Twoverwhelmed

I’m feeling twoverwhelmed.  It’s not Twitter’s fault – it’s just another tool.  But I did get on Twitter this week.  The Twitter roar (“you don’t use Twitter?”)* was getting deafening, and I know enough about myself to know that the only way I can learn something is to use it.  (I finally got a handle on Squidoo this week too).

I’m not ready to commit to tweeting just yet – at least for now.  This blog and my day job are more than enough for now.  But how can I pass up the opportunity to follow the latest musings of Nicholas Kristof, Sarah Jones, Chris Anderson, and Evan Williams, to name a few?  It’s a window into what’s top of mind for some pretty amazing people.

But wait, let’s take a step back.  Evan Williams, Twitter’s founder, recently tweeted, “Contemplating new email strategies. Current practice (responding to most of them) not scaling. Interested in doing other stuff.”

Of course Evan doesn’t just care about his Inbox, it’s one of many streams of incoming information / communication he’s managing.

If conquering your email inbox was the “can we be productive in a wired world” question of 2002, things have gotten exponentially more complicated.  (If you want to be surprised by how exponentially, this video gives you all you need to know).

My A-list (stuff I truly want to stay on top of) looks something like: all my email, “must read” blogs in my RSS feed, articles and reports that are forwarded along by colleagues and friends, and now maybe Twitter.

What about the B-list: “contender” blogs in my RSS feed, magazines I subscribe to, the NY Times, Facebook….oh, and don’t forget all the absurdly amazing TED talks that are out there free to the world.  Like Bill Gates talking about what he’s doing to save the world.  And there’s always the Guardian’s 100 greatest works of fiction of all time, which has been nagging at me for some time.

And then there’s the C list, divided between stuff I haven’t spent any time on and stuff I, regrettably, don’t seem to have any time for: Digg, Reddit, YouTube, etc, but also Huffpo, CNN.com and the Economist.

And have I mentioned that I have a full time job?  And a family?

Pratically speaking, there’s always been an infinite amount of content out there.  But the ease of getting truly fabulous, up-to-the minute content delivered right to my laptop is categorically different than the world of even 5 years ago, before the explosion of user-generated content and social networks.

It’s suddenly realistic to expect that every day, in the 30-60 minutes I have to read up on things, I’ll discover something amazing.

This is my (and your) new curriculum – which is different from “the news.”

I can get really smart about just about anything now.  So I have to choose from whom I want to learn: Greg Mankiw (great economist), Seth Godin (brilliant marketer), Mark Bittman (fabulous chef), Google (organizer of the world’s information), or Michael Sandel (to take his Harvard course on moral and political philosophy – at home!). Or I could forget all that and just take free drum lessons online from a pro.  You get the idea.

Multiply that by a few decades, and I end up a whole lot smarter about some things, but not about everything.  It’s impossible to keep up with everything.

This forces hard choices, not only for me, but for content producers who are trying to find ways to make money in this new world.

Oh, and here’s the kicker: this is all going mainstream, and 10-year-olds today who are growing up on Facebook and with iTunes won’t have any vestiges or nostalgia about the daily paper being delivered at their doorstep every morning and of mom and dad reading that paper over breakfast.

If you don’t figure out how to succeed in today’s world – personally, as a consumer of all this information; and as a content producer / business / nonprofit / you name it – you’re going to end up as quaint and finished as some soon-to-be-defunct weekly news magazines.

————————————–

* For the tiny sliver of you who are die-hard Marx Brothers fans, the line that comes to mind is “You no gotta’ a Breeder’s Guide?!” uttered by Chico Marx to Groucho Marx in a Day at the Races.

add to del.icio.us : Add to Blinkslist : add to furl : Digg it : add to ma.gnolia : Stumble It! : add to simpy : seed the vine : : : TailRank : post to facebook

Should nonprofit leaders be like boiled broccoli?

Nicholas Kristof had a very interesting column in Tuesday’s NY Times called “The Sin of Doing Good,” focusing on Dan Pallotta and his new book, “Uncharitable.”  Kristoff leads off the column with this question: “If a businessman rakes in a hefty profit while doing good works, is that charity or greed?”

Pallotta ran a for-profit company that invented fundraisers like AIDSRides, events which “netted over $305 million over nine years for unrestricted use by charities” ($35 million / year, for those keeping score) while Pallotta pulled in a $394,000 salary, which is, in Kristoff’s words, “low for a corporate chief executive, but stratospheric in the aid world.”  And if you want to get a whiff of the ire Pallotta inspires, check out this discussion on Philanthropy.com.

Let me start by saying that I know nothing about Pallotta outside of what I’ve read in this article and poking around some on the Internet, so I cannot vouch either way for his person, his values, etc.  However, a bigger-than-life personality who is finding new and exciting ways to raise visibility and funding for important causes certainly catches my attention (hence the manifesto I wrote a few months back).

Here’s Kristof’s money quote from Pallotta, which really makes you think a little harder about this question:

We allow people to make huge profits doing any number of things that will hurt the poor, but we want to crucify anyone who wants to make money helping them.  Want to make a million selling violent video games to kids? Go for it. Want to make a million helping cure kids of cancer? You’re labeled a parasite.

Interesting, huh?

So, for example, we’re OK with Jay Shipowitz, the current CEO of Ace Cash Express (one of the largest payday / predatory lenders in the United States, which makes high-interest loans primarily to poor people) earning more than $750,000 as COO back in 2003 (the last public data I could find; they went private in 2006).  Never mind that that’s triple the average 2008 CEO salary for the largest nonprofits.  (And I don’t even have time here to get into the complexities of Ace Cash Express making headlines by giving nearly $1 million to the United Way.)

The (provocative) question I’d like to ask is is: is making sure nonprofit leaders (and their staff) have pure motives and low salaries more important than getting the results we so desperately need? How do we, as a society, want to reward people for the paths they take in life?

And here’s the broccoli analogy: for years, whenever I made vegetables with meals, I thought, “these are going to be healthy.”  Hence the boiled, flavorless broccoli.  Guess how often I prepared (let alone ate) the broccoli.  Pretty infrequently.

More recently, I’ve discovered if I make my veggies taste good, they become part of almost every meal.  So now they often have olive oil, salt and pepper, and sometimes even bits of bacon or pancetta, but they taste delicious and they’re part of my daily diet, not the exception I dabble in when I’m feeling virtuous.

(And for the ultimate blogging aside: if you want to change your mind about Brussel sprouts forever, prepare them  following Ina Garten’s recipe in her Barefoot Contessa Cookbook.)

So while there’s a woman who I met once – who I’m sure will live forever – whose diet consisted mainly of humongous bowls of salad (no dressing), I don’t think that’s going to work for most people.  Large numbers of people are healthier when whole societies have cuisines that centers on fish and olive oil and red wine (go figure!).

So while I don’t know much about Dan Pallotta, I’m sure we need more openness to new ways of doing things in the nonprofit sector, and new ways to attract, motivate and keep the best and brightest.  Maybe this is through contests or pay raises or incentive pay – for now I’ll defer to others to fill in the details.  But I would love to live in a world where society stands up and says, “These problems are so big and important that we will align resources against them to get them solved.”

Better yet, if someone really were to make a great living solving one of the world’s big problems, don’t you think that person would be just as likely to plow the money they made back in as charitable donations?

Food for thought, anyhow.