Fantastic Internship Opportunity: Inquisix Seeks Amazing Interns.

 

(Goofy shirt not required)

Inquisix is looking for a few good great interns.  

Do you blog? Love business, marketing and PR? Fascinated by Social Media and can succinctly express yourself in 140 characters or less?

Inquisix is a up & coming business referral network start-up looking for some marketing and sales interns. This is an unpaid internship.

At Inquisix, we all wear a lot of hats. This is a fantastic opportunity for the right person. No coffee-making, no errands, no copying. You’ll be thrown right into the fray, get hands-on experience and will have genuine work-product to show for your efforts. Areas you may work on: strategy, blogging, tweeting, member relations, sales presentations/materials, and media outreach.

We want enthusiastic, creative entrepreneurial problem solvers who happen to be persuasive writers and speakers. Our interns will work remotely, so while we’re based in Boston, you needn’t be (though we prefer it)– you do need to be self-directed and be able to work independently, have a computer with dedicated Internet access and can consistently devote at least 10-15 hours a week to us. 

Above all be smart (book/street, it all works for us.)

So send shoot us an email with your resume and why you want to be our intern. Charm us, dazzle us. Be creative. 

Send your resume, pitch letter and a sample “tweet” to:

Betsy MacKinnon, V.P. Marketing & Communications at Inquisix 

betsy@inquisix.com

Implication of “The Cougar”

Just saw the ad for TV Land’s “The Cougar.”

Yes, the show is TOTALLY ludicrous.

And, yes, I TOTALLY DVR’d it.

(By now you know I have to at least check the debacle out. But that’s not the point here.)

Ok, back to “The Cougar.”

Wow. That chica is not bad looking.

Meet Stacey, Resident Cougar.

Quite frankly she blows the paradigm of what a working single mom of four (!) should look like. She’s sure as HELL ain’t no Mrs. Robinson folks, and when she was “Mrs. Robinson,” Anne Bancroft was 36 years old…. really! Honest. You can follow her adventures on TVLand and on Twitter.

Fabulous Anne Bancroft, at 36, is the original "Cougar" as Mrs. Robinson.

Then I see Valerie Bertinelli’s latest Jenny Craig commercial trotting around in a bikini. Not bad for the first time in 30 years? Try not bad for being in your 20’s. Val’s bangin’ at 48.

Valerie Bertinelli's Bikini Cover Bod, not bad for 48!

We’ve heard about “the cougar.” It conjures up images of preying man-eater while the younger girl “kitten” seem more innocent, something to coo at. I see it as a salacious or smarmy way to describe experience and age. Sure some women are cougars, that’s just inherent personality (and believe me there are some 20 year old cougars out there,) but what what have here are some fantastic, sexy women who are looking fabulous way past the expected point of no return. It’s a cultural paradigm shift, I mean really, for example, do you think Anne’s 36 is over-the-hill middle age anymore?

Not that at 45 you’re suppose to start wearing a babushka, nor should you be wearing Daisy Dukes. But people in general are not only living longer but aging better. Your current 49 year old can now look better than the 36 year old 4 decades ago.

Now we come to the marketing to these women. And really the point of my whole post, besides a serious “Atta Girl” to Both Valerie and Stacey for raising the bar on looking fab.

Does this change how we think of the classic ad demo of  18-34 or 18-49? How we design ad campaigns, design products. Is there opportunity here? Or, conversely, are we missing opportunities now?

Quite possibly.

Just thinking…

I was driving around thinking….

In my last fabulous post I was trying to make a point that, in Social Media, the more features (or crap, depending who you are) you add doesn’t mean the more people you attract.  Facebook, who I use, has taken this approach to the nth degree (a real mathematical concept, but not equative to the “nth degree” or “n dimensions”) and lo, though they have a gazillion people,  I really wonder what the rate of change has been since day 1 after the latest release. My bet is that they might be gaining users but at a slower pace and that they are starting to see less repeat visits going on 30/60/90 days.

Am I wrong FB?  Tell me.

And, If you’re one of these people that are not returning, or stopped using them, let me know that too (and why!)

So this brings me to the “just thinking” part– could we quantify the “stickiness” (I know a totally 90’s dot-com term but I couldn’t come up with a better one) of a social media app?  I’ve tried to ask around to people that I respect and it seems that the general consensus is not really. It just clicks and sticks. Like Pet Rocks.

