Archive for the ‘Nerd Stuff’ Category
Andrew Malcolm Gets A New Job!
Thursday, September 15th, 2011
So excited to announce that Andrew Malcolm, formerly of the L.A. Times and currently my Malcolm and Melissa blog partner will now be writing for Investors Business Daily! Here’s the press release:
LOS ANGELES, CA (September 15, 2011) — Investor’s Business Daily is proud to welcome acclaimed blogger Andrew Malcolm to its Pulitzer Prize-winning editorial team with a new blog at IBD’s award-winning site, Investors.com.
“Andrew has built one of the most incisive and entertaining political blogs,” said Chris Gessel, IBD’s Executive Editor and Chief Strategy Officer. “He is a veteran journalist who’s also worked inside politics. His experience and insight are both unique and impressive, and Andrew’s enthusiasm, wit and exuberance are infectious. I’m sure our readers will feel the same when he kicks off his new blog on Investors.com next month.”
Malcolm is a veteran national and foreign correspondent and editor with 36 years experience in journalism and another eight in government and politics, including a national presidential campaign. He’s been based in Chicago, San Francisco, Vietnam, Tokyo, Toronto, New York and the United Nations.
The winner of numerous journalism prizes including the National Headliners Award, the George Polk Award, and a Pulitzer Finalist in 2004, Malcolm for the past four years has written the highly-rated Top of the Ticket political commentary column at LATimes.com. He is one of the top-ranked conservative writers on Twitter, where he has 73,000 followers, and is a regular commentator on HotAir, LibertyPundits, XM/POTUS, Fox & Friends and KABC.
Malcolm is also the author of 10 books, including two best-sellers and two that became TV movies. He holds bachelor’s and master’s degrees from Northwestern University and was an adjunct professor of communications at Montana State University.
A Politician’s Quick And Dirty Guide To Social Media
Friday, July 22nd, 2011
Google added it’s new social network to the interwebs two weeks ago and I considered writing a post that addresses only Google Plus. Then, I reconsidered. Google + needs to be talked about in the context of everything else out there.
First, a couple overarching principles for every social network:
1. Don’t be a jerk. It should go without saying, and yet…
2. Pretend you’re talking to a person face to face.
3. Nothing can ever be taken back ever. It’s the internet.
One big mistake politicians make is ignoring social media entirely.
A good politician will recognize that most public relations now is done through social media. That is, communication from the pol to his constituents happens on a much greater scale and more quickly and directly via social media. Yes, phone calls, hand shakes and kissing babies still matters and it matters a lot. But the fact is, politics is a lot like church: most folks hear the pastor give the sermon and never interact with him. There are a few true believers in the Amen Pew and they talk to everyone. Social media reaches the Amen Pew. Why wouldn’t a politician have a communications strategy for these true believers (and skeptics)? It’s really short-sighted and yet, many politicians still regulate their social media staff to an after-thought.
Here’s the perspective you should have on Social Media from Gary Vaynerchuk:
My suggestion? Integrate social media with communications. In fact, a comms director who is social media ignorant shouldn’t be a communications director. In the political space, a comms director who doesn’t know the major new media players like bloggers (at whatever level the politician is at) shouldn’t be employed, either.
Social media and new media relations isn’t magical, but it requires work just like it requires work to form relationships with journalists. The lines are blurring and journalism has become more democratic and diverse. A blog can be far more influential to the type of people a politician wants to reach to influence who will then influence the people he wants influenced.
Now, to the social networks.
FACEBOOK
I’m starting with Facebook because right now, it’s the juggernaut. Here’s a couple of rules.
1. Only follow close personal friends and family on your Facebook account.
This is yours. If you’re not into social media, don’t sweat it. Just don’t do it. There is no harm to not having a personal Facebook account. (This will cause some social media folks to howl, by the way, but my rationale is this: there are so many other social networks with which to engage people. A politician needs to have his real life too. Keep your FB account that life.)
2. Set up a public page aka Fan Page.
If you want this to grow, you have to feed it. Facebook pages are not magical wonderlands where followers just sprout out of nothing. Even the biggest named person has to give something to get something. The Fan Page is a good place to put ALL press releases. It is a good place to get feedback on certain pieces of legislation. It’s a good place to explain your rationale for a decision you’ve made.
