Today’s Twifficiency fiasco (don’t you dare click that link, much less authorize the service) is all the proof you need that there are simply too many talkers and not enough listeners on Twitter. Despite it’s creator’s supposed brilliance, it’s spammy and worthless. Still, even among the people I follow–all of whom I consider remarkably intelligent people–almost every other tweet I saw tonight was about “Twifficiency”. Everyone was just so excited to have found the next big tool for measuring “Twitter influence” (an idea in and of itself that’s completely abstract and pretty much bogus, if you ask me) that they were thrilled to try it out, regardless of the consequences.

That in and of itself isn’t that big of a problem. Even I clicked on it at first. But on Twitter time is fleeting and everything moves extraordinarily quickly–I clicked on the link early this morning, before it had blown up the way it did. Immediately after realizing what it did, I closed it, deleted the auto-tweet, and posted a warning to all my Twitter followers. Rather than these warnings spreading (mine, and others), instead the link itself spread like wildfire, as Twitter users found themselves overwhelmed by the desire to talk and not to listen.

Had I waited a few hours, I would’ve quickly seen that “Twiffiency” was bogus and spammy. I would not have clicked the link. But even as I write this–after 8:00 p.m. on the east coast–people are still clicking away at that link, convinced it must be something worth trying out despite the myriad warnings floating around the Twittersphere. Simply put, there are too many talkers, and not enough listeners.

This points to a larger issue with Twitter. I love the network, and I’ll likely use it until the day they shut it down or the day I die, whichever comes first. But there’s no doubt that far too many users see it as a soapbox, and there’s not enough listening happening. It’s not just spreading a few spammy links, it’s that people simply aren’t utilizing it to its full potential.

There’s a lesson here–you knew it was coming: Twitter is a learning tool. Not a tool for screaming through your digital microphone to your umpteen-thousand followers. It’s not a tool for mass marketing your brand. It’s not a tool for venting, ranting, or debating. Not fundamentally, anyway.

It’s a tool for listening.

If you use Twitter to listen, only then does it become a tool for any of those other things. By listening to the voices on Twitter–including your own, on occasion–you can figure out what the conversation is. You can figure out who the people are you want to talk to. You can figure out your audience, your target, your customers. And then you can slide yourself right into that conversation.

But nobody wants a screaming, blathering salesman barging into the middle of their bar-talk. So don’t do it. Listen. Just stop talking every once in a while, and listen.

Good for them.

Say what? you might be thinking. Companies should always listen to the customer, right? No. Quite the opposite in the case of social media, actually, and the success of Facebook and failures of Google tell the story pretty convincingly.

Facebook grew to be the world’s largest social network, because it did what it wanted to do, when it wanted to do it, regardless of the backlash from its users.

Whether it was the advent of the news feed, the introduction of a new UI or privacy concerns, Facebook has been firm with their “f#$% you” to their users’ opinions. But they’ve also been right. The news feed was the smartest move the company has ever made. And from a privacy perspective, Facebook will always be fighting a losing PR battle–it’s best to just suck it up, do what you want, and let it blow over.

And blow over it has. Every time. Not once has the outrage of the users grown to amount to, well, anything. The great “Facebook Quit Day” of 2010 was a joke, and Facebook gleefully announced their 500 millionth user only weeks later. Everyone has some reason to complain about Facebook, but no one will quit and they will continue to grow, barring any absolutely extraordinary circumstances.

Google sucks at social media because they listen too much.

It’s no secret Google sucks at social media. They have yet to release anything of consequence in this sector and well, again barring any extraordinary circumstances or a major acquisition, it doesn’t look like this is going to change anytime soon. The problem? Well, there’s several, but for the most part they just don’t get it, and they keep listening to their users.

Facebook, for example, doesn’t do beta. They soft launch a feature and let it go. That’s it. No feedback, no tweaks, none of that crap.

Google doesn’t do anything without a beta. They want nothing but feedback, feedback, feedback. They want to tweak and poke and play around with each product until it’s–in their eyes, at least–perfect. But you can’t do that with social media.

Social media is a whole new ballgame. The users don’t know best.

Twitter figured this out.

“Who To Follow” is a feature that many users hate. But none of those users are going to quit Twitter over it, and it’s going to generate even more traffic and users for the social platform. It’s win-win.

