Turning A Bad Habit Into A Big Weapon

The following article by Vanessa Horwell, Chief Visibility Officer of ThinkInk, originally appeared on Marketing Daily on 10/19/12.

Two debates down, one to go. And one final opportunity for President Barack Obama to prove he can turn a bad habit into a big re-election weapon.

What habit is this? Considering that my PR hat is never fully removed, even when I'm not in the office, Obama's schizophrenic two debates -- one a massacre and the other a rock-solid performance -- got me thinking about three terms (and not presidential ones): over-promising, over-servicing and over-delivering, and how they relate to the PR profession as well as the POTUS.

Watching the first of three debates, while extinguishing my own professional firestorms, I found myself agitated over what many called Obama's weakest showing. According to CNN, 67% of viewers thought Mitt Romney “nailed it,” versus 25% for Obama. It was as if our eloquent president failed to show up for work, treating supporters to a stunt double -- someone who looks like Obama, but is rightly given no dialogue. Unfortunately, this “stunt double” spoke: Too much professorial style, too much equivocation on what Romney called his over-promised record, and when he did answer back, too many over-serviced responses.

With the Romney rematch, Americans were treated to a different Chief Executive. If anything, this Obama over-delivered. There were times during heated exchanges -- women in the workforce, the Libyan terrorist attack -- that I thought the President would leap from his lionesque stance and pounce on his challenger.

But even an Obama triumph has left some miffed. If on one debate Obama can over-service and another he can over-deliver, what does that say about the President’s true character? And which character will show up on November 6?

Switching over to public relations, over-promising is often the first step on that slippery client-agency slope where saying “Yes” too often cements an expectation that there will never be a “No.” And once you have over-promised, it becomes second nature to over-service, delivering more than what budget lines called for, and more than what can be accomplished in a reasonable timeline.

Agencies that find themselves on this path toward self-destruction, like Obama did in debate one, become their own worst enemies. In a recent article on the subject, Wallop! On Demand, CEO Kristin Jones rightly calls this cycle a “plague” -- and I’m sure many in the PR profession will agree with us both.

Jones offers some straightforward advice for combating the over-servicing affliction that many agencies suffer. Like an insurance claim, documentation is critical -- making sure deliverables are clearly spelled out. That way, when something “extra” is asked from the client, there is data to support your agency’s contention that it wasn't part of the original planning and will cost more.

Tracking goals versus actual results is also vital, as it serves as a check on PR executives’ natural tendency toward being “Yes” people (guilty as charged). You know who you are. You find excitement and exhilaration in the challenge of rising to seemingly impossible heights -- like, say, career-defining political debates.

But in all fairness to this over-servicing malaise, casually dismissing these terms as 100% negative requires a debate-style rebuttal. 

Used in limited proportions, periodic over-reaching is good for the mind, body and soul of an organization. Think of how many people became world leaders (or even CEOs) by just doing what they were told, towing the line, or completing their list of daily tasks and calling it quits? Not many -- and a recipe for mediocrity. Andrew Carnegie, who was known for his strong opinions on hard work and going beyond the call of duty, captured that in his quote: “Do your duty and a little more and the future will take care of itself.”

Translation for PR execs: if you over-promise and over-service, you had better over-deliver. If used in the right amounts, over-servicing can be a helpful weapon in allowing your agency to stand above the crowded rest -- no matter what the short-term balance books say -- instead of a bad habit.

As for this article’s own internal debate, charting the right communications course between Carnegie’s and Jones’ opinions requires careful sounding. Four years ago, President Obama revved up crowds with his campaign slogan, “Yes we can!” And perhaps in three weeks time he will convince enough voters that “yes we still can!” equally applies.

Today, whether you’re the president of the United States, the president of your own company or chief visibility officer of a global PR firm, “No, we can’t” is all right too -- provided you have not over-promised or over-serviced what you can deliver and it isn’t your company’s 24/7 knee-jerk response.

The following article by Vanessa Horwell, Chief Visibility Officer of ThinkInk, originally appeared on Marketing Daily on 10/19/12.

