"In Lieu of Gifts:" Inlu May Be the Solution

In this month's issue of The Champlain Business Journal there is a great write-up about a new business called "Inlu." Inlu is creative, relevant and simple...although the idea itself is very innovative! The idea of Inlu is to be a specialized gift registry which benefits charities. Inlu is similar to a gift registry because "the recipient's gift or charitable wishes are revealed to celebration attendees." They direct funds to a recipient's charity choice and can act as a collection point for anything from funding group presents to school fundraisers. Personally, I think this would have been a fantastic business plan idea for the St. Mike's Enterprise Plan Competition.

Monica Ostby and Jamaica Jenkins are the co-founders of Inlu and have made the entire process very straightforward and easy. Participants can sign up online at www.inlu.com and Inlu sends out invitations and coordinates receipt and allocation of the funds. Inlu was actually started in 2009, but as with any business, it takes a little while to really be recognized in the community. Ostby says that what really sets them apart is the fact that "Inlu is a time saver for the purchaser, but also guarantees that the recipient receives that longed-for special gift." The article states that a big part of being recognized is the partnerships the women have made with local area businesses. As far as the numbers go, Inlu has issued payments in 25 different states and some participants have already been a part of over 30 Inlus!

Both co-founders want to always remember why they began the business in the first place: to reduce consumption and one's carbon footprint. So, for every 10,000 points users accumulate, Inlu will plant a tree. As an organization, they are currently up to 160,000 points! Do you think the notion of gift giving will change because of business like this and that people will decide to go more "green" in their purchases for gifts? Do you have any suggestions for the future of Inlu?

Subscribing: Yay or Nay?

I've recently been thinking about a question I have: what is the purpose of subscribing to someone's YouTube page? My personal feeling is that there is no point in following someone's personal videos because most of the time they are simply for entertainment purposes and are not anything you would seriously share with anyone...they just seem like they're for fun. So why put the effort into following them and subscribing to their page?

I believe I'm confused about this phenomenon mainly because it doesn't seem to fit into my idea of social media and making connections online. Facebook, Twitter, and LinkedIn are all meant to share interesting information, make genuine connections, and build and keep relationships for the future. In other words, these ways of connecting represent a real connection to you. When subscribing online, you get lost in the thousands of other subscribers, so where is the personalization? What do you as an individual get out of being one of many followers? There is no give and take, just watching and commenting without really knowing if the people in the videos will take the time to read all the comments. As you may be able to tell, I am unfamiliar with subscribing to someone's channel, but I wonder why someone would do so. For instance, there are some videos that I have found on YouTube that I find to be really funny, but I have never considered subscribing to someone's page. Do you know of anyone who has, and what they might do on a weekly basis in relation to their subscription to that channel?

Do Nothing and Do Good

Recently I was flipping through my mom's AARP magazine (I know what you're thinking, but it actually has a lot of interesting articles :) and I found a write-up about "embedded generosity." I had never specifically heard of this term before, yet as I read on I realized that this is something we all have most likely encountered.

This is a great way to market a product because you are helping a cause without even really being conscious of it sometimes. The article explained how many companies feel it attracts customers more when the "giving" is part of the purchase, and not a separate decision. In this way, when businesses ask as you are checking out "would you like to donate a dollar to the children's fund today?" You are psychologically more likely to buy a product that supports the children's fund in your initial cost, than to make a donation after buying something.

Another example of this was the RED campaign which raised money for fighting aids in Africa. Customers could purchase cards, shirts, CDs, etc. in support of aids awareness. Another example is when you purchase Procter & Gamble goods or redeem Kraft coupons, you help fund Feeding America, which provides food to low-income Americans. The article also mentions that skin care company Philosophy donates their net proceeds from sales of nine bath and body products to nonprofits via its Shop For A Cause Program. Henry Mason of Trendwatching.com says that embedded generosity "makes giving painless - and automatic."

Have you ever bought something because it supported a cause? Were you even aware of that fact that you were supporting it?

