Michael Braun's Blog

Let’s say you just launched your company with an IPO that valued you as one of the 25 most valuable companies in the nation. Would you be disappointed that your stock closed barely above its initial price? And if so, how many of your tears could you dry with the over $19 billion you are now worth (on paper, at least)? These are the questions facing Facebook now after its Friday IPO. On the surface, the IPO was a rousing success. But considering stocks are supposed to increase in value, Facebook sputtered out the door and perhaps priced its shares incorrectly. So what were investors thinking?

First, a lot of people were buying and selling. 580 million shares of Facebook changed hands (meaning, the same share was moved multiple times). Compare that to Apple, which moved 26 million on the same day. In other words, a lot of people were getting in just to see what would happen. This accounts for Facebook’s initial rise in price, followed by a decline that settled the price just above its initial amount. People were buying on the hype of the hype, because if they were buying on the hype alone (in other words, believing that the stock would soar in the coming weeks and months), then they would have held onto those shares.

Second, there was nothing but bad news about Facebook prior to the IPO. In one notable case, GM announced they were ending $10 million in ad business with the company and instead focusing their efforts on the free services that Facebook provides. Further, while privacy changes will soon lead Facebook to announce a Facebook third-party ad platform, this news didn’t get any mainstream coverage. It’s the one thing that could have beaten back fears that Facebook was losing revenue but Facebook was restricted from taking about the plans themselves and for this reason, there likely wasn’t enough evidence to go on for any mainstream media outlets.

Third, comparable stocks took a beating too, suggesting skepticism in investors about the tech sector. LinkedIn was down over 5%. Zynga was down over 13%. It wasn’t good news for Facebook competitors, either. Google was down over 3%. Yahoo was up, but that’s not a good metric given the roller coaster that Yahoo has been on recently. It’s clear that Facebook’s performance was not great but far from terrible. If there is skepticism from investors, then Facebook still managed to rise above it and perform better than comparable companies.

The real problem at the heart of Facebook stock is that investors don’t have much data to go on. They’ve seen Facebook go on an incredible rise in popularity and power. They see a company with 900 million users (and adding more users every day). It’s also one of the rare times that an investor can make a substantial buy in a company that impacts her daily life. This connection suggests Facebook will receive more attention than other companies. But if investors keep buying on the hype of the hype, how long can it possibly continue? Facebook is about to drop from the news, at least drop from favorable coverage. Get ready for even more scrutiny of the company, their policies, and earnings. With no hyped hype, who will still want to buy? Get ready for a full week of trading resulting in no significant rise in Facebook’s price.

The pomodoro technique is a productivity method that involves focus on a task for 25 minutes, followed by a 5 minute break. Over time, the method’s creators argue, the brain becomes more able to focus for that length of time, resulting in greater productivity overall. The technique can easily be used with time-logging methods to see, for example, when and in what areas you are most productive. For the past 14 weeks, I’ve been using the technique to increase my productivity. Here are a few observations on the usefulness of the technique.

1. The time-logging aspects are not compatible with the goal of staying focused on just one task. My goal when starting to use the pomodoro technique was simple: I wanted to increase the amount of time during the day that I was making active progress on my to-do list. Prior, I would focus on work that I was motivated to do (or was easy to do) for a lengthy period of time, followed by feeling burnt out at the end of the day. Further, I would spend a lot of the day dealing with little issues as they came in, rather than focusing on one particular task. The technique helped change this. Now (for the most part), I set my mind on a specific task and work on that.

But that kind of singular focus isn’t possible when I do have to complete those little tasks (e.g., respond to an email, schedule a participant for a research study, update a spreadsheet). And because the pomodoro technique is designed to be used for increasing focus on a singular task, in its pure form, it isn’t useful for tracking my work on small things. The solution is to bend the rules and allow for one pomodoro to represent a period of focus on work generally, rather than a specific task. So, if I have a variety of small things to do, I can still start the timer and work on them for 25 minutes. This results in both increased productivity (because I try to push out distractions during this time) and better time-logging (because I now note that, yes indeed, I was focused during the last half hour).

2. Meetings are awfully hard to fit with the pomodoro technique because the meeting likely won’t pause every 25 minutes nor will the focus be on one task. (There are, of course, exceptions to this, but most meetings aren’t pomodoro friendly.) Just like having to do little tasks, the purest form of pomodoro doesn’t allow for accurate time-logging for meetings.

The solution I follow is again to relax consideration of what a pomodoro means. Meetings can be counted as pomodoros, but that change comes at increased cost to logging. If a meeting goes for 45 minutes, I will still just log it as one pomodoro. A meeting would have to go for an hour or more to be counted as two. Why the distinction? I penalize myself because meetings, in their nature, are inefficient. I don’t want to give myself credit for focus that I didn’t have. The change in time-logging also means that I am pushed to reduce the number of meetings I have or to increase their productivity.

3. With these changes, it is really hard to stop a “mixed” category of pomodoro from being the most common for the week. First, to clarify, I keep track of my pomodoros for each day (to identify days that are more productive than others) and categorize them by project (for example, “research papers” or “dissertation”). I have a “mixed” category for work that goes across multiple projects. I might start by responding to some emails, then update a spreadsheet, and finally, finish reading an article. But all those little things mean that “mixed” is the busiest category almost every week. That’s a lot of lost data about what I was accomplishing, and it makes categories that are filled with a lot more little tasks decidedly underrepresented.