Attention Airlines and Airline Passengers: Muzzle Your Mobile And Keep Your Mouths Shut

Dear Airlines and Loud Mobile Phone Users,

On a recent flight home to Miami, I had the unpleasant experience of seeing the mobile phone future unfold in the seat right next to me. Suffice it to say, I didn’t like what I saw one bit, and even less what I heard. A thoroughly annoying git, who, for love nor money, would not put away his phone, despite complaints from his fellow passengers. Instead, he chose to pollute the cabin airwaves with his loud, inane jabber and nonsensical information – information that certainly could have been saved for a more appropriate location. Like his office. Or better still, underwater.

Since the dawn of mobile technology, much has changed. “Brick” phones that looked like, well, bricks, morphed into wallet-sized flip phones. And thanks to RIM’s now almost extinct Blackberry (and later Apple, Android and Windows), our phones have grown “smart.” The mobile web is ubiquitous and whether you’re deep underground in some subways in Tokyo, or standing atop Mount Everest Base Camp at 17,598 feet, chances are you’re never far from a reliable cellular signal.

But one thing has remained unchanged. When you board any aircraft, you are reminded by the flight attendants to “please turn off your cell phones and other electronic devices as we prepare for takeoff.” Minus a few stragglers, the din of human voices soon settles and the thrum of engine turbines powers up. Wrapped in an auditory cocoon that shuts out the world, passengers have passed their inflight boredom by watching movies, playing video games, fiddling with their mostly-dormant phones, reading books, getting buzzed, catching up on emails, dozing off, or maybe doing a little shopping via the inflight store.

But if the Federal Aviation Administration has its way, as it hinted at in August 2012, passengers may soon be able to use their mobile phones to make calls during the flight. Before that fateful day arrives, I wanted to go on record loud and speakerphone clear, and say that I think this is a poor decision.

A very, very, poor decision.  

In the name of progress, convenience and peace to all humankind, turning on mobile phone capabilities inflight will undoubtedly turn one of the modern world’s last bastions of relative quiet into a place of chattering, annoying, and like the flights themselves, nonstop conversations. Make no mistake, I’m not a Luddite on the ground. But can’t we all just go on in ignorant bliss believing that mass mobile phone use would crash planes?

Sadly, no.

While a recent article haply pointed out that since 2008, passengers on United Arab Emirates flights have made approximately 625,000 inflight mobile calls with only two official airline complaints, somehow I’m not buying that “official reports” are an honest measure of p’d off passengers. So, please, to my fellow flyers, I beg of you, when the time finally comes when five-hour flights allow five-hour calls, consider this heart-felt plea: muzzle your mobile and keep your mouths shut!

And to the airlines: please, please, please don’t do it.

Signed,

Luddite in the Sky

Brand Backlash: When Product Pitchpeople Endorse Politicians

Most Americans will recognize Mike Rowe as the genial, joke-cracking host of the Discovery Channel’s hit show Dirty Jobs, where he’s shown joining blue-collar workers doing the kinds of gag-inducing tasks that, as he puts it, “make life possible for the rest of us.”

We also know the former opera singer (who knew?) as a pitchman for Ford Motor Company’s F-Series of pickup trucks, and the star of a series of spots that capitalize on his image as a champion of blue-collar workers to sell trucks often used by those very workers.

And now we know Mike Rowe as a supporter of Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney. At least that is what it looks like to a lot of fans – who may now be former fans.

Rowe recently took to the stage with Romney during a campaign event in Bedford Heights, Ohio, speaking about the importance of supporting the kinds of workers – you know, the workers who clean toilets, who mine coal, who pump out septic tanks – whose occupations frequently feature on Dirty Jobs. According to a spokesperson, Rowe was not politically endorsing Romney – who has made his contempt for those of us who don’t inhabit his privileged circle quite clear – and that his contract with Ford doesn’t allow for endorsing candidates.

