Taskus Interruptus: the new mode of work

Tweet

You probably already suspected this about yourself, but if you're anything like the IT workers studied by Gloria Mark, Professor of Informatics at UC Irvine; you shift your focus to a different task on average of every 3 minutes and 5 seconds!

Half of those switches are caused by interruptions. And, what's worse, most of them are you interrupting yourself! i.e. Checking email while you're doing something else.

This seems like a good counterpoint to our last post about Twittering, which is taking off in popularity exactly because it's just the type of thing you can read or post in 3 minutes and 5 seconds!

Other findings reported in the Fast Company interview with researchers:

"We found about 82percent of all interrupted work is resumed on the same day. But here's the bad news -- it takes an average of 23 minutes and 15 seconds to get back to the task."

"I argue that when people are switching contexts every 10 and half minutes they can't possibly be thinking deeply. There's no way people can achieve flow. When I write a research article, it takes me a couple of hours before I can even begin to think creatively. If I was switching every 10 and half minutes, there's just no way I'd be able to think deeply about what I'm doing. This is really bad for innovation. When you're on the treadmill like this, it's just not possible to achieve flow."

That's why, from time to time at (W)right On Communications, we shut down our email and close our doors to make the needed time for creativity and strategic thinking.

However, there's an upside to interruptions and multitasking too. Often solutions can come to you when you're thinking about something else. And task shifting gives you the chance to leave a tough problem and incubate it until the right answer or idea pops into your head.

Twitter, Follow or Get out of the Way.

Tweet

Twitter.com lets you post 140 character mini-blogs from your computer or mobile device and monitor those of your friends, professional colleagues or thought leaders who tend to share what they're reading or working on.

Yes, there are some people who Twitter what they're eating for lunch. Don't do that (unless you're a foodie and then it's ok and expected).

Simple rule: If you wouldn't want to read it, don't post it. To follow what we're doing at (W)right On Communications, there is www.twitter.com/juliewright and www.twitter.com/betsybrottlund. You simply visit the page and click to follow the Tweets of people who share your interests (you'll have to join and become a Twitterer before you can be a follower).

We find Twitter extremely useful. We enjoy scanning the Tweets of the people we're connected with through Twitter. But, as with LinkedIn, we're not just connected to the people following our Tweets but to their followers as well. You see, if something we Tweet catches our followers' interests, it could be reTweeted, posted to their blogs, and shared in many other ways -- thanks to the beauty of social networks.

But don't take our word for it. Read this article from the Nieman Foundation for Journalism at Harvard, written by the chief political correspondent for Slate:

Don't Fear Twitter

Using moment-by-moment observations, 'Twitter entries
build a community of readers who find their way to longer articles ….'

By John Dickerson

If I were cleverer, this piece on Twitter and journalism would fit in Twitter's 140-character limitation. The beauty of Twitter when properly used — by both the reader and the writer — is that everyone knows what it is. No reader expects more from Twitter than it offers, and no one writing tries to shove more than necessary into a Twitter entry, which is sometimes called a Tweet, but not by me, thank you.

... For the rest, follow the link:

http://www.nieman.harvard.edu/reports/08-2NRsummer/p05-dickerson.html

Hear the Buzz, Be the Buzz with Twing.com

Tweet

Twing.com is a free service that searches opinions, information, and conversations online —however obscure that particular interest may be.

In our last post, we said that Internet purchasing behavior showed that people still tended toward mainstream buying decisions, but the Twing website was designed to encourage people to find communities relevant to their interests.

We took it for a test drive and searched 'Autism' and 'Nutrition' (since our client Global Health Trax sponsored an autism benefit hosted by actress Jenny McCarthy and Jim Carrey last weekend. GHT's CEO attended their exclusive autism fundraiser. (Yes, the one where Britney Spears made a rare appearance.) (W)right On supported GHT's sponsorship with an online campaign that we pushed through in about three weeks to prepare and execute.

Here's what Twing.com told us about online conversations:

• 1,559 results
  
• 2,349 views for the top most relevant result: Autismtalk.net


• 942 views for next result: Forum Garden, which had 13 'replies' to Autismtalk's 3. So less traffic but more involvement.


• When we sorted by 'date,' it was clear that right now everyone is talking about radio blowhard Michael Savage's recent assertion that most autistics are fakes and brats.
  
• With one mouse click, the site also produces a graph charting the number of threads and posts for the past week, which is cool.
  

But, best of all, the site has a 'buzz chart.' So we inserted 'Global Health Trax' and 'autism' to track our PR effort in July for GHT. This is a great feature and allows you to visualize the impact of a campaign like the one we launched only a few weeks ago.

Twing.com just got added to our list of Favorites at (W)right On Communications!

And to reward you for reading this post, here's a photo of gorgeous Hollywood types from last Saturday.

Marketing's Long Tail and YouTube 'murketing'

Tweet

In 2007, there were 91 million songs available on iTunes but 91% of them sold only one copy each. The theory of the long tail was supposed to show how the Internet allowed consumers to find and indulge in their niche interests. But research like this on iTunes and similar research on movies shows that consumers continue to 'nibble' on their more obscure tastes and gorge on a small number of mainstream hits.

Read more here: http://www.slate.com/id/2195151/

And while you're visiting Slate, another great article is "Things are not what they Stream: Have corporate pranks gone to far?" It's a look at YouTube fakes, 'murketing,' and the value to the brand in the big 'reveal' when the brands are found out.

Here's the article: http://www.slate.com/id/2195687. Now go watch the video they're talking about where the cell phones pop corn kernels: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V94shlqPlSI

The Neuroscience of Decoy Marketing

Tweet

In an expirement, two groups of subjects saw one or the other of these offers to subscribe to The Economist.

Offer A:
$59 - Internet Only Subscription (68 chose)

$125 - Internet and Print Subscription (32 chose)

Predicted Revenue - $8,012

Offer B:
$59 - Internet Only Subscription (16 chose)

$125 - Print Only Subscription (0 chose)

$125 - Internet and Print Subscription (84 chose)

Predicted Revenue - $11,444

Take a moment to look at this rather startling result. Both offers are the same, with the exception of including the “print only” subscription in Offer A. Despite the fact that not a single person chose that unattractive offer, its impact was dramatic - 62% more subjects chose the combined print and Internet offer, and predicted revenue jumped 43%. The print-only offer was the decoy, and served to make the combined offer look like a better value.

Read more about Decoy Marketing at the Neuromarketing blog.

http://www.neurosciencemarketing.com/blog/articles/decoy-marketing.htm