Rethinking Education: Immersion, Part 1 of 3

One of several striking moments in the film Waiting For Superman was its explanation that our education system was designed to create a workforce consisting of a 40-60 percent split between professionals and skilled workers. In 1950, it made sense.

At the time, 34 percent of all jobs in the United States was in manufacturing. People who weren't employed in manufacturing, much like today, sought out jobs in the service sector, which paid slightly less and was more likely to include part-time employment. But by 2002, things had changed. The manufacturing percentage had shrunk to 13 percent. And in 2009, it shrunk again to 9.25 percent.

But even more striking is that of the manufacturing positions that remain, many are skewing toward highly skilled manufacturing jobs, which require 2-year associate's degrees or even 4-year degrees. Of course, some of those would-be positions are sometimes moved overseas too.

A few years ago, for example, SunPower, one of the country's largest makers of solar panels, created 5,000 high-skilled manufacturing jobs that ended up in the Philippines. Tax packages, lower wages, and a better trained workforce were cited as the reasons.

The two-fold labor dilemma in the United States.

This is at the heart of the education dilemma in the United States, without much blame being cast on anyone. The U.S. is not producing enough of an educated workforce to meet the demands of its own needs. Case in point: the U.S. now ranks 20th in reading literacy, 18th in math literacy, and 14th in science. But it also ranks second in number of students who find it boring.

In a shrinking world, where so much of the world participates and competes in a global economy (mug manufacturers and some small book publishers outsource the work for less), the U.S. will eventually have to face one of two choices — continue to allow education to erode and hope it can continue to create service positions or refocus its efforts on creating a workforce that can meet its highly skilled manufacturing, technological, and science needs.

if we don't, most studies seem to suggest that the country will continue to have unemployment problems — it is priced too high for low skilled manufacturing and the workforce isn't educated enough for highly skilled manufacturing. That could mean as many as 30 percent of high school graduates (and dropouts) won't be able to find suitable employment. That leaves two choices: entitlement programs or crime.

So how do we fix it? Many people say they have solutions, but many of these solutions pinpoint singular problems. For example, some say we need more oversight or better teachers or better parents or even better students. Few people, it seems, focus on the more important aspect of education — education itself. Except, of course, the students themselves.


If it doesn't seem obvious, the answers these students provide all point to one singular challenge — they are disengaged. Everything else in their lives and what is happening in the world today is more engaging than the education they receive.

At the same time, immersive education doesn't only have to rely on technology as the video suggests. But it does touch on one of the primary changes to public education that needs to be embraced as early as the fourth grade, if not sooner. Students need to be engaged.

The contrast between a disengaged and immersive educational track.

Fourth grade students are frequently given random one-page stories, followed by questions about what they just read. They are introduced to random mathematical theories (often with an introduction using approximations) without any explanation of where it came from or how it might be applied. They are given a steady stream of spelling words, but most of them are only studied for for short-term memorization. And none of what they learn seems to apply to anything they might need to know in the future.

Is there a better way? I think so. Enough so that I'll devote the next two Mondays to exploring the topic (for starters).

But some of it is fairly simple. If you took a room of fourth graders and gave them an historical context about Egypt and then introduced them to building pyramids (mathematics), asked them to draw maps tracking the expansion of an empire (geography), suggested they code the lyrics of a song using hieroglyphics (language), invited them to draw pictographs (art), and then told them to make up their own story from the point of view of a king or slave (critical thinking and storytelling) ... how do you think they might feel about the education then?

My son felt pretty good when I used this lesson plan to teach him. But that wasn't in the fourth grade. He was in preschool.

Special thanks to Ruthie for bringing this video to my attention. It's an excellent refresher for reality.

Interviewing Influencers: Bronx Zoo's Cobra

Nobody saw it coming, but the Bronx Zoo's cobra has become an overnight sensation on Twitter. The cobra had quickly slithered up the influencer rankings, beating out best-selling authors, politicians, and social media experts in just a few hours. The cobra has attracted 150,000 followers after 50 tweets.

Currently with a Klout score of 73 and climbing, the snake is credited by the influencer measurement algorithm as "knowing what's trending and earning respect from your network." The cobra has even had conversations with celebrities like Ellen DeGeneres and city officials like Mayor Mike Bloomberg. The Huffington Post reports that the snake is already earning endorsement deals. SKYY Vodka offered the snake a $10,000 appearance fee.

