Scott Adams (Dilbert's creator) funnily (is that a word??) depicts the distractability that comes with the territory of today's online resources. Check it out.

Do we really get more done with today's technology? As my friend and colleague, the late great Bob Topor said, "Never mistake activity for progress."

E-mail, social media, and the participation enabled by web 2.0 technologies present numerous marketing opportunities for engagement. Let's not overlook the counter-opportunities - that is, online tools to reduce distraction and keep people focused. The ROI pitch? Productivity and progress.

The greatest human lessons are found in the power of presence, says Rabbi David Wolpe of Temple Sinai in LA.

In this case, he's referring to being humanly "present" with other people vs. being technologically present. I think the idea of real presence applies to effective marketing too. How does Facebook and Twitter and even blogging (like this!) affect our presence? In my opinion, these pervasive technologies are great for (re)connecting and sharing information. Which is important for effective marketing. But in no way do they replace being personally present with someone. Because there's something magical about real presence with another person that I believe technology will never supplant. Good marketers know that deep inside we will all want human connection.

When I was in college, I learned the mind-mapping technique as a visual way of taking notes and organizing ideas. The approach was simple: Write down a key idea, draw a circle around it, and use lines to connect it to other relevant key ideas. And we used an ancient technique called "handwriting" to do it! Here'a an example of a fancy hand-drawn health mind-map from Tony Buzan. 

Next came software that made it "easier" (really?) to draw circles and lines, or at least better looking and more uniform mind maps. The key though was still identifying the concepts and deciding how they cluster and connect. You can probably senses my bias. Before embracing a new technology, I always ask myself - is there a low tech way to get the same results - like mapping concepts by hand.

Now Web 2.0 technology is shining the light on mapping not how we think concepts interrelate, but on how our tagging and clicking demonstrate relationships, like tag clouds for example. Ramping concept mapping up further is Slate's just announced News Dots: "An interactive map of how every story in the news is related, updated daily." 

Bottom line: As human beings, we naturally organize information in ways that saves us processing effort. We like when things cluster together around an idea, story, event, or person. Like good marketing, it's all about relationships. 

Paranormal Activity, a horror movie about a young couple's house haunted by a demonic presence, cost about $15,000 to produce, and brought in $7.9 million last weekend. Paramount Pictures worked with Eventful in San Diego to create a social media buzz, instead of more traditional movie marketing approaches. Eventful's "Demand It" lets us "demand" that performers, movies, or events we want to see come to our town. Enough demand can make it happen.

That's how Paramount decided which cities to show Paranormal Activity in - it was based on demand level generated through social media. Then when they got 1 million demands, they decided to roll out the movie nationwide. From their press release: “From the very beginning, we put this film in the hands of the fans and we trusted them to tell us where and when it should be seen. We couldn’t be more thrilled by their overwhelming support and we are happy to release the film in every town - big and small,” said Rob Moore, Vice Chairman of Paramount Pictures.

I see this as an incredible Web 2.0 resource. It gives a powerful voice to the public and enables companies to respond to what the market wants. And framing it as "Demand It" may lead people to feel more empowered than something like "Request It."

As we shouted and sang in the '60s, "Power to the People!" Who knew the many ways that the internet would deliver on that promise.

There's a new website business called Uplaya by Music Intelligence Solutions with "Hit Song Science" software that predicts what songs will be big hits, then helps with promotion and distribution. The company's CEO sees the algorythm that looks for common patterns of rhythm, harmony, chord progression, length and lyrics, as a way to democratize the music industry, a process he likens to an electronic American ldol (listen to today's NPR interview).

This reminds me of popular singer/songwriter named Michael Bolton who may be best known for singing well-known covers in the 1980s & 90s. Turns out most of his work is original and quite popular, but he was often criticized as a "formula" singer, without much originality. So too are some songwriters critical - or fearful - of an algorythm shaping artistry. It would eliminate innovation and narrow the range of creative possibilities they say. Should artists be driven by what their fans want? Or just sing, write, paint, or create what is in their hearts? My belief is there is a balance. By definition, significant innovation - whether for new products, services, or songs - is something that is hard to evaluate using existing mental templates.

