I've been doing more and more thinking recently about the water crisis that affects many parts of the world, and the charities that are there to assist. charity:water is one of those charities (I discussed it earlier a few posts back). Although charity:water is providing thousands of people worldwide with access to clean water they did not have before, I feel like there is so much more that could be done.
If people were only aware of this crisis that is happening in other parts of the world, I feel like so many more people would reach out to help by donating their time and/or money. When I say this I mean that I believe the main problem is the lack of awareness people have of the situation.
I think charity:water could do so much more if they put more emphasis on informing the masses of this epidemic. Also, it seems to me that there are so many obvious, simple routes of doing this that charity:water has yet to explore. Sure, widespread advertising campaigns would cost money, but also they would bring in revenue to make up for it, and certainly in the long term they would have more resources to use to help people. The charity does campaign and advertise, but from what I've gathered those campaigns are poorly marketed and usually relatively small and/or only realistic for certain people to participate in (due to the location of the campaign, which many times is a dinner or special fundraising event).
One obvious route the charity could take is to hook up with a news texting service such as ESPN or the New York Times. When one subscribes (free of charge minus standard texting rates) to these services, they will receive personalized text updates. These texts include sports scoring updates and breaking news.
When the disaster in Haiti occurred, for around a month every time I received an ESPN text update at the bottom it would say "text the word HAITI to ##### to donate X amount of dollars." I feel like if charity:water took advantage of something this simple, they would be able to accomplish so much more.
Before this English class I had never even realized that there was a severe water crisis in undeveloped nations throughout the globe, and I certainly hadn't heard of charity:water. They could do things as simple as commercials or ads in newspapers and magazines. They could put up billboards or recruit people to hang informational pamphlets in different places. The internet is also a huge avenue for advertising, and I haven't seen a single ad for charity water, anywhere on the internet, ever. Better yet, I haven't seen an advertisement for charity:water in my life anywhere, ever.
I guess this post was more of a rant, and I'm not saying at all the charity:water is doing a "bad" job. It just doesn't make since to me why they aren't taking advantage of such obvious ways to spread awareness, and in turn receive more donations that would help them better accomplish their mission...
Wednesday, October 13, 2010
Tuesday, October 12, 2010
Rolling Stone 2
The second issue of Rolling Stone that I have looked at was much more politically fueled than the first. There was an eight page exclusive interview with President Obama, as well as a five and a half page article discussing the tea party. The rest of the magazine was filled with much of the same information as the first. There were articles talking about various singers/actors, as well as movie and music reviews.
The last issue of Rolling Stone that I read did have liberal tones to it, but this second issue leaves no doubt in my mind that it has a very left wing agenda. The questions directed to Obama in his interview set him up to speak his mind about the Republican party, and some of the questions were negative towards the party in general. He was asked questions like "What do you think of Fox News? Do you think it's good for America and for democracy?" and 'When did you realize that the Republicans weren't going to work with you?"
Although I am a Republican, I did not mind reading through the article. Of course Obama is going to disagree with some of my views, but I am still interested and willing in what he has to say. I have to admit, when I was reading through it I couldn't help but think to myself, 'man, this guys really not bad, maybe he's even doing a good job!' But at the end of the day I still have to disagree. About Fox News, he said that since America promoted freedom of speech he could not say much about the subject other than that.. and it's a good thing he didn't. All a Republican would have to say is "Wait just a minute! What about MSNBC?! MSNBC is an extremely liberal news channel, just the opposite of Fox News!"
The President also commented on other questions saying that although we as a nation haven't seen much "change" he has been making progress and passing the laws he promised in his campaign. He said he keeps a list of the promises he made during his campaign and he has accomplished 70% of them already, and still has two (or six) more years left to accomplish the other thirty percent. He said that America won't really see the effects of the laws that he has passed already for another year or two, and that we should just be patient.
