This turned out to be an extremely eventful week, not only because of the long-awaited release of my new album, but also because I learned a lesson on just how powerful (and intimidating) social networking can really be, and how difficult it is to “sell” yourself online.

I’ve always been fascinated by how people use social networks to get attention and build awareness. Although I’ve been part of the “social web” since 2006 (when I created my first MySpace profile), I never really “got” social networking; especially the concept of taking something viral. As a musician, I understood that I needed the Web nowadays to make a name for myself, but I never understood how, nor did I realize how much time and effort went into making that possible. I’ve bought books on how to build a community, get traffic and engaging people to interact, but I still didn’t really understand the whole process. Until now I’ve followed the “Field Of Dreams” philosophy of “If you build it, they will come”, which I now realize does not work when it comes to spreading the word via social networking.

That became apparent to me as I announced on Facebook this past week that my mother was having heart surgery. The response to my announcement was huge and almost immediate. Dozens of my friends and family on Facebook contacted me immediately via email and Skype, some even contacted mom via telephone before and after her surgery (she’s doing fine, by the way). The outpouring of love and support taught me a simple valuable lesson in how to get the word out, a lesson that I will try to apply to my marketing efforts more in the coming weeks: don’t sell, share.

I’ve been feverishly trying to promote my new album online via Facebook, Myspace (surprisingly, some people still use Myspace), Twitter, LinkedIn and ReverbNation with some initial success, but I’ve noticed that it’s only when I passively talk about my album do I get the heaviest responses. In all my research on social networking it’s stated that the more you try to actively bombard someone with information, the more likely they will be turned off by it, so I’m slowly learning to be more interactive in my marketing. Ironically, it’s the same tactic I use on stage to engage the audience. Does this mean I have to approach social networking like a gig? Maybe. I’ll let you know how it all plays out in the coming weeks.

How and why do you use social networking tools like Facebook, Twitter, etc. Leave a comment!

If I ever needed proof that the smartphone is quickly becoming the 21st century’s version of the Tamagotchi (those widely popular and extremely annoying “digital pets” from the 90′s), I found it on Saturday while waiting to catch my train back home. On a beautiful, warm, bright Saturday morning, I was shocked and intrigued by just how many people I witnessed (myself included) hunched over, faces buried in the tiny screens occupying the palms of their hands.

Based on my very unscientific observations, it’s quite easy to tell which type of current smartphone people are using:

- If they’re hunched over while flicking with their left or right index finger in different directions, or sporadically rocking from side to side or forwards and backwards, they’re more than likely iPhone users.

- If they’re hunched over working their thumbs in a twiddling motion as though practicing for a thumb-wrestling match, they’re likely Blackberry users.

- If they’re hunched over constantly rotating their phones from the upright to the sideways position, they’re likely Android or Symbian users.

- If they’re hunched over constantly reaching for the power button, they’re likely Windows Mobile users.

Now, keep in mind that I didn’t specifically mention the brand of smartphone hardware (given that only iPhones use the iPhone OS and Blackberries use the Blackberry OS, it made no sense to try and differentiate between Nokia, Samsung, LG and Sony-Ericsson devices); these traits are specific to the operating systems of the different brands, according to my observations. Now, before I’m accused of being an iPhone fanboy (which I am, admittedly and quite proudly), also keep in mind that I have tried all of the above mentioned gadgets out in various cell phone shops before and after I got my smartphone of choice, and not all of my smartphone owning friends have iPhones, so my own experiences do somewhat come into play regarding my observations. My point is not about preferring one gadget over another.

