According to USA Today, Oregon Head Coach Chip Kelly’s civil war victory landed him $4.3 million in bonuses and future contract guarantees with an additional $250,000 riding on the title game.

"Band-wagoner" Reese Witherspoon was recently seen showing her support for the Oregon Ducks. However, just a year ago she was spotted supporting the 2010 BCS runner-up Texas Longhorns.

Kelly’s huge bonus has led me to ponder the impact a BCS championship has on a university. The UO’s supporters will no doubt see a surge in “band-wagon” supporters (example above) thanks to the added publicity and media coverage, but does the correlation apply to donors? Does a donor make a donation based on the success of a school’s football program? Some undoubtedly do, but in the grand scheme of things shouldn’t you donate because you want to help preserve/improve the quality of education this institution provides?

Perhaps I’m being a bit idealistic, but if the Ducks playoff berth means that the University of Oregon can continue to expand and attract the top professors and students from around the world to pursue opportunities here then let’s make it 13-0 with a win on Jan. 10, 2011.

These are just a handful of the celebrities who have signed on to sign off of their Facebook and Twitter accounts (beginning on World AIDS day; December 1) until $1 million has been raised for the “Keep a Child Alive (KCA)” organization.

KCA was co-founded by its digitally dead global ambassador Alicia Keys. The organization focuses on providing treatment and care to children and families in Africa and India who are affected by HIV/AIDS.

If you’re having a hard time dealing with the loss of Kim K.’s twitpic updates, the best thing you can do (for you and the greater good) is to donate to KCA. There are a multitude of ways you can contribute to the campaign – the easiest of which being a one time donation of $5 by texting the word “ALIVE” to 90999. As of this post (Dec. 5, 2010), $290,656 has been donated.

Kim’s last tweet and testament can be seen below:

I applaud the “Buy Life/Digital Death” campaign for coming up with a creative way to leverage the power of social media to bring in donations. The combination of celebrity Facebook/Twitter influencers, promotional YouTube videos, and eye-catching staged death photography makes for a unique campaign that succeeds in getting people to pause and wonder “what’s that about?”

I can only wonder if KCA’s “Digital Death” will serve as the template for future non-profit social media campaigns aimed at increasing online donations.

The donation will coincide with the October 1 wide-release of the much hyped movie, “The Social Network”, which is loosely based on Zuckerberg’s time spent at Harvard developing facebook. Zuckerberg is portrayed by Jesse Eisenberg (Zombieland, Adventureland) as an ego driven and greedy socially awkward genius who stole the original idea from fellow students.

Director David Fincher (Seven, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, Fight Club) based the movie on Ben Mezrich’s book “The Accidental Billionaires” and script writer Aaron Sorkin’s own research. However, neither Mezrich or Sorkin were able to get Zuckerberg to sit down for an interview. Both sources drew information for the plot and characters through legal hearings stemmed from multiple lawsuits by burned associates of Zuckerberg.

Acclaimed film critic Todd McCarthy feels, “the film centers on an unruly man whose life fascinates because of the extraordinary things he did but also because of the callous ways he treated those closest to him. He is a monster…but always compelling.”

It should also be noted that Zuckerberg is referred to as an assh*** numerous times throughout the picture.

Despite being ranked as the 35th richest person on the Forbes 400 list and the youngest billionaire in history, the 26-year-old’s upcoming $100 million donation is his first endeavor into the world of high-profile philanthropy. It seems to me that his donation is fueled by an effort to fend off any bad publicity generated as a result of the film and the accusations it brings to light. Am I wrong?

Whatever his motive may be for the generous gift, he can certainly expect to have the friend requests from Newark, N.J. pouring in by the thousands – that can’t be a bad thing, right?

…SNL makes fun of you

Walters writes:

Mrs. Ford* could hardly put a sentence together…[she] was obviously inebriated or on drugs or both…Should I show the part of the interview in which Mrs. Ford was obviously inebriated, or should I be considerate and humane and delete the section?..Well, I was probably a lousy reporter,  because I made the decision to omit Mrs. Ford’s slurred voice…If she had a drinking problem, I wasn’t going to be the one to expose her…If I were interviewing a first lady today and she was obviously inebriated, I would certainly air it. Times have changed. Today we let it all hang out, no matter who it is – and that’s how it should be. We do have a right to know. Too much is already covered up.