3. Interact there.
Facebook has some nice tools for social engagement. You can create events there and schedule them that will invite your fans. You can do nice targeted advertising. You can have more inclusive and cohesive conversations then say Twitter.
All this said, Facebook is my least favorite social media application. Why? They don’t let you easily export your data. It’s clunky. But everyone is there.
Good example on Facebook: Sarah Palin.
1. Be honest about your account.
That is, if you have your own Twitter account, fine, but run it yourself. Don’t know about Twitter and don’t care? That’s okay. A Twitter account can be run by your comms director or whomever you trust, but make clear that the account is being run by that person … or a person other than you. You can also name the account @JoePoliticsNews or some such. That way, people know it’s about you but not necessary from you.
Governor Rick Perry of Texas, for example, has a bunch of accounts. His staff runs one. He has his personal account (puppies!). And there’s an election news one, etc. If you don’t know about Twitter, or are a communications person, follow his accounts to get a feel for how a major politician can use Twitter to interact.
Another example is Mayor Cory Booker of Newark, New Jersey. He interacts. So does Representative Thad McCotter of Michigan. These guys use Twitter and talk to their constituents and anyone else who will listen. There are quite a few pols who do this well.
2. Either follow everyone or follow no one.
Either follow the world (highly recommended) or follow no one. I strongly advise against following porn stars, hookers and underage girls. (You’d think some things don’t need to be spelled out and yet they do.) Twitter clients allow for lists so a politician or his staff can follow journalists and influencers without offending their constituents by not following them. So, my ultimate recommendation is to follow everyone. Just because you follow them all doesn’t mean you have to pay attention to them all. It’s just polite to be friendly.
3. There’s no wrong way to tweet. Oh wait, yes there is..
Here’s some guidelines: Be friendly and helpful but not overly personal. Boundary issues? Twitter is not for you. Be honest and engaging. Every once in a while get into conversations with folks. I’ve asked Representatives and Senators questions and Twitter gives them a good forum to give unspun answers. Sick of the media twisting your words or meaning? Well, judiciously use twitter to tell people what’s up. If you are inauthentic, Twitter will reveal you. It is a social medium. It is also a really good way to provide information and to be a news stream. Use it!
Bad example: Anthony Weiner. Don’t be that guy. Please. Spare us all.
Google +
Intro: You’re asking, What the heck is Google + and why should I care? Google + is a brand new social network created by Google (duh). It is a hybrid of Twitter and Facebook in some ways and a completely new thing in others. Like Twitter as many people as want to can follow you — millions even. Like Facebook, you’re limited about who you can follow to 5,000 people. In addition, of those 5K people, you can organize these folks into circles. Just like real life, Google + allows you put people into categories and interact with them (and only them, if desired) in those circles.
Why do I love Google + for Politicians?
1. Google + lets you tailor messages to the people you want to reach.
Want to tell the whole world about your new legislation? Make that a “Public” message. Want to share a message with key activists, donors, etc? Create circles for them and communicate with them. Want to send out a press release? Create a circle for the press (I have one of about 500 people right now, myself and include bloggers in that circle, fyi) and send the press release that way. And guess what? Those people can communicate back with you easily.
2. Google + allows for this new thing called “Hangouts”.
Hangouts are like a Skype conversation but for up to (for now) 9 people. I say for now, because a business version of Google + is coming out and I’ll bet that they allow dozens if not hundreds of people on a Hangout. We’ll see. But for now, Hangouts would be a wonderful way for a politician to meet with his constituents without leaving the comfort of his office or home. You know those key activists you meet with weekly? How about having a Hangout? You know those donors in five different counties (states)? Meet in a Hangout. You know those key reporters who you want to talk to and don’t want to repeat yourself ten times? Have a Hangout and talk to them. Have a constituent group who is hopping mad about fill-in-the-blank and so much so you worry about your personal safety? Have a hangout and talk about it with people and be safe.
Details about a hangout. Google makes it so that whomever is talking has the camera on them. Anyone can share a YouTube. So, if you’re on the road and your campaign manager wants to show you the latest ad, he can. Links can be shared. The possibility for this tech and politicians is endless.
Here is Michael Dell in a Hangout. He plans to use them for customer service:
3. Google + allows for a great way to share extended thoughts.
More extensive than Twitter. Less static than Facebook. More privacy controls than all of the above. Google + has less limits and yet more controls. This is essential. Newt Gingrich has already had a hangout on Google +. Other politicians are jumping on and trying it out. Early adoption celebrities (who face many of the same security and need-to-connect-with-the-public issues) are really enjoying the medium.