I made the point this way in a Global Marketing seminar I taught last week: Imagine 30 years ago (for a few students, this would have been before they were born... hmm.), someone would have you shown you a small flat box that had a little TV screen and a typewriter built in. They explained to you that with no wires, this "thing" would let you write letters and use spreadsheets, instantly send notes to people anywhere in the world, and just as quickly tap into a worldwide encyclopedia, company directory and shopping network. Could you have even conceived of it? Sure, predictive software is great. And there will always be a place for unscripted creativity that breaks the bounds of what is now known and accepted as good.

One of my computer programs, Word or maybe Safari, just suddenly quit on me, and I got that cute little invitation to submit an error report. It looked something like this:

I have yet to submit one, despite numerous opportunities. Would some guy in a cramped cubicle in India read my error report? Or would a system-generated report be circulated to the error maven? Seems unlikely, that's all. Then I thought, I could be wrong... Maybe I'd get a response like this:

Dear Moshe,

On behalf of Microsoft, I am responding to the error report you submitted 12 minutes ago. I read it carefully and determined that in fact, unknown error #000000000623 did occur which forced MS Word to quit unexpectedly on you for the 54th time this month. And just as you were about to click on Save for your upcoming keynote speech at the White House. Bummer. But don't give up on us. We at Microsoft really care about you, so as a gesture of our appreciation, we will send you an e-certificate citing your toughness and fortitude as a veteran unknown error #000000000623 survivor. You can open it in MS Word, though it has been known to cause occasional system crashes. It is frame-able though.

Sincerely,

Ken

Unknown Error #000000000623 and #000000000624 Technical Specialist III

What a customer service opportunity and brand loyalty opportunity these error communications create!

The Chinese symbol for crisis is composed of two characters. One means danger. The other means opportunity (or some say "crucial point").

That's how I think about allowing cell phone use on airplanes. In a recent blog posting, the NY Times called it "The in-flight menace: Wireless chatter." Personally I agree.

However, from a marketing perspective, domestic airlines could seize the opportunity to differentiate by being the first to allow phones in flight, citing the success of several foreign airlines like Emirates that allow cell phones and other personal wireless devices for making phone calls. They would secure a loyal customer base, at least until it became an industry norm.

Or better, they could stand out - and avoid the danger of customer backlash - by proclaiming their opposition to using cel phones in the air, in line with numerous airline customer surveys. Then brand their action as a demonstration of customer intimacy. But the airlines should not just do nothing while waiting as their national union lobbies Congress for a ban on inflight calls.

I was on a Southwest airline flight earlier this year when they tested internet access, I thought it was great for e-mailing. But I found I could have a phone conversation too in the air via Skype. This I did not like.

Let airlines capitalize on the phone-free "escape" they provide. If not, then hey - offer cell phone and cell phone-free sections, like the old smoking/non-smoking sections. Let freedom ring (sort of)!

A Japanese utility company uses “smile detection” software made by Omron to scan their employees faces every day for smiles, and then motivates better smiling for below par grins. (It sounds like the same technology Sony uses in its new DSC cameras introduced last year. The camera waits until the subject is smiling to take the shot, and with its “Happy Faces” feature, can also edit non-smiling faces into big grins).

To motivate bigger smiles, the utility company’s "smile police" send out instant messages (IMs) saying "You still look too serious” or "Lift up your mouth corners.” And employees receive daily printouts of their smiles to inspire them throughout the day. How funny is that?! And imagine how customer service could be transformed if companies used electronic smile monitoring to understand and act upon what makes customers smile (and not smile).

Listen to the whole story on NPR's Wait Wait Don't Tell Me news show quiz. It will make YOU smile!