In fact, watching video online as seen a 46% uptick over the past year*. And while television has remained the dominant behemoth in the realm of entertainment and content consumption, certain trends have made advertisers re-examine the way they approach traditional, disruptive advertising.

Death of disruptive?

We’ve heard rumblings for the past few years about the general concern over the 30 second TV spot – is it still reaching consumers (and more importantly, young male consumers)? Our knee-jerk reaction was to start throwing money in the places we saw these target-rich eyeballs congregating – digital. Digital advertising saw immediate leaps in expenditure – 100’s of percent increase year of year; giant homepage takeovers; astronomical search programs and more banner impressions than you could ever imagine. To what end? Search provides a utilitarian value and is here to stay. But display? At the end of the day, its driving people to a commercial piece they’ve already seen. Is this an effective way to reach these consumers? Can we evolve our thinking?

This post isn’t meant to debate the dominance of web or television – far from it. It’ll be a few years before we can honestly discuss a full shift in our distribution platforms. This is more about ‘evolution’ – the concurrent growth of online video and ‘timeshifted TV’ (a clever naming of DVR by Nielsen) has created a fertile environment for branded content creation we haven’t seen for almost 60 years. Our creativity needs to look more closely at this new environment.

The golden age of sponsorships

In the early age of television, content was sponsored.  Not the 30 second, disruptive increments we see today. Rather, consumers were fully aware that the programming they loved was paid for by their favorite brands. Brands like Kellogg’s and Geritol sponsored fan favorites like Superman and Twenty One.

Enjoying Frosted Flakes for breakfast!

I Love Lucy sponsored by Geritol

It was ‘acceptable’ for these brands to provide content to the masses – somebody has to pay for these nuggets of entertainment, right? Both sides of this exchange were aware, and supportive of, the mutual benefit that resulted from this value agreement. Consumers wanted entertaining content and brands wanted you to remember their product name (positively, of course).

Back to today – the rise of digital content consumption and DVR (timeshifted TV) has dampened the effect of most forms of disruptive advertising. Aside from brands that have comically gigantic media budgets to create serious share of voice, most advertisers tend to get lost in the clutter (or simply passed over in the case of DVR subscribers).  The answer lies in the past – we need to devolve.

In recent times, there’s been a fairly wide spectrum of branded sponsorship – from fully sponsored, online-only content (OKGO’s recent video sponsored by State Farm) to fully commercial vehicles that are content sponsored (Infiniti’s Emmy ads starring the cast of Community).

In one case, the brand was front and center in the creative, while in the other they took a backseat and were just happy to sponsor content for an audience they are trying to reach. Either approach can be applicable, depending on whom you want to reach and how much money you have to reach them.

The devolution of (advertising) Man

The devolution starts, however, with honesty. Transparency has become a hallmark of the modern web – consumers demand a direct and honest connection with their brands. I say, let’s give it to them. Let’s tell the masses that we’re sponsoring a content series because we want you to know we provide VALUE.  All we’re asking for is a little name recognition – that’s all disruptive advertising is giving you.

My favorite ad these days is this KIA Soul spot . It has a bunch of hamsters rocking out to one of my favorite old school hip-hop acts (Black Sheep) and rolling around in toaster ovens, washing machines and the like. Does it make sense? Probably not. Do I remember it? Absolutely. It disrupted the sh$t out of the NBA finals this year and I remember it very, very well. But why can’t we spend that creativity and just a pinch of that sizable media budget on an equally compelling digital content series? Brands that don’t have the media budgets to cut through the clutter the way this spot did need to start cultivating a new strategy. Content creators, agencies and advertisers need to continue to push the boundaries of branded content and TRUST the consumer in order for us to get that value agreement back into place.

In my defense, I think I’ve been pretty accepting when it comes to incorporating new technologies and communications platforms in my daily routine.  Over the years, I’ve expanded from AIM and AOL chatrooms to GChat and message boards, from (gulp!) MiGente to Facebook and Twitter. But, so far, I’ve resisted the siren call of real time, face-to-face communiqué.  And I believe my rationale is sound: I’m lazy.

