I need to follow up on something—my pledge from the first post when I began this blog for my digital networking class in spring 2009.
I promised to donate to Reading is Fundamental for every comment posted through April 29. The number of comments within that parameter is 31, but I’ll count May, too, for a total of 32.
This equates to $8. I opted to round up just a bit. Isn’t this a nice confirmation screen by the way?
Dear Christine Pill,
Thank you for your thoughtful donation of $10.00. Your support of RIF will help us build a literate nation in which every child has access to books and an opportunity to succeed.
We hope you found your visit to the RIF site informative. Be sure to visit us again to learn how RIF is touching the lives of millions of children and families across the country.
Carol H. Rasco
President & CEO
So, the next time I make promise like this, let’s go wild. Let’s aim for the stars.
Until then, enjoy my previous posts as I consider a brief hiatus from blogging to tackle my thesis project. Here are my top ten favorites, in chronological order:
- Calling all Numismatics!
- Digital Sharing Dictionary
- And it was all Yellow
- Slimming Down
- Not Kodak’s Moment
- Selfish Sharing is Still Sharing
- Get out your Sunglasses and SPF/Lighting up Legislation
- Mouthing Off
- Kudos to Erdos
- Throwing Sand
For the first time, I saw an ad targeted to companies in regards to product placement. Here it is to the left, snapped by my archaic phone. Interestingly enough, it was on a subway platform.
It makes sense that the people who make these types of decisions ride on NYC subways, but it still interests me to see that it’s now a-ok to do this outright for all eyes to see—even the ones whom this type of initiative is intended to influence. I guess it just goes to show how salient product placement has become.
Furthermore, check out the website that this ad refers to: www.affluencers.com. It’s as if Bravo is announcing:
Hello everyone! Bravo peeps in particular… Here is how we define and categorize you! Here is how we sell you! Come join us!
So, I have to ask. If you were watching, say, the Food Network and Mario Batalli used a specific wine to cook with, would you prefer this or a non-brand? I can see both sides of the picture, and may just prefer the former, assuming the celebrity chef valued his or her own brand enough not to sell out. And this begs another question: Can we trust that they do?
When brands run together, each then has the potential for an opportunity to become stronger through associations and/or a risk of becoming downgraded or damaged.
These variables leave all of us consumers in a new place. It could be good, it could be bad, but I think the important thing is that we’re all at least aware (and, thanks to companies like Bravo, you’d be stupid not to be), if not actively prosuming.
A while back I discussed the ever-annoying “reply all” emails that lazy individuals e-vomit into inboxes. In those cases the senders are aware of their messages, albeit possibly only semi-consciously.
So what about accidental emails like the one I sent in college to a non-responsive interviewee in which I was complaining about said interviewee? It was meant for my instructor, and it got to her eventually, but not before I angered the unintended receiver and made him think twice about speaking to my class ever again. Shit.
Some of goof-ups are harmless, sure. And sometimes flub ups simplyteach us the hard way to be more careful.
But some of these mistaken messages could be harmful. Take the congratulatory email the University of California – San Diego sent to 28,000 rejected students (in addition to 18,000 accepted students) last month. Ouch! While apparently the admissions staff “acknowledged the pain” they caused and spent time replying to every inquiry, I have to wonder: If they aren’t sued for this, when will the next similar situation occur wherein the faulty sender is?