<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Peter Shankman &#187; Web/Tech</title>
	<atom:link href="http://shankman.com/category/webtech/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://shankman.com</link>
	<description>CEO. Angel Investor. Entrepreneur. Adventurist.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 09 May 2012 22:55:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.3</generator>
		<item>
		<title>We&#8217;re not &#8220;ushering in the age of mobile.&#8221; It&#8217;s the age of CHOICE.</title>
		<link>http://shankman.com/the-age-of-mobile/</link>
		<comments>http://shankman.com/the-age-of-mobile/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 11 Apr 2012 20:00:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Peter Shankman</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Advertising]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Blog Post From The Road]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Industry]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Networking/Social Networking]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Pop Culture]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Productivity]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Small Business]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Social Media]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Web/Tech]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://shankman.com/?p=4299</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In the past 48 hours, I&#8217;ve seen no less than four front page articles from newspapers across the world, referring to the Instagram deal as &#8220;ushering in the age of mobile.&#8221; In other news, I&#8217;m going to write an article about the coming age of jet travel. Are you kidding me? The Instagram deal has NOTHING to do with &#8220;the age of mobile,&#8221; it has EVERYTHING to do with the age of CUSTOMER CHOICE. Mobile isn&#8217;t new. You think that just because we now have the ability to take crappy sepia toned pictures of crap, 24 hours a day, that &#8220;all of a sudden, we want to be a mobile society?&#8221; We&#8217;ve ALWAYS wanted to be a mobile society. The [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In the past 48 hours, I&#8217;ve seen no less than four front page articles from newspapers across the world, referring to the Instagram deal as &#8220;ushering in the age of mobile.&#8221;</p>
<p>In other news, I&#8217;m going to write an article about the coming age of jet travel.</p>
<p>Are you kidding me? The Instagram deal has NOTHING to do with &#8220;the age of mobile,&#8221; it has EVERYTHING to do with the age of CUSTOMER CHOICE.</p>
<p>Mobile isn&#8217;t new. You think that just because we now have the ability to take crappy sepia toned pictures of crap, 24 hours a day, that &#8220;all of a sudden, we want to be a mobile society?&#8221; We&#8217;ve ALWAYS wanted to be a mobile society.</p>
<p>The only difference is that now, for the first time, we have the technology to allow us to choose to that. Understand &#8211; We&#8217;ve been a mobile society since before the invention of the automobile.</p>
<p>Think back on the last fifteen interesting, post-worthy things that happened to you. I&#8217;ll bet 14 of them happened outside your home. Most of the world happens outside your home, along with most of the excitement. The stuff that happens in your home either isn&#8217;t worth posting, or isn&#8217;t acceptable to post. You rarely read &#8220;Brian totally found my G-spot tonight, off to sleep.&#8221; Well, maybe you do. I don&#8217;t know what kind of friends you have. But my point stands: The majority of stuff that is<em> worth</em> sharing, usually happens outside the home. And for the first time, we finally have the technology to keep up with it. We can finally, if we want to, choose to be truly mobile, and share life events as they happen, in real time, as opposed to waiting for the film to develop. Turns out, AT&#038;T was only 20 years off, even if they did think that faxing would still be here, and even if they used Tom Selleck to do their voiceovers. (Which is an awesome trivia question, by the way)</p>
<p><center><iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/5MnQ8EkwXJ0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe></center></p>
<p>So this Instagram deal isn&#8217;t a whole &#8220;eye into how the world is going to change to a mobile society.&#8221; We already have. We choose to share, and we choose to use companies that let us share, that take advantage of the technology that now finally exists that lets us share when we want to., as things happen. Primarily, that&#8217;s going to be outside, away from a wired connection. (Hence the reason I&#8217;ve never had high hopes for GetGlue. Really? Sharing that you&#8217;re watching Glee?)  Where are you reading this? On an iPad on the subway? On your Android? The technology now lets us do whatever we want, wherever we are, whenever want to do it. Hence the reason I&#8217;m writing this on the roof of the Four Seasons Hong Kong. I could be in a subway, or in the mountains of Capri. IT DOESN&#8217;T MATTER. The technology is finally starting to get good enough to let us live our lives the way we&#8217;ve always wanted to, but haven&#8217;t been able to. We can CHOOSE to share things from 600 feet under a lake in Perth, Australia, because the technology finally lets us.</p>
