New York City sidewalks are crowded enough, but lately they seem even more cramped. No matter how fast you walk, it’s hard not to notice the assorted pieces of furniture that line the edge of the road. Mattresses, couches, tables and chests — visitors to the city might wonder whether these are just remnants of the moving process or free furniture up for grabs. But to those who live here, these discarded possessions only mean one thing: bed bugs.

Able to travel in clothes and luggage as well as multiply from 2 to 120 in just three days, bed bugs are terrible nuisances that are becoming an increasingly larger threat to companies. Not only is New York City now the most-infested city in America (with 11,000 complaints last year!), but it seems that nobody is safe from these creepy-crawlies. The AMC theater in Times Square, a Hollister store, an Abercrombie & Fitch store, a Victoria’s Secret store, Elle magazine’s offices, Time Warner’s offices, Saatchi & Saatchi’s office, the Empire State Building and even, ironically, the New York Health Department have all suffered from an infestation. In fact, Advertising Age reported that if you are a business in New York City, it is almost next to impossible to avoid one.

“I don’t go to the movies anymore, I’m not sitting in those seats, and don’t sit on wooden benches,” said Gale A. Brewer, a member of the City Council, to The New York Times. Brewer even crosses the street when confronted with discarded furniture on the sidewalk.

Along with the pesky business of getting rid of bed bugs, companies are also wary of the strong stigma attached to those infested. As would be expected, many try to avoid making the news at all, opting instead to settle the matter quietly.

Eric Edge, global chief communications officer at the once-infested, now-treated Euro RSCG, recommends that bed bug-ridden companies fess up to the fact quickly. “In today’s age of social media, if you try to cover anything up, or spin or sugarcoat the situation, the public is going to see through it,” he said. He adds that these reactive PR efforts should be coupled with educational information to demonstrate that a business addressing the topic is knowleable about it.

 ”There’s a stigma, but there shouldn’t be,” said Glenn Waldorf, director of Bell Environmental Services, Inc. “It happens everywhere. The stigma should come from companies that do not take proactive action to deal with a situation.”

One of the companies that has publicly taken steps to avoid bed bugs is Bergdorf Goodman, who hired insect-sniffing dogs to investigate their still-uninfected stores, but this strategy has not been adopted by all. “It’s difficult for companies to be proactive because you don’t know when a bug will be carried in,” said Jeffrey White, a research entomologist at BedBugCentral.com. ”It’s really not feasible to be treating an entire movie theater every two weeks.”

Yet, with a bill that has passed the Legislature requiring “owners or lessors to provide bedbug infestation history for the previous year to any lessee of real property within New York city before the lease of such property,” I wonder: should businesses also be legally required to provide this information to its customers, or is “coming clean” just considered a “crisis comms plan” to be done only when absolutely necessary? Now that news has the potential to spread faster than ever before thanks to the Internet, is the collective intelligence (and criticism) of the public making businesses more transparant or less so?

As far as I know, 10 years ago, when there weren’t any social media shenanigans happening, it was bad enough that a boyfriend or a girlfriend had asked friends of their lovers where their lovers were. Stalk-ish? Yes. Romantic? Not really.

10 years later, with Facebook, Twitter, Foursquare, blogs, and a lot more, it has become a very easy access for people to get information about other people whom they want to get to know… personally. Nowadays, it’s “normal” to get info about someone online, which brings me to question: What drives people to advertise themselves in the virtual world?

Look at me! I’m fabulous!

A decade ago, I was living a disconnected life from the wide-webbed-world. To attract attention, one had to be superbly stunning and one-of-a-kind-looking just like Hollywood Stars (and Hollywood Falling Stars). But what about the “regular” people? How can they get the same self-esteem booster for a much lower price and less work? There must be a way.

Minus the overly-priced make-up products and taking the time learning how to wink, there is only one thing someone needs in order to garner the attention of the world: the internet. With all types of social media platforms that we have today, it only takes one click to let the whole world knows what we look like, what our interests are, what we are doing, and where we are. And the best part is, most of these social media platforms are FREE! 

How much is too much?

