Archive for category Social Business

The social stewardship of sharing

Posted by on Thursday, 22 September, 2011

I’ve noticed a great and very intentional practice boiling up over on G+ when it comes to re-sharing, and I have adopted the same principle of behaviour in an effort to help encourage others to adopt it as well: “A good social steward acknowledges the person from whom they shared”. This is a great practice in part because, by default, G+ only notes the *originating poster’s* name, not from whom you shared.

But why is this important? Three reasons:

  • The first, and most simple is that it provides direct feedback to the person who reshared that you find the content engaging enough to share it to your circles as well.
  • Secondarily, this also allow extended networks to have visibility to other people around G+ whom you may find interesting. (I’ve personally found a number of very cool people to circle and follow using this method, as they are already up a rung of trust as an extended connection, plus they MUST be cool if they are sharing content which I also find useful and interesting!)
  • The third, and more global reason, however, is the sense of social stewardship. In this ever increasing global community where we’re all more connected, we’ve also become more striated, more detached, and more insular in our networks. A simple “hat tip” to the person you reshared from builds a deeper bond across the social web.

Call it a form of social currency, if you will: where a link noting “Thanks to +Joe for the share/re-share” acts as payment for being able to reshare it yourself… which of course makes an unacknowledged reshare a bit like taking a cookie from the break room but not leaving your fifty cents in the honour jar; not quite stealing, but not exactly in the spirit of things either.

I’ve seen both behaviours in the extreme on G+, as well as Twitter and Facebook (admittedly Twitter can be rough to retain the amount of info in just 140 characters). You don’t have to go overboard and thank the entire chain of people who reshared before it got to you, but it IS good for to at least acknowledge the person you shared from, and if possible the original poster too. Who knows, leading by example may just pay off in a larger, more connected social network able to help you succeed beyond your wildest dreams… or maybe good karma is enough to make it worth your while.

WordCampPDX, an unconference.

Posted by on Monday, 19 September, 2011

It’s been less than 24 hours since WCPDX wrapped up, so I’m still processing a lot of what I heard over the course of the weekend. Still, it was within the first hour that I knew my time would be well spent here. Thankfully so, too, as I was fresh off a PDXWhisky tasting event from the night before (in bed around midnight and up at 6am for WCPDX made for a bit of a rough start Saturday morning…. thank gods for five-hour energy drinks and social anxiety induced adrenaline!).

The biggest takeaway for me was actually specific to running ‘barcamp’ style events: motivating people to lead sessions isn’t something you can control or drive, the participants need to be passionate about a topic and self motivated to put their session on the board.

The second takeaway was much more WordPress focused: “Child themes” are apparently not WordPress themes for children, but rather a more development focused capability for further customization of your site. Who knew? ;)

Over the course of the two days, I jotted down notes on my iPad to log some of the bits that stuck out to me about the entire event. Oddly, none of these were really WordPress specific… though that is likely since I didn’t come in to the conference with specific WP questions or goals… that in mind, here are some lessons learned from a participant’s point of view. Some off these were learned because of perceived failures, some because of successes, but all are lessons we can bring back and implement to improve and maintain success… please forgive the disjointed nature:

.

WCPDX: Unconference best practices / lessons learned / general notes and observations: 

  1. Be crisp. Start session with topic explanation in 3 words, then poll attendees for expectations and what they want to know.
  2. Agenda organization is frantic from the start, but settles down later. Minimal topics in the first 30 minutes into the first session, but builds momentum with the day.
  3. During first session, rest of schedule builds out heavily. If you want to present, don’t wait.
  4. On the fly schedule updates via web / twitter were brilliant. Define single online and single physical location to find schedules. Set centralized twitter account to help users enable text notifications for schedule changes during conference. Be mindful of using this account for things other than scheduling updates during session hours.
  5. Participation is a lot of question/answer collaborative discussion; not a lot of push presentations, but there was a good balance of presentation to collaborative engagement.
  6. Finding people to lead seemed like it may have been tough at times but there was no real lack of desired topics. (how to identify SMEs?)
  7. WCPDX 2011 was heavily developer driven, which will likely be useful to me down the line. 50% plus in the audience make-up. Appreciated addition of scheduled keynote overlap when main was dev-centric.
  8. First session seems like a rough start/just getting the feel.
  9. Felt bad for not coming with a topic to lead. Will need to prepare for future camps. I had ideas but nothing solid to present, just general topics and didn’t want to cram the schedule with a nebulous idea… wondering how to motivate people like me to lead not just attend.
  10. Topics shift quickly based on attendee feedback; some sessions were listed as one thing and quickly changed to something connected but generally different.
  11. At one point I realized was in wrong session (I had forgotten the right room number and went to the wrong one), but found leaving to be difficult due to the perception that simply leaving would mean I was unhappy with a session which simply wasn’t relevant to me… Need to define an unconference better in the beginning, define etiquette and level set from the start, make it easy for participants to navigate and engage without feeling as though they are being rude.
  12. Need multiple text editor capabilities to easily switch note taking topics and ideas. iPad multi-task capabilities came in handy for this.
  13. Prepared sessions are good, but I found open dialog and conversation on guided topics are better. Facilitator vs. Presenter.
  14. Free rooms are essential to allow for people to ad hoc hack, blog, etc. Make space available with tables.
  15. Bring business cards.