The benefit of this type of logging, however, is that it gives me a specific goal to work toward in planning my work: to wit, reduce the number of mixed pomodoros. I have worked toward this in the past two weeks by shutting off my email during my pomodoros and trying to tackle little things at the beginning and end of the day.

4. Pomodoros make for a great game, but that game can derail the purity of the technique. The best part about keeping track of pomodoros is trying to beat previous records for pomodoros in a week and pomodoros in a day. My current week record is 60 and day record is 17. This game aspect keeps me focused on finding times of the day to be productive. For example, I might save some small, mostly mindless tasks for a pomodoro while watching TV in the evening.

But it also means that I am driven to reduce the pure focused nature of pomodoros. I want to count productive time that may not have been particularly focused. For example, at a natural stopping point for some writing, I might get up and fill my water bottle, even while my pomodoro timer runs. Or someone might stop by my office to chat, and I let the timer keep running. Yes, chatting with a colleague could be considered productive time; after all, social activities go on my to-do list, and this kind of relational maintenance is important in any job. But if I didn’t see pomodoros as a game, I’d probably scrap that pomodoro and restart with new focus once the person left. Instead, I’ll continue the chat and then log the pomodoro as “mixed.”

Is the pomodoro technique right for you? If your work is largely structured by an external factor or is largely repetitive, then the answer is no. For example, if you work at a bakery and your job is to make the dough and then shape the loaves, then the pomodoro technique won’t really help you focus. Perhaps be grateful. The nature of your work is such that motivational techniques aren’t needed.

But if your work is largely structured on your own, then yes! That is, if you are the person who generally determines when you get work done, with prioritizing from others, then this technique can help you sit down and focus. Because it has built-in break periods, the technique can also remind you to get up and stretch, drink some water, and other healthy habits. Because of the game aspect, you can also feel driven toward achieving more. The technique isn’t perfect, partly because singular focus on one task isn’t always possible for the work that must be done. But it’s one of the better productivity techniques I’ve ever used. So, stop reading this blog post and give your own pomodoro a try now. You won’t regret it.

On May 25, 2010, I wrote that Facebook’s next big move would be to create an advertising service that used Facebook data to put ads on other websites, just like Google does by matching website content with keywords for ads. At the time, it seemed like a natural next move, especially as Facebook was thinking about becoming a publicly traded company. As time went by, it seemed like Facebook was passing up lots of opportunities by not capitalizing on this new ad frontier. But Facebook membership continued to grow, and with it, Facebook’s valuation rose. Now, on the cusp of Facebook’s IPO, new changes in Facebook’s privacy policy signal that Facebook is going to roll out a new ads platform for non-Facebook websites, something designed to wow investors and push that stock price even higher.

It’s all clear when you look at changes to Facebook’s privacy policy. As documented by TechCrunch, the new policy clarifies that Facebook can use your data for the purposes of serving ads on third-party websites. This is the last remaining piece needed to turn Facebook from a fun, little social networking website that happened to get to 900 million members (and growing) into an actual tech company with real profits that investors can’t ignore.

Users need to prepare themselves for this change and, if not comfortable with it, get ready to quit. When I quit Facebook back in June 2010, it was not a decision that I took lightly. I considered the value of the website, especially all the connections to acquaintances that I would lose. But I also considered the value of my privacy and the principles that I implicitly supported by remaining a member. Did Facebook have details on me that would have made for better ads? They had some, but not a lot, partly because I never used the “like” feature that will surely be used to target ads to interested parties. But that’s not the case for other people, and by remaining a member and active user, I was giving support for policies that I thought were wrong.

My friend Ken has noted that an easy way to spoil data-mining plans like Facebook’s is to provide false information. I whole-heartedly endorse this idea, but it alone won’t defeat Facebook’s plans. That’s because Facebook has knowledge of your entire social network, and if your friends provide accurate information, then those friends can be used in creating ads for you. An ad can say, “6 of your friends like Coca Cola. Why don’t you?” and use friends’ pictures right in the ad. Heck, maybe Facebook will roll out brand recognition in photos along with facial recognition. Now the ad for Coke can come complete with a photo of your friends drinking some. Suddenly the branding on products doesn’t seem so innocent if it can be used for advertisements for which any Facebook user gives their permission just by signing up for the service.

The only way to defeat Facebook’s new plan is to quit the service. If Facebook rolls out ads on third-party websites, then all the information you have shared with friends is suddenly fair game for use in marketing. How much would you charge to have a company come into your home and use your life as the focus of an ad campaign? Given that this is worth something to the company, I hope it would be a substantial amount (and hope even more that you would refuse). Every user of Facebook will shortly be in the position to make this decision. Facebook is no longer using your data to show you ads that may be applicable to you when you visit Facebook. Soon it will use your life and the lives of your friends as part of a massive new ad platform designed to be used on all websites. The difference is staggering.

Most users will remain, of course, a pattern we’ve seen repeatedly in the past. But the question stands: if not now, then when? The answer has a lot to do with ways in which Facebook will misstep. It will start with the rollout of this platform. It will be covered confusedly by the mainstream press and with deep skepticism by the tech press. Investors will love it, and users will be unsure. A movement to quit will start, and Congress will hold hearings. Facebook will make minor concessions, including perhaps a way to opt out. But with investor expectations on the line, this won’t be a quickly canceled program like the ill-conceived Beacon. It will come to full fruition, and the pattern of individuals leaving Facebook will be contingent upon how many people saw what was going to happen and quit because of it. If the momentum is toward decline, then the trend will continue and Facebook will end up a shell of its former self. If there is no momentum, then we will enter into yet another uncharted era in which we surrender privacy for a fun website, as if we owe Facebook something because they provide a website that we like. Users owe Facebook nothing, and the website has changed its privacy policy so much in favor of expansive data ownership that the website many users signed up for is now radically different. And so, I’ll ask again: if not now, then when?

