The Daily Grind of a Work @ Home Mom...

BlogHer Sponsors? Who Needs 'Em...

I don't have a sponsor for BlogHer.  And based on the number of companies/PR firms/monied peeps that I deal with on an excruciatingly regular basis, this might seem strange.  But it's not.  Because I (sort of) wanted it this way.

When I bought my BlogHer ticket waaaaay back when the pricing was still considered "earlybird", it didn't even occur to me that I could actually get a sponsor to pick up the tab.  I know.  Rookie.  And then as I read the Twitter stream and talked to my blog-friends, I realized that it wouldn't take much to actually get this whole ordeal paid-for!  What was I waiting for?

So I created a cute little media package with neat little headings that included, Who Am I?  and What Do you Stand to Gain?  I added the number of unique visitors I get and some ideas I had that would get us (you) noticed at the big event.

And it sat in my documents.

At first, I scolded myself.  How will you ever find a sponsor if you don't actively look?  Put out feelers?  At least tweet that you're looking to represent someone?  Blog about it?

But nothing.

And the weeks and months rolled on.

And shockingly, nobody banged down my door in search of a blogger to sponsor.

And as time marched on, I noticed that most of my peers had sponsors.  What was wrong with me?  So I entered a few "no strings attached" contests, in hopes of being the lucky winner of an all (or partly) expense paid trip to Chicago.  But alas, I'm not one of those who wins things. 

Then it hit me.  I never went out to find a sponsor because I don't think I actually ever really wanted one.  I don't think I wanted the responsibility of representing anyone else's brand at BlogHer.  After all, I am a business-owner myself.  And a blogger.  And a big part of the reason why I'm so looking forward to BlogHer is the prospect of meeting people who might be interested in me and my brand.  And if I'm busy promoting others, I may miss that opportunity.  Next year might be different, but for now, something about representing others just wasn't feeling organic to me.

So there you have it.  I have finally secured an official sponsor for BlogHer '09 - and it's me.  See you there.  :)     

Mom Bloggers on Fox News

A few weeks ago, I was contacted via Twitter by @Sara_Underwood, anchor at Fox25 News in Boston, asking if she could use a screenshot of my blog for a story on mom bloggers.  Not shy about sharing ;), I invited her to use what she liked.  So while I was not interviewed for the piece (but see my friend @BostonMamas fab spot), I'm proud that my beautiful blog design (by Domestic Chicky Designs) was deemed fab enough by Ms. Underwood to decorate her piece with.  

Maybe next time I'll even get to talk on camera. :)

See the piece here: Mom Bloggers or below.

The Trampling of Twitter

It used to be that Twitter, a simple social networking site that allows users to "micro-blog" in 140 characters or less, was a sacred spot.  Its uses were arbitrary, unlimited, and often very different among users.

But once upon a time, most users had one thing in common - we were on Twitter to make connections.  To "meet" others who either shared some commonality with us or offered some interesting angle.  I was introduced to the site after a Facebook friend constantly included Twitter in her status updates, causing me to check it out.

It was clear from day 1 that this no-frills social website held some great opportunities for me, as well as the potential to meet interesting people.  In no time at all, I had new customers, was introduced to new products for my store, I was finding stimulating new blogs to read, and in general, just networking with people I wouldn't otherwise meet.

And then the celebrities descended.  And now it's a lot of picking through the rubble to find the content that matters.

Just don't follow the celebs, you say?  As an avid consumer of all things Hollywood, I only wish I had the willpower to stay away, but I can't.  Plain and simple.

So last week, Oprah decided to put an @ before her name and suddenly all hell broke loose.  Since Friday, @Oprah has amassed 400,000+ followers and updated just 13 times, beginning with an etiquette-breaking all-caps tweet, celebritweeting, tweets about her day, and the ice cream she would consume.

YAWN.

Then to top it off, Twitter, now being a house-hold name, was virtually unusable Friday night after everyone and their mother decided to check it out. 

Other celebs do it too.  Hugh Jackman (@RealHughJackman) tweeted this last week:

Good morning!

2:56 AM Apr 16th from web

 

And P Diddy (is that his name this week?), whose Twitter bio reads: King Combs (narcissist much?) constantly tells his followers - Let's Go! as if the king himself is really going to motivate people to get off their regular, everyday asses and go out and buy a Bentley and  act all above it all and if we're being really honest, ridiculous (ever see Making of the Band?).  See, this is the problem - I actually liked Diddy before he brought his ego to Twitter!

