Is a "brat ban" good for business?

Prefer to watch a movie in the theater without the chatter of restless kids? How about being able to walk down the grocery aisle without a herd of rugrats cutting you off? Rather enjoy a nice meal at a nice restaurant without the bellowing of an infant? What about flying cross-country without an antsy five-year-old kicking the back of your seat?

This week, Piper Weiss wrote an interesting story on the no-kids movement. In her piece, she listed an airline, restaurant, grocery store, and travel site that offer kid-free experiences. Some banning kids altogether, others offering customers kid-free hours where they can shop amongst adults. Adweek writer Robert Klara says "brat bans" could change the landscape when it comes to leisure marketing. It's no surprise that childless couples usually have more disposable income than families, and businesses are discovering a way to get that dough.

If my local movie theater offered an adults-only showing of Shrek 4 (c'mon, you know there's gonna be one!), there's no doubt in my mind that I'd choose that over the one open to kids. If my supermarket offered kid-free shopping hours, I probably wouldn't care. However, if Walmart announced a child-free shopping option, I'd be all over that. The way parents let their children scream at the top of their lungs in that place blows my mind. Granted, the parents are to blame just as much as the kids. But, that doesn't make the bellowing any more bearable.

These days, there are lots of niche businesses. Plenty that cater to animal lovers, singles, Christians, gays and lesbians, or other such groups. So, it makes sense that childless couples and individuals could be a profit center, as well. But, are parents going to tolerate being banned? Will they leave their kids in the car while they shop or eat? I think that's a double no.

Back in the 70s, adult-only apartment complexes were all the rage. Mix and mingle at the pool. Get hot and heavy in the jacuzzi. Adult fun. However, after lawsuits from disgruntled families started to hit the courts, those kind of apartment houses went the way of the disco ball. People don't like to be restricted from places. However, would a family have a more enjoyable experience if the childless people who didn't delight in the antics of wee ones had all shopped earlier during the kid-free hours? No reprimands or dirty looks from anyone if their kid did something disruptive?

What do YOU think? Would you enjoy having a child-free option for entertainment, dining, or travel? As a parent, would you be happy to get those people out of your hair or would you feel discriminated against? Is a "brat ban" the next big thing?

Google+ is destroying 1-on-1 communication

Some of the most important people in my life today are folks who were strangers to me before Twitter. I've nurtured and developed countless personal friendships and valuable business contacts thanks to the one-on-one interaction that Twitter provides. I use the site to establish real relationships.

Send me a tweet? I answer. I send someone a tweet? They respond. Conversation. How beautiful is that?

Enter Google+.

Although I think this new platform has promise, it's to communication what mold is to bread. Just like Facebook, Google+ utilizes threads. Someone asks a question and lots of people can respond. On Google+, up to 500 comments can be logged. I've seen several posts meet this cap, and others come close. When you comment, you're nothing special. You're one in a long thread of folks. I don't want to be one in a sea of comments. I want to be heard. Don't you?

On Twitter, if you send someone a tweet and he doesn't respond, it's the equivalent of him sticking his fingers in his ears while you're talking to him in person. Rude, right? On Google+, however, a great number of users are getting intimate with their ear wax. "Engage with me, but I'm going to be selective about who I respond to!"

Unfortunately, based on the behaviors I'm seeing on Google+, many people are enjoying collecting comments, but mostly just responding to their "real friends". It's this kind of lopsided interaction that prevents people from creating meaningful relationships and having satisfying one-on-one dialogue. (Of course, this practice may vary based on the number of people who chime in and that person's style when it comes to social networking.) The beauty of Twitter is that it knocked down walls, giving us greater access to people--even important ones. Google+ is building back up those walls, denying many people the courtesy of a direct response. Shutting down meaningful communication and, in some cases, making people groupies instead of equals.

If you have the desire to know me, connect with me on Twitter. Send me a tweet and I'll answer you. Strike up a conversation with me and I'll happily engage with you. If I want to know you, I'll do the same. However, I refuse to be one comment in a long thread on Google+. After all, if I take the time to engage with you, shouldn't you engage back?  Threads destroy one-on-one communication, plain and simple.

I'm a person. Talk with me; I talk back. It's called conversation. I'm not in high school anymore and I'm not going to compete in a popularity contest. I won't be one in a crowd, fighting to be heard or acknowledged. I'm worth more than that. Aren't you?

Are you branding or are you blowing it?

Whether you're talking about a company or a person, building a brand takes work--and consistency. Who are you? What does your company represent? What words do you want to spring to mind when people think of you or your business?

Martin Lindstrom wrote a great piece in Fast Company called, "Your Business Card is a Billboard for Your Brand". Not only does he show some neat examples of great cards, but he uses Ikea as an example of consistent branding. Its do-it-yourself image is conveyed in everything it does. It's business cards have "name", "email", "phone" printed on them with a blank line for staffers to fill in their own info. New employees are shown to their empty offices, which are later filled with boxes of Ikea furniture. Ikea lives its brand.

Do you?

Branding isn't just about your logo. It's about your public image. Kind of like the keywords you use in SEO, but only this is real life. What do you want people to think when your name or company is mentioned?

Personally, I've found Klout's +K feature to be very insightful when it comes to my own personal branding. If you're not familiar with the tool, it allows people to endorse others on the topics that Klout has determined they tweet about the most. This is good for two reasons:

1) You can see if your given topics are things that you want to be known for (and, if not, you should fix that!).

2) Based on the number of +Ks you're given by other Twitter users, you can get some insight as to how others perceive you.

Above are the top five topics Klout has said I'm influential about (based on my tweets, retweets, conversations, etc.). Are these things I want to be known for? You betcha!

Your branding is cemented with every action you take and every word you speak. Are you putting in the thought that's required to shape your brand? Think about the following weapons in your promotional arsenal and whether they're solidifying the image you want to create and the brand you're striving to build:

• Business card
• Twitter bio (including background and avatar)
• LinkedIn profile
• Email signature
• Collateral materials
• Recruitment tools (if you're a business, your brand should promote a culture to prospective employees)
• Google profile (more important than ever since the launch of Google+!)
• YouTube channel
• Blog
• Search results

Unlike the old days when the media was the only one able to tell your story, today's web and social networking tools have empowered us all to be our own PR firms. If you do it in public, you're saying something about your brand. Will that message be positive or negative? It's up to you.