The Web on World AIDS Day — Understanding (RED)’s Relationship With Social Media and Christmas 2009
- The folks at Twitter are using the site’s popularity to spread awareness: Today the home page is red and the hashtag “#red” turns all Tweets red! Today I’m using it on every tweet!
- Google’s homepage has a link to the (RED) website and 8 other resources for AIDS info/involvement.
- (RED) appears to be advertising heavily on Facebook today and is encouraging people to share this video and change profile pictures to a provided (RED) icon. I changed my Facebook and Twitter pictures to something red today.
- Besides the obvious Facebook ad, did Twitter charge (RED)? I’m imagning Google’s home page link was free since it is not tied exclusively to (RED). The link goes to a Google.org page with (RED)’s website and 8 others.
- If Google and Twitter did charge, then how much? How does this figure compare to television advertising to reach the same number of people? Are web impressions worth more because the viewer can quickly and efficiently become involved?
Understanding (RED)
I think it is also important to understand exactly what (RED) is. Here’s what I’ve gathered after taking a look at (RED)’s FAQ’s page: (RED) is not a non-profit organization, charity, or government-sponsored program. (RED) is a “business model created to raise awareness and money for the Global Fund by teaming up with the world’s most iconic brands.” Founded by Bono and Bobby Shriver in 2002, (RED) is now a partnership of 10 brands: American Express, Apple, Bugaboo, Converse, Dell, Emporio Armani, Gap, Hallmark, Nike, and Starbucks. These companies send a portion of profits gathered from (RED) branded products to The Global Fund. I’m sure you’re wondering — So, what exactly is The Global Fund? The Global Fund is “an international financing institution that invests the world’s money to save lives,” partciularily among people suffering from AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malria. The Global Fund receives money from governments and governmental organizations like the EU, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, (RED), and other sources (click here for an .xls of everyone who gives), and redistributes it to I’m imagning other organizations through grants (As its name suggests, The Global Fund is a financing mechanism — not a hands-0n, “ground-level” organization.)
So essentially, the buzz today will A) Spread awareness about AIDS, (which is awesome), and B) Make curious people like me wonder exactly what (RED) is. On one hand, I see the (RED) partners as companies being socially responsible (CSR) and responding to consumers’ new interest in supporting a friendlier, more sustainable planet. On the other hand, I feel like there’s a question of ethics — should these 10 brands be riding on the wave of buzz that World AIDS Day creates? This day was created for people — sufferers of HIV/AIDS, not for-profit companies. Even so, Apple, Nike, and the 8 others are [indirectly] contributing to causes that help people living with the disease. (RED) branded products support The Global Fund and are all things that people would already buy anyway. Shouldn’t they be rewarded for being involved?
Still, it’s hard to ignore the fact that World Aids Day is on Dec 1. How might things be different if World Aids Day was on Dec 26? These brands are arguably exploiting the charitable/giving feelings we associate with the holiday season. Through (RED), they’re giving consumers who are either lonely, allegedly “too busy to give,” or simply searching for an excuse to not feel selfish while indulging in a $5 Starbucks gingerbread latte a way to give back to the world. Suddenly the reasons for wanting a prodcut extend beyond its specific novelty, features/benefits, price/value, and other items we usually associate with what drives us to buy something. Is it wrong to create want for a product becaues it helps alleviate HIV/AIDS in Africa? Are the lines between CSR and traditional holiday marketing too blured? Watch this Starbucks commercial from last year to see what I mean:
*Note: Personally, I like (RED). I already liked GAP, Apple, and Starbucks before (RED) and will probably like these brands for as long as they make products I enjoy. However, I wanted the (RED) iPod Nano more than any other Nano because of its fantastic bright red color. Does that make me a bad person? I hope not. And I don’t for one second think buying a (RED) branded product is a substitute for AIDS volunteering, activism, direct donations, or any other sort of progressive action. Supporting CSR is one thing, being a responsible world citizen oneself is quite another.
If you’re like me, you sometimes struggle with finding interesting images to use for your blog posts. There’s a fine line to walk between finding visually interesting images and staying ethical/on the right side of copyright law. Those days are over!
Recently I discovered the Flickr Creative Commons. It’s a collection of organic images you can use for blog posts. Just follow some simple rules (essentially, add attribution and don’t modify the image) and you’re all set to use millions of images! I suggest searching from the “Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs License” gallery — it gives you access to 39+ million images as long as you add attribution,don’t modify the image, or try to make money with it.