But my problem isn't really with these celebs, per se.  Often I'm actually particularly amused by their everyday mini-troubles.  For instance, @KimKardashian recently got a crazy hilarious sunburn and posted a pic of it on Twitter -

 

  

Funny, right?

 

 

 

 

And @HeidiMontag of Speidi fame constantly tweets things like this:

thank you God for every second im alive!

about 19 hours ago from mobile web

Uh, Heidi?  Based on the goings-on on your "reality" show, all you have to be thankful for are those ginormous boobies you paid for because your "fiance" is a first-class douche-bag and EVERYONE knows it (even you). 

Lastly, why do celebs join Twitter then follow only each other?  What's the point?  Couldn't they just chat one another up at the next gifting suite?  I mean, seriously?

Despite the intrusion, Twitter is definitely picking up speed.  Because of its famous users, the word Twitter is now a as commonly used as say, Facebook (or getting there).  Of course, the first time I heard of Twitter, I thought it was some kind of perverse new sex act...

Caramelized Thai Chicken

I know this sounds a bit crazy, maybe even slightly humorous.  But last week, I saw Nicole Richie tweet about a recipe she had made and posted on her blog.  Curious, I checked it out and I have to say, it looked like something my family would LOVE.  So I printed it and headed to the stor to pick up whatever I was missing.  Though I followed most of the instructions on her recipe (originally from Food & Wine), I tweaked it to make it more to my liking.  I also re-named it to what I think is more representative of what came out of my kitchen - hope no one minds!!!

Caramelized Thai Chicken

4 Servings

INGREDIENTS:

1. 3/4 cup dark brown sugar
2. Approx. 1/2 cup fish sauce (A Taste of Thai)
3. 1/2 cup water
4. 1/4 cup + 2 tablespoons rice vinegar
5. 2 teaspoons minced garlic
6. 2 teaspoons minced ginger
7. 2 teaspoons coarsely ground pepper
8. 2 fresh Thai chiles, halved, or dried red chiles (I used 3 teaspoons of chili paste) or to your taste
9. 1.5 tablespoons canola oil
10. 1.5 shallots, thinly sliced
11. 1 pound skinless, boneless chicken breasts, cut into 1-inch pieces, 1/2 lb of butterflied chicken wings 
12. 4 cilantro sprigs

DIRECTIONS:

1. In a small bowl, combine the sugar, fish sauce, water, rice vinegar, garlic, ginger, pepper and chiles.
2. Broil chicken wings until browned.
3. Heat the oil in a large deep skillet. Add the shallot and cook over moderate heat until softened, about 4 minutes. Add the fish sauce mixture and the chicken and simmer over high heat until the chicken is cooked through, about 10 minutes. To thicken, add corn starch (according to the package).
4. Transfer to a serving bowl, garnish with the cilantro and serve over rice.

Really quick, really easy, REALLY delicious. 

Qwitter, I Know How To Quit You.

 

I'm proud to say that today, I'm a quitter.  That is, after months of opening my inbox only to be greeted by annoying alerts, taunting me just as children taunt each other on the playground, I finally got the strength to turn off the sadist in me and unsubscribe from Qwitter.  For you non-Twitterers, Qwitter is a service designed to let people know when they have lost a "follower."  Upon signing up, users receive an alert in their inbox to let them know that so and so has stopped following them:

It looks like this:

Hi, alexcaseybaby.

Sweet Sixteen (sweetsixteen) stopped following you on Twitter after you posted this tweet:

The new Chicken Soup for the Soul: Power Moms is a great read. Gr8 4 any mom. http://tinyurl.com/cfollp- win it!

 

So why in the world did I subscribe to such a masochistic app in the first place?  Because the drama-queen in me wanted to know when I lost a follower, and which tweet led to the break-up.  But in reality, I'm not really sure it's the tweet itself (or really anything I said at all) that leads to someone un-following me.  I think, in many cases, people follow just to be followed back.  I've used to term "friend-collector" to refer to this phenomenon in the Facebook world and it's not so different on Twitter except that on Twitter, a followee isn't obliged to follow anyone back.  And this is a nice part of Twitter, in that there are definitely peeps that I am interested in following who might have no interest in my tweets, and that's OK.  Because part of the reason I use Twitter is to gain knowledge or insight into topics and people I may or may not have anything in common with. 