 

All in all, the event was an outstanding success for me as a participant. Like after most conferences where you are focused and learning about specific topics that challenge your current skill sets or provide new exciting ways of accomplishing your goals, I am on a high and excited to make some changes to my sites. I am sure the euphoric buzz will wear off soon enough, but the stuff I learned won’t deteriorate with it.

I am once again re-invigorated with desire to improve my WordPress driven sites (I own and maintain 3 of them), and am looking to revamp at least one of them to make it more functional for the user base. I even found some great tools over the weekend (like the EditFlow plugin from http://editflow.org/) to really help bring my sites up a notch and ensure that my content is the reason people don’t stay on my sites, not the site itself ;) Yes, that was self-deprecating humour to make a point, I really hope my content isn’t that bad!

I also found that my iPad was the perfect tool for a conference event like WordCampPDX. It is light and nimble and easily woken from sleep. Having it at the ready-made keeping up to date on the unconference scheduling easy, and checking out resources mentioned during session allowed me an efficient way to set the content for later review, or even just install a them or plugin on the fly as we were discussing it. Brilliant.

Plus, I was able to easily follow the conversations occurring on Twitter under the #WCPDX hash tag, which allowed me to connect with a few of the event attendees in the same sessions or conflicting sessions I couldn’t get to. While that made for a very busy day in terms of communications, it really skyrocketed my experience at WCPDX by enabling two-way real-time feedback in sidebar discussions concurrent with live sessions, or off in ad hoc meet ups for more in-depth conversations. I can’t imagine attending any conference without my iPad and constant twitter feed going. Not only did it make the conference more efficient and effective for me, but it also allowed me to discover and connect with some cool new people!

For those of you I met at #WCPDX: thanks for making it a great weekend! If you haven’t already, check out www.acdntlpoet.com and connect with me in the other social web spaces so we can continue the great conversations!

Some brief thoughts on Google+

Posted by on Thursday, 14 July, 2011

The past week has seen an amazing buzz surrounding Google+ as serious competition for social networking tools. Most people seem to be comparing it to Facebook for some reason. Personally, I think that is rather short sighted. G+ is not really a direct competitor to Facebook nor Twitter. Rather, G+ fills a gap which exists between those two monoliths. A comment on one of the various G+ conversations I’d seen over the week likened this to the game of thrones, wherein the result will not be a single victor, but rather the demolition of thrones  at all, where no one site will be dominant. I think that is the likely outcome to all of this… as I’ve said before, use that which works for you. I am on nearly every site for varying reasons, as I find value in each. I won’t be leaving one for the other until such a time as there is no value for me to gain form it. Much like my reasons for dropping MySpace, I simply got no value from my account on that site, so I finally let it go.

When it comes to G+, I’ve also seen a very disparate view of the party. In my experience thus far, there has been immediate and dynamic conversation sprouting up and gaining serious traction. For others, however, I’ve noted them likening their experience to entering an empty room. I attribute this directly to how actively those people have added to their circles, and how active the people in their circles at posting. In my case, I now have 137 people in my circles, a solid 20 of which are fairly active at posting. Because of those numbers, I am immediately able to see value in the space since there is activity in the space. Much like real life relationships, you get out what you put in. The same is true for G+, Facebook, twitter, Tumblr, and any other social network you join… after all, relationships are the basis of social!

