Esquire Theme by Matthew Buchanan
Social icons by Tim van Damme



It’s Hard Leaving a Place You Love

I have been working at Digitas since August 22, 2005.  That date is burned in my mind.

And I’m not alone.  Many people at Digitas know their start date.  We walk around with it projected over our heads like we’re in a cholesterol commercial.

Your anniversary is something to celebrate - often more than birthdays.  It marks the day you began working towards something great - alongside so many bright and talented people.  It’s the date you officially started drinking the Kool-Aid.

Still, even after 8 years, everything can just be distilled down to the basics.

Therefore, I offer two lists to sum up my feelings about this extraordinary company.



List #1: “Things I will miss about Digitas”

The brand

Our incredible clients

- The Social, Mobile & Content teams – changing the industry one day at a time

The passion and drive that is inside all of us

The spirit of invention we work so hard to build and maintain

The 2014 NewFront (planning starts…NOW!)

- The Corporate Communications team – the best in the industry

- Kalustyan’s and Lamazou

- Izzy

The 4th floor lobby in NYC (Is it just me? It’s like a spa in there.)




List #2: “Things I won’t miss about Digitas”

- Lotus Notes


(List #2 is pretty short)

For me, my experience at Digitas all comes down to the people.  The talented, driven, passionate, caring, fair, empathetic, fun-loving, insightful, risk-taking, forward-thinking people.  They are the best I have worked with to-date in my career and I’m so grateful to have had the opportunity.

It’s hard leaving a place you love.



#Sandy May Be The Moment When Social Grew Up

Social networking has had a number of inflection points in its short history – markers in time where so many people have discovered the value of their networks and the platforms on which they are built and maintained.  The list includes the 2008 Presidential election, the evening we learned of the killing of Osama Bin Laden and, although less critically, almost every award show on television over the last two-to-three years.


History may show, however, that the period tied to Hurricane Sandy may be one of the biggest events thus far for shaping how we think, feel and use social networks.  If this proves to be true, it will be because so many of us were engaged in social, so frequently, for such a concentrated period of time, regarding a matter that meant so much.  #Sandy may be the moment when Social grew up.


We used social networks for so many reasons during that week.  For clarity, it might be helpful to inventory them in one place – this blog post.

#1: Second Screen Discovery Engine

For those of us who had electricity during the storm, social networks made for an excellent compliment to television.  While our broadcast networks of choice were deploying their full force of 5-10 correspondents and camera crews, the information we derived from social media reached far further.  If you had 200 Facebook friends living in affected areas, you essentially had 200 reporters one the scene.  While they may not be trained journalists, they were certainly expert eyewitnesses.  And, the scope of communication was not even limited to the size of our own friend-base – it extended to their friends and beyond.  Reports came flying in from all over reach of the storm: the river is crossing over Greenwich Street, there’s 3 feet of water in my building on 23rd Street, we just lost power on the Lower East Side.

#2: Replacement for Traditional Media

The pictures, videos and stories we were getting directly from those experiencing the storm were more personal and immediate than anything we were receiving through traditional channels.  In many ways, what was the purpose of a traditional news outlet that essentially just acted like a filter for the real thing?  Further, when cable and Internet went out, those channels were useless.  But, if one could conserve enough phone juice (or find a place to plug in), social networks were the best source for news and information.

#3: Search Tool

Twitter was an especially good resource during the storm due to the searchable nature of the platform.  In the early going, queries for #Sandy revealed updates on the storm’s path and allowed us to commiserate with others around our nerves and anxieties.  At the height of the storm, concerned people were searching for information on specific neighborhoods to get eyewitness accounts from #Breezypoint or #Avalon.  In the days since, we have been able to get through the short term fuel shortage by searching for those tweeting about open gas stations with hastags such as #NJgas and #LIhasgas.  I benefitted from the reach of Twitter by finding a gas station open at 10PM Saturday night that was only 5 miles away with a relatively short 15 car wait – no small feat.  Google offered a number of tools that helped as well including a Crisis Map that relied on citizen crowd sourcing.

#4: Primary Form of Communication

Forget just being a source of news and information, when the power did go out for millions of people, social networks replaced e-mail and battery-draining phone calls as a primary form of communication.  Without landlines and Internet connections, people across the region turned to their smartphones.  Social networks became one of the ways in which we connected with others to share that our offices were closed or tell friends that could use a place to sleep.  For many, this became their main connection to the world.

