above all the others.
How about you? Share your best and worst spot thoughts with us.
I saw it again last Saturday night. At the restaurant where my wife and I were sharing a nice dinner on a snowy Saturday night there was a couple at the next table who spent a good part of the time reading/typing on their mobile devices. They were not talking, nor glancing at one another. The really sad thing (at least as far as I am concerned) is that is not all that unusual.
Now this is going to make me sound old – maybe older than I am, but I remember when there were no mobile devices and you actually had to have a conversation with the person with whom you were sharing a meal. You couldn’t fake a call from someone in order to get out of a bad ‘blind’ date or any kind of date for that matter which just made it much more challenging BTW.
Look around any restaurant for someone sitting by themselves. Perhaps they are waiting for someone(s). Maybe they are eating alone. But how often do you see a single person just sitting there looking out and around, not on their mobile device? Of course many people read a book or magazine (electronic or not) when dining alone but I recall from black and white movies a time where someone would sit in a restaurant and not read anything and simply just sit there and wait, and think. Could you imagine?
How often during your waking hours do you not engage in some sort of stimulus? That is, how often do you just sit, stand, or run, and think without any other stimulus (think iPod)? I think for many people this is happening to an increasing degree (in the U.S. at least) and is inexorably changing not only the way people interact but even more significantly people’s ability to spend idle time simply thinking about whatever crosses one’s mind. It’s even more prevalent for people under 30 who appear to me to never stop interacting with technology when not in the presence of others. Is there any time that they just sit and do nothing but think or day dream?
It goes way beyond the seeming inability of people to spend any idle time. Answering an email or phone call when in the presence of others when 99% of those contacts are not emergencies is not multi-tasking in my opinion. How can you make the person you are with feel that you care about them or what they are saying when you stop to answer a phone call, text or email? But somehow that’s become the norm rather than the exception. People not only have difficulty being idle, they feel the need to manage two interactions simultaneously.
How about you? Do you spend quiet time just thinking? No music or electronics of any kind. Quiet. Can you? Will you?