Given my social circle, it would probably be laborious (and aggravating) for me to attempt to migrate my friends and coworkers into fully adopting a telepresence. And frankly, call me old fashioned, but I still prefer to be texted, emailed, and, depending on how serious the circumstance, (gasp!) called.

However, there is one desirable consumer segment that is already embracing (and taking ownership of) the telepresence platform as a viable platform for communication: teens.

Here’s Looking at You, Kids

The youth market- which I’d like to think I’m not completely removed from- is unique.  They’ve never known a life without some form of digital-enabled, hyper-communication.  And because of that, the rapid adoption (and abandonment) of new technology is second-nature to them.

Recently, I was chatting with a colleague who mentioned that her daughter (and all her friends) took to ooVoo every night to socialize.

Wait, ooVoo, the video conferencing software that I use to connect with coworkers is being used by 13 year-olds to casually shoot the breeze? Seems like overkill.  (Almost as absurd as anyone other than doctors using pagers for communication!)

But upon further inspection, maybe I’m just a Luddite. In March, Ad Age reported that “although video calling and video instant messaging are still a small fraction of overall internet traffic, video communications will increase tenfold from 2008-2013.”  Skype, ooVoo, iChat, GChat, Stickam and a growing number of other services have created a playing field for a new culture of communication that will likely have far-reaching cultural implications.

Teens’ use of  “video chatting” might be the catalyst that precipitates the widespread adoption of the technology.  If text messaging, IM, and prior to that, beepers are any indication, teens tend to sit at the vanguard of electronic communication, not only creating the credibility and initial user base that allows the critical mass to migrate, but also defining the rules of engagement (lexicon, etiquette) for the new platform.

The question is, however, how can brands offer value by engaging consumers through this platform-from-the-future?

Move Past Paid Media

The simplest method is to purchase media against the new platform.  But just because it’s easy to throw up some direct-response banner, doesn’t qualify mean it’s the best approach. According to AdAge, ooVoo’s CPMs can cost up to $25, with no standout success stories.

But telepresence is about more than just another place where consumers spend time.  As a new communication channel, it is bound to shift cultural patterns as well.  Just as instant message relaxed grammatical standards and created an entirely new lexicon (w00t?), a resurgence of conversational acronyms (LOL?) and the first acro-conjunctions (ROFL-COPTER?), video chat will likely introduce it’s own cultural quirks.  The Chatroulette introduced noun-turned-verb “nexting” is just the tip of the iceberg.

Video chat will not only affect language, it will also have a dramatic effect on consumer expectations.  Just as, IM and SMS created an expectation of immediate response that consumers found preferable to email, videochat will shape perceptions and expectations for top-quality customer relations.  Already, services like HelloHealth are using video to connect consumers and doctors in real time.  Brands that can track and adapt to these and other culture shifts will be well poised to connect with consumers on the new platform.

The Revolution Will Be Telepresenced

Video chat is a platform that is seeing tremendous growth with teens, and, given the growing mainstream consciousness of emerging platforms like Chatroulette and iPhone 4’s Facetime, all roads point to these services evolving into valuable branding tools.

I’m truly looking forward to seeing where our younger counterparts take it next.

And while “As Seen on TV” products have always been the red-headed step child of legitimate consumer brands, this new golden era of cheesy, direct-response marketing makes me wonder if the simple act of seeing a brand on TV still carries the same legitimizing weight it once did.

More to the point: is seeing a brand on TV still an effective way to build trust and drive purchase intent in 2010?

The answer, I think, is that while advertising on TV certainly can be effective at driving some key metrics, the notion of brand trust and “As Seen on TV” ain’t what it used to be. There are (at least) three reasons why:

1. Consumer Trust in Mass Communication Channels Is Eroding

Consider the findings of Nielsen’s now well quoted 2009 “Trust and Advertising” report, which examined the degree to which consumers trust various forms of media. The study found that while only 62% of people trust television ads as a source of brand information, a full 90% trust the recommendations of their friends and acquaintances.