#5: Call To Action

Finally, social networks became a place where critical causes were given a voice.  On Friday, the drum was beating loudly for the annual New York City marathon to be cancelled.  Mayor Bloomberg wanted to keep the event as a milestone towards recovery, but louder voices emerged from people feeling the marathon was an insensitive drain on resources that could be better spent elsewhere.  Those points-of-view were expressed throughout the day on Facebook and Twitter.  The Mayor’s office must have been listening to the dialogue because the event was called-off at about 5PM, a little more than 36-hours before the start of the race.


Of course, some of those same voices have also used social platforms to alert friends and followers to volunteer efforts going on across the region.  So many people have connected to victims we have never met through their personal stories, attached to appeals for help, and communicated through intermediaries – the people within our own social networks.



The adage you learn better by doing applies to the experiences of millions of people who experienced Hurricane Sandy.  The week we spent with the both storm and our social networks have taught many – and deepened the affinity of others – of the virtues of these channels.


There are so many ways to get involved with time or resources. Please give what you can to your causes of choice.  I could not end a blog post about how social networks have helped us through this storm without offering just one more pathway for people to take action.  Here is one that deserves our attention:






Social Networks Bring Us Together, But Also Keep Us Apart

From my post that appeared this morning in the industry blog “The Makegood”

For all that we love about social networks, there is a glaring problem we must address: the very platforms that bring us together, also keep us apart.


Before we experienced a total proliferation of media choices – before cable television, specialized websites and Google news feeds gave way to social networking streams – we were compelled to consume information meant for the masses.

In the 1960s and 70s, Americans learned about important news from sources like Walter Cronkite on CBS.  In the 1980s, we tuned-in for nightly sports scores on SportsCenter.  Even our political pundits – those who shared their opinions with a following well before we all did – delivered their product in broad forums such as Meet The Press or Crossfire.

Back then: the various networks and news outlets scheduled the programs and chose the stories & guests.  Today: we do that job for ourselves.  We are each our own network executive that green light what we see.

Due in large part to our use of social channels, we can now choose the particular outlets we want to see in our feeds each day.  If someone cares deeply about college football, alternative energy or Justin Bieber, their Twitter feed can deliver dozens of different sources on each of those subjects – and potentially, just on those subjects.

Net-net: We can each create incredibly targeted and customized feeds depending on our tastes and interests.


As we pick and choose the various sources of information we care most about, those sources deliver a stream of information that fits into our narrative of choice.  While that can be good, it also has downside implications for which we should be aware – especially now in the middle of an important political season.

Here is an example.  I have a Facebook friend who is a gun owner.  I detest guns.  In fact, I post about this point-of-view whenever our country experiences another high-profile shooting.  This friend often times replies to my posts with a rebuttal of his own (something to the effect of: guns don’t kill people, people kill people).  It riles me when he does this – to the point that I have considered unfriending him.  I typically think to myself: What right does he have to populate my news feed with his ignorance?

I am not alone.  We are increasingly removing voices that make us uncomfortable.  According to a recent study, the single biggest reason that people unfriend one another on Facebook is due to comments that the unfriender finds polarizing – the study suggests that quite often these polarizing comments are political in nature.

We tend to subscribe to (and maintain) sources of information that reaffirm our thinking rather than challenge our beliefs.  We follow streams on: Facebook to hear stories that keep us current with the friends we already have; on Twitter to provide us with information we use as currency with our colleagues; on LinkedIn to anchor us to our chosen careers; on Pinterest to see images that appeal to us; on Tumblr to be impressed by articulations of topics for which we care.

While it is human nature to gravitate towards people who share common interests and values, we have never before received so much of our information – including hard core news – from these very sources.  It is becoming more difficult to be persuaded by outside influence.  We setup a world that we care about and, at times, shut the rest of it out.


My first job out of college was at a political consulting firm.  I remember learning a rule-of-thumb early on in campaigns: 40% of the electorate will definitely vote for your candidate and 40% will never vote for your candidate – it is the 20% in the middle that you must persuade.  Based on polls during the last two Presidential election cycles, there is good reason to believe that today this rule should probably be expressed as 45/45/10.  Or worse.

Consuming greater portions of our content diet on social networks is certainly driving part of this polarization.  We filter in that which provides us with the short-term stimulus we need to make us feel validated and arm us with the social currency to share amongst our friends and followers.  We filter out everything that makes us think harder than we may want to, lest it not fit into the memes that we have set for ourselves.

