Re: Sex and the Digital City

Picked up Robert Wright’s posting in the Times Opinionator blog a couple of days ago entitled “Sex and the Digital City”, and my takeaway -- beyond the impression that he’s my kind of writer, with just enough post-ironic, witty self-awareness in his prose to make his point palatable -- is that he touched on a couple of critical points about our culture and way information is disseminated in a hyper-connected age.

This concept appears to be the elephant in the room that everyone can’t stop talking about, and yet couching it in terms of marital fidelity lends it a visceral quality while simultaneously stripping the ever-titillating topic of who’s-screwing-who of some of its juice. Wright maintains that the age of paperless communication is actually the age of immortal ‘paper’ trails, and whether you’re a pro golfer or the Governor of a small southern state or just the philanderer next door, you can expect your latest tryst to be accompanied by an army of zombie missives revived from trash folders and T-Mobile’s memory banks.

And like all good zombies, they don’t stop until they consume everyone’s brain.

Wright asks, toward the end of his piece, whether our new culture scourged with binary sex zombies (which, Dave Barry (if you’re reading), would make an excellent name for a rock band) will lead to fewer instances of infidelity, out of fear of exposure, or more, having created an environment where such deviancy is effectively the norm. He hinges this argument on increasing instances of hypocrisy- the more hypocrites get exposed, the more a particular behavior becomes acceptable.

Without agreeing completely with Wright’s conclusion, I believe that the modern information echo chamber lives on hypocrisy of this kind, and it will continue to feed itself with the help of its information-zombie minions. There is no escape.

Does that mean the collapse of American family life, and the dissolution of faithful marriage in general? No.

A little erosion, perhaps, but nothing that the previous half-century hasn’t already sloughed away.

Who Can Nonprofits Turn To For Help? From Marketing Daily

There isn't a person in this country (excluding, perhaps, Pat Robertson) who hasn't been deeply saddened by what happened in Haiti on Jan. 12. Actually, make that most of the world. Watching the heart-wrenching coverage, we are reminded that natural disasters can strike anywhere, at anytime. It's how we react and respond in times of need that can make a difference.

For many, myself included, the crisis in Haiti is a throwback to August 2005, when Hurricane Katrina struck the Gulf States and wiped out more than 850,000 homes and displaced several hundred thousand Americans. While the death toll doesn't even compare with that of Haiti, millions of Americans lost their homes and more than $10 billion was spent on rebuilding levies, which devastated a land mass bigger than Haiti. But the fundraising efforts and how the country reacted then to today's crisis is strikingly different.

In just two days, the American Red Cross was able to raise $8 million, according to Mobile Marketer.com, with millions more raised by nonprofits, including Yéle, UN Foundation and the International Rescue Committee. Millions of people were moved and money was mobilized -- instantaneously -- thanks in large part to mobile donations.

Just a year ago, however, most people hadn't heard of mobile donations; only a handful of behind-the-scenes companies like GiveOnTheGo and mGive, that had been developing this powerful fundraising platform for charitable organizations, knew what was brewing in the mobile space.

Now, sadly, thanks to the Haitian crisis, millions of consumers have been abruptly introduced to mobile giving overnight. And they don't seem to have a problem with it.

For nonprofits, fundraising -- on any scale -- is an operational imperative. Without supporting funds, there is no organization, period. And while mobile giving is being crowned as a charity's newest savior, it's a rather useless one if the organization doesn't have a proper structure. And by proper structure, I mean a having robust and sensible PR and marketing strategy -- of which mobile is a part. Simply having a mission and a vision to "do good" is all well and good, but it falls flat when no one knows about a nonprofit's work.

In today's climate, a nonprofit has to market itself like a business, yet most don't. I'm not talking about The Red Cross or Médecins Sans Frontières or Oxfam. I'm talking about the 1,569,572 or so nonprofits in this country that have set out to create change, to help those less fortunate and to make our world a much better place. They might not be selling products or services, but they are selling a cause.

For many of those nonprofits, however, PR and marketing is ranked number 8 or 9 (10 being the least important). And where does PR/marketing rank for a for-profit company? Number 2, 3 or 4.

So why the disparity?

In working with nonprofits, I've found it to be an inherent part of the funding and grant-writing structure. Foundations and large donors enforce strict stipulations about the amount of money a nonprofit can spend to promote itself. And yet, if it doesn't promote itself to endear its cause and mission to a new generation of donors and consumers, its fundraising and awareness building-efforts will be severely limited. It's a Catch-22.

I'm not saying that all nonprofits need to go crazy with big marketing budgets. But if they want the world, or even just their local community to know about their invaluable work and deeds, they need to invest in themselves and their story a lot more.

In times of crisis, it's clear that millions of people pay attention to these worthy organizations.

But it's the rest of the time that nonprofits have to worry about. Because that is the time when having a robust PR and marketing strategy can be the difference between success and failure for many of them.

http://www.mediapost.com/publications/?fa=Articles.showArticle&art_aid=121276&nid=110455

My mobile dream for 2010 - from Mobile Marketer

The start of the year was a very different kind of New Year for me. Whereas previous years have always started and ended with fireworks, festivities and a very big bang – and a massive headache to boot – this New Year’s Eve was an altogether different affair.

Subdued, reflective, calm and quiet. Huddled up on a snowy mountain top away from emails, news and the twang of social media, I finally had the brain bandwidth to think about goals and dreams for 2010, personally and collectively.

Yes, a very big change to previous years and indicative of the type of mental preparation needed for a new year, a new decade and a new era.

Gone are the brash excesses, hasty decisions and knee-jerk reactions. Out with insecurity and fear, and in with sensibility, logic and decisiveness. Oh, and accountability, all very welcomed, thank you very much.

Welcome to a very different decade in our lives as marketers. Bring it on, I say!

And so we begin this new era from a very different place to where we were in 2000, or 2001, if you are one of those calendar purists.

Saddled with choking debt and less money – but greater and more demanding expectations from consumers and our clients – marketers across all channels have a lot to sort through and sort out.

Although there seem to be startups blooming everywhere – and thank goodness for that: we need new blood, new ideas, new thinkers and revitalized innovation – there are fewer venture capital funds sitting at the end of the digital/tech rainbow.

Veni vidi VC
Whereas 2009 was a funding desert, funds are opening up their coffers once more. But they will be more demanding and expecting a lot more in return. Notice those two words again?

Gone is the era of throwing money at flashy and splashy campaigns and budgets, or reckless startups and the glory days of playing with other peoples’ money. Those days are so over – or at least until we relapse into a time of fake plenty again.

No, this is most definitely an era of thrift and resourcefulness, an era where clients will be tempted to say “You know, we’re going to try doing this ourselves,” or “We’re going to look for a more cost-effective partner because we need to achieve more but with less.”

Sounds familiar, right?

So what does this mean?
Click here to read the rest of the article.