But that’s a technicality lost on many of us who saw Rowe onstage with Romney at a campaign event and, naturally, assumed it was a political endorsement for a candidate with, ironically, well-known anti-labor views. Many of them took to Dirty Jobs’ Facebook page to vent their anger and here’s one of many such comments:

“Republican, eh?? Bummer. You lose, Ford loses and your stupid dirty job, pig show is banned in my home. Bad move.”

I’m sure that’s the kind of “support” that neither the Discovery Channel or Ford are looking for.  A similar situation played out in mid-September when news outlets reported that, while the Most Interesting Man in the World may not always host political fundraisers, when he does, they’re for President Obama.

Jonathan Goldsmith, the actor who plays the distinguished gentleman in a series of ads for Dos Equis beer, endorsed Obama as a private citizen. But his association with the Dos Equis brand brought many Republican fans of the beer to Facebook to say they’d never buy it again:

“He's not a TRUE Patriot. No more beer for you, and I won't buy any Heineken products or allow them in my house after seeing the endorsement of Obama. BOYCOTT.”

Heineken USA, which imports Dos Equis, quickly distanced itself from Goldsmith’s actions, telling Advertising Age: "Mr. Goldsmith's opinions and views are strictly his own, and do not represent those of Dos Equis."

It’s clear that this type of personal endorsement of political figures is a very sticky wicket for brands and their ad campaigns. What comes first, their responsibility to the brands they pitch or their right to their personal political views? Wearing my marketing hat, I would say that it’s the former.

If you are paid by a brand to promote its products, it’s highly irresponsible to alienate the brands’ customers by publicly endorsing, or even appearing to endorse, political candidates. And particularly during such a highly-polarized election cycle. Pitchpeople, who have freely chosen to be products’ public faces, still have the right to quietly support candidates through donations and, of course, through their votes.

So why bite the hand that signs your paycheck? That’s something I’ll never quite understand.

Enhancing Attendee Engagement with the Mobile Channel

The following article by Vanessa Horwell, Chief Visibility Officer of ThinkInk, originally appeared on Hotel Executive on 10/2/12. 

For traditional marketing and advertising promotions, the mobile channel is opening up a slew of new opportunities: everything from retail coupons to loyalty reward programs are being enhanced through mobile interactions. The immense convenience and “always connected” benefits of smartphones and other mobile devices (not to mention the intimate nature of these devices) make them a very appealing vehicle for consumer advertising, but what about the trade segments—specifically, what can the mobile channel do for trade shows and conventions? With mobile's vast capabilities and ever-growing adoption, the channel can increase the effectiveness of conventions by becoming an integral tool for all phases of the event: pre-convention, during, and post-convention.

There’s no denying the reach of the mobile channel: by early 2012, nearly 90 percent of Americans owned mobile phones, with roughly 50 percent of these being smartphones. And by summer 2012 two out of three US mobile purchases were for smartphones. Of course, in most business professions, the concentration of these numbers is far higher, making mobile one of the most effective tools to communicate with on-the-go professionals. Considering the professional playing field these days, who isn’t on-the-go?

Logically, these factors extend into the convention and trade show environment. Whether convention planners are looking to create an event-specific app or utilize optimized mobile websites to communicate with attendees, there are a number of mobile techniques that can be applied to ensure a successful event—and provide more opportunities to create value for convention goers. The following are a number of approaches for organizers to engage more attendees and optimize the convention experience through the mobile channel.

The Mobile Channel: Pre-Convention

Let’s face it: the majority of convention-goers aren't all that excited about attending an upcoming convention or trade show. While there’s nothing that can change this fact, planners can use the mobile channel to make preparations for these (rather unwilling) attendees much easier, thereby eliminating some of usual problems associated with RSVP “checkpoints” (hotel reservations, individual event reservations, etc.) prior to the convention.

