Month: January 2014

Why News Sources Should Go “Mobile First”

In May 2013, National Public Radio (NPR) used the approach “mobile first” to drive the launching of their new mobile site. This approach is not meant to take a normal sized website and merely shrink it to fit on a mobile device. Rather, it means redesigning the application to allow the user to get the full experience.

The reason this approach is becoming so popular is because most mobile phone users are accessing news mainly from their phones.

NPR’s ability to realize this conversion from online, computer access to phone is key because they are taking reality into consideration in order to properly target its followers.

NPR is making news access from phones much easier and fulfilling. Therefore, it will not matter whether or not the user accesses the news from NPR’s website, or mobile application because they will have an equally enjoyable, user-friendly experience.

Other news sources should follow NPR’s lead by utilizing the mobile first approach. The fact remains that the number of users who are accessing news from a mobile device is steadily increasing. Therefore, news sources must be cautious of the repercussions that may follow if they are to ignore that fact.

If current followers attempt to access news from their phones from a news source that hasn’t altered its mobile application to “mobile first” needs users will not be satisfied and readership will likely decrease.

This new approach is worth talking about because news sources must constantly be aware of the new ways in which people can access their news. The point of news is to inform its audience. If that information is being distributed in a way that its audience does not even use, the effort is insignificant. Staying on top of statistics and research that represents how and why people receive their news is a vital aspect to maintaining a reliable reputation and continuing to receive support from the target audience.


#GetCovered is #NotaRealincentive

If anyone has been paying attention to the news the last couple of months, it really cannot be argued that the rollout of Obama-care has been less than stellar. Not only has the website had major flaws, but the details of the 2,000 page bill have started to filter out to the public and some are not too happy.

The Obama Administration continues to attempt to convince the American people the Affordable Care Act  is a positive thing. They keep saying that three million people have signed up, but they have failed to mention if those people actually have the coverage and if it has been paid for. In terms of PR tactics, the President is doing a wonderful job ensuring his bill sounds much more appealing than it has turned out to be.

In reality, over six million people have already been thrown off their insurance. The bill mandates certain requirements in the new insurance policy that should not be necessary for every single individual who signs up. For example, all you fine men out there who are oh so anxious to receive your necessary mammograms don’t have to worry! Obamacare’s got you covered! Funny how the President continues to say how efficient it will be for the individual. That may make it sound more appealing, but the fact remains that it’s a false claim, and the American people are beginning to realize this.


Courtesy of

See the problem starts with a few simple facts. One being that the bill has 11,000 regulations. Obviously everyone has the spare time to read the whole document. It’s not like the American people spend their time working, going to school or with their family’s anyway right?

The second is the fact that Obama is stepping beyond his designated powers. Under our American form of government, legislation is written by Congress and enforced by the executive branch. Once laws are already written, the President does not have the authority to change those laws. Obama seems to think our form of representative democracy translates to a monarchy. Why is this true? It is because he has unilatterly changed the Afforable Care Act 21 different times. His own bill, after it was approved and set into legislation, has been changed on 21 separate occasions. Apparently, Obama thinks he’s king. Not only is he overstepping his constitutional authorities, but he is distorting our form of government by negating the balance of powers. The self-proclaimed king is setting such a wonderful example for future presidents.


Courtesy of

So how is all of this affecting young Americans? Well, the Obama Administration is doing its best to target young people. You see, the ACA will not function properly if not enough young people sign up because it needs the youngin’s to pay for the older folks whose need for insurance is more urgent. Considering there are no real incentives for young people to get covered through the ACA,  Obama should receive major credit for his sad attempts. Here are a few examples:

A spoof of Snoop Lion’s (let’s be real we all know him as Snoop D-O-double G) “drop it like it’s hot” video.

The oh-so-spot-on-not-at-all-steroptypical-or-insulting “brosurance” ads.


Courtesy of Got Insurance

Celebrity endorsements (because they obviously know best):

The tactics to target young people goes on. However funny, appealing or entertaining these strategies may be for young people, millenials should not be making their political decisions just because they thought an ad was funny. And as convincing as some of these ads may be, the fact remains that there is no real incentive for young people to sign up for Obamacare. If young people don’t sign up, they only have to pay a fine of $95 or one percent of their income. Additionally, they can receive their healthcare elsewhere. And if you don’t sign up and then get sick, you can sign up then. There is no urgency for millenials to sign up for healthcare.