What I would like to know is why Walters feels she would air the footage of the first lady intoxicated if it were to have occurred in the modern era? Her logic that “times have changed” and in today’s world “we let it all hang out” doesn’t cut it for me. Although that may be the case, why should that give a reporter the excuse to include a piece of information that could potentially cause a person and their family immense mental and emotional pain?

Barbara Walters interviews the Ford's during a 1976 visit to the White House.

It seems to me that the case of Betty Ford is hardly information that the public has a right to know. Yes, she is the first lady and a public figurehead, but how is it our right to know if she drinks too much? In retrospect, would exposing the problem and causing her public embarrassment have pushed her to more quickly seek out treatment for her disease ? Perhaps, and in that respect I would agree with Walters’s decision.

However, if I’m playing devil’s advocate, would airing her dirty laundry diminish the effectiveness of the president and his ability to perform his duties had the focus been on his wife’s scandalous addiction?

It is my personal belief that private and personal family matters should remain personal and private. It shouldn’t matter whether you are in a position of power or celebrity or whether you are an “average joe” (unless of course you are breaking the law).

Walters states that, “times have changed,” and with this I agree. We’ve come a long way since your interview with the Ford’s in 1976 and we now live in an era where information is communicated instantaneously and news programs now receive the majority of their information from citizen journalists on the ground. Practically everyone with a cell phone now has the ability to record videos, take pictures, and disseminate information quickly through SMS (text) or email. People update their statuses on Facebook multiple times throughout the day and tweet things like, “I just drank a glass of orange juice for breakfast.” The first lady’s drinking problem certainly wouldn’t have been as easy to hide by today’s standards if anybody on her staff had decided to pull out their cell phone, hit record, and upload the video to YouTube.

I believe the public has the right to know the majority of the news being reported, but what I would like to know is if there is such a thing as knowing too much? If such a boundary exists, how will we know when we step over it?

*It should be noted that Betty Ford founded the Betty Ford Center for Alcohol and Drug Abuse in 1982 and used her knowledge of the power of addiction and problems it can cause to help thousands of others struggling with the disease.

I talked about the possible reasons as to why Starbucks doesn’t release a special cup for every holiday. Considering the excitement level that surrounds the release of their winter cup, I questioned why they didn’t try to cash in on this craze every holiday. Were they afraid people wouldn’t be enticed into their shops because it would become routine? Once a year as opposed to once every 1-2 months would surely impact the effectiveness of this tactic.

However, I think that by not actively promoting the heart cup Starbucks found a happy medium. By not saturating the market with stories about new “sweetheart brews” or something to that extent, I was caught off guard when I received the love theme cup.

Continuing with the love theme, the cup also features a message encouraging customers to visit www.StarbucksLoveProject.com to create their own Valentine’s Day-inspired drawing. For every drawing submitted, Starbucks will contribute five cents, or up to $50,000,  to the (Red) Global Fund. To date, (Red) has raised more than $140 million dollars for HIV/AIDS programs in Africa.

I personally love a little variety in my routine and hope that Starbucks will continue this trend towards producing unannounced theme cups for holidays.

Happy Valentine’s Day! <3

*Update [4/14/10]: I would like to disclose that I am now a Starbucks Partner (barista) and in no way does this post reflect the views and opinions of the Starbucks Corporation.

TV related tweets came in by the millions under tags such as #BrandBowl, #SB44 and #SuperBowl. Doritos edged out Google for the top spot by generating the most amount of positive comment tweets. Doritos had three 30-second spots throughout the course of the game that received major laughs/kudos from all audiences. One of my family’s favorite spots by Doritos is the following:

The Google advertisement entitled “Parisian Love Story”, was written by a first year ad writer at Google Creative Labs and resonated exceptionally well with ladies of all ages. Go figure that it would be my favorite spot.