• Notification – Before any major checkpoint is reached, convention planners can offer pre-registration (which, if applicable, could include downloading the convention’s app) that provides each attendee with a mobile notification that gives instant linkage to the specific RSVP site. Think of it as a direct landing page for each event, sent via text, mobile email, or app. For example, convention attendees can sign up at pre-registration to receive notification via a downloadable convention application. The result is that, prior to the RSVP deadline for each event, the attendee will receive a message:

Dear Mr. Smith, please find a link below that will either confirm or cancel your attendance of the workshop: “Using the Mobile Channel Effectively at Conventions.” Click on the link that represents your preference. We look forward to seeing you on July 23rd!

• Communication – Through mobile applications or devices that offer web communication (nearly 75 percent of business travellers’ own a smartphone), convention planners can provide a congregation/meeting forum for attendees. By providing “meet and greet” events through mobile devices, planners can eliminate and/or shorten the need and length of these events at the live convention. In addition, such forums can generate more excitement for the events, as long as each forum provides a moderator that gives detailed information about each event.

The Mobile Channel During the Convention

Convention planners grapple with the unexpected during convention execution, and it's not unusual that a professional wonders “why didn't someone just tell me?” when in attendance. With some smart moves, the mobile channel can be calibrated to enhance participation by offering immediate information, engagement, and connection with others on the floor, or even via social media. Issues that used to slip through the cracks can be addressed with smoother, simpler communication while on-site to ease immediate handling.

• Information – No longer do convention planners need to design, print, and distribute information packets and brochures. (Even virtual business cards can be exchanged wirelessly thanks to the latest generation apps and near field communication [NFC]-enabled phones.) Through mobile applications and optimized browsing, convention planners can offer maps and detailed event information such as exhibit locations, sponsor products, agenda items, and event location/times. In addition to its practicality, it helps provide an eco-friendly feel to events, and may even be used as an additional marketing tool.

• Engagement – Mobile offers instant interaction and instant results. Speakers and event managers can keep the audience engaged in events by asking questions, taking polls, and displaying results in real-time. Not only will the audience maintain a closer connection with presenting professionals, but the event organization in general can be streamlined for the benefit of all parties. Relevant questions received after speakers' presentations can be collected and answered to continue the interactive mindset.

• Connection – The mobile channel gives instant connection to event sponsors, planners, and fellow attendees. Implementation can also involve linking convention communications to Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, and other popular social networking connections. With regular updates from attendees, event buzz can grow exponentially in real-time, and without increasing cost.

The Mobile Channel Post-Convention

Another essential convention component doesn't even happen on location. When the presentations are over, business cards collected, and bags are packed, it's all about the take-away benefits of a professional think-tank. On the attendees' side, the mobile channel facilitates cross-communication and the forging of partnerships, but it also enhances future conventions in the following ways.

• Feedback – Because it can be used to gather immediate feedback, mobile takes advantage of “fresh” data (information and opinions that are gathered while impressions are fresh on attendees’ minds) that will give planners an edge for the next “big event.” In the case of closely-scheduled or even back-to-back events, this information is considered vital. With so many organizations joining forces at a convention, communication between these separate entities can become streamlined.

• Maintaining Connections - Like all forms of electronic communications, mobile provides an open link between all convention participants long after the event’s conclusion. However, unlike other forms, mobile gives instant connectivity regardless of the participant’s location—convention sponsors, advertisers, planners, and attendees can communicate on-the-go. As all too often, these communications might be shuffled to a “to-do” list, never to been seen again because there was no immediate access to a computer. Mobile ensures that such ideas and thoughts are communicated whenever, wherever.

Challenges for Mobile Channel App Adoption

Convention planners can't move into the mobile channel without caveats. Participants can experience a streamlined event for networking and building their businesses, but only if provided with intuitive options for their needs, which can vary depending on industry. Building on app adoption in the first half of 2012 and 2011, current mobile channel incorporation can avoid the disappointments and pitfalls of earlier trial runs.

• Poor App Availability – Some early apps intended for conventions and trade shows this year were only available for iPhone users. Nielson Company's March 2011 mobile survey indicated that 31.1 percent of respondents wanted to purchase an Android as their next phone, while 30 percent wanted an iPhone—a close split that wouldn't be favored by an iPhone-only app offering. Apps also need to be planned for hybrids or mobile web to blanket the widest group of attendees as possible. Interestingly, in the time since that survey, Android adoption has eclipsed iPhones by a respectable margin: fully 68 percent of the smartphone-owning world owns one.