That said, Twitter has a unique history of development with its users. As most know, many features–including hashtags, @ replies and more–began as behaviors users were doing anyway, that Twitter then turned into features. But those were different circumstances. Twitter has taken the good ideas from its users, and thrown away the bad ones. Twitter has released features that users hated, but–and look at the new-style retweet if you want proof–they still ignored their users.

It doesn’t make sense, but that’s because it never worked this way before.

Very few companies can say they’ve succeeded by ignoring their users as opposed to listening to them. The Walmart mantra of “the customer is always right” has become so ingrained in consumer culture that it seems unfathomable that a company would go out of their way to ignore the outcry of millions of frustrated users.

So welcome to social media land, where things don’t work the same way anymore. Social media has turned hundreds of entire industries on their head–from media to advertising to public relations and even the act of governing–and that’s because it is a fundamentally different beast.

So complain all you want, fellow social media users. Whether you love it or hate it, that new feature on Facebook or Twitter probably isn’t going anywhere. Because like it or not, they know this business better than you do. That’s why they’re who they are. That’s why they run these platforms. And that’s why they’re kicking Google’s ass at social media. They aren’t listening–for a reason.

You read that right. Twitter + Camping.

Now, “what stays in the woods stays in the woods” (inside joke) but I did want to give a quick overview of the trip and some of the lessons learned.

The explorers included myself (@alexpriest), @sisarina, @charswann, @swannrmonavie, @aishajcreative, and @baileycuddles. We boarded two tightly packed vehicles with enough food to feed an army, chairs for everyone including the pup, and tents to sleep 14 people (no kidding). The journey began.

After a super-fun, totally rockin’ car-ride, completely with the noxious scents of darling @baileycuddles (he was definitely feeling whatever he ate the night before–we all suffered), we arrived at our campsite, selected by @sisarina. It was perfect. We managed to be the only ones in our entire neck of the woods–literally–and it was, to say the least, a picturesque spot.

The trip was an absolute blast. We got to know each other quite well, and in my case, I know I learned a fair bit about myself too. I learned how to use my new DSLR a little better, for example (as seen in my photos in this post, and on my Flickr set page). But more than that, I learned a little about how I’m perceived by others, and began to look at my fellow travelers in a new light.

Before this trip, I’d seen my “Twitter friends,” as I affectionally call them, as great online friends and networking friends, but hadn’t always been able to look deeper and see who they really were. In some cases (not all!), I had let my age get in the way of a real friendship (despite some of my recent writing on similar issues). In recent months, particularly on this trip, I began to look deeper at these amazing, amazing friends I’ve found and realized that I have something truly special.

In a lot of ways, it feels like overcoming issues with body image. My friend @SpringMelanie has been tackling issues of body image recently on her blog and it’s gotten me thinking about the way I look at myself and my friends around me. I’ve begun looking beyond titles, jobs, ages, and locations, and looking at who exactly the person is that I’m tweeting, chatting, and spending time with at all these happy hours and networking events. People like @swannrmonavie (Rahiem Swann) and @charswann (Charlotte Swann, below), who are, without a doubt, some of the nicest, wisest, and most incredible friends I’ve ever had the privilege to know.

This post, and all my ranting and raving, can’t even begin to explain how much fun I had on this weekend trip. It was amazing to set aside the technology, the phones, and even the clocks (for an entire afternoon, we thought it was three hours later than it actually was, thanks to @sisarina misreading military time on her camera). And it was great connecting with four other people (and one adorable puppy) who I’d met entirely online in such a deep and meaningful way. Thank you all so much for a wonderful weekend, and I can’t wait for our next twamping trip. #SMCampers for the win!

Now, time to get some rest. Check out all the rest of my photos from the trip on my Flickr set page.

For those of you who haven’t heard, Dave Weigel is human, with thoughts, emotions, and feelings, like most of the rest of us.

Let me explain. Until yesterday, Dave Weigel was the Washington Post blogger covering the conservative movement. One caveat: he’s not all that conservative. Does that make him a bad blogger? A poor journalist? No. Does it mean he might not have been the best person for the job? Maybe. But that’s missing the larger point here.