How did the snake do it? Social media experts want to know! So we met with the snake earlier in the week to find the magic.

Ten Questions With A Social Media Snake.

Q: How does it feel to be an overnight sensation and social media influencer?
A: Listen, let me tell you about influence. I've been an influencer much longer than I've been online. Who was Aesop fixated on when he wrote fables? Me. Who did the ancient Aztecs worship as the master of life? Me. Who convinced Adam and Eve to eat the apple? Me again. I've always been an influencer. I didn't need Twitter to make me one. If it wasn't for me, all you humans would still be running around in fig leaves and ignorant bliss.

Q: Are you going to take the SKYY Vodka endorsement deal?
A: I'm holding out for the big money. Maxim writer Justin Halpern held out after launching $#*! My Dad Says on Twitter and look what happened: Someone published his crappy book and CBS bought the television rights. None of it was funny. Call the show $#*! My Snake Says and I'd rule CBS.

Q: If you did get a television deal, who would play you?
A: Wow. That would be a real toss up. Mom always liked William H. Macy but I'm thinking Gary Busey. Busey is off the hook! But hey, I'm not picky. Brian Solis works. He knows the terms and is short enough to fit in a pocket.

Q: Are there any social media experts you wouldn't want on the show?
A: Chris Brogan would never ever get on the show. What's up with all that Human Business crap? I'm a snake, baby. In your face! And Jason Falls? What's wrong with snake oil? And those clowns at Twitter who almost suspended me? I stick my tongue out at you.

Q: They almost suspended you? How did that make you feel?
A: How do you think I would feel? I'm an invertebrate. It's bad enough that Twitter hasn't approved my verified account, but they bent over backwards to give one to Charlie Sheen. We all know why too. He's not going places, but I am. So what if texting requires thumbs? I'll overcome. I haven't had a break like this since St. Patrick kicked me out of Ireland. He can kiss my asp.

Q: Do you think the influence algorithm programmers are worried about your rise?
A: Does a snake charmer play a pungi? Of course they are. Joe Fernandez probably panicked when I hit a Klout score of 73, beating almost all of those social media influencers who pimp his site. Brands don't mind. They are already sending me perks. Seriously. Starbucks went nuts when I told people not to talk to me until I had my morning coffee.

Q: Do you have any long-term aspirations?
A: I'm still taking it all in. The way I see it, I have two options. I could be a mega celebrity or I could shoot for even something bigger. 2012 isn't all that far away and the campaign banners look great. America could use a president from the Bronx. I'd represent New York. Just don't believe those rumors that I was born in Egypt. I was born in Hawaii. Duh.

Q: Do you have any advice for young social media pros?
A: Yeah, um, right. Be authentic and retweet other influencers. So what if it's a contradiction. Most social media tips are just made up. Boo, hiss. Seriously, has anybody even heard of any of those people? No. Does everybody know the cobra? Yes.

Q: What has been the worst thing someone has said about you so far?
A: Zoo Director Jim Breheny said I was pencil thin. To that I say he should stop making it about him. This is about me, Jim, and nobody is pencil thin on this side of the glass. All the same, after TIME talked to him they asked for my side of the story. I kept telling them ... there is no "side." I AM the story!

Q: Is there anything you would like to add?
A: Yeah, I'm not really Justin Bieber. I was pulling TIME's leg when I said that. I don't get to pull legs a whole lot. Oh, but I have a message for Ford. You still owe me a royalty check. Fix me up before I tell the guys at Hyundai to let the Elantra Cobra roll.

Happy April Fool's Day. And thanks to all those mentioned for being good sports, especially the Bronx Zoo's cobra that was never interviewed. Special thanks to Geoff Livingston and Ike Pigott for introducing the cobra. For other April Fool's advice, see Revealing Secrets: The "Mushup Strategy," Preparing For Stardom: How To Slam Dunk Social Media, and Releasing SME 14.0, Beta: Copywrite, Ink..

Checking Vision: A Starbucks Lesson For Small Business

Someone asked a good question last week. Fredrick Nijm, co-founder and CEO of Addoway, mentioned that many companies, especially startups, sometimes see too many changes to adhere to a vision statement.

He's right to some extent. But before discussing why he is right, consider what Howard Schultz, president and CEO of Starbucks, discussed this week with NPR. As soon as he returned in 2008, he closed about 7,000 stores for several hours to retrain Starbucks employees.

