I came across this incredible article about an impatient shopper, a senior citizen, and a good soul: http://www.helpothers.org/story.php?sid=8366. I could summarize the story to fit it onto this post, but that would just take away from the impact of the story, so please click through to the website and read the article.

Simple acts of kindness like this can leave people in total shock, and furthermore, instigate change in people's attitudes and ways of life. The woman at the supermarket could have turned around and told the complaining lady to shut up or show some manners. Instead, she did something totally different; something most people wouldn't even think of doing. Rather than telling the woman behind her to change, she became the change. This left the woman behind her absolutely dumbfounded. This random act of kindness is contagious, because it is unexpected and rare.

I actually had the pleasure of meeting the man behind the website, Nipun Mehta. I attended a session of his, Random Acts of Kindness, at a convention in July of 2006. After attending somewhere near a dozen sessions over the long weekend, I realized that this session had the greatest impact on my life. Nipun spoke of the different experiments him and his friends performed to try to figure out what makes people happy. They stood on the street corners of San Francisco holding up signs that said "smile." They observed what kinds of people gave the friendliest responses. It turned out that city and government workers were the first to react and smile. The rest of the people took longer to break out into a smile, and some were just too stubborn to show any emotion at all. So why is it that government workers seem to be happier than other busy people? Some may say that you don't need anything to be happy, and the more you have the more your idea of happiness is tainted. Objects may make a person happy, but think of what happens when those objects are taken away. Is it that easy to take away happiness, and does this mean poor people are not entitled to happiness? These are just a few things to think about.

After observing human nature, Nipun said he realized that happiness really comes from the little things (and by things I don't mean objects). Helping other people makes you feel good, and it is contagious: when someone randomly helps you, it makes you want to do something good yourself. The idea behind his website is to perform "random acts of kindness," and by this he means you should not take credit for the thing you may have helped for. If you take credit for helping, you are really doing it for your own personal ego and benefit. Even though you many not get any monetary reward for helping someone, if you attach your name to it, you are expecting some sort of credit in the form of a returned favor of some sort. It is truly great when you can help someone and not take credit for it.

I personally agree completely with Nipun's philosophy, and I believe it can help change the world one random act at a time. Think of it this way: If I help 5 people and each of those help another 5 people, and you keep going down the line, the world really would be a better place with just a few acts of random kindness. Eventually what goes around come right back around. Someone may randomly help you in the future.

Posted in 0 comments Posted by Umang Patel at 11:52 PM  

There are several issues that need to be addressed regarding the New York Times article about Target refusing to respond to a complaint from a blogger because the organization was using a non-traditional media outlet. The complaint was regarding an advertisement (depicted below) that appeared to be "targeting" a woman's crotch, according to the blogger that filed the complaint. First we must determine whether this was a legitimate complaint by the blogger, then we must evaluate Target's ability to respond to the complaint, and finally we must gain a better understanding of Target's rationale for their response to the blogger.



Intention

The advertising agency that created the ad claims that their idea was to create a woman making a snow angel. They used the target in the background to communicate their brand logo. The woman was fully clothed with winter clothing, and there are no signs of promiscuity in the ad.

Interpretation

Obviously the blogger that filed a complaint with Target did not share the same interpretation of the ad as Target. She expressed her concern over the logo targeting the woman's crotch, and therefore encouraging sexual promiscuity and depicting her as a helpless sexual object, laying on the ground with her legs spread wide open. Based on the blogger's response, this ad is just screaming "come have sex with me."

The Response

The Target public relations director made a poor decision by coming up with a quick fix to keep from addressing the concern this particular blogger had about their ad. There was no denying that the blogger's interpretation was a legitimate one. This was by no means Target's intention with the ad, but as with almost anything, there's usually more than one way to interpret it. The PR director refused to respond to blog entries because blogs are non-traditional media outlets. With a response like this, Target could buy some extra time to figure out how to respond to such a complaint. I believe Target should have thought the issue through and come up with a better response instead of trying to buy more time by giving a poor response. I often get inquiries for events that people hire my entertainment company for, and some of the inquiries require extra time to plan and come up with specific pricing. I end up putting off these inquiries, and the more time I take to respond, the less likely I am to convert that prospect's lead into a sale. I have learned firsthand to respond to emails and phone calls in a timely fashion to protect both the business' image and profits.

The Outcome

Target probably never imagined that this poor response would make it into the New York Times as an attack against bloggers. What started out as a controversial advertisement has turned into a completely new issue. I believe the New York Times has blown this story out of proportion, and convinced their readers that this one response represents Target's views on blogging. This was an honest mistake made by one of Target's employees and the company is being treated unfairly for that one employee's poor response.

Posted in 0 comments Posted by Umang Patel at 11:14 PM