The Social Net: movie reviews

Reviews of current movies in the theater...in one minute or less.

Vicky Christina Barcelona-- This one of those Woody Allen films that can either spur uncomfortable conversations with your significant other or bring back really fond memories of youthful indescretions. Either way, it's a film for grown ups and not your typical date film.

Vicky and Christina are best friends who are polar opposites when it comes to love--one is cautious and careful, the other spirited and carefree. One is engaged to be married, the other doesn't know what she wants in love--only what she doesn't want.

So naturally, (this is the movies, after all) they meet a swarthy, intense Spanish artist who wants to sleep with both of them and the ensuing entanglements leave both women wondering just what is important in their lives.

This is a very thoughtful movie that captures the passion and intensity of the kind of summer fling and experimentation that most everyone over the age of 28 has experienced at some point in their life--and might have you yearning for those days. The cast is outstanding--Penelope Cruz is brilliant, passionate and seductive, Javier Bardem is charming, swarthy and sexy, Rebecca Hall is perfectly cast as the earnest, straight-laced graduate student, and Scarlett Johannsen as her best friend exudes an easy, bohemian sexuality along the lines of Angelina Jolie. She's got that 'it' factor.

And for what it's worth, I went to graduate school with the narrator of the film, Christopher Evan Welch. It's nice to see school chums doing well, and part of the appeal of this film is bringing back fond memories of wilder, crazier times--like grad school.

GRADE: B

Transsiberian-- As it turns out, there was an unintentional travel theme this night at the movies. I went to see Transsiberian mostly because I have always wanted to make this journey myself--ride the Transsiberian railway from Vladivostok to Amsterdam. After watching this travelogue of a vacation adventure gone seriously awry, I don't think I'm going to make the trip. Thanks a lot.

Woody Harrelson and Emily Mortimer are in China as part of a church group helping kids--Harrelson is a bit of a nerdy, Iowa-bred train buff, so they decide to hop on the Transsiberian before catching their flight home. Along the way, they are befriended by the type of backpackers one encounters in out-of-the way locations--Eduardo Noriega as a drug-smuggling lothario and Kate Mara as the troubled American waif from a bad background who has been on the road for 7 years. Ben Kingsley is very effective as a Russian narcotics detective.

Bad things happen to everyone, and as a thriller/whodunit, the movie really only rates maybe a 7.5 out of 10. There's not a lot of suspense although the characters are compelling enough to be interesting. It's not a bad movie, but not great either. The Russian countryside also stars--having visited the Russian Far East several times, I can vouch that the movie captures my experiences and the feel of traveling in Russia. Except for the part about getting entangled in a Russian narcotics ring.

If the movie has any enduring message, it's a good reminder to never lose sight of your luggage when traveling overseas.

GRADE: C+

I was all set to write in my blog about a couple of bad movies that I saw last week when I heard the strangest, full blast whiny 'meow' from my cat Sam. He meowed and growled several times, the kind of sounds that he gives when he's really annoyed when I pick him up to pet him. Sam likes to be petted on HIS terms and if I pick him up when he doesn't want to be held, he lets me know by growling, meowing and occasionally hissing at me.

The thing is...he was *sleeping* at the time. And I was on the other side of the room, so it wasn't me he was reacting to.

Now, I've seen dogs have dreams before, but I've never seen a cat dream, have you? I don't know what was going on in his dream, but Sam's tail was bouncing around and beating on the table like he was REALLY annoyed at something, but dead asleep.

After a couple of minutes, his tail stopped swishing and he stopped meowing/growling in his sleep. I hope he got whatever it was that was bothering him or he chased it away.

Anyway...that's not what I wanted to write about tonight. Just a strange tangent.

DO NOT GO SEE THESE MOVIES:

Eagle Eye
Lakeview Terrace

If you've seen the previews for either of these movies, you probably thought "hey, that looks good, I can't wait to see that when it comes out." and maybe you missed the opening weekend and are thinking of seeing either (or both) of these movies this weekend.

Don't do it. Seriously. Save your money and spend it somewhere else.

I love a good preview trailer and can usually pick a good movie based on its trailer. A good rule of thumb is that the longer a trailer runs, the worse the movie is. A good preview should last 30-45 seconds and tease you to want to see more. If you see too many action sequences or get too many good lines so that the trailer entertains you, then the movie sucks. They are showing you all the good stuff and the actual movie isn't going to get any better. If a preview lasts more than a minute, the move REALLY sucks.

It's as simple as that.

Now, just because a movie has a good trailer doesn't mean it's a good movie. But a bad preview ALWAYS means a bad movie. Remember that--if the preview trailer lasts more than 45 seconds, the movie sucks.

In this case, though, they tricked us. The previews for Lakeview Terrace and Eagle Eye are both really good, and they offer a good premise for each movie that is enticing.

The problem is, neither movie delivers on the the promise of the premise.

Eagle Eye:

This film starts with a really cool premise--what if some unknown person contacted you, an ordinary person, via your cell phone and gave you instructions to follow and you would be in really, really big trouble if you didn't follow the instructions?

The idea of a random, unknown force controlling your life and forcing you to do action/adventure/illegal things holds a lot of sway with many audiences, since many of us feel sort of powerless over grand events going around us anyway.