<p>No one purchase will ever encapsulate &#8220;where society is headed.&#8221; By the time the purchase happens, we&#8217;re probably there already. All we can do is hope we made the right choices leading up to it.</p>
<p><i>Remember this: We&#8217;re a society built on wanting to share what we&#8217;re doing. Offer your customers a better way to do that, and the product will sell itself.</i></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://shankman.com/the-age-of-mobile/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>10</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Lessons a Month After Merging my Facebook Personal and Fan Pages</title>
		<link>http://shankman.com/lessons-a-month-after-merging-my-facebook-personal-and-fan-pages/</link>
		<comments>http://shankman.com/lessons-a-month-after-merging-my-facebook-personal-and-fan-pages/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 27 Mar 2012 09:30:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Peter Shankman</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Advertising]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Branding]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Business]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Celebrity]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Cool Geolocation Stuff]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Customer Service]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Industry]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Marketing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Media]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mobile]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Networking/Social Networking]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Pop Culture]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Small Business]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Social Media]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Viral Marketing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Web/Tech]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://shankman.com/?p=4268</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A bit over a month ago, I was contacted by Facebook, asking if I&#8217;d like to &#8220;merge&#8221; my &#8220;fan&#8221; page (I&#8217;m STILL not comfortable calling it that) with my &#8220;personal&#8221; page on Facebook, and turn my &#8220;fans&#8221; into &#8220;subscribers.&#8221; Facebook&#8217;s logic there was that I&#8217;d only have to post all my content in one place, and could determine which content was &#8220;public,&#8221; (i.e., subscribers, the world, etc.,) and which I kept only for my &#8220;friends.&#8221; I volunteered to give it a shot, even after being told there was no turning back &#8211; i.e., my &#8220;Fan page&#8221; would disappear, and I couldn&#8217;t bring it back. After asking a ton of questions (and to Facebook&#8217;s credit, the person who reached out to [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>A bit over a month ago, I was contacted by Facebook, asking if I&#8217;d like to &#8220;merge&#8221; my &#8220;fan&#8221; page (I&#8217;m STILL not comfortable calling it that) with my &#8220;personal&#8221; page on Facebook, and turn my &#8220;fans&#8221; into &#8220;subscribers.&#8221; Facebook&#8217;s logic there was that I&#8217;d only have to post all my content in one place, and could determine which content was &#8220;public,&#8221; (i.e., subscribers, the world, etc.,) and which I kept only for my &#8220;friends.&#8221;</p>
<p>I volunteered to give it a shot, even after being told there was no turning back &#8211; i.e., my &#8220;Fan page&#8221; would disappear, and I couldn&#8217;t bring it back.</p>
<p>After asking a ton of questions (and to Facebook&#8217;s credit, the person who reached out to me answered every single one, no matter how basic or stupid they seemed,) I told Facebook to flip the switch.</p>
<p>Within 24 hours, <a href="http://www.facebook.com/petershankman">http://facebook.com/petershankman</a> redirected to my personal page, and my &#8220;Fan page&#8221; was no more.</p>
<p>A little over a month later, here&#8217;s what I&#8217;ve learned from that transformation.</p>
<p>Overall, I&#8217;m happy with the change. There&#8217;s no doubt that it&#8217;s easier to update one page vs. two, and it&#8217;s most definitely easier to update Facebook via mobile, which, lets be honest, is where a decent amount of content happens. Before the merger, I&#8217;d have to email photos to a specific email address and hope they made it &#8211; I couldn&#8217;t tag or add location until I got back to a laptop. So there&#8217;s no doubt that being able to fully utilize the Facebook Droid App for all that it&#8217;s made to do (tagging, location, and privacy) is a big bonus.</p>