Why? In Schultz's opinion, growth had given way to small changes that was driving Starbucks away from its vision. One example cited in the article related to how the company steamed milk. Size and scope had prompted stores to re-steam milk, which is more profitable and produced a higher yield. But it's also one off from the mission and vision of the company in terms of meeting its commitment to excellence.

"To establish Starbucks as the most recognized and respected brand in the world and become a national company with values and guiding principles that employees could be proud of.“ — Starbucks vision statement, 2008

The vision was not perfect, given the first part is not necessarily achievable and the second is, arguably, already achieved. But incidentally, the company has been working toward developing a new vision. In the interim, it has mostly been operating on a mission to "inspire and nurture the human spirit - one person, one cup, and one neighborhood at a time."

What is interesting is that the mission has little resemblance to the one employed by Starbucks four years ago — "Establish Starbucks as the premier purveyor of the finest coffee in the world while maintaining our uncompromising principles while we grow." Both, I might note, weave in elements of the vision. And, you have to consider the various principles and values the company has adopted to appreciate the full scope of what Starbucks is trying to do.

This change no doubt plays into the logo change earlier this year. While the company received its fair share of criticism over the matter, the change of the mark wasn't made on a design whim. It was made because the company had already been changing its mission and vision in ways that included coffee but went well beyond the primary product.

How Do Startups Keep Pace With Change And Maintain A Vision?

To Nijm's point, vision statements are less about corralling a company and more about providing a bellwether (along with a mission and values) that the company can measure ideas against. Ergo, while reheating milk makes the company more profitable and speeds the process, it also fails in the face of the company's mission and vision.

Although Starbucks is a big company, this case study fits well within the biggest challenge small companies and startups face on a near daily basis. I'm working with one company right now (not even launched), which in staying true to its preliminary vision, decided to make manufacturing a core component of its operation as opposed to contracting the manufacturing and branding the product.

In the short term, contracting out the manufacturing seemed like a good idea because it would reduce startup costs. However, in retrospect, the owner decided contracting out would compromise the quality. He is right. After all, many people know that the McDonald's of 30 years ago is not the McDonald's of today, which also required a vision change to keep pace with growth.

It was a defining moment for that company, for instance, to decide that growth and profitability was more important than purchasing a specific quality of beef. And therein lies how a well-defined mission, vision, and values are a bellwether.

Growth. Companies need to revisit their mission, vision, and values during growth spikes that clearly cause them to move away from their foundation. (When growth or profitability take precedence, a company like McDonald's may de-emphasize quality. And lately, the company is being forced toward health consciousness.)

Acquisition. When companies purchase other companies, they need to determine whether the acquisition can adjust to the parent company or if the subsidiary can reasonably act autonomously with its existing mission. (This has been the Achilles of Yahoo since its beginning, buying up companies that were poor matches and attempting to make them yield.)

Shift. When companies take on new niche products or services, sometimes those products or services slowly begin to dominate the initial scope of a company. (For example, I recently worked on an account to rebrand a mold remediation company that grew into an environmental demolition and construction company.)

Era. Not all products and services are timeless, especially in the medical and technology industries. Consider all the industries that are struggling — print publications, auto manufacturers, etc. — and you'll recognize what happens when companies begin to believe they publish newspapers instead of journalism or work in autos as opposed to transportation. Or perhaps the better example is how the March of Dimes transitioned from ending polio to benefiting premature babies.

Exploratory. Small business owners and startups are often given opportunities well outside their scope of service or expertise. The existing vision can easily help them decide whether or not the opportunity is worth changing their direction. Or, they may operate in a temporary exploratory mindset, provided they understand that they will have to adopt some permanence.

Weakness. Or, as mentioned in the original article, companies might consider their vision when it's already failing for one reason or another. Perhaps it is because they hired people who never embraced the original vision or perhaps it is incredibly weak and not transformative. Either way, companies without an adopted vision tend to have various departments and individual people who could be working against each other or in different directions (whether they know it or not).

The short answer for small companies and startups on when they might change their mission, vision, and values is at a major event. However, the better answer is to weigh every operation and decision against the vision to begin with. If those decision makers did that, chances are that there would be fewer sweeping changes as they developed.

But then again, that may even be the difference between a company vs. an enterprise or an organization vs. an initiative. While both usually have some direction, one doesn't necessarily have any end in sight, which is probably why most enterprises and initiatives eventually end.