I mean, how many of us REALLY have had any personal contact with a terrorist or an act of terror? If someone kidnapped your child, what types of things would you do to ensure their safety? What if someone you didn't know called you on your cell phone and told you to duck because a construction crane was going to crash thru the window in 10 seconds?

Would you duck? And when it DID come crashing thru the window, and the same voice on your cell phone told you that people were going to start shooting at you in 15 seconds and you had to jump out of a 10 story window to get away from them, when people started shooting at you...would you jump and start to follow the instructions?

The rest of the movie should be about finding out WHO is the voice on the other end of the line, right? As you get manipulated by the master puppeteer, the dramatic tension exists in finding out who is pulling the strings and why...and what can you do to cut the strings.

Well....SPOILER ALERT. I don't normally give too many details about a movie so I don't spoil it for people who go see the movie. In this case I'm going to--I WANT to spoil the movie for you so you DON'T go see it.

In Eagle Eye, the voice on the other end of the phone is a super-computer that has been developed to track EVERY SINGLE PERSON in the world. The computer stores every single electronic transmission EVER. All cell phone calls, emails, phone calls, closed circuit tv transmissions, every image ever sent on tv, radio, uploads to YouTube, and every voice transmission.

The computer was designed to track bad guys and terrorists (we are now far enough removed from terror events on our own soil that terrorism is now considered fair game as a form of entertainment.) and provide ironclad recommendations on who should be assasinated. When it is over-ridden by the President who incorrectly orders the death of a suspected terrorist against the computer's recommendation, the computer decides that all the top leaders in the US Government must die because they are not responsible enough to listen to the computer.

The computer then selects two ordinary people with all the right pyschographics to carry out the mission of arranging the assasination of most of the members of the US government for our own good.

It's a "master computer goes amok" story, preaching against the evils of giving too much control to computers. But the humans DO make stupid mistakes, so there's no redeeming qualities there either.

That's pretty much the movie--no redeeming qualities. The story starts good and gets more and more implausible as it goes on. You start off enjoying the flick, and by the end, you can't wait for it to be over.

If you want a MUCH better movie on this theme, rent 2001: A Space Odyssey.

Lakeview Terrace:

Again, another film with a great preview, and the flick stars Samuel L. Jackson, so it's GOT to be good, right?

Nope.

The premise is fantastic--a young interracial couple moves into their first home and it turns out that that Samuel L. Jackson is not only the neighbor from hell, but he's a cop too. So it seems like there's nothing you can do about it.

The first half of the movie lays that foundation--Jackson shines security floodlights in the couple's bedroom at night, 'jokingly' threatens a carjacking while the new neighbor is sitting in his car smoking a cigarette, is invited to a housewarming party and is a real buzzkill, catches the couple fooling around in their own swimming pool and generally lets them know he disapproves of them living next door.

The hip twist on the story is that the guy is white and the woman is black. (I'm being sarcastic, btw, although it's true that in movies, most interracial hookups involve a black man with a white woman)

SPOILER ALERT: (just to be polite, but same as before, I WANT to spoil the film for you so don't go see it. If you go anyway, you're going to think the movie sucked and I'm going to say "I told you so.")

The first half of the movie takes too long to establish the premise. The second half of the movie takes too long to get to the thrust of WHY Samuel L. Jackson is being such an ass for a neighbor.

Turns out his wife died 3 years earlier in a car crash. While driving with her white boss in the middle of the day on the 101 in SoCal far from where they worked. The subtext is that they were having an affair...so THAT'S why he hates his new neighbors. Cuz he's white and the wife is black. And...I don't know...that reminds him of his own wife, and chasing these people away is going to make him feel better?

The movie ends with Jackson getting shot by cops. I think that was meant by the director to be artistic irony. There is also a constant (and overdone) reference to fire--a not so vague reference that racial tension in Southern California is hot and about to overcome the valley in an out-of-control inferno.

As an audience, you're kind of glad when Jackson gets shot because all sympathy for the character has long evaporated and it means the movie is over.

So there you have it. I wanted to see BOTH of those movies based on the previews. And I enjoyed about the first 20-30 minutes of each movie, and as each story 'developed', got less and less engaged with the story and how it was being told...to the point where the first words out my mouth at the end of each movies was:

"...well, THAT sucked."

So, seriously...hold on to the $30 you would spend to see either of these and buy 2 new CD's, or a couple of books...or go see a comedy show...or live music...or give the money to your local food bank. Hollywood doesn't deserve your money if they are going to put out crap like this.

Wait til they come out on Netflix, because you KNOW you're not going to blindly take my word for it that these movies aren't worth seeing. And remember this review then...and don't forget to leave me a comment saying "whoa, you're right. That sucked. I'm glad I didn't pay $30 to see THAT in the theater."

I never get tired of hearing "hey Mark....you were right!"

It's been awhile since I've posted movie reviews, so here's a quick look at what's playing.

City of Ember--If you're stuck with kids between the ages of 8-14 some weekend, there are worse ways to spend your time. It's a safe, cliche-filled movie where the kids get to save the day. It's nothing to rave about, but doesn't suck, and unfortunately, that's usually about as good as it gets for 'family-oriented' movies.

Bill Murray plays the mayor of Ember, an underground city powered by a generator that was built to last 200 years and...you guessed it...it's been more than 200 years since they've been underground. Two plucky kids (Saoirse Ronan, the Oscar-nominated teen from "Atonement" and Harry Treadaway) refuse to accept the status quo and wind up literally leading their city from darkness into the light.