The point is that our media is fundamentally flawed. Journalism in the 21st century is facing overwhelming forces, and yesterday’s fiasco at the Washington Post only underscores the futility of trying to fight them. The idea of objective journalism is a myth, for three reasons:

1. News moves faster than people.
2. “Unbiased journalism” is no longer a unique selling point, nor one that consumers are willing to pay for.
3. Journalists have opinions, and hiding them only misleads the public, preventing them from properly interpreting the news they read, hear, and watch.

News moves faster than people.

In the 1990s we saw the advent of the 24/7 news cycle, as dedicated cable news channels like CNN and Fox News Channel emerged on the scene. Little did they know, the media was only witnessing the beginning of a rapidly accelerating news cycle, one that has now accelerated far out of their control.

Today we have social media. Social media doesn’t drive the news cycle–events drive the news cycle. But social media has placed the control of the news cycle squarely in the hands of the information consumers themselves, leaving television and newspapers struggling to keep up.

Lost amidst the battle between corporate media conglomerates and the “little guy” citizen journalists, of course, are the paid, professional journalists. These journalists are overworked, underpaid, underappreciated, and forced to hold themselves to outrageous and unrealistic standards of “objectivity”–standards that are simply impossible to live up to the 21st century hyper news cycle.

“Unbiased journalism” is no longer a unique selling point, nor one that consumers are willing to pay for.

In case you haven’t noticed, newspapers are dying. There’s lots of theories as to why they’re dying, and likely more than one accurate explanation. I tend to favor the Strategic Dissonance Model, created by former Intel CEO Andy Grove.



The model, above, basically states that at a recent point in history there was an inflection point in the business of information. As consumers of information and new media–i.e. blogs, social media, etc.–moved one direction, progressing towards an open, generally opinion-based, consumer-generated style of news, old media regressed toward a more closed, more staunchly “objective” style. This, in turn, created a dissonance gap between the two, resulting in old media’s decline and new media’s rapid success.

My point here is that consumer’s dont give a shit about objectivity. Not only do they not care, but they sure as hell don’t care enough to pay for it. The only people subscribing to old media today are people who either a) just like the feel of the newspaper, or b) rely on very factual, researched articles for research of their own.

Journalists have opinions, and hiding them only misleads the public, preventing them from properly interpreting the news they read, hear, and watch.

Finally, the obvious point. Journalists do have opinions. That is an obvious fact, and one that every single person on earth should know. If you think that journalists are robots and have no opinions, don’t agree or disagree with politicians, and don’t feel certain ways on certain issues, then you clearly don’t understand the way the world works.

So here’s the situation. We have a hyperspeed news cycle that is out of corporate media’s control, consumer’s that don’t care about unbiased journalism yet business models still founded on selling it, and journalists with opinions working for businesses that refuse to acknowledge their humanity.

See any problems there?

Not only is this a fundamentally flawed system, but this misleads news consumers. When you read an article on the Huffington Post, you know that it’s going to have a liberal bias. When you watch MSNBC you know it’s got a liberal slant. And when you watch Fox News they make no efforts to hide their conservative bias. These media organizations are some of the few in the world that are being (relatively) honest with their consumers.

The ones claiming objectivity are lying to you. I’m looking at you, Washington Post, New York Times, Wall Street Journal, and, for that matter, the AP, NBC, ABC, CNN, and any number of other organizations. Each of these organizations has biased journalists, producing biased work, yet they insist over and over that they are objective and unbiased. When relatively uninformed readers and watchers consume this content, they interpret it as objective. Informed and experienced information consumers recognize the political bias inherent in these organizations and journalists and interpret it as such, taking in the actual facts and the rest with a grain of salt (as it should be).

In other words (and thanks for sticking around through this long entry), Dave Weigel should never have been fired, and journalists should never feel the need to keep their personal opinions and bias secret from the public.

Think about it. How can we change this? What will it take to convince traditional media that they are simply going about the business of news the wrong way?

Sound off in the comments or tweet at me. And don’t forget to retweet and “like” this post on Facebook using the links below.

