Phone (picture)
Dialing for dollars doesn’t always work. But dialing to convey important information does.

Most of the time, robocalls are used all wrong

I once wrote, “If you are trying to sell me something, or if you want my vote, I want contact with a human being who can answer my questions.” Yet I get robocalls all the time from clueless “marketers” who don’t understand this simple truth, or can’t be bothered with it. Worse, a lot of these calls are hangups, and far too many show up in the middle of the night. Would it be so difficult to program a function that blocks each area code between 9 p.m. and 9 a.m, local time? It won’t help cell-phone travelers but it will help a lot of home-based entrepreneurs who don’t always remember to turn the bedroom ringer off at night.

I have one message for these cretins:

–> Stop spamming me. I don’t buy from spammers.

I’ve spent years preaching the gospel of client-centered marketing. Marketing should be driven by the customer. You want to be found when the prospect is searching for great content about what you do. You want to be ready when that client calls or emails. But you don’t want to be spamming the prospect with canned, inflexible messages. It doesn’t work in social media, it doesn’t work in e-mail, and it doesn’t work on the phone.

But that doesn’t mean the technology should be tossed out. There are times I actually welcome a robocall, and other times when I tolerate them:

These robocalls are welcome:

  • From a school where I have a child enrolled, or the one where my wife works, announcing a closing or delay
  • From my town or state government, warning of a road closing, water service issue, etc., or giving polling hours for an election
  • From my utility company, updating me on a storm-related outage
  • From one of my credit card-issuing banks, flagging potentially fraudulent activity and offering to connect me with a human being if there is an issue

And these I’ll grit my teeth and tolerate:

  • A healthcare provider confirming an appointment
  • A business that I regularly patronize, announcing a special time-limited offer and giving me a reason why it can’t wait for me to check my e-mail
  • A reminder that an online or in-person event I’ve signed up—and especially one that I’ve paid for—is about to start

Notice a pattern? What do all of these have in common? I’ll skip a couple of lines so you can take a guess before I tell you.

Figure it out yet?

 

 

Here it is:

These are organizations with whom I have an existing relationship, using the tool to convey crucial information. They are not interrupting my day—or worse, my sleep—to sell me something. They are not horning on on me and forcing a relationship where none exists. The ones I welcome are telling me something I need to know; the ones I tolerate at least tell something they need me to know on the basis of our past interaction.

And that should be your guideline in using any intrusive marketing (or informational) method.

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

Spanish-language fundrasiing letter
Seven reasons why this letter failed to raise money from me

What’s wrong with this picture? Plenty.

  1. The letter is in Spanish. Although I do happen to speak Spanish, I’m not great at reading big quantities of it. And I’m pretty sure that whatever charity rented them the list, it’s one that does business in English. Which means most of the people receiving it won’t be able to read it at all.
  2. They’ve enclosed six cents of real American money. Which probably upped the cost of the mailing by at least a dollar apiece, because of the technologies involved in mounting coins precisely on circles, facing the right direction, etc. If they can afford to spend a dollar to send me money, they don’t need me to send them money.
  3. If I understand the Spanish correctly, they actually request that I send them back the six cents along with my donation. If this is supposed to weigh on my psychology and pull on my heartstrings, it fails. It just gets me annoyed that their gift is false.
  4. It’s not a group I’ve heard of, and they don’t do enough to build my confidence in the organization. Other than telling me (on the back) that 95 percent of contributions go to programs, and logos (again on the back) from Ministry Watch and BBB, they do basically nothing to convince me that this is a legitimate organization. There’s no reference to checking them out on Charity Navigator, nothing about what they’ve actually done with the money they received. All they tell me (translating) is “Founded in 1982, Food For The Poor is an interdenominational Christian organization that works for ending the suffering of the poor in the Caribbean and Latin America.” It doesn’t say how they accomplish this.
  5. I’m not a Christian and prefer to contribute to good works through nondenominational or Jewish organizations. So I’m not in their target market.
  6. I respond much better to pictures of people being empowered through changemaking organizations than I do to 1970s-Biafra-style hunger photos. And I think a lot of other people do as well; in my own copywriting, I emphasize the positive change, not the desperation.
  7. It’s addressed to Señor Sheldon Horowitz. True, Sheldon Horowitz (generally without Señor attached) was my name until I was 15. But as a junior in high school, I shortened it to Shel, and started coming out from under a lot of negative emotional baggage tied up with my birth name. In 1983 when I got married, Shel became my legal name. I didn’t move to my current home until 1998. Thus, there has never been a Señor Sheldon Horowitz at this address. Call people what they want to be called, not by a name they rejected. Yeah, I know, they were just buying a list—but it must have been a nonresponsive list, because calling me Sheldon predisposes me to reject the request.

