The overwhelming opinion from those who chimed in was that right now brands and businesses have nothing to fear, because while Facebook has made a lot of changes that have ticked off its user base, the growth of that user base shows no sign of letting up.  What all of us in the discussion also agreed upon is that it will be very interesting to see Google+’s options for businesses and brands.  Those are due to be unveiled later this year.

In a roundabout way, this discussion led me to think about how Google+ can grow and become the default social media outlet for more people.  Right now, most people I know spend more time at Facebook and/or Twitter, and if they visit Google+, they do so as a secondary or even tertiary outlet.

I’m going use sweeping generalizations here, so bear with me, but I view Twitter users as people who want to find and share news and short opinions.  Facebook, meanwhile, can be used for similar purposes, but is also a place to see what your friends (and their kids .. grandkids .. etc.) are up to.  If I want to find news about something going on right now, I go to Twitter.  If I want to see pictures from last night’s neighborhood event (bad example, I know) then I go to Facebook.

So … when do people go to Google+?  It’s hard to answer that question.  Google just opened the service to the general public (no invite required) this week.  Until that day, the site was a haven for techies.  Few people who weren’t connected somewhat in the social media world had managed to swing an invite, or cared to go through the trouble of getting one.  As a result of that closed user base, the site has until now been a great place to find news about social media and technology, as that’s what people were sharing.  I have never once seen a post on there with pictures of someone’s new cat.

I view Google+ as being in between Facebook and Twitter in what it does. You can read posts from whomever you want without being invited, something Twitter has always been identified with but Facebook just implemented.  On Google+, however, you’re not limited in character count and can post images … like Facebook.   Being an in between service isn’t enough, though.  Right now, what will do the trick is still up in the air, as the site is still evolving.  What is clear is that Google+ needs to find its niche, and it needs to do it soon before the public forgets about it.

What do YOU think it will take for Google+
to become the default social media site?
I’d love to hear your opinions in comments.

This move is being widely reported as making Facebook more like Twitter.  I think those who are reporting that are missing something — this new feature makes Facebook more like Google+.  On Google’s new social media service, you can add anyone to a circle, which adds their public updates to your news stream regardless of whether you’re in their circles.  Sound familiar?

The question here is whether Facebook is a little concerned about the new competition from Google.  We may never know, as this could be a feature they’ve worked on since before Google+ launched this summer.

Once nice new feature that’s included in the “subscribe” addition is that Facebook is finally allowing us more control over what is shown in our news feed.  Do you have a friend who blathers on about her ex-boyfriend too much?  What about one who is addicted to FarmVille and thus is flooding your wall with updates on her radishes (or some such thing .. I’ve never played the game).  With this new feature, you’ll be able to go to their profile page, click on the subscribe button, and select which type of updates you’d like to receive from that person.  Nifty.

One thing you WILL have to note with this new feature is indicating who you want to see your own status updates.  By default, it’s set to “friends only”, but if there’s something you want the whole world (including non-friend subscribers) to see, you can select “public”.  Broadcast to the world!

The new “subscribe” button is being rolled out gradually across the Facebook universe.  If you don’t see it yet, you will soon.

• The update includes a revamp of the look of the pages, making them look almost identical to individual profile pages. They put tagged pictures at the top, and eliminated the tabs (this is a big one for us as it’s where our landing pages lived — take note).
• One important change is that the links for the tabs have been moved over to the spot under the profile picture, and are now just links. Fortunately, the update didn’t change the requirements or measurements of actual custom landing pages, which is a good thing for those who build them.
• Another interesting feature is that administrators can now comment AS their page on other pages or other people’s profiles. To explain, previously we could only comment as the page’s identity (rather than as Steve Mullen, for example) while actually on that page. Now I could go on the Facebook Page for Twinkies (for example) and a comment from me would show up as the identity of my Facebook Page. This will come in quite handy.  Additional changes related to this include being able to receive email notifications of user comments on your Page, something previously only possible for comments on your personal wall.
• Another feature related to the one above, but deserving of its own bullet is the new ability to “like” other Pages as your page.  Previously you could only “like” something as an individual.  Very interesting.

The one change that is causing some consternation among Facebook Page Administrators is the switch from tabs to the small links under the profile picture. I’m not particularly fond of this either, since they’re not as obvious now.  In the end, though, there’s really no way around it.  We’ll just have to work harder to promote the content in those links.  If one of those links is to a custom landing page, it will of course be the default page seen by all “non-likers” (yes .. I just made that up).