]]> http://alexpriest.com/2010/06/26/the-myth-of-objective-journalism/feed/ 5 http://alexpriest.com/2010/06/11/the-twitter-revolution-wasnt-a-revolution-for-iran-it-was-a-revolution-for-the-world/ http://alexpriest.com/2010/06/11/the-twitter-revolution-wasnt-a-revolution-for-iran-it-was-a-revolution-for-the-world/#comments Fri, 11 Jun 2010 11:38:24 +0000 Alex Priest http://alexpriest.com/?p=884 Continue reading →]]> I just wanted to post a quick response to this article in Foreign Policy. The author, Golnaz Esfandiari, like so many others, seems intent on discrediting the impact of Twitter on the revolution in Iran. Was Twitter the cause of the attempted revolution? No. Was it the most important communications medium? No. But the article misses the point. The attempted revolution in Iran in 2009 wasn’t a revolution in Iran, it was a revolution in the media and how those of us outside these conflict zones perceive the world around us.

Here’s Esfandiari’s take on what she calls the “Twitter Devolution”:

But it is time to get Twitter’s role in the events in Iran right. Simply put: There was no Twitter Revolution inside Iran. As Mehdi Yahyanejad, the manager of “Balatarin,” one of the Internet’s most popular Farsi-language websites, told the Washington Post last June, Twitter’s impact inside Iran is nil. “Here [in the United States], there is lots of buzz,” he said. “But once you look, you see most of it are Americans tweeting among themselves.”

She’s just missing the point. Of course there wasn’t a Twitter revolution inside Iran. It was a revolution outside Iran. It alerted millions and millions of people in the United States, Europe, and elsewhere that there are serious problems in Iran that need to be fixed. It made the world wake up and realize that the people in Iran aren’t particularly happy with their corrupt and, dare I say, evil government. It showed that the world has become far more interconnected over the past decade than anyone realized.

The article mentions @oxfordgirl, and it does her an incredible disservice. Take a look:

Oxfordgirl was ultimately more successful at gaining publicity for herself than at helping any protesters in Iran. Compare her 10,000 Twitter followers with the 300 followers of a Karaj-based Green activist (who prefers not to be identified or to have his Twitter page publicized). The activist tweets in Persian, which few Western journalists can read, and he is often a source of valuable information about the mood in the country.

Yet again, she’s simply missing the point. Anyone who knows social media, communications, or even marketing knows that comparing number of followers is naive and immature, and insinuating that @oxfordgirl was doing it all for the “publicity” instead of helping the protesters in Iran is offensive to her and to her friends. I know her, respect her, and I understand her background. And if this journalist had done her research, maybe she would too, instead of sounding catty and accusatory.

Esfandiari recovers a bit with the following paragraph:

The story of Oxfordgirl gives a clue about the real role that Twitter played. There is no doubt that she helped spread news about the Iranian protests — often very quickly. Twitter played an important role in getting word about the events in Iran out to the wider world. Together with YouTube, it helped focus the world’s attention on the Iranian people’s fight for democracy and human rights. New media over the last year created and sustained unprecedented international moral solidarity with the Iranian struggle — a struggle that was being bravely waged many years before Twitter was ever conceived.

But that doesn’t make up for the downright misleading nature of the article. In the end, to me this sounds like a frustrated and desperate print journalist, all too self-aware of her impending irrelevance. It sounds jealous, naive, and uninformed. And the accusations pointed at @oxfordgirl are downright mean.

[Foreign Policy]

]]> http://alexpriest.com/2010/06/11/the-twitter-revolution-wasnt-a-revolution-for-iran-it-was-a-revolution-for-the-world/feed/ 1 http://alexpriest.com/2010/05/31/just-call-me-a-21st-century-indiana-jones/ http://alexpriest.com/2010/05/31/just-call-me-a-21st-century-indiana-jones/#comments Tue, 01 Jun 2010 02:06:30 +0000 Alex Priest http://alexpriest.com/?p=853 Continue reading →]]> Well, someday, maybe.

Today @ptklein, @laurenkrizel and I wandered over to the National Zoo for a while to enjoy the weather (it’s free, and you can literally just walk in–one of the best things to do on a pretty day in DC, if you ask me). Being in the zoo sparked all of our more adventurous sides, and naturally we got to talking about safaris, traveling the world, and long-shot career options like nature photography, etc.