 

For example, when this whole CPSIA debacle hit the headlines, I followed a writer named Walter Olson because he was up on this topic and writing about it regularly.  However, if he hadn't followed me back it would have been fine because I was more interested in what he had to say rather than dialoging with him necessarily.  But since Twitter is definitely also about making contact and exchanging ideas, this is just one of the ways I use it.  If I follow a fellow online store owner, it's not because I'm interested in the sales she's tweeting about, more likely I'm interested in forming an alliance, an online store-owner "club" if you will.  And this would require discourse and obviously, a follow back.

 

Being un-followed doesn't offend me.  I've been known to un-follow a Tweeter or two myself.  My reasons, however, have nothing to do with whether they follow me back (I don't think I've even ever checked) but they have had to do with one or more of these reasons:

• Constantly tweeting only about new blog posts or self-promotion.
• No @ tweets on their page.
• Offensive, abusive Tweeters.
• Ok fine.  Once un-followed someone simply because they un-followed me and I was mildly hurt.  But I got over it.

But still, I've turned off Qwitter because waking up to a barrage of break-ups just doesn't seem to be a healthy way to start the day.  Can't we just all be friends?

 

Getting Personal in a Digital World

If you're reading this blog, chances are, you're guilty.  I mean, even I've been known to escape to my office to check my email or glance furtively at my Blackberry during a family outing to see if anything is shaking on Twitter or Facebook.  I spend way too many lunches with my PC as my companion, log too many hours communicating via electronics, and definitely have too many "friends" that I socialize with digitally.

But here's the thing: I haven't completely turned my back on the old-fashioned phone call.  Or letter.  Or face-to-face visit.

While email, IM, Facebook, Twitter, text messaging and the myriad other means of digital communication are great tools for keeping in touch, dropping a note or confirming a lunch date, there are definitely times when none of these are appropriate.  And I'm writing this post because it seems many of us have forgotten this.  So in the spirit of etiquette, I'm going  to freshen your memory regarding when an email just doesn't cut it.

Thank-you notes.  I've said it before, and I'll say it again.  If someone is gracious enough to go to a store/website, pick out a gift for you/your new baby/your childyour marriage, show them some gratitude.  Nothing can take the place of a hand-written note.  Not to say you should draft a novel, just a quick note to let them know their thoughtfulness did not go unnoticed. 

Birthdays.  Ok, so this one isn't set in stone since even I, the self-proclaimed queen of the hand-written word has often forgotten to hit the store for the perfect card once or twice.  But consider this - don't you like to be called on your birthday?  Isn't it nice to hear those unexpected voices at the other end of the line, even if it is only once a year?  A birthday card is nice too.  An email/Facebook message can serve the purpose in a less personal, more "I have you in my thoughts but I'm too busy to spend much time on you" sort of way.  Not ultimately desirable, but effective nonetheless.

After a hospital stay.  A broad category, a hospital stay can include anything from having delivered a baby to being post-surgical.  Without our health we have nothing.  The same could be said for our friends and family.  Let's share the love, people.

Expressing Condolences.  There's almost no exception to this rule (unless you proclaim online that you lost a loved one in which case your online buddies might respond in the same way).  Pharmacies, card stores, even the corner store all carry dozens of condolence cards.  Our family even keeps a spare on-hand since you never know when you're going to need it.  And in the case of a close friend?  A phone call is always nice.

When it comes to personal communication, digital tools sometimes fall short.  We are social by nature and crave human contact.  Nurturing our relationships is the key to closeness and simply cannot be achieved by emails and instant messages. 

Like what I have to say?  EMAIL ME!! 

Misunderstood

Yesterday, I posted about an issue that I was thinking about.  I was wondering if the Internet has opened up a whole new segment of society.  Does the Internet represent real life to us, or are we just playing around on our computers?  I don't know about you, but I'm making a living from my computer (and I do know about many of you who are doing the same).  So it's my opinion that this is no game.

That said, computers and Internet, social networking and video sites today are as main stream as they come.  It hasn't been long, but it sure has had an impact.  So is it time to include what goes on online as equal to what is happening in society?  Is the Internet equivalent to our doorstep?  Do we react to happening online as we do to things happening outside?  The difference is that what happening online is not necessarily tangible, like it is in "real life."

Today a blog post was written by a woman who talked about teaching her child how to behave.  The child was choking her little sister and in an effort to teach her child what not to do, she "gently put [her] hands on [x's] neck and applied enough pressure that she reflexively pushed [her] hands away."   The point was to teach the older sibling that choking is scary stuff and how it felt when she did it to her sister.  It was a controlled, intended action.  It was not in anger, she was not choking her child, there was nothing about this that had anything to do with what I spoke about yesterday.