All in all, though it’s early, I feel that Google + has the most to offer politicians. The short coming? While Facebook has 750 million people on it (600 million check it monthly anyway) and Twitter has around 60 million active users, Google + has probably around 15 million … after two weeks. It took Facebook and Twitter years to get that many folks. I predict serious growth right now. Google has 193 million users monthly (as of last November). That’s a lot of people. And even more use Google to search.
Google + integrates with other shared services as well. Unfortunately most government folks cannot use many of these tools, but for real life users they’re valuable and make Google products sticky.
There are other social media too.
Foursquare: Foursquare and Gowalla are location-based social media and useful for politicians who want to tell people where they are.
LinkedIn: Businesses and job seekers use LinkedIn. It’s the mature social network for business types. I haven’t seen a lot of political uses for it other than networking and following people important in the business world.
Are shaking hands, knocking on doors, kissing babies and taking pictures important? Yes. Absolutely. They’re essential especially for lesser known politicians.
Can social media make a huge different in a politician’s scope of influence, connection to constituents, and control of the message? Yes. A million times yes.
Whereas social media was a catch phrase a couple years ago, it’s real life, now. Companies are very effectively using Twitter, for example, to do consumer outreach and conduct customer service. Celebrities are very effectively using Fan groups on Facebook to give followers special deals.
There are so many innovative ways to use social media and yet, at its fundamental level, social media is all about a politician’s stock in trade: influence and talking to people.
Educate yourself. Need some help and training? Worried that the “social media expert” is hosing you? Email me at melissa.clouthier at gmail.com or call me at 713-306-8867.
Social media is a really fun, direct way to communicate from the comfort of your home and jammies. Why more politicians don’t embrace it, I don’t know. But it is a natural fit for the politics business and the innovations that are coming along will make it even easier to be more efficient with your politicking.
Feel Hoodwinked?
Wednesday, April 13th, 2011
|
|
|||||||||||||
|
Want to subscribe? Please do here!
Spring Cleaning & Spring Colors
Tuesday, March 29th, 2011
So, I’ve been wanting to change my website for some time, but haven’t had time to do it. I worked with Ali Akbar for months on and off when we had a chance to chat talking colors and ideas to make my blog look more like “me”. Turns out, I’m rather difficult to pin down.
Finally, though, with the push of another designer, we got here. The guts of the website design are the same and we’re going to add a few things here and there in a bit.
Still, I’m very curious about what you guys think. The colors are very daring. Well, as daring as a website can be. But let’s just say that according this Gender Color Theory, the colors are all wrong. And yet, when I asked people what colors they thought of when they thought of me, they said orange (go figure) and a golden yellow. Many also said pink. These colors are not traditional political colors. They’re not traditional anything colors.
We’ll see.
Also, I’ve been rather quiet here mostly because I’m blogging all over the place and don’t like duplicating content. I’ve decided to make this site more personal and kind of a page where you can see everything I’m up to lately and then go to the links if you’re interested.
Many thanks to Ali Akbar and the designers at Vice & Victory. They do great work. Check them out for political consulting, online stuff and online fundraising.
Thanks also to Daniel J. Summers my long-suffering tech guy. He has been a constant help for two years. I am extraordinarily blessed by the people I’ve met online. Daniel and I have never met in person and yet I trust him completely. New media world, baby! If you need work on your site, you won’t find anyone more knowledgeable, resourceful and reliable.
Your feedback is welcome! Please share your thoughts on the New Look. It was time for some spring cleaning around here.
Hot Conservative Men And The Men Who Could Have Been
Monday, June 7th, 2010
Well, there’s one way to get a male’s attention: make sure he doesn’t make the Top Twenty Hottest Conservative guys (in case you guys think you don’t want to see that nonsense, I would suggest that you look at the judges). I have received direct messages, emails and got regaled by the bitter Matt Lewis on his podcast this morning [30 minutes of hilarity]. Somehow I doubt that John received the same sort of hew and cries from the women. Women are stoic that way.
If nothing else, objectifying men in this shameless way has revealed the gender differences. Women are unsure of their beauty and few would dream of nominating themselves, much less complain when they don’t make the list…it would be a confirmation of what they secretly suspect.