As we consider how we gather information in an election year, we should be mindful of how exposed we are to the content that may persuade us.  We should – in theory, anyway – be responsible for listening to all sides before we make our judgment.

Social networks mirror democracy itself.  It is a very American ideal to choose what we consume and how we consume it.  Yet like our own democracy, we must test ourselves regularly to ensure we are doing it correctly.



My Facebook Friends Are 72% Less Interested In Me. Here’s Why.

Something is different about Facebook recently.  My friends have been communicating with less frequency.  Specifically, when I post: fewer and fewer people have been responding.

I decided to put this feeling to the test by looking at the activity related to all of my posts since the beginning of 2012.  I counted the number of likes and comments each post received and then rolled the numbers up to look at them by month.  The following chart shows my findings: monthly “likes per post” and “comments per post.”

The trend line is obviously pointed down.  On a very steep slope.  Likes/post are down 72% since the beginning of the year.  Comments/post are down 88%.

This isn’t a fluke.  I average roughly 20 post each month.  While that might not make me the most frequent poster amongst my friends (or anyone’s group of friends), it’s certainly enough frequency to remove statistical inconsistency.

This isn’t about ego.  I have often pledged my appreciation that social networks are a place for healthy back-and-forth.  A good conversation is one where there is true dialogue.  Dialogue is affirming.  Monologue, less so.  If we are to invest time and energy into our communities, we would prefer for there to be true and active participation.

There are a few possible reasons why likes and comments to my posts are down.

#1.  I’VE BECOME LESS INTERESTING.  I’ll admit it’s totally possible.  But, as I looked at the content of the posts, it was hard to make the argument that much has changed month-to-month.

#2.  FACEBOOK FATIGUE.  Maybe fewer of my friends are spending time on Facebook? Or at least commenting actively?  According to Compete, usership has remained flat since the beginning of the year (168.6 million users in January to 169.9 million users in March).  While this doesn’t account for mobile usership or indicate time spent commenting, it might render this reason somewhat benign.  Many of my friends have said that they are using Facebook less, but the sheer volume of usage suggests that this isn’t necessarily true.

#3.  FACEBOOK’S ALGORITHM.  (SPOILER ALERT: I’m placing my chips on this one.)  Last September, Facebook changed the way we see content in our news feed.  It was around that time that we stopped seeing our friends’ posts strictly in chronological order and we began seeing them based on calculations made by EdgeRank, Facebook’s proprietary content management tool.  EdgeRank surfaces posts based on our connection to the posters.  The more we are connected to a friend through likes and comments, the more we see their posts.  Our other friends?  We barely connect anymore.

By Facebook’s own admission, we now see only 12-16% of the posts made by our friends.  If we take this at face-value, it means that each one of my posts aren’t being seen by roughly 84% of my intended audience.  With my likes down 72% and my comments down 88%, this certainly seems to be the case.

Why has Facebook made these changes?  Revenue.  Facebook will likely be valued at around $100 billion at the end of trading on day one of their upcoming IPO.  The company needs to generate massive amounts of revenue in order to substantiate that valuation.

The EdgeRank algorithm makes it easier for Facebook to drive revenue.  They can now artificially determine the percentage of posts that we see - whether that content is from a person or a brand.  So, how can you ensure that your posts are seen by more of your friends?  Facebook has a solve for that.  They introduced a new ad product called Reach Generator at their fMC event on February 29th.  This product is geared to help companies reach the 84% of people following their brands that used to be reached at no cost before EdgeRank entered the picture.

Brands now have to pay to reach their own audiences on Facebook.  This is a matter of influence: earned influence before these announcements and paid influence now.

All of this brings me back to my group of Facebook friends.  I am not an advertiser and will not be paying money to reach the 84% that no longer see my posts on a regular basis.  Far from being a business, I see my Facebook experience as one where I participate in conversation with my social network.  But, due to the changes at Facebook, my network has become far less social.  As the trend line continues downward, I will consider using other social channels more frequently to connect with my friends and colleagues.

While Facebook has made these changes in the interest of generating revenue from the 1 million companies that advertise on the platform, they may quickly need to reconsider the effect that those changes are having on the 850 million people that those companies are trying to reach.  Because if the people use the platform less, the advertiser dollars will follow them elsewhere.