Visual Honesty

Last week the New York Times Media Decoder blog posted an entry about The Economist recently edited a photo for its cover. The image in question on the cover of the magazine shows President Obama standing alone on a Gulf Coast beach looking at the sand. Behind him looms a large oil rig and the title adds to the drama – “Obama v BP, The damage beyond the spill”. But, in the original photograph, taken by Reuters photographer, Larry Downing, the President is not alone. Instead he is standing on the shore speaking with Coast Guard Admiral Thad Allen and local parish president Charlotte Randolph. The magazine digitally removed the other two individuals from the image.

The altered photograph and ensuing discussions in New York Times, the Guardian, and the blogosphere brings up some interesting points about the intersection of journalistic integrity, photojournalism, photography, and art.

We have always separated photographers from photojournalists. While there is an overlap in skills and many individuals have produced work that should earn them membership in both clubs, we have kept the distinction. In part I think this is to allow for creativity on the side of photographers. We have celebrated those who change their photos to tell us a story. The artist is given license to adapt reality through developing and manipulating, and now with software, to create the image in their eye. Not all photographers have taken this route. Many choose to present the world in its true, raw form. But, it is the artist's option. Photojournalists on the other hand are not allow license. They must present the world through the lens – accurate to the last detail. We charge them with recording history.

We are in the age of digital photography and photo-editing software. So, what about editing? Is it important for all news photography to be presented untouched? Or are some edits acceptable?

In response to the post on Media Decoder, The Economist pointed to their October 2008 cover when the magazine endorsed Barack Obama for president. That cover shows a photograph of the then presidential candidate striding towards the camera. The image background is bright white and the headline simply states “It’s time”. The Economist’s editor explains that in both images the magazine altered (or completely removed) the background to create focus on the subject – President Barack Obama.

The fact that the magazine has edited two recent covers of the same individual does not make the practice right – or less controversial. So, when is it acceptable to edit a photograph and when is it not? I do not think there is one answer to that question. Perhaps news sources and photojournalists should always alert viewers when an image has been edited. But, that would only be a band-aid solution and not address the controversy directly. The question would remain: Are there circumstances where it is acceptable for a news source or journalist to edit photographs? I think the best answer lies in the intent of the alterations. Obviously, altering an image to misguide the viewer does not coincide with the integrity standards we accept of all journalists – written or photographic.

Investing in Chocolate

While reading the New York Times last week I finally found the perfect financial instrument for me to invest in – bonds that pay dividends in chocolate. Chocolat Hotel, a UK cocoa grower and chocolatier, is offering ₤2000 and ₤4000 bonds to fund costs associated with the company’s ethical cocoa policy (including healthcare and farmer education). The bonds will pay investors the equivalent of 6.72% and 7.29% respectively in chocolate. These tasty dividends will be delivered in tasting boxes either six times a year for the ₤2000 bond or thirteen times a year for the ₤4000 bond.

After getting over my initial euphoric reaction to this investment opportunity started thinking about positive and negative issues that about this offering.

I do think it is an extremely creative way for a company to seek financing. And whether or not Chocolat Hotel successfully raises their desired amount of capital, this campaign has great marketing potential. It has already increased the company’s exposure in the media. Several online news portals have posted stories about the chocolate bonds, including New York Times, The Independent, Daily Mail, CBC News (Canadian Broadcasting Centre) and Australian Food News. Several blogs (including this one) have commented on the story as well (see links below). The campaign is also creating buzz on Twitter and other social media networks.

The campaign will increase brand exposure among loyal customers. In addition, the campaign might create awareness of the Chocolat Hotel brand among individuals outside the company’s traditional target audience. The international news coverage and social media buzz will increase the company’s brand awareness around the world. This could help the company expand internationally or draw visiting foreign tourists to their London shops.

So, will I buy a chocolate bond? I am not sure. It is not a practical investment for retirement accounts (like IRAs or 401Ks) – I want to eat my chocolate now, not wait until retirement to withdraw (eat) my earnings (chocolate). I could invest money from my savings, but for me ₤2000 a rather large sum to invest without monetary return. That said I will definitely visit a Chocolat Hotel shop next time I visit the UK!