Free food tastes way better than paid food, well, at least for me, because of the satisfying indulgence of not paying for something that elevates the pleasure of my palate (and grumbling stomach). In the same vein, free subscriptions of social media induce people to sign-up and, viola! they are now included to the list of socialite wannabes. The question, how much is too much, pertains to how much information one wants the world to know. Does the world need to know what you had for lunch and what you think I should have for lunch? Does this generation really have ADD, Attention Demanding Disorder?

Jeepers Creepers

So we’re all famous in our own ways, in our own little virtual social groups and the number of fans is just increasing incredibly. Virtual “fame” has been achieved, so now what? Chances are, this fame has become Hollywood’s upcoming hit movie: He’s Just Really Into You. From a Facebook profile to a blog-site, it’s very easy to stalk someone without being physically present, but visibly online, 24/7. Personally, there is nothing bad about publishing one’s self online. It’s fun and it is becoming a part of contemporary American culture. However, just remember when you tweet more than a bird, don’t be surprised if you find yourself covered with cranberry sauce for someone’s dinner.

All in all, it’s not bad to be a part of this social media generation. Just be careful on what you put out there. Also, be mindful on the type of social media platform you use. If you don’t want people to know exactly where you are, then do not use FourSquare. If you don’t want people to know what’s on your mind, don’t tweet about it. If you don’t want people to know what you look like, use a doppelganger.

Now, let me get out of here as I have to go to the city hall and file a restraining order.

Every so often, somebody does something that resonates with the public and inspires the masses. Yesterday, that person was Steve Slater, a 38-year-old JetBlue flight attendant.

It all started when a particularly uncooperative passenger gave Slater sass, refusing to sit down when he asked her to. Determined to reach her things from the storage compartment above the seat, she then hit Slater in the head with her luggage (accidentally, it seems) as he tried to intervene.

And after 20 years of service, Slater had had it.

Going over the in-flight PA system, he cussed out the passenger and then grabbed two beers before sliding his way down the exit chute, out of the plane and away from his high-stress job. Though potentially endangering those around him, his actions are representative of what several of those working in customer service probably have at least at one point in their lives wished they too could do.

Who knows how many other people quit their jobs in style yesterday, but let’s just say that between the Facebook pages and wide coverage of the event, something about Slater struck a cord with people. And in the midst of all this news flurry, one organization for a long time stayed noticeably silent: JetBlue.

As an Advertising Age article published yesterday specifically highlighted, JetBlue has been slow in updating its Facebook and Twitter accounts. Even as of noon today, its Facebook wall still had no trace of the Slater incident. The same was true for its Twitter.

Then, this afternoon a link was finally posted on both these social media sites to a blog post: “Sometimes the Weird News Is About Us.” And interestingly, it was a post about… staying quiet. In a surprisingly short note, Jet Blue writes:

It wouldn’t be fair for us to point out absurdities in other corners of the industry without acknowledging when it’s about us. Well, this week’s news certainly falls into that category. Perhaps you heard a little story about one of our flight attendants? While we can’t discuss the details of what is an ongoing investigation, plenty of others have already formed opinions on the matter. Like, the entire Internet. (The reason we’re not commenting is that we respect the privacy of the individual. People can speak on their own behalf; we won’t do it for them.)

While this episode may feed your inner Office Space, we just want to take this space to recognize our 2,100 fantastic, awesome and professional Inflight Crewmembers for delivering the JetBlue Experience you’ve come to expect of us.

Simple, clear, and professional, the post focuses on highlighting the positives of their other flight attendants and, by keeping mum, inadvertently acknowledges the sticky situation that JetBlue is in. While many find Slater’s actions funny, the blog post demonstrates how taking the situation too lightly as a corporation could make things complicated legally and potentially even reduce trust in their in-flight personnel. Furthermore, it is consistent with an official statement released to the press, which said the airline company was working with both the Federal Aviation Administration and the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey in investigating the situation. This previous statement also made to sure to include how “at no time was the security or safety of our customers or crew members at risk.”

“Usually when a flight attendant gets called out it’s for something they have done wrong that pissed off passengers,” said Jonathan Bellinger, the vice president of social media strategy at Ketchum, in AdAge. “But when an attendant does something where passengers say they wish they would do the same thing at their own job, that’s great. It’s a net positive story for the brand.”

So what took so long for JetBlue to respond on the social media front if all they had to do was repeat what they had already told traditional media outlets?