The sad thing is, it would have been easy for them to do so much better. I actually went to Charity Navigator and looked them up anyway. They score very well on both financial and organizational criteria. They took in over a billion dollars in 2013, and funded programs with almost $985 million that year.

Too, the Charity Navigator site gives me a description, obviously written by the charity itself, that would have done a lot to assuage my concerns, had it been in the letter:

Food For The Poor (FFP) ministers to spiritually renew impoverished people throughout Latin America and the Caribbean. Established in 1982, FFP’s goals are to improve the health, economic, social and spiritual conditions of the men, women and children we serve. Food For The Poor raises funds and provides direct relief assistance to the poor, usually by purchasing specifically requested materials and distributing them through the churches and charity organizations already operating in areas of need. Since its founding FFP has distributed more than 63,000 tractor-trailer loads of aid to the poor. We have also built more than 84,000 housing units for people desperately in need of adequate shelter, and completed more than 1,475 water projects that provide lifesaving water and sanitation to hundreds of thousands of people in need.

Nice and specific about what they do and how they do it–so why not include it in their mailings?

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

Freedom to exercise one’s own religion is NOT the same as freedom to stuff that religion down others’ throats. This is what the right-wing Christians have not understood about the Supreme Court decision on gay marriage. No one is forcing them to marry each other–and they do not have the right to keep others from marrying the ones they love, just because their religion doesn’t agree.

When my family was kosher, I went to private Jewish schools (yeshivas). It may have been that part of my parents’ reasons was to keep me away from the “corrupting” influence of non-kosher food.

This post is inspired by a report of a Canadian mayor telling Muslim parents the schools would not stop serving pork–a report that was a hoax (which took about seven seconds to determine). But just because the report was false (and probably motivated by someone seeking to stir up religious divisions) doesn’t mean we shouldn’t talk about the underlying issue: when does one person’s freedom stop and another’s start?

I am a vegetarian and I would never say to a school system, “don’t serve meat because it is offensive to me.” On the contrary, it is offensive to me when someone tells me I can’t eat the food I want because that food offends them, and I wouldn’t presume to make those choices for others. Sure, I wish more people would turn vegetarian, and I can list a dozen reasons why vegetarianism is good for the planet and good for our bodies.

I will say (and have said), “please don’t bring meat into a potluck at my vegetarian house.” A parent offended that foods he/she doesn’t eat are served in the cafeteria has other choices. There are schools where no pork is served–in fact, I know for certain that pork is not served at any Orthodox yeshiva or Islamic or Seventh Day Adventist school. It would be offensive if the Muslim kids and Orthodox Jewish kids and vegetarian kids attending public school were *forced* to eat pork. But it should not be offensive to sit in a cafeteria where others are eating it.

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

How is opening a hair salon and beauty school related to social change? Hair cutters are not found in large percentages in social change movements crowded with professional organizers, academics, writers, school teachers, and the like.

Kabul Beauty School by Deborah Rodriguez (cover image)
Kabul Beauty School by Deborah Rodriguez (cover image)

Which makes the best-selling memoir by Deborah Rodriguez (with Kristin Ohlson, published by Random House), Kabul Beauty School: An American Woman Goes Behind the Veil a unique and remarkable book.

Fleeing a series of oppressive and sometimes abusive marriages, Rodriguez goes to Kabul, Afghanistan, in 2002, while the war is raging and the Taliban have just been kicked out–and stays for five years. Originally, she comes as part of a humanitarian agency relief crew. She’s just beginning to assist with trauma counseling and the like when word gets out that she’s a hairdresser. And she’s mobbed first by desperate women in the relief community, and then in the military, and then among the locals; the Taliban had shut down all the beauty parlors, and the few that opened up after their departure were typically using primitive equipment in less-than-sanitary conditions.

Very quickly, Rodriguez realizes that she cannot meet the demand on her own and sets up a school for beauticians, carefully selecting the women she think can be successful. The result is a city with dozens of western-trained professional hair salons owned by local women.

In an Afghanistan just emerging from Taliban control, women have essentially no rights. Vigilantes inflict their own “justice” on women violating the ultra-strict interpretations of Islamic law. Few work outside the home; fewer still run a business. While it isn’t what brought her to this work, Rodriguez realizes the transformative effect of what she’s doing; she comes to social change by making it happen.

This is a route to social change not often explored. Yet, exporting an existing career into new sectors and markets–not just cosmetology but all sorts of other possibilities–may be one of the easiest ways to get people involved in peace-building.