The 70's phenomena the Pet Rock

I refuse to believe this. I can admit this could be my Moby Dick, but there has to be the “7 +/- 2 chunks“ rule to Social Media. Given the set of people attracted, their needs and the known technological variables one can introduce (features) there must be a range of “stickiness” that can be estimated. Only so many “connections” and features that one can deal before  a site loses value to the end-user. 

Working much like the coefficent of friction, which gives an indication how slippery a surface might be (ice on steel would be close to zero,whereas rubber on pavement is over 1, more like 1.7) the higher the number would indicate how sticky or  attactive a feature or site would be. It would have to be a range as people are not black or white in choices, nor 1 or 0, but all grey matter (I know… nice joke.) Lumber jacks want and need different features from show girls, unless you’re from Monty Python.

Perhaps we test successful sites and come up with a range of success– given that set of people, this worked wildly well. Think of this phantom sticky-coeffient (“sticky-co” for short?) as a litmus test for new features and if, in testing, yours doesn’t make the successful sticky-co range, then you probably got a dud in the making.

Look even as I’m typing this I’m having second thoughts. But I sometimes like to throw things out there and, well, see if it sticks.

So go ahead, weigh-in. Collaborate. Tell me I’m on to something or not.  I can take it. Tell me you’d be interested in it if it does exists.

This is what I think about while driving.

Does Social Value = [Social + Media ( X stuff)], as X ⇒ ∞

Now Social Media is maturing, it might be entering adolescence. Growing pains are showing, limits are being found, growth stunted, slowed or exponential and not but a few incidences of acne.

Facebook just debuted it’s latest redesign and it has not exactly been a success.  I don’t know about your FB homepage but mine is starting to look like a mixed-media installation. Seems that poor FB, is trying to be to much to too many people- aspects of  Twitter, Blogging, FriendFeed, Flickr, Gaming, to name a few. The result- a wee bit of acne.

In an effort to understand this, I tried to quantify it. Hey, once a math geek, always one. So as the X (or the amount of stuff/features a social media service tries to do) goes to infinity does its value to its members go down?

Is this why Twitter is so popular? It is simplicity in itself. It’s the second-party apps that surround it, manipulating the variables, that are getting complex. The real difference is that they lie outside Twitter and are optional and only affect how the end user sees and manipulates data Twitter provides. My Twitter experience, both using and viewing it is entirely customizable. I can use Twittergrader, lessfriends, HootSuite, Tweetdeck, Twitterfriends, Tweetie, Twittelator Pro (to name a few) or not, or i can simply default to the Twitter-provided online UI. I don’t have to lose followers or any information in the process. No goofy lil’patches sent. No viral “what 80’s Rock Star are you?” quizzes clogging my in-box.

Does the real value lie in the customization that users are able to do on their own- picking and choosing from the vast array of Social Media offerings in the market place? Perhaps. Some things like UnHub actually try to organize the various sites under one navigation bar  (I have my Twitter, Blip.fm, Facebook, and delicious on one.) 

Is it when one tries to do it all, that it loses value by becoming too dense? Offering too many options? What do you think?

Thomas the Tank is my Homeboy.

Thomas the Tank Engine

Thomas the Tank Engine is my homeboy and I’m not ashamed to admit it.

I’ll let you in on a working mom’s dirty little secret- TV is our friend.

Sometimes our best friend.

I know what you’re thinking, and I’d think it too. I also thought I’d make my baby’s organic food from scratch. Then I had twins. You can BUY organic baby food.

So here I am working at this awesome little Web 2.0 business referral networking start-up, Inquisix (really, you should check us out if you’re a small business owner, sales person or connector. Honest.)  I have a pretty great job but like with all things I wear a lot of hats. At a startup we all do.

"We connect businesses to MORE business"

In addition to being the head of Marketing I also happen to be chief concierge, triage nurse, umpire, chef, social secretary, health department, party planner, stylist, educator, trainer, chauffeur and head-supreme cuddler to three super-cute kiddos (one set of six-year old twins and one two-year old who thinks he’s six) and one Golden Retriever named Ginger-Girl. I love all four desperately but I’ve chosen to  also pursue outlets outside of my family to preserve my sanity, intellect and creativity (though some argue Shrinky Dinks are creative, I say no.)