The Value of Foursquare

If you are unfamiliar, Foursquare is a location-based social network. About two months ago I signed up and decided to try to figure it out. I checked in at a couple restaurants where I was having dinner with my husband. I added a few friends. Then I checked in at the marina where my dragon boat club practices. I earned two badges – a “Newbie” badge and an “I’m on a boat!” badge.

When I start using most new social media applications and services I get excited and become preoccupied with the new experience. Not so with Foursquare. The idea behind the application – continually sharing your location with others – did not appeal to me. I enjoy sharing information and staying in touch with friends and colleagues via Facebook and other social media networks and I often read information on Twitter; but, I do not need to tell the world where I am in real time. Foursquare did not get hooked me. It did not add value or entertainment to my life. So, I stopped using it and decided it was not for me.

Until now… I read a post on the New York Times Lede blog about how Chinese bloggers and activists are using Foursquare to mark their presence in Tiananmen Square and create a virtual gathering on the 21st anniversary of the government’s brutal killing of student demonstrator in that location on June 4th, 1989. A silent, virtual gathering! What a powerful idea!

Soon after the check-ins at Tiananmen Square began, the Chinese government censored Foursquare and blocked the application in mainland China. So, the virtual gathering made an impact!


I still may not choose to use Foursquare very often, but now I definitely see its potential value.

The Global PR Phenomenon

Last week I started following @BPGlobalPR, the spoof of British Petroleum public relations on Twitter. Reading these tweets offered a brief reprieve from reality on what has turning into a rather depressing news month (oil spills, Middle East violence, and economic instability in Europe). I was saddened and frustrated by the fact that oil had been spilling into the Gulf of Mexico for over a month and the repeated failures by BP to end this horrible environmental disaster. While the traditional media was doing their due diligence and covering the story with updated reports and live webcams, there was not as much online discussion or outcry as I felt the situation deserved. There seemed to be a void. Then I started reading @BPGlobalPR. The satire and outright frankness of the tweets offered the shimmer of a smile on an otherwise dismal situation without downplaying the travesty of what was going on.

When I began following @BPGlobalPR the account had just over 50,000 followers. Today their follower list is 123,000 and still growing. It is a testament to how fast information, news, and trends can spread virally. This is also an example of how, with the internet and a little creativity, anyone can affect public perception of a brand or entity.

And now, a phenomenon has begun. Following the Israeli attacks on the flotilla on May 31st, 2010, two new spoof Twitter accounts appeared – @IsraelGlobalPR and @HamasGlobalPR. Then soon after @UNGlobalPR, @GSGlobalPR (Goldman Sachs), and @ShellGlobalPR started tweeting. Now, @IranGlobalPR, @FIFAGlobalPR, @USAGlobalPR, and others have joined the fray.

@BPGlobalPR posted their first tweet on May 19th, 2010. In just over two weeks, not only has their influence in the Twittersphere exploded, but the phenomenon they started has also taken off. It will be interesting to see if it is a trend that gets incorporated into the social media culture or if it only remains in vogue briefly before disappearing into the bytes of the past.

But regardless of the longevity of this trend, it has proven one thing – public relations is no longer about one-way communications and controlling the message. In today’s interconnected world public relations also includes facilitating conversations and participating in the social web.

The Importance of Acknowledging Everyone

I posted the following tweet the other day:

“New experiences bring new lessons and reminders of older ones. Change is always an important to gain experience and knowledge.”

I recently began a new job at a new organization and am enjoying the new environment and perspectives of change. I have been fortunate to land in a place with great coworkers and an attentive and nurturing manager. Like with my last organization, this is a good environment for me. Yet at the same time, it is very different and will afford me a exposure to new lessons, observations, and understanding.

I have always appreciated managers who are true leaders and teach by example. Sometime during my first week working at my new job a member of the cleaning staff was going around our office to empty the waste baskets. My manager came over and after a brief hello introduced the individual to me by his name. She then mentioned she had not seen him lately and inquired if he was okay. These were not empty questions – her concern was genuine. After a few minutes she said goodbye and went back to her desk. The man continued with his work, but with a little more of a smile on his face.

