Field Notes Inside an Integrated Communications Agency

Data is a powerful thing when combined with innovative, altruistic minds. The Triangle Gives Back project launched “How the Triangle Gives Back: A Report to the Region” on Thursday morning at a breakfast attended by more than 400 influencers.
 
The report provides insight on what the Triangle gives, how it gives, where it gives and how it compares to peer markets. You can find the report on the soft launch site Capstrat created, trianglegivesback.org.
 
I’ve worked as a member of the TGB Steering Committee for the past year, and what began as a desire to gauge the state of giving in the Triangle evolved as we realized the power of the data being assembled. A void would remain if we didn’t empower our citizens, both corporate and individual, and our non-profits to act on the data.
 
A new, larger vision was realized – philanthropy needed to be re-defined for modern times. Starting with the term itself, we re-defined philanthropy as the giving of time, talent and treasure. But bringing a new form of philanthropy to life would require more.
 
Facebook, meet Match.com.
The next phase of the TGB initiative is building out the social network on the site. For non-profits, corporations, individuals, religious organizations and social organizations, the site will be a marketplace where profiles are created, friends are found, news and events are reported, and matches are made between those offering time, talent and treasure and those in need.
 
This is slated for launch in early 2009 (go to the site now and submit your email so you’ll be notified when it goes live). The real work begins thereafter. Driving adoption and connections within our community will work to make it stronger. But as always, we’ll need everyone’s help to make it a success.

Anyone who has turned on a TV, logged on to Facebook or even played a video game in the past couple of months realizes that this year's presidential campaign truly does represent change.

I'm not talking about change of race or gender in the White House, but in the way the campaign has been advertised.

Not one to ever hide my political views, I have openly supported Barack Obama since early this year. (There's your warning that I recognize my view of the two campaigns is biased.) However, I feel like there are some undeniable differences in the way the candidates have run there campaign, especially when it comes to advertising it.

For the first time in presidential campaigning history, Obama advertised in video games. Several EA Sports games, including NASCAR 09, NHL 09 and NBA Live 08, showed billboards advertising for Obama in the background.

In 2007, the Obama camp hired Chris Hughes, one of the founders of Facebook, to develop their official Web site. Before agreeing to leave his job at Facebook, Hughes insisted that Obama agree to use the site as a serious campaigning medium. And that they have. The Obama campaign spent $3 million on online advertising in the first four months of 2008 alone, according to the New York Times.

Last week's infomercial released by the Obama campaign was the "most-watched telecast in U.S. prime time on Wednesday, drawing an ‘American Idol'-size audience that easily eclipsed even the climax to baseball's World Series," Reuters reported.

And, of course, who could forget Obama's 3 a.m. text message announcing Joe Biden as his Vice Presidential nominee?

Perhaps this new wave of advertising is because of their target audience, or maybe just because Barack Obama is just cooler than John McCain.

Either way, election coverage is flooding blogs, Facebook, Twitter and practically every other means of communication. No matter where you go, you're constantly bombarded with election news. Forget the 2004 election, where you had to catch up on election coverage during the evening news. This is certainly the year of change.

Over the last couple of months, Facebook users were given the option to 'test drive' the new Facebook, with the safety net that a switch back to the old version was just a swift mouse click away.  I took the bait and tried the new version in August, only to switch back to my 'safe place' five minutes later.

Tonight I had the slightly jolting experience of logging onto Facebook and seeing that I was now forced to use the 'new' Facebook, whether I liked it or not.  To make sure I wasn't dreaming, I re-typed www.facebook.com in my browser and was promptly redirected to www.new.facebook.com. Yikes, get a sister a crash helmet.

Apparently, Facebook has been doing some user experience research over the last several months, which I have to applaud.  Looks like this new, clean design layout with tabbed content won out.  As for me?  Maybe it'll grow on me but the verdict's still out on Facebook's new Facelift.

Steve Ballmer (number two) recently announced that individual social networks :: Facebook :: are just a passing fad. I wonder if he and Bill had any discussions about that. What I admire is the unrelenting tenacity of the hard learners up in Redmond.

The way I see it, the big FB will more likely be the place through which individuals access all their other networks.

Ballmers assessment assumes that people's friends are less important than those who want them to buy something.  

50% margin of error, I guess.