Bravo, Ms. Rodriguez!

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

Office of the Brooklyn Daily Eagle, 1916
Office of the Brooklyn Daily Eagle, 1916. Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Brooklyn_Daily_Eagle2.jpg

We have a kilowatt of solar electric on the roof of our 1743 colonial farmhouse. But a few years ago when the October Blizzard knocked out our power for three days, we couldn’t tap into that solar.

Officials in Brooklyn, New York recognized the problem. Brooklyn had a lot of power outages during Hurricane Sandy—and officials in the densely populated borough, home to more than 2.5 million people, have gotten state support to pilot a microgrid program that would allow Brooklyn’s solar systems to keep powering houses and workplaces if the grid goes down.

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

Editor’s note: Too much power can be as discomfiting as too little. Judi takes this analogy from a real-world electrical issue through some deep soul-searching I thought you’d enjoy.

—Shel Horowitz

 Guest Post by Judi Ketteler

Last week, during a storm, lightning struck the power sub-station just a few blocks away. At the time, I didn’t know that had happened. I just knew that our power flickered strongly. When it came back on, I noticed that the fan in my office was running more vigorously. It was louder. I turned it off and back on again, but it was still loud. I was in the middle of deadline, so I chalked it up to “oh well, whatever.”

Then I went downstairs to get some water. The lights in the kitchen were crazy bright. But . . . it had grown dark outside with the storm, so I thought my perception was off. Plus, I had been sitting at my computer all day. Perhaps my eyes were bleary and playing tricks on me, I thought. Even the light in the refrigerator was brighter. I’m really working too hard, I told myself.

All evening, I thought the lights were brighter, but I shrugged it off and didn’t say anything. By the next day, when the normally quiet bathroom fan sounded like a train, the microwave sounded like it was going to blow up, and the toaster oven burned red hot, looking like it would catch fire, I knew something freaky was going on. “We’re getting too much power!” I told my husband. His senses aren’t nearly as heightened as mine, but he couldn’t argue with a toaster oven about to blow.

I called our energy company, and they came out a few hours later. They measured the current we were getting. It’s supposed to be regulated to 240. Ours was at 275. “So that’s why everything is turbo-charged?” I asked the guy. “Yep. The regulator blew. If I were you, I’d go turn everything off and unplug it all until the crew comes in an hour or so. Otherwise, it might fry your stuff.”

A 75-watt light isn’t just a 75-watt light: it may be all the power that is safe, but it’s not actually all the power that is available. Don’t get me wrong. I don’t want to push it. I’d prefer not to fry thousands of dollars worth of electronics in my house. To that end, the energy crew fixed the sub-station later that day, and all was back to normal: a very good thing.

But this notion that there is more power available than meets the eye has been sticking with me. There is an explanation in the world of currents and voltage and energy regulators at electric sub-stations. But what about mysub-station? Do I have an energy regulator? Because I’d really like to find it.

What Regulates It, Anyway?

You know how some days, you’ve got energy to spare? It sizzles through you, as you knock thing after thing off your to-do list. You’re motivated, creative, and have all the right ideas at all the right times. I live for these kinds of days.

I just have absolutely no idea what creates them.

I could list what I think contributes. But it’s a long and random list, that ranges from caffeine to hormones to the phases of the moon to the amount of sleep I’ve gotten to the kind of food I’ve eaten to my husband’s mood at the time to whether or not my hair lays right that day to some inspiring movie or TV show I may have happened to watch or book I may have happened to read.

None of it is IT though. Like really it. That X-factor. The regulator in the sub-station.

What governs the amount of power getting through, not just to my physical body, but to the part of my brain that cares, has interesting and creative ideas, and—most importantly—the will the execute them?

I have learned that there are rhythms to my inspiration and creativity. If I’m in a good rhythm, I better go with it. If the muse is coming to me, for crying out loud, I better welcome her and not send her away so I can check email. Likewise, when I’m in a dark place—and I go there sometimes, because I am human—I can’t will myself out of it. I have to let the force of whatever woe me back.

It’s all the times in between, which turns out to be an awfully big chunk of my working life.

Big inspiration and energy? You bet I’ll follow. Down in the dumps? I accept it as a time to refuel. But status quo, ho-hum, low inspiration, trudging through it? That’s where I’d like to tweak my sub-station. Find the dial that turns up the voltage, just a notch. Or strike it with lightning, to shock it out of its banality. Can you make that kind of lightning, or, like actual lightning, is it solely an act of nature?

I honestly don’t know.