Digital Nation

On Monday night I went to a viewing of the film "Digital Nation" (Frontline, 2010) which was a part of the "technology fast" this week at St. Mike's. The film discusses the global issue of social media and virtual realities as a shaping and influential factor in how we (as a society) view new technology and embrace all that it has to offer (and take away).

One staggering fact that was given at the beginning of the talk was that 1/3 of teenagers send more than 100 texts per day. When do they find the time to do this? Going off of that, the film makes it clear that no one really takes a "vacation" anymore. We are always attached in some way to the working world because we are finding that the lines between work and leisure are increasingly being blurred. This idea strongly relates to what is written in "The Third Screen."

A main point of the film was that this new technology is changing the way that teachers teach because they need to stimulate their students on another level: they have to use technology to keep their interest. However, classic psychology tells us that it is impossible to multitask; that our brains simply are not built for it. So how do we decide the manner in which we should be teaching children? The world has sped up and education generally hasn't; should we be teaching multitasking? One research study found that students that do something around 6 things at one time are actually slower at completing those tasks. This is because they are not working effectively. The filmmaker states that technology is "changing what it means to be a human being."

Another main issue that is presented in the documentary is video games and virtual realities. The film looks at video arcades in South Korea, and how many young men (high school age) are becoming addicted to them. Some doctors are even saying that it may be a psychiatric disorder. Therefore, the Korean government opened up three "internet rescue schools" where young men would learn to live without their gadgets and games and get back to nature and the value of face-to-face friendships.

What may be causing these addictions? It is certainly hard to say, but it's important to note that Korean children are taught to go online and read at the same time (at the same age). But they are also taught to use online resources responsibly. How does this compare to America? Are we doing this as well, or should we be doing this?

The film also states that technology teaches you to have every urge answered and satisfied. It's instant gratification. The film makes the point that many college students write in paragraphs because they feel accomplished after they have gotten a good "snippet" done and they reward themselves by checking facebook, texting, or watching a YouTube video. Personally, I find that this is very true. I try to catch myself when I'm doing it because I'm obviously not working effectively, yet it's hard when you are being stimulated and "pulled" in so many different directions by interesting things online and with friends. Do you find that this is true in your life? If so, how do you balance the "pull" with your own free will to make decisions for yourself? In other words, I'm curious if you feel as though you control your technology, or does technology control you?

Gender and Advertising

For my final project in my gender studies class I am going to focus on how food is advertised differently to men and women. I'm wondering if I am the only one who notices that there are major differences in how "female" food is presented and how "male" food is advertised. Of course, I don't think that every food in a commercial or magazine is gendered, but there is almost always a certain tone to the advertisement that sways one gender more so than the other into buying the product (or at least being interested in it).

For example, DOVE chocolate usually has a very strong message towards women. The message is that nothing can be as rewarding as eating chocolate. I understand they are targeting their largest market, which is women, not men, but it still makes me wonder why  their message has to be so stereotypical.

In contrast, the recent Dr. Pepper 10 ad states that their low-calorie drink is "not for women." I realize that they are trying to change a stereotype - that only women drink low-calorie drinks, yet their message can be read as offensive to some. Mio, which is a flavor additive that can be added to water is also taking the same approach. They feature a man in their ad which I thought was great because it is done in a tasteful way, and they are doing what they set out to do, which is challenge the stereotype.

Usually ads that cater more towards males feature a more active scene. Ads that come to mind are usually fast-food or "game day" munchies such as chips, Taco Bell, and anything "fire," "hot" or "spicy" is almost always advertised to males. When viewing ads that are more directed at women, it shows them floating on clouds (such as for Philadelphia cream cheese ads) or there is usually a constant theme of checking their weight, such as in Yoplait yogurt ads. However, the other day I did see a Yoplait yogurt ad that focused on women watching their calcium intake and staying strong for the younger generations in their life which I really liked.

Overall, do you see a drastic difference in how food is advertised to men and women? Where do you see the biggest difference? In other words, does it depend on the brand, the product itself, or a stereotype?



Fix It With 5!