For men, who all seem to view themselves as incredible specimens no matter the package, it’s an affront to not be nominated and worse, to not be on the list.
As my friend Stephen Kruiser says, if men weren’t confident like that, men and women would never hook up.
Anyway, the women judges were all kinds of wonderful. They had diverse tastes and some of the people who didn’t make it scored well–they may have just inspired strong feelings both ways.
The list of men is great from the perspective of getting to know what people are up to in the movement. There are many great men and women doing impressive work.
Erick Erickson Describes Dave Weigel’s Role At The WaPo–UPDATED: The Anthropologist Responds
Wednesday, May 26th, 2010There are a few reporters out there who view conservatives with the mystified wonderment (in contrast to bald-faced hostility by most reporters)–such strange, exotic creatures, conservatives–and their reporting reminds me of anthropology reports given in National Geographic.
“The natives have strange rituals: they show up at Tea Party events with hand drawn posters and seem to really believe the government is too big but on the whole seem naive and rather dull-witted. They are friendly enough, for racist, bigoted, homophibic, Nazi criminals.”
That is Dave Weigel: A nice guy when he’s not patting you on your silly little naive head. Erick Erickson describes him here:
In fact, if you go through Dave’s archives you’ll find a slew of stories from the most recent one as I write to others that no one on the right really cares about, but people on the left who see the right collectively as fringe will eat up. And that’s the whole point of why he’s there.
There’s nothing unique about this situation. If the job is to cover the right from “inside the conservative movement,” that’s not actually happening. It’s like they put Weigel in a gorilla costume to infiltrate some gorillas in the mist and he stumbled into the wrong camp and is now reporting on activity completely unrelated to what actually matters. Never mind that the Washington Post’s online coverage of conservatives reflects a view that gorillas are more civilized than conservatives. And never mind that Weigel’s reporting is clouded with the groupthink you get among up-and-coming self-styled thinker/journalists who live together in D.C., are out to have an impact, but have never lived outside the clique. Insular groupthink journalism isn’t just useless because it doesn’t talk about what’s really going on, but because it only exists to coo at the pet ideas of the epistemic closure elites, usually preceded by a Media Matters press release to help direct their path.
Sure, Dave Weigel is a nice guy. But don’t treat his reporting from “inside the conservative movement” as serious when he clearly is not on the inside. He’s there because of what he wrote for publications funded by Tim Gill and George Soros, he’s there to track the fringe, to make the fringe look like the middle, and to dig in on agenda-based topics which kowtow to the narrow views of DC elites. His smarter readers know that’s the case, and are just there to enjoy the ride — the only one who seems to think otherwise is the adolescent naif Ezra Klein, late of the Center for American Progress, who doesn’t have any journalistic incentive to be objective toward the right or even passably fair.
Like Erick, I like Dave Weigel–in the same way I liked the trained Siberian Tigers at the Sigfried and Roy show: they look interesting and exotic, but are extraordinarily dangerous–as poor Roy learned the hard way. A journalist is a wild animal with an appetite for conservative meat and should be interacted with that way–always.
I do not expect Dave to be unbiased or fair. I do not expect him to defend a conservative point-of-view, ever, and therefore, I’m not disappointed or offended when he snaps off some pithy, demeaning, diminishing remark about conservatives or conservatism generally.
When he says something sufficiently irritating, I might respond, but mostly, I suppress the urge as it’s useless. Joking at a conservative’s expense and yucking it up is easy peasy. Everyone does it. So trendy.
So no, I don’t take Dave Weigel seriously. I think he’s a gifted writer and has interesting insight. He has an sophisticated mind and I enjoy talking to him. But he’s as ideologically left as the rest, he’s just willing to lower himself to hang with the natives from time to time. And he’s welcome to do so. Conservative people treat him with more kindness because he is willing to at least publicly view conservatives as a species of human. When it comes down to it though, his reporting sounds like reports from the out-back bush.
It would be fascinating to see what conservative, inside the conservative mind, reporting would look like. Too exotic for the Washington Post, that notion. Better stick with blogs.
UPDATED:
Dave Weigel responds to Erick and me here:
What I try to do is understand why the people I cover are doing what they’re doing — where an idea comes from, where a grudge comes from, where a “meme” (like Greece playing the role of “dark future that socialism will bring us” that France used to play).