If you administer a page and haven’t updated yet, you have until March 10, when it will be done for you!

This week a new social media campaign launched.  It’s called KeepThePromise.com, and it’s the brainchild of a group of Central Virginia churches.  The site has a goal of collecting promises made to God, while at the same time helping people who don’t have enough to eat.  The concept is simple: individuals are invited to post promises, whether simple, complicated, or downright frivolous.  One example: “I promise to be nicer to my sister if you help me pass this math test.”  For every promise posted, a donation is given to the Central Virginia Food Bank.  Visitors are also given assistance in finding a church, if they would like the help.

Critics sometimes point to social media users as being inwardly focused.  In fact, critics would tell you that’s all social media IS — self-centered individuals who post what they’re doing at every moment.  It’s so much more than that.  It’s a way of reaching out and connecting with other people we’d never otherwise meet.  It’s also an extremely powerful force for good.  One example from a recent article on cause marketing in Adweek:

Kraft is in the midst of a “Share a Little Comfort” campaign that offers to donate 1 million boxes of Kraft Macaroni & Cheese to needy families based on the number of messages people share via Facebook and Twitter. [...] So far, more than 23,000 messages have been posted in response to Kraft’s effort.

That’s just one example of a big brand, but there are literally too many examples like that to count.

Why is it a good idea?  From the company/organization perspective, it could be a bit selfish — the desire to be seen as “good”.  Fortunately, this selfishness is manifesting itself for good, not evil.

Also, causes and organizations wanting to do good have come to realize that social media is just where all of the people are.  It’s better to push a cause (or anything, for that matter) in a crowded room.

Plus, it’s cheaper than advertising.  The donation given by Kraft (for example) is probably going to be far less than it would cost to buy comparable TV, radio, or newspaper advertising.

Finally, “residents” of the social media space just seem to WANT to do good.  Maybe it’s because the desire to share and connect led them to social media in the first place?  Whatever the reason, successful social media cause marketing campaigns usually fall into the category of EXTREMELY successful.

Please check out KeepThePromise.com, and click the button below to like them on Facebook!

You can also follow KeepThePromise on Twitter at http://twitter.com/KTPdotcom

Don't expect pictures like this to stay "private" on Facebook for long.

While this is disturbing and should be handled, as Facebook appears to be doing, it once again brings up the issue of “online privacy” … an oxymoron if I ever heard one.

What we’re seeing in these continued concerns over online privacy is the struggle between the old way and the new way.  The “old way” is when you were able to remain anonymous online and offline.  That way didn’t last long after the advent of large-scale social networking.  The “new way” is that if you don’t want people to know about it, don’t post it online.

You can’t rely on a third party to keep your information private because it’s close to impossible.  If you put your phone number out there on Facebook, it doesn’t matter how high you set your privacy settings, it’s still “out there” and may eventually be found.

• Don’t want anyone to find your number?  Don’t give it out online (or if you have to, give out your fax number or register a Google Voice number and give THAT one out.)
• Don’t want anyone to get your personal email address?  Register a new one on Gmail, Yahoo, or elsewhere, and use that ONLY for social networking.
• Don’t want people to find compromising pictures of you from your Facebook account?  Don’t post them!
• Don’t want your wife/husband/significant other to know about the saucy Facebook chats you’re having with your old girlfriend/boyfriend from college?  Have them over the phone, via email, or not at all!

The first wave of Facebook users were early adopters.  A lot of them had been using online message boards and instant chat for years.  Some of them (like myself) had “social networking” experience that went all the way back to dial-up bulletin board systems.  This group generally understands how things work, and we’re not terribly surprised when a little private information becomes public.  The ones who are surprised are the newcomers to social networking .. the ones who just started in the last year or two as a Facebook profile practically became a mandatory part of citizenship.  It’s up to us to calm the fears of these “newbies” and explain to them that their old way of doing things no longer exists.

Google has its own location product.  Interestingly, it’s called  Google Places.

Despite using the same names, Facebook and Google Places are completely different products.

Facebook Places is simply adding another way you can tell people what you’re up to, by using geolocation.