On Tuesday night I went to my first student association (S.A.) meeting. I was motivated to go this time because it was the "Fix It With 5" presentations. This program has only been going on at St. Mike's for a couple years. "Fix It With 5" is a philanthropy activist organization that gives a $10,000 grant to a local nonprofit. The money comes from $5 of each student's activities' fee. There are three local nonprofits that present what they would put the money towards if they won it, and then students vote on which nonprofit they think should get it.

One thing that I think says a lot about SMC is that two out of the three nonprofits said that they had employees, interns, and volunteers all from Saint Mike's. I think this really shows how connected people feel not only here at our school, but also within the local community. The three nonprofits that were chosen to present were the Boys and Girls Club of Burlington, The Burlington Emergency Shelter, and Mercy Connections.

What made me want to share this experience was that all three presentations really embraced the Made to Stick rules of thumb. Firstly, the Boys and Girls Club showed a video of the children and what they think about the club. Needless to say, it was an emotional video because it made your heart go out to these children that may not have had a mentor or role model before coming to the club, but they also evoked a lot of joy because they seemed very happy when they were there. The presenters also gave a surprising figure: the club takes 1-1.2 million dollars per year to operate. This element of including an unexpected statistic really stuck with me because even though that much money can be hard to fathom, I don't think many people would think it would be that much to run the club. Furthermore, the presenters had a clear and concise message. They got to the core of what they wanted to say and then left it at that (it didn't drag on).

The Burlington Community Shelter was this way as well. Their narrative was much more emotional in both an inspiring and touching manner. A woman spoke who had her life completely changed when she was led to the shelter last fall. She told a very compelling story about how she was at rock bottom and nowhere near Vermont, but something led her here and she is now at a place in her life where she never imagined she would be.

Mercy Connections had a story element as well. The director said from the start that she was going to "talk from [her] heart" and then a woman who was previously in prison spoke about everything the program has done for her and now she is a teacher there. Mercy Connections is a place where men and women coming out of corrections can be mentored and partake in transition programs (being integrated back into a social and working lifestyle). In addition, their presentation was conversational. The director asked empirical questions out to the audience to keep their interest and she spoke in a very compelling way. She even addressed her competitors (the other nonprofits), saying that it really did not matter who won because it would be a "win-win" for all of them, implying that all nonprofits in Vermont support each other.

Needless to say, each speaker had their own way of holding our attention and making their message sticky. Personally, I think the two testimonials were the strongest parts of the presentations because it was proof right in front of our eyes that the work these nonprofits are doing is really impacting peoples' lives. In other words, their work is causing people to act and care about their own lives and all the value they have to offer!

Marketing "Bully"

I am both a gender studies and marketing minor and this semester I am finishing up my last gender studies credits. In my class today we watched a trailer for a movie that is set to release soon called Bully. It is a documentary film being made by the Weinstein Company which is a very credible company, having also contributed to the making of The Iron Lady, My Week with Marilyn, and The Artist. The film shows how parents band together who have lost a child due to the mental, emotional, and physical pressures of bullying. The trailer itself is extremely emotional and very powerful. It shows how the excuse that "boys will be boys" cannot be acceptable in schools. In addition, it accuses school staff members of not taking responsibility for creating a safe space. School should be a safe place for children to learn and be themselves. Of course, it is difficult to enforce such behavior, but the film shows that there needs to be consequences when children have lost their lives.

However, there is controversy over the rating of the film because it is currently rated R, yet many people argue that this means that teenagers (who are the ones being bullied) will not be able to see it. It certainly makes sense to me that they should lower the rating to PG 13 which is what they are hoping to do.

I think it will be somewhat of a struggle to market this movie and get people to actually spend the money to go see it. I say this because a lot of people are leery about seeing such a sad movie. Based on the trailer alone, I think a lot of people would say that they would rather rent it when it comes out later, simply because it would be a hard movie to watch. I think it's difficult to market a movie that has such intense content like this.

How do you think this film will be received, and what factors contribute to you/someone wanting or not wanting to see it?

Check out the website:  http://thebullyproject.com/