It's an apt metaphor for our current political situation where we've been in the darkness for far too long, and the young folks need to lead us into zero carbon emission light.

The real star of the show is the set, if that gives you any indication as to whether you rush to go see this film or not. City of Ember is a pleasant diversion, and probably the only movie currently playing in its genre that you can take the kids too that doesn't have any significant sex OR violence.

After you see the movie, you might want to read the book.

Grade: B-

Quarantine--Do not waste your money on this movie under any circumstance. Not in the theater, not as a matinee and don't even bother when it comes out on netflix. It's not worth a viewing.

Filmed in the same faux-reality style of Blair Witch and Cloverfield Park, the movie is shot entirely with a jittery hand-held camera that WILL make you nauseous sometime during the first 30 minutes of the movie--and that's BEFORE the action starts and the technique makes matters even worse.

If the producers and director's intent was to make a movie so bad that it makes you feel like throwing up, they've succeeded.

Note to aspiring filmmakers: hand held shots are overdone, and reflect poorly on your ability to craft a shot. There are *rare* situations when hand-held shots create a feeling of being in the action for the audience, but MOST of the time, it disassociates the audience from the action because the movement of the camera distracts, rather than engages.

If you're a film maker and can't afford a dolly set up--fake it. Strap your camera to a bicycle, a shopping cart or anything with wheels that will give a *smooth* flow to the action.

And plan your shots--it's just lazy storytelling to stick a camera behind your main character and only tell the story from that POV. You can create a might tighter story and dramatic tension by giving the audience reaction shots from multiple points of view.

Enuf on that. Don't waste your money on Quarantine. Go eat a couple of hot dogs at Costco and stick your finger down your throat to get the same effect.

Grade: F

Nick and Norah's Infinite Playlist: I was talking about this movie in the office the other day, and one of my co-workers asked "isn't that a movie for teenagers?"

Alright, I suppose it is...but I still give this an enthusiastic THUMBS UP as a great date movie. Sure, the topic matter is mostly young love, but doesn't everyone feel young at heart and like to remember what it's like the first time you find someone who just seems so *right* for you?

Nick and Norah is full of snappy lines, great music, funny scenarios, one hilarious movie-stealing performance by Ari Graynor who simply chews up every scene she is in. And a recurring bit with a piece of gum that was soooooo funny, it had the audience literally talking to the movie characters out loud in response to the 'bit'.

Nick and Norah's Infinite Playlist brings you back to the time when music was everything, you found meaning in every song and staying up all night led you to the most amazing revelations of your life...and to that person you were meant to be with.

Starring the infinitely charming Michael Cera (the boyfriend in Juno) and Kate Dennings (the daughter in The 40 Year Old Virgin), Nick and Norah's Infinite Playlist is the kind of smart movie for teens...and the teenager inside you...that reminds you of what is GOOD about being young.

There are a few inconsistencies in the movie that are entirely too minute for most audiences to notice or care about, and those are the only reason this film doesn't get an A+.

Grade: A

Religulous: Bill Maher travels the world asking Christians "do you REALLY believe in all these wacky stories in the Bible?"

If you're familiar with Bill Maher, you know his left-leaning, anti-religion spiel and will be highly amused and entertained. If you're a hard-core fundamentalist, this definitely isn't your type of movie. If you're somewhere in between....you'll probably get quite a few laughs from the movie, and then alternate between thinking that Maher is a real butthead for the way he questions people's faith, and then admiring him for walking into a lions den with a steak tied around his neck.

There is one absolutely BRILLIANT moment in the film where a US Senator from Arkansas defends his beliefs by responding to a Maher question with a condescending reply "well, Bill, you don't exactly have to pass an IQ test in order to become a US Senator."

The look on the senators face as he *immediately* recognizes that he probably shouldn't have said that on camera is worth the price of the movie ticket alone.

The last 5 minutes of the movie provide the greatest irony you will ever see on film--Bill Maher preaching about the ridiculousness of a literal interpretation of the Bible and its perceived ill effects on society.

Uh, Bill...I don't think you make your point about how stupid it is to believe what the preachers say by....preaching.

If you're a left-wing pinko tree hugging liberal, go see this movie. If you're from a red state, stay home. If you're somewhere in the middle, check out Real Time with Bill Maher on HBO, and if you think that's funny, then go ahead and see this movie too. It's good, but won't change your mind or really engage you to have a deeper discussion about religion in America beyond what you already believe.

Grade: B

On my list of flicks to see this week: W. and Apaloosa.

What have YOU seen at the movies lately, and what did you think of it?

With the myriad of blogs spewing so much content into the blogosphere like Bejing smog, why on earth would you want to read (and subscribe) to this one? Especially since topics covered will range from social networking, theater, arts, pop culture, politics and sometimes, nothing in particular?

1. I'm wearing a tin foil hat in my profile picture. How can you NOT want to listen to what a guy in a tin foil hat is thinking?

2. You won't get bored. If you don't like the topic one day, chances are I'll talk about something completely different the next day.