In short, as a viable alternative to broadcast messaging has emerged (social media, interactive communication), people are simply less prone to just take at face value what they see on TV.  Before any purchase, consumers can easily go online and quickly search for a product, pulling down a wealth of information to either verify or deny what a TV spot may have led them to believe. This behavior certainly isn’t going away, and our approach to communications must adapt accordingly.

Nutrition and culture expert Michael Pollan takes this view of trust on TV a step futher still asserting that when a brand decides to advertise on TV, that’s exactly the moment you should stop trusting them. This line of thinking lead him to make the now infamous declaration, “Don’t eat anything advertised on TV.”

2. Brands That ‘Go Big’ on TV Tend to Under-Invest Elsewhere

Ok, so let’s take a step back and assume (counter to Mr. Pollan) that advertising on TV is not, in and of itself, an evil or untrustworthy thing to do.

Even so, in today’s landscape, it simply isn’t enough to just advertise on TV and hope the cash register rings. Seeing a brand on TV can absolutely work if it exists as part of an integrated brand ecosystem that leverages digital and other touchpoints to create an organic, authentic connection with consumers, but today, many brands that spend big on TV are simply checking boxes in the digital space.

Once the TV ad spend is on the books, the rest of many brands’ efforts really just sum up to window dressing to make itself look and feel integrated – when it’s really just the same old stuff. I once heard this referred to as the “Page 29” effect – where an agency or client literally throws in a “non-traditional” or digital idea on the last page of a branding deck because they know they should, rather than because they  truly believe it will work. Obviously, this simply won’t work today, and it won’t work tomorrow. The more we transition away from a TV-centric, campaign-based approach to branding towards building sustainable brand platforms, the better off we’ll all be as marketers and consumers.

3. Trust Eventually Translates to Sales

Perhaps the biggest reason why brands continue to double-down their investment in TV is the perception that, more so than any other medium, TV will have a measurable impact on sales. After all, who cares if consumers say they don’t trust TV ads if they keep buying the damn soap?

Last year, Comscore conducted an intriguing study that found online display ad campaigns boosted sales of CPG products by an average of 9 percent. This compares to an average lift of 8 percent for TV advertising. And while this study is among the first of its kind, what we’re starting to see is a tipping point where the old wisdom about the effectiveness of TV advertising will be called into question more and more.

In TV We Trust?

And while “As Seen on TV” products themselves are hardly the point, I can’t help but wonder if the next Snuggie—  two years or five years from now— will still rely on the TV “badge-of-honor” as it would today. And what about established brands like Nike?

Historically, being seen on TV breeds perceived familiarity, which in turn contributes to a sense of lasting trust. I believe what we’re actually seeing today is an unprecedented breakdown of the long-established link between brand awareness and trust—particularly as “trust hunches” initiated by mass media become increasingly easy to verify or disprove.

So, as digital continues to prove itself out as an effective alternative to more traditional media in terms of both building brand trust and driving sales, perhaps it’s time to consider whether “As Seen on TV” is a badge that’s necessary at all.

This year we’ve submitted half a dozen panels and we would be honored to present any or all of them SXSW for the third time! But we can’t do it alone — we kindly ask for your vote(s) if any of the following topics pique your interest! Polls close on August 27th!

1. Now Form the Head! Voltron and Digital Space

Voltron is the 80’s original battle robot. Comprised of five separate (and fully capable) Battle Cats, it is only when they are combined that the true power of Voltron is released (along with his nearly unbeatable “blazing sword”). With the advent of the integrated web and the multiscreen consumer, brand presences must operate in a similar way, individually capable yet more powerful as a combined whole. How should brands integrate their digital platforms (web, social mobile) to maximize success? How should analog touchpoints be woven into the mix? Vote it up!

