One Lump or Two

New Media and USAID

CC — Tue, 07 Dec 2010 20:07:18 +0000

Web 2.0 technology is becoming ubiquitous and the development community is finally catching up, albeit slowly. It is not until recently that the US government development arm (USAID) has realized that it too needs to jump on the bandwagon of social networking and web 2.0 technology to market its brands, projects, and mission. But like anything else with the US government, USAID is miles behind. It’s true that you can google USAID and find a website for each country it operates in, but its also true that the quality and accessibility of the website is leaps and bounds behind the private sector. It’s also true that some USAID programs have facebook sites and Youtube videos posted online, but they are not easily searchable, key words aren’t embedded, and the metadata is weak. USAID needs to be more aggressive and effective in its use of web 2.0 technology to make its results known. Young adults are more open to the idea of using taxpayer money to provide assistance overseas . Young adults are also the largest market currently using web 2.0 on a regular basis. In my opinion, USAID has a critical opportunity right now to make its better known, gather more support for funding, and share its message with a huge audience for a relatively low price tag. Facebook, YouTube, Tumblr, Flickr, Delicious, Myspace, Foursquare, Twitter, etc. are tools that the US government needs to learn to use in much the same form as Word, Excel, Outlook, and email. Why? Because the old rules of marketing, PR, and branding no longer apply in this new global technological economy/society. You can no longer solely rely on press releases, TV ads, radio spots, and billboards to connect with a targeted audience. USAID needs to better communicate impact and the only way to do that effectively in todays day and age is to use web 2.0 technology.

USAID communication officers from the US Embassies around the world recently met at a conference in Washington DC to discuss how to better communicate the impact USAID is achieving in projects overseas. The outcome of the conference was to begin paving the way to use web 2.0 to market its USAID programs. But how? no one had any real answers. In my opinion, Director Shah needs to do three things: 1) appoint someone to develop a manual to give projects guidelines on how to use web 2.0 to communicate success. As of now, there is no standard and no good examples that are widely disseminated. The ADS completely ignores that new media technology exists! Second thing that should happen —each project needs to have a requirement for a communication specialist either in the RFA or the RFP. This key component of project staff is too often overlooked and communication is too often an after-thought. And finally, USAID should launch a huge web 2.0 campaign to garner the support of young adults and new media users. The benefits of such a campaign are enormous but the window of opportunity is closing fast…

The Living Proof Project

CC — Sat, 17 Oct 2009 13:37:27 +0000

The TV commercial for the Living Proof Project (linked here)–sponsored by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is currently being shown on major network stations across the US ( ABC/CBS/NBC/etc. ).

This commercial is the best development communication of its kind. It is also the first time in my lifetime that I have seen a positive commercial which advertises development assistance across the globe to the American people. This is groundbreaking people! Never has there been a US-wide campaign which seeks to sponsor, justify, and captivate the success of American aid in Africa, Asia, Latin America, and the Middle East.

Most importantly, this commercial is effective. The people’s faces are warm, healthy & smiling. You don’t see anyone with inflated stomachs, flies in their eyes, and expressions of depression and deep depravity –like we’re used to seeing on all of those Christain infomercials where they ask you to give a dollar a day to some kid in a poor country and you get their picture in return as compensation for your supposed generosity.

The truth of the matter is, the commercial is correct. We are making a difference. Health projects across the developing world ARE impacting people’s lives. The American Public deserves to hear that AND they NEED to hear that.

Moreover, what strikes me most about the commercial is that it fails to distinguish between public and private donors in the developing world that are providing aid assistnace. The commercial gives credit to everyone who is working to make a difference. This is awesome!

THANK YOU BILL AND MELINDA GATES…..

http://www.gatesfoundation.org/livingproofproject/Pages/video-gallery.aspx#video=/livingproofproject/Pages/we-are-living-proof.aspx&pager=0

Tobacco Use is Rising in Africa

CC — Mon, 27 Jul 2009 20:16:05 +0000

Anti-smoking activists are racing to head off an explosion of tobacco use in Africa as the world’s major tobacco companies increasingly seek to develop markets free from the kind of limits on sales, marketing and use of tobacco products in the developed world. Smoking rates in Africa have historically remained low as a result of poverty, but the ability of tobacco companies to innovate packaging for the specific African market by allowing Africans to purchase one cigarette at a time, or single sticks, is helping drive up consumption exponentially. The unfortunate point is that, many countries in Africa do not have the social infrastructure, rule of law, or strength of institutions (as we do in the US or in the EU) to campaign against the mega multi national tobacco companies and send them running with their tails between their legs in the courts…

for more info visit Time Magazines’ website —- TIME

Clinton: Vetting for USAID job ‘ridiculous’

CC — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 14:18:45 +0000

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton is blaming an exhaustive White House vetting process for the fact that the Obama administration has not yet named a person to run the U.S. Agency for International Development.

Six months into the administration’s tenure without having appointed someone to the agency’s top spot, Clinton told USAID employees on Monday that several people had turned down the job due to overly burdensome financial and personal disclosure requirements that she called a “nightmare,” “frustrating beyond words” and “ridiculous.”

She also said the White House had turned down her request to announce on Monday that someone — expected by officials to be physician and Harvard University professor Paul Farmer who is well known for his work in Haiti — would be named to the post soon.

Having been through a security clearance process with the US government, I can attest to the miseries of the vetting process –but Clinton should in no way use this as an excuse for not being able to select and appoint a qualified person to direct one of the most important foreign policy arms of the USG. Paul farmer would be an awkward fit for the position…to say the least. On the one hand he is amazingly brilliant and has done great work in his life ( I recently read his book Mountains Beyond Mountains); he has long criticized USAID and its way of doing business as ineffective and full of red tape; at the same time he is also extremely arrogant and pompous. The development community is full of pompous overpaid bureaucrats; we dont need another one. Hillary— please keep looking and stop giving poor PR excuses for the lack of movement on this front.

World Healthcare vs. the United States

CC — Sun, 12 Jul 2009 15:44:16 +0000

Debate has increased in the last few weeks about the resiliency of America’s health care system. The House and Senate are trying to make ammends and agree on a comprehensive overhaul of one of the most corrupt health care systems in the world. I am not a public health expert by any means but I have however studied public health and worked in international public health enough to say that 1. US health care is not the best in the world and 2. we have a lot to learn from both developing and devloped countries alike.

Most of Europe has a nationalized healthcare system. Europeans get the care the need at a price they can afford. Peruvians have one of the most developed health care systems in the world. Cuba offers the highest quality care at the cheapest price…FREE. The governments of Ecuador and Brazil take healthcare to the people who live in rural communities deep in the amazon. All the while, Americans are paying a ridiculous percentage of their annual incomes for less than top notch care. There is a widespread myth that healthcare in the US is the best in the world. That is false. Medical companies such as glaxosmithkline, merk, and the ominous PhRMA lobby in Washington have unabatedly convinced most Americans that the US is the best and any change in the healthcare system is a zero sum game that equates to lower technology and a fall in America’s status as the country with the best healthcare technology in the world.

What we need is more informed debate. Somehow, we need to get the message out that there are better alternatives and we should look to other countries as an example. At the present, it seems the US government is taking a very arrogant approach to solving the US healthcare mess — assuming that all the answers lie within US borders. I am dumbfounded by the arrogancy and humbled by all that needs to be done.