For the most part, this seems less like neglect than underestimating the importance of their social media reach. It’s been “about an hour” since the link to the blog was posted on JetBlue’s Facebook site and already there are 139 comments–and with 301,305 Facebook fans of the page itself, that isn’t a surprise. Marty St. George, the head of JetBlue marketing, alone has 1,958 followers for his personal Twitter, while JetBlue’s corporate handle has 1,595,120. Staying consistent in a message means updating all channels of communication, including social media, and especially social media if you are, as St. George described it, “a brand with a customer base that skews young and affluent; they are on social media, and we want to be where our customers are.”

Inspired by my experience last night on the launching event of Alikewise.com (an online dating website that matches people by the books that they read), I couldn’t help but wonder how convenient it is, nowadays, to find a date… anywhere! Has pop-culture made online dating too pop? I decided to “experiment” and go undercover to find out what it is about online dating that attracts millions of people worldwide.

Dating on the Fast Track

During the event, I got on the “Speed Dating Couch,” where I got to sit and talk to random people, telling them things about myself: what I like, what I do, and some “blahs.” Suddenly, I realized that within the span of ten years, looking for someone to date has actually become way too easy.

Cupid Goes Online!

Ten years ago, probably even more, people were buzzing about blind-dates, how intriguing it was, how fun it was, and how terrible it was. Then came speed-dating events at local bars and hotels, which was shortly followed by online dating. When people started creating MySpace profiles, they didn’t know if it were “a place for friends,” or an innovative start-up dating website. Soon after, online-dating websites such as match.com, eharmony.com, chemistry.com, and many more started popping on every corner of the world-wide-web.

Later that night, the founder of Alikewise.com was persuading me to have an online account with them, not only to up the number of members, but for me to also, “get someone to date!” he says.

Doing the (Dating) Math

I pondered my concerns on online-dating. For one, there are risks involved in meeting someone online, but I was also curious about how rapidly the population of people turning to the internet to find someone to go out with was growing. Study shows that “In the first half of 2003, consumers spent over $214 million for online-dating services. This number is 76% higher than the same time last year.” And this was back in 2003! Imagine how much people have already spent, both time and money, on dating websites seven years later. Online-dating websites have become multi-million dollar businesses that attract all types of people all over the world. And, since online-dating has become the new “it” thing, different online-dating websites are now even more tailored to cater to specific interests or preferences: Alikewise.com for book lovers, Tastebuds.com for music lovers, Christiansingles.com for, well, Christians, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera.

There’s an App for that!

With the influx of online dating sites, people can actually vent and share not-so-stellar experiences—as seen on BadOnlineDates.com. With this, I guess it is most definitely true that “There’s an app for that!”

Interestingly, there’s an app for online-mobile dating too! StreetSpark is considerably the FourSquare of online-dating. This is a mobile app that lets one find people nearby who share the same interests and are compatible with his or her external social networking behavior.

Here’s how it works:

I guess it has become too tiring for some to browse through thousands of profiles online and have decided to take it on the go.

I’m sure most of you have seen Lady GaGa’s Telephone video. You’ll notice that one of the key advertising companies includes PlentyOfFish.com This is, yet, another dating website now being included in a music video! Lady GaGa=Pop-Culture, hence, Pop-Culture=Online-Dating.

All’s Well that Ends Not So Well

With online-dating, comes real-world counterparts and consequences. Have you ever heard of online-break-up? Yes, apparently, this has become as convenient and mainstream as looking for someone online. Read and absorb, my dear friends: “Almost 25% of respondents found out their own relationship was over by seeing it on Facebook first.” And I thought Carrie Bradshaw’s Post-It break-up was bad! In some cases, Mark Zuckerberg finds out first that someone’s been dumped even before the who got dumped finds out.

Granted that through online-dating, people can find others instantaneously for prospective relationships. There’s a 50% chance that online-dating will turn out bad and the other half will turn out good. But, after all, doesn’t this system work the same way as meeting someone at a bar and then meet-up for a first date? Bottom line is, online-dating is worth giving a shot. It’s available for everybody, but it’s not really for everybody.