But Paul brought up a great point, and it made me start to think. We’re the first generation who isn’t brought up to be just one thing in life. Very few of us anymore set out to be only doctors, or only businessmen. I’d even be willing to bet that if I surveyed 500 of my closest college-age friends, very few of them would be able to pinpoint one answer to the age-old question, “What do you want to do when you grow up?”

I’m far from being able to answer that question, too. My degrees are in marketing and communications, with some study in statistics. So where will that leave me? In a PR firm? Doing marketing for some big company? I’m not sure that’s where I want to be.

Instead, what if I put my marketing and social media skills to use in a high-profile political campaign? Or took them into humanitarian work abroad? Or used them to document the natural world on wild African adventures? Or maybe I could take them into the government, working in the White House; as an elected official connecting with my constituents; or maybe even in the State or Defense Departments, working to keep our country safe and secure?

See what I mean? I can envision thousands of possibilities for my skills, and who knows, my degrees might not even be relevant five years from now. For all I know Twitter and Facebook will be a thing of the past, this blog will be a relic, and I’ll be on to bigger and better things.

As long as it’s exciting, I’m ok with that. If there’s one thing I fear, it’s living a boring life. I’m pretty confident I’ve avoided that so far, and with a little luck I’ve got nothing to worry about in the future. My life-long goal is simple: to have good stories to tell when I’m old. I want to be a 21st-century Indiana Jones (perhaps minus the Nazis), one adventure after the next, living, learning, and, well, living.

What do you want to do? What adventures can you imagine in your future? Sound off in the comments, or chat with me on Facebook or Twitter.

]]> http://alexpriest.com/2010/05/31/just-call-me-a-21st-century-indiana-jones/feed/ 1 http://alexpriest.com/2010/05/25/buy-some-electronics/ http://alexpriest.com/2010/05/25/buy-some-electronics/#comments Wed, 26 May 2010 03:32:04 +0000 Alex Priest http://alexpriest.com/?p=821 Continue reading →]]> Consider that my first marketing shill for my brand new employer–the Consumer Electronics Association!

It goes without saying (well, I’m saying it, really) that any and all entries, tweets, and other social media buzzing coming from me do not represent the views of my employer.

Now that that’s out of that way… I’m thrilled! Tomorrow I begin my marketing internship with the Consumer Electronics Association (thanks so much to @jp1113 for letting me know about the opportunity!). I’m not entirely sure what to expect, but I’m excited for the opportunity to work in a slightly different field (in other words, not PR) and I know my experiences in the past will help me out a lot as I take on new challenges and responsibilities.

As many of you know, I’ve already begun my duties as the Social Media Director for TechChange, and we’ll be launching our social media presence soon (and rest assured you’ll hear plenty about us). I think it’s safe to say it’s going to be a busy summer! But I’m excited about everything I’ve got going on and think I’ll have some opportunities to do some amazing work.

Speaking of work and interning, be sure you check out the AU Intern Blog, where I’ll be blogging periodically throughout the summer. I might also have a few other guest blogging appearances–I’ll let you know more about them as I find out more in the next few weeks!

]]> http://alexpriest.com/2010/05/25/buy-some-electronics/feed/ 1 http://alexpriest.com/2010/05/24/internet-meet-reality/ http://alexpriest.com/2010/05/24/internet-meet-reality/#comments Tue, 25 May 2010 00:45:38 +0000 Alex Priest http://alexpriest.com/?p=809 Continue reading →]]> It’s high time for this wake-up call. It is abundantly clear by the recent outrage at Facebook that the vast majority of the Internet–the social media crowd, in particular–still doesn’t get the business of social media. Social media is not a public service. It is not funded and managed by the government. It is not a nonprofit entity, out to change the world, regardless of the profit margin.

Social media is a business, and it amazes me how much social media users are, quite frankly, acting like entitled, spoiled brats.



Reality is striking the social media space and it’s hitting hard and fast. As we all know, it’s centered on the Facebook privacy debacle, set in motion by a changed privacy policy meant to help further the business–and the continued existence–of a growing international corporation. Couple that with some bad PR on Facebook’s part and a spoiled user base, and you’ve set the stage for a crisis of poisoned Tylenol proportions. But Facebook can relax, because they’re in the right on this one. People need to wake up and smell the roses, because there’s no such thing as a free lunch.

Three things I want you to learn from this post.