Welcome to another post at the confluence of personal writing (this blog, obviously) and dissertation work. Today, in order to sort out some of my thoughts on the similarities between organizational communication and interpersonal communication, I will consider how we can conflate the two, allowing conclusions from organizational research to reach into interpersonal communication. Such bridging is useful because organizational communication research has lead the field of research on the effects of different communication channels, starting in the late 1970s and early 1980s. These types of questions were largely ignored in the realm of interpersonal communication until much more recently. As I have no interest in letting a wealth of past research go to waste, it is vital to find ways to bridge the two areas.

The challenge inherent in this bridging, however, is that organizational communication research is driven by one fundamental assumption: In business, individuals and organizations are driven by efficiency as a way to increase profits. This assumption is largely a normative one; that is, we can state it most accurately by noting that this drive should be present. Fair or not, this particular assumption is hugely useful because it removes a large source of variance in communication channel use before it can be considered. Instead, the research can focus on what best practices are and what happens when those best practices are followed or violated. Research demonstrating that best practices are not followed can be dismissed as simple error variance; the fact that companies don’t perform at maximum efficiency is an issue for other researchers, not for the study of communication.

This helpful assumption, however, is not so clearly present in interpersonal communication. Efficiency is not what drives interpersonal communication, and claims that it should be are difficult to support. Instead, relationship goals could be argued to drive interpersonal communication, but these goals are particularly complicated. Sometimes, our goals are to grow closer to someone. But other times, we wish to antagonize or ignore as a way to make the relationship more distant. This complexity results in a dizzying array of goals that we must consider to successfully understand the processes that drive communication channel selection.

One way that this issue is dealt with is to focus on “relational maintenance behaviors,” things we do to keep up with the people who matter to us. This solves the problem of goals because it dismisses a whole host of relationships. By focusing only on those people who are meaningful to us, we can now make normative claims about relationships: people engaged in relational maintenance are driven to stay close and grow closer to others.

This seems like a much safer presumption, but here’s the problem: Though the claim may be true of almost everyone (most everyone has a desire to be close to people), the skills that surround this goal are much more varied, and the understanding of these processes is much more complex than the assumptions in organizational communication research. In other words, we all want to maintain our relationships but we often aren’t very good at it. This could be dismissed as error variance, except for the fact that our maintenance behaviors fluctuate widely between relationship types and even within types and within particular relationships themselves. We can go from keeping up close contact and deep friendship with a roommate to speaking to that person just once or twice a year within a matter of months.

If we see this pattern from the outside, we might conclude that the relationship had gone from seeking closeness to seeking distance. This conclusion is likely wrong; instead it is just the nature of relationships: Proximity matters. But how can we use this observation to understand relational maintenance behaviors? Is it fair to assume we are driven to be close to people, if the people we seek can be so hugely influenced by convenience?

This all suggests the need to disregard information about communication networks and instead focus on general tendencies of individuals; for example, we can ask individuals generally about their efforts to maintain relationships, rather than asking both them and their current friends to report on behaviors. Unfortunately, this type of research does not solve the problems I’ve outlined; it simply ignores them and settles for a much simpler research agenda. Simple isn’t necessarily bad and there may be significant differences between individuals (for example, individuals who report skillful use of communication channels report more close relationships or relationships of a higher quality than individuals with less skillful use), but it does present a problem in using conclusions from organizational research in the study of interpersonal communication. As for how I will deal with this issue… alas, this blog post was not able to solve the problem.

Lauren’s clear InCase brand iPod Touch case was falling apart. Despite being only a few months old, the corners of the case had all chipped off, rendering it much less effective as a protective shield. This happened without any collisions or drops; mostly, it just seemed like defective design or manufacturing. So while in the mall today, we stopped by the Apple Store to see what other cases were available. If we’d never been approached by a helpful sales clerk, we probably would have left without buying anything. But Lauren showed the clerk the case, he went back to confer with someone, and when he came back, he offered to swap cases free of charge. We walked out of the store with a better case for free and with no payment info ever involved. This experience is exactly what people get at high end retail outlets, but Apple provides it to everyone.

Is this the benefit of being the highest grossing retail space in the world? Apple makes more money in its stores per square foot than any other company in the world. Apple makes more than twice as much per square foot as the second retailer on the list, Tiffany’s. This means that Apple can provide superlative service to its customers without fear of loss. Indeed, some of Apple’s largess may be responsible for those profits. You can bet Lauren and I will be back when it comes time to make bigger purchases.

Or is this just the Apple philosophy in retail? Apple aims to provide the best quality product even if it costs more. Flip that around and you see a company dedicated to providing customers the best shopping experience even if it costs the company a little in revenue. There’s no second-rate Apple products; even if you don’t care about the product’s features, there is still no denying its quality. And this commitment is reflected equally in Apple’s stores.

Think about how you imagine shopping to have been like in high end department stores back in the 1950s and 1960s. Shoppers got individual attention and service for many desires. An episode of Mad Men even shows complimentary cleaning of a soiled dress. Who knows if this is how high end shopping really was, but Apple Stores come closest to my vision of the time. A free replacement iPod case because the case of another company proved defective? That’s high end retail for everyone.