I want to respect my psyche’s natural balance, while finding my way to more of those inspired days. Because to walk into a room and feel the lights shining brighter? That’s sort of something. I know 240 is where the voltage in my house needs to stay. But I’d like to feel that extra bright light in my brain, just a little more often. I’d like to find that sub-station. Consider the search launched.

Warmly,

Judi

This piece by Judi Ketteler originally appeared on The Story Economy blog. Find her at judiketteler.com.

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

I went to my first same-sex commitment ceremonies around 1979 and 1980, never dreaming that the day would come when such unions would be recognized in every state of the United States of America.

Thank you, Justice Kennedy for your beautiful opinion, and the other four Justices who added their names. And thank you, President Obama, for being consistent in your support since the day you announced that your thinking had evolved on this issue.

And thanks to the activists who brought the country forward, including those who were brave enough to do this long before it was legal.

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

Arky Markham, 100, watches as (from left) Marty Nathan, Mayor David Narkewicz, and Lisa Baskin light birthday candles
Arky Markham, 100, watches as (from left) Marty Nathan, Mayor David Narkewicz, and Lisa Baskin light birthday candles

If your image of a 100-year-old woman is a quiet old lady vegetating in a nursing home, let me introduce you to Arky Aisenberg Markham.

She turned 100 yesterday, and celebrated with about 300 guests in a fundraiser for the Markham-Nathan Fund, one of several organizations she’s founded or co-founded (another is Social Workers for Peace and Justice). Attendees included Massachusetts Senate President Stan Rosenberg (who also happens to represent her district), Northampton Mayor David Narkewicz, State Representatives Peter Kocot and Ellen Story, retired Congressman John Olver, and at least three of Northampton’s nine city councilors–and a virtual Who’s Who of activists involved for decades in peace, labor, human rights, environmental, economic justice, and democracy work, including representatives of the 15 organizations the Markham-Nathan Fund supported this year. The event probably raised several thousand dollars for social justice work.

Arky walked to the stage under her own power and shot back one-liner after one-liner during several of the speakers’ remarks. One of the speakers, I think Rep. Kocot, remarked that Arky always showed us the right path. Arky immediately zinged, “the left path.” Rosenberg made a comment about coming back to celebrate her 200th birthday, and she shouted, in Yiddish, “ein hoonderd tsvantsich” (one-hundred-twenty) evoking an old Jewish blessing about living to 120. And it was Arky herself who gave the fundraising pitch. As she left the stage, the first several people to greet her were all female. She said something like, “Now that I’m 100, all the women want to kiss me. Where are the men who want to kiss me?” So I went up and kissed her. All her comeback lines were unrehearsed and spontaneous, and had the crowd laughing regularly.

This remarkable woman was already 41 years old when I was born. Wanting to do her part to stop Hitler, she was a military air traffic controller during World War II, then used the GI bill to get an undergrad degree in Spanish and a Master’s in Social Work, which led to a career working with various underserved populations, from inner-city NYC school children to her fellow veterans. She was in her 50s when she met and married George Markham; their first date was a rally against the Vietnam War, and they were involved in numerous peace and justice causes together until George’s death in 2009, at age 100.

Why were so many dignitaries in attendance? Because they are all activists! Their electoral political work is a direct outgrowth of their commitment to a better world. The Northampton-Amherst area may be a bit unusual in the percentage of progressive activists it sends to elected office–but I, for one, find it very refreshing to live in a place where elected officials are actually about peace and justice.

[Note: Arky died on June 11, 2018, ten days before her 103rd birthday.]

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

Guest post by Paul Loeb

Remember the World Trade Organization, which slipped into the shadows after massive Seattle protests in 1999? The same day last week that Congress initially blocked the possibility of fast track approval for the TPP trade agreement, the House voted to overturn rules requiring country-of-origin labeling for meat. Those supporting the vote said they were responding to a World Trade Organization ruling, judging US country-of-origin labeling unfair competition with meat coming from foreign countries like Canada and Mexico, and therefore a violation. They said they had no choice for fear of triggering sanctions or lawsuits from countries exporting meat across our borders.

I don’t know about you, but I like knowing whether my meat comes from Iowa or Uzbekistan, Montana or Mexico, Kentucky or Kenya. So do 93% of Americans, according to a Consumer’s Union survey. People like supporting US farmers, cutting down distance travelled, knowing there will be at least minimal inspection standards, even if the delights of e coli occasionally slip through. It seems commonsensical that we’d want at least the chance to become informed consumers, whether with the origins of our meat, GMO-derived crops, or the amount of sugar and calories in our baked goods.