3. Continuity. Somehow, all of those random topics tie into each other to create a larger picture. Like a mosaic.

4. I have 2 cats, Sam and Cleo, who do strange things. Everyone likes to hear funny cat stories, don't they?

5. Perspective. Folks tell me that I have a way of connecting the big picture to little details or little details to the big picture. That I view things 'differently'. I think they are complimenting me when they say that.

6. I'm...uh...shall we say... 'provocative'. I'll say things out loud (and in print) that most people only think but never say. I laugh at funerals and flirt with the bride at weddings. And I always tell the emperor when he's not wearing any clothes. If the emperor is a woman, I keep my mouth shut. Why would I want her to put clothes on?

7. Even though it's not very humble of me to say it, I'm smart. Or at least I think I am...that's something for you to decide, really. This blog will offer up lessons learned and enlightenment for your free use.

8. I'm not very humble, but I don't really give a rat's ass about celebrity, unlike many other 'gurus' who set themselves up as experts so they can sell books or boost their bill rate as a consultant. And if I ever write a book, it will be fiction, so I'm not looking to enhance my status in my industry--just give a little straight talk in a world where folks speak in platitudes and marketing-speak.

9. Actually, I don't know what "I don't give a rat's ass" really means. Why would anyone equate desire with a rat's ass? This an example of the kind of stuff that will keep me awake at night and lure me into research on the internet and share with you. So eventually, you'll learn fun things like, "what is the origin of the phrase 'I don't give a rat's ass'?" (tangent: did I punctuate the end of that sentence correctly? damn...another thing to go research) This will make you a very good living room Jeopardy player.

10. Experience. Man, I've been around the block, and have seen and done some **** in my life. I figure I've already made lot of stupid mistakes and also done some really good things, so someone should get the benefit of that experience. Sharing means caring, right? If I care enough to write, the least you can do is care enough to subscribe and read.

11. It's free. You know what they say...the best things in life are free. Like this blog.

Yeah, that's eleven items. I have a problem with rules and following directions. Even my own. Just subscribe and leave comments, would ya?

Peace out,
Mark
Originally posted at http://thesocialnet.blogspot.com/2008/12/ten-reasons-why-you-should-subscribe.html

In the social media circles, hot topics travel quickly, as you might expect. We are the fanners of the flame, after all.

Today's hot topic is the 90/9/1 rule. This principle suggests a benchmark for community participation--roughly speaking, an online community can expect to have 1% of its members be active content creators, 9% of the members will edit that content (comment, respond, vote in polls, rate, etc) and 90% are content consumers--they read but don't do anything else.

Martin Reed and Mike Rowland both challenge this principle from the perspective that accepting this principle is to accept less than the full potential of an online community. And of course, there are a whole lot of "amens" coming from both sides of the issue.

This is Sam's perspective of the issue. He doesn't really care. This pic isn't germaine at all. I just promised that my cats would appear in my blog and it's a reminder not to take any of these social media conversations TOO seriously. It's still more art than science.

My perspective on the topic...

90/9/1 is a guideline, not a rule. And a very, very valuable guideline.

Many community managers look at online community with a wide-eyed sense of higher purpose and idealism. Online communities are changing the way that corporations interact with their customers, they give power to the people, can lead to dramatic social change, and they connect people around shared passions. There is certainly a strong sense of evangelism shared among community managers everywhere. Our cause is just and holy.

Yes to all of that.

And...online communities/social networks are also a commodity. They are an investment. *Somebody* is paying for the bandwidth, the people, the designers, engineers, moderators, etc. for a reason. There is something they want in exchange. While doing a greater good and shifting a paradigm is fun and part of the objective, let's face it, it's still all about the Benjamins.

As a commodity, social networking/online community is largely funded by marketing departments. At least, that's my experience developing communities for major brands over the past 10 years. Some online communities might come out of customer support budgets, but by and large, I think we're seeing the spread of social networking online as a function of marketing dollars at work.

Marketing people like metrics. It's what they do. They want results for campaigns that are measurable against benchmarks. Doesn't matter if it's a short campaign like a tv ad running for 4 weeks or a long campaign like an online community. They want to hear those 3 beautiful little words that drive relationships all over the world.

Return. On. Investment.

Now, I'm not saying that's the *right* attitude to take. Just pointing out current reality. As an industry, social networks/online communities have a serious dearth of available metrics that make a case for *value* of an online community in a way that marketers like to hear. Yes, I know there are all kinds of metrics out there that can (and are) used to illustrate value. Some of them are voodoo....some are quite useful.

But marketing folks like to know "I spent x dollars on y campaign and that moved sales z % against an expectation of q industry benchmark. Therefore, my campaign was a success (or failure)."

We're getting there, but we don't deliver those types of results in the social media world yet. We're in the process of defining metrics that do show ROI, and we're in the process of redefining what community 'success' means in the marketing world.

But that's a long road to travel and in the meanwhile, the people paying the bills want to know what they are getting for their money.

The 90/9/1 rule is just a benchmark for marketers to understand.

Remember those old TV car commercials where they would spout off gas consumption efficiency, and they always ended with the legal disclaimer "actual mileage may vary"? It's like that.

Marketing people aren't the type of people who are going to hand you a check for $250K to develop an online community and not expect to see some *results* for that investment. And saying "I don't know what type of results to expect" isn't a very satisfying answer.

Neither is "we're going to connect people with your brand in a holistic way so you can be part of a conversation with your customer."