Back in October 2011, I suggested that Twitter could make money through “floating tweets,” Twitter messages that users pay a small amount to have appear at the top of their friends’ feeds. It would be a great way to highlight some information that you want to broadcast to your followers more efficiently. Now, tech sites are reporting that Facebook is trying out a similar feature and calling it “highlighting.” I should have patented my idea while I still had the chance! Now, it’s too late and Facebook may start making money on the feature without having to give me a cut.

Or perhaps the feature will cause more harm than good for Facebook. In my original post about the idea, I speculated on different types of messages that users might want friends to see. For example, a person is hosting a party and wants her friends to know about it. She might choose to keep a message describing the party at the top of her friends’ feeds on the day of the party to help encourage more of them to come. Similarly, to announce big news, like an engagement, birth of a child, graduation, etc., users might pay to make sure more people are made aware. These are perfectly harmless uses that people might appreciate: Users appreciate the ability to promote a message, and their friends appreciate seeing that important news more easily.

Outside of my fantasy dreamworld, though, just who is going to use this feature? One commenter on the TechCrunch article linked above, Bill Jula, describes a perfect nightmare scenario: the use of this feature to advertise multi-level marketing (i.e., pyramid) schemes to friends. In other words, this feature can easily be exploited by every budding entrepreneur lured in by the promise of “unlimited potential” to turn their “friends” into potential clients. And ultimately, all those exploiting the system will both reduce the value of the system for their “friends” and will get plenty of people to unfriend them.

Already, marketing companies care about things like how many Facebook friends you have. I hear this all the time from students seeking work in advertising, marketing, and PR. Websites like Klout seek to quantify just how influential you are online. If Facebook rolls out this feature, the “potential” reach of any one person can turn into actual reach. When companies hire someone for, say, a summer marketing internship, you can bet they will expect their new interns to start using the “highlight” feature to start pitching to their friends.

Because of this very likely possibility, the moneymaking feature isn’t anything different from regular, in-feed advertising, except that it is cloaked under a layer of credibility, given that the messages come directly from a friend. This makes the feature irresistible to advertisers. The next step will be for Facebook to allow advertisers to independently highlight someone’s message. That means a person can write about getting coffee at Starbucks and Starbucks can take that message, “highlight” it, and turn the person into a walking advertisement. This already happens with “sponsored stories,” and leads to nightmarish results.

As the line between advertising and content blurs, companies need to be wary of the effect it will have on users. But with a $100 billion valuation on the line, what choice does Facebook have?

As many regular readers know, I don’t use text messages. Yes, I know what they are. Yes, I have sent them. But I don’t use text messaging more than a couple times each month as a way to initiate communication exchange. I do respond to text messages but also feel virtually no guilt over ignoring them. If you want to reach me, try the phone or email.

But even with my avowed anti-texting stance, Lauren and I occasionally use Apple’s iMessages app to exchange messages from her iPod Touch to my iPad. It’s a fun way to shoot little messages back and forth during the day. When doing this earlier in the week, I noticed my productivity was getting derailed. The 10 seconds it took me to read and respond to her message translated into much longer time spent getting back into the article I was reading. But responding to her was way more fun than doing work. In other words, this texting back and forth had all the hallmarks of a bad habit.

Is that what texting has become for the hundreds of millions of text message users worldwide? A bad habit that they ought to break? The key issues here are twofold. First, is texting a habit? The answer for heavy text users is probably yes. The act of checking one’s phone to see if a message has arrived is something done non-consciously and automatically. Typing out a reply, too, becomes a default response to a new message.

Second, is texting bad? This answer requires more nuance because, inherently, texting is neither bad nor good. But texting can cause outcomes that are bad. In my case, texting was distracting me from work and making it hard to maintain focus. This resulted in lower productivity. (Of course, in other cases, texting may be good, bringing two people closer together through their exchange of information, for example.)

And thus, under certain circumstances, texting can resemble a bad habit. But can the habit be easily broken? The trouble here is that, unlike some habits (say, not exercising or eating junk food), the habit is one that affects two people. A person who texts habitually responds more willingly and frequently to texts from others and may also more frequently initiate text message exchanges. This pattern of behavior, if changed, affects more than the texter with the bad habit; it also affects all those people with whom the texter has maintained contact through texting. Without this particular channel, those relationships may change, possibly for the worse.

What’s to be done about the distraction caused by excess texting? Changing the behavior isn’t enough. Certainly, rules like “turn off your phone when working” are well and good for stopping one person from texting. But the ways to break a bad habit don’t solve the problem completely in this case because the bad habit is rooted in relational communication patterns, not in the individual’s own choices. I wish I was writing this post to offer a solution, but I have none. All I have is this advice: stop texting in ways that are potentially problematic. It’s the only way to stop texting from becoming a bad habit.

Two websites centered around sharing information with friends seem destined for a showdown over their very similar logos. Pinterest, a website that acts like an online bulletin board and allows people to “pin” content to their boards (as well as view the boards of others), has been around longer than Path, a mobile social networking app that restricts sharing to just 100 people.

Here’s Pinterest’s logo:

And here’s Path’s logo:

Their letter “P”s are nearly identical. Lawsuits have been launched over less. Notoriously brand-protective Apple sued Woolworth’s over their logo in 2009. The companies are not at all competitors, but Apple argued that Woolworth’s logo would diminish Apple’s brand.

It’s easy to argue that Apple’s lawsuits over such issues are unwarranted. But in the cast of Pinterest and Path, their core business interests are at stake. Both companies are dependent upon people choosing to share content with the service. Without shared content, neither service offers any value to users. A world of empty online bulletin boards or a stream of friend activity that is empty makes for some pretty miserable user experiences.