Yet this blogger (who I'm not linking to because the post isn't worthy of a link) linked to my previous post and titled her story "Let's Not Call CPS, OK?"

Ok, it's clear this blogger missed my point yesterday.  It's clear that she didn't get that the post she linked to (thanks for the traffic, btw) asked a question:

...should a person who tweets or blogs something about harming their child or themselves, whether in jest or otherwise (no real way to know) be called out?  Or do we, as a society, sit back in our computer chairs and hope for the best?

Sometimes I wonder if we weren't better off before we so publicly shared our ideas and thoughts, lest our words be twisted and contorted out of context.  

But nah, I'll still continue to tell you what I think.  But more importantly, I'm interested in what you think.  (and not by linking to your blog without so much as a trackback).  That's what comments are for!!  (and I did utilize her comments section, in case you were wondering.) 

That's it.  As you were.   

Online Alert

There was a brouhaha on Twitter a few days ago.  From what I could gather, one woman tweeted how she could not get her daughter to bed and would it be criminal if she smothered her?  A sarcastic attempt at humor, no doubt.  No doubt someone like me (whose middle name is sarcasm) would've read it, skimmed over it, and moved on.  No doubt I might've even been able to relate since my own toddler often fights sleep until almost 10pm.  No doubt I would've forgotten about it 30 seconds later.

But not everyone is me.  And even I'm questioning the correctness of what my reaction would have been.  It seems that several tweeters who are more familiar with this person and her circumstances saw it as a red flag.  Someone either alerted the Twitter "police" or the real police but the end result was that cops did knock on this woman's door at 11pm to make sure everyone was OK.

Overreaction or justified action?

Hard to say.  Well, maybe not in this case where the threat to smother was actually a joke.  In hindsight, the officials did not need to be alerted.  And the end result in this case is one really pissed off Tweeter and undoubtedly a few embarrassed whistleblowers.

But what about the case of the 19-year-old who committed suicide in front of his webcam while viewers looked on and did nothing?  If someone, anyone had erred on the side of caution, maybe this teenager would be alive today.  If he was putting it on for his audience, perhaps calling attention to it would've forced him to take a look at his strange behavior.  But in this case, there was no joke, no sarcasm.  This was the real thing and someone is dead because no one did anything.

Last year, a man in England killed himself by hanging after being egged on by fellow chat-room users.  A few years ago, a 21-year-old in Arizona overdosed on pills while online peers encouraged him.  There were enough witnesses that someone could have potentially stopped this.

Are these cases so different from the one that occurred on Twitter?  My first reaction when I saw this was, wow, I can't believe someone would go to such extremes.  But on the other hand, should someone have gone to extremes in these other cases that ended in tragedy, maybe, just maybe the tragedy could've been averted.

A few months ago I saw a person I have met tweet about her recent blog post.  It was titled something like, "I hate my daughter."  For your reference, the blogger's daughter is 3.  She went on to publicly call her daughter opinionated, defiant and a bunch of other words.  She (probably half-jokingly) blamed her child for her now sagging breasts and the fact that she screams a lot.  Let me remind you - her child is THREE.  I don't know, something about the public rant against the one person who she is supposed to protect, love unconditionally and stand up for really rubbed me the wrong way.  But did it cross my mind to called CPS?  No. 

So the question remains, should a person who tweets or blogs something about harming their child or themselves, whether in jest or otherwise (no real way to know) be called out?  Or do we, as a society, sit back in our computer chairs and hope for the best?

Mommy Mania

There's some mania in mommy-world today - and it's mainly about the Motrin mega-mistake that appears below.  But here's the thing; it's not just mama's who have their panties in a twist over this.  It seems this marketing blunder is of interest to pr people, marketing folks and the ad world at large, in addition to the irate moms.

Not typically one to harp on topics that will likely disappear from the radar screen as soon as I'm done writing about them, I'm writing this post as an addendum to yesterday's words.  And it's not because I feel so deeply about this ad (truthfully, I don't).  It's that I feel strongly about the reaction to the reaction about the ad.  EVERYONE is talking about this.  People are exchanging harsh words with one another on the topic.  Social media sites, comment sections, emails, IM's - all are going crazy in reference to this ad error.  #motrinmoms is the #2 trending topic on Twitter right now (it was 1st until very recently).  Personally, I've said my piece, which in short is exactly what I stated in my comments on a piece in today's NYT's:

"...You’d think a company like Pfizer/McNeil Consumer Healthcare would know their audience a bit better. It was pure laziness on their part and they’re now reaping the rewards of NOT having a mom-panel, of NOT testing their pricey ad in the market they were looking to hit.