1. Privacy is an illusion.
2. Social media is a business, and we should treat it as such.
3. The “customer” is not always right.

Privacy Is an Illusion

First, some contend Facebook needs to get serious about privacy. In Facebook’s defense, I’d argue that Facebook’s users need to get serious about their own privacy and stop posting stupid shit online they don’t want other people to know.

Don’t want people to know your phone number? Don’t put it on Facebook. And delist yourself from the phonebook, contact Google to get yourself removed from their database, and be sure to call up every company you’ve ever subscribed to, filled out a warranty card for, or enlisted in a loyalty program for to get your name off their lists, while you’re at it.

The thing is, privacy doesn’t exist. Not only is privacy dead, but it’s been dead for a long time. If I want to find you, I can. And I can almost guarantee you I can do it without the help of the Internet.

Social Media is a Business

Secondly, Facebook needs to make money, and advertising is how they do it. By taking usage statistics and the information that we, its loyal users, are posting on their site, owned by a private corporation, they are more than entitled to take our information and make those ads more relevant, targeted and profitable. And to be perfectly honest, I’d prefer to see an ad about PR and marketing services (as I often do on Facebook, thanks to my chosen career path) than an ad on nail polish or enlargement pills (circa 2001), any day.

Facebook is a business and if you’ve got a problem with the way they run their business, fine. But don’t act like you are entitled to anything, because you aren’t. They aren’t public, so you certainly don’t own any shares. They never signed an agreement with you–you signed an agreement with them. And they have a responsibility to themselves and their employees to make money and to continue to grow. Are they pushing the boundaries of privacy and the social web? Sure they are. Is it 100% morally right and something they should be doing? Maybe not. Is it their prerogative to do so? Absolutely.

The best way to complain about a business is to leave. So do it. Just leave. Quit complaining about their privacy policy. If you don’t want to be as social as Facebook thinks you should be, perhaps you don’t belong on their social network. There’s nothing wrong with that, and that’s your decision. But making ridiculous claims like “Facebook’s invading my privacy” and that they are “stealing your identity for profit” is getting nothing done, and to be brutally honest, Facebook really doesn’t care about you. You don’t have a legal leg to stand on, and the thousands of lawyers they’ve had write their privacy policy know that.

The “Customer” is NOT Always Right

Finally, to those of you arguing that Facebook should “listen to its customers more”–I think you’re wrong, too. On more than one level. First of all, we aren’t customers because we aren’t buying anything from them. We’re users. Of their service. That they’re providing to us completely free of charge.

Secondly, where do you think Facebook would be today if it had always “listened to its users?” I’ll tell you. They would’ve abandoned the idea of the newsfeed–which single-handedly revolutionized the way we consume and share content on the web. They would’ve abandoned their latest series of redesigns, which undoubtedly make information on the service easier to access and digest. Oh, and they would’ve abandoned the idea of every leaving Harvard University, because I’m sure those users were enjoying having the service very much to themselves. If they abandoned their current line of development–specifically, sharing content and interacting with third-party websites–it would be a remarkable leap backwards in social media technology. They know that, and that’s why they aren’t going to do it.

Look at what happened to Myspace. Myspace didn’t fail because it “stopped listening to its users.” It failed because it listened too much. There’s a fine line to walk when it comes to customer service in social media and those boundaries are still being explored. However, by giving its users so much free reign over the service, Myspace collapsed into a jumbled mess of spammy-looking profiles and pedophile stalkers.

Facebook has succeeded because it took a hard line on what they thought was best, and what they thought would best propel the social web forward. They’ve done well, so far. It’s hard to argue with their kind of success–500 million users is nothing to balk at, and the innovation they’ve brought to the web (minus some feature-stealing from Twitter) can hardly be considered minor developments.

Now obviously this all just my humble opinion. I’m not looking for a fight, and I’ll gladly entertain other opinions and respect other views. But to be perfectly honest, I think this entire debate is just getting ridiculous.

P.S. Twitter is a business too.

