Free Advertising

Last week my boss went to some conference interstate to do with human services and IT stuff and returned a convert. Prior to this enlightenment she viewed Facebook and similar social networking services with cynical distrust, convinced that it would forge unhealthy relationships between staff outside of work and breed counter-productive gossip mills. Or something. Anyway, now she's extolling the possible benefits of business related forums where clients can have open and productive discussions while also feeding us, um, feedback without having to resort to the far less reliable process of rusting suggestion boxes and posting out evaluation forms that rarely get posted back. The Gen Y's of Headspace must have made a pretty good impression because she also told us about the potential of peer to peer, 'word of mouth' online promotion of our services that would spread as a result of client stories.

Millions of businesses and causes promote their sites through FB, and their popularity are, indeed, as result of P2P viral marketing. This is not a bad thing, because it relies on self-formed, self-regulating online communities to spread the word rather than traditional advertisng. I mentioned that the other appeal about offering such a forum is that it gave people the confidence to speak publically (under optional anonymity) without actually having to speak in public. A form of virtual empowerment with the added bonus of seeing one's words in virtual print.

After the boss's evangelical spiel, I caught up with our IT guy who also happens to be my best mate. He had attended the same conference. His views on the subject were characteristically more cynical and tempered. He explained the the two girls who held the Headspace promo session had achieved great things with the nation-wide site, but also had to be on 24 hour call to moderate and vet any client stories, blogging or articles as they were submitted. The site was devoted to mental health, so any material that might, say, evoke suicidal ideation or unhealthy coping mechanisms had to be wiped asap. Such a site required constant attention to security and content. It would be a lot of hard work, and he already had a lot of hard work to do as it was.
Promoting such a site via FB was also fraught with peril, he continued. More than a few staff have FB accounts (including me) and while our internet-capable clients might welcome the chance to join our buisness group they may also mistakenly feel entitled to then try to befriend any staff linked to that business. I can see the potential problems there, but I can also see that they could be curtailed by sensibly advising staff not to 'become a fan' or 'friend' of their own workplace business FB page in the first place. Hell, we could even treat them like functional adults and let them make up their own mind. I mean, who would want to anyway, seriously?

I had a search on FB for Headspace (found the Freemantle branch) and then added it as a friend. Not because I'm a suicidal adolescent, but because this is one way to assess just how effective such a move is. At the time of me joining there were 181 friends there. I'll monitor it over the coming weeks and see what sort of growth occurs.

UPDATE (5 May 2010):  Headspace now has 1278 'friends' on FB.  That's a huge improvement on 181, but it's still pretty low in the greater scheme of things.

Making and taking money

I'm really lousy at economics - as a list of my creditors will tell you - but this Stimulus package being forced upon us has me stumped. It's hard for me to see $900 as anything more than a new computer, the same way that it doesn't seem like anything more than an eight-ball of drugs to a tweaker. None of us will refuse cash, but few of us will take it without feeling a little bit weird either. Not that it's free money from the government, of course. It was our money to begin with in the form of taxes. But the reasons for it still seem strange. "You can use this money to stimulate the economy by spending it on Australian businesses," explains the govt. But why not then just inject it straight into those businesses? "This money will encourage people to keep spending in these hard times." But wasn't over-spending the reason we're now in trouble? Exorbitant lines of credit, deposit-free real estate and so on was lapped up by too many people who then couldn't foot the bill. I do understand that the main purpose of money is to be circulated, like a hot potato, with the govt skimming off some of the skin each time it's passed along. When I receive my wage some of it is taxed. When I buy anything with it that gets taxed too. Even when I selfishly spend my stimulus package on a foreign built piece of hardware some of that will also end up taxed.
It's a real capitalist dichotomy: spending money makes you feel rich, while saving money makes you actually rich. Hence the govt wants you to feel rich rather than be rich, because the economy relies on you spending, not saving. You'd never catch the current govt saving money, so why should you. So much so, that they'll front you the money to do so. But money is not wealth. Wealth is based on the relative worth of something real (land, gold, bushels of tea, barrels of oil etc). If Rudd was giving me $900 worth of gold then I'd be extremely happy, but he doesn't have $900 of gold, only $900 in cash. Money - be it cash or electronic - is only an abstract representation of wealth that changes all the time, depending on supply and demand and how much of the stuff itself is printed. It's basically a govt printed voucher that's easier to carry than real wealth, only I can't drink it or pour it into my petrol tank.
See, I'm even lousy when trying to explain basic economics. I guess what I'm trying to say is that if Captain Rudd hands me a life jacket, chances are it's not because we're sailing in fime weather.

To Boldly Go...Snikt!

Okay, so I saw the new Star Trek film last night. I'm not exactly a purist - unlike one of the peers who accompanied me - but I do know that the movie was a damn fine example of entertainment. Fast paced, tight scripting, and the production values were exemplary. The visual effects were superb and highly detailed (now I know what a ship's phaser cannon looks like, as well as how they load the things).
The best bit about the whole deal, though (warning: spoilers imminent) is that the premise of the story allows for both trekkies and non-trekkies to get into the adventure without crying about canon. Characters in the film clearly state that it is the beginning of an alternate ST universe from the moment that JTK is born. Leonard Nimoy is even on hand to make this fact very clear. And good for them, I say. Rebooting worked extremely well for BSG, so why not Trek? From what I can tell, a similar bend in the trousers of time is in store for the Terminator franchise when Salvation is released. And why not? Canon purists (and pedantic nuts like me) love deconstructing continuity-flawed sequels, so I welcome this trend of well-branded fictional icons stepping up and declaring: "This is a new spin on an old idea!".
On the other hand, I liked X-Men Origins: Wolverine not so much. Once again the production was pretty cool, but Marvel is one canon that I'm pretty familiar with, especially when my fave is Deadpool. Wade Wilson is the merc with the mouth who kicks down the fourth wall. Although he was portrayed well enough by the equally alliterative Ryan Reynolds, what was with turning him into some mute, composite franken-mutant with 3 foot katana claws? I'm aware that in some releases there's a post-credit snip of him reclaiming his severed head and talking to camera, but c'mon, where's the contant banter and insanity?
Overall, I'm giving ST an A+ (A++ being the highest), and XM:W a B+ (mainly for Liev Schreiber and Ryan Reynolds).

Blogger Profile

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

The Mind of He Who Rants

This blog is more or less a thought experiment, or it will be when I manage to devise a hypothesis. What it isn't is important, at least not to anyone else. Merely a platform of catharthis that I can access and add to wherever I may be. An oulet of structured expression, if you will.
I haven't even done my profile yet, so I'll jot down a few notes regarding that now. That way anyone who accidentally stumbles across this will be able to put my rantings into a vague frame of reference.
I am an atheist. Not just because I'm too lazy to attend church or just because I gave up on a particular god, or just because I tire of the hypocrisy of religious icons. I simply do not believe that a single entity or partheon thereof could have planned and created the amazing universe in which we live.
I am a libertarian, an initially strange political choice for one who works in human services as part of a welfare state. However, my job is to help people understand that welfare reliance = disempowerment and that dole = dependency. I also opine that the freedom of the individual is worth more than being baby sat by a government.
Lastly, I am a skeptic. Not militantly so, but just enough to know that anything of importance (be it medical, political, sociological or spiritual) should be critically analysed rather than assumed off the bat. Just like a court of law, I require evidence beyond reasonable doubt before I believe something.
So, there you have it. Three personal facts regarding the mind of this particular ranter.