Sure. Sounds good. To what purpose?

Enter 90/9/1. This principle gives marketers a rough idea of what to expect, although actual mileage may vary. There are SO many variables at play--site design, prominence of links into the community, content integration, outside marketing, tone and culture of the community, etc.--but it's better to have *something* resembling a benchmark than not.

Online communities still need to contribute to the bottom line of a company. Having the online community is either adding revenue, saving expenses or improving brand awareness or there is isn't much reason to have it.

And those criteria are measurable in every other aspect of running a business, so why not for online communities, too?

The 90/9/1 rule gives a standard to compare to, but it's like any other rule of thumb. It's a good approximation, not a specific measurement.

Get 20 random people together and I'll bet that their thumbs will show a variance of at least 50% in size. And yet the rule of thumb says that the width of a thumb is roughly 1 inch and that's close enough. The standard lets you know roughly what 'normal' is, even with a variance.

In my experience managing both online and offline communities, the 90/9/1 rule is relatively accurate. Yes, there are exceptions both in terms of far exceeding and underachieving those ratios, but I've found it to be roughly true.

Previous statement disclaimer: I don't quibble over movements of 1-5% in community metrics. I look for larger trends and dramatic impact. For me, 5% is that margin of error or 'your mileage may vary' factor. I just don't consider changes that small to be statistically significant over time. Community behavior is just too volatile to worry about small swings in behavior until they become consistent.

I think the real point in using this principle is that it gives some comfort to people managing communities that you can be successful with as little as 1% of your viewers contributing content. When you consider the emphasis place on BIG numbers by most marketing folks, you can truly see the value of the 90/9/1 rule--it keeps the expectations reasonable while trying to nail down the exact ROI of the site based on *actual* behavior.

Short version of the story--it's a good guideline, but don't freak out if your site doesn't measure up and you still feel like you're getting value out of your community. And if your metrics far surpass this rule and you feel your community is successful, pat yourself on the back for a job well done.

If you're not measuring up to the guideline and you don't feel like your community is being successful, then it's time to examine your site strategy and implementation more closely and make adjustments.

As always, your thoughts are welcomed.

--Mark

Originally posted at http://thesocialnet.blogspot.com/2008/12/offline-vs-online-communities.html

If you are a movie fan, December is probably the best time of the year, bringing in rash of really good films that are trying to make the deadline for major awards consideration. Over the next couple of weeks, you can look forward to seeing no fewer than 7 movies in the theaters that will have Oscar aspirations--The Wrestler, Benjamin Button, Doubt, Frost/Nixon, Slumdog Millionaire, Milk, and Synecdoch, New York. That's quite a lineup.

December also brings Golden Globe and SAG Award nominations and with those come the fanning of Oscar talk for the late Heath Ledger.

Ledger, in case you've been under a rock somewhere, died tragically of an accidental drug overdose just before the release of his last film, Batman--The Dark Knight in which he plays the mercurial role of The Joker. There was Oscar buzz for his performance before his death, and popular sentiment runs high for him to win the award posthumously.

Well, I hate to rain on the parade, but frankly, it's not an Oscar-worthy performance.

Don't get me wrong--I'm part of the crowd that thinks Ledger was a very talented, intense actor. And he chews up every scene that he's in as the Joker. He took on an iconic role played brilliantly by Jack Nicholson--one of the all-time greats--and he made it his own. He's more the star of the movie than the title character, and certainly more memorable. Symbolically, his is the character who embodies the theme of the film. It's an outstanding performance.

But not, in my opinion, Oscar-worthy.

Why, you might ask?

Well, as an actor, I would say that Ledger fails to bring the one vital element to EVERY character--the one element that is the raison d'etre of the profession, in my opinion.

Humanity. And along with it, a certain degree of likability.

Ledger, as the Joker, is mercurial. Flamboyant. Outrageous. Memorable. Evil. Intelligent and an excellent foible for the Batman. The one thing he is not, however...is likable. As a human. As an audience member, I felt absolutely no sympathy or empathy for the character, and thus, he was not likeable. I can appreciate how diabolical the character is, but he never won me over to see the world from his point of view, never brough me deeply enough inside where I could take a look at the horrible acts and find a justification for them

I couldn't identify with the character, and thus, had no sympathy for him. He was simply vengeful and evil.

I might be splitting hairs here, because he IS, after all, a cartoon character and thus, a two-dimensional character. But the job of an actor is to take a character who is two dimensional (after all, a character is only words on a page of a script) and create a three dimensional person.

Now, let me say too, that I didn't think that Daniel Day-Lewis deserved the Oscar last year for No Country for Old Men. My choice was Javier Bardem, for the same reason I just mentioned. Day-Lewis was pure evil and greed without any redeeming qualities, while Bardem, in his role as a killer, at least had an ethic that a 'normal' person could understand and somewhat agree with.

Twisted, yes, but it's the *empathy* with the character's intention and world view that draws me in.

And that's the role of an actor--to portray humanity in such a way that we understand more deeply about people for having watched the actor's performance. It's easy to play pure evil, badness or greed. It's FAR more difficult to play an evil character and to create some understanding and empathy for that character in spite of their evilness.

THAT is what an Oscar-worthy performance is about.