<p><strong>Positives</strong>:</p>
<p>1) <strong>Probably the most important, the merger to one page means I&#8217;m more likely to post more quality content.</strong> I never truly realized the value of the Facebook App on my Droid until my pages were merged. Because there was no support for Fan Pages (yes, you could email to a private address, but nothing like what you can do with the app &#8211; tagging, location, etc.) I was more than likely to take a photo and Tweet it out, or save it to post on my fan page if I remembered later or the next day. In other words, if I was away from my laptop when I wanted to share content, those on my &#8220;fan page&#8221; got the short end of the stick. With the merged page, I have over 50,000 subscribers (formerly fans) in addition to my &#8220;friends&#8221; who now can see my content in real time, tagged and geo-tagged, as long as I make sure the content is public. As someone whose <a href="http://blog.century21.com/2011/11/how-to-succeed-in-business-peter-shankmans-rules/" target="_blank">mantra</a> is &#8220;having an audience is a privilege, not a right,&#8221; I can&#8217;t stress enough the power of this change: Facebook has taken away all the previous barriers that crippled my fan page when I was mobile, and I can truly offer my audience the best content I have, as it happens. At an event and spot a celeb? I can post and tag. At the airport with four hours to kill and want to offer anyone who knows me and happens to be there access to the airline lounge as my guest? Can do it in a heartbeat. The ability to use the mobile apps to share content and choose what level of sharing I want is definitely the best result of the new merged format.</p>
<p><img class="alignleft size-full wp-image-4271" title="mergedcontentoptions" src="http://shankman.com/wp-content/uploads//mergedcontentoptions.png" alt="" width="449" height="345" />2) <strong>Truly &#8220;owning&#8221; privacy, (to the extent anyone actually can on Facebook,) means I&#8217;m more aware of everything I post. </strong>Huh? &#8220;Of course you&#8217;re aware of it, Peter, you&#8217;re posting it!&#8221; Not quite. Think about it: You post a photo or a joke to your personal page &#8211; You can do it without thinking &#8211; &#8220;It&#8217;s my personal page, I can do whatever I want.&#8221; Posting to a fan page? Same logic applies in a different format: &#8220;My fans are a step removed from my &#8220;friends,&#8221; I can only post &#8220;this type&#8221; of content.&#8221; It&#8217;s an easy rule from both sides, and it&#8217;s easy to get into a rut with it. <strong>But there&#8217;s the problem: </strong>We&#8217;re lured into thinking in only one of two ways &#8211; &#8220;personal&#8221; or &#8220;fan.&#8221; That gets boring fast, and prevents you from engaging your audience anywhere near your full potential. <strong>Because I have to decide for who I&#8217;m posting every time I post on the merged page, I&#8217;m more likely to really <em>think</em> about my content. <em>Does this content really matter to my fans? Am I just posting to show off or to hear my own voice? Will this be relevant to people who have never met me personally?</em></strong> All these questions come into play with every post I make, whether a status update, photo, video, or link. And while you might be thinking that it&#8217;s a pain in the ass, in fact, it&#8217;s the opposite &#8211; It makes me ask if what I&#8217;m sharing is really worth my audience&#8217;s time. And that&#8217;s how we should always be thinking about our voice: Putting our audience&#8217;s needs before ours.</p>
<p><strong>Negatives:</strong></p>
<p>There&#8217;s really only one negative that stands out, and I&#8217;ve learned how to compensate for it.<strong> When your pages are merged, and you have both &#8220;friends&#8221; and &#8220;subscribers,&#8221; only friends can post on your wall. </strong>On a fan page, any fan could start a conversation. With subscribers, only confirmed friends can. When I first noticed this, within 12 hours of the changeover, I was mortified &#8211; I emailed and asked why, and the answer was an obvious one, to avoid spam posts. I get it, but I was still concerned that I was stifling my audience&#8217;s ability to talk to me &#8211; to reach out and start a conversation. Over the next week or so, I realized that if you focus on figuring out the best way to communicate with your audience, them not being able to post on your wall isn&#8217;t <em>that</em> important. I do hope Facebook changes their logic here and lets subscribers post like they could before as fans. Even if it means you have to scrub spam daily, I think it&#8217;s worth it. But until that happens, I&#8217;ve learned that as long as I give my subscribers the ability to comment on all my content I make public, then my audience doesn&#8217;t feel stifled. I also ask probing questions that people <em>want</em> to answer in the comments &#8211; Anything from asking about their evening plans to asking if anyone has great images of their last vacation.</p>