The situation brought me back to my MBA studies and leadership classes. The importance of not taking people for granted is always discussed – but rarely given the weight and time it deserves. A great deal of time is dedicated to studying strategy, accounting, and finance. Lectures are dedicated to human resources, ethics, and legalities. But discussions about how to reward, acknowledge, and empower individuals are often short.

People are every organization’s greatest asset. And yet Wall Street and other global financial markets a company’s worth is measured by stock price. We use commoditized terms such as staff or employees, instead of people or individuals. It is important to remember that it is individuals who work every day to make organizations great. It is individuals who discover new technological advancements, individuals who create strategies, individuals who write reports, and individuals who clean up the office when no one notices. And every one of these individuals makes a vital contribution to the organization.

I am thankful to have a new job where I have the opportunity to learn and observe. Thank you for reminding me of this important lesson.

A Tipping Point in Washington DC

So, I know I am a bit behind, but I finally read The Tipping Point by Malcolm Gladwell. I enjoyed the book and it made me think about my own experience and observations of tipping points. Recently a new law came into affect in Washington DC that caused a change in my behavior – and that of many other residents. It was a tipping point.

To tell this story I need to begin by relaying the history of my behavior in regards to shopping bags…

When I was a graduate student I always brought my own reusable bags when I shopped at Whole Foods Market. While I believe strongly in conservation and recycling, that was not my true motivation for bringing my own bags to this store. And, I did not bring my own bags when I shopped at Trader Joe’s or any other grocery store or market. Just to Whole Foods. Why? I was motivated to bring my own reusable shopping bags to Whole Foods because they would give me a five cent credit (or donate five cents to charity) for every reusable bag I brought with me. As a graduate student that small reward – just five cents per bag – changed my behavior in that circumstance. That five cents credit was my tipping point.

After I graduated I started forgetting to bring my bags to Whole Foods. When I did remember I normally requested the charity donation instead of the five cent credit. The five cent credit was no longer compelling. My tipping point had changed.

But, let me get to my main topic – the new law in Washington DC that relates to shopping bags – the DC Bag Tax. In January 2010, the District of Columbia imposed a new tax that required businesses which sell food or alcohol to charge customers five cents for each disposable paper or plastic bag they used. The inspiration behind this new tax is wonderful; the majority of the revenue from the tax will go to the Anacostia River Protection Fund to help clean up the river.

Prior to the bag tax being instated 22.5 million bags were being issued every month in Washington DC. Now, if that rate remained the same this new tax would raise over $1 million per month. But, this tax was expected alter some people’s behavior and the District government estimated the bag tax would bring in approximately $10 million in the first four years of its existence (an average of $208,333 per month).The District government created a marketing campaign to raise awareness of the new tax and encourage a change in behavior (Skip the bag, Save the River).

It worked, the new bag tax has changed people's behavior more than expected. Of course, the first person’s behavior I noticed, of course, was my own. I immediately began bringing my reusable bags again to shop – to all stores. I began carrying a reusable bag in my purse. Where a five cent credit did not motivate me – the idea of having to pay five cents did. So, again my tipping point was five cents . It also changed other people’s behavior. In January 2010, the bag tax revenue was just under $150,000. That is a decrease of over 80% in the number of bags issued per month! Five cents must be a tipping point for a lot of people in DC. Of course, these are only the results of one month. Time will tell if five cents is enough to change people’s behavior long term.


Note: All facts and figures quoted above are from WashingtonPost.com or the District of Columbia government's Skip the Bag, Save the River campaign website.

My Next Chapter has Begun

In January I wrote a blog post about change and the opportunity of new beginnings. Since then I have spent a great deal of time writing, contemplating the future of my career path, and searching for the best opportunity for me to pursue. It has been a period of study and refocus for me professionally. While I have always enjoyed the opportunity for self reflection; uncertainty wears on me. The concept of not having solid plans for my future – most importantly my professional future – has always been unsettling to me.

But – for now – my time of uncertainty has come to an end. I have taken the next step and am in the midst of a new beginning. I am excited by the potential possibility of new projects and learning experiences. I am looking forward to new opportunities and gaining new experience. And I am thankful to have the stress of uncertainty removed for now.