This may sound dramatic but my life changed when I joined Facebook. It was a slow transition at first, but gradually I was sucked into the social networking world, where pictures tell stories about events, and status updates keep you right on the pulse of all of your “friends” lives. What’s more, checking my Facebook page is now a part of my daily routine. Like most of my friends, our mornings begin with checking our work email, then our Facebook profiles.

Except, that is, for my friends who have employers who don’t allow them to access Facebook or other social networking sites while at work. For these employers, Facebook, MySpace, and Linkedin, are mere distractions that take their focus away from their jobs.

For all these anti-social networking employers, check this out. A new study put out by UK think tank Demos concludes that social networking on the job is actually beneficial for business.

The report ”Network Citizens: Power and Responsibility at Work” was authored by Peter Bradwell.  Bradwell explains that this is a subject that has become an issue in workplaces in recent years, but has yet to be fully explored.

The report shows that encouraging employees to use social networking builds relationships and closer links with co-workers and customers. It went on to say that while companies all have specific, internal systems to share information, online social networking sites makes those systems stronger by boosting productivity and innovation.

Sites like LinkedIn help employees establish new contacts, strengthen ties with clients, and learn more about what is happening in other parts of their industry. Employees can stay connected to former co-workers which can pay dividends in numerous ways. And, in economically difficult times every advantage helps.

Clearly, employers need to stay on the pulse of all types of communication in today’s interactive world in order to stay as connected as possible. And just as clearly, sites such as Facebook increase networking, and better, stronger networks lead to better, stronger businesses.

It’s one thing to waste time on these sites and use them for purely social reasons. It’s another to use them to increase connections and communication, and expand your network and outreach tactics. Smart employees know the difference. So should smart employers.

Last night The Philadelphia Phillies won the team’s first world championship since 1980 and the city’s first major sports championship in a quarter century. And while the Phils came up huge, many of the fans came up small with their post game pillaging — and the city’s perception suffered another mighty blow.

Known as the city whose fans threw snowballs at Santa Claus, this was a chance for Philadelphians to shed the thug moniker and show the nation that they can be rowdy without being reckless. Maybe next time.

Fans feverishly fed into the stigma by throwing potted trees and newspaper boxes through windows of retail stores  in Center City and then engaged in a little recreational looting. In one case two men shattered the window at Robertson’s luggage and made off with a half dozen suitcases. I guess they heard MVP Cole Hamels say he was going to Disney World and they got a sudden urge to travel as well.

Can’t you just see the national headlines now, “Phoolish” or “Philthadelphia.” Unfortunately in this case they’ll be well deserved. As Philadelphians we know that this is very small and very stupid vocal minority. We also know that perception is reality and this is just one more incident that tarnishes the reputation of this great city. This was clearly a missed opportunity for us to shine on the national scene.

So to all those great fans who supported and screamed their lungs out for Phils on this exciting ride, we say great job. And to those fans who acted like knuckleheads and helped play into the stereotypes, we’ve got just one thing to say – you Ph*$%ked up!

When this election cycle ends, the defining buzz word may very well be “presidential narrative” – a consistent, powerful storyline to power a campaign.

The contenders in the primaries arguably fell because they lacked a presidential narrative. Mitt Romney lost because he did not have a defining storyline, while Hilary Clinton’s “I’m a Fighter” rallying cry developed too late in her campaign. Barack Obama, on the other hand, persevered in the primaries with his consistent message of bringing change to Washington – a storyline that has remained central to his campaign for the White House.

Both presidential candidates have strong personal narratives that resonate with the general public – John McCain as an American patriot and dedicated civil servant; Barack Obama as a symbol of the American Dream. But the two take divergent communications approaches to articulating their presidential narrative. Obama’s message of change has served as the foundation of his campaign and has remained forceful throughout his campaigning. In comparison, the McCain campaign has adjusted its narrative at several occasions in response to current events amidst a changing political landscape. As reported by the New York Times, McCain has presented himself “variously a fighter, a conciliator, an experienced leader and a shake-‘em-up rebel.” His campaign staff argues that all of these various elements comprise McCain and that it gives the campaign greater flexibility and better positioning to win over voters.