2.Why Can’t More Advertisers Design Relevant Mobile Experiences?

Mobile is the most self aware computing platform to date. It’s location aware, time aware, context aware… so why is the state of mobile advertising and app-vertising so random? Digital marketers need to take a page from the CPG industry and develop with a purpose and usage occasion in mind — such a solution would be more valuable to both consumers AND advertisers. Take me to the panel picker! To the voting, and beyond!

3. Unbreak My Heart: Someone Fix the Mobile Web

The complexity of thousands of unique hardware and OS combinations means that developers have to take hardware limitations like screen size into consideration, as well as software limitations such as obscure or dated browsers. This means that right now somewhere, someone, is looking at a newly published, “mobile-optimized” site for a forward-thinking company and can’t figure out why the webpage looks like a high school student project.  Voten por favor!

4. Everyone’s in the Service Business

With the evolution from a production-based to consumption-lead economy, a surprising fact emerges: brands too are in the service business. It’s no longer sufficient to produce a product and expect it to fly off the shelves. Consumers are educated, vocal, and have the expectation to have a voice in the brands they buy. The digital ecosystem has empowered this shift, and companies have to be structured to account for the behavior. Votez, s’il vous plaît.

5. Your Banners Are Bogus

How effective is digital advertising these days? Pre-rolls have transformed much of current online inventory into a familiar facsimile of television advertising. But banner advertising has become that annoyance that people don’t pay attention to anymore – how can we create a more meaningful advertising relationship with digital consumers? To the voting thingy!

6. Agile for Agencies

In the Rugby world, scrum means that the whole team works together to push the ball toward the goal. In the software development world, it refers to an iterative framework for developing projects or features as one cohesive unit. How can we apply the efficiencies of agile development to a client-driven world? Take me to the ballots!

7. What now Flash?

Now that the iPad and iPhone are widely accepted as the future, Where does Flash stand? Can we still build our sites in all flash (hint: yes)? And how do we deal with those challenges like non-flash and mobile versions? Please vote!

The word “brainstorming” carries a magical connotation. When you hear the word “brainstorm” it creates glimmers of excitement.  Some believe it’s as easy as tossing a fistful of glitter into the air. Poof!  An idea emerges. But, the harsh reality is that idea generation is a lot of work.

I recently spoke on the subject of brainstorming at the Front End Design Conference in Tampa.  One of the topics I explored was the pros and cons of solo versus group idea generation. The million dollar question: which one is better? Well, it depends. Truth be told, both have their benefits and weaknesses.

The Group Setting

Let’s start by looking at the group dynamic. The obvious benefit of a group setting is that more people bring more life experience and a broader range of knowledge. However, group brainstorming is often challenging because of one simple thing – the human factor. Ideas get blocked by one person “stealing the show,” thoughts get forgotten while the group waits for someone else to stop speaking, and frustration, left unchecked, can easily derail the creative dynamic of the group.

Even worse is the idea-crushing criticism that too often pervades group discussions. As a group, we tend to be negative too quickly and kill an idea before we give it a chance to see if there a nugget of gold buried within it. Sometimes it just turns into a team of people sitting around and firing off ideas that keep getting shot down. Thus, it’s vital to give every idea a chance in the beginning of the brainstorming process.

Things also get hairy when the group is too big – the proverbial “too many cooks in the kitchen.” It’s best to keep groups to no more than 5 or 6, at the most. Too many people can cause ideas to lose focus and not allow everyone a chance to participate.

Finally, group settings bring in egos and personality. The beauty of the group setting is the diversity – but this can also become the enemy because certain personalities are simply more outgoing than others. Fear of rejection and “popularity contests” can hinder others from sharing their brilliant ideas.

The Individual

The most obvious disadvantage of brainstorming alone is the lack of experience or range in a variety of topics. You have no one to bounce your ideas off of and collaborate with. (Thankfully the Internet is a great resource.)