Creating Community Or Capturing Fans: Facebook

Perhaps even more so with the launch of Facebook Sponsored Stories, there is increasing division about how marketers might approach Facebook. There are four primary approaches that marketers can make in any combination. And depending on the mix, those efforts produce two types of outcomes — collections or communities.

The four approaches to Facebook.

Invitation.

The invitation is the most prominent tactic, which commonly includes listing the address on any number of marketing materials. By adding a button on websites or icons on print advertisements, companies share that they exist on Facebook.

It's self-selected, usually undertaken by one of three types of fans — loyal customers, prospective customers, and perpetual dreamers (with the latter existing for select brands). For example, Porsche is made up of people who own Porsches, people who are considering a Porsche, and people who've always dreamed of owning a Porsche but more than likely never will.

There are spammers too, but well-managed accounts can deal with them effectively enough. Deleting spam posts (irrelevant content) or banning people who have no purpose other than tossing up junk links can be removed. But for the most part, the only accounts that keep them are number focused.

Introduction.

The introduction generally consists of well-placed advertising that attracts people to the site. It became even more common when Facebook launched its advertising program.

In this case, the primary driver was that a marketer could target specific demographics, proximity, or an expressed interest in something. Deciding which works best for the Facebook page is as varied as the account type. For example, a restaurant might benefit from focusing on proximity or a specific product might appeal to a certain demographic or a publication might write about a specific interest.

Advertising for a Facebook page can be added off the page too. But mostly, Facebook's program works well enough inside the platform. It makes more sense to promote a website beyond the program because people can always connect via the page.

Not all introductions are paid, of course. The sharing function within Facebook is generally well liked. People share topics of interest all the time with their friends. But it also relies on the strength of the page community.

Sponsored.

The newest advertising feature on Facebook empowers marketers to capitalize on shared stories by turning them into advertisements. The position of Facebook is that since the person already shared or endorsed or liked a page, someone else sharing this information (including a marketer) isn't any different.

While the shared stories concept has raised privacy concerns (including some advising people not to like anything), Facebook does have a point that it's not very different from the way the concept works today. Some marketers, brands, and companies have been sharing content all along. This simply moves it to the sidebar.



But the bigger question to ask is what kind of person does it attract to the page. If the consumer is drawn more by the relationship to another person and less for some of the reasons expressed in the other approaches, a marketer could gain more connections but not necessarily more interest in the product, service, store, or content.

Bought.

While just as old as any other approach, some people very literally purchase connections. They earn their "likes" by either purchasing connections outright, any number of link exchange programs (points or mutual), or coupon bribes and discounts.

While the latter doesn't seem to have as many issues as the first two, the primary objective of those who engage in any kind of purchased connection schemes is to run up big numbers. But numbers aren't a very good measure online. At least, not as good as some people would have you believe.

While it is true that popular pages tend to increase the likelihood of a page being liked, numbers alone do not guarantee it. People often look at several factors before liking a page, including its interaction with the members and among members.

The Two Types Of Divergent Outcomes.

The Capture.

Marketers that are intent on capturing fans ought to have no real problems. But the downside to chasing numbers is there are no real benefits either. There might even be unseen challenges.

Someone we work with used this approach on the front end of the Facebook experience and quickly captured 2,700 "likes" without much sweat. They were captured in about one month. However, what most people will never see is the story behind the scenes. These 2,700 connections have an interaction of 300 visits every 30 days and falling. And about 1,500 page views over the same period.

Even when new customers or self-selected connections join the page, the silence of those members encourages them to do the same, which is virtually nothing.

The Community.

Conversely, there is a page that we manage that was operated on an organic-only approach, which means the page only used self-selected community members — either invitations to people visiting the site or people with a specific common interest.

It had a modest following of 1,000 members. It took approximately seven months. However, behind the scenes, it has an active and growing community with 1,500 visits and growing at a steady, if not exponential, pace. And about 35,000 page views over the same period. When new connections are made, they are much quicker to like, share, and comment on the page just as they see other members do.

Interestingly enough, which touches on the concept of marketer-selected shared stories as opposed to friend-selected shared stories, some of my friends joined the 1,000-member page but never participate. Conversely, non-friends on the page have become friends over time through repeated interactions.

Is Friendship Enough?

Facebook says that its sponsored story tests had higher recall and were much more likely to result in an action (such as a friend liking a page too). However, our research is continuing to show that overemphasizing a friendship connection over a common interest connection actually drags down the interactions of the community.