For me, G+ is quickly becoming a widespread network of connections with whom I can globally collaborate, engage, and learn. Posts in G+ thus far seem to be more substantive, richer, thoughtful, and of higher quality than those coming across my Facebook news feed. While I -think- my twitter feed is just as substantive, the quality of those posts seems to be inhibited by the 140 character limitation, whereas G+ takes a long form approach and allows for those posts to be fully expressed not truncated. Plus, the multimedia aspect of G+ is implemented far better than in either Facebook or Twitter.  Oddly, this is the only area in which I think Tumblr may have a leg up, as tumblr does multimedia VERY well. The downside of tumblr, of course, if the conversation aspect is disjointed, difficult, and even hidden. So, while Tumblr may present multimedia content in a better fashion, I really am just a consumer, not a participant. G+ takes the cake again when it comes to enabling good discussion surrounding the originating posts.

When it comes to controlling and organizing how you post content to your streams, Circles are brilliant. I have even more ideas about how Circles can possibly be improved, but for that conversation you’re going to need to head over to Google+ and read my public post on the matter:

https://plus.google.com/u/0/104543811989174059883/posts/DgtYDeNMpQ7

While you’re there, feel free to add me to your circles if you’re also on G+… if you aren’t there, feel free to ping me for an invite so we can continue this conversation and/or engage in others! You can find my profile at: https://plus.google.com/u/0/104543811989174059883

 

On the value of thought leadership

Posted by on Thursday, 23 June, 2011

It is no secret that anyone working in the social business world struggles daily with how to measure value and return on their investment (ROI) in the space. If we can figure out how to effectively measure our work and translate it into monetary value, we’re golden. Come up with a nice easy formula in the support space to show avoided cost, something like: “total clicks to payload x success indicator x %clients who would call = avoided call ticket x cost per case = avoided cost”  and you’ve got your end of story, right?

Well, not so fast (you knew I wasn’t going to let you go that easily right?). What about measuring those intangibles I spoke of in my earlier post here? How can you effectively measure thought leadership and eminence in the industry? Or rather, and perhaps more importantly, is the value of being a thought leader more important than the simply monthly indicators of engagement and content consumption?

I’m fairly certain you can see what I’d argue here…. that thought leadership, that digital eminence is actually the primary purpose of social business, everything else we do is secondary to supporting that higher goal. Sharing our high value content? Sure, that’s an essential part of what we do…. which goes to support the end result of raising our place in the digital world and the ultimate perception that we are indeed the thought leaders in our industry.

Let me take an exampled approach here, and bear with a few assumptions along the way:
You all know I am passionate about whiskies. No arguments from any of you on that point I’m sure. Amongst my friends (outside of the actual industry) you may possibly consider me as a burgeoning thought leader when it comes to topics surrounding whiskies. But why is that? Is it simply because I consistently post a measurable number of links to quality whiskies related content? Or is it because over time I’ve consistently provided quality content related to specifics of whiskies in conjunction with other efforts I make in other spaces to learn and help teach others about this water of life? I’ll bet you’d tell me the latter of the two choices. But which of the two is more important to you? Is just receiving the content enough to warrant me as a thought leader when it comes to whisk(e)y? Again I’d wager to say, no, it isn’t. Thought leadership is critical to what my boss recently described as “compounded interest”. Which makes perfect sense to me.

Continuing with the example…  let me ask; is my thought leadership in the whiskies world of benefit to you? My guess here is that it is, but only when you need it. I am often asked by friends and family for recommendations of whiskies to give as gifts; and I am happy to oblige, especially since answering those questions typically helps me learn and stay up to date on pricing changes and allows me to hone my skills at choosing decent drams. But it is only important to you because the issue on your plate is what bottle to buy for your friend. If you weren’t in that predicament, my thought leadership in the space wouldn’t be of value to you. This exemplifies my point about thought leadership; that there is value there, possibly great value, but only in a ‘just-in-time’ ad hoc model. Right now, as I write this entry, my eminence (bear with me on that assumption) as a whiskies subject matter expert is irrelevant since I am neither posting specifically about whisky, nor is anyone presently utilizing my knowledge about the topic, so I’m not seeing value right now, nor have I over the course of this month. Last month, however, my thought leadership WAS valuable as I was able to recommend a moderately priced bottle as a gift, making a big impact upon the recipient from what I hear, but also not breaking the bank to do so. In that case, I’d say my eminence could have a direct monetary value had I not been asked and had a higher priced bottle been purchased.