However, it is my opinion that these standouts (along with Betty White for Snickers and any beer ad) didn’t have enough gusto for me to rate this year’s batch of commercials a success. Overall, I feel that this year’s Super Bowl ads saw a lack a creativity that could possibly be the worst seen in the 44 year history of the event.

In an industry suffering to stay afloat, I had high hopes for this year’s crop of commercials that ran you anywhere between $2.5-$3 million every 30 seconds. I am inclined to wonder how this lackluster ad performance will impact the expenditures of big corporations on ad space alloted for TV? Only time will tell.

Facebook, Google, Twitter, Flickr and YouTube got in on the action as well as celebrity musician/activist Alicia Keys. Keys worked in conjunction with YouTube to stream a live benefit concert being held in New York City on her YouTube channel. She sang songs off her new album and surprised the crowd when she invited rapper Jay-Z on-stage to perform their new hit song “Empire State of Mind.” Keys is a global ambassador for Keep a Child Alive, a non-profit organization that is dedicated to helping children and families whose lives have been affected by HIV/AIDS.

During the concert, Keys announced the “555″ contest in which 5 people would join her on a 5 day trip to Africa to create 5 life changing experiences. The number “5″ is significant to the organization because it only costs $5 to help keep a child alive. She challenged her audience to text “Alive” to 90999 (to be entered in the contest) and to donate $5 to the cause.

Facebook participated by featuring a link to the (RED) fan page on their home page. (RED) has 372,760 fans and proceeds from their (RED) products shop were donated towards fighting HIV/AIDS. In addition, global sportswear giant Nike got in on the action by teaming with (RED) to create a line of (NIKE)Red laces in which 100% of the profits from the sales of this item go towards the Global Fund and to soccer-based programs that help fight AIDS in Africa.

It should also be noted that Red Ribbon Army, a fellow Facebook fan page, has even more supporters than (RED) with 515,909 fans.

Google promoted World AIDS Day by featuring a page for today’s events that was divided into the following three sections: learn, act, give. The focus of the page was to create awareness about what we as global citizens can do to help the 33 million people worldwide who are affected with HIV/AIDS; 22 million of which reside in Africa.

Photo Courtesy: alexfille

Flickr’s blog took a more interactive and personal approach by providing a downloadable sign that says “Facing AIDS” for their users to download, write on, incorporate into a photo, and upload onto their account. I personally thought this was the most hard-hitting approach because it added a face to the disease. Providing pictures of those affected who have written emotional sentences on their signs is a very intimate way to connect with your audience.

Twitter rounded out the group by making the fonts of tweets that included #Red, World Aids Day, HIV, Aids, etc. turn red in color. This was an effective way to get people curious as to why some of the tweets from people they follow were all of a sudden red. The idea being that they would investigate, learn, act, and pledge their support to help combat the spread of HIV/AIDS.

Lastly, I cannot forget my favorite global coffee chain Starbucks who participated by donating five cents from every drink purchased on December 1st to the Global Fund to help fight AIDS in Africa.

Overall, the joint effort made by all of these social media sites and corporations was extraordinary and this just proves the ability that social media can have in regards impacting global issues.

For those still reluctant to hop on board the social media train, I hope this convinces you that it’s a medium that will be here for years to come. Perhaps until we find a cure? Only time will tell.

*Update [4/14/10]: I would like to disclose that I am now a Starbucks Partner (barista) and in no way does this post reflect the views and opinions of the Starbucks Corporation.

Photo Courtesy: TMZ via AP

A neighbor called for an ambulance and Tiger was taken to a local hospital where he was treated and released in good condition. However, speculation and rumors surrounding the details and cause of the incidence have run rampant thanks to Tiger keeping mum and declining to speak with the police or media.

The first obvious question is how could he have a hit a fire hydrant and then a tree? Was Tiger still buzzing from Thanksgiving indulgences? If not, then what was his cause for leaving his house so early in the morning? It’s not as if he was returning home after being elsewhere for a feast; he was already home. The timing and nature of the incident, paired with the fact that his wife busted out the rear window of his 2009 Cadillac Escalade with a golf club (oh the irony), have led some to believe that there had been a domestic dispute between Tiger and his wife Elin shortly before the accident occurred.