Maybe the House members are wrong in insisting that the international tribunals that adjudicate trade disputes would deem this a violation. But if this particular House bill passes the Senate and gets signed by Obama, even the mere possibility of a lawsuit will have struck down a wholly reasonable law that protects our health and supports our local economies. And if TPP passes the Senate, other attempts to regulate commerce for the common good will be potentially gutted as well, from attempts at financial regulation to limits on the prices charged for drugs, to environmental rules and seemingly innocuous actions like requiring accurate labeling. Some of this could occur through legal action, and some through the mere fear that such action could occur.

Now maybe TPP won’t contain rules on meat. Maybe it will simply limit other ways we might try to exert our sovereignty over critical choices that affect us. But we do know that this agreement—involving countries constituting 40% of the global economy—through what’s called the Investor-State Dispute Settlement process, will establish unaccountable tribunals with the power to let corporations collect damages for loss of profits. We don’t know the precise reach of the agreement because ordinary citizens haven’t seen it. Even Congressional opponents were prohibited from taking notes when they looked at it, and “cleared advisors” who’ve seen it have been legally prohibited from talking specifics. Yet we’re told it represents an inevitable future, that the benefits will trickle down to ordinary citizens, and that those who ask reasonable questions about its profound implications are merely obstructionist whiners.

So do we demand full transparency before moving ahead? Or do we trust that the corporations that negotiated these rules have our interests at heart, and would never, in the slightest, harm our democracy? Whether or not the country-of-origin labeling on meat survives or is ended by the House bill and WTO ruling, TPP plays for far larger stakes, the ground rules that affect our very potential to take common action. The meat bill is one more warning that there are some rules and agreements where we should be careful to eagerly swallow.

Paul Loeb is the author of Soul of a Citizen and The Impossible Will Take a Little While

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail

Guest post by Michelle Drucker, manager of marketing, BookPal (www.book-pal.com)

When was the last time you bought a book because you saw it in the window of a bookstore? Now, when was the last time you purchased a book because you read about it online? I’m guessing it was more recent than the last time you even stepped foot in a bookstore!

As stated by marketer David Meerman Scott, “The old rules of marketing and PR are ineffective in an online world” (The New Rules of Marketing & PR, p. 15). The Internet has transformed the world of book marketing just as it has for many other industries. Traditional book-marketing strategies, such as bookstore window placement and book signings, are dead. Sure, these strategies will result in a few small sales, but they are not nearly as cost-effective and efficient as online marketing.

Here are a few simple tricks to get your book noticed and boost sales without breaking the bank:

Create visuals and produce dynamic content.

Forget about the cover! Now people are judging a book by its trailer. The only type of media that outperforms images online is video. Visualize the reading experience by creating a compelling video. Book trailers don’t need to have high production value, but make sure they are professional and straightforward. Post them to YouTube and Vimeo — these sites allow others to share your video content all over the web.

In order to stay top-of-mind, dynamic content is key. Hundreds of thousands of books are published every year. What makes your book stand out? What information does your book contain that people need to know? This is content you should be sharing online.

A blog is a great place to share tidbits of content and direct consumers to buy the book. On a blog, you can share unique information that will help you connect with potential readers on a personal level. Consistent, focused blogging also helps improve keyword rankings if you optimize your blog for search engines.

Establish a strong social media presence.

Does your book have a Facebook page? Does it have a Twitter handle? Its own hashtag? If you answered “no” to any of these questions, then you have your work cut out for you. The best way to spread awareness for a new book is through word-of-mouth. In today’s modern era, social media is the perfect medium for spreading the word.

Now that you’ve created all this amazing content for your blog, use social media as a sharing tool. Link your posts back to your blog in order to boost traffic. With the right targeting and use of keywords, millions of people can potentially see your content.

Leverage industry influencers.

If you are a new author, you probably don’t have a gigantic following on social media or thousands of people viewing your blog every day. The good news is that there are plenty of people that do.

Before you start sending an advance reading copy (ARC) of your book to every blogger on the planet, identify influencers with followers who you can convert into readers. For example, if you are writing a book on leadership, you should send an ARC to business leaders with a significant online presence. Once you’ve found the right influencers, encourage them to review your book and provide their honest feedback. If they like your book, the word will spread like wildfire.

About Michelle Drucker: Michelle manages the Marketing department at BookPal, an e-commerce company that sells books to corporations, school districts, nonprofits and government agencies. Michelle brings strategic focus to the firm’s email, social media and lead generation campaigns. She also oversees paid advertising and website development initiatives.

Facebooktwitterpinterestlinkedinmail