]]> http://alexpriest.com/2010/05/24/internet-meet-reality/feed/ 5 http://alexpriest.com/2010/03/16/a-busy-start-to-a-busy-week/ http://alexpriest.com/2010/03/16/a-busy-start-to-a-busy-week/#comments Tue, 16 Mar 2010 07:05:12 +0000 Alex Priest http://alexpriest.com/?p=709 Continue reading →]]> So I’ll be honest, I don’t have a whole lot to say, but it’s been such a long and stressful day that I thought a little writing before bed might do me some good. It’s been a productive day, though, I’ll say that much. Hell, in the past 24 hours I’ve been to over seven hours of class (in five classes), had two meetings, written a paper, put together a PowerPoint presentation, held office hours, read two chapters of a book for Thursday, read two newspapers, kept up-to-date with Twitter and the news, cleaned through my inbox… and now written a blog post.

Oh, and in about five minutes I’ll be getting another badge on Foursquare. Because by golly it’s after 3am on a school night and I want that school night badge. Yes, I am a hopeless social media addict.

One thing I noticed today was that, in the light of South by Southwest (#sxsw) I’ve found myself saying “I’m jealous” a lot of people attending the conference–and even people not attending. People who aren’t as busy as I am. People who had a chance to see Avatar. People who have more time to watch their favorite TV shows. People who have nice weather. People who have awesome jobs.

I really need to stop it. I have no reason to be jealous. Honestly, life is pretty great right now. Do I have a lot going on? Sure. Is it stressful? Yea, a little bit. Is it totally fun and worth it? Absolutely.

I’m learning more in school right now than I ever have. My internship has already taught me more about traditional and nontraditional communication strategy than I thought I’d learn all semester. I have some of the best friends around–in real life, on Twitter, and all over the world (thanks y’all, you rock). And I feel that sense of opportunity… always. There’s so much to learn, so much out there to experience, and so many doors just waiting to be opened. Or kicked down.

Anyway, enough for now, but that’s my message for the night: be productive, don’t be jealous, appreciate every opportunity.

]]> http://alexpriest.com/2010/03/16/a-busy-start-to-a-busy-week/feed/ 0 http://alexpriest.com/2010/02/27/when-nature-and-technology-collide/ http://alexpriest.com/2010/02/27/when-nature-and-technology-collide/#comments Sat, 27 Feb 2010 23:45:48 +0000 Alex Priest http://alexpriest.com/?p=672 Continue reading →]]> …incredible things can happen.


Image courtesy of NOAA, tsunami.gov

There’s no doubt that the earthquake in Chile today is a horrible, horrible tragedy. It’s yet another terrible reminder that we truly are at the mercy of nature–as if Haiti wasn’t proof enough. But as with Haiti, we’re witnessing an amazing case study of people coming together with technology to manage the impact of this natural disaster, and it’s truly fascinating to watch.

This morning I woke up at 6:30 a.m. and immediately read the news of the earthquake on Twitter, from my bed. I watched news coverage of the event on TV while I worked out in the gym in my apartment. I kept track of updates on the earthquake and resulting tsunami via Twitter throughout my make-up class session this morning.

When I went downtown this afternoon, I listened to NPR’s coverage of the event on my iPhone while I was biking, and then watched coverage of the impending tsunami in Hawaii via Ustream on my iPhone while at Chinatown Coffee. I continued listening to the audio from Ustream while I biked back–including in the metro thanks to relatively new wireles capability for all carriers they’ve installed in the largest metro stations in the city.

Within all of this coverage, of I heard references to Twitter, Twitpic, Posterous, Ustream, Facebook, CNN iReports, hashtags, texting, iPhones, and more.

The natural disasters, record snowstorms, unprecedented level of news coverage, and rapidly advancing online technology we’ve seen in the past three months alone prove–loud and clear–the world is changing, and fast. Social media is playing an integral role in this. I saw a tweet earlier today mentioning that Jack Dorsey, founder of Twitter, said one of the initial purposes driving Twitter’s development was for crisis response and management. The Haiti and Chile earthquakes prove that it’s been incredibly effective for it.

Again, this is obviously an absolutely tragic event. It’s an incredible case study for technology, but obviously one we all wish we could’ve avoided. I know my thoughts, as well as millions and millions of others’ thoughts, are with those in Chile–as well as those still recovering in Haiti–and we hope we can continue to drive the development of technology and advanced communications to ease recovery from disasters such as these.

]]> http://alexpriest.com/2010/02/27/when-nature-and-technology-collide/feed/ 0