Rob Cottingham's Open Salon Blog

Social Speech Podcast, Episode 9: JD Lasica

Thu, 31 May 2012 19:05:26 -0400

When you want solid advice on social media, backed up by years of experience with both non-profits and businesses, you go to JD Lasica.

And so did I, for a half-hour conversation that touched on everything from why letting your audience see your slides in advance may not be a bad idea, to how speaking and community-building go hand-in-hand.

Listen to JD, then explore these links for some terrific resources:

JD Lasica: home page, Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, Vimeo, Flickr, Slideshare - and his Wikipedia entry
Darknet, JD’s book on Hollywood’s assault on digital-age freedoms
Socialmedia.biz, the business-focused social media consulting firm JD founded
Socialbrite, JD’s firm focusing on non-profits and social enterprises
The Socialbrite sharing centre, a learning hub for non-profits and changemakers
Creative Commons and Creative Commons search on Flickr

ROFL? No, RSID (Ruminating Silently In Despair)

Mon, 28 May 2012 16:05:20 -0400

Originally posted on ReadWriteWeb

Sometimes I’m halfway through drawing something and it strikes me that I could take it from here in a few different directions. One might be funnier. Another might be more pointed. A third might give Alex a knowing smile. A fourth might crack me up but make absolutely no sense to anyone else (except a few people of extremely discerning taste, and I thank you).

It’s hard not to start weighing that decision strategically. Maybe whoever created the painting in today’s cartoon did just that, reasoning that funny stuff won’t be taken as seriously as bleak, painful, Mayor-of-Casterbridge stuff. (Wow: half a million Google hits on “mayor of casterbridge” and “depressing“.)

For me, the trick is to not overthink it, because that’s a sure route to paralysis. But I still second-guessed myself, and reworked a few things – from the conceptual (my first approach was too close to an earlier cartoon) to execution details (am I getting LOL syntax right?). After the cartoon was finished, I went back and changed “QUTE” to “CUTE” for the sake of clarity.

And that’s not counting the million other questions whirling around in my head, some reasonable, some… less so. “How can I hope to get any SEO leverage in a space as crowded as cat images? Who should be doing the talking: the man or the woman? Should they both be women? But if they are, will people think think it’s a joke about lesbians owning cats? Can I legitimately draw a cartoon about lesbians owning cats, and – wait, do I actually want to? No? How can I change this so Adobe will send me a free copy of Creative Suite 6? Will people see this as a commentary on the Greek debt crisis? All those guys at the next table are drawing with Microns; should I stop working digitally? Oh my god, how did it get to be 11 o’clock?“

I’d be lying if I said I’ve never thought about which approach would help a cartoon reach a wider audience, or make a better coffee mug. (Cough.) But ultimately, the goal is to create the cartoon I want to make, and then reach more of the people who will enjoy that cartoon.

So, LOL plus cat.

Let the healing begin.

(Speaking of a sure route to paralysis: so is trying to find a profound literary metaphor. I was about to launch into a “My Wacom pen must think it queer/to stop without a punchline near” epic poem, ending with “…and miles to go before I [Apple menu > Sleep].” Turns out I was confusing two Robert Frost poems. Also, confusing Robert Frost and Robert W. Service. Also, confusing a quick little writeup to go with the cartoon with a doctoral dissertation.)

Noise to Signal - a cartoon by Rob Cottingham

About - Contact - Speaking - Cartoon blogging - Store

See more cartoons about social media, business and the way we live and work online at Noise to Signal Cartoon

Sighted, appropriately enough, in a washroom.

Mon, 28 May 2012 13:05:42 -0400

Posted via email from Rob Cottingham’s posterous

When clarification isn’t

Fri, 25 May 2012 18:05:29 -0400

But taking to the Internet — and taking advantage of the near-infinite time it allows to clarify remarks — sometimes does more harm than good.

via techpresident.com

That’s TechPresident’s Nick Judd, looking at Newark Mayor Cory Booker’s “tortured-looking YouTube reversal” (to quote Politico) and drawing a parallel with Komen CEO Nancy Brinker’s YouTube intervention from a few months ago.

But it’s a mistake to assume the goal from speakers is always to clarify their remarks. Sometimes those remarks were perfectly clear; the purpose of the follow-up statement is to apply a rhetorical Gaussian Blur filter. Trouble is, it’s pretty obvious that’s what’s happening.

When the damage was actually caused by your remarks’ meaning being crystal clear, trying to change their meaning after the fact is a mistake. (And in related news, “I apologize to anyone who was offended because they were so stupid” is a losing strategy, too.) As a speaker, you have to own your words.

I see three strategies that let you get through this with some degree of integrity:

One, if what you said is what you believe, you’re on the record now – live with it. Recommit to its substance, if not to the way you phrased it.

Two, if you were speaking off the top of your head, but a few days of reflection have led you to reconsider, say so, and explain.

And three, if you phrased something so poorly that everyone took the wrong meaning from it, don’t cop out with a “I’m sorry if people misunderstood me.” Instead, something like “I’m sorry – I fumbled my words badly, and it left people with a terribly mistaken impression. It’s the complete opposite of what I meant to say, which was…”

Of course, if your original statement was ambiguous, or if it was reasonable but has had its meaning twisted by others, then by all means, clarify. But if by “clarifying” you mean making things less clear, it’s time to rethink your approach.

Posted via email from Rob Cottingham’s posterous

Robert Moog turns 78, but we get the cool birthday present

Wed, 23 May 2012 02:05:25 -0400

The Google Doodle team has outdone themselves. Here I am tonight, 30 years younger than Robert Moog, noodling around on exactly the kind of device that the guy Iwas 30 years ago would have been thrilled with.

And that’s actually worth more than a passing thought. Because I wouldn’t have just been thrilled – I would have locked myself in my bedroom for days, tinkering and experimenting and, most of all, playing with it. It was the thing that 18-year-old Rob dreamed of owning. (I know this because 24-year-old Rob ended up buying a Yamaha DX-100, and I damn near failed my year because of it.)

Today? I’m having fun with it, sure… but it’s just one more thing this computer in my hands is capable of doing, of being. I launch Photoshop or GIMP, and I have the darkroom of the gods at my command. Final Cut Express, and I’m cutting and pasting and transforming moving light. Chrome or Firefox, and I have a library at my disposal that encompasses a vast array of knowledge and human creativity.

We have so little time on this planet, and so much we can create and share, that the idea that I could ever think of myself as bored feels like a cosmic affront – to life, to the universe, and most of all to that 18-year-old who is squirming inside me right now, demanding that I stop the goddamn pontificating and start playing with that keyboard.

Thanks, Google Doodle team. And happy birthday to Robert Moog. It’s your birthday, sir, and yet we’re the ones getting such lovely presents – this purely virtual device, and its delightfully tangible predecessor decades ago. Thank you for that gift.

* * *

By the way, did you notice? It’s not a Flash animation. That synth is created from HTML, CSS and a liberal dose of Javascript. Really. Nicely. Done.