The reason is psychology. Sometimes people like a page because a friend likes it. They may even recall which friend likes it and why. Liking it might even be less of an expressed interest in the page as much as it is a nod recognizing that a friend likes it.

However, such a scenario is much different than two friends who like the same things on the same page. In those instances, the two friends are much more likely to interact with the page, and perhaps, reinforce their mutual interests.

This isn't to say the sponsored story concept isn't intriguing. It has the potential to work, especially with the right company. The Starbucks example in the video is a good one. I can see how it might work for a restaurant. But for something else — let's say an environmental survival store — people might like the page because they want to support their friend's interest and feel more environmental for the day. But, they are likely to never visit the page again let alone buy anything from the company.

Getting Noticed: Top Five Ways To Get Media Attention

Everyone seems anxious for publicity these days. So much so that Patrick Garmore published 109 ways to make your business irresistible to media on Copyblogger. Some of those ideas might work, but Garmore curiously left off the top five.

What's more, none of the top five really require social media (but social media will give you an attention-getting boost). So much so, there is a good chance you will be booked on talk shows for weeks, even if you have never developed any relationship with the media before. So can you handle the truth?

The truth is that all of these proven publicity tactics are so effective that most public relations professionals will never present any them. Why not? Because they just don't know they exist. And, because it demonstrates just how easy it is to drive hits on YouTube and land national news coverage any time you want.

Top Five Ways To Get Media Attention And They Never Grow Old.

1. The Streak. There is nothing more effective than streaking at a sporting event. It's guaranteed to make the evening news and generally draw more than one million hits when it lands on YouTube. Just remember to wear a hat, especially one that can be easily identified with your business.


Planning for a streak session requires just enough exercise to outrun security and the price of admission to a sporting event. Add two or more people to the streaking session for maximum impact. Risks associated with this stunt include angry players, fans, and the possibility of arrest.

2. The Shoe Toss. Originally made famous at the expense of President Bush, the shoe toss remains one of the best ways to gain not only media attention locally but also around the world. It all just depends on the prominence of the person you toss the shoe at or how prominent you might be. The original shoe tosser was thisclose to sparking an international incident. Wow!


Planning for a shoe toss requires a balanced hand at picking the right shoe. The shoe needs to be soft enough not to cause any real damage, but aerodynamic enough to hit the target. It also helps to pick someone not as athletic as President Bush, given it made his assailant look so amateurish with two big misses. Risks associated with this stunt include criminal arrest, deportation, disappearing, and possibly being shot.

3. The Squirrel. Although some stunts have become cliche, waterskiing squirrels or other pet tricks still command attention. In some cases, pets don't even have to have talent if they are cute. But the waterskiing squirrels still rock on both counts, making them the leader of the pet trick pack.


Planning for a waterskiing squirrel or other pet trick is a serious commitment. It could take months or years before it pays dividends. On the plus side, as long as you are kind to your animals and they don't get hurt, there is no downside. They draw crowds when they are at live events and are good for one to three videos.

4. The Rant. While it helps if you are somebody, near incoherent rants from anybody are worth their weight In gold. And if you think the video rant can only be employed by the likes of Charlie Sheen, then you must have forgotten that the reigning rant champ (37 million views) was none other than Chris Rocker.


Planning for the perfect rant is not as easy as it looks. While it can be scripted, rants only work if they appear spontaneous. They also require one seamless take so prepare for several attempts before you get it right. The downside to the perfect rant is that the better the rant is, the harder it will be to top it. Sheen was smart to play his rants down just enough to give himself wiggle room for future toppers. Rocker, on the other hand, quickly lost the momentum.

5. The Flub. While it takes more effort to find the right venue, blowing an answer on live television or anything that looks remotely like a spontaneous man-on-the-street interview is big business. Case in point: While blowing an easy question is still preferred, Kellie Pickler makes her blown answer into a masterpiece as she throws out half a dozen unrelated answers that are also wrong.


Planning to toss out a series of stumbles and still maintain face can be difficult. This is why we picked Pickler as the best example. She has always managed to be graceful in never allowing what she doesn't know to outshine her talent. Prior to Pickler, Miss South Carolina had the crown (but she had more difficultly overcoming the moment).

So there you have it. Making yourself irresistible to the media has never been easier. In fact, we have a list of about two dozen more tactics that have proven effective time and time again. And, much like the top five above, none of them require any hard work like those offered up by Copyblogger. All it takes is the guts to seize your moment, assuming you really want it.