As a Twitterer put it last night: hell hath no fury like a mommyblogger scorned."

In other words, after deciding that being offended by an advertisement doesn't do it for me, my interest in this debacle is mainly from a marketing perspective.  In a How could this happen? kind of way.

But commenter's and bloggers (who clearly are interested too for whatever reason), are slinging mud from their living rooms (or offices or whatever) which speaks volumes about the true nature of well, "adults" in this online community.  One commenter wrote "Americans are big fat babies and moms are the worst kind."  Um really?  Not only is this commenter American anda mom, she wisely decided to build on her traffic ranking today by, you guessed it!  Blogging about Motrin!  And commenting every and anywhere she could in order to include the link to her post.  But see, then there are people, industry peoplewho share worthwhile opinions that are unbiased and not fueled by animosity toward the very group they may or may not be part of.  Todd Defren hit the nail on the head today in his take on this situation:

"If you’re targeting MOMS you ought to know that there are ~14,000 of them with strong opinions in the Social Media sphere.  Maybe you could ask a few of ‘em to check out your expensive new advertisement before you release it?"

I saw tweets that said that any moms who care about this are losers.  Yes, you read right.  So does that mean if they (we) loved it they're (we're) losers too?  Or only if they (we) don't share your opinion that this ad was genius?  (I'm thinking the people responsible for this ad are no longer thinking they're geniuses.  At least not for today).

Another recent tweet read: "have a sense of HUMOR. For fucks sake. It isn't like Motrin slept with your husband... all this drama is fucking NUTS." 

Is it?  Isn't that what advertising is supposed to do?  Shouldn't it hit a nerve of some kind?  Isn't it meant to generate some sort of reaction from the consumer?  And since this ad is directly targeted toward mothers, is it really that lame that the direct targeted audience is reacting?  Are they (we) really just bored losers?  Or are they (we) intelligent, sophisticated people who don't accept everything they're (we're) told at face value and actually have the confidence enough to voice it?

Food for thought... Oh - and just another thought for today:

 

 

Twitter vs. Facebook

Sorry I haven't done much posting lately, I've just been so busy.  Truth be told, I got a scanner a few weeks ago and since then, it's like I have a second spouse.  Seriously - I have thousands of old pictures that are begging to be scanned and posted on Facebook.  I mean, isn't that what Facebook is for?

For me, it is.  I admit, I don't love it when someone who is not a personal friend sends a Facebook friend request.  Typically these people are Twitter followers (or people from high school who I have to squint REALLY HARD to picture).  But why isn't Twitter enough?  Why does our relationship have to be dragged to the next level?  It seems to happen ALL the time though, so maybe I'm the only one who feels this way.

It's my contention that Twitter and Facebook are completely different animals.  Sure, they are both social media networks.  Sure, both allow us to communicate with others in a simple way.  But while I enjoy getting to know others using Twitter and learning about them and their endeavors (both professional and personal), it doesn't mean I necessarily want them to see every picture posted of me on Facebook.  Nor do they need to know my birthday.  Or my favorite tv show.  Not that it's a problem if they do, I just don't see the necessity.  And the opposite it true too.  While I might be interested in reading what your blog covers today or what's going on in your day, it doesn't really interest me to see your family albums or read your "wall."  Doe that make me anti-social?

I use Twitter as a networking tool whereas Facebook is more like a virtual get-together, or reunion if you will.  My Twitter followers are privy to my professional tasks, my store promotions, my newest blog posts, and sometimes more personal antics, like my dinner menu, or my mood.  On Facebook, you're likely to see images of me from when I was 18 at summer camp, 22 partying at a bar on Halloween, 33 at home with my family.  If we've never met or had any sort of physical social interaction, why would you want to see these things?  Why would you care?  No offense, but I don't!

It does sometimes happen that a relationship formed as a result of a professional platform somehow morphs into more.  I can honestly say that I have made real friends on Twitter.  People who began as peers, as fellow mompreneurs or bloggers who, over time, became actual friends.  But they are the exception. 

So if we follow each other on Twitter, but we aren't Facebook friends, don't be sour, m'kay?  We are still friends, just not that kind of friends.