Great businesses – and great political candidates – know what they stand for. They define their distinctive Point of View and realize that all messages must tie back to this position. This is much harder to do in practice than it is in theory. Frequently, businesses and candidates see something their competitors are doing and think they can do it a little better, so they adopt their own version of that. This poses two problems – you’re reacting rather than leading, and, if you can’t tie this shiny new thing back to your distinctive Point of View, you undermine that Point of View.

As Jack Palance said in the movie City Slickers all those years ago, the secret of life (or business. Or politics) is one thing – you just need to figure it out. So, call it fulfilling your brand promise, or your Big Hairy Audacious Goal, or your Point of View, but more importantly: know that if you stick to it, you can win in the end.

What do Newt Gingrich, Billy Beane (GM for the Oakland A’s) and John Kerry have in common? Not surprisingly, very little. Two were born in the 1940s (Gingrich and Kerry), two have led revolutions (Gingrinch: Republican Revolution of 1994 Beane: “Data-Driven Information Revolution” in MLB), and two have been to Fenway Park (Kerry and Beane). Needless to say, these guys won’t be auditioning for the next Three Amigos.

Well, they do share this in common. See, Newt, Beane and Kerry (a.k.a. Newbeakerry) got together, sat down, had some milk and cookies, did some homework and together wrote an op-ed for the New York Times. Okay, so maybe there wasn’t any milk, but I’m sure it was a rip-roaring study-session.

The agenda? The American health care system. No, they don’t pretend to solve every aspect—but, they do tackle two big ones: cost and effectiveness. The authors suggest that if our health care system was run like GM Billy Beane runs his Oakland A’s we’d all be better off.

Beane has been the catalyst for the “data-driven information revolution” overtaking baseball. Boiled down, it means baseball teams should hire, fire and promote players not based on how they look in their uniform (which is the way it was done for close to a century), but statistical performance. The widely acclaimed “Moneyball” approach relies on statistics that go much deeper than batting average and home runs – things like WHIP and VORP. This new approach is working – front offices across MLB are creating teams with lower payrolls and they’re winning more games.

Cheaper and better. The authors suggest the same principle will work for health care. They argue that by statistically looking at results of health care decisions and procedures, our medical system will be more efficient and more effective.

Certainly, it’s an interesting argument. What’s more interesting from a media perspective is that the Times’ editorial page – obviously a powerful voice – was able to bring together three powerful, disparate people on common ground to present an innovative concept.

Maybe there’s hope for the media after all….

We are always talking about the power of the Internet and the influence it has had on our lives. From e-commerce to social networking to the blogosphere, the Internet that has brought about great change and advancement in our lives. Enter virtual reality.

Virtual reality is a concept that is very popular among people and businesses alike. For example, Second Life , the 3D virtual world created by the “residents” that live in it, has millions of residents from around the world. Real businesses have even set up shop on the program. Retailers like Reebok, Nike, Amazon and American Apparel sell digital and real world versions of their products. The only difference between real life and Second Life is that people can fly, walk underwater, or make themselves look like anyone or anything they wish. Another program, MapleStory, a 2D side-scrolling MMORPG (massively multiplayer online voice-playing game), is even more fantasy-focused, where “people” can become warriors or wield mystical powers. These virtual communities have been around for a while, however, and I’m not here to pontificate about the pros and cons of participating. What I want to talk about is how and where we draw the line between real life and virtual life.

Yesterday, The Times of London reported that a Japanese piano teacher was arrested for the murder of her virtual husband after an abrupt but messy online divorce . Though she had not plotted a revenge of any kind in the real world, she will face a maximum sentence of five years in jail if she is found guilty of killing off her digital partner. After reading the article it made me wonder, are our actions in virtual life punishable in real life? What does this mean for businesses that run and operate in virtual reality? If people can be arrested and tried for various crimes committed somewhere in computer fantasy land, there can certainly be risks and potential repercussions for the businesses that have also set up shop there. Maybe this is life and business of the future and a medium that will be accepted across virtually (no pun intended) every business in a variety of industries around the world. Maybe all laws applicable in real life will be enforceable in virtual life.

Could there be a virtual stock market plunge? A virtual Enron scandal? Should we open a virtual crisis communications firm? Just a couple points to ponder here in the real world.