I should also note that I am a glutton for punishment.

So it’s no great stretch to say my cup runneth over, which it does and often spills everywhere. I don’t plan it that way, it just happens. In fact, I pride myself on being super efficient. One doesn’t have multiples and not get inefficiency beaten out of them. The best laid plans get blown to hell when it’s a snow day.

So in a pinch, I just find ways to make it work. And if necessity is the mother of invention, this mamma invents. Quite a few phone meetings are done while feeding the baby cookie-after-cookie to keep him quiet, or creating syssiphisian tasks involving emptying and filling the same laundry baskets over and over, and art projects involving the almighty Froot Loops (keeps little mouths AND hands busy!)

But when I’m really desperate, I’ve turned to TV.  Though I’m not proud of it but if something absolutely had to get out the door, Thomas the Tank Engine got opened up. 

I heart them all-  Thomas, Henry, Percy, Gordon, Edward, James, Salty, Bertie, Emily, Molly, Harold the Helicopter, Sir Topham Hatt right down to the stinky Diesels and Troublesome Trucks. They have all saved my skin on a few choice occasions.

So, if any other working mom tells you they don’t use TV as even an emergency babysitter, they are flat-out lying. Or have full-time super-nanny style help. Even on my off days I throw on Word Girl (awesome show, the best intro song ever) while I’m making dinner for the entire trio. Most moms do that.

Word Girl and Captain Huggy Face

I do have standards. I pretty much stick to PBS Kids Go! and sometimes Noggin. Rarely Disney (excepts occasional Little Einsteins) and Cartoon Network (though I DVR Star Wars: Clone Wars for special “movie treats.”) Both seem either one giant commercial or they have a ton of commercials for crappy toys that leaves the kids whining, which defeats the purpose.  I learned the secret to using TV as babysitter from a friend years ago. She’d deny her kids TV except when she was going out, they were so excited to watch TV they forget to get all hysterical and teary.

The real trick is deny them until you really need it. That’s why it’s a DEFCON 4 or 5 in my book if I’m turning it on during the day.

If your not a parent and made it this far, I thank you. If you are one, you’re probably laughing and nodding in agreement. You start off a parent with the best of intentions, the best of plans, you read everybook, buy everything new, disinfect the cat… but  like the arrival of an unexpected snow day, you learn to adjust the plan. You have to.

QUICK SHOT: Guardian on Twitter- April Fool’s or Great Freakin’ Idea?

[Note: There was some confusion. My bad. What I MEANT here was that a newspapers could go forgo print and only have a web presence and "tweet" the headlines.  Folks, even my 5 year old twins know that you can synthesize an entire story into 140 characters. But with brick and mortar costs virtually minimized (no printing and going virtual) this maybe a viable way to save a newspapers as a brand.]

Ok I was totally had.

I saw a tweet (on Twitter, natch) about The Guardian going exclusively on Twitter after 180 years in print. I was totally gonzo excited. All of a sudden it just made sense!

Papers are going by the wayside, but information isn’t. Branding that information as quality, well-written & sourced is key.

“This is HUGE” I tweeted. Only to be “@” back that it was an April Fool’s joke. Ok, that deserved a “Good Show,” as it was a seriously good prank — I’m tipping my cloche to my overseas cousins.

But after a good laugh, I had one of my epiphanies.

A newspaper going exculsively to Twitter was totally a joke. Or was it?

Some of the most amazing things happen by happenstance, blunder or folly: maple syrup (’cause no one goes “Hey, let’s just boil some tree sap” unless it’s by mistake,) Chocolate chip cookies, Coca-Cola, Rubber, implantable cardiac pacemaker and penicillin to name a few.) 

Currently, with the slow death of printable media, newspapers are folding left and right. What would happen if one just decided to stop printing and go only digital: online, Twitter and Facebook?  Could they survive?  Could they negotiate a great deal to “deliver” exclusive only to Twitter? Would this help Twitter monetize themselves as a content deliverer? Perhaps a subscription model (w/ ads?) and revenue-share with partners?

Could this work?  

And if it did, now THAT would be hysterical!