Just this morning, I got a visit from our friendly neighborhood religious people. I had to politely turn them away and tell them I was busy (which I really was). Now don’t get me wrong. I can say I’m a religious person. But it just turns out my morning callers subscribe to a different faith. And while some people might think it’s all the same banana, there are some differences–some subtle, some overt–that define and differentiate one belief from another.

On the part of my morning callers, I can see their difficulty, because in the faith they subscribe to, they are required to come knocking on neighborhood doors every so often, attempting to convince people into conversion. It might be thought of as missionary work. But to me, it comes off as proselytism, something that tends to shed negative light on any faith. Because of this, it seems that people tend to avoid them.

How hard is it to convince people, then? I think that that the best way to convince people is not by pressing them into doing or believing something that they might not necessarily want. But rather, it’s by setting a good example, and actually practicing what you preach.

In some circles, it’s called evangelism. It doesn’t necessarily have to be in the religious sense. For instance, not too long ago, the term tech evangelism was a buzzword in the technology-related industries. Rather than spend a lot of money on advertising and public relations, companies seek out social media superstars, and give them access to new products and services. In turn, these social media biggies write about their experiences, share their thoughts, and spread the word on how they are actually passionate about the technology. In some cases, it’s not even celebrities who were evangelists, but ordinary people like you and me. This is even better, because people trust what they think is real and genuine.

If something is really that good, then you would be thinking it, breathing it, drinking it, and living it. You would be a walking example of what you believe in. Sometimes, you don’t have to even have to say a word. Just be, and you would already be doing a good job at convincing people about the qualities of whatever it is that you believe in.

I think the trouble with a lot of people who share the same faith as myself is with practice. Some of us may only be believers by name. The moment we leave church premises, for instance, we might be reverting to our same old ways. Maybe this is one reason why we are vulnerable to proselytism. I know we’re all sinners. But it’s in the trying to be a good person that we can better focus on.

It’s no different from a marketing executive of a cigarette brand who doesn’t even smoke. Or a celebrity product endorser who doesn’t even use the product he or she advertises. Or perhaps a Yahooligan who uses Gmail? Do you practice what you preach?

How hard is it to convince? I think the easier part of convincing is making a verbal or written recommendation of something to a person, or maybe even knocking on doors everyday to try to spread the word. But the more difficult aspect of convincing is actually living what you believe in.

image credit: flickr/indigogoat

Recently, I’ve seen an upsurge in followership of my Twitter account. I used to just ignore these email notifications, except for those cases where I personally know the new follower (at least by name) or if the name or username seems interesting enough.

However, lately, I’ve also been checking the basic stats of those who have started following me–their friend count, follower count, and tweets. While these are rudimentary statistics, they give me an overview of the person’s tweeting habits.

For instance, if you’re following significantly more people than the number of followers you have, you’re probably not that interactive (and it’s likely that you’re only using Twitter for marketing or perhaps research). If your follower list is significantly larger than your friend list, then you’re probably a celebrity. If you have hundreds of friends, but only a couple of tweets, then you’re probably just getting the hang of tweeting.

Then I try to visit the new follower’s profile. I check his/her bio, and the latest tweets on the timeline. If the account looks like that of a real person, then great. I will likely follow. But if the account is most likely used for marketing or even spam, then sorry. (I do follow a few accounts used for updates on services, software or even corporate news, though.)

Twitter makes it freakishly simple to add a person to your friend list. Just hit the follow button, and you’re all set to go. But I think you shouldn’t stop here if you really want to connect. Most other social networking sites–and even instant messaging services–add another step, and that is adding a message to the person you want to add, saying something about yourself and why you are adding him/her. Makes sense, doesn’t it? If you know someone to be your classmate in high school, a former colleague, or a childhood friend, you would have no qualms about adding that person to your friend list.

If a total stranger starts following you, the first thing you would probably feel is flattery. But then you tend to wonder–are you being followed by a real person, or a bot, or someone who wants to spam you? Isn’t it better if a person messages you the reason he’s following you?

Message your friends when you follow them.

So here’s what I propose. When you follow someone, send him a message telling him a bit about yourself and why you’re following him/her–in 140 characters or less, of course. It’s nice. It helps you connect. And it gives you better chances of the connection being reciprocated.

Note: At this point, I realize you can’t DM people not following you, so I’ve edited the post to mean sending the person a @message instead of DM.

If you know someone already, you can probably say:

Hi, I’m Angelo. We used to be classmates back in kindergarten. Nice seeing you here.

Or if you’re following a stranger or someone you only know online:

Hi. I’m an avid reader of your blog and articles. Great to read your updates on Twitter, too!

And perhaps if you’re following a celeb:

I’m a big fan! Can I stalk you on Twitter?