The much larger point is about the sometimes total lack of acknowledgement that other human beings exist when these gadgets are in use; if “normal” mobile phone users are bad personal communicators, smartphone users are much worse. I’ve witnessed accidents on both busy and not-so-busy sidewalks involving people bumping into each other head on while typing on their Blackberries; arguments breaking out on trains between PlayStation Portable and iPhone users regarding which device has the better games; Windows Mobile users become loud, agitated and downright violent while dealing with the slow user interfaces and crashes of their gadgets. I’ve been involved in demonstrations of my phone’s capabilities and program comparisons with other iPhone users, which is fun and interesting on the one hand; not so cool however, when having such exchanges in an expensive restaurant filled with people who just want to enjoy their meals. Nothing, though, has quite matched up to the time I witnessed a group of about six or seven smartphone users sending text messages to each other, all standing in the same room.

I myself have been involved in numerous debates over the merits of one smartphone over the other, the latest of which actually made me pause and think about how dependent on gadgets our lives have become. Does technology really make our lives easier? I guess the answer to that now age-old question is definitely sort of. On the one hand, things like smartphones, laptops, Facebook, Twitter, etc. have allowed us to increase our ability to not only communicate with the world outside of our own little boxes, but to do so extremely quickly, from anywhere. Your life can really be in your pocket, which is on the other hand one of the serious drawbacks to faster, smaller, easier technology. Sometimes a good book or a walk in the park is far more entertaining than fiddling around in Facebook with my phone.

In any case, I look forward to a quiet, relaxing evening with family, just as soon as I upload this post, water my virtual iPhone plants and feed my virtual iPhone fish.

Two days ago, a court in Sweden found the four men who created the internet file sharing site “The Pirate Bay” guilty of copyright infringement and of aiding and abetting the piracy of copyrighted material. The men were each sentenced to a year in jail and a fine of 30 million Swedish Kroner (about $3.6 million USD).

The reaction in the media and in cyberspace was swift; much of the commentary came down on the side of The Pirate Bay founders, blaming the entertainment and software industries for causing the need for such sites in the first place through years of unfair pricing of music, video and software, as well as the draconian steps these companies have taken to stop piracy in recent years. Others are of the opinion that the Pirate Bay creators got what they deserved, since piracy is stealing, and stealing is against the law. The notion that the Pirate Bay guys did nothing wrong and therefore should not have been prosecuted is a mentality that is unfortunately common among those who do not create commercial intellectual property themselves.

Believe me, as an independent musician/songwriter/producer, I have absolutely no love for the tactics of the major labels and film studios, the RIAA or the MPAA regarding piracy; I’ve always believed that Apple’s approach to the piracy issue -offering good value for money, thus making the urge to pirate content less great- is the right approach. However, I have even less tolerance for people who believe in their hearts that using sites such as TPB or P2P networks to STEAL content is OK, because it’s not. People who create such IP invest a lot of time, energy and money into their craft and deserve to get paid for it, regardless of whether or not the content gets to the end user via major labels, big movie studios, or large software houses.

Those who use sites like TPB believing that by doing so they are “sticking it to ‘The Man’” don’t realize that in the end it’s the thousands of content creators who end up getting screwed. Granted, there are a few content creators who use such networks to promote their content, but the vast majority of content creators who do control their own copyrights are more affected by piracy than most piracy advocates seem to think.

Perhaps this “intellectual property should be free” mentality stems from the age-old notion that creating something of artistic or entertainment value doesn’t constitute having a “real job”. Creating intellectual property is a job just like any other, and people who create such content deserve to get paid for it. Not everyone can be a stockbroker, a scientist, or even work at McDonald’s; if everyone could be an artist or programmer, then everyone probably would be, since (at least in my experience) most human beings would like to enjoy the job that they do, and I really enjoy my job. It is this context that I’m happy that the Pirate Bay guys were found guilty.

The problem is that nowadays, in the case of intellectual property, people want everything for free; cheap can only compete with free to a certain point. As phenomenal as Apple’s iTunes Store’s sales have been so far, they’re still being dwarfed by piracy via file sharing. Even if songs, movies and software were being sold at a quarter of the prices they’re going for currently, the majority would still steal, because most folks have been conditioned to think that piracy is perfectly fine.

The fact of the matter is: theft is theft, and the guys from The Pirate Bay got what they deserved, in my opinion.

Read the full article HERE.