<p>To make up for the lack of wall interaction on the part of subscribers, it does mean I have to post a bit more &#8211; But that&#8217;s not a bad thing, if you post with your audience in mind. I also believe that Facebook will offer the option for subscribers to post on walls of &#8220;merged&#8221; pages soon enough &#8211; I don&#8217;t see a downside to it. They can already do it on fan pages, and Facebook&#8217;s spam algorithms are certainly decent enough. So I think that&#8217;s just a matter of time.</p>
<p><strong>Is the merge right for every brand out there?</strong></p>
<p><strong>No. </strong>The fact is, there are tons of large companies who have several people who manage their online brand, or are too big to be associated with one person. Any large company comes to mind &#8211; A car company &#8211; Any national or international brand &#8211; You get the idea. They need to keep their &#8220;fan&#8221; pages as they are. They&#8217;re a true &#8220;Brand.&#8221;</p>
<p>I think the problem is that with the advent of Social Media, everyone thinks they&#8217;re a &#8220;brand.&#8221; And in some sense, they are. But in the sense of a &#8220;fan page,&#8221; Facebook is right in making this change. A &#8220;Brand&#8221; of a person, a celebrity, or the like, should be &#8220;them.&#8221; A &#8220;fan page&#8221; is a misnomer &#8211; It should be a page about them &#8211; One page, they can adjust to make public the content they want public, and private the content they want private. Much like in real life, if you think about it. And that&#8217;s smart. So for every brand? No. For most people/celebrities/public figures who have &#8220;fan pages?&#8221; Yes. It&#8217;s time to convert.</p>
<p><strong>End result:</strong></p>
<p>Am I happy I made the change? Yes. The ability to post all my content to one place and decide on the fly who gets to see it in real time is a lifesaver &#8211; and I&#8217;ve definitely noticed <em>my interaction and engagement from subscribers is higher now than when they were just fans on the &#8220;fan page.</em>&#8221; Remember this, too: I&#8217;ve always said that it&#8217;s only a matter of time until the line between our &#8220;personal&#8221; and &#8220;professional&#8221; brand goes away, and it&#8217;ll be up to us to choose what gets posted in our world. I think this is another step towards that happening for those who aren&#8217;t &#8220;corporations,&#8221; but rather, who live in that mixture between who they are, and the professional brand they&#8217;re trying to cultivate. Facebook&#8217;s merger option should help anyone in that space, and as long as we&#8217;re smart enough to realize we should be there, this is a benefit, no doubt.<strong></strong></p>
<p><strong>Thoughts? Comments? As always, I want to hear them. Leave them below. And by the way &#8211; If you&#8217;re not a subscriber to me on Facebook, you can fix that <a href="http://www.facebook.com/petershankman" target="_blank">here</a>.<br />
</strong></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://shankman.com/lessons-a-month-after-merging-my-facebook-personal-and-fan-pages/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>17</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>When Trying New Things in PR doesn&#8217;t work</title>
		<link>http://shankman.com/when-trying-new-things-in-pr-doesnt-work/</link>
		<comments>http://shankman.com/when-trying-new-things-in-pr-doesnt-work/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 03 Feb 2012 21:40:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Peter Shankman</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Marketing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Media]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Viral Marketing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Web/Tech]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Weblogs]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://shankman.com/?p=4195</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Today, Woody Harrelson&#8217;s PR agent decided to &#8220;kick things up a notch.&#8221; Instead of a typical press event for Woody&#8217;s new film &#8220;Rampart,&#8221; this press agent decided to show his level of &#8220;internet prowess&#8221; and offer Woody Harrelson up for interviews on Reddit, one of the most &#8220;real&#8221; Internet sites out there. (By &#8220;real,&#8221; I mean that it&#8217;s pretty much full of people who have their bullshit filters on a constant &#8220;ten&#8221; and can pick out when something is hype in about two seconds. So, of course, they did. You can read the post, and the resulting crap that Woody Harrelson got here. It ain&#8217;t pretty. While it&#8217;s fun to try new things, you have to KNOW YOUR AUDIENCE! When [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://shankman.com/wp-content/uploads//14034174.jpg"><img class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-4196" title="14034174" src="http://shankman.com/wp-content/uploads//14034174.jpg" alt="" width="500" height="375" /></a></p>