I think I’ll start trying this on my next follow.

Image credit: Flickr

The New York Times has run a story on David Rohde, a journalist who was kidnapped by the Taliban in Afghanistan. From November of 2008 to June this year, the NY Times had scrambled to keep information of his kidnapping from being publicized, for fear that the kidnappers would use this to their advantage, and potentially endangering the life of Mr. Rohde.

Times executives believed that publicity would raise Mr. Rohde’s value to his captors as a bargaining chip and reduce his chance of survival. Persuading another publication or a broadcaster not to report the kidnapping usually meant just a phone call from one editor to another, said Bill Keller, executive editor of The Times.

But Wikipedia, which operates under the philosophy that anyone can be an editor, and that all information should be public, is a vastly different world.

The article stressed how difficult it was for Wikipedia’s staff to keep Mr. Rohde’s Wikipedia profile sanitized, due to persistence by several editors (in the case of Wikipedia, virtually anyone who knows how to edit an article on the site) in including information of his kidnapping. Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales, himself, intervened in this activity.

While I understand that the intent of the editors in adding the kidnap information to the Wikipedia profile is in keeping information freely available to everyone, I think people should consider the implications of such freedom of information if lives would be at stake.

So in this case, it’s either you keep the world informed or you keep one person alive. Sure, posting about a kidnapping on Wikipedia might not necessarily mean the death of the victim. But are you willing to risk it?

I don’t understand the persistence of the Wikipedia editors who kept trying to insert this piece of information into Mr. Rodhe’s profile. While they probably had no ill will, they may not also have realized that their actions could potentially lead to trouble–even death–on the part of the kidnapped journalist. Perhaps if the Wikipedia administrators could have explained why such information would be sensitive, the would-be-editors would have relented. But they claim they had no way of raising this point without creating a big public issue out of it.

If you ask me, I’d choose life over freedom of expression or information. Then, perhaps, when the person concerned is no longer in danger, that’s the time one can freely write about the situation. When you refer to David Rohde’s Wikipedia profile today, it already includes information on his kidnapping and escape.

This makes me realize–I should think and rethink before hitting that “publish” button on a blog post, tweet or just about any piece of online communication, private or public. Before you hit “send,” think about the effects and implications of what you are sending.

Image credit: Flickr

You’ve probably read it one time or another. They say print media has finally met its demise.

That movement is leading to a lot less revenue for printed media due to fewer sales in general and secondarily through loss of advertising because of the lower sales. It’s a pretty vicious cycle to be caught in, especially since the cost of publication doesn’t really scale down as the sales do, so they are spending the same (or more in some cases) and making a lot less. Sooner or later something is bound to snap, and that’s what we are seeing now.

I’m a digital type of person. My handwriting is so bad that I prefer to type notes rather than write them down. I lose both paper and .txt files all the same, anyway. And i don’t keep a pen-and-paper calendar. Paper organizers don’t have alarms, after all. I use my smartphone for that purpose. I read my news online. A lot of books I’ve read lately are e-books, either downloaded free or bought from Mobipocket.

But give me a glossy newsmagazine, and I’ll be in awe at the presentation of each article. I’d read it from cover to cover (usually starting from the back, because that’s where the fun stuff is). And even years after, I’ll still go back to old stuff I’ve read before.

Same with books. Yes, I’ve enjoyed reading ebooks, but there’s something about a hardbound or paperback that gives one a better reading experience. Perhaps it’s the tactile and olfactory aspects of it. Sure, paper can smell moldy and mildewy, and might breed dust mites if left uncared for. But that rough texture and the sometimes dusty scent can evoke memories. That’s something digital media cannot give you.

No. Print media is not dead. Perhaps print media as a business is a declining trade. It’s a sunset industry. But print media as tangible objects will always hold a special place in my heart, and perhaps in the heart of many other folks out there. It’s not dead, because it’s something we keep alive.

Read a book today. Better yet, touch a book. Smell a book. Feel a book. (Maybe you can throw a book at someone, too.) Talk to it. Hear it talk back to you. Yes, you’re probably crazy, it will tell you. That’s how you know it is still alive.

Image credit: Flickr

Some discussions I’ve chanced by ask whether it’s better to launch many niche sites, or just launch one or two flagship sites, and build up smaller sites around them?

Either way, I think it would take much effort and money to launch a lot of sites–at least if they’re launched at the same time. But at least with this setup, the more successful sites can take the slack of the non-performing ones. If you only have one site, then if it fails, you’ve invested 100% in a project that will not give you any RoI.

So perhaps one can build up one or a few sites that have good potential, and run a few smaller ones around it. Sound sensible?

I’m trying to find out!