There’s also a convenient “blog this” feature on Flickr, which instantly allows bloggers to embed images and automatically adds attribution. Theoretically, you can create and publish a post straight from Flickr, but I usually edit the post to add in links and html elements.
Bookmark these now!
Manufacturers Add Super Cool New Features to Cameras for the Holidays
I have a fond nostalgia of old cameras. Today’s digital versions will never me as romantic. Photo Credit: Flickr Creative Commons | uploaded by Aghman
Christmas 2009 will certainly be very interesting because in many ways it is so different. ‘09 is the first year that social media will truly be integrated in with the holiday season (click here for an article on Christmas Twitters, lol). And with disappointing consumer spending figures bringing sad faces to economists month-after-month, I don’t think we’ll be rushing to the mall and maxing out credit cards as often as in the past.
Still, camera manufacturers still want to make a profit, so they’ve added some way cool features this year. I’m totally in love with the Nikon COOLPIX S1000pj. It has a little projector built inside so you can instantly display your photos on a wall (or any flat surface). No more crowding around the person holding the camera or spending anxious minutes waiting to see pictures! Finally there is an easy way to instantly broadcast pictures to a group of friends. This also works with video!
Then there’s the Samsung DualView TL225 and the TL220 that feature a smaller LCD screen on the front of the camera. This can be used to either give subjects a live preview of the shot or display an image (could help with trying to get kids to smile). The cameras’ main LCD screen has some iPhone swagger, which is definitely cool.
While I love these features, I have to ask the question, what’s next? I’ve often felt that digital camera technology has been kind of stagnant for a few years. I’m sure there are lots of under-the-hood improvements going on, but I haven’t observed any radically new features like these — things that truly change the way users can interact with the device.
If I were the CEO of Nikon, Kodak, Samsung, or Fuji, I’d like to see some better social media integration. For example, I want to be able to instantly flag pictures and upload them to Facebook/Flicker/etc., straight from the device (after some sort of “autofix” that crops, balances color, then recognizes, and automatically tags familiar faces. While this sounds pretty intense from where digital cameras are now, I don’t think its all that complicated and impossible. Many other mobile devices have wifi, autofix concepts are already present on computer software, and digital cameras already have facial recognition software. What’s stopping camera manufacturers from putting these things together?
What do you want to see in digital cameras? | What’s your favorite feature already available?
Post inspired by:
Digital Cameras That Do Different Tricks
2009’s Hot Digital Cameras On Parade
Brandstack.com is a marketplace for graphic designer's "leftover" unused work made for a past clients.
Brandstack is like Ebay, but for creative design work. The site encourages graphic designers to sell all of the unused work made for past clients. Graphic design is all about giving the client options, and there’s frequently a lot of “leftover” material — still valuable, but not sellable. Until now. Cool!
For people looking for design work, Brandstack markets itself as a way less expensive alternative to agencies. Some of the designers say they’re willing to customize their works, but I have to sense that you’re still going to get more from an agency than from a Brandstack designer. After all, Brandshack is kind of like a giant used record store or mega flea market for graphic design. While I wouldn’t launch a small business completely reliant on Brandstack, I would definitely be interested in doing business no Brandstack from either side.
For every item sold, Brandstack receives a 15% share. Not bad if you ask me. I’m not too familiar with the ins and outs of graphic design, but this seems like a great way to capitalize on work done for past clients. When I designed my logo for Preheat 350, I couldn’t stand not knowing what to do with the other concepts. Had I known about Brandstack then, I could have dramatically boosted our budget by selling our design scraps. (Of course this would require someone to actually buy our work.)
Brandstack does bring a few questions to mind:
- Are graphic designers ever legally obligated to not share, sell, distribute, etc., any and all work made for a client? In other words, is this completely legal? Something tells me we won’t be seeing mockup design ideas for Apple, Starbucks, or Nike on Brandshack.
- Does an agency own rejected creative work made from its graphic design team? Can the agency owner sell this work on Brandstack? What about the designer?
- How does Brandshack ensure the authenticity/originality of the sellers’ work?
- Pretend you’re a self-employed contract graphic designer selling work on Brandstack. How do you avoid putting yourself in an awkward situation with past and present clients if they find out you’re selling the work you created for them in the past? How do you maintain your reputation and attract new business in the future?
Brandstack’s really cool, but I have some legal/ethical concerns — what do you guys think?