On the other hand, you have no one to hinder them either. Unlike in a group setting, you can brainstorm anytime, anywhere and in any way you wish. You don’t have to second guess yourself or worry about what someone else thinks of your ideas… or wait for someone else to finish talking. You are free to completely explore every nook and cranny that your mind takes you.

You can doodle your ideas or make a meticulous list– it’s up to you. The important thing is to do what works best for you.

Parting Thoughts

Perhaps the best route is a combination of both. This way we get the best of both worlds. After all, at some point our ideas have to be let loose on the world to become real and tangible. So I prefer to starting by gathering ideas alone and then present all of my ideas within a small group setting. That way, my ideas can be added upon and improved upon while also giving everyone a chance to have a voice.

Either way, the solo vs. group debate has been ongoing for some time with many studies to back up differing views. Personally, I believe like anything in life, it’s not always black and white. Processes are good when it comes to providing us with guidelines – but every project is different and so the brainstorming process might be also need to be different.

Other Good Reads:

• Think Inside a Self-Constructed Box – The 99 percent blog
• Sometimes, It’s Better to Brainstorm Alone – Harvard Business Review
• Forget Brainstorming – Newsweek
• The Creativity Crisis – Newsweek
• A Review of Brainstorming Research: Six Critical Issues for Inquiry – Scott G. Isaksen

This leads to different combinations of screen sizes, resolutions and DPIs and creates quite a challenge when designing and developing for these devices.  While the iPhone 3G/S and iPhone 4 have different resolutions and DPI, they share the same screen size and the resolutions follow the same aspect ratio.  Therefore, an image can be created to fit the iPhone 4’s specifications and be nicely down-scaled to the iPhone 3G/S.  Credit to Steve Jobs for planning ahead and designing his phone with developers in mind.

For some reason, manufactures using the Android OS on their phones did not give us the same luxury.  This leaves businesses with two choices – they can either choose not to develop for Android, and willfully miss out on a quarter of the market, OR push forward and learn.  Sounds like a necessary evil, doesn’t it?  But don’t worry!  There is common ground when designing & developing for the extremely versatile world of Android.

Diving into the Problem

We can spend all day comparing “Apples to Androids”, but instead let’s jump right into what we’re dealing with here.  If you’re already aware of the problem at hand and would prefer to jump straight into how to handle it, go ahead and jump down to The Solution.  Or stay with us for a more detailed explanation.

Popular Android Devices
I thought it best to share a list of the most popular Android devices out in the market today and a few of their specifications.

Looking at this list, two things should jump out at you.  First, that Google’s Nexus One is highlighted with an ugly, pale red. This is because this phone has been discontinued.  However, even though it is no longer in production, there are still a hefty amount of owners out there.  Second, do you notice some inconsistencies between screen sizes and resolutions?  They’re not exactly following a perfect pattern.  Take special note of how our friends at Motorola throw us a curve ball by adding a few extra pixels in their Droid line.  Thanks guys.

Screen Resolutions & Densities

Below is a diagram showing the comparison of screen resolutions in Android Devices.

Because there are devices with different screen sizes that share the same resolution, we run into different densities (DPI/PPI).  Refer back to the popular device list and compare the HTC Evo and HTC Droid Incredible to see this difference.  The inconsistencies between the two aren’t so large that it’ll ruin the design one way or the other, but it does give you a good idea as to what DPI to choose when you begin designing.  So will Android Developers Page.

Some of you right now are probably thinking, “This is old news.  We have been dealing with this issue on desktops and laptops for years.”  True, but the Android Platform gives us a few nifty tools to solve it this time.  Segue!

The Solution

The good news is that most of the problem solving can be done by application developers.  Not to delve too far into the technical side of things, the Android Platform provides the ability to use Density Independent Pixels (dip, as opposed to px) to define sizes of elements.  Making sure developers use these units will ensure that anything rendered through code will scale dynamically, ensuring a perfect fit no matter which screen is being used.  There are a few more suggestions on units like this; if you’re curious you can check them out on the Supporting Multiple Screens documentation on the Android Developer’s page.