Sometimes I sympathize with what’s going on. Sometimes I’m critical. I try to be open about that. But the people who talk to me know I’ll accurately report what they’re doing, and my report can either be used by some liberal to attack “those wacky conservatives” or used by some conservative to get a newsy take on something in the movement.
In his own way, I think Dave is agreeing with my assessment of his role. The thing is, Ezra Klein writes from within the neosocialist movement on the left. He writes as one of them. So even when he disagrees, his affection for the ideology shines through pure and clear.
The WaPo has no such conservative kind-eyes. Dave looks at the conservative movement with interest and to clarify and/or critique but not to defend or explain. And that’s the difference.
New Venture
Monday, April 5th, 2010
Hi Dear Readers!
I’m really excited to share a new venture with you. Over the weekend, Bill Dupray, Clyde Middleton and I rolled our blogging into one site called LibertyPundits.net. It’s a new kind of site which will include everything from politics to culture to religion to Tea Party news. Everything!
I hope you’ll follow my work over there. It’s going to be bigger and better than anything I could ever do alone. And I’ll highlight some posts in my Twitter feed–just to make it easier.
So, if you’re a blogger, I’d really appreciate a link to the site. We’re still working on our blogroll–it will be a very interesting way to do it. If you’re included, I think you’ll really like it.
Anyway, my website will now be a home where all my work will be fed through it. So, you’ll see the podcasts, posts and other content I create here, still, but it will look different once the site is redesigned.
Thanks everyone!
Melissa
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=9e5fbe3e-93f0-4a31-b941-f225cbe0fefe)
Bloggingheads TV: Well, I Think We Can Establish That Liberals Really Dislike Me, They Really, Really Dislike Me
Saturday, March 6th, 2010Thursday, I had my debut on Bloggingheads with the liberal blogger Bill Scher of Liberal Oasis. I had never met Bill before, though we had had some pleasant exchanges on Twitter.
Here’s the link to Bloggingheads.tv and our show. I was a little nervous and was short on prep time. There is no question I need better lighting in my office. Overall, though, it went okay.
The libs (which looks like the main audience on this site) did not like me talking about average Americans. That seemed to rile them more than anything–as if Beltway libs aren’t Americans. Of course the Bubble Boys and Girls in DC are Americans. I don’t think, though, they have an understanding for what makes sense to those living in the heartland. And that was my point.
While liberals like all the parts and pieces of this huge health care bill, most people are thinking about jobs. If I had a job, an unemployed worker thinks, all this health care talk would be moot. An average person also doesn’t believe that the federal government makes anything cheaper.
So while people tighten their belts, the Federal government is expanding with health care?
That’s the meta message that Americans reject and the liberals just can’t seem to get through their pointy heads. It has ceased to be about policy because the overall principle defies common sense.
Anyway, my musings on this topic were like provoking a caged bull. The Democrats are at each others throats, as Bill rightly noted, which is why they can’t come up with a cohesive message. Oh, the message has gotten through loud and clear. The American people reject it soundly.
So, the comments reflect that impotent rage. And, they just don’t like an unapologetic conservative-libertarian.
Is Google Evil? Part II: Search Neutrality
Friday, March 5th, 2010Google skates the edge. Persistently, relentlessly invading our lives. We want Google. We need Google.
Then, they go and do something like Buzz and we feel violated. They cow-tow to the Chinese government and allow censorship to the Chinese people. Or strangely, no matter how you enter “Islam” into Google, you won’t get negative word associations.
Recently, Financial Times asked if Google was an evil monopoly (for what it’s worth, I think the FT.com website forcing me to look at their stupid front page, instead of the exact article I want is evil).
Google has also been dinged for how they choose their news stories.
Now, come questions about their search metrics. While people worry about Net neutrality–the ability of internet providers to block, turn off or shut down the connection to the internet–a bigger concern is the search engines to cut off connectivity within the internet.
Lack of search neutrality is a more insidious and potentially pernicious problem…a person doesn’t know what he’s missing. This is the chief problem with newspapers and TV news, alike. It’s not lying, per se. It’s shading and eliminating important news and facts. Google also has the potential to do this same sort of thing.
Google can also be manipulated and if the aims match their own, politically, little is done to stop it.