Now, excuse me while I fill out this form. Hrmmmm. About Me…

The most recent example is the tragic case of Phoebe Prince, a 15-year-old high school freshman from South Hadley, Massachusetts, who committed suicide in January after months of verbal and physical abuse from a group of schoolmates.  An attractive “new girl” who had recently moved with her mother and sister from Ireland, Phoebe is said to have aroused the ire of other students by briefly dating a popular senior football player, thus presumably stepping out of her prescribed social position.  Some of the bullying took classic forms: Phoebe’s classmates shunned her, called her names, and, during the last hours of her life, threw a Red Bull can at her from the window of a moving car.  Other forms of abuse took a more modern twist: Phoebe was allegedly subjected to expletive-laden text and Facebook messages insulting her and threatening her with physical harm on a several-times-daily basis.

Phoebe Prince

Are tragedies like Phoebe’s unavoidable byproducts of a culture in which all of us have unbridled access to one another via digital media 24-hours a day?  Is this just what happens when the universally cutthroat, high-drama, hormone-addled high school social scene stays open on Facebook and Twitter and MySpace long after the school doors have been locked for the night or the weekend?  And who, when the administrators of social networks do everything they can to maintain the privacy of their users, is responsible for monitoring the digital hallways in which Phoebe took so much abuse?

This case may turn out to set an important precedent with respect to future anti-bullying legislation, both online and otherwise.  On Monday, nine South Hadley High School students (two boys and seven girls, ages 16 to 18), were officially charged with a package of accusations, ranging from statutory rape to disrupting a school assembly, in connection to the death of Phoebe Prince.  School administrators, who were reportedly aware of severe bullying in the school and had some knowledge of Phoebe’s situation, have not been criminally charged.  This suggests that this early example may lead future cyberbullying cases to be considered lapses in personal responsibility, rather than lapses in adult oversight.

Obviously, instilling principles of kindness and humanity in young people should be our society’s first priority, and this should be the front line in the fight against bullying.  But should it be the totality of this fight?  What protections, if any, should be put in place to prevent abuse of the privilege of un-moderated, non-stop communication that social media offers us?

What do you think?

Now, it’s to be assumed that there would be those who would consider this comment rude and post retaliatory remarks on the page, but what really caused the outrage were the responses posted back by Nestlé.

Nestlé @Paul Griffin – that’s a new understanding of intellectual property rights. We’ll muse on that. You can have what you like as your profile picture. But if it’s an altered version of any of our logos, we’ll remove it [from] this page.

Nestlé Thanks for the lesson in manners. Consider  yourself embraced. But it’s our page, we set the  rules, it was ever thus.

Nestlé Oh please .. it’s like we’re censoring  everything to allow only positive comments.

Finally culminating in my personal favorite:

Nestlé This (deleting logos) was one in a series of mistakes for which I would like to apologise. And for being rude. We’ve stopped deleting posts, and I have stopped being rude.

Undoubtedly, most of the articles you’ve read have probably been negative towards Nestlé, scolding them for conducting bad PR and telling them that they’ve missed the point of social media. But I disagree.

I think most of the people wagging their fingers at Nestlé have forgotten what social media is all about. In the beginning, social media was a tool to connect and interact with your friends virtually, all the while, being yourself. Granted, the entrance of corporations and businesses into the social media space has changed a few rules, but they must remember why they chose to market on this platform in the first place. If it was merely to create a brand presence, then this isn’t relevant, but if it was to interact with their audience and create a dialogue that would make them relevant and current, then they’ve lost sight of their goal. As a consumer, I have no desire to be redirected to other sites, and if I wanted to read PR, I would find a press release. I seek out authentic discussion with the face of my brand as I’m sure most other consumers do or they may have not chosen Nestlé’s Facebook wall to launch a protest. With all that being said, I realize the importance of brand equity, and I do strongly agree that the person sitting behind your Facebook fan page should be the ideal representation of your company and brand. Maybe Nestlé didn’t chose that ideal person. Even if they did, social media is risky because people make mistakes, but if it will eliminate reading canned messages and mindless PR, I can be very forgiving.