The National Inquirer will have you believe that Tiger has been cheating on his wife with a woman from New York City named Rachel Uchital; known (supposedly) for having affairs with married celebrities. Normally I wouldn’t give this story a second look, but the fact that it broke on November 25, two days before the accident, makes me think that the Inquirer may have struck a nerve (or hit a hole-in-one).

Uchital has since denied any affair with Woods saying that the two times they have previously met were by chance and coincidence. I wonder if Elin believed her?

The woman Tiger is allegedly having an affair with; Rachel Uchital. Photo Courtesy: AP

In my opinion, Tiger needs to do some serious crisis management in order to keep his reputation in tact. Taking to your website to say, “it’s my fault, and it’s obviously embarrassing to my family and me” isn’t going to cut it. We understand that this should be a private matter, but Tiger, you have to understand that you’re a superstar. The public wants to know what happened and the story won’t just fizzle out. Declining to speak with the police, hiring a lawyer, and supplying the media with no details will just add fuel to the fire. If you just released a statement detailing what happened you’d be better off. Pulling out of your last golf tournament of the year and holing up inside your house won’t help matters either.

The public wants transparency and honesty. Even if you are having an affair, admit it and apologize and you’ll get props for not shying away from the topic. Look at Bill Clinton for heaven’s sake. Although he denied the affairs at first, he admitted to them later and the public still can’t get enough of that guy!

The Tiger controversy has served as a reminder to us all of the importance of communicating effectively with your publics. How would you have responded if you were representing Tiger?

Lambert’s performance, his first televised since losing American Idol to Kris Allen, was definitely one to be remembered. It was one of the most hyped before the event and didn’t fail to disappoint. Whether you’re a fan of groping, pelvic thrusting, on-stage make-outs, poll dancing, etc. You can at least acknowledge that it wasn’t boring. Personally, I thought it was a great way to close the show. You want your audience talking about what the heck they just saw and I think Lambert achieved that.

The major drama came into play when ABC decided to cancel Lambert’s Good Morning America (GMA) appearance the following Wednesday based on his on-stage AMA antics. I think this is a bad move by ABC and so did the Twitter community when #ShameOnYouABC became a trending topic. Check out some of the responses below:

I applaud CBS’s The Early Show for picking up the slack and inviting Lambert to perform on-air during their show instead of GMA. Lambert is well aware that he stirred up controversy. “I admit, I did get carried away, but I don’t see anything wrong with it,” he stated today on The Early Show. “I do see how people got offended and that was not my intention. My intention was just to interpret the lyrics to my song and have a good time up there.” Lambert went on to perform a different song entitled “Music Again,” and there was no groping involved.

I think it should have been obvious to ABC and GMA that he wasn’t going to alienate viewers by doing a repeat performance of  Sunday night (which let me remind you he performed in front of an audience of adults at 11:00p.m. – kids are in bed!) and therefore there was no reason to cancel his appearance. Chalk up a ratings boost for CBS! I guess that’s to be expected though from ABC, which afterall, is owned by Disney.

One mildly redeeming act by ABC was their choice not to edit parts of Lambert’s performance out for the viewers on the West coast watching it three hours after it was taped. If they had, I think they would have had discrimination charges being blasted at them from all angles. What do you think? Along the same lines, I think it’s quite the double standard to leave in the controversial performance and edit out a slip and fall by J-Lo during her performance of her new song “Louboutins” as seen below:

What is the point of editing that out? She fell, big whoop, get over yourself. Let’s have them edit it out so I’m not so embarrassed. Censoring at it’s worst? A quick memo to J-Lo and ABC: I wouldn’t have even watched the AMA’s this year had it not been for the E! journalists I follow tweeting about how funny it was. To edit out the one thing I tuned in for just angered me and inspired me to write this post about how badly you failed with your AMA related decisions.

To wrap up: ABC failed, CBS scored, Lambert’s a rockstar and J-Lo is a struggle.