• Incomplete Offerings – There's no point in offering an app for participants if it doesn't have a draw. Instead of repackaged content or a series of maps, original content paired with event FAQs and directions is more likely to increase engagement. Some might argue that an inferior or “worthless” app could even damage the reputation of a convention or trade show, and the cost of development certainly wouldn't be worth the investment.

• Skewed Intention – Every quality app has its place in a convention if it is marketed properly and, if highly specialized, offered in conjunction with complementary apps. If offering an app to aid social networking, for example, it might be advantageous to additionally offer help-based, information-focused apps.

• Poor Design – Poor usability can hurt convention app use. Anything from hard-to-find information due to layout to untested designs can weaken the reputation of those offering “bonus features” to participants. Since many convention-goers ask a series of location-based questions upon arrival, for example, it would be advantageous to have that information positioned accordingly.

It’s not just the traditional consumer target that benefits from the “always connected” feature of the mobile channel; trade segments can also be successfully targeted in the convention atmosphere. Since the mobile channel is based on two-way communication, apps that allow feedback and commentary can improve more than just an industry event, but issues and product development discussions in the following year. Throughout all phases, convention planners and participants can take advantage of the convenience and effectiveness of the mobile channel.

Who knows? By making it easier to attend and participate (and even have fun) via the mobile channel, maybe everyone could even have a good enough time to enjoy it. Wouldn’t that be the ultimate type of engagement with convention attendees?

The following article by Vanessa Horwell, Chief Visibility Officer of ThinkInk, originally appeared on Hotel Executive on 10/2/12. 

Celebrity Boob Jobs More Important than the Victims of 9/11? NBC Thinks So

Over the past few weeks, a number of ThinkInkers (myself included) have been spending a lot of time sitting in airport lounges, in cramped seats at 35,000ft, emailing from the back of taxis or shepherding clients through a series of trade conferences in different time zones. To say we’ve been busy would be a gross understatement.

So I haven’t been keeping up with my vigorous daily digesting of news. Naturally, when I did get some time to pore through last week’s newsfeeds, I couldn’t help but groan when reading about NBC’s blunder on the 11^th anniversary of 9/11.

While all the other networks cut away from their regularly-scheduled morning programming at 8:46 am on Tuesday, September 11^th to observe a minute of respectful silence for the thousands of innocents who lost their lives that horrific day, NBC’s “Today Show” skipped the brief tribute and kept rolling an interview with 

Kardashian matriarch Kris Jenner, who rambled on about her breast implants.

Really, NBC?

Naturally, the network earned itself an avalanche of criticism for the inane decision and now sports a serious PR shiner. Social networks and the comment sections on dozens of news sites lit up with outraged readers launching their verbal slings and arrows at the network. And who could blame them?

Few, if any, events have had a more thorough and absolute impact – beyond the 3,000 lives lost that day – on so many aspects of American life in the 21^st Century than the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.

After the Al-Qaeda hijackers flew their planes into New York City, Washington DC and a Pennsylvania field, the government sent our armed forces into two wars. Those wars have deprived 298,000 people of their lives and have cost American taxpayers a whopping $4 trillion, according to Brown University’s Watson Institute for International Studies.

It’s because of 9/11 that we have to take off coats and shoes, haul laptops out of bags, give up our bottled beverages, endure intrusive pat-downs and even subject ourselves to scans that show all our nooks and crannies to get through airport security.

And it’s because of 9/11 that so many innocent Muslims, as well as non-Muslims who “look Arab” or wear turbans, have been the targets of ramped-up verbal and physical attacks by ignorant, frightened bigots.

NBC has defended itself by saying it stopped observing the minute of silence in 2006, with the exception of last year’s 10^th anniversary. That may be. But the network dropped the ball by replacing a moment so meaningful to so many with mindless fluff about a member of the vacuous Kardashian clan.