To facilitate sharing, both companies are motivated to get websites to install tools that make it easy to share, say, a news article on their service. That means each company needs a small logo (like those above) that consumers know represents one particular service. They need to know that clicking the little P will “pin” something to their Pinterest board or share something on Path.

So what will happen? Will Pinterest sue Path for the use of that catchy P? Given that Pinterest has the most chance to actually make money (Path seems very likely to fail), they should hire a good team of lawyers and release the big guns. Better to take care of this before Path gains any traction rather than wait for a showdown against a more popular website.

The Mifflin Street Block party is held every year on Mifflin Street here in Madison, WI, in early May. The party features excessive drinking and debauchery, and sometimes violence, like the reported stabbings from last year’s event. City and campus officials don’t like the event, which has strayed far from its initial start as an anti-war protest. In one notable attempt to discourage students from attending, Dean of Students Lori Berquam put out a video asking students to stay away for their own safety. The video was widely mocked (and also remixed – go do a YouTube search). Dr. Berquam later released a written appeal via email. Despite these attempts and more, the event continues undeterred. So how can city and campus leaders actually discourage Mifflin revelry? How about an exclusivity appeal?

In this case, I don’t mean suggesting that the event is “exclusive!” and “one day only!”. These appeals might increase students’ sense of scarcity and raise their desire to attend. Instead, I mean an appeal that frames Mifflin as an event for upperclassmen, not freshmen; and for UW-Madison students, not outsiders. It’s like when people got mad that Facebook opened itself up to the public at large; people felt their exclusive club was getting overrun. (Let’s not take that Facebook example too far, and let’s hope that Mifflin doesn’t grow to an event with 900 million people at it.)

The appeal could go something like this. Mifflin is unpopular with campus and city officials. They will try to do whatever they can to get it shut down: increased police presence, more arrests, crackdowns for students who set foot off private property with alcohol, increased scrutiny for students who are cited at the event, and other things that turn Mifflin from a fun party to a police state. But who is really causing the trouble? It’s not the upperclassmen who know how to drink alcohol and not act like idiots. It’s not UW-Madison students who know how to have a good time and not wreck things for everyone else.

The reason Mifflin is under attack is because stupid freshmen show up, go house to house (uninvited), get drunk on whatever they can find, act like idiots, and end up arrested, having their stomachs pumped, or both. Combine that with out-of-towners wielding knives and stabbing people, or sexually assaulting people in house basements, and it’s clear why city and campus officials don’t see Mifflin as an event they want to promote.

Why are UW-Madison students letting these idiots (freshmen, violent visitors, etc.) into their party? Does the party get better when you open the door and let anyone drink for free? In most cases, the answer is absolutely not. Mifflin is not and should not be a place for idiots to score free booze. It is and should continue to be a way for upperclassmen to relax as the semester ends. The only way to keep things as they should be is to make sure idiots aren’t allowed. So, residents of Mifflin, band together to keep the idiots out. This way, Mifflin can be a great event that is not constantly under threat.

This appeal won’t end the Mifflin Street Block Party, but it may help encourage residents of Mifflin to pay more attention to just who is coming in and out of their houses. Over time, this may reduce the appeal of Mifflin for those people who don’t belong. Of course, it could backfire and be widely mocked, but what’s the harm in that? No attempts that the city or campus have made thus far have worked. It’s time to try something new.

Facebook has set a date for their initial public offering (IPO), the day the company will become a publicly traded entity. May 18 is the day that the public can get their paws on Facebook stock. The company won’t sell enough shares to take away majority control from founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg, but becoming public still entitles all of us a deep inside look at Facebook, its users, and its revenue. In this opening, we get a chance to judge just how much Facebook has left to grow.

Will Facebook keep adding members until everyone on the globe has at least one Facebook account? The answer is obviously no, but Facebook still has lots of growth potential overseas. One large untapped market is China, where social networking websites like Facebook are forbidden without some clever workarounds. To expand into this market, however, Facebook will likely need to make some concessions to Chinese government internet police who are driven to spy on citizens and their doings online.

Facebook also faces challenges in overseas markets from already established social networking websites. In order to crack into some markets more fully, Facebook may need to make strategic purchases. An influx in cash from its IPO will help make this possible, but such purchases may not increase profits. This brings us to the next area of growth.

Will both revenue and profits keep growing? The problem with spending large amounts of money on services that are not profitable is that neither revenue nor profit increases with the purchase. That makes Facebook’s purchase of photo app Instagram look like a $1 billion write-off. More acquisitions are likely to follow the same pattern because purchasing small start-up tech companies usually means taking on more potentiality than actuality. Given that Facebook has had immense trouble turning itself profitable, it has no track record that would suggest an ability to make acquired companies into winners.

Facebook also keeps expanding its number of employees, a massive cost in a business that spends money on only three things: people, servers, and acquisitions. If Facebook wants to cut costs, it’s first easiest to stop buying other companies; but Facebook may believe that this will stymie growth. Servers are necessary for business, so other than looking for cost-cutting mechanisms (e.g., running more energy efficiently), there are no ways to increase profits through cuts here. That leaves only one option, but so far Facebook doesn’t seem interested in reducing or holding steady its employee numbers.

