That being said, in a team environment people need to be able to communicate and articulate regardless of the medium. Too much can be lost and misunderstood in an email or  project management app alone.  Ultimately a phone call or face-to-face chat can always be the most effective option in my opinion. It can bring clarity, simplicity and understanding to many issues, especially if it involves conflict resolution or an imperative issue.

I ran across a great video titled “Why Email Starts Fights” that illustrates the point further.  It’s a solid take on how email alone can lead to communication breakdowns and a few tips to make sure that does not happen. Here is a quote from the video to set the stage.  Dr. Albert Mehrabian says, “Only 7 percent of what we say is conveyed through words — tone and visual cues make up the other 93 percent. This is why emails are so often misunderstood”.

It’s obviously a given that there is a time and place for email and online communication the majority of the time works just fine, yet there is definitely a time to forgo it.  Thus I think it’s important to take a minute to determine the relevant communication medium before you type. Yes, I’m as guilty as the next guy in making the wrong call,  yet it’s good practice to always ask yourself a few simple questions on the fly  to determine if an email, online or live conversation is best suited for the situation.

• Can the message be communicated more productively another way?
• Does the conversation involve conflict?
• Is the importance factor high or immediate?
• Will it take you longer to write the message vs. a quick chat?
• Is there a more effective way to the desired outcome?

If you answer yes to any of the questions, ditch the keyboard and make a call or have a face-to-face conversation. And if you don’t have the family jewels to say something face-to-face, don’t email it, tweet it or write it.  Of course online communication is imperative, efficient, part of our lives and all communication mediums have their place.

My point is that we need to remember that in-person communication will always and still plays an immediate role to the success of businesses, teams, projects and relationships. Good communication means not soley resorting to non-verbal mediums. Once you think about the content you may find an in-person chat may be the most effective avenue, or maybe not. Either way, the medium should be relevant to the type of communication and information or simply, take a medium relevant communication approach. You will be more efficient, understood, and respected.

Razorfish published their 2009 Digital Outlook Report. It’s packed full of smart thinking and insightful analysis. It is a must read for marketers and people in the interactive business. You can view it in a nasty Flash “page flipper” here or just download the PDF.

Lately brands big and small are jumping on the Twitter train. A local car dealer, a regional bank, Domino’s pizza and a lake front property (seriously) requested to follow me recently. Do I want to connect or care about these companies? Positively not. They were promptly blocked but it got me thinking about the recent chatter about how social tools like Twitter may not be a place for brands.

I think users of social networks want to have conversations with each other, with people. Human beings on the other end with body parts and a brain. Not companies or marketer created personalities. Smart users and consumers see right through fake transparency and know when they are fed corporate drivel.

There was a great article posted yesterday at Mashable titled, Do Brands Belong on Twitter? It voices similar thoughts, examples and opinions on the matter.

Behind every Twitter account is a person. But some of these people ‘hide’ behind organizational brands, obscuring their persona and therefore reducing authenticity and transparency.Twitter is about people sharing information with other people. So how do one-dimensional organizational brands fit into this mix? When you really think about it, they don’t.  The full article is here.

My recent advice on the topic to a client was very similar. Company X should not participate. “YOU” need to participate as yourself, an actual human. Keep things interesting, tread lightly regarding  your brand,  provide utility and  have two way conversations. If you can hack that, you might gain a bit of credibility and respect from other users. Possibly you may even create a few brand advocates in the process.

Obviously things are not so simple. But to simplify anyway, I think the conversation of corporate conversation in social media boils down to to this. Some companies will continue to get it, play nice, be accepted and prosper with great results.  Others will keep infiltrating and vomiting one way buy me propaganda across social spaces. If that is all you have, then you do not belong. Please do everyone a favor and delete your account.

Additional recommended reads on the topic are below.
Twitter Self Centered Ratio
Adverblog, Is there really value in Twitter for brands?
A list of brands on Twitter
One Dimensional Conversations suck
Corporate blogs are the least trusted information source
Social Networkers are Not There for Ads

What is black and white and totally over? It’s newspapers. With the Chicago Tribune announcing its bankruptcy this week, print media continues to tumble down a staircase of doom. Not exactly breaking news that the longevity and relevance of print media is in serious trouble and it’s important we keep track of the situation of course. Below are a ten quality posts (and a couple funny videos) providing opinions and insights on the death of print.

1. Content and its discontents
2. The newspaper and the arrival of the glaciers
3. Change happens
4. Valleywag death of print series
5. The Simpsons announce the death of print
6. Daily Show on the death of print
7. AdAge deathwatch series
8. The death of print
9. Are you in or out
10. 10 questions media companies should ask

Malcolm Gladwell’s elegant and wildly popular theories about modern life have turned his name into an adjective—Gladwellian! But in his new book, he seeks to undercut the cult of success, including his own, by explaining how little control we have over it.

I am typically in the camp of buying into Gladwell’s theories. After reading “Outliers”, if I have any strong opinions or cyncial comments, I will post them.  The full article is here.