And that single minute of misjudgment has cost it a conviction in the court of public opinion. I wonder how they’ll try to make up for it next year?

'Peace' and 'Victory' Symbols And A Cyclist's Public Lancing

Ten fingers. That’s all we’ve been handed (pun intended). So when it comes to forming important symbols with those fingers, we’re bound to have signs with multiple -- and sometimes ambiguous -- overlapping meanings.

Perhaps most ambiguous is the “peace” and “victory” symbol -- made more confusing still, depending on who’s using the signage and for what reason. (Think back to the iconic Richard Nixon helicopter sign-off V-shot, as the disgraced leader left the White House). Formed with an extended pointer and middle finger at roughly a 30-degree angle at the tips, implicit in the victory symbol is recent violence (victory achieved), while the peace symbol, embraced by Sixties-era counterculture and anti-Vietnam protesters, suggests an end to the fight

Subtle difference -- but important.

These were the symbolic question marks bouncing around my head last week after reading a Businessweek article about the famed -- but not yet infamous -- athlete superstar Lance Armstrong and the continued prospering of his image and brand. Speaking of image, the article featured a picture of Armstrong in a very Nixon-esque pose holding out two V-signs. My goodness -- if you include the position of his elbows you could almost see four V-signs. His mouth is neither smile or smirk, and his blue eyes appear far off. If that’s not the image of ambiguity, then I’m not sure what is.

For background: Armstrong, 40, has for years been dogged by doping accusations. Recently, in a very public back-and-forth with the United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA), the cyclist has refused further blood tests and inquiries to confirm (ostensibly once and for all) whether the accusations are true. In a statement to the Associated Press he characterized USADA’s mission as nothing more than “an unconstitutional witch hunt.”

“I have been dealing with claims that I cheated and had an unfair advantage in winning my seven Tours since 1999," read the August 23 statement. “Over the past three years, I have been subjected to a two-year federal criminal investigation followed by Travis Tygart's (USADA’s CEO) unconstitutional witch hunt. The toll this has taken on my family, and my work for our foundation and on me leads me to where I am today -- finished with this nonsense.”  

The price for noncompliance, according to Businessweek: the likely stripping of seven Tour de France victories, the return of $7 million in prize money, the loss of a 2000 Olympic bronze, and a “lifetime ban from professional Olympic-style sports.” And as of this article’s writing, that includes the upcoming Chicago marathon on October 7.

But that’s only part of the story. The real story is that none of these developments have proven harmful to the Lance Armstrong brand. If anything, the us vs. them mentality that Armstrong and his PR machine have successfully stoked caused a 25-fold increase in the amount of donations to the Lance Armstrong Foundation, dedicated to “serving people affected by cancer.” And a quick review of his Web site’s News and Events section showcases nearly a dozen high-profile articles and opinion pieces supporting his stance from the cover of Newsweek, the LA Times, ESPN and a Forbes article titled “Why Lance Armstrong Still Matters,” among others.

So if that’s the real story, here’s the real question: Have Armstrong’s nonprofit efforts been negatively impacted by the near-scandal aura that surrounds him -- and to what extent should his effective public relations campaign be praised for its work or shunned for a brazen attempt to dodge responsibility?

In keeping with the ambiguous nature of this piece, here’s a frustrating answer: Yes and No.

In a perfect world we’d love our sports heroes to remain true to their legend -- to go through life unsullied by the nasty realities that befall us “regular” people. And in that sense, Lance Armstrong’s fight against USADA almost appears noble. Like another famous Armstrong who recently passed away, he’s protecting his carefully controlled image “for mankind.” So kudos to the brilliant PR tactic that likely will keep Armstrong a household name for decades to come.

But then, just for a moment, off comes my public relations cap, and I think of Nixon and that V-sign. Were Nixon’s outstretched arms and hands the sign for victory -- “Watergate will not send me to prison and to hell with the liberal media,” or was it truly symbolic for peace -- peace of mind that the Watergate tumult had ended and peace of spirit knowing that the national healing could begin? Considering Nixon’s quasi-nefarious character, I tend to believe the former.