Google Places is a re-branding of Google’s Local Business Center.  It launched back in April, and included a ton of new features.  Its basic goal is to get local businesses to “claim” their Google Place page on the web, fill it up with information, use it to serve things like coupons, and then (hopefully) buy advertising with Google to direct people to it.  Geolocation is a feature, but it’s not even closely related to how Facebook is using it.

For Facebook, this new product is a great idea.  While squashing competitors Foursquare and Gowalla (I know those two companies are “partners” in Facebook Places, but that’s really only because they don’t have much choice but go along) a logical function is also being added to Facebook.  You can already tell your Facebook friends what you’re doing.  With Places, you can show them where you’re doing it.

Google Places is also a great idea.  It’s an attempt to expand its local search offerings.  Search and other Internet services are what Google does best.  There is no social aspect to Google Places, which is a good idea given Google’s lack of success in social media offerings.

We’ve determined that these two services are only slightly related … so, why do they have such similar names?  I can’t imagine.  Maybe all of the words that don’t mean anything (see also: Twitter, Gowalla, Foursquare, Vimeo) are already  taken?

When was the last time you “Buzzed”?  If you’re anything like me, you can’t remember the last time you logged on to Google’s attempt at a social media service. All evidence indicates that while Google Buzz does have its users, it doesn’t have anywhere near as many loyal users as Facebook or even Twitter.  Mashable noted back in April that 89% of the traffic on Buzz is automated.  That percentage is way too high.  Here’s another piece of evidence that Buzz isn’t a big hit:

The image above is clipped from the Techcrunch website.  As you can see, the article has been shared on Twitter 235 times.  It’s been shared on Buzz exactly once.  It hasn’t been shared many times on Facebook either, but that site doesn’t have quite as much tradition of sharing news articles as Twitter, and Buzz obviously wants to be more like Twitter.  Mashable, meanwhile, appears to have removed its Buzz share icon entirely … replacing it with one for Digg.

When it was (hastily) launched back in February, it seemed like it might be a good idea.  It seemed Twitter-like, without the limitation of 140 characters.  And, the integration with Gmail ensured it would get off the ground quickly.

However, I think it was actually the strengths I mentioned above that ended up keeping Buzz from being a huge success.  First, while the integration with Gmail did automatically bring the service millions of users, I think people realized they didn’t want close integration with their email.  Who wants an email every time something is posted?  Also, the fact that the service is similar to Twitter may be the other factor that kept it from being a Twitter killer.  We already have a Twitter … why do we need another one?

I’m planning to remove the Buzz share icons from EndGamePR.com and replace them with ones for Digg.  I’ll likely do the same for my client sites.  Honestly, I haven’t seen any evidence that the Buzz icons are being used.

What about you?  Are you using Buzz?  Are your friends and co-workers using it?

Before I explain my educated guess, let’s back up a bit and get everyone caught up.

There have been rumors for a while that Google is working on a new social media site.  Those rumors yesterday seemed to be confirmed in an article on Techcrunch.  The site is said to be called “Google Me”, and while Google seemed to have Twitter in mind when it created it’s Buzz service, Google Me is said to directly target Facebook.

Assuming all of this is correct, it means Google is trying to create a Facebook killer.  Will it succeed?  Obviously it’s too early to tell, but I’m going to go out on a limb anyhow.  If “success” is making a serious dent in Facebook’s dominance of the social media market, then I believe the answer is “no”.  Here’s why:

1. Google hasn’t yet shown that it can succeed in the social media space.  Buzz was Google’s best shot so far, and in my view it’s been a relative bust.  It’s hard to call it a true bust because Google can claim millions of users, but those numbers are a charade because the service is tied into Gmail, and Gmail users almost automatically signed up when the service became available.  I don’t see any signs that a huge percentage of those users are actually USING Buzz.
2. People’s lives are tied into Facebook.  Not only that, but their friends’ lives are tied into Facebook.  For Google to draw any significant number of Facebook’s more than 400 million users away, Google will have to demonstrate not only that Me is better than Facebook, but also that Me users will be able to find their friends there.
3. We don’t need another Facebook.  We already have one.
4. A large number of Facebook users have been pretty ticked off by Facebook’s well-documented privacy screw-ups, but those users haven’t left yet.  You could say it’s because there wasn’t an alternative, but I say it won’t matter because of point #2.