More revenue is possible, most definitely. This interesting article from CNet suggests that advertisers are frustrated with the lack of attention Facebook provides to its customers (and, yes, the advertisers are the customers; the users are the product). On the surface, this appears like bad news: Facebook can’t even get its core business right! But in reality, it suggests an easy way to increase revenue: give more services and attention to advertisers. I’ve used Facebook ads to advertise a research project, and there is much room for improvement.

What will happen with Facebook’s IPO? Will people buy on the hype or buy on the actual? For a company like Apple, traditionally, investors have sold on the hype and then bought once the product is delivered. But even after Apple announced another record breaking quarter, further establishing itself as the world’s most valuable company (based on the value of its stock), Apple has dropped precipitously in the past week. Investors seem unwilling to believe that all this good news can continue for the company. Will the same fate befall Facebook? LinkedIn, the professional networking website, has had a wild ride since going public, but its value has risen steadily since a trough in January of this year. This suggests investors will quickly buy Facebook stock, sending its value up. Will the company grow to match investor expectations? I look forward to addressing this in future posts.

Three weeks ago, presumptive Republican nominee for president Mitt Romney hired Richard Grenell to serve as his campaign’s spokesperson for foreign policy. Mr. Grenell’s credentials for this role are solid. During President George Bush’s administration, Mr. Grenell worked for the United States’ delegation to the United Nations, serving as director of communications and public diplomacy. He is known as a neo-conservative, advocating aggressive action to instill democracy in foreign countries and his positions on foreign policy issues match those of Mr. Romney’s.

But on Tuesday of this week, Mr. Grenell resigned from the post after his appointment became very controversial among some conservatives. Why was Mr. Grenell’s work for Mr. Romney questioned? As it turns out, Mr. Grenell is an openly gay, lives with his partner of nine years, and has vocally advocated for marriage equality. As such, social conservatives decried his work for the Romney campaign.

In some cases, resignations like this are the result of outside pressure and are done because the controversial person is motivated to not cause harm to the campaign. Indeed, this is what the Romney campaign initially claimed. As reported here by the New York Times: “‘We are disappointed that Ric decided to resign from the campaign for his own personal reasons,’ Matt Rhoades, the Romney campaign manager, said in a statement. ‘We wanted him to stay because he had superior qualifications for the position he was hired to fill.’”

Alas, it appears that Mr. Rhoades is not telling the truth. In a follow-up to the story, the New York Times has revealed that the Romney camp spent little time protecting Mr. Grenell from the bigoted, homophobic, and entirely illogical complaints from social conservatives. From the Times: “‘It’s not that the campaign cared whether Ric Grenell was gay,’ one Republican adviser said. ‘They believed this was a nonissue. But they didn’t want to confront the religious right.’ Like many interviewed, this adviser insisted on anonymity to discuss internal deliberations.”

In other words, Mr. Romney was motivated to hire the best person for the job. But when that person’s private life ran counter to the deeply conservative members that Mr. Romney believes he must attract, he decided to run in the opposite direction. He went as far as to keep Mr. Grenell off telephone calls with the news media that Mr. Grenell himself had organized. Last Thursday, the Times reports, the Romney campaign hosted a conference call to criticize President Barack Obama’s foreign policy; Mr. Grenell organized the call but was told at the last minute by Alex Wong, a policy aide, to simply listen in and not speak on the call. Ultimately, Mr. Romney spent no time trying to defend Mr. Grenell. Instead, he was happy to sacrifice him to appease conservative bigots.

Welcome to one of our first tastes of just what a Mitt Romney presidency would look like. Mr. Romney’s best intentions to hire people who are most qualified to fill key positions will be subverted by conservative party members who refuse to accept anyone who doesn’t fit their narrow definition of just what it means to be qualified: experience, yes, but also the right sexuality, family situation, church attendance, skin color, and gender. Mr. Romney might claim there to be no “litmus test” for his staff, no loyalty oaths that must be signed, no discrimination based on anything other than merit. But his cowardice and milksop treatment of this issue suggests Mr. Romney is no leader. If he can’t stand up to members in his own party (people who ostensibly support him), then what happens when he faces real opposition? The treatment of Mr. Grenell is just one indication of how Mr. Romney will treat the American people: when the criticism gets sharp, Mr. Romney will simply give up trying to defend us.

On Saturday, I will run in the Lake Monona 20K, a 12.4 mile race around Lake Monona. The weather, right now at least, looks like it will be good – high of 68, mostly cloudy, a few showers and storms possible. The winds look like they might be a factor, forecasted for about 12 MPH and from the east, but the route goes clockwise around the lake, so the wind will be at my back coming into the finish line.

This will be the longest race I have ever ran, double the distance actually. Last fall, I ran a 10K and have since not done a longer race. But I’ve trained quite a bit for this race. Two Saturdays ago, I concluded my longest training run – 13.1 miles, which I completed in a little over 96 minutes. Last Saturday, I ran a shorter, five mile race, which I completed in 33 minutes and 13 seconds. I’ve taken it easy this week, running just twice, each time a gentle 4.9 mile route. I am ready and confident that I can complete the race.

But can I complete it in my goal time, a lofty (or lowly?) 89 minutes? I don’t know. 89 minutes divided by 12.4 miles works out to 7 minute, 11 second miles. My 13.1 average mile was 7 minutes, 24 seconds. Shaving off 13 seconds per mile sounds difficult. But my average mile time for the 5 mile race was 6:41. Based on that time, I can run each mile a full 30 seconds slower! 89 minutes is not an exact goal. In reality, I will be happy to break 90 minutes and satisfied to finish.

