I am all for dystopian, Orwellian fiction. George Orwell’s “1984” and Aldous Huxley’s “Brave New World” are two of my favorite books, painting images of state-controlled future worlds. I ultimately feel like this film is just inconsequential. It was definitely gripping and kept my sharp attention during the span of 2+ hours, but I have difficulty surmising any solid concepts, themes, or morals after it had ended. Sure, there were subtle suggestions of the importance of loyalty to loved ones and friends via “tributes,” and slight mentions of individuality, but they were drowned out by the overall bleakness of the overall “lethal lottery” concept. Yes, the plot and its supporting details are imaginative, but the film missed several opportunities to make any substantial commentaries on human behavior within the extreme circumstances in which the characters find themselves. I’ve been told I just need to read the books to fully enjoy it, and that’s definitely a fair suggestion. But based on what I’ve seen, I don’t plan on rushing to Barnes & Noble to buy them.

Furthermore, and let me preface this by saying that I’m not a conservative person, but I’m a bit shocked the film didn’t receive an “R” rating. Heavy subject matter aside, I felt like the film had too much graphic violence for a PG-13 rating. If I had kids, I wouldn’t take them to see it. I’m actually surprised there wasn’t much more of an uproar from parents or conservative “family values” groups around the country regarding this rating. What is interesting to me, though, is that a film like “Bully” is initially given an R-rating due to a few uses of profanity, but a film in which teenagers are brutally murdering each other is permissible viewing material for children. Forget the topic of real-life bullying, these kids are brutally murdering each other. It’s bullying to the most extreme degree. If I were to play conspiracy theorist, I would say that the movie studio must have given the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) some kind of financial incentive to give the film a PG-13 rating. That wouldn’t surprise me, as that organization is no stranger to shady business, as evidenced in the documentary “This Film is Not Yet Rated.”

I’m still hungry, but I probably won’t go back for seconds.

1. New “Timeline” profiles
2. Verbs instead of “Likes”
3. Larger app presence
4. Menial info now in the Ticker
5. Multimedia opportunities

Facebook is certainly no stranger to change. Sometimes, those changes are initially met with hostility from the public, which then later morphs into acceptance and the status quo. I have a few thoughts on the changes, as they pertain to user experience, as an actual Facebook user with a pulse, and as a social media marketer. Click below the fold to read more.

First, I have to admit that I was very turned off by the Timeline as soon as Mark Zuckerberg unveiled it during his address. The new layout immediately resembled what I described as a “lovechild” of MySpace and Tumblr: it appeared very blocky, and allowed for user customization. I, for one, don’t miss the days when MySpace pages took forever to load because of user-added music apps and glittery GIF files. Facebook, after all, swayed me away from MySpace mainly due to its clean, uniform, streamlined user experience. I’d hate to see that diminish.

Perhaps the biggest concern I have about the new Timeline profile is that its “digital scrapbook” structure allows users to select any year in your Facebook posting history, read updates and see photos from that specific time period. Essentially, it makes your archived content available with one simple click, whereas before, one would have to likely spend hours scrolling down a user’s profile to do so. While it’s true in every instance that what one posts online is the public’s property, I feel like this sudden change in access is a slight violation of users’ trust. I have nothing to hide, but I did not expect that it would be incredibly easy to access my content originally posted in 2007. Facebook, in my opinion, made e-stalking that much easier with this change. I imagine that this could potentially be a huge concern for a lot of current Facebook users, and permanently scare away pensive prospect users. Keep in mind, of course, that I have yet to see what my profile looks like when it is in Timeline view. There is a great probability that I may actually grow to like it. Who knows?

Examining Facebook’s changes from a marketing perspective, these announcements pose challenges to brands and businesses vying for the attention of their online fans. It will now be more difficult for brands to publisher their messages in users’ newsfeeds, as the Facebook platform now seems to be moving in the direction of giving its users more content from their closest friends (thanks to its back-end algorithms). Businesses are now tasked, perhaps more than ever, to create content that is more interactive, or else suffer the consequence of getting lost in the shuffle. I see branded applications fitting into this picture, big time.

Don’t get me wrong, though. I actually think this might be a good thing for the industry, and I see some parallels with the addition of Google+ to the social media platform marketplace. These changes will inevitably require creativity and true marketing savvy, which is great. After all, I love a good challenge.

What do you think of Facebook’s new changes? Please leave a comment below.

So, where do I stand? Check out my post on ChatterBlast Media’s blog here, and see for yourself!

Essentially, I outline four chief rules:

1. Don’t: Be corporate. Do: Be personable.

2. Don’t: Annoy your followers. Do: Practice discretion.

3. Don’t: Waste your followers’ time. Do: Give them a reason to care.

4. Don’t: Expect magic to happen. Do: Set expectations.

Sure, there are tons of more rules brands need to follow, and they vary by industry and company size, but these guidelines are universal rules to successfully navigate a social media marketing campaign. What are some of your important rules? Leave a comment below!