Watching the recent events unfold across Egypt, I was struck by how social media was used in this revolution, specifically by Wael Ghonim, a Google executive.  This is not the first time social media was used to protest against a government – remember Iran’s Twitter protests in 2009 – but this is certainly the first time a regime has been toppled (though it is still too early to say much).  Just to recap, Ghonim created a Facebook page about Khaled Said, a young Egyptian who was killed for angering the country’s police by posting a video of them on YouTube.  This Facebook page attracted 500,000 followers, and Ghonim used this to focus attention on other misdoings of a corrupt government.  Ghonim was arrested and later released, and he became the spokesperson of the revolt.  Google also played a role here – when the Egyptian authorities cut off internet access in the country for 5 days, Google created Speak2Tweet, allowing Egyptians to leave voice messages that were later posted on Twitter (should a company play an active role in a revolution like Google did? But that is a subject for another post )

Authoritarian regimes that have controlled traditional media to control their citizens are finding social media a completely different ball game.  Social media is a ‘revolutionary’ game changer here!

Popularity: 8% [?]

There has been  an interesting controversy brewing since last weekend, when the  WSJ published an article by Yale professor Amy Chua, who professed that Asian parenting was better than the Western way, in “Why Chinese Mothers Are Superior.”   I found the article amusing, and it hit close to home sometimes (as an Asian, I’m sure I have unconsciously bought into the stereotype).  Of course, there is no one superior method of parenting, and all of us who are muddling through parenting as best as we can, know that the best way is that which works best for you and your child.  And again, the best way is usually the middle way, balanced between two extremes.

Do read the article at the first link below, as well as the rebuttal by a Western mother at the second link:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704111504576059713528698754.html

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703333504576080422577800488.html

Popularity: 8% [?]

I was recently reading about how, with the increasing digitization, budget-cuts and consequent need for innovation, libraries too are changing from the traditional book-filled institutions to a ‘drive-in, express’ book borrowing outlet.  For example, in a suburb of St Paul, Mn,  “the new library branch has no librarians, no card catalogue and no comfortable chairs in which to curl up and read. Instead, the Library Express is a stack of metal lockers outside city hall. When patrons want a book or DVD, they order it online and pick it up from a digitally locked, glove-compartment- sized cubby a few days later. It’s a library as conceived by the Amazon.com generation.”

As with all innovation, there are mixed feelings about this new trend.  On one hand, if this makes it easier for the younger generation to get into/keep up the reading habit, then so be it.  At the same time, I think they are missing out on the benefits of a physical structure filled with books and with fellow readers, with meeting of minds with similar tastes in books and with a love of reading.  But that’s the bibliophile in me talking!  A fellow-spirit, James Lund (a library director), has said, “The basis of the vending machine is to reduce the library to a public-book locker. Our real mission is public education and public education can’t be done from a vending machine. It takes educators, it takes people, it takes interaction.”

Hopefully, the older physical libraries will co-exist with the newer ‘vending’ libraries, catering to the needs of all kinds of readers.  What do you think?

Read more at: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304354104575568592236241242.html

Popularity: 8% [?]

I’ve been following the Chile Mine rescue efforts ever since the 33 miners were discovered alive nearly two months ago.  This human interest story has all the requisite qualities to stay in the headlines all this time – the dramatic discovery of the miners, the struggles to rescue them,  and the constant intertwining of high technology and cutting edge engineering with good old human values of hope, faith and comradeship.  Thankfully this story ended well, with no tragedies to mar it.

It is interesting that Oakley (the company that donated the dark glasses to the miners to help prevent retinal damage) was able to use this incident as a marketing tool.   CNBC’s Darren Rovell writes that “In worldwide television impact alone, Oakley garnered $41 million in equivalent advertising time, according to research done for CNBC from Front Row Analytics, a sponsorship evaluation firm.” Quite a return on their investment of a few dozen pairs of sunglasses!

Popularity: 7% [?]

I recently read an article about how auctions are also tapping into social media. No, not in terms of using social media to find bidders, but for something I thought was very interesting – the prize that is being bid for is a Tweet. “This is a new twist on an old formula – well-known people agreeing to meet fans in return for cash contribution to charity. This time all the celebrities need to do is to tap out a 140-word message, or get someone to do it for them.” More than 150 celebrities have joined the auction – like Cher, the Jonas Brothers, Demi Moore. And since the most popular stars do not necessarily have the largest number of followers, it is a kind of twist on star power – do you follow the most popular start or the star with the most followers? Bids range from a few hundred dollars to a few thousand; a retweet from Alicia Keys was for $113, and MC Hammer at $47.

The auction, started by an Atlanta church, has already raised $215,000. It will be interesting to see if this is just a flash in the pan, or the the beginning or a new trend…. But I love the way the new world of social media has intertwined with the old world of charity auctions, don’t you?

Popularity: 5% [?]

It is a pity that we had such a wonderful opportunity to showcase brand India through the 2010 CWG, and we have practically thrown it away. This would have been the perfect way to display the new and emerging India, a match to China’s grand display two years ago at the Bejing Olympics 2008. Shameful!

Popularity: 7% [?]