Dad, freelancer, designer, marketer, idea guy, the glue, cycling-yes please, running-no TY, the rest is noise.
Don't forget you can double-check your images via a simple search on Google images: http://images.google.com/
Click on the 'camera' icon in the search box and you'll be able to upload or paste the url of the image in there.
It adds a step, yes, but it's better than facing a $1000 payment.
8 months, 3 weeks ago on That Photo You Found On the Internet Could Cost You
... and OMG my formatting went away! sorry!
1 year, 4 months ago on The Chick-fil-A PR Crisis
The thing that always gets me with this type of 'PR failure' and social outrage are their origins. People generally don't take the necessary steps before they start to mash their keyboards in anger, if you live in Pennsylvania there's a very good case study in Penn State right now, but I digress.When reading something like this, you have to take a step back, have your *whoa* moment to yourself, then dig in and do some research before you hit the keys. There are many factors, the morals this family was brought up to believe, the social structure of our nation, the 24/7 news machine, the pro and anti gay marriage battle, and so much more. But the kicker is, this all stems from donations made by CFA to christian organizations labeled as 'anti gay' in 2007/08 (their original pr nightmare), paired with a religious organizations interview with someone they find intriguing and successful, mix that with a quote (that I would argue is taken out of context if you did not read the full article or take the time to realize and understand the circumstances where the quote was taken) and you have an OMG CFA HATES GAYS debacle on your hands.I know we don't always have the time to check sources, etc. But when I got to the end of the Baptist Press' interview, and still in my 'whoa moment', I read the following..."We know that it might not be popular with everyone, but thank the Lord, we live in a country where we can share our values and operate on biblical principles."At that moment I thought, and believe. This man understands it may not be popular to say what he believes, but he also is showing that he understands everyone doesn't share in his beliefs and finds value in respecting that, too.I'm now dumbfounded, seeing everyone around the web posting outraged (on both sides) as if someone swatted a bees nest. It all seems pretty childish to me. But those are my thoughts and you are quite entitled to yours, that's what is great about the world and I'm happy that we can disagree sometimes.-Luke
You hit the nail on the head of the underlying problem with the way these sites are set up. They didn't address the advertising revenue from the user perspective, rather the advertisers, just to keep them happy. The 'how can we make money on this attitude' keeps these sites in their 6-10 year old content management systems. The paper is fine using the CMS because it creates the revenue needed, yet they ignore the 'new' ways the web is evolving. I personally have a problem with the way papers force readers to look at multi-page articles. This is not good for the user at all, but it creates a tiered structure for ad sales and revenue.
It all boils down to having to look at their site from the user perspective instead of the advertiser, something a lot of companies have a hard time doing. It's especially hard to put yourself out there and have even a small focus-group or communications audit (these are not perfect, I know) give you feedback. The fear of hearing the negative keeps companies from reviewing their own practices.
1 year, 7 months ago on Dear Traditional Media: Why Must Your Websites Suck?