He discussed clearly his views about the tax cuts his administration is trying to pass. He wants to increase taxes for those making over $250,000, and reduce them for the middle class families which in turn would cause them to spend a little more, which in turn would stimulate the economy and create a need for jobs. This all sounds good, but I think that $250,000 is a rather low number in the scheme of things. What I mean is that $250,000 isn't totally unrealistic for somebody to make after years of hard work and maybe a little luck. I think he should make the number $500,000, and only tax every dollar after that number a certain percentage. This would really hurt if you were a person making $100,000,000 each year, but come on, who needs all that money. Not only that, but it's unrealistic for any one person to make that much, simply meaning that one would have to get really really lucky and make some really good business decisions. That's just what I think.
Overall, my initial views of Rolling Stone stay the same. I think this most recent issue narrows the target market down to liberal men and women ages 25-45 interested in current pop culture, but like I said in my previous post I think that if someone is interested in the cover story they would buy the magazine regardless. For example, anybody interested in Obama might have bought this issue to read the exclusive interview, which took me about 45 minutes to read and would probably be worth the $4.99 cover price to somebody interested in what the President has to say.
One last thing. I noticed that there is one page dedicated to correspondence, a section where people write in their thoughts about previous articles. I really think this is kind of absurd. It would make more since to me if the magazine dedicated a few pages to a section like this, but it doesn't make since to me why anybody would write in in hopes of being published if only ten or so letters make it to the magazine. I guess it gives the reader a chance to submit feedback, but I really can't understand how one page of this stuff really serves any purpose.
The last issue of Rolling Stone that I read did have liberal tones to it, but this second issue leaves no doubt in my mind that it has a very left wing agenda. The questions directed to Obama in his interview set him up to speak his mind about the Republican party, and some of the questions were negative towards the party in general. He was asked questions like "What do you think of Fox News? Do you think it's good for America and for democracy?" and 'When did you realize that the Republicans weren't going to work with you?"
Although I am a Republican, I did not mind reading through the article. Of course Obama is going to disagree with some of my views, but I am still interested and willing in what he has to say. I have to admit, when I was reading through it I couldn't help but think to myself, 'man, this guys really not bad, maybe he's even doing a good job!' But at the end of the day I still have to disagree. About Fox News, he said that since America promoted freedom of speech he could not say much about the subject other than that.. and it's a good thing he didn't. All a Republican would have to say is "Wait just a minute! What about MSNBC?! MSNBC is an extremely liberal news channel, just the opposite of Fox News!"
The President also commented on other questions saying that although we as a nation haven't seen much "change" he has been making progress and passing the laws he promised in his campaign. He said he keeps a list of the promises he made during his campaign and he has accomplished 70% of them already, and still has two (or six) more years left to accomplish the other thirty percent. He said that America won't really see the effects of the laws that he has passed already for another year or two, and that we should just be patient.
He discussed clearly his views about the tax cuts his administration is trying to pass. He wants to increase taxes for those making over $250,000, and reduce them for the middle class families which in turn would cause them to spend a little more, which in turn would stimulate the economy and create a need for jobs. This all sounds good, but I think that $250,000 is a rather low number in the scheme of things. What I mean is that $250,000 isn't totally unrealistic for somebody to make after years of hard work and maybe a little luck. I think he should make the number $500,000, and only tax every dollar after that number a certain percentage. This would really hurt if you were a person making $100,000,000 each year, but come on, who needs all that money. Not only that, but it's unrealistic for any one person to make that much, simply meaning that one would have to get really really lucky and make some really good business decisions. That's just what I think.
Overall, my initial views of Rolling Stone stay the same. I think this most recent issue narrows the target market down to liberal men and women ages 25-45 interested in current pop culture, but like I said in my previous post I think that if someone is interested in the cover story they would buy the magazine regardless. For example, anybody interested in Obama might have bought this issue to read the exclusive interview, which took me about 45 minutes to read and would probably be worth the $4.99 cover price to somebody interested in what the President has to say.