I purchased (and today tried out) a running singlet, basically a tank top. I was reluctant to wear something so minimal (especially strange for me; I usually run in t-shirts), but it worked out well during my run today. Given that the temperature will be a little higher than I prefer (I seem to race well with a temperature in the 40s or 50s), the breeze and minimal clothing will hopefully propel me to a good time.

So, if you’ve nothing better to do on Saturday morning (race starts at 9:00), come out and watch. If you are strategic about it, you can probably see me pass by at least a couple of times. If everything goes as planned, I won’t look like anything more than a blur when you see me.

Yesterday, I discussed two key features of communication channels: Attention-Demand and Response-Demand. Attention-demand is how much the particular channel alerts a receiver of a new message; response-demend is how much the channel compels the receiver to respond. These two dimensions can be combined into an important distinctive category for communication channels: the continuum between active and passive communication. In this post, I will discuss the characteristics and definitions of active and passive communication, give several examples of each, and finally, discuss why I believe this to be an important dimension in the classification of communication channels.

Active communication, as related to attention- and response-demand, is communication over a channel that demands high attention and response. A channel that is highly active will get the attention of a receiver and strongly compel that receiver to reply. These characteristics must be present in the channel itself, not in the message. That is, an email labeled “urgent” is no more active communication than an email labeled “FYI”. Active communication, thus, tends to be more immediate, more synchronous, and overall, more likely to foster communicative exchange. These facets are present in channels like face-to-face communication or the telephone and less present in channels like email and text messaging.

Passive communication, on the other end of the spectrum, has both low attention- and response-demand. Communication over this channel does not signal the receiver to its existence nor require any response from the receiver. This communication tends to occur whether anyone is listening and does not alert the sender to the presence (or absence) of a receiver. Channels that are most passive are mass media channels like television and radio, in which a signal is broadcast with no knowledge of viewers or listeners. It also includes channels like messages posted on social networking websites or blog posts, in which the message is sent though no one may reply.

An interesting and fruitful middle ground also exists on this continuum. Most of the mediated channels that we use every day are neither fully active nor fully passive. Instead, they demand some measure of attention and compel some degree of response, but often depend upon social factors to compel both. Think about email. Email requires a receiver to take direct action in order to receive the message (e.g., run a software program that checks email automatically, go to a website to see email, etc.) but then does command some attention from the user, as new messages are displayed more prominently than older messages. Further, a new message does compel the receiver to read the message, but the content of the message is often what compels a response. This is not a channel effect and thus is not part of the continuum.

What is the value of placing communication channels along this continuum? First, it allows for mass media channels to be included in the study of other communication channels. This is especially important as internet-based communication technologies like blogs blur the line between mass media and interpersonal communication. Now, any individual can become a mass media outlet, even if that person’s messages are directed at a more narrow audience (e.g., a blog designed to inform family about studying abroad can still be read by anyone). There is no reason to exclude mass media channels from the study of communication technology, but concepts like “media richness” fail to fully capture what makes a television broadcast different from a telephone call. Media richness would place a television broadcast as near the same level of richness as a telephone call, whereas this continuum puts them at opposite ends of the spectrum.

Second, it demonstrates that the most important dimension of communication is exchange, rather than information transmission. This demonstration does not occur in much communication technology research in the realm of organizational communication, partly because, in organizational communication, one can assume (especially for more normative theories) that organizations are driven to become more efficient, as part of their general profit motive. This is different in the realm of interpersonal communication, where goals between individuals are much more varied and complex. Thus it is worth distinguishing channels on the basis of encouraging exchange. Passive communication is the least encouraging, and thus its use is worthy of further study. Why, for example, do individuals post “cries for help” on Facebook? Does this behavior result in less support from friends and family than more active communication? Such questions remain mostly untested.

Finally, this continuum and its focus on channel effects, not message effects, illustrates an important divide in the study of communication technology: we cannot confuse the channel, the features of the channel, and the message. Messages, quite obviously, have unique attention- and response-demand. A radio announcement that begins with terrible screeching noises, as messages from our nation’s emergency broadcast system do, naturally commands more attention, but such demand has nothing to do with the channel. Similarly, advertisements for a particular radio station do not make that radio station’s broadcast any less passive.

Is this concept distinct from others? Above, I discussed its differences from a concept like “media richness.” This concept is also different from ideas of “one-way” and “two-way” communication. Not all of the most passive channels are one-way channels. While radio and television broadcasts are, blogs and social networking websites have features that allow readers to respond. Further, the potential for two-way communication does not mean such communication will occur, even in the most active communication channels.

And thus, I present the active-passive communication continuum as another valuable characteristic for use in classifying communication channels. It will hopefully add important clarification in our study of communication channels and individuals’ selection and preference for them.

An important dimension in the study of different communication channels (e.g., email, face to face, telephone, text message, etc.) is the ability to identify features of the channels; indeed, some researchers (Griffith & Northcraft, 1994) call communication channels “convenient fictions for describing and discussing particular constellations of features” (p. 273). While this dramatic statement seems designed to be quoted, it does point out a useful truth: the features of channels must not be confounded with the channels themselves. For example, anonymity isn’t a feature that was invented by internet message boards and the like; it is wholly separate from any particular channel.

But even if we conceive of channels and features as separate entities, each with their own unique effects, we are still no closer to identifying just what features are salient to users and what features offer meaningful ways to classify channels. Even defining the term feature is difficult. Must features only relate to communication, defined perhaps as the transmission of information? Or can we think of features more broadly? Unfortunately, I will not answer these questions in this blog post. Instead, I’d like to focus on two features I believe are important for distinguishing between channels: Attention-Demand and Response-Demand.