<p>Today, Woody Harrelson&#8217;s PR agent decided to &#8220;kick things up a notch.&#8221; Instead of a typical press event for Woody&#8217;s new film &#8220;Rampart,&#8221; this press agent decided to show his level of &#8220;internet prowess&#8221; and offer Woody Harrelson up for interviews on Reddit, one of the most &#8220;real&#8221; Internet sites out there. (By &#8220;real,&#8221; I mean that it&#8217;s pretty much full of people who have their bullshit filters on a constant &#8220;ten&#8221; and can pick out when something is hype in about two seconds.</p>
<p>So, of course, they did. You can read the post, and the resulting crap that Woody Harrelson got <a href="http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/p9a1v/im_woody_harrelson_ama/">here.</a> It ain&#8217;t pretty.</p>
<p>While it&#8217;s fun to try new things, you have to KNOW YOUR AUDIENCE! When you don&#8217;t, and you do something like this, you&#8217;ll get caught. The worst part is that had the PR person simply taken the time to read other Reddit interviews, he could have avoided about 90% of the errors he made, which resulted in him being bitch-slapped as hard as he was. (And by extension, Woody.)</p>
<p>End result? As always, you gotta be real, transparent, and know your audience.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://shankman.com/when-trying-new-things-in-pr-doesnt-work/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>4</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>A thought on Television and Windows</title>
		<link>http://shankman.com/a-thought-on-television-and-windows/</link>
		<comments>http://shankman.com/a-thought-on-television-and-windows/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 02 Feb 2012 16:52:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Peter Shankman</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Images From The Road]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Not Necessarily PR]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Television]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Travel]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Web/Tech]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://shankman.com/?p=4189</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[While I&#8217;m sitting in my room at the W London, looking out the windows and also zoning out to CNN, it occurs to me &#8211; Why don&#8217;t hotels simply install flat windows that also have TVs in them &#8211; They use illumination-blocking technology that came out ten years ago and is hella cheap now to darken the window a bit the moment the TV is turned on. They save on precious room space, and it looks super-cool. Allows for much, much bigger screens, and when people want to go to sleep, they just shut off the tv, and the curtains come down and darken the room. Am I the only weirdo who thinks this way? What &#8220;weird&#8221; things can you [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>While I&#8217;m sitting in my room at the W London, looking out the windows and also zoning out to CNN, it occurs to me &#8211; Why don&#8217;t hotels simply install flat windows that also have TVs in them &#8211; They use illumination-blocking technology that came out ten years ago and is hella cheap now to darken the window a bit the moment the TV is turned on. They save on precious room space, and it looks super-cool. Allows for much, much bigger screens, and when people want to go to sleep, they just shut off the tv, and the curtains come down and darken the room.</p>
<p>Am I the only weirdo who thinks this way? What &#8220;weird&#8221; things can you do in your company that might seem insane, but can cut costs, improve revenues, and give customers another road to happy? Brainstorm below.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<div class="mceTemp mceIEcenter" style="text-align: center;">
<dl id="attachment_4190" class="wp-caption aligncenter" style="width: 310px;">
<dt class="wp-caption-dt"><a href="http://shankman.com/wp-content/uploads//Scenerychannel.png"><img class="size-medium wp-image-4190" src="http://shankman.com/wp-content/uploads//Scenerychannel-300x197.png" alt="" width="300" height="197" /></a></dt>
<dd class="wp-caption-dd">&#8220;Broadcasting beautiful views, 24-hours a day, it&#8217;s the Scenery Channel.&#8221;</dd>
</dl>
</div>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://shankman.com/a-thought-on-television-and-windows/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>10</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Ashton&#8217;s Only Twitter Mistake Was Running Away From Twitter</title>
		<link>http://shankman.com/ashtons-only-twitter-mistake-was-running-away-from-twitter/</link>