But what about pre-rendered assets, like images?  There are a few choices:

1. Use code for everything – Easy solution?  Depends on the complexity of the design.  Result in beautiful, eye-catching apps? Probably not.  Limited?  Oh yeah!
2. Render separate images for all device/density scenarios – This is the easy way out.  Sure it’s the simplest way to make sure your images work on multiple screens, but it also increases the size of the application and slows it down.
3. Design everything with the idea of Nine-Patch or tiled images in mind – An ideal solution for developers, but very limiting for designers.  See below for information on Nine-Patching.
4. Render images for most used resolutions with the ability to stretch/tile cleanly – This is the most versatile solution.  Because the resolutions of Android devices do not share the same aspect ratio, using the same image for all devices will not work perfectly.  So, we worry about the most common, 240×340, 320×480, and 480×800.  Then we use Nine-Patch or tiled to make sure these images will fit properly for taller/wider screens.

Nine-Patch Images

Nine-Patch is a tool that comes with the Android Development kit that allows us to specify which areas of our images are safe to stretch.

The easiest way to understand this concept is through examples.  Here is an example of nine-patch in action.

The corners and logo stay intact as the rest of the image is stretched.  An important thing to remember is that you’re not limited to the perfect grid I used in the example; you can be creative with your nine-patching.  Nine patches can be as skewed as necessary to accommodate your design.  To learn more about Nine-Patch images, see the Draw 9-Patch documentation on the Android Developer’s page.

The image remains intact regardless of the screen size because we've protected the corners and center logo.

I’m not going to get into tiling images, since the point of this article is to give designers an understanding of things to keep in mind when designing for Android’s multiple screens, not a “How-To” guide.

Even though all of these solutions will work, I strongly discourage rendering images for every possible screen size unless there is no possible way to nine-patch or tile your images.  If you can somehow work around the design limitations of solutions #1 or #3, that would be utopia for developers and the clients who want their app(s) on as many screens as possible.  With that, happy Android App designing!

After we launched ANidea.com, Omar was often asked how he created the theme switcher for our blog. Being the generous man that he is, Omar crafted a step-by-step guide to create your own. In the latest issue, 205, of .NET magazine, Omar shares a tutorial on how to create the theme changer using JavaScript.

Most of us have been in that phase of designing a website where we can’t decide on just one color palette or one background image. Well, why not allow visitors to choose instead?

- Omar Martinez

Be sure to pick up a copy at your local bookstore!

I have been asked this question in many ways over the years.  Mostly the question has been aimed at my philosophy of design or my POV on it.  But the definition is something that many of us may have simply overlooked.  The formal definition can be found below.

Design is a specification of an object, manifested by an agent, intended to accomplish goals, in a particular environment, using a set of primitive components, satisfying a set of requirements, subject to constraints.

[Source]

I have paraphrased it for a 140 character-friendly world.

Design is the creation of an object to accomplish goals with specific requirements in a particular environment subject to constraints.

Now, for those of you who want to be designers because you feel you are artistic or good with tools, or can build things – STOP!   While those skills will help you immensely in your endeavors, designers above all else need to be great problem solvers. That’s right, a problem solver.  Design, at its core, is a tool to accomplish the goals of a person, organization or company. Let’s revisit the definition to focus on the portion that is most critical to every designer.

… intended to accomplish goals, in a particular environment,… satisfying a set of requirements, subject to constraints.

You can see above, design is not focused on artistry, materials or copy. Design is about understanding the issues and working to create a sound solution within a set of boundaries.  So, by definition, a designer is the individual who can create that solution. Designers can be artists or artisans, architects or visionaries, but at the end of the day, designers are critical thinkers.  They are an eclectic mix of strategist, artist, scientist, detective, anthropologist, psychologist, educator, auditor and communicator.