The object of participation is to have a face-to-face interaction with a totally random stranger from somewhere around the world via webcam. Strangers can chat by typing into a large, IM style box which displays the usernames “you” and “stranger.” The “next” button offers a safe-haven of constant forward momentum. Either user can click on to the next random stranger at any time; simultaneously giving everyone involved the freedom to act however they want and the power to never become irritated or bored. (Yes, you will be nexted. Yes, it hurts sometimes.) Chatroulette has no login, thus you are not held hostage to any sort of accountability for your actions. No accountability + the thought of being “nexted”= internet pandemonium. People are compelled to be as entertaining as possible, which includes dancing, costumes, stupid human tricks, offering mystic readings, engaging in a game, or just being naked.
We spend so much time organizing the internet, keeping all of our social platforms neat and tidy with the right information, the right people, and the ability to view and take part of almost every interaction. Participating in Chatroulette means surrendering any hope of precision. On the one hand, Chatroulette is like a slightly addictive and sometimes unnerving sociological jungle; on the other hand, each interaction is like having a major part in a surreptitious happening. The experience as of now is often peppered with unwarned close-ups of the male anatomy, which begs the question: Will Chatroulette ever become organized, or would organization kill the attraction?
I think as long as there is no login, a.k.a. no accountability, Chatroulette can become structured into categories without losing its allure or integrity. Even if only two categories were created: “Nudity” and “Not Nudity,” user-ship would broaden as those too timid to risk glimpsing hairy-man-horrors would have no fear. However, think of the possibility of entering a Chatroulette channel based on things you like. Categories could be broad: Biology, Literature, Photography, Australia; specific: Canadian Haiku Lovers, LGBT Hockey Players, People Interested in Aldous Huxley, or anywhere in between. Interaction time and actual conversation would certainly increase, as the current average interaction lasts about 3 seconds, but is the incentive for Chatroulette real conversation, or is it that you have no idea what you are going to get?

While the U.S. and U.N. sputtered to acquire resources for quake relief efforts, companies born out of Web 2.0 or took advantage of social media were able to galvanize support and collect donations in break-neck pace. The Red Cross has already raised $5 million for earthquake relief through $10 donations via simple text messaging, and Google has contributed a $1 million donation of its own.

Other Internet big-names have seized on the crisis and have updated their services to go towards helping the cause. For instance, Zynga has raised $1.2 million using virtual goods in its games like Farmville, while Skype has sent $2 vouchers to customers in Haiti, allowing them to call their loved ones in the U.S.

Facebook, Google, and other tech giants are showing us they can create and galvanize global communities, take advantage of simplified distribution channels to acquire large amounts of money, and spark global discourse all for an issue, cause, or charity.

What these social media giants have seized upon is the concept “Good Social,” flexing social media capability for ethical and philanthropic efforts, but more importantly (yes, they are businesses after all) brandish their social media might on a global scale.

By helping out, social networks ultimately help themselves by portraying themselves as thought leaders in global community discourse, and all things social. Or so says my marketing background.

Of course, those familiar with China’s policies of restricting unapproved information and communication will not be surprised. Just two weeks ago, the central government had already banned access to most Google services, including Gmail, Google Apps, and Google Talk, claiming Google’s search engine spread “vulgar” content.

The people of Iran face a similar struggle. After Ahmadinejad’s much contested victory, riots broke out across town centers and suburbs. The Iranian government responded pretty much the same way as their Chinese counterparts did. Authorities blocked foreign websites, dissidents’ blogs, Twitter, and Facebook or anywhere criticisms of Iran’s political leaders may arise.

The situation on the use of social media is much different here in the U.S.; we have access to all social media tools, like Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn. We can freely contribute content on websites and blogs. We can search for information that may be critical of our government, institutions, and ourselves. We can socialize and connect with whoever we want, whenever we want.

However, that same “whatever we want, whenever we want” mentality seems to diminish the importance of social media. Our free access to all things digital has turned us into modern-day Caligulas. On a whim, we can see babies and cats dancing on YouTube, or read up on celebrity non-news. We participate in the most narcissistic of activities like “25 things you didn’t know about me” letter on Facebook, not to mention MySpace is a personal shrine dedicated to ourselves.

Do we deserve social media when our intent of use seems much less noble than our Iranian and Chinese counterparts? Do we deserve Twitter when we tweet about that state of our clothes, as opposed to the state of a nation? Is social media a right or a privilege?