I’m not saying Google shouldn’t make the attempt.  Google has its own very successful advertising system in place that it could easily port to a Facebook-like site, so it makes a certain amount of sense to try to find new places to show those ads.  However, in my view Google is best at providing services, not destinations.  I am a a Google services “fanboy.”  I use Google Search (of course) and its daily alerts, Gmail, Google Voice, Google Reader, and Google Docs.  But, if you’ll excuse a reach on an analogy: Jjust because I like my cell phone provider, doesn’t mean they’re the best company to also provide my daily news.

Truth is, despite the fact that my profession is public relations, until a relatively short time ago I (and most of my peers) didn’t actually deal with the public all that often.  My job, and the job of most of the vast majority of PR professionals out there, was to either solicit media coverage, handle incoming media inquiries, or to manage the media in a crisis.  In each case, we didn’t take our news directly to the public. Sure … we would sometimes organize an event that was open to the public, but in most cases the main reason for the event was actually to draw news coverage.

It’s no secret that the world has changed due to the social media tools we now have at our disposal.  Now we can blog, we can grow an audience on Facebook or Twitter, we can create our own online videos, and we can even distribute our news release directly to the public rather than politely asking reporters to write about it for us.  While taking this news directly to the public, we’re actually communicating with them one-on-one in a way that wasn’t possible just a few years back.

While the media is still an important tool for disseminating news from my clients, it’s hardly the only way to go about it.  Now, it actually makes sense to call our profession PUBLIC relations.

Note: Part of what got me thinking about this was a blog post from colleague and friend Jon Newman, on how PR can capitalize on winning the “battle” over social media within organizations.  Good read.  Check it out here.

If you look on the EndGame PR services page, you’ll see a pretty long list.  There’s a reason for that.  I want to be able to do everything I can to help my clients.  I’m talking about not only social media, social networking and traditional PR tactics such as media relations, but also search engine optimization (SEO), web content creation, and even web design.  Imagine these skills and tactics as part of a never-ending “circle of life”.  Quality media relations campaigns can equal links back to a web site, which helps search rankings, which in turn can help a social media audience find you, which in turn can help you promote your quality web content, which can add links back to a web site, which can help SEO …. lather, rinse, repeat.  All of these strategies and tactics work well together, and should not be stuck in silos, as they are in so many organizations.

Perhaps the best part of thinking about PR in this way is that you’re not reliant upon one single tactic. If your media relations campaign isn’t going as well as expected, perhaps another portion of the “circle of life” will kick in and help you.

While I’m not suggesting that all PR professionals should know what a 301 redirect is or what to do with the .htaccess file (I do, but I’m a geek), they should know the basics of SEO.  They should also know how (or have access to someone who does) to create a basic web video.  They should also have the writing skills to be able to write an entertaining and thoughtful blog post.  Feel free to judge whether I possess that last one or not .. I won’t assume.

I am going to assume, however, that most everyone reading this knows at least a little bit about social media.  You ARE reading a blog, after all.  Not near as many have knowledge of the SEO basics.  Here are a few, with an example at the end of how the circle of life works:

• Keywords: The basic strategy for figuring out which keywords to use is to think of what words you WANT web searchers to use on Google in order to find your content.  Then, work those words into your title and copy (in a natural way, please .. no keyword stuffing).  If you want to get more precise about which keywords to use, try playing with the Google Keyword Tool.  Most important, however, is that you include those keywords in the headlines and copy of your news releases and other online content.
• Backlinks are king: One of the most important things you can do to improve your site’s search ranking WITHOUT digging into web site code, is increase the number of other sites linking to your site.  From a PR perspective, this can be done two ways.  First, create original content that people will want to link to.  In other words, people will enjoy it and want to blog about it or post about it on Twitter or Facebook.  Another tool in the SEO PR toolbox is online news release distribution.  Check out my sort-of-annual review of online release distribution sites for more information about this.
• Promote your content on social networking sites: Obviously this isn’t ALL you should be doing on Twitter, Facebook, Buzz and all of the others, but it’s one of the things you should be doing.  Obviously, the more people who know about your unique content, the more people who could potentially link back to it from their sites.  See?!  Circle of life!

What it comes down to is that PR pros need to learn everything they can about these tools, even to the point of teaching themselves a little bit of HTML and even how to use CSS.  These skills come in handy much more than you would expect, and can improve the service provided to clients or employers.

