1. Thabks for posting the Twitter stream – it helped those of us who couldn’t be there get a sense of the event. Interesting.

  2. Hi, Maggie.

    The Twitter stream puts me vicariously in the seat next to you at the sessions, without the rudeness of a whispered exchange.

    “Why doesn’t CL generate more $ and donate? Good Q – their users haven’t asked them to (cop out) What if users do? Maybe they should!”

    But, CL is, in fact, making donations to all of the causes that their users support, in a perfectly efficient and effective manner: They leave the money in their users’ pockets, for the users to donate, or not, to whatever causes they choose.

    As Jim said himself, he doesn’t presume some special understanding of their users’ philanthropic interests. If CL were to suddenly assert one philanthropic purpose or another, they would necessarily alienate users who pursue different interests.

    Since when did allowing users to express themselves exactly as they see fit become a cop out?

    CL addresses basic human needs. Jim repeatedly cited this aspect of the business’s success as the most rewarding for himself personally. I believe that much of the emerging social media world could learn from practicality and realism of their example.


Trackbacks for this post

  1. Engage in PR
  2. SXSW - a summary of Tweets | Social Media Group

Comments are closed.