Archive

Archive for June, 2012

Networking for the Win

Too many people fail at the followup, IMHO.

1. Press the flesh.

The core to networking is meeting people face to face. Except for rare occasions, such as long-distance online romances, all the friends and business colleagues that we trust we’ve met in person. If you think you can be an effective networker solely by engaging in social media, you’re sorely wrong. You have to get out and press the flesh.

4. Always follow up.

This is the core of all networking: following up. If you don’t do it, you might as well never have met the person. I would estimate that one out of 20 people I hand my business card to follows up. Collecting business cards without following up is a wasted engagement. It only takes days for the person to completely forget meeting you. If you follow up with some level of context of your meeting it increases the value and impact of the meeting. To remember that meeting, take notes on the business card.

When you do follow up, be specific about your follow up. Don’t just say, “Nice to have met you,” or, “We should meet for coffee sometime,” because that now puts the onus on the other person to set up the meeting and discuss its purpose. That’s quite a burden. If you want that to happen, you need to set the place, time, and purpose of the discussion.

7. Listen.

Yes, it’s good to be directed about what you’re doing and have focus, but you’ll be a far more effective networker and make better connections if you simply listen to others. If someone else isn’t as much a talker as you are, then ask questions. Pull them out of their shell; that will let you to listen to them. Networking is not an opportunity for you to spout out marketing copy that you hope someone else will absorb. Your job is to listen and create a relationship first.

Via 10 networking tactics that most people screw up

Tell me, what is it you plan to do with your one wild and precious life?

Who made the world?
Who made the swan, and the black bear?
Who made the grasshopper?
This grasshopper, I mean—
the one who has flung herself out of the grass,
the one who is eating sugar out of my hand,
who is moving her jaws back and forth instead of up and down—
who is gazing around with her enormous and complicated eyes.
Now she lifts her pale forearms and thoroughly washes her face.
Now she snaps her wings open, and floats away.
I don’t know exactly what a prayer is.
I do know how to pay attention, how to fall down
into the grass, how to kneel down in the grass,
how to be idle and blessed, how to stroll through the fields,
which is what I have been doing all day.
Tell me, what else should I have done?
Doesn’t everything die at last, and too soon?
Tell me, what is it you plan to do
with your one wild and precious life?

The Summer Day
by Mary Oliver
From The Truro Bear and Other Adventures: Poems and Essays

Categories: Uncategorized

Hi, My Name is Lisa

Surveys asking people to predict behavior are notoriously unreliable, but there’s other data showing the powerful impact of even a modest connection. In my book Brainfluence, I devote a chapter to “schmoozing.” One rather startling finding comes from a study performed by researcher Al Roth.

Roth used The Ultimatum Game, a clever experiment in which one subject must divide a small amount of money, say, $10, between himself and a second subject. If the second subject agrees with the split, both keep their share of the money. If the other person rejects the split, though, nobody gets any money. In its basic form, it shows that humans place a value on fairness. While a totally rational economist would accept even a mere $1 (since that’s better than the alternative of zero for a rejected offer), real people tend to reject splits that heavily favor the first subject. In fact, in the standard game only half of the offers are “fair” – arbitrarily defined as both subjects getting $4-6. About a third of the time, the deal is rejected and nobody gets any money.

Roth tried a variation on the standard game in which he let the subjects chat face to face for ten minutes before playing. This was pure socializing – they didn’t know the rules of the game they’d play, and there was no discussion of strategy. This simple bit of schmoozing had a dramatic impact on the game results. After the face to face chat, 83% of the deals were “fair,” and just 5% – one out of 20 – resulted in rejection and loss of money for both subjects.

Via Schmoozing Still Works!

Sourcing from Social Media

In their Digital Journalism Study, Oriella surveyed 600 journalists and discovered that more than half (55 percent) used social channels such as Twitter and Facebook to find stories from known sources, and 43 percent verified existing stories using these tools.

26 percent of respondents said that they used social media to find stories from sources they did not know, and almost one in five (19 percent) verified work in progress from sources unknown to them.

The figures are even higher in the UK, with 75 percent of journalists using social media to research news from known sources.

Via 55% Of Journalists Worldwide Use Twitter, Facebook To Source News Stories

What Else Would You Like to Talk about?

It’s as if your clients or customers had called you on the phone to tell you how awesome they thought you were, and you said, “Hey thanks!” and then hung up.

In social media, your audience can’t see that you’re actually still standing there waiting for the next engagement volley. “Thanks!” pretty much says, “We’re done here,” so they move on. In order to get them to stick around, it’s up to you to add cues or prompts to your initial answer to keep the conversation moving forward (now, or in the future).

For example these are door opening comments …

Thanks for your comment! What’s the link to the post you wrote on this topic?
LOL! Next time you’re in town, let me know. I’d love to buy you coffee.
That’s a great suggestion. What else can we do to improve our site?
Too true. You have such great insights on this. Ever consider guest blogging?
You can find that info on our website. Are there any questions I could answer for you right now?

Via The Art of Opening Social Conversations

Preppy for Life

For Ian Murray, the 37-year-old co-founder and co-chief executive of apparel brand Vineyard Vines, the preppy look is all about attitude, “exuding a sense of comfort in your environment—you’ve been here before, you know the etiquette and you’re having a good time. You’re having fun but you’re also confident in who you are—when people are preppy they’re not chasing trends.”

…”The whole deal with the preppy summertime lifestyle is that you go right from the beach into cocktail hour or you’re on a boat,” he says. “You just keep it rolling.”

…Mr. Murray usually brings a lightweight cashmere V-neck sweater that he can pull on over a polo or button-down shirt on cool summer evenings. Although some prepsters tie such sweaters around their shoulders, Mr. Murray thinks the look is generally more dated. “That’s pretty hard-core,” he says.

Via Dressing for a Preppy Beach Weekend

 

Stupid Smart People

Here’s a simple arithmetic question: A bat and ball cost a dollar and ten  cents. The bat costs a dollar more than the ball. How much does the ball  cost?

The vast majority of people respond quickly and confidently, insisting the  ball costs ten cents. This answer is both obvious and wrong. (The correct answer  is five cents for the ball and a dollar and five cents for the bat.)

For more than five decades, Daniel Kahneman, a Nobel Laureate and professor  of psychology at Princeton, has been asking questions like this and analyzing  our answers. His disarmingly simple experiments have profoundly changed the way  we think about thinking. While philosophers, economists, and social scientists  had assumed for centuries that human beings are rational agents—reason was our  Promethean gift—Kahneman and his scientific partner, the late Amos Tversky,  demonstrated that we’re not nearly as rational as we like to believe.

When people face an uncertain situation, they don’t carefully evaluate the  information or look up relevant statistics. Instead, their decisions depend on a  long list of mental shortcuts, which often lead them to make foolish decisions.  These shortcuts aren’t a faster way of doing the math; they’re a way of skipping  the math altogether. Asked about the bat and the ball, we forget our arithmetic  lessons and instead default to the answer that requires the least mental  effort…

Via Why Smart People are Stupid

Be honest: Did you answer the simple arithmetic question above correctly?