Of the films that I've seen this year and the actors who are nominated in the Best Supporting Actor category that Ledger is nominated in both Golden Globes and SAG Awards, my choices for Best Supporting Actor are (in order) Robert Downey Jr., Josh Brolin, Tom Cruise and Ralph Fiennes ahead of Ledger.

Fiennes, in particular, gives a master class in playing a character in The Duchess who by all accounts, is a bastard and someone you shouldn't like as an audience. Almost every single thing he does throughout the film is an unlikeable action, and yet, by the end of the film, his is forgiveable. Not *excuseable* for his actions, but forgiveable.

I don't find any such forgiveness for Ledger's Joker.

The hands down winner for best ACTING performance, deserves to go to Robert Downey Jr. in Tropic Thunder. Not only does he do the *unimaginable* by playing an Australian actor playing an African-American actor in a film-within-a-film, he is believable in both roles, and shows a remarkable sensitivity in finding the right 'tone' to doing a role in blackface makeup that is both hilarious and spot-on.

He manages to tackle the most offensive racial stereotype possible and carry it off with skill, class and the right sense of humor. This is one of the most gifted actors taking on a role that could have been a total disaster on so many levels. It is simply an amazing acting performance, and more of a challenge than Ledger's Joker character. If Ledger fails with his role, people just say that Nicholson was a better Joker.

If Downey fails in HIS role, race riots break out. It's a riskier performance and he carries it of brillaintly.

I also want to give props to Tom Cruise for his role in Tropic Thunder as well. If you haven't seen the movie yet, I'm not going to spoil it. Suffice it to say even though I knew he was in the movie, it wasn't until the very end that I figured out which part he played. I was mesmerized by the character he played, and had no idea it was Cruise for most of the movie. Great stuff.

So, there you have it--while Ledger is/was a very gifted actor, I'm hoping that he doesn't get the sympathy vote for a posthumous Oscar. Not because I don't think he deserves it...but because others deserve it more.

What do you think? Do you give it to the dead guy because he was 'close enough' and will never get another chance to win one? Or do you honor the living and give it to the best performance of the year?


Originally posted at http://thesocialnet.blogspot.com/2008/12/dont-vote-for-dead-guy.html

The nagging question of 2009 in my line of work is—what’s all this ‘community’ and ‘social networking' stuff worth anyway?

Ask the right question.

I recently had an inquiry from one of our sales folks who asked a seemingly innocent and reasonable question: A prospect was asking “what type of participation can they expect if they added community to their e-commerce site?”

They wanted to know if x number of people visit the ‘main’ site, what y number of people would participate in the community?

I know both the prospect and the sales person were hoping for a neat, succinct answer. Say…10%. It really didn’t matter what the number is, they just wanted a number.

Implied in the question, of course, is the question “what is a community worth?” It’s that ROI issue—if a client invests money in a community site, how will they know if they got an appropriate value in return?

Now, I love our sales folks. They live and breath this stuff too and they have a challenging job. Part of my job is to give them insight/information to help make their job easier.

I hate giving a long answer to a short question, but here is my (edited) email response:

What Does 'Participate' Mean Anyway?

“Not only does community participation vary based on online/offline promotion of the community and how community is integrated on the website, it can also vary by what one calls 'participation'.

Responding to a poll question or clicking to rate something can be totally anonymous and not require any member self-identification with the community. Yet those are acts of participation that provide tremendous value to the community.

Reading a blog entry and gathering information from it is valuable to me, the reader, even if I don’t choose to leave a comment. Did I ‘participate’ in the community by reading the content, or do I only count as participating if I register, login and leave a comment?

Benchmarks, who's got benchmarks?

I know that everyone in the industry wants benchmarks so they can gauge the expected results of their community investment. The problem is that there aren’t any objective criteria to qualify benchmarks, in part because of the number of variables that enter into the equation.

Not only are there varied definitions of what constitutes community participation, but the site implementation and community visibility on the site factors in, as well as any offline promotion given by the client means that any figure we give is truly a wag. Sure, we can say 10-20% of total visitors on some of our sites will click on a ‘community’ link but we (or anyone else, for that matter) don't really have any reliable data to support what type of participation a community can expect.

Thinking in terms of "if we invest x number of dollars, we should get y number of posts, comments, visits, etc," is really the wrong way to think about online community, though. You probably already know that and this might not be what the prospect wants to hear but...

…the value is immeasurable. It has value, or course. We just can’t measure it yet. We need to rephrase the core question.

Value. C'mon, what's it really worth?

Here are a couple of examples of why we need to reshape that customer question/objection of what is essentially "what is the investment worth?"

1. I purchase a lot of stuff off Amazon and I read a lot of ratings and reviews before nearly every purchase. I don't buy things with bad reviews, I do buy things with positive reviews. I personally have never written a review and rarely leave ratings on products I buy on Amazon, yet I am significantly affected by the actions of the community.

There isn't a good way to track the value to me, or from me as a consumer, but I will state categorically that I do not buy ANYTHING without checking out reviews and ratings. I don't actively 'participate' in the community, but without it, I take my purchases elsewhere.

2. Many times on a community site, customers will complain about:
--product defects
--poor customer service
--desired features that are lacking


Even when the forums are NOT specifically customer support boards, what is the value of the ONE post that asks a question/complains about a problem that is resolved by either: a) an official representative of the company or b) a member-generated response?