However, there is one primary caution to employing any of these proven publicity techniques: Never mix and match any of them. A rant followed by a shoe toss, for example, will make you look overly aggressive. Answering questions with dumb answers after streaking devalues the original scheme. And any of these actions around animals — such as poodle tossing or appearing naked with animals — will permanently damage your credibility. That said, have fun and get ready for your close up!

Copywrite, Ink. does not endorse any of these tactics per se. They should only be done by trained professionals who are cognitive of the risks, especially any of those that could result in serious harm or fatal embarrassment.

Winning: Maybe Eyeballs Measure Absurdity

Author David Meerman Scott says Charlie Sheen is winning. And he's not alone. Many people seem to think so. He's winning publicity, which is always admirable.

Right?

Sheen isn't the only one grabbing headlines. Muammar Gaddafi is grabbing headlines. So is the tragedy in Japan.

Are they winning? Do they need a fan page on Facebook? A Twitter account to promote a book tour? A blog or YouTube channel to rant about it all?

The new rules suggest old measurements are dead then toss out eyeball counts too.

One of the lessons I frequently share with public relations professionals every year is the concept of what makes news. And of the various topic choices — impact, proximity, timeliness, importance, prominence, conflict, novelty, human interest, sensitivity, and special interest — most of them skew toward conflict. And even if they do not, headlines are skewed toward it.

There was a small sliver of time that media covered news you needed to know. Nowadays, most media merely packages it in such a way that it makes you think you need to know it. It's done for all those topic choices mentioned above because journalists didn't invent the list. The public purchasing papers did. Media tends to deliver what people want nowadays.

When Charlie Sheen kisses Jimmy Kimmel, he capitalizes on prominence, novelty, conflict, timeliness, proximity, and special interest. He is smart to do it.

USA Today recently mentioned how these things work out. The public jumps for the ringside seat at various celebrity train wrecks for a few minutes before moving to the next. The stories are all the same — prominence, novelty, conflict, timeliness — every single time.

The media played it the same way with radiation reaching the United States. Several networks elevated the level of fear (causing some people to buy and take potassium iodide‎) to drive viewership and then continued to attract readership by refuting their own case before repackaging it into another alarmist story about the safety of the nuclear facilities in our own backyard. These proximity twists prolong eyeballs for as much as 90 days.

Some local programs even prompt government agencies to jump on it. Never mind California, there were news stories in New Hampshire. How did that work? It was simple enough. Someone at the news station wanted to capitalize on the news by ramping up proximity. So they called state officials.

No matter what state officials said, the news station had a story. If the state was monitoring radiation, it creates alarm. If the state isn't monitoring radiation, it creates alarm. In this case, either story taps impact, proximity, timeliness, importance, prominence, and conflict. And it makes you wonder. Is radiation winning? Does it need a fan page on Facebook?

The majority of news is negative so maybe publicity isn't a win.

The majority of news stories across ANY topic is negative. It doesn't matter what the topic might be. Almost 65 percent of media headlines (if not the story itself) lean negative, 15 percent positive, and the balance neutral. (This was from a scan of several statistical counts ranging from the economy to politics). It's no surprise. Psychologically, we're hardwired to react to negative because because it feels like it has more immediacy than positive.

Given those percentages, someone could easily make the case that news coverage means that you're losing, not winning. Sure, you might be "winning" publicity, but what does that really mean? Does it mean that Charlie Sheen needs to run for president? Maybe. The public likes him more than Obama or Palin, even if the same poll shows that almost no one has any respect for him.

Consider that for a moment.

Personally, I have no feelings toward Sheen (other than I liked him in Platoon some years ago). But I do have feelings about the measure of followers on social networks. Three million followers do not make you somebody. Or to borrow a quote unrelated to Charlie Sheen...

We don't hate you because you're famous. You're famous because we hate you.

Or maybe it's because you're a novelty. Or a threat. Or some other attention-grabbing reason, like saying "We are high priest Vatican assassin warlocks. Boom!" If that is winning, I'm happy to set my measures on a different track all together. But still, I will given Sheen this — at least he's doing something. Doing something is how you win with social media.

And if he hadn't done anything, then he wouldn't have broken the fastest person to reach one million followers record, even if more than 80 percent of those people were jumping on to see a meltdown. Maybe he will. Maybe he won't. I hope he doesn't, but I'd be as cautious about adopting the Sheen publicity model as I would be Gaddafi or a tsunami. What you do will eventually matter.