One last thing. I noticed that there is one page dedicated to correspondence, a section where people write in their thoughts about previous articles. I really think this is kind of absurd. It would make more since to me if the magazine dedicated a few pages to a section like this, but it doesn't make since to me why anybody would write in in hopes of being published if only ten or so letters make it to the magazine. I guess it gives the reader a chance to submit feedback, but I really can't understand how one page of this stuff really serves any purpose.
Rolling Stones Magazine
The last time I had really read through a magazine was in elementary school. My mother ordered me "Highlights," a children's magazine that aims to educate children while making it entertaining. (I don't remember reading articles, I only remember using it for the "Hidden Pictures" section.) But one of the assignments for my college English course was to pick out a magazine to follow throughout the semester. The class was instructed to analyze the magazine of our choice throughout the course. I chose to follow "Rolling Stone" magazine, a publication that discusses current events including music, movies, television, and politics. I am semi-interested in those types of things so I figured this would be a choice I could live with. The cover price (price issues sell for at bookstores) is $4.99 so I decided to go ahead and buy a subscription--26 issues for $19.99. Since the magazine is issued bi-weekly I figured I'd save some money, and if I ended up enjoying them I would have something to do every other week for a year.
The first issue (September 2, 2010) had an eye catching cover. It showed the cast of "True Blood," a television show that features vampires and their sex/relationship lives, naked and covered in blood holding on to each other. The main article takes around 30-45 minutes to read, and other side articles take anywhere from a few minutes to ten minutes to read. About a quarter of the pages are advertisements, ranging from chewing gum, fast food, and alcohol, to cell phones and gasoline. From the looks of things the magazine would appeal to both men and women, probably ages 20-45, however I'm sure this "True Blood" edition would appeal to any True Blood fan. And those fans are probably the people who pay the cover price of $5 at a local bookseller. So, what I'm gathering is that the magazine's main audience would be your young adults-middle aged individuals, but there will always be those uninterested in the magazine as a whole, but will still buy it if the cover story is appealing to them.
The articles in this edition really focus on, not gossip necessarily, but just irrelevant information about the lives of stars. The people who enjoy this magazine are the ones that pay a lot of attention to television, music, and movies.I guess I can understand why these fans would be interested in the personal lives of the actors and musicians, however, because I can put myself in a similar situation.
I've always been a huge Tiger Woods fan. I've been a golfer from an early ago and my Father has had some rare Tiger Woods memorabilia (hundreds of pairs of unused tickets from when he won his first US Amateur title) that sell for a couple hundred bucks a piece on eBay every time he wins a major tournament. So, from an early age I knew that if Tiger won Dad made money, and now when he wins Dad usually gives me a few pairs of tickets to sell. So now its a personal thing--if Tiger wins I win. (about $500) To get to the point, I was always a big fan. He was so good with the press and seemed like such a family man. He had a lot of the things I want; a family, a lot of money, and a good golf game. I really looked up to him.
When the news emerged about his infidelity it really upset me and I was extremely interested in what had happened, especially what the truth was. I guess what I'm trying to say is that even though my life isn't affected at all by his actions (except for the fact that the value of those tickets depreciating) I'm still interested because I have a impersonal connection and interest in the happenings of his life. And I can easily understand why people would enjoy reading this magazine - because they have an impersonal attachment to the people that are interviewed and written about in Rolling Stone.
Summary:
Rolling Stone targets people who spend a good deal of time listening to music, and watching movies/television. These people who truly are passionate about these things will naturally have favorite actors and singers, and that is who the Rolling Stone aims to talks about. ((There is a hint of politics found within the September 2nd issue (and I'm it's included within many if not all of the issues), however if someone was wanting to read about politics there would be better magazine choices.--the politics are presented in such a way that it ties in with pop culture )) To sum up what I've gathered, Rolling Stone aims to provide their audience with exclusive articles/interviews/stories about the stars that people have impersonal "relationships" with, and in doing so fulfill a need inside those people.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)