And, don’t blame me if you walk away from this blog post humming an Elton John song from a certain Disney movie.  That’s your problem, and I accept no responsibility for it.  It’s less annoying than Hakuna Matata, at least!

Previous to the last handful of days, when I discovered something and then submitted it to StumbleUpon with a review, it would receive anywhere from 50 to 200 “views” by StumbleUpon users.  My network was growing on the site, and I was starting to stumble more and more content, including (of course) content that I didn’t write or own.  Essentially, I was doing what I suggested in my previous blog post.  In fact, I was sure that I wasn’t using the site improperly because I received this review of my previous StumbleUpon post from a community manager at the site:

A truthful and well-thought article from someone who understands StumbleUpon and how to properly use it.

Then … the bottom fell out.  I discovered a client article last weekend, and it received only one view.  I figured it was a fluke, because that’s happened before.  Then, I discovered and reviewed a client news release from PRWeb.  It received 12 views, which is well below average.  I still wasn’t worried, though.  The next three articles I discovered, stumbled, and reviewed received only one view each.  This included the post I wrote here about the new Facebook Weekly Page Updates, which was well received elsewhere.  Now I knew something was up.

These five stumbles I mentioned came from four different domains and covered four very different topics.  So, it’s obvious that StumbleUpon isn’t including my articles in their list of sites that can be stumbled, regardless of what they are or where they come from.  I posted a question about it on the StumbleUpon help forums, which received this answer:

Monica, Official Rep

StumbleUpon’s recommendation engine is built on complex algorithms that monitor user activity and connections to determine what users see while Stumbling. StumbleUpon does not disclose specifics about our recommendation engine, but you can see an overview of how it works here: http://www.stumbleupon.com/technology/.

StumbleUpon users may occasionally add their own content to StumbleUpon without running into system restrictions. Ultimately though, StumbleUpon’s Terms of Service prohibit use of user accounts to promote specific domains.

If you wish to promote your content on StumbleUpon (if most of your discoveries come from the same domain or a limited number of domains), you may do so with StumbleUpon Advertising: www.stumbleupon.com/ads. StumbleUpon Advertiser accounts allow you to actively and legitimately promote a site to a targeted audience within our community.

Hope this helped.

This is pretty much the answer I expected, because this is the answer they give anyone who questions why their service isn’t working for them.  I understand StumbleUpon’s desire to keep their site from being spammed, but it appears they’re willing to shut out users who are submitting quality content from different domains that isn’t selling anything or even showing advertisements.  Meanwhile, if you go to their site or use your StumbleUpon toolbar to stumble randomly, you’ll find a lot of useless junk. Yes, I was promoting my content and my client’s content.  Imagine how quiet and boring other social media sites would be if they shut out people for doing that.

So … what now?  I’ll probably stumble and review this post, and that will be it.  If you have a one-off blog post that you want to submit there, you’ll likely receive some views, but woe onto you if you submit the same domain to StumbleUpon more than their undisclosed limit.  They’re sticklers over there, I tell ya.

Unlike other social bookmarking sites, such as the aforementioned Digg, Delicious, and Reddit, users of StumbleUpon don’t have to be looking for your content to find it.  I’ve often thought this was the downfall of trying to use Digg to help visitors find you.  Unless your content is tech-related or involves someone falling off of a donkey and hurting a sensitive part of the body, posting to Digg is often like whistling into the wind.  StumbleUpon is different.  In fact, the whole point of the site is finding random content that you didn’t know you were looking for. You click a button and “stumble upon” a site.  It’s much like channel surfing.  StumbleUponn can help you find random content that’s been submitted, or you can have it help you find random content within a category. Obviously, it’s an outstanding time waster.

StumbleUpon’s strength is it’s lack of the cliques found on Digg and other sites.  On other sites, it can be hard to generate interest unless you’re already well known.  In other words, if you’re well known already, you’ll get plenty of “Diggs”. Thing is, if you’re well known already, you don’t NEED Diggs to help people find your content.

So, what’s the strategy for using StumbleUpon if you’re hoping to generate interest in your site or your other content?  It’s pretty simple.  First of all, submit your content to StumbleUpon.  You can go directly to stumbleupon.com to do it, or you can download a toolbar for your browser that will help you.  Then, review others content.  Don’t give random reviews that are not well thought out.  Find good content relevant to your own, and write good reviews.  After doing a couple of reviews per day, if your content is good you’ll find that more people are reviewing and finding your content.