That’s my definition of a designer.  I don’t pretend to think that being a designer is an ordinary craft. It is not.  And while there are many of us in fields ranging from advertising to industrial design, physical rehabilitation to architecture, one thing remains constant: Designers rise to the challenge.

Every challenge is an opportunity to put on a series of hats, roll up your sleeves and grow the simple truths into something that just might change EVERYTHING.

Too often, NGOs settle for web presences that merely check-the-box without regard to whether or not the site is capable of meeting the organization’s goals.  After all, every dollar not spent on programming is a dollar that isn’t directly contributing to the core mission.  Furthermore, because the immediate ROI of a web presence is hard to calculate, unlike, say, events and mailers, justifying the expense can be difficult.

Regardless, a stand out website is an absolutely critical tool for any modern non-profit.  It is often the only opportunity for the organization to explain their story and activate their supporters.  If your site can’t demonstrate the power of your mission – if it can’t push a stranger over the hump of inertia to contribute their time, their money, or their voice, then it isn’t helping the cause.

Given the importance of the website, it’s important that it is done right. To help, we’ve narrowed down the key needs for any non-profit site and provided some best-in-class examples of sites that do a great job delivering against them.

1. Story

How do you get people excited about the mission?

No one needs to support a charity; they do it out of their personal morality and conviction.  Obviously, there are many worthy causes competing for their resources so donors must select the ones they feel are most worthy.  This process is largely an emotional decision, not a rational one.  Since stories are how we communicate complex emotions and ideas, it is absolutely critical to make sure that your story comes across in an impactful way.  Visitors need to feel the emotional force behind your cause.

Who are you trying to help? Why do they need you?  Why have you, the charity or the founder, taken up this gauntlet?

FallingWhistles, a non-profit dedicated to speaking out against the Congolese war and the use of child soldiers does an excellent job communicating their story.  Not only does the site open with a powerfully directed short film, but also an entire section is dedicated to the founder’s journal, a powerful first-hand account of his horrific journey through the Congo.

Falling Whistles uses an actual whistle as a symbol of both the plight of child soldiers and the group's action to stop it.

2. Contributions

How do we create simple and social points of action?

Ifwerantheworld.com poignantly asks “What might happen if we could tap into the single largest untapped natural resource in the world: the pool of good intentions that never translate into action?”  Ultimately, it is our job to answer that question.

Just about everything on a non-profit site should be an opportunity to get involved.  Make sure donations feel meaningful and tangible.  Calls to action like “Send a girl to school” or “Build a well” are compelling because they take the donor out of a “money” mentality and into a “providing” mentality.  By focusing on the result vs. the action it is easier to connect with the good intentions of your supporters.

CamFed.org issues homepage calls to action that give supporters lots of ways to make a difference -- by sending girls to school.

Don’t just limit involvement to writing checks.  Give people the opportunity to pour their passion into your cause by creating programs that aren’t exclusive to donating money.

Charity Water’s “myCharity: water” is among the most advanced of these systems, but volunteer opportunities, t-shirt contests, Facebook status donations all do equally well at letting users get involved in their own way.

Mycharitywater allows donors to set up personal fundraising pages to commemorate any event.

Finally, take advantage of the social web.  Many who support a charity are passionate about the cause.  Give them opportunities to evangelize their support, even if it’s as simple as pushing a message out to Facebook on behalf of their cause.

More on the next page.

Lately life has been getting in the way of being able to pick up an actual brush, but luckily I’ve had to opportunity to play around with the next best thing: Photoshop. The result is a dreamy and fun digital rendition of my take on Florida in the summer time.

Change To This Theme

Downloads

• 800 x 600
• 1024 x 768
• 1280 x 1024
• 1600 x 1200
• 1680 x 1050
• 1920 x 1200
• iPad
• 640 x 960 (iPhone4)
• 320 x 480 (iPhone)