In either case, you could calculate the saving of a reduction in customer support call, but you don't really know the reach of the one question. The question could be posted once, but read by 100 people and thus saving 100 customer support calls at a cost of z dollars each, or it could have been seen by 1,000 people.

We really don't know since those metrics won't show up as 'participation'. The value is there, but how do you calculate it?

If Something Good Happens and No One Knows About It, Does It Have a Value?

Likewise, how do you calculate the benefit of the ONE feature suggestion that is really good and makes the product better and makes it sell better? I doubt if anyone can really say “wow, member BraNdLuvveR had a great suggestion and sales increased 17% because of that improvement they suggested.” The value exists in being part of the conversation with your customers on what they would like to see to love your product even more, but how do you quantify it?

Or, what is the value of seeing one customer service issue resolved publicly that not only makes THAT customer happy, but also influences other readers of the forum who think "wow, this company is pretty cool and will resolve any issues I might have with them?"

Personally, I DO make purchasing decisions based on input that I get as to how their follow up customer support is likely to be. I bought Bose headphones for a Xmas present this year instead of comparable Shure headphones because I'd read on discussion boards that while both products fail at about the same rate, Bose will supply new headphones with no questions asked, where Shure's policy on returns involves jumping thru a bunch of hoops.

That was a $300 purchasing decision based on whether I thought I would have a *future* good customer service contact with the brand or not.

But how do you track that value?

What is the right question?

In sum--as a community manager, I would be very leery of giving out metrics and expectations of performance during the sales process. It's more valuable to get the company involved to CLEARLY state their objectives, and then see how we can move towards that goal, rather than tell them what they might expect.

The more pertinent question, imo, isn't what they can expect to happen...but what do they WANT to happen by developing and connecting with their community?

And then ask them how they would measure that.”

Amazingly, after a response like that to a simple question, my sales folks still talk to me and respond to my emails. I love the people I work with--they tolerate my roundabout responses to their direct questions.

And I'm getting double-duty from an email by getting a blog post out of it too, so I'm maximizing MY roi value from the question.

So my question to you, dear readers, is how DO you measure the value of an online community?

Finally home and mostly decompressed from SXSW. Long travel day yesterday--I missed a flight for the first time in my life!! Totally got caught in Austin traffic and it took an hour and a half to make what should have been a 20 minute trip.

Yeah, I know, I should have left earlier. I had a SXSW recap breakfast with Bryan Person and then caught the Birth of Cool exhibit that I missed on Monday, lost track of time and left for the airport later than I should.

How nerdy am I--missing a flight because I was at the museum. I am definitely not 'cool'.

Anyway, lots of really positive things at SXSW.

Special Recognition Goes To...

1) The SXSW organizing committee.

The event is very well produced and staffed. The volunteers away from the registration and information areas weren't all that knowledgeable and the signage/maps of events could have been better, but really, that's nit-picking. The web site was excellent, you could organize events online and sync them to your mobile calendar, the printed materials were outstanding. There was a wide variety of conference topics, social activities were great, special areas like the trade show, screen burn gaming area, blogger lounge and podcast areas were nice on-site getaways.

Special kudos for the designers of the pocket guide, which was truly a useful guide. Best I've ever used at an event.

2) Twitter.

Love it/hate it/indifferent. I feel all those things about Twitter, and at SXSW, it finally proved itself to be a very useful tool for me. Whether you were connecting with a friend because the cell phone coverage was sketchy, looking to find out what the hot panels were, searching for content in a session you missed or just participating in a backchannel conversation during a talk, Twitter really proved it's utility.

I know some people who weren't at SXSW complained about being inundated with tweets, but on the other hand, I also know a lot of people who didn't make the conference who felt like they got a lot of value by following the twitter-stream.

I still get annoyed by people using Twitter to give a blow-by-blow description about the party that they are at or who they are downing shots with, but who am I to judge?

Well, I'm me, and I rule. So stop it. No one cares who you are drinking with or that you are about to go sing karaoke.

My Favorite Panel Discussions

1) Most Entertaining: Mad Men on Twitter. Now I have a mad crush on Peggy Olsen, and I don't even get Showtime.

2) Most Use(r)ful: Designing for the Wisdom of the Crowds by Derek Powazek . He's funny in a nerdy way, and chock full of useful information on letting users influence design. After all, it's called User Interface, right? Plus there were some really good notes and slides.

3) Most Validating: Managing Expert Clients by Kali Cover and Marili Cantu. These two laid out very practical how-to advice on managing client relations. Lots of nodding of heads in the audience when discussing the special challenges we face helping clients. The notes are by @MeganGarza.

Most Disappointing Panels

I don't want to call anyone out in public because any disappointment I had was *mine*, and I'm sure that for every panel I was in that I thought wasn't fulfilling, there were people in the room who thought it rocked.

Still, here are some things that disappointed me that ANYONE who speaks at a conference should heed:

1) Title are important. If you have a totally kick-ass title for your panel, your presentation should rock too. A provocative title means you will have bold opinions and definitive stance. A title with a question in it should ANSWER THE QUESTION by end of the session. (you'd be surprised how infrequently this happens) A vague title that requires a subtitle to explain what the topic is really about isn't going to get many people to your session.