He diagnoses the problem as follows:
given the emphasis on secrecy in the search engine business model, no one can verify that such rankings have not been manipulated or that subtler biases in favor of search engines’ partners are not being worked into the search algorithm…
If search engines are to be accountable at all, if their interest is to be balanced against those of the various other claimants involved in search-related disputes, and if social values are to be given any weight, some governmental
agent should be able to peer into the black box of search and determine whether or not illegitimate manipulation has occurred.But what about editorial discretion? Why should Google be forced to change its PageRank algorithms any more than The New York Times should be forced to change how it decides which stories to run? Moreover, why should Google be forced to disclose how this process works? Assigning a government monitor to sit in on meetings of the Times‘ editorial board “to detect bias” would clearly impinge on their editorial discretion. Similarly, I don’t see why forcing a Yahoo!, Microsoft or any other search engine to disclose their equivalent processes for ranking search results should pass constitutional muster.
To me, the safe thing, is to assume that the rankings are manipulated. The alternative is taking the word of a company who won’t share their data…which is their choice.
Sure Google won this court case:
A federal judge this week granted Google’s motion to dismiss a suit that alleged the company manipulated search results in its powerful Web index.
U.S. District Court Judge Vicki Miles-LaGrange on Tuesday denied a motion for a preliminary injunction brought by SearchKing, an Oklahoma City-based Web hosting and advertising network that claimed Google unfairly removed links to its site and those of its partners from the index, causing financial losses. The judge dismissed the case on the grounds that Google’s formula for calculating the popularity of a Web page, or “PageRank,” constitutes opinions protected by the First Amendment.
All that means is Google may or may not manipulate it…ala the New York Times.
For me, I’d make sure to search using all search engines. There is no question, though, that Google has the ability to ruin a business, if they desire.
Even more so than Net Neutrality, you’d think that computer users would worry about Search Neutrality. But Google serves leftist masters so the press doesn’t care so much. More than that, though, is that internet users [including this one] despise market interference.
A better browser will be invented and take Google out, if they’re evil enough. The problem, though, is that this is a tough kind of evil to nail down.
Armano: You Are The Media. Do You Trust You? Me: Trust Is Topical
Tuesday, February 9th, 2010David Armano a Twitter friend (we’ve never met, but I value his perspective and suspect I’d like him in person) has a must-read piece about trust in the media. And since we are all media now, who do we trust? His whole piece is worth reading, so please go look at the research, and then come back here for my thoughts.
It’s simple, really. We trust those who we respect, but we respect different people depending on the circumstances.
So, when I ask an opinion about guns on Twitter, I listen to the recommendations given by former military, current CHL instructors who are police chiefs. I could listen to my brother, and I do, he has some valuable insight, but I more heavily weight the expert.
The same is true for nearly every topic. I have a friend who I call when I have a economics questions. I have a friend who knows everything about Texas tax policy. Then there’s the local blogger who knows every dirty nook and cranny of Houston politics.
My brain doesn’t have enough room for all this information. It doesn’t need to have it. I have trusted advisers everywhere who can help me.
When it comes to social media growth, development and research, I trust David Armano. His advice and information over the time I’ve been on Twitter has been solid. Had he flaked out at some point, I’d discard his advice. So far, he’s still reliable.
There are an infinite number of “experts” who are regular people just like me but who have expertise in a slice of information. They become my friends. I value their perspective even more.
Or not. There are some people I don’t particularly like, but they have extraordinary insight in an area and I respect that.
With social media, who qualifies as an expert is fluid. People can observe another’s intellectual implosion online and a once-valued expert becomes a former expert in short order.
Where my opinion conflicts with David’s perspective is this: I may have a couple thousand friends on Facebook and Twitter (which I do) but I won’t trust them just because they give me an opinion. Human interaction is far more nuanced than that.
Just one example: I asked my followers on Twitter to recommend a cake company in Washington, D.C. Five people recommended the same place. But one of my friends recommended that place plus a place that was even better that was near her home. In addition, she said she’d help me pick up the cake. So I Googled both cake shops, called both cake shops, got stellar service from the out-of-the-way place and called in assistance from my friend.
Did I trust all the recommendations? Yes. Absolutely. But I also made my purchase decision based on intangibles and finally, the old business stand-by–customer service.
Social media is a tricky thing to study. It’s not like Google, where every metric can be broken down. It’s more human, more fickle, but the data a user gathers can be infinitely more helpful and accurate. I choose Twitter and Facebook over Google every day. Or rather, I get their recommendations and then Google the filtered information.
I trust my friends. I also verify. And an “expert” is all in the eye of the beholder.