Pretty simple.

Happy stumbling!

When my wife and I moved into our last home, the previous owner of the house left behind a dresser.  It was in acceptable condition, but it was horribly out of style, so I ended up using it for tool storage in the garage.  This old dresser made its way to our new house, where it soon became the bane of my wife’s existence.  She finally convinced me recently to get rid of the old dresser and replace it with high metal shelves that use our limited space better.  The dresser is a very low and wide one (six feet wide at least) and wouldn’t fit into our car, so I decided to take it apart and cut it into smaller pieces that could more easily be taken to the dump.  Upon taking out the drawers, I made a discovery.

Under one of the drawers I found stacks of papers.  They included letters to girls (never finished or mailed), letters FROM girls, greeting cards, information about applying for college, report cards, a book of matches, an empty carton of cigarettes, some high school newspapers, a folded Styx poster, a picture of a guy with a mullet (the former owner of the dresser?), and two pay stubs.  After looking through the papers, I found that they belonged to a teenager named Randy, who lived in Missouri in the mid 1980s.

Understandably, I was excited about my find.  Being a child of the 80s, it was much like digging up a time capsule.  Reading through the letters, I felt like a combination historian/voyeur.  I even started to make plans to use social media to locate the owner of these treasures. My good friend Jeff Kraus suggested I start a blog to find the guy. I thought it would be a fun social media experiment (I bet you were wondering how social media played into this blog post!)

Unfortunately, the fun took a dark turn when I found a small stack of papers with information about teen suicide.  I told myself that it was possible the materials were left over from a health class in school.  Then, I looked on one of the pay stubs, and found Randy’s social security number (how times have changed!)  I hopped on my computer, went to the social security death index, plugged in the number, and found out Randy died in November of 1994.  I don’t know the cause of death, but given that he was born in 1967, it was certainly premature.

So, we’ve finally come to my quandary. With the information I have (Randy’s high school, age, where he lived, etc.) there’s a chance I could use social media to find someone who knew him.  The question is — do I try?  Do I try to find someone who might want these letters and other materials? If a brother or child of yours died prematurely (perhaps at his own hand?) and someone randomly found some of the remnants of his life, would you want them? Is it ethical to reveal details about a person (whether deceased or not) to the world via social media, just because you’re trying to find them or their family?

Let me know in comments.  I’d love to hear your thoughts!

The article, Baby Boomers and Seniors Are Flocking to Facebook, has some great stats about the growth of the number of Americans 44+ on Facebook.

According to Deloitte data, 2009 was the year that social media bloomed for Baby Boomers, with nearly 47% of them actively maintaining a profile on the social web, which is up 15% from 2008. Further driving home that 2009 was the year of the social BB is the fact that from 2007 to 2008 there was barely a measurable change — just 1% — in that demographic’s adoption of social media.

For another quirky finding, take a look at the percentage of “Matures” — individuals between the ages of 63 and 75 — who use Twitter regularly. Seventeen percent is actually quite high when you compare it with the percentages of the other demographic groups. Also of note is that nearly all the Senior social media users (90%) have picked up Facebook as a new hobby.

Fact is, Facebook is actually BETTER for people who are older than those who are 21 or 22-years-old.  Why?  Let’s take a look…

• Facebook is fantastic for sharing pictures of kids and grandkids.  What do people love to do more than show off pictures of kids and grandkids?  I say “not much”.  People 44+ are more likely to have kids and grandkids than 20-somethings.  The 21 and 22-year-olds only have pictures of parties to show off, and sometimes it’s best to keep those to yourself until you’re 44.
• People who are 44+ have had plenty of time to get over grudges with people from high school, and are interested in reconnecting.  In fact, by that age they’re probably interested in connecting with anyone from their hometown, particularly if they don’t live there anymore.  The 21 and 22-year-olds still have fresh wounds and grudges are are still very much active.
• People who are 44+ simply have more time on their hands.  If you’re 21 or 22, you’re still going out at night, perhaps dating or hanging out with friends.  Most people who are older than 44 are pretty much done with that.
• There are more adults in the U.S. who are older than 44+ than any other age group.  And, that age group has more of the wealth.  What they want … they take.

I’m not quite to the 44+ age group, but I can see it from where I am.  I us “old folks” should just declare that we own Facebook.  Those kids can keep texting.  We don’t want it.