Before continuing, it is worth noting that I believe these particular features to be socially constructed. Thus, it is necessary to measure an individual’s perception of these features in relation to each channel and perhaps even in relation to each context of use. This complicates the study of these features but ultimately results in more accurate, and hence more predictive, data. Of course, there is likely to be overlap between people. I will try to describe the cases of difference and similarity as I discuss these two features.

First, Attention-Demand is the extent to which the communication channel, when attempting to transmit information to a user, compels the user to pay attention. Consider, for example, face to face communication. In this case, the sender of information has many ways to get the attention of the receiver. The sender can initially gain the receiver’s attention and compel the receiver to listen in a wide variety of ways, from greeting the person to asking the person to listen carefully. Mediated channels differ in their attention demand. A telephone’s ring is a very overt attention-demand, but mobile phones are frequently silenced. A new email highlights itself and may display on the screen a notification that a new message has arrived, but email can be configured such that the user is in complete control over when she is notified of a new message.

The control that the sender and receiver have over the attention-demend of a channel differs greatly from channel to channel, and in few cases is only the sender or receiver in complete control. But senders can still make reasonable assumptions about the attention-demend characteristics of a channel. For example, I suspect that most senders would rate the telephone as having higher attention-demend than email. In certain contexts, however, this may not be the case; some receivers may not have access to a telephone while at work but could respond to an email.

Second, Response-Demand is the extent to which the communication channel compels the receiver to respond to a message from the sender. This feature of a channel is more socially constructed than attention-demend, in part because the receiver has more power and the norms differ for channels, users, contexts, and individual messages. However, there is still variability at the channel level. Face to face clearly has the strongest response-demand. We feel compelled to return a “hello” from a passing colleague. A voicemail message demands more response than a missed call, and both may demand more response than a text message. Social norms for politeness and an interest in maintaining relationships mean we often cannot completely ignore messages.

But all of us have had experience with certain channels and certain communication partners where the channel seems to offer no response-demend to the receiver. For example, we might send an email to an old friend and find that email is never responded to. Or we ourselves may be guilty of the same behavior. In certain contexts and with certain channels, some users feel less compulsion to respond than others. But these same users may feel compelled to respond on another channel, perhaps even one that we ourselves feel comfortable in ignoring.

Ultimately, it is clear that these two features or characteristics of communication channels cannot be assumed to be inherent in any channel. Instead, they must be measured user-by-user, situation-by-situation. But their centrality to the communication process makes them prime candidates for study. Because the communication process involves the transmission and reception of information, it is important to consider how the receiver is notified of an attempted transmission. Similarly, because successful communication often requires multiple exchanges between people, channels that demand a response (not to mention relationships, contexts, situations, and messages that also have high response-demend) are useful in facilitating communication. These two characteristics are clearly not the only important features of a communication channel, but I believe they are worthy of study.

My computer is just about 5 years old, and it is showing its age. Actually, for such a relatively old machine, it works great. But changes to applications have made them hog more RAM than my computer supports (it is maxed out at 2 GB) and my hard drive is running out of space. The battery is also on its last legs, having completed an astounding 1514 charge/discharge cycles, far more than I have any right to expect. But now is an uncertain time to buy a new computer. First, I want to buy an Apple computer, but Apple hasn’t released updates to its notebook line in some time. This means it is most advisable to wait. Second, Intel just released a new line of processors that will surely make their way into Apple computers at some point in the future. I’d prefer to buy a computer with the newest processor possible. Third, new technologies mean my choices for a computer are more complex than they’ve been before. With these issues in mind, here are some questions I’m wrangling with.

What will updates to Apple’s notebook line look like? There are no solid rumors to answer this question. Some speculation suggests a major design change to the MacBook Pro line, perhaps with the optical drive being jettisoned to make the computers thinner and lighter (and perhaps with a bigger battery). Other talk has the pixel density increasing substantially, like it has with the iPad and iPhone. Still others suggest that the Pro line will disappear completely and Apple will only sell their MacBook Air line, including a new 15″ Air. With no solid information, it’s hard to guess just what refreshed Apple notebooks will look like.

Will the upgrade be worth waiting for? When Apple’s notebook line is updated, old models will be sold at a discount. These models are superb computers, with fast processors and lots of storage space. They have sleek, light designs, with excellent battery life. The current MacBook Pro line is just about everything I’d like in a computer. But still, I feel compelled to wait for the newest models, just so I can make the comparison. This adds suspense to my wait. And when will the new computers be released? All signs point to an unveiling at Apple’s WWDC, held in June, but it might not happen.

Do I need a massive hard drive, or can I suffice on a smaller SSD? Solid-state drives (SSD) use flash memory for faster retrieval and storage, but they are also more expensive and hence come in lower capacities. My current hard drive (200 GB) is just about full, but that’s with files that I seldom access, like photos and music. Could I subsist with a system that moved these files to a separate hard drive? Would I want to use a computer like that? The answer is probably yes, but if I can get a computer that will allow me to store all my files, I’d prefer that. (Not to mention the dramatically lower storage costs mean I get more for my money.)

In short, I face a lot of uncertainty about what my new computer will look like. Aesthetics and familiarity demand a certain brand, but that brand is overdue for a change to their notebooks. As long as my current computer keeps operating sufficiently, I should be able to wait for new computers from Apple. Hopefully you won’t read a post about my new computer until after that announcement!