		<comments>http://shankman.com/ashtons-only-twitter-mistake-was-running-away-from-twitter/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 14 Nov 2011 09:00:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Peter Shankman</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Branding]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Business]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Crisis Management]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Social Media]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Web/Tech]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://shankman.com/?p=4012</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[On today&#8217;s lesson of &#8220;What did we learn?&#8221; we examine one Ashton Kutcher &#8211; Twitter&#8217;s biggest cheerleader, short of Lady Gaga. A Twitter hero from the start, his eight-million followers boasts a mighty big audience. As I&#8217;ve said many times, for many, social media is simply a better way to screw up to a much larger audience in a much shorter amount of time. Ashton proved that last week, when he defended Penn State&#8217;s fired coach without knowing all the facts of why he was fired. Kutcher immediately took a ton of grief for his defense, and backpedaled, realizing what he did, and admitting that he screwed up. He did the complete and total right thing. He screwed up, he [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>On today&#8217;s lesson of &#8220;What did we learn?&#8221; we examine one <a href="http://www.twitter.com/aplusk" target="_blank">Ashton Kutcher</a> &#8211; Twitter&#8217;s biggest cheerleader, short of Lady Gaga. A Twitter hero from the start, his eight-million followers boasts a mighty big audience.</p>
<p>As I&#8217;ve said many times, for many, social media is simply a better way to screw up to a much larger audience in a much shorter amount of time. Ashton proved that last week, when he defended Penn State&#8217;s fired coach without knowing all the facts of why he was fired.</p>
<p>Kutcher immediately took a ton of grief for his defense, and backpedaled, realizing what he did, and admitting that he screwed up.</p>
<p>He did the complete and total right thing. He screwed up, he admitted it, he apologized, and he owned it.</p>
<p>But that&#8217;s where his right moves ended. Instead of moving on, he took all the good that he did from his mistake and blew it &#8211; He gave control of his Twitter account to his handlers.<br />
<strong></strong></p>
<p><strong>NO, NO, NO, NO, NO.</strong></p>
<p>His handlers? Come on, Ashton. WRONG WAY TO HANDLE THE SITUATION.</p>
<p>The second you hand over your Twitter account to your people, your account stops being real, your voice starts being &#8220;crafted,&#8221; and you start being out of touch<br />
<strong></strong></p>
<p><strong>Basic Twitter Rule for After You Screw Up:</strong></p>
<p>1) <strong>Companies issue press releases. People Tweet. </strong>One of the reasons we like following celebrities on Twitter vs other means is that it&#8217;s them (mostly) doing the Tweeting. We know that Demi and Ashton would send each other notes on their arm, and we loved that. We had an &#8220;in&#8221; into their real world. Same thing for CEOs and the like. When <a href="http://www.twitter.com/scottevest" target="_blank">Scott Jordan</a> of the ScotteVest gets into arguments on Twitter, it&#8217;s really him &#8211; we like watching how he runs his business, and we learn from it. The second you give your Twitter account away to handlers, it&#8217;s not you, it&#8217;s not real, and people stop caring.</p>
<p>2) <strong>People screw up! That&#8217;s what make them people! They learn from it, and we learn by watching.</strong> Screw ups actually benefit us all. You&#8217;re going to screw up. There&#8217;s no doubt. You&#8217;ll be totally shocked by how badly you&#8217;re going to screw up. We all do it. Sometimes more than once. But we have to learn from it. I&#8217;ve learned from it, and I don&#8217;t bring my Droid out when I go out drinking anymore. I don&#8217;t tweet in anger anymore. We learn lessons. But we keep going! Giving your account away is a mistake. It says that you didn&#8217;t learn, you won&#8217;t bother to learn, and you&#8217;ll find new ways to make mistakes. If you&#8217;re a bad driver, learn to drive better. Don&#8217;t hire a driver.</p>
<p>3) <strong>Don&#8217;t Walk Away</strong>. You want to be beloved by your fans, your audience, your customers? Remember that the majority of them don&#8217;t have &#8220;handlers.&#8221; They can&#8217;t simply &#8220;walk away&#8221; when they do something stupid. If you really want to be taken seriously, you need to know that if you screw up, we expect you to apologize, and move on. We&#8217;ll want your stupid updates tomorrow, and we won&#8217;t want you to stop tweeting. But we&#8217;ll be pissed as hell if the next update on YOUR twitter account comes from your publicist. If we wanted to follow your publicist, we would.</p>
<p>4) <strong>In the end, being honest always beats being polished.</strong> We want our celebrities, our CEOs, anyone we follow, to be, more than anything, REAL. That means never knowing what&#8217;s coming next. If you&#8217;re afraid to be real because of one little screwup, you don&#8217;t deserve an audience to begin with.</p>
<p>Tell me what I&#8217;m missing, agree, or disagree with me below.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://shankman.com/ashtons-only-twitter-mistake-was-running-away-from-twitter/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>54</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