As for Armstrong, his V-sign “mug shot” is as nearly uncertain. I guess, like Nixon, only through the passage of time will his true actions and intentions become clearer.

Until then, this V is peacing out!

Mobile is Changing Everything – Except the Direction of Where Donations Go

In January 2010, a devastating magnitude-7 earthquake struck the Caribbean island of Haiti whose epicenter lay just west of its capital, Port-au-Prince.

Within hours, photos and videos of the devastation – entire neighborhoods wiped out, mangled bodies everywhere, a partially-collapsed Presidential Palace and so on were the main story for the world’s news media.

Yet soon after, a second news media narrative began taking shape and this one far more positive. Within two days of the crisis, Americans alone had raised $5 million for the Red Cross’ relief efforts in the Western Hemisphere’s poorest country…by sending in small donations via text message.

At the time I praised the work of relief agencies and felt that if there was any relative “good news” (a very relative term considering the level of disaster) it was that Haiti, possibly for the first time, and without question on the largest scale to date, demonstrated to the world the power of mobile giving and how millions of SMS messages containing $10 donations added up. One week after the quake, the Red Cross had raised $22 million through texting alone.

But as the Atlantic hurricane season began unfurling its wrath late last week with tropical storm – now Hurricane – Isaac, media briefly returned to the impoverished land and beamed back disturbing images. In the 959 days since the historic temblor, as the world has been consumed by an onslaught news both serious and silly, I was disturbed to learn that some 400,000 of Haiti’s 9.8 million citizens remain in abysmal tent cities and unimaginable squalor following the quake – not to mention the island nation’s non-earthquake-induced entrenched poverty.

Images like the ones we’ve been treated to again cry out for an answer: why do we as decent, caring and law-abiding citizens allow such poverty to exist? Why can some buy iPads or microwave frozen dinners and why must others survive in shantytowns and consider electricity a “luxury?” More pragmatically, the still-battered landscape and still-battered people deserve another question answered. Where was all that money spent and what good has it done?

Thankfully, all is not bleak. Objective new reports have repeatedly found that much good has come from the relief effort and the money raised. In January of this year the Huffington Post produced an excellent infographic that broke down the numbers. Here are some big ones as of that article’s writing:

• 50% of earthquake debris has been removed and 20% recycled
• 100,000 received homes from the Red Cross
• Of the $4.6 billion pledged by donors, only $2.38 has been spent

This all suggests significant improvement. But the article was equally quick to point out that millions of dollars alone were also spent on advertising campaigns “telling people to wash their hands.” Other news outlets like Global Post attributed the siphoning of funds to Haiti’s notorious black market, proving once again that for many, crime pays. So for all the good mobile donations have done, it seems it did very little in changing human nature, and if anything, exposed in all its gruesomeness, how a survival of the fittest mentality can take on such inhuman qualities.

Two years and seven months after the Haiti earthquake a new threat from Mother Nature is bearing down on New Orleans –a city once brought to its knees by hurricane Katrina. You can be sure as in Haiti, mobile donations will figure prominently there too. But perhaps, we can all learn an important lesson. Money coming in via text, like a torrent flood water, must be controlled so that rather than inundating areas in confusing, haphazard (and dangerous manners) it flows to where it’s needed most, giving government and watchdog organizations time to monitor those who seek to game the system.

Here’s a suggestion: what about SMS giving integrated with social media and photo identification – someway to demonstrate that money that was texted actually goes to a specific person, city, town, or group?

Is this a bulletproof idea? No. But at least it proves that we’re trying and that we’re continuing to find new ways to use new technology. Levee-like controls on mobile giving are a good way to start, even if such safeguards have done little to help Haiti’s 400,000 virtual homeless. But as hurricane Isaac sets course for the Crescent City, another real-world test might be hours away.

Louisianans and Haitians both deserve we get this right, finally.