Jimmy Kimmel explains it perfectly.

Really Rand…Really?


Courtesy of

So apparently politicians are even dumber than we thought. Rand Paul just joined Snapchat; case and point.

Not only can our political leaders rarely accomplish what they need to in their own field, now they’re trying to publicize their unsuccessful stories through even more unsuccessful strategies. Brilliance has really reached an all-time high.

Here’s the deal, social media has the potential of reaching exact target audiences in ways some never thought possible. However, if used improperly, loss of those imperative audiences is likely.

Social media should be used with the intention of targeting the users of such social media sites. Barack Obama’s 2008 campaign exemplifies how to properly utilize such tools. Not only did he appropriately operate Facebook and Twitter tactics, but also he gained the support of celebrities that millennial’s pay attention to. Getting people such as Jay-Z and Beyonce to support him in the media did wonders for support from youngsters. The fact that he generated so much backing that such stars voluntarily backed him up was priceless.


Courtesy of


In 2008, Russell Brand hosted the Video Music Awards. Brand voluntarily urged the American public to vote for Obama,“on behalf of the world.” He also called Bush a,“retarded cowboy,” but that’s beside the point. What public do you think watches the VMA’s on MTV? I know, my first guess would have been retirees too. But, shockingly, we’re wrong. Turns out, MTV’s target audience is 12-34 year olds.


Getting back to my point, Obama brilliantly targeted his audience through an affective social media campaign. Since 2008, he has proved his skills have somewhat become out of touch, but that’s a whole different rant I can go on in another post.

Anyway, my point is that using social media in inappropriate ways can be dire for a company, brand or a public figure’s career. Rand has already had some bad publicity since he was accused of plagiarizing…twice. So why would he want to run the risk of using improper PR tactics? I mean I get it, if I wanted to be taken seriously my first thought would be to download an app that is notorious for sending dick pics too. But then, I’d like to think my second thought would be a bit more reasonable. But, hey I’m just spit balling here.

What Kids Think About Redistributing Wealth

Normally, when people engage in political conversations we think of adults partaking in such an activity. This seems to be a logical assumption because we feel those people should be well read on whatever the topic is at hand, as well as properly articulating their point of view. Seems like a pretty common sense idea right? This may be true when debates of the details begin to arise, but when it comes to basic conceptions, children can be more reliable than we may expect.

You know how philosophers and intellectuals talk about the sincere wisdom that stems from childhood innocence? It is a common topic seen in, To Kill a Mockingbird, Lord of the Flies and other books that most of us were required to read throughout high school. The idea is that genuine innocence can foster brilliant ideas. However, once corrupted, that innocence is shattered.

Steven Crowder, a comedic, political commentator who is sadly underrated, demonstrates the wisdom of innocent babes and their take on redistributing the wealth in America.

Take a look at this video he made a few Halloweens ago:

So what have we learned? Well, to begin, children are hilarious. But, if we didn’t already know kids say the darndest things, Bill Cosby would be disappointed.

Additionally, kids make it pretty clear that it is kind of a ridiculous notion to ask those who have earned their wealth to give it away to those who haven’t. To clarify, charity, philanthropy and all of those do-gooder things are all wonderful duties that people should partake in. However, having the government redistribute the wealth in America is stepping over the boundaries of the government’s responsibilities. Rather than attempt to shrink the wealthy down to the poor, why don’t we begin to lift the poor up instead? Isn’t earning your wealth a whole lot more deserving and fulfilling than being given it? Crowder’s video really makes you think how modern American society functions.

Steven Crowder exemplifies funny political satirists who need to become more recognized within the political and social hemisphere in America. He is undoubtedly just as funny as Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert. The only difference is the latter gentlemen have a more accessible way to reach their audience than Crowder. Crowder’s name needs to become more popular along with many other political comedians. If you were amused at all, like or repost this video and check out his website:


Courtesy of

For more funny videos by Steven Crowder, check out his video on what the phrase “fiscal cliff” really means.