My point in this is to show that thought leadership can only be built over time, and the value only seen at the whim of the client with no way to predict how or when that value will be recognized. Perhaps, in the technical support world it will be in avoiding a call ticket because a client remembered a blog post on the topic which included the answer, or perhaps it will be during a sales call when a client signs a maintenance agreement because they recognize our eminence in the space and know we can help them effectively and efficiently when they encounter difficult issues….

Thought leadership is potentially VERY valuable in these instances, but (like the above example), is not solely a product of just work in social business, rather it is a holistic drive connecting all sorts of activities which combine to build that eminence over time. Eminence which can show value in varied, unexpected ways, which can often skirt any potential to accurately measure and connect effort to value.

Musings on social business ROI for support…

Posted by on Monday, 16 May, 2011

Having troubles providing ROI for your social business efforts in a client support context? Yeah, you’re not alone. As support workers, we deal with intangibles every day. It is actually a big part of how we solve problems at times; using that support intuition and gut feelings which come from experience and a roll up of all the differing variables at play, not to mention some well-implemented educated guesses. But how do you quantify all that into a reportable metric to show the value returned from the efforts?

Martin Hill-Wilson over on TheSocialCustomer.com had some great insights to share as they relate to ROI and Customer Service. He makes a point of showing that the intangibles of support can’t be measured, yet are still as critical (a fact which those of us working in the space already know):

“… the inability to directly measure something does not mean it is worthless. Quite the opposite. In fact the most abstract topic that has continued to evolve up the greasy pole of corporate favour is culture. This is illogical from the perspective of corporate Vulcanlogic. You can no more directly show me culture that I can show you that unicorn. Yet huge amounts of cash are invested by the C-suite to improve corporate cultures.”

Everyone who is working today in the social business spaces knows there is value. We feel it in our bones with as much certainty as there is coffee in our mugs (which is to say, a lot). If we were not so convinced of the value and need to be social, to engage with our clients and colleagues in these spaces, you can rest assured we’d not be spending time here. But we’ve all been tasked to find that one thing that evades us, the holy-grail of social business: tangible metrics to show real returns on the time, energy, and capital we have invested to be engaged in the social spaces.

In the marketing worlds, these intangibles are a bit easier to quantify through what Martin calls ‘proxy metrics’; linkages between tangibles and intangibles that indicate correlation if not causation. Imagine a television ad running for a week’s time, and measured sales increasing over the same period. You could make the correlation there that the campaign had a particular return on investment.  And while, yes, we do have proxy metrics in the support world, connecting these linkages from investment to returns is a far greater leap. In marketing, there may be a three jump difference from a campaign to sales increases. But what about support where we aren’t focused on driving revenue?

In client support, the number of jumps grows exponentially from any given activity to revenue recognition, be it direct product sales or maintenance renewals. Does a single tweet containing an FAQ solving an issue translate directly to revenue recognition? No, no more than a television ad for a new car can translate directly into a sale. Both provide the potential, but with so many other factors in play, how can you say that this one piece of content made the maintenance renewal sale? I imagine even ad agencies and dealerships find it difficult to prove that TV ad was the deciding factor for that new car purchase!

Unless the clients are providing direct feedback, noting the explicit reasons for their maintenance renewals, or lack of need to open support tickets, we only have indicators at best to help guide any potential ROI measurements. Martin comments on these client-satisfaction proxies as well:

“But remember, at best these are indicators and should not be assumed to be true in every market. In some, the nature of the product, the price point, the availability of alternative choice, are stronger drivers as to whether customer are predisposed to hang around a brand for any length of time.”

Without that direct client feedback, within support we can only rely on indicators like “visits to content” and “audience base” (followers counts) to show us reach and potential for increased revenue or call ticket avoidance. While call ticket trends and content visits can be easily tracked, I’d argue that connecting the two directly to social business efforts is a dangerous practice. Like so many other aspects of business, trends in revenue and client problem tickets are not tied to a single variable. Changes in the economy, product stability, support staffing, along with any social business campaigns or overall program efforts can combine to drive trends up or down, or even cancel each other out of one effort is successful while another variable may be causing problems (think improved products in a down economy causing sales to plateau rather than increase or decline).