2) It's not necessary that EVERY panelist responds to EVERY question. I saw a lot of time wasted and thus, not a lot of information being shared in panels where the moderator would pose a question and then the other 4 panelists would give their answers and they were all saying essentially the same thing.

If there is strong disagreement on the panels, that's good and makes for a lively discussion. Everyone agreeing with the first response and then saying why they agree pretty much wastes everyone's time.

I would rather see more points covered than making sure everyone got equal time.

3) Have enough topics to cover the time allotted. I saw several one hour sessions where there were maybe three bullet points covered in the entire hour. I wasn't sure if that was because that's all the moderator could think to cover, everyone just kept rambling in their responses or what.

But each case felt like a waste of an hour. I don't mind getting only one good takeway out of an hour presentation, but if you only cover three things, you're cutting down your odds of getting something awesome in there.

More isn't necessarily more, but less isn't always more either.

4) A presentation isn't a lecture, it's a performance. Please don't just talk about what's on your Powerpoint slides. If that's all you're going to do, just post your slides somewhere and let us get on to someone more interesting.

YOU are as important as your material. I hate to put any pressure on anyone, but if your name is in print, I'm expecting you to entertain me in some way. Be provocative. Witty. More knowledgeable than anyone else out there...be extraordinary.

5) Announce a sensible Twitter hashtag at the beginning of your presentation. If you don't know much about Twitter, then ask someone in the audience to set a hashtag.

Hashtags are how we are going to find notes and information from your presentation afterwards and Twitter just may become the new search. People are tweeting about your presentation and we want to find those notes later.

A clever hashtag like #cake draws a laugh from the crowd attending, but when you try to find a bit of information from that presentation 3 months from now or you weren't at the conference and the topic was really Building a Brand are you really going to look for #cake?

Now, I'm not picking on that particular panel--there were several others I attended that were also inappropriate. This particular panel just illustrates the point most clearly--NO ONE will think to look for #cake to search for the golden nuggets that really were presented in a panel on building a brand presence.

If the point is to share information with those who aren't there, then please choose a hashtag wisely.

Great Connections

1) I loved meeting the Southwest Airlines new media team. Southwest is doing some really cool stuff in the social networking/online community space, and they clearly 'get' this media. It's refreshing to see a corporation that knows how to have fun and be social with their customers.

2) Also enjoyed meeting @LPT--another person at a major corporation that is utilizing social media well, albeit different in tone than Southwest. Her blog is a good, thoughtful read.

3) I was amazed by @carbody, and she really opened my eyes as to what being a 'digital native' means. I watched her effortlessly tweet, listen, take notes, engage in conversation, email, add followers, fact check and absorb everything around her as easily as breathing. I don't even think she is aware of how extraordinary she is-but she is so fluent in this realm that it was truly inspiring.

I chatted with her during the breaks and found her to be quite thoughtful, eloquent, knowledgeable, passionate about social media and her clients and just a down-to-earth, charming person.

4) I was also lucky enough to chat with Andy Carvin of NPR and chat about the future of journalism and some directions NPR will be heading. He's a very thoughtful, forward-thinking person, and NPR is also doing some exciting things with social media.

If you're not an NPR fan now, you should check 'em out! It should be a daily stop for news and entertainment.

What I Take Away From SXSW

1) Inspiration. It was a pleasure to see so many passionate social media practitioners in one place and learn by watching as well as participating. I have many new ideas and information to share with my team, my company and my clients.

2) Have a plan. I went totally free-form. I wasn't sure of what to expect, so I didn't plan much beyond where I was staying. I got a lot out of it by just wandering around and going with the moment, but probably could have gotten a few more connections, developed a few more relationships and learned a few more things by being more organized.

3) SXSW parties are not a good way to connect. They are good for having fun (you can never go wrong with free booze and food!), but it's tough to have meaningful conversations with music blaring.

4) Go with someone. I traveled solo for this, and it can be an extra struggle/effort to constantly meet people. I'm kind of strange, maybe. There are times when I can be very outgoing and love to meet people, AND when I'm in a big crowd, I can also just sort of sit on the sidelines and watch.

I didn't find many people at SXSW who made much of an effort reaching out to me (other than Bryan who I work with, and thankfully, he seems to know a lot of people), which meant that I was the one constantly going out of my way to meet other people.

That's not a horrible thing, just something that takes some effort. I'd recommend going with a friend--it's a better shared experience than solo.

5) Pace yourself. The smartest thing I did was get away from the conference for an afternoon and just enjoy Austin. The energy at SXS Interactive is very palpable and eventually becomes overwhelming. Don't be afraid to get away--Austin has many other nice attractions. Get 8 hours of sleep and drink plenty of water. It's a grind, not a sprint.

6) Blue Bell ice cream. This was recommended to me by a Texas native and I first thought it was just another "everything is better in Texas" kind of suggestion.

Nope.

Blue Bell is REAL ice cream. Made from real cream. Waaaaaaaaaaaay better than Ben and Jerry's, Haagen Daaz or any other ice cream you've had.

Really. It's that good.

The Conclusion

Yep. It's totally worth the money. I got enough ideas, inspiration and new friendships that totally made the trip worthwhile. I highly recommend attendance if you're currently using social media or are thinking about it.

I'll be back next year.

So...what was YOUR SXSW experience like?


Originally posted at http://thesocialnet.blogspot.com/2009/03/sxsw-wrap-up.html