In most instances, de-constructing these trends into their various, granular pieces is simply not possible. You simply can not isolate the various trends and look at the measurable components in a vacuum. Each piece needs to be weighed against the entirety, as a collective effort; each portion doing its own work and supporting the other pieces at the same time. We do not live in a black and white world, why would we think our various efforts are effective in black and white ways?

What does that leave us to gauge our efforts? Transactional data; simple indicators of progress or failure which may, or may not, be entirely accurate or reliable. Yes, we should continue to track those quantifiable items like visits, click-throughs, and followers, but not to the detriment of longer term benefits. Taking the television ad analogy again: that ad spot may not directly impact a purchase decision tomorrow, but the benefit may be seen 6, 9, 12 months, or even years later as part of an overall affinity for the brand. How do you connect such a compound and complex result with a single ad or campaign to show direct value for that single investment? Translating back to the Support arena, how do you connect an intangible, something which doesn’t exist (like the lack of a problem submission), with an individual tweet or larger social program to show any causation and direct return on that social investment?

Let’s look at a shift in thinking for a moment: what if we use transactional data as simple indicators, and then reset our focus to work and efforts designed to build overall relationship value? After all, isn’t that the social part of Social Business? Building that trust, and personal connection with clients is a key part of ensuring not only their success, but our mutual continued business relationships. The trick, of course, is figuring out how to measure those highly valuable but intangible connections. Activities alone won’t show that value… sometimes a handshake is just a polite greeting, other times it is the start of a long term complex relationship with decided fiscal impact, but there’s no way to attach value on the handshake alone.

Obviously I don’t have the answers here. If I did (and I’ve joked to my boss a number of times) I’m quitting my job and going on the lecture circuit for 6 figures per engagement… because that is how big of a deal this is to the industry. Find that silver bullet, that perfect ROI formula, and you’ll be set for life. As it stands, we’re all inching closer, but we’ve still got a giant chasm of a gap to bridge.

Until then, we stand with the belief that within a support context raising visibility to our content to help prevent problems, and providing solutions just in time when problems do arise is one more way we can ensure client success through our social business program. But more importantly we believe that open, transparent communication is simply the right thing to do for our clients and our business.

……….
Martin Hill-Wilson’s source article, as linked above: http://thesocialcustomer.com/martin-hill-wilson/37698/customer-service-roi-provable?utm_source=tsc_newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter
……….

Full transparency: I am an IBM employee. This post is wholly my own and does not necessarily reflect any official IBM policy, opinion, or position. Read more about the guidelines which I follow at IBM’s Blogroll Policies and Guidelines for Blogging

How to reduce meetings and influence people….

Posted by on Friday, 4 March, 2011

… to do the same.
I had initially begun writing this blog post as a personal blog to guide and help us all (myself included) to re-evaluate all the meetings we host and attend, and adjust in such a way as to dramatically improve out productivity. A funny thing happened, though… as I was writing for this personal audience, I began to see a much more effective use of this post on my professional blog, “Notes from Rational Support”. After all, it IS a work issue, and likely more poignant to that audience than this one. So, I adjusted my efforts and worked up a post for NFRS instead.

Of course, I DO think that post is relevant to this audience as well and wanted to highlight it here. So go on, check it out and feel free to comment there, or here.

 

 

Balance as a photographer and blogger

Posted by on Tuesday, 8 February, 2011

A friend recently blogged on ‘disconnecting’ for the weekend and the freedom it gave her to become directly involved in her life, rather than observe through her camera lens and behind a blog.

Her post got me thinking about my own tendencies towards observation and interaction. From day one I have always leaned towards the role of observer. I tend to stand back, take it all in, process what I’m seeing, and record for later use or action. Rarely do I come to a point where direct interaction is appropriate or required. But, sometime in my 20′s I realized that being the observer was a bit of a self-fulfilling prophecy of sorts, in that if I always put myself in the role of the observer, action will never be required. In a journalistic sense, the observer/recorder should never be part of the action/interaction, lest they become part of the story (a taboo in the journalism world).

Once I realized this, I put down the camera  and tried to become more involved, living life rather than observing it. I found that I enjoyed myself much more, but over the years have realized that I missed capturing some of those moments and images. Striking to the heart of this post: as with everything in life, balance is the key.

Now is the time to find that balance. Time for me to be involved, and observant; to walk that tightrope between fully engaged but oblivious, and fully observant but detached and unaffected.

Of course, this isn’t JUST about photography either, the same balance needs to be reflected within my own social networking. Do I pause to tweet, Facebook, or blog so as not to lose the impact of the moment shared, or do I wait until later to share out and run the risk of not sharing at all when the moment begins to fade in importance and impact? There’s no singularly right answer here, as balance is the key again. Sometimes I’ll need to share out RIGHT NOW, other times I’ll need to wait, or to not share at all as I live in the moment for me and my own direct experiences. Each instance is its own choice to make to strike the right balance for me. Something to think on…

On personal digital eminence, an aside

Posted by on Thursday, 20 January, 2011

I’d initially intended to post here on this topic, in a more personal less work-centric method and perspective. But I quickly realized as I began writing, that the topic its self lent more readily to a professional post on “Notes from Rational Support“.

Rather than duplicating content, however, I’ll simply point you over to that post. Feel free to comment on it there or here, whichever you are comfortable with… if at all for that matter. I would like to hear your input on the concept and how I (we) can better encourage individuals to get involved under their own names and id’s, and work to stand out as thought leaders in their respective spaces. If I were asking -you- to stand up as a thought leader (and I am), what would get you motivated to do so? How can I help enable you to further your own personal digital eminence?

Blatant self promotion

Posted by on Monday, 17 January, 2011

I’ll be the first to admit that I am no salesman; that I work in client support because I -can’t- sell is not a trait that has gone unnoticed by me or others. But, as my career shifts and molds to new adventures, more and more I am finding the need to sell myself, or more specifically, my ideas and abilities.

When About.Me came onto my radar, I jumped at the chance to use it as a virtual business card of sorts; a way to roll up a general idea of who I am into a few sentences and connect to some of the other places for more information depending on context.

http://about.me/acdntlpoet

As with everything, this is a work in progress. I think it gives a fair representation at present, but I may remove more personal items in favour of more professional. Time will tell how I modify this based on usage and feedback. For now, it seems to stand well as yet another signpost in the ether connecting the various spaces in which I play.

Of course, as one of the people I follow on twitter noted: (This is a) boring concept with good execution. So I’ll have to see if great implementation alone will make this a useful tool, or if it just another internet fad/profile which I’ll end up forgetting about and abandoning within a year. For now, however, my profile has been built and will stand out there as another way to self promote, albeit in a rather passive way.

An open letter and a personal plea

Posted by on Tuesday, 2 November, 2010

I hope you understand, I like you. I don’t think I am smarter than you, nor do I think you are stupid.  If that were the case I wouldn’t associate with you, let alone call you “friends”. I do not consider myself above reproach, nor infallable*. We all have our faults, we all make mistakes, but I am noticing a very disturbing trend: a backlash against proper spelling, grammar, and punctuation.

Call me the grammar police, or the spelling cops, but I draw the line at Nazi. Really? I am not condemning you to the gas chambers because you left out an Oxford comma, or decided that comma was spelled coma (a distinction that can very easily outline the importance of spelling on its own). Yes, I may demand your use of proper English, and yes I likely will point it out when you fail to do so. But labeling me as a Nazi is uncalled for (unless you want me goose-stepping all over your dangling participles).

I come to you today, however, not to demand that you improve your spelling or grammatical skills; no I come to you today to implore you to simply stop this growing trend of hate against people who expect communication at a higher level than ‘pre-school’. I know that you, my friends, are better than that. When we speak with each other, I hear the voices of intelligent thought. There are times, however, when I read your Facebook posts or Twitter statuses, and even emails and sigh heavily at the impression you are giving to the rest of the world. It makes me sad because I know you for the intelligent people you are, but that intelligence is simply not reflected when you make such obvious spelling or grammatical errors. People will judge you on your written communication skills; like it or not.

So please, take this to heart: I am not seeking attention when I correct you, I am trying to help you learn. I want you to use proper spelling, grammar, and punctuation so that others may see the intelligence you truly hold and not miss your real message. From a much more selfish side, I simply want to understand what you are trying to say without having to translate through improper structure or spelling issues. We are all inundated with information nowadays, so efficiency and clarity of communication is even more essential now. Proper use of spelling, grammar, and punctuation is critical to these end goals.

To be clear, it isn’t perfection I seek, but rather incremental improvement from our present state. We can all stand to improve our communication skills, and today seems like the perfect day to start!

*See what I did there? An intentional misspelling to prove a point!